Agreed. In my email to Steve and others, I said, "The larger point still remains: the CDC didn't give a crap whether there was anything wrong with the vaccines."
But it's probably the opposite, I don't see how this is not intentional by now. (And I was very, very slow to understand this is much worse than cutting corners for big pharma $.)
Meryl Nass said, in her careful way to not claim what she's not certain of, that we've made mistakes with vaccines before, and gives examples of times vaccines have been clearly harmful and then withdrawn. But if this was an error, that these "vaccines" were much more dangerous than they thought, they would have at least paused them long ago.
Then again, it's still incompetence, because whatever they were intentionally hiding, whatever the reason, they didn't hide it well enough that the heroes looking deep into the data couldn't find their bullshit ...
Oct 4, 2022·edited Oct 4, 2022Liked by Mathew Crawford
Hi Mathew,
Way beyond my knowledge of stats, but both a good indication of how clever liars can be (and as a predatory species, I am guessing there is a high correlation between 'clever' and 'capacity / willingness to lie), and the necessity of finding an even rarer breed, those capable of seeing through the dust thrown in our eyes, and with the moral autonomy to call it out.
Though no substitute for continuing education, I was just wondering if you have a favorite 'How to lie with statistics' book for the mathematically challenged?
I think that there is a correlation between cleverness and lies, as you say. But some of that is ingrained through progression into the Prussian education model and into the Mandarin class.
A healthier life involves a childhood in which minor vices (aggression, cheating, stealing, lies) are boundaries to be tested game theoretically while nature has it that empathy grows into place. After that, being capable of independence means having the freedom to choose. Independence from Moloch was always a priority for me.
Agreed Mathew. I understand that even the catch-all term of 'epigenetics' is not enough to mitigate the false horns of the nature-nurture 'debate', but something tells me that there is a big genetic influence on relatively stable temperamental traits, and the sociopaths leading the narrative would not have been fazed by either good parenting or good education practices. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I think you and I are birds of a feather.
Just got home from another disappointing day at a Tokyo public Jr. High, where a 'good teacher' is a micro-managing drill sergeant, and they still wonder why the students rarely become 'communicative' in English. (sigh) Blind to that forest-for-the-trees thingy.
And was wondering if you have a suggestion for a good book in mind along the lines of 'Protecting Yourself from Statistical Lies For Dummies'. That line-up on Amazon is pretty long.
I still have books and notes for grad school courses in education. But damn, those things are as dry as the coming autumn leaves. Whoever wrote the majority of stats books out there (ha, most books) have about as much a sense of humor as a typical religious text. Or maybe I was just cursed with the wrong name? 🤣
" And then I proved that it is impossible to trigger a PRR safety signal for some AE in the aggregate without it existing in at least one subgroup. I'll leave that as an exercise for the mathophiles in the audience except to say that there are multiple solutions and I think the easiest one uses Jensen's Inequality."
Not to dis your math skills but that sounds like a common sense problem. If we have ten batches of cookies we need chocolate chips in some individual batches for the whole group to have some chips. It won't ding my mathophile ego to learn there's a more complex element at play. :~)
There is more to it than that. The function needs to be either convex everywhere or concave everywhere, and the PRR is a four variable function. We could prove convexity/concavity per variable. We can also simplify a bit by holding c and d related to a and b through a constant. But there is still a bit of thinking involved for proof.
Should have poked around your writing and copy pasted the answer.. found it looking for something else but betcha a nickle you'd guess where it came from anyway!
I think Steve mentioned in his post last night that the variables should be capitalized, because they are in the table.
And I thought, "Maybe it is an accident, or maybe, just maybr, the lower case varmaybe, have another definition, thst they are a subset of the capitalized variables." I'd put nothing past the charlatans. Of course, I am getting old and my last mathematics course was almost 35 years ago in college, so I could be wrong. Of course, I am willing to admit I am wrong. And I'm not a murdering psychopath, so, by definition, I don't work for the CDC
That's why I am creating a synthetic placebo group. I figure out the prr's for all descriptors and assign vaccine specific weights to the descriptors in the reports of the reference groups.
Apologies for the several edits. My first writing was lazy.
Maybe this is not a math problem?
Maybe it is a psychopath problem?
Agreed. In my email to Steve and others, I said, "The larger point still remains: the CDC didn't give a crap whether there was anything wrong with the vaccines."
Yep .. Steve's article, as appears in the browser, says - https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/unassailable-proof-of-incompetence
But it's probably the opposite, I don't see how this is not intentional by now. (And I was very, very slow to understand this is much worse than cutting corners for big pharma $.)
Meryl Nass said, in her careful way to not claim what she's not certain of, that we've made mistakes with vaccines before, and gives examples of times vaccines have been clearly harmful and then withdrawn. But if this was an error, that these "vaccines" were much more dangerous than they thought, they would have at least paused them long ago.
