Given all your other work Steve, there can be little doubt the hokey-pokey is to blame. But does the VA data really show that? This sounds like just a simple correlation, which, I don't need to tell you, does not mean causation.
Given all your other work Steve, there can be little doubt the hokey-pokey is to blame. But does the VA data really show that? This sounds like just a simple correlation, which, I don't need to tell you, does not mean causation.
Statistically, there's a test known as the Bradford-Hill Criteria statisticians and data scientists use to determine the likelihood of causality. Specifically things like.
A. Dose effect response. If you increase the dose (Ie amount of mRNA in the shots, does the outcome effect (sickness) increase?
B. Inverse dose effect response. If you decrease the dose (less mRNA per shot, does the outcome effects (sickness) decrease?
These basically make sense. Its like if I put more calories (food) into your body and you get fatter. I put less food in your body you get thinner. Maybe there's a correlation between more calories (food) and weight that's casual....no? Likewise for refined sugar and rate of diabetes. This just kind of intuitively makes sense.
Moderna had more mRNA per shot in the first two doses and had higher rates of most-health issues associated with the shot. If you mixed the two, you got somewhere inbetween and if you did double Pfizer, you got the least mRNA and least chance of health outcomes. So this passes.
C. If you remove the stimulus, does the effect go away.
D. If you add the stimulus to a group, who didn't initially have it, does the effect start?
IE can you "reduce" diabetes or at least prevent diabetes from getting worse, by removing the sugar after someone has it? Yes, you can as it balances/reduces A1C/insulin levels. Will stopping giving mRNA mean the outcomes do not worsen? That's.... hard to say a bit. Some people think sudden deaths are still occurring from these shots. Some people think the body just keep producing spike proteins for forever and ever. However, it does seem like to me, if you stop the mRNA, new random health issues stop popping up as much like you won't have "Gee, I got a blood clot in my eye two weeks after my last dose..." if you stop taking a dose or the "dose" was a full year ago, etc.
Can you "induce" diabetes in someone whose never really ate sugar and seems healthy by giving a lot of it? or in this case, could I make an unvaccinated person sick by giving them a bunch of mRNA after they've been exposed to c-19 and had no bad health outcomes? Gee, its probably not the C-19 from two years ago then.... This one is hard to test though, as how many unvaccinated people today, would volunteer to take the shot to prove this? Most people who refused two years ago would also refuse today. Unless you pay me like $1M dollars or something per shot, I won't volunteer. I sure as heck would take every possible detox thing I could shove into my body before/after the shot and fast for a full two week or so =D.
The more of these 'tests' that pass, the more likely it is casual. Many people/statisticians have found that the casual test is/has been satisfied very well, with most data sets, when age-stratified, in the 0 to 39 age demographic. Somewhat well satisfied in 40 to 64. It becomes a bit more muddied when you get to 65+ as some 65 year olds with pre-existing health conditions, c-19 could have been harmful for.... so then you have to wonder if it was the c or the vaccine. Increasingly more muddled at 70+, 80+, 90+ etc.
It too becomes harder to even perform the 'dose effect response' b/c "its murder not to vaccinate my 80 year old ten times!" so there's such a miniscule control group and often those who were not vaccinated, were not, because their health was so so poor, they were expected to die soon anyways. So then, any 'unvaccinated' death is probably just related to natural health or preexisting conditions.
Given all your other work Steve, there can be little doubt the hokey-pokey is to blame. But does the VA data really show that? This sounds like just a simple correlation, which, I don't need to tell you, does not mean causation.
Statistically, there's a test known as the Bradford-Hill Criteria statisticians and data scientists use to determine the likelihood of causality. Specifically things like.
A. Dose effect response. If you increase the dose (Ie amount of mRNA in the shots, does the outcome effect (sickness) increase?
B. Inverse dose effect response. If you decrease the dose (less mRNA per shot, does the outcome effects (sickness) decrease?
These basically make sense. Its like if I put more calories (food) into your body and you get fatter. I put less food in your body you get thinner. Maybe there's a correlation between more calories (food) and weight that's casual....no? Likewise for refined sugar and rate of diabetes. This just kind of intuitively makes sense.
Moderna had more mRNA per shot in the first two doses and had higher rates of most-health issues associated with the shot. If you mixed the two, you got somewhere inbetween and if you did double Pfizer, you got the least mRNA and least chance of health outcomes. So this passes.
C. If you remove the stimulus, does the effect go away.
D. If you add the stimulus to a group, who didn't initially have it, does the effect start?
IE can you "reduce" diabetes or at least prevent diabetes from getting worse, by removing the sugar after someone has it? Yes, you can as it balances/reduces A1C/insulin levels. Will stopping giving mRNA mean the outcomes do not worsen? That's.... hard to say a bit. Some people think sudden deaths are still occurring from these shots. Some people think the body just keep producing spike proteins for forever and ever. However, it does seem like to me, if you stop the mRNA, new random health issues stop popping up as much like you won't have "Gee, I got a blood clot in my eye two weeks after my last dose..." if you stop taking a dose or the "dose" was a full year ago, etc.
Can you "induce" diabetes in someone whose never really ate sugar and seems healthy by giving a lot of it? or in this case, could I make an unvaccinated person sick by giving them a bunch of mRNA after they've been exposed to c-19 and had no bad health outcomes? Gee, its probably not the C-19 from two years ago then.... This one is hard to test though, as how many unvaccinated people today, would volunteer to take the shot to prove this? Most people who refused two years ago would also refuse today. Unless you pay me like $1M dollars or something per shot, I won't volunteer. I sure as heck would take every possible detox thing I could shove into my body before/after the shot and fast for a full two week or so =D.
The more of these 'tests' that pass, the more likely it is casual. Many people/statisticians have found that the casual test is/has been satisfied very well, with most data sets, when age-stratified, in the 0 to 39 age demographic. Somewhat well satisfied in 40 to 64. It becomes a bit more muddied when you get to 65+ as some 65 year olds with pre-existing health conditions, c-19 could have been harmful for.... so then you have to wonder if it was the c or the vaccine. Increasingly more muddled at 70+, 80+, 90+ etc.
It too becomes harder to even perform the 'dose effect response' b/c "its murder not to vaccinate my 80 year old ten times!" so there's such a miniscule control group and often those who were not vaccinated, were not, because their health was so so poor, they were expected to die soon anyways. So then, any 'unvaccinated' death is probably just related to natural health or preexisting conditions.
Are you trying to say Steve looked at the VA data this way? He didn't say so in the post.