Scientific Doctrine Holds That Causality Must Be Assumed if Healthy People “Die Suddenly” After the COVID Vaccines. Follow the Science.

[munkle]

Nuff said.


Scientific Doctrine Holds That Causality Must Be Assumed if Healthy People “Die Suddenly” After the COVID Vaccines. Follow the Science.

Scientific Doctrine Holds That Causality Must Be Assumed if Healthy People “Die Suddenly” After the COVID Vaccines. Follow the Science.

"The Bradford Hill Criteria were established in 1965 by the English epidemiologist Sir Austin Bradford Hill, to provide epidemiologic evidence of a causal relationship between a presumed cause and an observed effect. The criteria merely breaks down, elegantly, a thought process for determining if Event A causes Event B following it. Does it happen a lot? Are there any other good explanations for Event B? Is Event A something new? Is there is a plausible mechanism for what is taking place?

In the case of death and debilitation following the COVID vaccines, Dr. Peter McCullough and other doctors and scientists argue, the answers are all yes.

But others argue that this makes very complicated what should be simple. If you take something new that you have never taken before and then are hurt or nearly die, you don’t take that thing again. Food allergists work on assumptions all the time, and make connections. Conversely, for decades the tobacco industry argued that there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer.

Even a rat, an alpha rat, lives longer than most of the other rats in the colony by observing if rats die after feeding from a particular food source. If the junior rats die, it will not take the poisoned bait. No one can assure the rat that there is no causal link, or something now called SARDS – Sudden Adult Rat Death Syndrome. It gives pause to know that rats were here many millions of years before humans, and will be here millions of years after."

 

[Confederate Soldier]

If millions of people got vaxxed, I would expect millions of people to get the same reactions/die the same way. It isn't happening, so I'll remain skeptical.

 

[White 6]

Nuff said.


Scientific Doctrine Holds That Causality Must Be Assumed if Healthy People “Die Suddenly” After the COVID Vaccines. Follow the Science.

Scientific Doctrine Holds That Causality Must Be Assumed if Healthy People “Die Suddenly” After the COVID Vaccines. Follow the Science.

"The Bradford Hill Criteria were established in 1965 by the English epidemiologist Sir Austin Bradford Hill, to provide epidemiologic evidence of a causal relationship between a presumed cause and an observed effect. The criteria merely breaks down, elegantly, a thought process for determining if Event A causes Event B following it. Does it happen a lot? Are there any other good explanations for Event B? Is Event A something new? Is there is a plausible mechanism for what is taking place?

In the case of death and debilitation following the COVID vaccines, Dr. Peter McCullough and other doctors and scientists argue, the answers are all yes.

But others argue that this makes very complicated what should be simple. If you take something new that you have never taken before and then are hurt or nearly die, you don’t take that thing again. Food allergists work on assumptions all the time, and make connections. Conversely, for decades the tobacco industry argued that there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer.

Even a rat, an alpha rat, lives longer than most of the other rats in the colony by observing if rats die after feeding from a particular food source. If the junior rats die, it will not take the poisoned bait. No one can assure the rat that there is no causal link, or something now called SARDS – Sudden Adult Rat Death Syndrome. It gives pause to know that rats were here many millions of years before humans, and will be here millions of years after."

Another in the endless Covid anti vaccine posts of yours. We get it. You think the vaccines are bad for everybody, though many of us doing just fine and initials, first and seconds, etc.

It is unlikely you are changing any minds anymore. We're just going to keep on living anyway. Have fun with your hobby.

 

[Death-Ninja]

If millions of people got vaxxed, I would expect millions of people to get the same reactions/die the same way. It isn't happening, so I'll remain skeptical.

You are one fucking dumb shit, Biden Booster up and happy fucking trails to you....

 

[Confederate Soldier]

You are one fucking dumb shit, Biden Booster up and happy fucking trails to you....

I've not had a vaccination in well over ten years. I'm just saying, hundreds of millions got it, why aren't hundreds of millions dead, or at least experiencing the same types of symptoms.

 

[luiza]

If millions of people got vaxxed, I would expect millions of people to get the same reactions/die the same way. It isn't happening, so I'll remain skeptical.

What you expect or do not expect is completely irrelevant . Science based results come from employing the scientific process .

With the Spike Protein moving to every organ and including the brain , the statement that
" I would expect millions of people to get the same reactions/ die the same way", is absurd .

That is the type of loose and unscientific thinking that this subject does not need .

I am of course not even referring to a final conclusion -- rather the methodology used to search for valid conclusions .And it most certainly is not the one you refer to .

