I didn’t think the “placebo” was revealed but heard it might have been the LNP and other excipients minus the mRNA which would of course still give you adverse effects and skew the results so...
See now, most of the population are dumb about statistics. Like me. That's all cheating and lying isn't it? I saw what you did and how but it's not a true result. So we thickos have gone for years believing stuff which is all fiddled about with to give the illusion required. What a load of pants!
"See now, most of the population are dumb about statistics."
I would say, rather, innocent of how easily their presentation can be manipulated by the way that they are selected, interpreted and presented.
My own innocence was complete until a little over two decades ago, I took a job where my performance was rated in a context of statistical variance. I think, based on that experience, that we don't become motivated to reach a deeper understanding until we find ourselves subject to harm.
Recent discussions with intelligent but not learned youngsters, convinces me that it's not a matter of being dumb. I was surprised and delighted when attitudes of "I can't put my finger on how it's done, but something is wrong and the numbers don't add up" were expressed.
There's an inherent wisdom, an innate practicality that humans often posses. It seems to be a sort of "circuit breaker" that defends against blind acceptance of manipulated statistics.
Yes, it's cheating and lying. What gets me is that it seems like the more lengthy one's formal education, the more vulnerable one becomes to delusional sophistry that manifests as a form of insanity. That form is best described as "doing the same things repeatedly with the expectation of differing results. It's the acceptance of dishonesty that I'm referring to.
Regular folks tend to be distrustful of those discovered to have been lying to them. That distrust tends to be durable. And yet, we would expect that those with more years of formal education would be even MORE enduringly distrustful of liars. My experience has been otherwise; the more highly educated, the more willing to forget the lies of yesterday and embrace the lies of today.
Intellectual arrogance as a character trait, perhaps? More readily indoctrinated?
At any rate, common sense is alive and well amongst the working folk.
Very good. Especially the bit about the correlation between length of formal education and vulnerability to delusional sophistry!! For the most part, I'd call it "indoctrination" rather than "education" because the recipients do not emerge with skills to become better informed, just with "information" that has been pre-determined to be correct with no further permission to be challenged.
this presentation is simply brilliant. i feel like this can be replicated on a napkin with even simpler numbers to demonstrate this concept in under a minute to anyone who is even slightly open minded. at least the first two adjustments are easy enough. thanks joel!
This observation window is also shifted and or narrowed/closed in other research. Take glyphosate for instance. The "observation window" was essentially closed at three months and glyphosate was declared safe, but the real issues actually don't begin to surface until the fourth month of exposure. So, if whatever appears beyond that "safety" time is ignored, then the product is still safe, right?
the most obvious problem with that example was when they didn't include the 6,400 in the vaxxed community and shifted them to the unvaxxed, they didn't change the denominator to 22,400, which even in a corrupt analysis is just plain stupid and obviously fraudulent. They could still make the point but with a less obvious error
Actually, I'd say that's my error. I am not convinced they did any of this premeditated. And in fact, some of them still believe the results are legit.
Most believe they are legit... unfortunately. But thanks for the response in clearing that up. It was too glaringly obvious even for the corrupt pharma industry to even try to make... though I probably wouldn't put it past them
This is the major issue here in WA. If we can't 'confirm' the vax status, they go into the unvaxxed bucket -- but the denominator never takes that into account. If we have 30% of people with 'unverified' vax status, that's a massive amount of datacrime.
yes it is.... amongst many other ways they have chosen to cheat the data. They think they can fool us .... which some of us never were, but for the masses, they are seeing the data in real life happen all around them. This is what these criminals are missing.
I think the widespread misuse of stats and categorization makes everything just seem muddy and indecipherable and people just resort to picking a Hero Expert and then it's Ride of Die.
Yes, I did think about having a higher vaxxed percentage of total population and a higher CFR and a higher underestimation of total population but it could have gotten silly!
Gato Malo shared a similar analysis that was helpful in illustrating the sleight of hand. Thank you for sharing the video as well. The data misrepresentation by Big Pharma / Public Health would make Enron/WorldCom/Madoff blush.
A Pfizer study (on 37 participants) pointed out how lymphocytes are reduced in the first 7/8 days post-jab and how inflammation is significantly increased. This and other factors can explain the peak seen in the Alberta and Ontario numbers.
Nice clear demonstration of how statistics can be manipulated. As you acknowledge, not all these things may have happened, or at least not to such an extent, but to show what a difference they make in such an understandable format is immensely helpful. I shall be disseminating this as widely as I can. Thank you Joel.
Can anyone send me a link to any evidence that imbalanced testing rate occurred in that real world Israel study (as Fenton states)? I believe this is the study:
Along similar lines:
Pfizer vaccine trial shows saline injection has 75% efficacy in preventing cardiac arrest deaths and 85.7% efficacy preventing Bell's palsy
https://vinuarumugham.substack.com/p/pfizer-vaccine-trial-shows-saline
I thought vaccine trials did not use a saline injection as the placebo but another vaccine.
It depends. AstraZeneca used the meningococcal vaccine as "placebo". Pfizer/Moderna used saline placebo.
I didn’t think the “placebo” was revealed but heard it might have been the LNP and other excipients minus the mRNA which would of course still give you adverse effects and skew the results so...
https://www.fda.gov/media/151707/download
"Study C4591001 (Study 2) is a Phase 1/2/3 multicenter, multinational, randomized, saline placebo-controlled, double-blinded (Phase 2/3) ... "
thank you for the link.
what concentration of saline did they use?
and study 1?
