Wednesday, January 18, 2023

The Plural Of Anecdotes Is Not "Data"












 



Today,  WRSA linked to a Market Ticker post.

RTWT. Then forget everything you read, flush it, and jiggle the handle to take care of anything that remains.

The Good

There is nothing good nor useful here. It's meaningless, which sadly tends to be what happens too many times when Market Ticker ventures into medical topics. It's not data, but it is "bad", just not in the way either party intended. We shall explain.

The Bad

a) The Puerto Rican example mentions "177 individuals", "aged 8 to 84".

This is statistically irrelevant. Meaning it's ass gas, on its best day.

The smallest statistically meaningful data would be a sample of 1200-1500 randomly selected subjects, meaning a cross section of age, race, sex, and no volunteers. In fact, it'd have to be more than that, because you'd want two such groups: a control group of unvaccinated persons, and a similar sample who took the jab. So we're talking a sample 15-20 times as large as that group. So any conclusions from such a pitifully inadequate sample are diaper spackle.

b) The military group is worse, in that no size is mentioned beyond a "large number", and as the sample size is hopelessly skewed in favor of young fit males, rather than equal amounts of both (and there are only two) sexes and a more diverse set of age groups, it's totally worthless, except insofar as predicting for that narrow bandwidth of subjects. And for all we know, it was 20 guys. Or even 200. Doesn't matter. 

Once again, diaper spackle.

The Ugly

None of the allegations have been published, meaning they're essentially wives' tales, unreviewed by anyone in any scientific or medical community, nor could be, for the exact same concerns we have already noted.

And the allegation at the source only alleges "cardiac markers", not actual cardiac damage. That's survey weasel words for "we may be full of shit".

Conclusion: 

There is no objective evidence to reach any conclusions, other than a real set of studies, with sufficiently valid random sample sizes, ought to be done, controlling for all variables except whether a subject did or did not get Not-A-Vaxx, and quantifying any cardiac damage (or lack thereof) subsequently discovered.

It doesn't mean Not-A-Vaxx conclusively causes cardiac damage.

It also doesn't mean it doesn't do so.

No small part of any confusion or dismissal of those claims is because none of the vaxx manufacturers did any such human testing, including, as Deninger notes, simple lab and cardiac workups prior to administering the Not-A-Vaxx varieties to any test subjects.

Which has been the entire problem from the get-go.

Peawits have tried to paint us as being pro-Jab, when we were never any such thing.

What we were, was pro-vaccination, if a COVID vaccine was ever developed, in the same manner as every vaccine in history has been.

All of humanity still awaits any such thing, and in vain. We never got a vaccine for COVID, and it's obvious no such thing was ever sought to be produced, and our statements regarding an actual vaccine were conditional upon the creation of nothing less than an actual vaccine. What we got instead was slapdash crapola cross-bred with genetic experimentation, and as soon as the culprits let that wee tidbit of information out at large, we said not just no, but Hell NO, and encouraged all and sundry to do likewise. And at a certain level of duplicity, the effort slides from incompetence to actual deliberate malice, even for the deaf and blind investigator.

It may be that the Not-A-Vaxx causes widespread cardiac injury. We suspect no less, based on mountainous piles of anecdotal evidence.

But we're similarly convinced no such honest, valid, and comprehensive studies will ever be done to move from anecdotal hearsay to statistical proof, because to do them would be to pull the curtain back on the greatest act of genocide in recorded planetary history since Noah's Flood, followed, in short order, by torches, pitchforks, tumbrel carts, and mass guillotine executions unrivaled since the French Revolution.

And TPTB ain't got time for that.

That suspicion is not the same thing as proof of it, however, and as usual, Deninger plunges into the swamp without a compass or a clue. Just as globull warmism is anecdotal and anti-statistical bullshit, so is this latest attempt to pull science out of someone's underpants with accusations about as reliable as the FBI agents who investigated Trump.

Research and logical conclusions require statistical facts. Accept nothing less. 

And stop listening to confirmation bias backed by anecdotal fairytales. It's no more correct from our side than it is when the lunatard Left does it. And it's embarrassing to have to remind people that there's no pass for entering contestants from the Special Olympics in the academic decathalon.

Being suspicious and skeptical is fine. We share your suspicions. But we don't call them "data", nor confuse one with the other.

Worst of all: WRSA, Deninger, and Steve Kirsch may all be correct, someday, but will be laughed out of the ballpark long before that day for trying to claim a home run without stepping up to the plate, hitting the ball, and doing the requisite legwork.

More's the pity.

Or, as my namesake noted, you'll get the wrong sort of reputation.

21 comments:

Greg said...

