Firstly, I want to congratulate and thank you for your tenacity and tireless determination in chasing all this stuff down. You are providing a great service to humanity. It is people like you who should go down in history as great men, not those who control governments and spend their time oppressing people and starting wars. I …
Firstly, I want to congratulate and thank you for your tenacity and tireless determination in chasing all this stuff down. You are providing a great service to humanity. It is people like you who should go down in history as great men, not those who control governments and spend their time oppressing people and starting wars. I hope you know that many people recognize and value your work ... many more than those who choose to support you financially by subscribing.
That said, I wanted to critique something in this article, specifically the shape of the graphs. You say "In addition there was a huge second peak of 519 reports at 15-30 days onset." Unless I have misread the graph/data, I think the second peak is simply an artifact of the change in the 'width of the histogram column'. That is, the second peak arises ONLY because you haven't normalized the data according to the number of days that the data point represents.
In other words, the data would be more meaningfully presented as DAILY events reported, even when the data points represent time periods of multiple days. So, for example, data point 10-14 days / 244 events reported should be 10-14 days 244/5=49 events reported. Similarly, 15-30 days / 485 events reported should be 15-30 days / 485/16=30 events reported.
Doing this would make the charts much more rational and would still demonstrate that the vaccines are immediately destructive ... but in a way that then tails off exactly as one would expect. Otherwise I fear that malign interests will use this presentation to highlight a failure to properly present statistical evidence ... or at least be able to say that you are confusing people. None of your supporters want that.
Please let me know if I have somehow misunderstood the data/graphs.
Hi Steve,
Firstly, I want to congratulate and thank you for your tenacity and tireless determination in chasing all this stuff down. You are providing a great service to humanity. It is people like you who should go down in history as great men, not those who control governments and spend their time oppressing people and starting wars. I hope you know that many people recognize and value your work ... many more than those who choose to support you financially by subscribing.
That said, I wanted to critique something in this article, specifically the shape of the graphs. You say "In addition there was a huge second peak of 519 reports at 15-30 days onset." Unless I have misread the graph/data, I think the second peak is simply an artifact of the change in the 'width of the histogram column'. That is, the second peak arises ONLY because you haven't normalized the data according to the number of days that the data point represents.
In other words, the data would be more meaningfully presented as DAILY events reported, even when the data points represent time periods of multiple days. So, for example, data point 10-14 days / 244 events reported should be 10-14 days 244/5=49 events reported. Similarly, 15-30 days / 485 events reported should be 15-30 days / 485/16=30 events reported.
Doing this would make the charts much more rational and would still demonstrate that the vaccines are immediately destructive ... but in a way that then tails off exactly as one would expect. Otherwise I fear that malign interests will use this presentation to highlight a failure to properly present statistical evidence ... or at least be able to say that you are confusing people. None of your supporters want that.
Please let me know if I have somehow misunderstood the data/graphs.
Kindest regards,
Dave