I hold the same perspective as you. Generally speaking, if a phenomena is real and significant, it should demonstrate a large deviation from the expected mean. In many cases, this does not occur (e.g. a drug which reduces your chances of a heart attack by 5% over 20 years or increases your chance of survival from sepsis by 3%) and it req…
I hold the same perspective as you. Generally speaking, if a phenomena is real and significant, it should demonstrate a large deviation from the expected mean. In many cases, this does not occur (e.g. a drug which reduces your chances of a heart attack by 5% over 20 years or increases your chance of survival from sepsis by 3%) and it requires a lot of data to know for certain if the effect is real. One of my dissenting opinions from the general medical field is that changes which have a relatively small magnitude of importance are not worth prioritizing your focus on; however, our entire medical research apparatus revolves around detecting these effects. Conversely none of that is needed to detect effects with a relatively large magnitude.
In the case of the COVID vaccines, it was clear to me within a week of them being on the market that they were the most dangerous pharmaceutical I had ever come across; I was regularly hearing about adverse reactions to them, whereas in the past with even the most dangerous drugs I know of, I would only periodically hear about severe adverse reactions to them. At that point I assumed everybody would probably lie about the injuries to try to save face, and I was better off gathering anecdotal data rather than attempting to go through the official channels. I essentially started on substack because I compiled all them onto a list that you then promoted to the Internet and made go viral.
I spent months of work putting that list together because even though I knew it could never be published, it was the most that I could do in my position and I felt the public needed to have as many early warning signs as possible. At the time and list came out, virtually every single conventional person ridiculed it as being anti-scientific and not at all supported by the data. Now two years later, most of what I put in there is becoming in general knowledge within the medical profession and many others have since reported identical samples to the one I put forward.
It's really sad things like what I did are necessary because science has gone from being about truth to politics, but that's the way things are now. Until we make a fuss about it and stop giving our unconditional trust (and more importantly money) to the scientific community, I don't think it's going change.
I realized a long time ago that outsized importance was being given to variables that are easily observable (gender, chronological age being two). Just because these are quickly knowable doesn’t mean they are necessarily overly significant.
If I may suggest a clarification: the problem is that, for whatever motives, we are increasingly asked, nay, demanded to "believe" some new dogma that is at odds not merely with social conventions but often with objective reality. For example, that a man becomes a woman simply by changing his attire (but he shows special devotion to the cause if he gets himself castrated, has implants in his chest, and takes hormones). The variables may not be significant, but I'd argue, the problem is it's being demanded of people to read those variables' values as being other than what they are. The fundamental issue is we are denying reality: 2+2 still equal 4, even if the Mathematician's Guild's now claims that was a remnant of White Supremacy and that for equity's sake, the correct value is 5. And even if you cancel their Twitter or Facebook account, get them dismissed from the faculty, have their papers retracted, and perhaps have them haulled off in boxcars, it doesn't change the fact that, at the end of the day, that 2+2=4.
"It's really sad things like what I did are necessary because science has gone from being about truth to politics, but that's the way things are now."
We are in a WAR! Never forget! Always keep in the forefront of your thinking and planning that there are ENEMIES all around us, attacking us in EVERY single field they can find! Please do not get so caught up in fighting your battles as to neglect to keep a wary eye on, at a short thought:
doctors: stripping licensing/certs. forcing shots and disability/death on HCWs. CONTINUNIG to agitate about "get your vaxx!" the NEXT bioweapon attack!
energy: blowing up and shutting down pipelines. wiping out and refusing to refill the Strategic Oil Reserves. SELLING our SOR fuel to China and Europe. passing laws against ICE and mandating EVs ("mandating" makes my blood run cold!!). FAKE "global warming" and all its expensive -- and life-limiting -- follow-ons. Limiting WHEN and for how much$ you can CHARGE your mandated EV!
food plants: blowing up, burning down, crashing planes into food prep factories/facilities. shutting down baby formula plants for months and months. damaging the trucking/shipping of foods to stores., GMO seeds and suing organic farmers. Roundup-Ready. Dollar Bill Gates and the CCP buying up acres and acres of farmland and then putting them OUT of food production. mandated ethanol.