I've been to many medical appointments in the past couple years, and every time, the MA or nurse checking me in has to ask "Are you vaccinated for Covid 19?" I look them square in the eye and say "There is no vaccine for Covid19. What they are calling a vaccine is no such thing, and I will have nothing to do with it." I understand they just want to fill in the checkboxes on the forms. The reason I bring it up here is to ask your opinion of the new ICD10 code Z28.310, which appears to want to code into our medical records our status vis-a-vis the nottavax. With our big brother electronic medical records, it'll be harder to erase than a tattoo.

Aesop said...

"Decline to state" seems like a good answer to that question.

There's already a central database of everyone vaxxed, including dates, brand, and lot #, by state.

Night driver said...

Does this qualify as a big enough study? Pretty sure there IS enough horsepowerr here and a large and moderately diverse study cohort...
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-faa-has-very-quietly-tacitly
Night Driver

404th Keyboard Commandos said...

When will you be replacing Colonel Macgregor?

Anonymous said...

none of the vaxx manufacturers did any such human testing'

Entirely intentional.

'We never got a vaccine for COVID, and it's obvious no such thing was ever sought to be produced'

What we got behaves nothing like a vaxcine and instead behaves entirely as a bioweapon. Probably thoroughly tested, if you disagree at this point, the onus of proof is entirely on you.

They lied period. They are known liars, nothing they say now can change that. Thier motives are unknown, but nothing good should be assumed. F@#k them and thier rules. Less than 50% of thier, 'pier reviewed' studies are is reproducible anyway. To reiterate, they are known liars.

Anonymous said...

My money is on the tort lawyers, might take a little bit more time but once the blood is in the water and they get rolling... CS&A

Anonymous said...

I am not a researcher. But I understand you to say that the studies about vaccine injury will never be higher than level IV evidence. It would be helpful to present your statement in the context of levels of evidence.
Alternatively, I think that pathology that shows spike protein in organs sans nucleocapsid of SARS-CoV-2 is pretty damning even without level 1 evidence.

Anonymous said...

Market Ticket may not know medicine, but his proposed bill to fix healthcare by requiring them to publicly post prices and enforcing other anti-fraud legislation is still solid.

Charley boy said...

. . . as my son says: "it is in my medical records ". all they have to do is check my records.

Anonymous said...

Aesop, I am old enough to not remember, are you fully up to date on your vaccination schedule? By that I mean 2 shots in Mar/April '21 and a booster in Sept. '21 followed by an increase in tempo to every three months, with boosters in Feb., May., Aug., of '22. And of course the new bi-valent boosters this month. That's 7 injections.
There are of course several valid positions to hold on this issue. The I do what I am told by the PTB is just as valid as I am not taking that because I still maintain my basic human rights. There is also the folks who took a couple of jabs and got sceptical and stopped.

You sound like you are saying there is no valid reason to not take the shot. So are you Fully vaccinated?

So let's pretend you are my advisor on this. Should I get the next shot?

Good luck to all,

ps. Those folks you criticize are trying to warn people with the best information available to stop that genocide. Should they wait until there is perfect information? And if that is your standard, then why not apply the same to the vaxx. Something like "I can't recommend Anyone take the vaxx until the proper process is followed. And that would include requiring consistent dosage among lots and paying attention to the safety data.

Anonymous said...

Can you give us a link. There are a lot of unvaxxed young men that will need that info.

Anonymous said...

A masterful display of the near obvious only lacking a keyboard coffee stain warning. Diaper Spackle indeed. :)

Anonymous said...

You can't comment on sample size until you do a power calculation, which requires an assumed difference in dependant variable
Our state has a central vax database, which will erase your personal entry on request, with no record of the request being kept (they say)

Greer said...

Thanks Aesop.

Robert said...

The requirements for valid studies which are mentioned in the posting have not been met. They will probably never be met. No such studies will be commissioned either.

There is no point in asking a question if one cannot risk hearing the possible answers to that question.

Does the mRNA treatment cause irreversible cardiovascular injury? Are roughly 160 million people going to die prematurely from various side effects of the treatment?

Studies show... That if the answers to these questions were found to be "YES", governments would fall, and a great number of the political elites would find their ending at the hands of angry mobs. That still might be a pathway into the future, without the studies. Why should the rulers risk aggravating the peasants with "moar studies"?

We will find out the answers soon enough anyway. Too soon, if the damage is as serious as many of us believe it may be.

I do not expect to ever see rigorous, validated studies on this topic from any government. Anecdotal evidence (like Denninger's columns) is the best I can expect.

One often must make life-setting decisions based a collection of incomplete, inaccurate, and contradictory data. "So it goes".

Borepatch said...

Off Topic: Alec Baldwin to be charged with Involuntary Manslaughter in Santa Fe:

https://deadline.com/2023/01/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-charges-mary-carmack-altwies-halyna-hutchins-1235226760/

Seething said...