Then again, it's still incompetence, because whatever they were intentionally hiding, whatever the reason, they didn't hide it well enough that the heroes looking deep into the data couldn't find their bullshit ...
I tried graphing their ethics and morality, but it ended up on the complex plane.
lol
😅
Haha, I just called them pyshcopaths, now I see your comment. Gotta laugh or you will cry.
numbers don't lie, but it's very important to understand what exactly they are saying...
Numbers don’t lie. But unfortunately they can be ignored, lied about, or otherwise obfuscated.
... and guns don't shoot people.
People lie. Sometimes they use numbers to do it.
Hi Mathew,
Way beyond my knowledge of stats, but both a good indication of how clever liars can be (and as a predatory species, I am guessing there is a high correlation between 'clever' and 'capacity / willingness to lie), and the necessity of finding an even rarer breed, those capable of seeing through the dust thrown in our eyes, and with the moral autonomy to call it out.
Though no substitute for continuing education, I was just wondering if you have a favorite 'How to lie with statistics' book for the mathematically challenged?
Cheers from Japan,
— another, more financially challenged, Steve 🤣
I think that there is a correlation between cleverness and lies, as you say. But some of that is ingrained through progression into the Prussian education model and into the Mandarin class.
A healthier life involves a childhood in which minor vices (aggression, cheating, stealing, lies) are boundaries to be tested game theoretically while nature has it that empathy grows into place. After that, being capable of independence means having the freedom to choose. Independence from Moloch was always a priority for me.
Cheers.
Agreed Mathew. I understand that even the catch-all term of 'epigenetics' is not enough to mitigate the false horns of the nature-nurture 'debate', but something tells me that there is a big genetic influence on relatively stable temperamental traits, and the sociopaths leading the narrative would not have been fazed by either good parenting or good education practices. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I think you and I are birds of a feather.
Just got home from another disappointing day at a Tokyo public Jr. High, where a 'good teacher' is a micro-managing drill sergeant, and they still wonder why the students rarely become 'communicative' in English. (sigh) Blind to that forest-for-the-trees thingy.
And was wondering if you have a suggestion for a good book in mind along the lines of 'Protecting Yourself from Statistical Lies For Dummies'. That line-up on Amazon is pretty long.
Cheers Matthew!
steve
I wish I had a book recommendation. I think that a basic education in stats plus life experience is the best protection.
Maybe I'll write one myself, sometime.
I still have books and notes for grad school courses in education. But damn, those things are as dry as the coming autumn leaves. Whoever wrote the majority of stats books out there (ha, most books) have about as much a sense of humor as a typical religious text. Or maybe I was just cursed with the wrong name? 🤣
— steve
" And then I proved that it is impossible to trigger a PRR safety signal for some AE in the aggregate without it existing in at least one subgroup. I'll leave that as an exercise for the mathophiles in the audience except to say that there are multiple solutions and I think the easiest one uses Jensen's Inequality."
Not to dis your math skills but that sounds like a common sense problem. If we have ten batches of cookies we need chocolate chips in some individual batches for the whole group to have some chips. It won't ding my mathophile ego to learn there's a more complex element at play. :~)
There is more to it than that. The function needs to be either convex everywhere or concave everywhere, and the PRR is a four variable function. We could prove convexity/concavity per variable. We can also simplify a bit by holding c and d related to a and b through a constant. But there is still a bit of thinking involved for proof.
Should have poked around your writing and copy pasted the answer.. found it looking for something else but betcha a nickle you'd guess where it came from anyway!
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/defining-away-vaccine-safety-signals
Cool 😎 I loved being taken through your work and thought process.
I think Steve mentioned in his post last night that the variables should be capitalized, because they are in the table.
And I thought, "Maybe it is an accident, or maybe, just maybr, the lower case varmaybe, have another definition, thst they are a subset of the capitalized variables." I'd put nothing past the charlatans. Of course, I am getting old and my last mathematics course was almost 35 years ago in college, so I could be wrong. Of course, I am willing to admit I am wrong. And I'm not a murdering psychopath, so, by definition, I don't work for the CDC
That's why I am creating a synthetic placebo group. I figure out the prr's for all descriptors and assign vaccine specific weights to the descriptors in the reports of the reference groups.
See here: https://help.pervaers.com
"Simpson's Paradox"....
Slowly I turn...step by step...inch by inch
In 2021, US aggregate mortality was only up 0.21% from 2020.
However, 85+ y.o. mortality was DOWN 14% in 2021 from 2020 and
working age mortality was up 18% from 2020
The 2021 US working age mortality was up a massive 30% from 2019.
Can you use these figures somehow, Crawford?