American Healthcare continues to go backward

[steross]

I stopped reading right here, "However, the impact of the expanded schedule on children’s overall health remains uncertain." It's the second sentence. A 99% decrease in the annual morbidity from measles is a pretty freaking certain impact on children's overall health.

You are missing half the fun.

The authors are from the "Chalfont Research Institute" which has no website and the address is the lead author's house. It is a charity with $465 in assets. The study claims "peer review" but isn't on medline or pubmed.

You would not even need to look at the methods to know this is garbage. But, if you do look at the methods, it is even more clear this is garbage.

 

[steross]

As thimerosal use has decreased, autism rates have increased. If there were a close causal link between them you would expect them to go in the same direction, for autism rates to decrease as thimerosal use decreased. But that simply isn't the case.

Sounds like we need to start adding thimerosal to more stuff to get rid of Autism.

 

[RxCowboy]

You are missing half the fun.

The authors are from the "Chalfont Research Institute" which has no website and the address is the lead author's house. It is a charity with $465 in assets. The study claims "peer review" but isn't on medline or pubmed.

You would not even need to look at the methods to know this is garbage. But, if you do look at the methods, it is even more clear this is garbage.

I skimmed through it and came to this:


They're treating the odds ratio as if it is a parametric measure (with a mean and standard deviation), but it isn't. You would have to use non-parametric methods to calculate the p-value, not base the p-value on a Z-score, because a Z-score makes no sense without a mean and standard deviation. They even have it set up as, essentially, a series of chi-squares. Doing a series of repeated statistical analyses, rather than a single analysis with sub-group procedures to determine where differences lie, increases the risk of type 1 error (false positive). And low and behold they have a mess of false positive.

Use the wrong statistical methods and you'll get the wrong results every time. This is stuff that any third year pharmacy or med student should be able to see through.

 

[steross]

I skimmed through it and came to this:
View attachment 9889

They're treating the odds ratio as if it is a parametric measure (with a mean and standard deviation), but it isn't. You would have to use non-parametric methods to calculate the p-value, not base the p-value on a Z-score, because a Z-score makes no sense without a mean and standard deviation. They even have it set up as, essentially, a series of chi-squares. Doing a series of repeated statistical analyses, rather than a single analysis with sub-group procedures to determine where differences lie, increases the risk of type 1 error (false positive). And low and behold they have a mess of false positive.

Use the wrong statistical methods and you'll get the wrong results every time. This is stuff that any third year pharmacy or med student should be able to see through.

Yep.

And, the method show that even if the kid's problem preceded the vaccination, the kid was put in the vaccine group. Pretty scary stuff that the vaccines can cause problems in children before they are even given.

 

[RxCowboy]

Yep.

And, the method show that even if the kid's problem preceded the vaccination, the kid was put in the vaccine group. Pretty scary stuff that the vaccines can cause problems in children before they are even given.

That's like thimerosal causing more autism as we've quit using it.

 

[RxCowboy]

Yep.

And, the method show that even if the kid's problem preceded the vaccination, the kid was put in the vaccine group. Pretty scary stuff that the vaccines can cause problems in children before they are even given.

I went back and reread the methods just to make sure that I wasn't missing something, but here it is in black and white. They talk about means and standard deviations, but never define "mean what". Unless they were sampling multiple populations and creating a mean odds ratio (which would make no sense), there is no mean. Children are either vaccinated or unvaccinated, and either have an ASD diagnosis or not. There is no mean number of vaccinations or mean ASD score. They either just made up the statistics or had no clue what they were doing with them.

 

[cowboyinexile]

I went back and reread the methods just to make sure that I wasn't missing something, but here it is in black and white. They talk about means and standard deviations, but never define "mean what". Unless they were sampling multiple populations and creating a mean odds ratio (which would make no sense), there is no mean. Children are either vaccinated or unvaccinated, and either have an ASD diagnosis or not. There is no mean number of vaccinations or mean ASD score. They either just made up the statistics or had no clue what they were doing with them.
View attachment 9895

85% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Also if your statistician is good enough you can prove anything.

 

[cowboyinexile]

The director of the FBI doing important work

 

[UpGrayedd Double Dose]

85% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Also if your statistician is good enough you can prove anything.

And 82.4% of people believe them whether they're accurate statistics or not.

 

[Bowers3]

And 82.4% of people believe them whether they're accurate statistics or not.

Great reference.

 

[cowboyinexile]

And 82.4% of people believe them whether they're accurate statistics or not.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

-Abraham Lincoln

 

[HacklemanPoke]

The director of the FBI doing important work

View attachment 9896

I just read an article today where scientists at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in NY have some incredible early results w a small mRNA vaccine trial for pancreatic cancer. If results hold how many of these anti mRNA would be first in line?

 

[Bowers3]

And 82.4% of people believe them whether they're accurate statistics or not.

I don’t know what you believe but I do know that there’s no doubt. I’ll take another double shot of somethin’ 90 proof. I’ve got too much to think about.

 

[cowboyinexile]

I just read an article today where scientists at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in NY have some incredible early results w a small mRNA vaccine trial for pancreatic cancer. If results hold how many of these anti mRNA would be first in line?

It could be the future of medicine. Someone on the old board compared it to what transistor radios are to computers today. I could see that. People who are against it are basically the same as people using leeches to get rid of bad humors 800 years ago. Probably worse actually because at least back then people thought they were helping. Now it's less about doing what they think is smart and more about profiting off the people they can manipulate.

 

[RxCowboy]

This is idiotic:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1892777747241427347

 

[RxCowboy]

85% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Also if your statistician is good enough you can prove anything.

The question is, can you prove anything that a third year med or pharm student can't see through. In this particular case the answer is "no".