(04-17-2023, 02:06 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:  I am a simpleton 

Your pants are on fire, doll.

(04-17-2023, 02:06 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: Since this thread has gone sideways, and I'm a simpleton . . . I just want to make sure I understand the premise of medical "experimentation" and it's relationship to gun control.

If I understand your simile, the Covid shot is like a firearm.  But unlike a firearm (that causes obvious death and maiming) and evokes massive cries for "banning" (I am using the term very loosely), the Covid shot (that allegedly causes harm) is not subject to the same outcry or scrutiny? 

Additionally, I am assuming your simile also includes the holding of Pharma responsible for the alleged harms, similar to the wants of many to hold firearm manufacturers responsible for the injuries, caused by their product.

I am not stating you support one position or the other.  Again, I am a simpleton and I like simple.  That is why I'm asking.

The common thread is public health reporting of data. Again, I stated that what isn't reported can be more significant than what is. This is an example of the former, regarding data that is required by law to be reported, but wasn't. Given that approximately half of the participants dropped out of the trial with no explanation provided, and there is no mention of a participant ending up paralyzed, I think it's safe to say that the reporting of public health data is seriously compromised. VAERS reporting is another example of this, with only 2-5% of what is legally required being reported, without consequence.

Skewed methodologies provide skewed results, which reflects PR rather than science. This is why I accept nothing at face value.

(04-17-2023, 05:38 PM)rothschild Wrote: The common thread is public health reporting of data. Again, I stated that what isn't reported can be more significant than what is. This is an example of the former, regarding data that is required by law to be reported, but wasn't. Given that approximately half of the participants dropped out of the trial with no explanation provided, and there is no mention of a participant ending up paralyzed, I think it's safe to say that the reporting of public health data is seriously compromised. VAERS reporting is another example of this, with only 2-5% of what is legally required being reported, without consequence.

Skewed methodologies provide skewed results, which reflects PR rather than science. This is why I accept nothing at face value.

Welcome to the world of Bayesian Statistical methodology and reporting!

"Let's see . . . a little cognitive bias and a tad of confirmation bias . . . plus affirming data and  . . . Viola!  The results we expected to prove our theory!"

Couldn't agree with you more.