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.