Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hispls" data-source="post: 8798480" data-attributes="member: 614752">Did you leave out any link to the original source because you knew this wasn&#039;t a double blind RCT but just another bullshit exercise of the fact that you can make statistics show anything you want?After skimming the original text of the &quot;study&quot; their methodology was to just sift through a database and select one group who had records of getting various shots then another group who got tested positive.&nbsp;&nbsp; Mind you, this isn&#039;t a group of people selected beforehand and observed throughout the course of some actual scientific experiment, just looking backwards at an existing data set.&nbsp;&nbsp; The major glaring problem with this is that you are not properly categorizing people who did, in fact, have the virus but never got tested at all for whatever reason so you are coming in the gate with comparing people who may or may not have been infected with only those who are either hypochondriacs and got tested constantly or those who had symptoms severe enough to go through the VA for testing AND went at all.&nbsp;&nbsp; I&#039;d wager there were people who got sick and died that didn&#039;t even go to get tested and likely many that got the virus and never tested at all... how many of each?&nbsp; We don&#039;t know because this whole thing is not science but just bullshit statistical analysis crafted to fit an agenda.There is also no mention of how they verified the &quot;unvaccinated&quot; group didn&#039;t get a shot at a mobile vaccination point, a free one at a drug store, or someplace else besides the VA hospital AND there is no mention of cause of death of the people who died in the 6 months of data they reviewed, nor how this was verified.So in this &quot;study&quot; we could be comparing thousands of people who got the sniffles for a few days and went about their lives with people who got an injection at their local pharmacy and not at the VA hospital and people who died in industrial accidents.&nbsp;&nbsp; It&#039;s absolutely meaningless.&nbsp;&nbsp; True scientific method would demand you gather a large selection of the population, give half of them your RNA gene therapy shot and half of them a shot of distilled water or whatever placebo then monitor them with routine testing over the course of the experiment THEN to be honest you would collect and publish cause of death data from all who died within that time (how were people were counted who never got injected at a VA hospital and died in a car crash or drug overdose?) AND to be very honest you&#039;d attempt to throw out obvious non associated reports of other symptoms (the guy who drinks a handle of whiskey every day didn&#039;t have liver failure because he caught cold that winter).&nbsp;&nbsp; Again, at the end of the day, all these &quot;studies&quot; prove is that you can make statistics show anything you wantThis shit you posted isn&#039;t anything even close to science or the scientific method.&nbsp; How much of you even using this garbage as a source is ignorance and how much is you being dishonest?&nbsp; &nbsp; Do you believe all the &quot;studies&quot; from the 1950s that showed smoking was good for you?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hispls, post: 8798480, member: 614752"] Did you leave out any link to the original source because you knew this wasn't a double blind RCT but just another bullshit exercise of the fact that you can make statistics show anything you want? After skimming the original text of the "study" their methodology was to just sift through a database and select one group who had records of getting various shots then another group who got tested positive. Mind you, this isn't a group of people selected beforehand and observed throughout the course of some actual scientific experiment, just looking backwards at an existing data set. The major glaring problem with this is that you are not properly categorizing people who did, in fact, have the virus but never got tested at all for whatever reason so you are coming in the gate with comparing people who may or may not have been infected with only those who are either hypochondriacs and got tested constantly or those who had symptoms severe enough to go through the VA for testing AND went at all. I'd wager there were people who got sick and died that didn't even go to get tested and likely many that got the virus and never tested at all... how many of each? We don't know because this whole thing is not science but just bullshit statistical analysis crafted to fit an agenda. There is also no mention of how they verified the "unvaccinated" group didn't get a shot at a mobile vaccination point, a free one at a drug store, or someplace else besides the VA hospital AND there is no mention of cause of death of the people who died in the 6 months of data they reviewed, nor how this was verified. So in this "study" we could be comparing thousands of people who got the sniffles for a few days and went about their lives with people who got an injection at their local pharmacy and not at the VA hospital and people who died in industrial accidents. It's absolutely meaningless. True scientific method would demand you gather a large selection of the population, give half of them your RNA gene therapy shot and half of them a shot of distilled water or whatever placebo then monitor them with routine testing over the course of the experiment THEN to be honest you would collect and publish cause of death data from all who died within that time (how were people were counted who never got injected at a VA hospital and died in a car crash or drug overdose?) AND to be very honest you'd attempt to throw out obvious non associated reports of other symptoms (the guy who drinks a handle of whiskey every day didn't have liver failure because he caught cold that winter). Again, at the end of the day, all these "studies" prove is that you can make statistics show anything you want This shit you posted isn't anything even close to science or the scientific method. How much of you even using this garbage as a source is ignorance and how much is you being dishonest? Do you believe all the "studies" from the 1950s that showed smoking was good for you? [/QUOTE]

Verification