 

[sparky]

Ironic that big pharma and their CDC/FDA b*tches are being confronted by the very same science they initially insisted on

~S~

 

[mak2]

This is example of having a little (very little) knowledge being very dangerous. Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[luiza]

This is example of having a little (very little) knowledge being very dangerous. Correlation does not equal causation.

A strange comment . Of course one does not equal the other . Otherwise they would not have different names !
You stated the obvious .

You need to acquaint yourself with the Bradford Hill criteria which represent an important scientific approach to understanding data implications and conclusions .
Most of the Universe is probabilistic in terms of explanation and we tend to agree that when you can scientifically demonstrate at least a 95% probability of of x and y being correlated , we can safely and sensibly express that relationship in terms of probable causality with that very necessary qualification -- that it will always happen in at least 95% of identical circumstances .

So you were right in one matter , that a little knowledge can be dangerous .

Don't be like the idiots who tell you that they have had over 300 killer shots and that they are feeling better than ever. And that this somehow proves that parsnips are blue and elephants are pink .
Totally misunderstanding the issue and making them appear very foolish to those who discuss matters seriously with intent to find the truth. .

 

[mak2]

A strange comment . Of course one does not equal the other . Otherwise they would not have different names !
You stated the obvious .

You need to acquaint yourself with the Bradford Hill criteria which represent an important scientific approach to understanding data implications and conclusions .
Most of the Universe is probabilistic in terms of explanation and we tend to agree that when you can scientifically demonstrate at least a 95% probability of of x and y being correlated , we can safely and sensibly express that relationship in terms of probable causality with that very necessary qualification -- that it will always happen in at least 95% of identical circumstances .

So you were right in one matter , that a little knowledge can be dangerous .

Don't be like the idiots who tell you that they have had over 300 killer shots and that they are feeling better than ever. And that this somehow proves that parsnips are blue and elephants are pink .
Totally misunderstanding the issue and making them appear very foolish to those who discuss matters seriously with intent to find the truth. .

In a masters program about all you really learn is how to critique a study. A significant part of that is causation v. correlation. Let's think about this. In Spain during the lock down traffic accidents dropped I beleive it was by about 80%. Does that mean to you COVID reduces accidents? Is it causation or correlation.

 

[luiza]

In a masters program about all you really learn is how to critique a study. A significant part of that is causation v. correlation. Let's think about this. In Spain during the lock down traffic accidents dropped I beleive it was by about 80%. Does that mean to you COVID reduces accidents? Is it causation or correlation.

You are making up hypotheses and then asking to discuss possible conclusions before conducting the research tests .

That is not using scientific process .

A primer course in Statistics and how to use them might interest you .

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Causation can never be assumed.

There is no science nor statistical doctrine that says otherwise.

 

[sparky]

Causation can never be assumed.

Not until correlated GG

THAT is how 'science' works

~S~

 

[Harpy Eagle]

A primer course in Statistics and how to use them might interest you .

You should take your own advice.

 

[mak2]

You are making up hypotheses and then asking to discuss possible conclusions before conducting the research tests .

That is not using scientific process .

A primer course in Statistics and how to use them might interest you.

In the case of death and debilitation following the COVID vaccines, Dr. Peter McCullough and other doctors and scientists argue, the answers are all yes.

But others argue that this makes very complicated what should be simple. If you take something new that you have never taken before and then are hurt or nearly die, you don’t take that thing again.


The cause is being assumed by so called doctors and scientist, you see where it makes that leap? It is not an argument, it is science.

 

[scruffy]

The concept you're looking for is (Bayesian) inference.

Estimated causality from unknown datasets is in fact derived from correlation, that's the Granger method.

There are certainly more computationally efficient methods. And there are methods that extract more information by processing the dataset in different ways.

I can show you how "our" brains do it, it's really quite interesting. We play episodes backwards, that's part of it.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

"With the Spike Protein moving to every organ and including the brain ..."

Oh wow, look! A doctor!

 

[luiza]

Oh wow, look! A doctor!

Brain cells starting to work?

.
I wrote in simple terms-- avoiding PEG , Graphene Oxide , heavy metal nano particles and AC2 receptors - to keep you awake .

 

[Confederate Soldier]

Brain cells starting to work?

.
I wrote in simple terms-- avoiding PEG , Graphene Oxide , heavy metal nano particles and AC2 receptors - to keep you awake .

You don't know ANYTHING about those. You just read what you find off of some WordPress site and accept it as gospel.

 

[Death-Ninja]

Oh wow, look! A doctor!

Denial will not be saving you, you submitted to those jabs then the likelihood is you are stone cold dead by or around 2025, anywhere from 36-60 months out from your injections, and that is not taking into account the very high probability that you have submitted to more than just two of the jabs, happy trails.....