Hi, Matt! You asked for examples of studies in which the data doesn't match the conclusions.
Well, there's none larger than the Women's Health Initiative. A multi-year billion-dollar study to try to prove that the low-fat diet reduces heart disease. Tim Noakes drills down in detail into exactly how the authors deliberately manipulated and misrepresented the data, or simply ignored it, to publish conclusions that were in direct contradiction to their actual clinical data.
The video presentation is beautifully done and you hear more about the back story -- especially that he knows and has worked with some of these people.
This is off topic but.., In my world of criminal law here's what happens: Decision based on precedent X, which is based upon earlier case Y. All cases now follow X. But dig back and go the precedent case Y and find that it relied upon case A. Go to Case A and it didn't actually say what Y says. Bu no matter, X confirms the predetermined decision the court wanted to make. And lo and behold, that is the law.
My all time favorite? The CITRIS-ALI study where they concluded high dose intravenous Vitamin C **DID NOT WORK** because out of 46 clinical markers of sepsis they tracked, 43 of them did not improve. This is what the abstract said. You have to read all the way deep into the results to discover that the 3 clinical markers that *DID* improve were deaths cut by half, fewer ICU admissions and shorter hospital stays. lol. Whatta clown show. They were so intent on disproving Paul Marik's ICU sepsis findings that they even rigged the 'study' to show it didn't work (dragged their feet by administering VitC "within 24 hours" of admission when every minute counts & used a fraction of the dose that Marik's protocol proved out). Still found a benefit. Buried it. Let me amend my conclusion: whatta homicidal clown show.
i don't know about "conclusions" for your friend at the CHD but there was that paper that came out about a man who's Angioimmunoblastic T Cell Lymphoma grew enormously post booster. The ending is so sad. The patient made the statement: "He remains convinced that mRNA vaccines represent very efficient products with a favorable benefit-risk ratio." You know either that poor man is either 1) brainwashed, or 2) the researchers and patient had to put that in there to get it published and keep it up appearances. (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.798095/full)
Maybe its part of Viral Absurdities, but you need a “ReBunking” project — De-Debunking Reuters and similar, illustrating the logical fallacies they fall into, etc.
That is the real red pill... And the book virus mania points out the case that these viruses came about to hide other causes, like DDT with polio, sanitation with smallpox etc
Remember even HIV hasn't been directly proven to cause AIDS but we do know that Fauci managed to use the HIV positives to push AZT, like what was done with remdesevir and "covid"
Liberal science has gone astray in sexuality research as well. A scientific paper on homosexuality put online in 2017 proposed a diet-stress-diathesis model of causation of homosexuality and it was viciously attacked. According to recent research inflammation in the pregnant mother in the form of an allergic attack (like from vaccines?) causes disturbed sexual development in the offspring. Expect more LGBT in the future. https://psyarxiv.com/bjxvs/
Let’s talk about how many idiots think that mRNA technology has been in development for decades - that’s technically true, but not in any such capacity as to have honed it as a template for making safe and effective vaccines. Just the other day I got in an argument with yet another person that doesn’t know pseudouridine from Sudafed 😓
The Pfizer vaccine safety study's conclusion reads: "Through 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing Covid-19." Meanwhile, severe outcomes (the worst category with statistical significance) were substantially more frequent for the vaccine than the placebo, despite the pandemic being in full swing.
This article is confirmation of my own innate science. I've been noticing the same dichotomy occurring in papers/articles.
I simply figured that scientists were adapting, no different from the folks "playing pandemic" when required.
Putting on the mask, despite your personal feelings, abiding by the "distancing rules", just trying to stay under the radar, so to speak. I figured it was the scientific equivalent.
Personally, I think, like the "majority" in population, the same exists in the scientific community, a large group of people that disagree (in varying shades) with the current narrative. And they are trying in their own way to get the truth out. To help. To rebel. To change the world.
Matt, thinking about the Campfire wiki, for a while I have been debating C19 in some groups, I've posted scientific studies where I thought I had a winning argument, only for some other argument against the study be raised that I may not have the answer to. It would be great to have a place where we could take (for example) a study and then have arguments against/for it and how to best approach an argument. I'm not exactly sure how that would look like, but I hope I convey the purpose. For example, the Bangladesh mask study, so someone will say "oh it shows X% less C19 cases when wearing a cloth mask", it would be good to have a list of those "arguments" with a good response like "yes, but it also shows that blue cloth masks are more effective than red masks, which clearly shows that the data is unreliable", or whatever the message may be (multiple preferred). To be able to shoot down the attacks of the (valid) studies. But also to list the junk studies and the arguments against them.
Hi, Matt! You asked for examples of studies in which the data doesn't match the conclusions.
Well, there's none larger than the Women's Health Initiative. A multi-year billion-dollar study to try to prove that the low-fat diet reduces heart disease. Tim Noakes drills down in detail into exactly how the authors deliberately manipulated and misrepresented the data, or simply ignored it, to publish conclusions that were in direct contradiction to their actual clinical data.
Paper: https://openheart.bmj.com/content/8/2/e001680
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-wjEnsEXI0
(where I first saw this)
The video presentation is beautifully done and you hear more about the back story -- especially that he knows and has worked with some of these people.