Money: bankrupting/closing banks. credit card co's going various flavors of nuts. threats -- and implementation -- of CBDCs. credit crushing. financial control in any field they can manage. UBI. billions and billions and billions of "air-printed" money to the corrupt Ukraine sent back around to the dems and their operatives. causing massive (and lied about) inflation.
War: insane neocons flailing about trying to sneak into WWIII. Taking weapons ACTUALLY ASSIGNED (personally and individually!) to U.S. military to send to Ukraine. Emptying our ENTIRE arsenal to protect Biden's graft and treason. (See also, printing money, above...)
To get a better deeper preparation this these and many more: Read the book "Unrestricted Warfare: China's Master Plan to Destroy America" by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, and see IN DETAIL exactly how they are destroying us -- WITH "our own" govts massive help!
More than that, I feel the chances big data is correctly seeing small effects is not reliable and may be the opposite of what is true. The record level data is likely not reliable enough and does not account for confounders. Plus, it seems like it would be so gameable by parties with bad intentions. At best, it seems it is so much academic and so less describing the real world.
Yes, good points. The data are only as reliable as those who enter it or are trusted to not jigger it to suit a hidden agenda. In other words, if you cannot independently verify or otherwise vet such data, you might as well have produced it with a random number generrator or a team of creative writers hired by interested parties.
"not reliable enough and does not account for confounders"
The insurance companies having a FORTY PERCENT increase in DEATH PAYOUTS mitigates against ANY confounders! The massive increase in still-borns and early abortions mitigates against ANY possible confounders! The massive increase in disability and loss of workers mitigates against ANY possible confounders!
As the marvelously mathy Ed Dowd points out (paraphrasing, but his number!): 'if there is ANY POSSIBLE other reason for these increases -- show us them! Identify WHAT has happened on the *planet* to make a 40% increase in excess deaths in ONE YEAR (and the following year, and onwards and .... upwards? {wince}) -- when a 10% increase is a 200-year anomaly!! What possible cause can you find?'
A 40% increase in excess deaths is NOT a "small effect"! 61,000 millennials excess-deaths in 18 mos is NOT a "small effect"! Insurance co data is likely very valid because THEY have to put money on the barrel head!! (They are also seeing an insane increase in disability payouts, but that number never sticks in my head.)
Since we KNOW Steve, Ed, and our other heroes are NOT "parties with bad intentions" the data they find and work with is extremely unlikely to be "gameable." Plus they KNOW and try to account for the data "providers" possibly being gameable or malign. Do you think our heroes are high school students or are they EXPERTS with decades in their fields?!
40% maybe in an isolated case.* I will definitely vouch for half that rate though. I'm a Flroida citizen and have crunched the official figures two years in a row now. Prior to 2020 the annual deaths were very stable, typically varying by 1% or less year-to-year. Of course excess deaths jumped in 2020. But they were even higher in 2021. The one piece of good news is that excess in 2022 was less than 2021. If one averages 2021 + 2022, the annual excess deaths were running close to 21%.
*Maybe not that far off. In 2021, the biggest jumps were in the younger ages. My "investigation" was only for Florida, but I suspect the results would be pretty much the same for other state or the nation as a whole.
Yes, Ed Dowd is brilliant isn't he?. He took a database that didn't come under the jurisdiction of public health authorities, so they had never thought to tamper with it or obscure its data, and convincingly demonstrated that a massive increase in disability and sick days was undoubtedly linked to the vaccines. I need to see whether he has dropped any more bombshells since the article I read a couple of months ago.
Agreed... I was referring to small effects in medical research or other "science" based on dubious databases or models or done by people with questionable intentions; medical research such as AMD referenced: small reductions in heart attacks over 20 years, using drug X. At best, they're checking boxes and turning in a homework paper based on simple assumptions. At worst, they may be gaming results to show desired effects.
Yes, the minscule benefits of many drugs. I was alerted to this problem by Midwestern Doctor and I've done qutie a bit of reading, especially on the topic of statins. Those are a textbook example of a drug that apparently does have a benefit -- a very tiny one, and one that may be erased if one considers adverse effects. What is beyond all doubt is that each study costs hundreds of millions of dollars, usually paid by Pharma, billions of dollars of potential or actual profits are at stake, and that the entire supply chain, from the researchers who do the tests to the doctor who writes your prescription, is ethically compromised. It's considered impolite to discuss these for some reason.