See now, most of the population are dumb about statistics. Like me. That's all cheating and lying isn't it? I saw what you did and how but it's not a true result. So we thickos have gone for years believing stuff which is all fiddled about with to give the illusion required. What a load of pants!
"See now, most of the population are dumb about statistics."
I would say, rather, innocent of how easily their presentation can be manipulated by the way that they are selected, interpreted and presented.
My own innocence was complete until a little over two decades ago, I took a job where my performance was rated in a context of statistical variance. I think, based on that experience, that we don't become motivated to reach a deeper understanding until we find ourselves subject to harm.
Recent discussions with intelligent but not learned youngsters, convinces me that it's not a matter of being dumb. I was surprised and delighted when attitudes of "I can't put my finger on how it's done, but something is wrong and the numbers don't add up" were expressed.
There's an inherent wisdom, an innate practicality that humans often posses. It seems to be a sort of "circuit breaker" that defends against blind acceptance of manipulated statistics.
Yes, it's cheating and lying. What gets me is that it seems like the more lengthy one's formal education, the more vulnerable one becomes to delusional sophistry that manifests as a form of insanity. That form is best described as "doing the same things repeatedly with the expectation of differing results. It's the acceptance of dishonesty that I'm referring to.
Regular folks tend to be distrustful of those discovered to have been lying to them. That distrust tends to be durable. And yet, we would expect that those with more years of formal education would be even MORE enduringly distrustful of liars. My experience has been otherwise; the more highly educated, the more willing to forget the lies of yesterday and embrace the lies of today.
Intellectual arrogance as a character trait, perhaps? More readily indoctrinated?
At any rate, common sense is alive and well amongst the working folk.
Very good. Especially the bit about the correlation between length of formal education and vulnerability to delusional sophistry!! For the most part, I'd call it "indoctrination" rather than "education" because the recipients do not emerge with skills to become better informed, just with "information" that has been pre-determined to be correct with no further permission to be challenged.
Typically, the more highly educated then the more potential financial harm you will suffer for discovering the "trick" and acting upon that discovery.
this presentation is simply brilliant. i feel like this can be replicated on a napkin with even simpler numbers to demonstrate this concept in under a minute to anyone who is even slightly open minded. at least the first two adjustments are easy enough. thanks joel!
This observation window is also shifted and or narrowed/closed in other research. Take glyphosate for instance. The "observation window" was essentially closed at three months and glyphosate was declared safe, but the real issues actually don't begin to surface until the fourth month of exposure. So, if whatever appears beyond that "safety" time is ignored, then the product is still safe, right?
the most obvious problem with that example was when they didn't include the 6,400 in the vaxxed community and shifted them to the unvaxxed, they didn't change the denominator to 22,400, which even in a corrupt analysis is just plain stupid and obviously fraudulent. They could still make the point but with a less obvious error
Actually, I'd say that's my error. I am not convinced they did any of this premeditated. And in fact, some of them still believe the results are legit.
Most believe they are legit... unfortunately. But thanks for the response in clearing that up. It was too glaringly obvious even for the corrupt pharma industry to even try to make... though I probably wouldn't put it past them
This is the major issue here in WA. If we can't 'confirm' the vax status, they go into the unvaxxed bucket -- but the denominator never takes that into account. If we have 30% of people with 'unverified' vax status, that's a massive amount of datacrime.
yes it is.... amongst many other ways they have chosen to cheat the data. They think they can fool us .... which some of us never were, but for the masses, they are seeing the data in real life happen all around them. This is what these criminals are missing.
That was EXCELLENT.
I think the widespread misuse of stats and categorization makes everything just seem muddy and indecipherable and people just resort to picking a Hero Expert and then it's Ride of Die.
Dr. John Campbell's head just exploded.
Funny you should say that😀
https://youtu.be/_sg6TJNK2iQ
He has managed to redpill himself despite taking the studies and data at face value and not ever delving any deeper.
and with a little more fiddling the efficacy becomes more than 100%.
and still the covidians will accept it as their gospel...
Yes, I did think about having a higher vaxxed percentage of total population and a higher CFR and a higher underestimation of total population but it could have gotten silly!
they would not have noticed...
Gato Malo shared a similar analysis that was helpful in illustrating the sleight of hand. Thank you for sharing the video as well. The data misrepresentation by Big Pharma / Public Health would make Enron/WorldCom/Madoff blush.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/bayesian-datacrime-defining-vaccine
The only person I know personally who died “from Covid” died 2 days after his first Covid vaxx…was completely healthy before the vaxx!
It's much worse than that:
https://twitter.com/Stefan_SCan/status/1481081146083577860?s=20&t=MN4RE9Uwtt5geu2OwKBizQ
A Pfizer study (on 37 participants) pointed out how lymphocytes are reduced in the first 7/8 days post-jab and how inflammation is significantly increased. This and other factors can explain the peak seen in the Alberta and Ontario numbers.
Nice clear demonstration of how statistics can be manipulated. As you acknowledge, not all these things may have happened, or at least not to such an extent, but to show what a difference they make in such an understandable format is immensely helpful. I shall be disseminating this as widely as I can. Thank you Joel.
Thank you for posting this,
The shell game has definitely gotten sophisticated!
Where's George Bush Sr. to complain about "fuzzy math"?
Regardless, the video definitely shows that when it comes to disingenuous manipulation of data, shift happens.
Can anyone send me a link to any evidence that imbalanced testing rate occurred in that real world Israel study (as Fenton states)? I believe this is the study:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765#author_affiliations
But I do not find any description of testing rates in it, and as far as I know the data is not public.