This is off topic but.., In my world of criminal law here's what happens: Decision based on precedent X, which is based upon earlier case Y. All cases now follow X. But dig back and go the precedent case Y and find that it relied upon case A. Go to Case A and it didn't actually say what Y says. Bu no matter, X confirms the predetermined decision the court wanted to make. And lo and behold, that is the law.
My all time favorite? The CITRIS-ALI study where they concluded high dose intravenous Vitamin C **DID NOT WORK** because out of 46 clinical markers of sepsis they tracked, 43 of them did not improve. This is what the abstract said. You have to read all the way deep into the results to discover that the 3 clinical markers that *DID* improve were deaths cut by half, fewer ICU admissions and shorter hospital stays. lol. Whatta clown show. They were so intent on disproving Paul Marik's ICU sepsis findings that they even rigged the 'study' to show it didn't work (dragged their feet by administering VitC "within 24 hours" of admission when every minute counts & used a fraction of the dose that Marik's protocol proved out). Still found a benefit. Buried it. Let me amend my conclusion: whatta homicidal clown show.
i don't know about "conclusions" for your friend at the CHD but there was that paper that came out about a man who's Angioimmunoblastic T Cell Lymphoma grew enormously post booster. The ending is so sad. The patient made the statement: "He remains convinced that mRNA vaccines represent very efficient products with a favorable benefit-risk ratio." You know either that poor man is either 1) brainwashed, or 2) the researchers and patient had to put that in there to get it published and keep it up appearances. (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.798095/full)
Maybe its part of Viral Absurdities, but you need a “ReBunking” project — De-Debunking Reuters and similar, illustrating the logical fallacies they fall into, etc.
How about we challenge virus theory and how they never ran controls on isolation experiments?
https://drsambailey.com/2022/01/05/why-nobody-can-find-a-virus/
That is the real red pill... And the book virus mania points out the case that these viruses came about to hide other causes, like DDT with polio, sanitation with smallpox etc
Remember even HIV hasn't been directly proven to cause AIDS but we do know that Fauci managed to use the HIV positives to push AZT, like what was done with remdesevir and "covid"
Liberal science has gone astray in sexuality research as well. A scientific paper on homosexuality put online in 2017 proposed a diet-stress-diathesis model of causation of homosexuality and it was viciously attacked. According to recent research inflammation in the pregnant mother in the form of an allergic attack (like from vaccines?) causes disturbed sexual development in the offspring. Expect more LGBT in the future. https://psyarxiv.com/bjxvs/
Let’s talk about how many idiots think that mRNA technology has been in development for decades - that’s technically true, but not in any such capacity as to have honed it as a template for making safe and effective vaccines. Just the other day I got in an argument with yet another person that doesn’t know pseudouridine from Sudafed 😓
The Pfizer vaccine safety study's conclusion reads: "Through 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing Covid-19." Meanwhile, severe outcomes (the worst category with statistical significance) were substantially more frequent for the vaccine than the placebo, despite the pandemic being in full swing.
https://norstadt.substack.com/p/severe-adverse-events-vs-severe-covid
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345
I am collecting all of your quotations, Mathew! That Bernard Beckett one is spectacular.
I am honored to discover myself included on your Must-Read Substackers list along with many of my own favorites! 🙏
This article is confirmation of my own innate science. I've been noticing the same dichotomy occurring in papers/articles.
I simply figured that scientists were adapting, no different from the folks "playing pandemic" when required.
Putting on the mask, despite your personal feelings, abiding by the "distancing rules", just trying to stay under the radar, so to speak. I figured it was the scientific equivalent.
Personally, I think, like the "majority" in population, the same exists in the scientific community, a large group of people that disagree (in varying shades) with the current narrative. And they are trying in their own way to get the truth out. To help. To rebel. To change the world.
Poor legal arguments are often not mistakes .
Mathew, why are you still using gmail ?
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/resiliency-surviving-in-the-age-of?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo2NTI2NDA4NCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDY2NTA3MTIsIl8iOiI0NnROcyIsImlhdCI6MTY0MTYzMjg3NiwiZXhwIjoxNjQxNjM2NDc2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNTgzMjAwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.9krFCsOK_3367cgoikbIaEvZlNvUzjL0KvYe4RrT0yg
This is great, engage the hive mind. 🐝🐝🐝
Matt, thinking about the Campfire wiki, for a while I have been debating C19 in some groups, I've posted scientific studies where I thought I had a winning argument, only for some other argument against the study be raised that I may not have the answer to. It would be great to have a place where we could take (for example) a study and then have arguments against/for it and how to best approach an argument. I'm not exactly sure how that would look like, but I hope I convey the purpose. For example, the Bangladesh mask study, so someone will say "oh it shows X% less C19 cases when wearing a cloth mask", it would be good to have a list of those "arguments" with a good response like "yes, but it also shows that blue cloth masks are more effective than red masks, which clearly shows that the data is unreliable", or whatever the message may be (multiple preferred). To be able to shoot down the attacks of the (valid) studies. But also to list the junk studies and the arguments against them.
Matt, I will be on the prayer team. Art major