You seem very confused Steve about the meaning of a small P-value obtained from some hypothesis test. You asserted in your post today that a tiny P-value found for some hypothesis test is "clear evidence of a causal relationship". That’s just not true. I suggest that you need to do more serious studying of basics. A good start would be t…
You seem very confused Steve about the meaning of a small P-value obtained from some hypothesis test. You asserted in your post today that a tiny P-value found for some hypothesis test is "clear evidence of a causal relationship". That’s just not true. I suggest that you need to do more serious studying of basics. A good start would be the two excellent textbooks authored by Deborah Mayo in recent years. Not kidding.
A small p-value means that the likelihood of the result being chance finding (i.e., that in a comparison of two populations, they actually have the same quantitative characteristic is small, and the smaller the p value, the less likely such difference is by chance, and that therefore, the likelihood is strong that there is a true difference between the two populations. Or as the cartoon jingle goes: 'one of these things is not like the other.' Given the other aspects of proving causality, (B following A in time, biologic plausibility, consistency in different populations (and if applicable across species), dose response (more vaxxes, more kidney injury)--I may have missed one or two, it has been a while since I have taught this, strength of association is the final nail in the coffin of the descedent 'safe and effective' RIP.
Given that the issue here is safety, by FDA standards (and I understand whether you do or not, given that this is not a drug, but a biowarfare countermeasure), general prudence, the knowledge now that the virus never was all that lethal, and with time, it has gotten less lethal--as is usual for novel pathogens (what sane parasite wants to kill the host that it depends upon), the principle of primum no nocere, until a plausible alternative explanation for the signal of kidney damage is found, the assumption should be of causality vaccine ---> kidney damage, and the vaccine pulled from the market, existing stocks destroyed world wide at cost of the producers (they had evidence of the vaxx's toxicity prior to rollout and certainly for a couple years now). The fact that isn't happening is evidence of nefarious intent on TPTB, not that 'correlation doesn't equal causation' and we have to wait for conclusive evidence.
Professor, your point might be valid in a lecture on statistics and the principles of determining causality, and where one can remove the pump handle from the contaminated well. But we are not there now. Not withstanding your and my presence in this comment string, Steve is writing for a lay audience, a sophisticated and knowledgeable one to be sure--one that is aware of the other aspects of reality that condem the vaccines.
Your point is pedantic to the point that I would like to know who signs your paycheck, and who funds the guys that sign your paycheck. (That is not a formal point in the causality chain, but certainly is part of the practical smell test for good faith arguments.)
Have a pleasant day, I am just enjoying the tail end of our second snow storm in 2 weeks, but also our second in 2 years.
You seem very confused Steve about the meaning of a small P-value obtained from some hypothesis test. You asserted in your post today that a tiny P-value found for some hypothesis test is "clear evidence of a causal relationship". That’s just not true. I suggest that you need to do more serious studying of basics. A good start would be the two excellent textbooks authored by Deborah Mayo in recent years. Not kidding.
Dr, Dr, Lee,
A small p-value means that the likelihood of the result being chance finding (i.e., that in a comparison of two populations, they actually have the same quantitative characteristic is small, and the smaller the p value, the less likely such difference is by chance, and that therefore, the likelihood is strong that there is a true difference between the two populations. Or as the cartoon jingle goes: 'one of these things is not like the other.' Given the other aspects of proving causality, (B following A in time, biologic plausibility, consistency in different populations (and if applicable across species), dose response (more vaxxes, more kidney injury)--I may have missed one or two, it has been a while since I have taught this, strength of association is the final nail in the coffin of the descedent 'safe and effective' RIP.
Given that the issue here is safety, by FDA standards (and I understand whether you do or not, given that this is not a drug, but a biowarfare countermeasure), general prudence, the knowledge now that the virus never was all that lethal, and with time, it has gotten less lethal--as is usual for novel pathogens (what sane parasite wants to kill the host that it depends upon), the principle of primum no nocere, until a plausible alternative explanation for the signal of kidney damage is found, the assumption should be of causality vaccine ---> kidney damage, and the vaccine pulled from the market, existing stocks destroyed world wide at cost of the producers (they had evidence of the vaxx's toxicity prior to rollout and certainly for a couple years now). The fact that isn't happening is evidence of nefarious intent on TPTB, not that 'correlation doesn't equal causation' and we have to wait for conclusive evidence.
Professor, your point might be valid in a lecture on statistics and the principles of determining causality, and where one can remove the pump handle from the contaminated well. But we are not there now. Not withstanding your and my presence in this comment string, Steve is writing for a lay audience, a sophisticated and knowledgeable one to be sure--one that is aware of the other aspects of reality that condem the vaccines.
Your point is pedantic to the point that I would like to know who signs your paycheck, and who funds the guys that sign your paycheck. (That is not a formal point in the causality chain, but certainly is part of the practical smell test for good faith arguments.)
Have a pleasant day, I am just enjoying the tail end of our second snow storm in 2 weeks, but also our second in 2 years.