Awesome. You'll be interested to know that they absolutely chopped the cancer and CJD numbers this past update. This hasn't happened to this degree since the whole thing started and it's really noticeable. I keep an eye on the CJD numbers specifically since, well, you know, brain eating and stuff, and this really is a red flag. Not only is the reduction a red flag because WHY, but the fact that the CDC and FDA are saying nothing about these reports to VAERS is of course, more like the evidence we need for court. Writing a Substack on something else now but will mention on Twitter.
Mar 4, 2023·edited Mar 4, 2023Liked by Mathew Crawford
"Think of safety signals like clues that are themselves only helpful as pointers to where to look for more solid evidence." I'm a lawyer and I understand that perfectly. The actual evidence is what (presumably) produces the safety signal in the first place, not the other way around. Most people can't understand much beyond the surface, and there are certainly plenty of dumb/shallow lawyers out there. The real work is just too hard.
You are doing the real work. Hang in there. And there's a point where if you go so far as to sacrifice your own health, it's all for naught. So say no once in a while and take care of yourself first.
Reading you is like going to a distant planet. Worth the effort on occasion.
So, this is what I, a person who is mathematically ignorant think, and please disagree
a 'signal' is a pointer at something that needs further study, a deeper analysis of context
a 'model' is not the thing itself, which is why they are so often dead wrong
the problem with statistics in the context of Covid is that it is all manipulated for a sinister purpose
that purpose is to cover up the truth because those actually pulling the levers want to remain anonymous
at the beginning of the pandemic, Anonymous published a very long epistle, the gist of which was this: the people making the vaccines are the same people making the virus
There probably isn't an algorithm or a signal for that except that horrible gut feeling that makes you want to crawl into bed and never get up again
I am involved in financial modelling. One of the hot topics in recent years has been the classification and validation of models. First question has to be: "What is a model"? In fact, your definition of a signal reminded me of somebody's definition of a model: "anything that transforms some input into some output". Define what a model is too narrowly, and you are going to miss some important stuff that is going on (in practice, sometimes one encounters ridiculous stuff like "if it is implemented in Excel, and contains at least one VLOOKUP, ..."). Define what a model is too broadly, and you are going to run into trouble with your model inventory. One has to constantly juggle with several definitions, in order not to miss important signals (coming back to your topic) but also not to drown in noise.
If I'm not too far off, your discussion makes intuitive sense to me - a non-expert. By which I mean, suppose we are analyzing the VAERS reports on the current pneumonia vaccine. It was not really new technology, it was delivered to magnitudes fewer persons, it was not associated with extreme stress and coercion, the demographics were comparatively limited, etc. So compared to the total number of pneumonia shots given, was there a safety signal in VAERS? There could have been, but the overall magnitude of VAERS reporting across all vaccines was not noticeably affected. Or was it? No army of substack writers ever looked at that or any other prior vaccine. With these C19 jab rollouts so very compressed in time to such an enormous number of people, in circumstances unlike any other vaccine in history - there really is nothing to compare it to. It's like an impulse function in the VAERS database.
I was mesmerised by Tom Renz at Senator Johnson's shindig. He chews gum like he's taken cheap coke. Not that this means it affects his work, I mean I'm sure Alex Murdoch was just doing it all wrong. I remember thinking whilst looking at Pfizer's phase II data that the heart attacks in the placebo group was higher than in the general population.
I think the trials were fudged, in that the placebo group got empty LNPs, and that this caused it's own particular kind of damage. The ONS have just released mortality by vaccination status here in the UK, they have managed to make the vaccine seem ok. Not sure how they managed it, it doesn't look very pretty.
Most of it is over my head, but what you are describing makes more sense when I think of it in terms of trying to solve an engineering or manufacturing problem. Only a properly designed testing paradigm provides a useful signal to give you an idea of (a) how to solve the problem, and (b) if you are moving in the right direction with your solution.
Sounds like you could be saying a spurious, non definitive, safety signal is based on a spurious correlation, even when correctly done. Thus, statistical significance is not enough. Or, one can mathematically prove that which is incorrect, if you're not careful. And that the other side could use this against you.
I think your biggest problem is and has been the Dunning Kruger effect.
By the way, forgive me, but have you done an article specifically dedicated to the apparent rise in excess deaths among young people promoted by e.g. Ed Dowd? If you have, do you remember the title?
You'll need to understand sooner rather than later that this isn't going to be solved in courts and all the statistical analysis you are doing is almost pointless. Those who know what the issue is know it already. Those that don't won't be convinced by any of your analysis. It's common sense. If any of these would work this would be the first totalitarian regime to fall due to evidence presented in courts against its actions. Keep dreaming...
Thanks, Mathew. Though I know little of statistics, I have greater clarity. The signs are too cool, especially the fornicating rabbits.
