“We are EBMers with a combined experience of several decades and have been steadily calling our readers’ attention to the worrying phenomenon of excess mortality. We have done this since the start of TTE almost a year ago, and up to now, we have published 38 posts with data and discussed the topic in more detail in a series which is still running. Before then, we did it on the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine website. We are reasonably sure that excess mortality is a complex phenomenon with multiple causes. We are pretty sure of only two: excess alcohol consumption during lockdowns and co-infections and secondary infections. The evidence for these seems robust, but there will be others, especially as the catastrophic effects of restrictions become more apparent by the day, despite governments’ frantic efforts to “move on”. We present the best evidence we can find and interpret it. The trouble with the writer’s certainties is that we have not seen any good independent evidence of a causal association. We have sown doubts about the trustworthiness of regulators’ surveillance conclusions on various interventions, from devices to vaccines and antivirals. We are also signatories and members of the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency initiative, which made all the regulatory application documents for a mRNA vaccine public via a successful petition to the FDA in 2021. But we are also cautious animals. The danger of jumping to conclusions on association is falling into an ecological fallacy, made even worse by the certainty expressed in the writer’s abuse. We have written about Onslow’s fallacy of the single cause. This is just one such case made worse by the likely biased and unreliable surveillance data. I am the co-author of several Cochrane reviews on different vaccines. I am also co-author of two reviews based exclusively on regulatory documents (on an influenza pandemic vaccine and HPV vaccines). This involved tens of thousands of pages of trial and post-marketing assessment documents, which took years to retrieve, assemble and review. A process similar to that of the antiviral investigation. I know how difficult working with such complex evidence is, and I urge caution whenever I see facile, sweeping statements. We know from FOI 23/379 documents, for example, that the UK regulator - the MHRA - only followed up some 54% of deaths reported in yellow cards as possibly linked to exposure to one of the vaccines. So that proves the link? No, it doesn’t. That shows that, for whatever reason, the MHRA is not doing their job, AND whatever surveillance data they produce should not be taken seriously.” This is the correct application of the scientific method. If you have any valid data to add to the process then you should publish it and scientists like Tom & Carl will incorporate it into their analyses, and doubtless express their gratitude to you.