Granted that anecdotal data, no matter how large the sample, do not make a sufficient foundation (without knowing other variables) to scream conclusions from the rooftop. Illustrations like Denninger's, combined with many other similar examples (like thousands of "died suddenly" accounts of seemingly highly fit, young people whom the actuaries otherwise wouldn't expect to die suddenly) add up to a dense cloud of smoke that indicates a high probability of fire (clumsy metaphor, yes). When autopsies of "unexpected cardiac deaths" (for example) are not revealing vaccination status, however, it's difficult to perform any statistical analysis to determine any linkage between the two. As you said, no one wants the curtain pulled back, so the needed data will be buried.

Aesop said...

@Night driver,

That's not a "study" either. It's a policy change, and a tacit admission of what we all expect is reality. But it's not a valid peer-reviewed scientific study either. In PR terms, it's a non-answer answer. Political hacks love that sort of thing.

@404th Keyboard Commandos,
MacGregor seems to have the talking-out-of-his-ass gig nailed down tight, and I defer to his expertise in that line. There's a reason he wasn't selected for higher grade, and his performance record in the jobs he held isn't one to write home about.

@Anon 7:59P,
It's worse than you think. Actually, the reproducibility record is down in single digits, when last I looked.

@CS&A,
Never get between a tort lawyer and a contingency fee.

@Anon 3:08A,
How much pathology evidence? One case? 77 cases? 1500 randomized double-blind peer-reviewed cases? That's the point at issue. There are a lot of wrong ways to not prove the thesis, but only one right way. Neither of the two non-studies offered meet that latter criteria.

@Anon 3:42A,
Deninger has an executioner headsman's axe to grind when anything to do with medical knowledge is under discussion. It discolors any clarity of his judgement on the entire topic, and usually not to his benefit, based purely on any twenty or thirty examples. He should probably stick to stocks and finance. As to posting prices, we should stipulate that they are posted, for those who are actually footing the bills, which would overwhelmingly be government and insurance companies, and which hasn't been the product consumer for 50-100 years. You want the prices? Pay for your own care, and assume full responsibility for it cradle-to-grave, and we can talk.

Echo Hotel said...

"the plural of anecdote is not data"...

Raymond Wolfinger might disagree. ;-)

Aesop said...

@Anon 5:57,

Given: The jabs are not a vaccine, the manufacturers have no liability for them, you have no legal recourse in case of irreparable harm by them, and they've never been adequately tested for safety nor efficacy, and in fact all claims to the contrary are utter bullshit, from all of government and most of medical officialdom.

I've made my position on the shots crystal clear on that basis, and if you can't figure it out all by yourself from even that brief recap of current events, are you really smart enough to take any advice offered? Hypothetically speaking, of course.

The people I criticize are dishonest dealers insofar as they're deliberately confusing innuendo with "data". Words mean things, and those two words are not interchangeable.

By all means, make the best decision you can with the information available, but don't lie to others nor yourself about its accuracy or reliability, otherwise you're just as bad as the people that pimped the Not-A-Vaxx in bad faith on unsuspecting millions.

In short, who's morally worse: Himmler and Goebbels, or the guys who only pack the inmates into the showers and drop the Zyklon B pellets through the grating? You can't damn one, and absolve the other, but that's what you'd have me do. I refuse. Facts are facts, and bullshit is bullshit. If you just wanted someone to blow smoke up your ass, you've come to the wrong shop.

And BTW, -20 points for trying to paint perfect information as the decison-making standard (false dilemma) and -20 more for pretending I suggested anything like that (straw man). Even a valid study isn't "perfect" information, nor even 10 of them, for a host of reasons. But any one such actual valid peer-reviewed study would be miles ahead of this bullshit meatloaf masquerading as top sirloin.

If you can't tell beef from steer manure, you've got a tough life ahead of you.

@Seething,
My quibble is not with presenting the information for what it's worth, and clearly identifying anecdotal evidence as such.
It's with trying to pass counterfeit lead slugs as gold currency.
Kirsch is far less than a plain dealer (he's got a dog in this fight, and his thumb on the scales, and has for years), and on medical topics, neither is Deninger, but both should and do know better.
Whatever this was, it wasn't "data". Just RUMINT. And as such, worth what you paid for it.

As I said, I maintain similar suspicions regarding the Vaxx. But I don't call my suspicions, or any cobbled together pile of anecdota "data", or confuse innuendo with published studies.

Aesop said...

@Borepatch,

And here I was thinking this would be a slow news day.
The Albuquerque D.A. is going to be monumentally embarrassed, and all the people pissed off when I told them industry regulations 15 months ago are going to be doubly pissed-off when Baldwin, either by jury, or on appeal, walks away scot-free. Stevie Wonder could run his defense and get him acquitted of all criminal culpability. Civil suits are entirely separate.

It's going to take years, and leave all the "I know guns, so don't confuse me with facts" people rending their garments and gnashing their teeth for decades.

Baldwin's a five-star asshat, but he's guilty of no criminal negligence articulable, and it pains me to say that as much now as it did at the time. But facts are stubborn things, and everybody just wants to pound the table, piss and spit, and form a lynch mob.