The 96% Doctor Vaxxed Lie

a reply to: seedofchucky

lol, are you serious? You must have a low opinion of people.

They mislead with the headline on purpose and put the information of sample size where most people don't read.

LOL what the heck are you taking about. Slide two, right in the middle. I highlighted it for you because obviously you couldnt find it easily.

a reply to: MDDoxs

You’re cracking me up dude. Along with all the others that vehemently support the ‘vaccines’.

You do understand they skipped animal trials, right?

You do also understand that it will be yearssss before anyone knows the true ramifications of the ‘vaccines’, right?

The cart before the horse and round and round we go…

originally posted by: MDDoxs

originally posted by: TheMirrorSelf

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: seedofchucky

Interesting little piece from Yale

The variability of a statistic is determined by the spread of its sampling distribution. In general, larger samples will have smaller variability. This is because as the sample size increases, the chance of observing extreme values decreases and the observed values for the statistic will group more closely around the mean of the sampling distribution. Furthermore, if the population size is significantly larger than the sample size, then the size of the population will not affect the variability of the sampling distribution (i.e., a sample of size 100 from a population of size 100,000 will have the same variability as a sample of size 100 from a population of size 1,000,000).

Link

Would you agree or disagree?

I would disagree. By that logic the most accurate studies would have a sample size of 1.

Lol, I laugh at you.

Never ceases to amaze me how fortunate we are to have so many big brain, 180+ IQ people on these boards.

I then challenge you to provide me with a academically accepted statically model that should have been used and why it is more accurate. I will wait.

Ummmm...no.

Quick edit: I do have a 180 IQ and graduated top in my class from West Point with a degree in Economics. Just sayin'...

a reply to: KKLOCO

Totally dude...you are soo right man.. How wrong we are.....The 5+ billion who have been vaccinated are dying off!!! Why oh why was there not animal trials!!

Zzz, you crack me up as well. So I guess we are mutually entertained.

Please stay on topic and make a comment about the OP. Do you agree with the method of sampling or sample size?

originally posted by: TheMirrorSelf

originally posted by: MDDoxs

originally posted by: TheMirrorSelf

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: seedofchucky

Interesting little piece from Yale

The variability of a statistic is determined by the spread of its sampling distribution. In general, larger samples will have smaller variability. This is because as the sample size increases, the chance of observing extreme values decreases and the observed values for the statistic will group more closely around the mean of the sampling distribution. Furthermore, if the population size is significantly larger than the sample size, then the size of the population will not affect the variability of the sampling distribution (i.e., a sample of size 100 from a population of size 100,000 will have the same variability as a sample of size 100 from a population of size 1,000,000).

Link

Would you agree or disagree?

I would disagree. By that logic the most accurate studies would have a sample size of 1.

Lol, I laugh at you.

Never ceases to amaze me how fortunate we are to have so many big brain, 180+ IQ people on these boards.

I then challenge you to provide me with a academically accepted statically model that should have been used and why it is more accurate. I will wait.

Ummmm...no.

Quick edit: I do have a 180 IQ and graduated top in my class from West Point with a degree in Economics. Just sayin'...

I cant tell if your playing along with the joke or not lol. Next you will tell me you have 50+ confirmed kills and are a navy seal.

Edit to keep this post on topic. So you have a IQ of 180 and a degree in economics and you wont reference a single statistical model that you feel would be more appropriate to help us understand how many doctors are vaccinated?

originally posted by: MDDoxs

originally posted by: TheMirrorSelf

originally posted by: MDDoxs

originally posted by: TheMirrorSelf

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: seedofchucky

Interesting little piece from Yale

The variability of a statistic is determined by the spread of its sampling distribution. In general, larger samples will have smaller variability. This is because as the sample size increases, the chance of observing extreme values decreases and the observed values for the statistic will group more closely around the mean of the sampling distribution. Furthermore, if the population size is significantly larger than the sample size, then the size of the population will not affect the variability of the sampling distribution (i.e., a sample of size 100 from a population of size 100,000 will have the same variability as a sample of size 100 from a population of size 1,000,000).

Link

Would you agree or disagree?

I would disagree. By that logic the most accurate studies would have a sample size of 1.

Lol, I laugh at you.

Never ceases to amaze me how fortunate we are to have so many big brain, 180+ IQ people on these boards.

I then challenge you to provide me with a academically accepted statically model that should have been used and why it is more accurate. I will wait.

Ummmm...no.

Quick edit: I do have a 180 IQ and graduated top in my class from West Point with a degree in Economics. Just sayin'...

I cant tell if your playing along with the joke or not lol. Next you will tell me you have 50+ confirmed kills and are a navy seal.

Edit to keep this post on topic. So you have a IQ of 180 and a degree in economics and you wont reference a single statistical model that you feel would be more appropriate to help us understand how many doctors are vaccinated?

That's right. Now you're catching on...

PS: It is 'an' IQ. You always use 'an' before a word beginning with a vowel. FYI

reminds me of laundry detergent.