Awesome. You'll be interested to know that they absolutely chopped the cancer and CJD numbers this past update. This hasn't happened to this degree since the whole thing started and it's really noticeable. I keep an eye on the CJD numbers specifically since, well, you know, brain eating and stuff, and this really is a red flag. Not only is the reduction a red flag because WHY, but the fact that the CDC and FDA are saying nothing about these reports to VAERS is of course, more like the evidence we need for court. Writing a Substack on something else now but will mention on Twitter.
"Think of safety signals like clues that are themselves only helpful as pointers to where to look for more solid evidence." I'm a lawyer and I understand that perfectly. The actual evidence is what (presumably) produces the safety signal in the first place, not the other way around. Most people can't understand much beyond the surface, and there are certainly plenty of dumb/shallow lawyers out there. The real work is just too hard.
You are doing the real work. Hang in there. And there's a point where if you go so far as to sacrifice your own health, it's all for naught. So say no once in a while and take care of yourself first.
Reading you is like going to a distant planet. Worth the effort on occasion.
So, this is what I, a person who is mathematically ignorant think, and please disagree
a 'signal' is a pointer at something that needs further study, a deeper analysis of context
a 'model' is not the thing itself, which is why they are so often dead wrong
the problem with statistics in the context of Covid is that it is all manipulated for a sinister purpose
that purpose is to cover up the truth because those actually pulling the levers want to remain anonymous
at the beginning of the pandemic, Anonymous published a very long epistle, the gist of which was this: the people making the vaccines are the same people making the virus
There probably isn't an algorithm or a signal for that except that horrible gut feeling that makes you want to crawl into bed and never get up again
I am involved in financial modelling. One of the hot topics in recent years has been the classification and validation of models. First question has to be: "What is a model"? In fact, your definition of a signal reminded me of somebody's definition of a model: "anything that transforms some input into some output". Define what a model is too narrowly, and you are going to miss some important stuff that is going on (in practice, sometimes one encounters ridiculous stuff like "if it is implemented in Excel, and contains at least one VLOOKUP, ..."). Define what a model is too broadly, and you are going to run into trouble with your model inventory. One has to constantly juggle with several definitions, in order not to miss important signals (coming back to your topic) but also not to drown in noise.
Your ability to access this information and data is fascinating. Way over my head even when you simplify, but I still enjoy trying to follow along. 😁
If I'm not too far off, your discussion makes intuitive sense to me - a non-expert. By which I mean, suppose we are analyzing the VAERS reports on the current pneumonia vaccine. It was not really new technology, it was delivered to magnitudes fewer persons, it was not associated with extreme stress and coercion, the demographics were comparatively limited, etc. So compared to the total number of pneumonia shots given, was there a safety signal in VAERS? There could have been, but the overall magnitude of VAERS reporting across all vaccines was not noticeably affected. Or was it? No army of substack writers ever looked at that or any other prior vaccine. With these C19 jab rollouts so very compressed in time to such an enormous number of people, in circumstances unlike any other vaccine in history - there really is nothing to compare it to. It's like an impulse function in the VAERS database.
I was mesmerised by Tom Renz at Senator Johnson's shindig. He chews gum like he's taken cheap coke. Not that this means it affects his work, I mean I'm sure Alex Murdoch was just doing it all wrong. I remember thinking whilst looking at Pfizer's phase II data that the heart attacks in the placebo group was higher than in the general population.
I think the trials were fudged, in that the placebo group got empty LNPs, and that this caused it's own particular kind of damage. The ONS have just released mortality by vaccination status here in the UK, they have managed to make the vaccine seem ok. Not sure how they managed it, it doesn't look very pretty.
Most of it is over my head, but what you are describing makes more sense when I think of it in terms of trying to solve an engineering or manufacturing problem. Only a properly designed testing paradigm provides a useful signal to give you an idea of (a) how to solve the problem, and (b) if you are moving in the right direction with your solution.
Great post, very nicely explained. Gotta love first principles.
Sounds like you could be saying a spurious, non definitive, safety signal is based on a spurious correlation, even when correctly done. Thus, statistical significance is not enough. Or, one can mathematically prove that which is incorrect, if you're not careful. And that the other side could use this against you.
I found this interesting. But maybe I just wanted to see a safety signal! https://usmortality.substack.com/p/10-epidemiological-charts-for-historic
I think your biggest problem is and has been the Dunning Kruger effect.
By the way, forgive me, but have you done an article specifically dedicated to the apparent rise in excess deaths among young people promoted by e.g. Ed Dowd? If you have, do you remember the title?
Thank you!
Imagine a vaccine that doubles all side effects compared to “all previous vaccines”. the prr ratio will not show any anomaly.
You'll need to understand sooner rather than later that this isn't going to be solved in courts and all the statistical analysis you are doing is almost pointless. Those who know what the issue is know it already. Those that don't won't be convinced by any of your analysis. It's common sense. If any of these would work this would be the first totalitarian regime to fall due to evidence presented in courts against its actions. Keep dreaming...