posted on Apr, 23 2021 @ 01:03 PM
a reply to: fiverx313
The issue I have with studies like this is not that the studies are being done... as you say, information is important. It is rather that there is no
explanation given. I can accept a correlation, but that then brings up another question: are the deaths the result of the virus, is the virus the
result of an impending death, is another metric causing both, or is it simple coincidence? All of these are possible. Some appear to be less likely
than others, but one cannot simply dismiss a possibility without investigating it thoroughly.
I've used this example before: If I go out in my front yard waving turkey feathers every day at 4:00 PM and then notice that the sun sets every day
shortly after 4:00 PM. I could claim a correlation between waving turkey feathers at 4:00 PM and the sun setting. Of course, that correlation would be
biased; the sun will set shortly after 4:00 PM whether I wave turkey feathers or not. I could, however, conduct a study in Alaska during the summer
months where I didn't wave turkey feathers and the sun didn't set, using that as my control. I could then write all that up, grease the appropriate
palms, and actually have a reasonable chance of getting my paper published.
Yeah, it's an extreme example, but it showcases the reason we have a scientific method as well as why studies need to be repeatable and data must be
easily available for re-analysis. Without those controls, my silly little study could actually lead to people all standing out in their front yards at
4:00 PM waving turkey feathers to bring on night. And of course, we all know that waving turkey feathers has absolutely no effect on the planet
spinning in orbit.
Science history is rife with similar examples, some just as silly based on knowledge we have today.
Just saying "you are more likely to die after getting the Chinese virus" really doesn't say anything other than "we need more funding to keep
researching." I would have more interest if the causes of death were better categorized and analyzed. As it is, I see this as akin to saying that
somehow the Chinese virus "sucks the life force out" of those who contact it. OK, so what is a "life-force"? Not having an answer to that question
means we might as well be talking about magic potions and waving magic wands.
I do hope these researchers get more funding; I would really like to see an explanation for their findings. This deserves more study, if just to
uncover a hidden bias. But until more information comes to light, I am skeptical.