04-17-2023, 06:22 PM
(04-17-2023, 05:38 PM)rothschild Wrote: The common thread is public health reporting of data. Again, I stated that what isn't reported can be more significant than what is. This is an example of the former, regarding data that is required by law to be reported, but wasn't. Given that approximately half of the participants dropped out of the trial with no explanation provided, and there is no mention of a participant ending up paralyzed, I think it's safe to say that the reporting of public health data is seriously compromised. VAERS reporting is another example of this, with only 2-5% of what is legally required being reported, without consequence.
Skewed methodologies provide skewed results, which reflects PR rather than science. This is why I accept nothing at face value.
Welcome to the world of Bayesian Statistical methodology and reporting!
"Let's see . . . a little cognitive bias and a tad of confirmation bias . . . plus affirming data and . . . Viola! The results we expected to prove our theory!"
Couldn't agree with you more.