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.
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.
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.