I believe your premise - I'm also sure, like many (once) respected doctors and scientists, that the vaccine is killing people - and I was excited to read the article. Problem is, I don't see the effectiveness of your research or your bet, because you've not defined the criteria for participant selection. For example assuming you sought v…
I believe your premise - I'm also sure, like many (once) respected doctors and scientists, that the vaccine is killing people - and I was excited to read the article. Problem is, I don't see the effectiveness of your research or your bet, because you've not defined the criteria for participant selection. For example assuming you sought volunteers on the premise that they were willing to take time to answer a survey from someone putting the vaccines under question - you've already got a bias affecting your results because the people you're interviewing are predisposed to distrust the vaccine :/ or did I miss something?
And to be honest 500 people is not a very large sample. In scientific terms a sample of 500 is completely inadequate.
I love Candace Owens' "A shot in the dark". (On daily wire, first 3 episodes outside paywall.) She uses the CDC's own statistics to show how the vaccines are blatantly causing the health problems they're supposed to fight. I think this method of using their own statistics instead of refutably biased small samples is super effective.
I believe your premise - I'm also sure, like many (once) respected doctors and scientists, that the vaccine is killing people - and I was excited to read the article. Problem is, I don't see the effectiveness of your research or your bet, because you've not defined the criteria for participant selection. For example assuming you sought volunteers on the premise that they were willing to take time to answer a survey from someone putting the vaccines under question - you've already got a bias affecting your results because the people you're interviewing are predisposed to distrust the vaccine :/ or did I miss something?
And to be honest 500 people is not a very large sample. In scientific terms a sample of 500 is completely inadequate.
I love Candace Owens' "A shot in the dark". (On daily wire, first 3 episodes outside paywall.) She uses the CDC's own statistics to show how the vaccines are blatantly causing the health problems they're supposed to fight. I think this method of using their own statistics instead of refutably biased small samples is super effective.