I am surprised they aren't cleaner, whiter, and fresher smelling too.
OK. Maybe not whiter

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: MetalThunder

Lol what a joke, I would love to see the results they claim to have collected. The AMA clearly presented their data, while this periodical makes unsubstantiated claims.

Just so you know, I took a survey of 1 billion doctors and I got a vaccination rate of 99.999999999999%. I am not going to show you anything, just need to take my word for it.

Mock all you want but the result is propaganda if you take into consideration the AMA is known for lobbying and that doctors who are against the vaccines are likely to not fill out the survey. That's just human nature when put between rock and a hard place. The AMA is powerful and those unvaccinated doctors likely don't want to draw attention to themselves.

a reply to: sirlancelot

Yes, sample size is an issue, and in the current climate, it's rational to believe that those who are vaccinated are more willing to take the survey than those who are not, or those who are not are willing to lie on a survey about it.

Of course, with the mandates in the medical field, this could be accurate, but I doubt it. I do believe that it's probably close, though...I'd bet a pay check that it's above 90%.

They should have simply stated that when asked whether they took the vax 300 out of one million responded and 96% of those were affirmative.

The other 9,999,700 declined to respond.

That wouldn't fit their agenda would it. They bury the lead and lead with the agenda. Now why would that be?

Doctors also recommended:
smoking
avoiding fatty foods
losing weight
getting exercise
stop alcohol
flu shot

so, explain which recommendations you follow and which you ignore and why.
don't pretend you do everything the doctors say to do

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
They should have simply stated that when asked whether they took the vax 300 out of one million responded and 96% of those were affirmative.

The other 9,999,700 declined to respond.

That wouldn't fit their agenda would it. They bury the lead and lead with the agenda. Now why would that be?

That would be a lie. You know what lying is right? Where are you pulling 9.9 million declined to respond? Did you even read the presentation?

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: sirlancelot

So let me get this straight, you think this information is propaganda because it doesn't meet your non-expert opinion on an effective sample size? You do realize that is exactly the stance the anti-vaccination crowd takes right?

So are you saying the anecdotal and small study reports the anti-vaccination crowd references is also propaganda?

if we need to follow the science, we need to be sure the science is good
that sample size was really small compared to the total population of doctors

One aspect of a survey is the number of surveys sent out to hit the desired surveys received as a percent of the population. I could not find anywhere how many surveys where sent out to get 300 surveys. That number would be telling to me.

Like if they only sent out 1000 and got 300 we are looking at 30% response rate...pretty good from what I hear. Now if they sent out 10,000 to get 300 well that 3% response is not so good and telling.

Another thing that is unclear is who the survey was sent out to and how. Like was in totally random from the entire database or was there filtering?

It is misleading to propagate the 96% Doc vaxed based on this survey!

a reply to: Stevenmonet

a reply to: sirlancelot
America has a population of a 500 Million? 300 million? surveys are pointless. When they only poll 1000k.

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: KKLOCO

Totally dude...you are soo right man.. How wrong we are.....The 5+ billion who have been vaccinated are dying off!!! Why oh why was there not animal trials!!

Zzz, you crack me up as well. So I guess we are mutually entertained.

Please stay on topic and make a comment about the OP. Do you agree with the method of sampling or sample size?

5 billion vaccinated?pull the other one,5 billion doses ordered does not mean 5 billion vaccinated.
For example the UK ordered over 500 million doses but has a population of 70 million.
See how that works?
Big claims require big proof,show me a source for 5 billion vaccinated.

a reply to: glen200376

I see you are as sharp as a tree stump. Sarcasm - a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual

Do you agree with the sampling method and sample size done by the AMA?

a reply to: MDDoxs

Yep I stand corrected they sent a million not ten million so 999,700 out of 1,000,000 didn't respond and 96% of the three hundred are fully vaxxed.


According to the survey.

Less than .1% of those sent a survey responded. Wonder why? I can do an email blast today and get .5% to respond to their favorite dog so what gives?

Could it be that they simply don't wish to be on any list as being unvaxxed so simply don't respond?

Enquiring minds want to know!

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: seedofchucky

Interesting little piece from Yale

The variability of a statistic is determined by the spread of its sampling distribution. In general, larger samples will have smaller variability. This is because as the sample size increases, the chance of observing extreme values decreases and the observed values for the statistic will group more closely around the mean of the sampling distribution. Furthermore, if the population size is significantly larger than the sample size, then the size of the population will not affect the variability of the sampling distribution (i.e., a sample of size 100 from a population of size 100,000 will have the same variability as a sample of size 100 from a population of size 1,000,000).

Link

Would you agree or disagree?

What that means is given two large populations, and a true random sample, you would get similar variability taking the same size sample. What it doesn't mean is that a SURVEY with 300 respondents even remotely represents the population of physicians.

Data science is roughly 75% of my daily job.

a reply to: Halfswede

*cough*

Okay, if you say so...