I hold the same perspective as you. Generally speaking, if a phenomena is real and significant, it should demonstrate a large deviation from the expected mean. In many cases, this does not occur (e.g. a drug which reduces your chances of a heart attack by 5% over 20 years or increases your chance of survival from sepsis by 3%) and it requires a lot of data to know for certain if the effect is real. One of my dissenting opinions from the general medical field is that changes which have a relatively small magnitude of importance are not worth prioritizing your focus on; however, our entire medical research apparatus revolves around detecting these effects. Conversely none of that is needed to detect effects with a relatively large magnitude.
In the case of the COVID vaccines, it was clear to me within a week of them being on the market that they were the most dangerous pharmaceutical I had ever come across; I was regularly hearing about adverse reactions to them, whereas in the past with even the most dangerous drugs I know of, I would only periodically hear about severe adverse reactions to them. At that point I assumed everybody would probably lie about the injuries to try to save face, and I was better off gathering anecdotal data rather than attempting to go through the official channels. I essentially started on substack because I compiled all them onto a list that you then promoted to the Internet and made go viral.
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/adverse-reactions-to-covid-vaccines
I spent months of work putting that list together because even though I knew it could never be published, it was the most that I could do in my position and I felt the public needed to have as many early warning signs as possible. At the time and list came out, virtually every single conventional person ridiculed it as being anti-scientific and not at all supported by the data. Now two years later, most of what I put in there is becoming in general knowledge within the medical profession and many others have since reported identical samples to the one I put forward.
It's really sad things like what I did are necessary because science has gone from being about truth to politics, but that's the way things are now. Until we make a fuss about it and stop giving our unconditional trust (and more importantly money) to the scientific community, I don't think it's going change.
I realized a long time ago that outsized importance was being given to variables that are easily observable (gender, chronological age being two). Just because these are quickly knowable doesn’t mean they are necessarily overly significant.
If I may suggest a clarification: the problem is that, for whatever motives, we are increasingly asked, nay, demanded to "believe" some new dogma that is at odds not merely with social conventions but often with objective reality. For example, that a man becomes a woman simply by changing his attire (but he shows special devotion to the cause if he gets himself castrated, has implants in his chest, and takes hormones). The variables may not be significant, but I'd argue, the problem is it's being demanded of people to read those variables' values as being other than what they are. The fundamental issue is we are denying reality: 2+2 still equal 4, even if the Mathematician's Guild's now claims that was a remnant of White Supremacy and that for equity's sake, the correct value is 5. And even if you cancel their Twitter or Facebook account, get them dismissed from the faculty, have their papers retracted, and perhaps have them haulled off in boxcars, it doesn't change the fact that, at the end of the day, that 2+2=4.
"It's really sad things like what I did are necessary because science has gone from being about truth to politics, but that's the way things are now."
We are in a WAR! Never forget! Always keep in the forefront of your thinking and planning that there are ENEMIES all around us, attacking us in EVERY single field they can find! Please do not get so caught up in fighting your battles as to neglect to keep a wary eye on, at a short thought:
doctors: stripping licensing/certs. forcing shots and disability/death on HCWs. CONTINUNIG to agitate about "get your vaxx!" the NEXT bioweapon attack!
energy: blowing up and shutting down pipelines. wiping out and refusing to refill the Strategic Oil Reserves. SELLING our SOR fuel to China and Europe. passing laws against ICE and mandating EVs ("mandating" makes my blood run cold!!). FAKE "global warming" and all its expensive -- and life-limiting -- follow-ons. Limiting WHEN and for how much$ you can CHARGE your mandated EV!
food plants: blowing up, burning down, crashing planes into food prep factories/facilities. shutting down baby formula plants for months and months. damaging the trucking/shipping of foods to stores., GMO seeds and suing organic farmers. Roundup-Ready. Dollar Bill Gates and the CCP buying up acres and acres of farmland and then putting them OUT of food production. mandated ethanol.
Money: bankrupting/closing banks. credit card co's going various flavors of nuts. threats -- and implementation -- of CBDCs. credit crushing. financial control in any field they can manage. UBI. billions and billions and billions of "air-printed" money to the corrupt Ukraine sent back around to the dems and their operatives. causing massive (and lied about) inflation.
War: insane neocons flailing about trying to sneak into WWIII. Taking weapons ACTUALLY ASSIGNED (personally and individually!) to U.S. military to send to Ukraine. Emptying our ENTIRE arsenal to protect Biden's graft and treason. (See also, printing money, above...)
To get a better deeper preparation this these and many more: Read the book "Unrestricted Warfare: China's Master Plan to Destroy America" by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, and see IN DETAIL exactly how they are destroying us -- WITH "our own" govts massive help!
I remain immensely grateful to you for this work you have done to get the word out.
More than that, I feel the chances big data is correctly seeing small effects is not reliable and may be the opposite of what is true. The record level data is likely not reliable enough and does not account for confounders. Plus, it seems like it would be so gameable by parties with bad intentions. At best, it seems it is so much academic and so less describing the real world.
Yes, good points. The data are only as reliable as those who enter it or are trusted to not jigger it to suit a hidden agenda. In other words, if you cannot independently verify or otherwise vet such data, you might as well have produced it with a random number generrator or a team of creative writers hired by interested parties.
"not reliable enough and does not account for confounders"
The insurance companies having a FORTY PERCENT increase in DEATH PAYOUTS mitigates against ANY confounders! The massive increase in still-borns and early abortions mitigates against ANY possible confounders! The massive increase in disability and loss of workers mitigates against ANY possible confounders!
As the marvelously mathy Ed Dowd points out (paraphrasing, but his number!): 'if there is ANY POSSIBLE other reason for these increases -- show us them! Identify WHAT has happened on the *planet* to make a 40% increase in excess deaths in ONE YEAR (and the following year, and onwards and .... upwards? {wince}) -- when a 10% increase is a 200-year anomaly!! What possible cause can you find?'
A 40% increase in excess deaths is NOT a "small effect"! 61,000 millennials excess-deaths in 18 mos is NOT a "small effect"! Insurance co data is likely very valid because THEY have to put money on the barrel head!! (They are also seeing an insane increase in disability payouts, but that number never sticks in my head.)
Since we KNOW Steve, Ed, and our other heroes are NOT "parties with bad intentions" the data they find and work with is extremely unlikely to be "gameable." Plus they KNOW and try to account for the data "providers" possibly being gameable or malign. Do you think our heroes are high school students or are they EXPERTS with decades in their fields?!
40% maybe in an isolated case.* I will definitely vouch for half that rate though. I'm a Flroida citizen and have crunched the official figures two years in a row now. Prior to 2020 the annual deaths were very stable, typically varying by 1% or less year-to-year. Of course excess deaths jumped in 2020. But they were even higher in 2021. The one piece of good news is that excess in 2022 was less than 2021. If one averages 2021 + 2022, the annual excess deaths were running close to 21%.
*Maybe not that far off. In 2021, the biggest jumps were in the younger ages. My "investigation" was only for Florida, but I suspect the results would be pretty much the same for other state or the nation as a whole.
Yes, Ed Dowd is brilliant isn't he?. He took a database that didn't come under the jurisdiction of public health authorities, so they had never thought to tamper with it or obscure its data, and convincingly demonstrated that a massive increase in disability and sick days was undoubtedly linked to the vaccines. I need to see whether he has dropped any more bombshells since the article I read a couple of months ago.
Agreed... I was referring to small effects in medical research or other "science" based on dubious databases or models or done by people with questionable intentions; medical research such as AMD referenced: small reductions in heart attacks over 20 years, using drug X. At best, they're checking boxes and turning in a homework paper based on simple assumptions. At worst, they may be gaming results to show desired effects.
Yes, the minscule benefits of many drugs. I was alerted to this problem by Midwestern Doctor and I've done qutie a bit of reading, especially on the topic of statins. Those are a textbook example of a drug that apparently does have a benefit -- a very tiny one, and one that may be erased if one considers adverse effects. What is beyond all doubt is that each study costs hundreds of millions of dollars, usually paid by Pharma, billions of dollars of potential or actual profits are at stake, and that the entire supply chain, from the researchers who do the tests to the doctor who writes your prescription, is ethically compromised. It's considered impolite to discuss these for some reason.
Thank you for your courage, Doctor.