BigData Analysis of 145 Countries Shows C-19 Vaccines Caused More Deaths Than Using No Vaccines

a reply to: Ksihkehe

I'm saying that a correlation between 2020 and 2022 is going to be pointless because of all the lurking variables. Yet not only is this "study" attempting to compare them they're trying to claim the differences are due to one specific variable when they're not controlling for the thousands of other lurking variables.

The pandemic was already happening in January of 2020

Even if that were the case, that data still isn't going to be contained in the data set that's being analyzed. So for the sake of this study, it took the pandemic several months to gear up in 2020.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: RazorV66
Funny it’s always the same 3 or 4 members that carry water for these sketchy “vaccines”
Why is that?
One member posts a slamming reply 5 minutes after the OP posted the thread and they couldn’t possibly have read through the source link that fast.
Agenda much?

The source has been thoroughly debunked so now you move on to having a go at others?

Agenda??! Like the OP hasn't got one?

LOL!

Debunked by who? You and the other “vaccine” shareholders?
I am not saying it’s true or false, but I am saying that you guys will defend the “vaccine” at all costs…and that is a freaking agenda.
Especially when the “vaccine” doesn’t do a damn thing to help anyone.

Your claim, you prove it. And please actually read the source and the thread. And perhaps challenge, with some evidence, how it has been pointed out how the source is, at best, not credible.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Ksihkehe

You haven't read it but still you have an opinion about it?

Deny Ignorance, People!

🙄🧐

I didn't offer an opinion on it, haven't read it all the way through.

I'm asking where the ethics violations are so I can look at them. Why bother reading the whole thing if it's unethical bunk, I'm sure somebody can just point it out for me. Right?

They already have. Did you not read this thread either?

Improper citation is not grounds for an ethics violation from a atudent, students make mistakes all the time. Is there something deliberate in the text?

I want to know where they made deliberate efforts to make it appear that uninvolved parties were authors. Using messed up citations isn't an ethics violation outside academia. If they quoted and cited, no matter how they did it, I don't know what the issue is. Saying it violates ethics is a big deal, not a small thing.

Has anybody claimed this was peer-reviewed? Was it suggested? Half the people here, being generous, that request peer-reviewed studies for everything have no idea what they're even looking at. They have no idea what it means.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Ksihkehe

You haven't read it but still you have an opinion about it?

Deny Ignorance, People!

🙄🧐

I didn't offer an opinion on it, haven't read it all the way through.

I'm asking where the ethics violations are so I can look at them. Why bother reading the whole thing if it's unethical bunk, I'm sure somebody can just point it out for me. Right?

They already have. Did you not read this thread either?

Improper citation is not grounds for an ethics violation from a atudent, students make mistakes all the time. Is there something deliberate in the text?

I want to know where they made deliberate efforts to make it appear that uninvolved parties were authors. Using messed up citations isn't an ethics violation outside academia. If they quoted and cited, no matter how they did it, I don't know what the issue is. Saying it violates ethics is a big deal, not a small thing.

Has anybody claimed this was peer-reviewed? Was it suggested? Half the people here, being generous, that request peer-reviewed studies for everything have no idea what they're even looking at. They have no idea what it means.

Have you actually read the source yet?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Ksihkehe

I'm saying that a correlation between 2020 and 2022 is going to be pointless because of all the lurking variables. Yet not only is this "study" attempting to compare them they're trying to claim the differences are due to one specific variable when they're not controlling for the thousands of other lurking variables.

More gold.

You just described pretty much every study and every narrative that's been pushed for COVID for the past two years.

Go back two years and you will find the term "confounding factors" in some of my posts. I'm glad everybody is coming around now.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

You want us to trawl back to your posts 2 years ago?

It doesn't work like that.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Ksihkehe

You haven't read it but still you have an opinion about it?

Deny Ignorance, People!

🙄🧐

I didn't offer an opinion on it, haven't read it all the way through.

I'm asking where the ethics violations are so I can look at them. Why bother reading the whole thing if it's unethical bunk, I'm sure somebody can just point it out for me. Right?

They already have. Did you not read this thread either?

Improper citation is not grounds for an ethics violation from a atudent, students make mistakes all the time. Is there something deliberate in the text?

I want to know where they made deliberate efforts to make it appear that uninvolved parties were authors. Using messed up citations isn't an ethics violation outside academia. If they quoted and cited, no matter how they did it, I don't know what the issue is. Saying it violates ethics is a big deal, not a small thing.

Has anybody claimed this was peer-reviewed? Was it suggested? Half the people here, being generous, that request peer-reviewed studies for everything have no idea what they're even looking at. They have no idea what it means.

Have you actually read the source yet?

I'm not playing this game. I asked a simple question.

Either it can be answered or not. I'm fine just harvesting all the nuggets from the hypocritical COVID fiends in the thread.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Ksihkehe

You want us to trawl back to your posts 2 years ago?

It doesn't work like that.

Not literally, God help me.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

If you want to play, then just read what you are offering your opinion on it.

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Hello, please see the following communication:

independent, non-peer reviewed study posted on……..GitHub. NO primary sources, research method based on questionable 2020 data set.

On that alone, I am comfortable to discount this entire “study”.


Bahahahaha

***End Communication***

Interpretation:

"This headline about a study triggers me because it contradicts my confirmation bias and is proof I've been brainwashed beyond repair therefore I am comfortable to discount this entire study without reading any of it".

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Oh God....the irony!

I have not read the paper, nor do I have an opinion on it, but did I miss something?
This has been debunked? Where?

originally posted by: network dude
I have not read the paper, nor do I have an opinion on it, but did I miss something?
This has been debunked? Where?

Read the thread?

a reply to: Ksihkehe

I have no clue what you're talking about. At least you admit that the paper in the OP is just bad statistics.

originally posted by: network dude
I have not read the paper, nor do I have an opinion on it, but did I miss something?
This has been debunked? Where?

They cherry pick one quote, or attempt a red herring fallacy, or appeal to authority fallacy. Just flip a coin, and pick one.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: network dude
I have not read the paper, nor do I have an opinion on it, but did I miss something?
This has been debunked? Where?

They cherry pick one quote, or attempt a red herring fallacy, or appeal to authority fallacy. Just flip a coin, and pick one.

No actual answer, then?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: network dude
I have not read the paper, nor do I have an opinion on it, but did I miss something?
This has been debunked? Where?

They cherry pick one quote, or attempt a red herring fallacy, or appeal to authority fallacy. Just flip a coin, and pick one.

No actual answer, then?

No, you go ahead and debunk the whole thing using math and data. I'm not accepting your BS fallacies.

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: MDDoxs
independent, non-peer reviewed study posted on……..GitHub. NO primary sources, research method based on questionable 2020 data set.

On that alone, I am comfortable to discount this entire “study”.

If you had actually taken 2 seconds to look at the link, you'd see that the authors got their information from THIS, which is a widely trusted source of data relating to Covid-19.
Come on, at least try.

Ok if you consider 3 oxford graduates and 2 web developers a great source. This was an idea to help fight gloal warming and iniqualities in society. There affiliation with oxford is his former professor. They are a charity in the UK who apparently recently moved to silicon valley. No longer near oxford but still claims to be a UK charity. His claim to fame is a book he wrote in 2016 on income inequalities. I looked i couldnt find a published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Don't go by books. Any idiot can publish any idiotic thing in a book, as long as it will sell. Journals are stricter, however, and require facts.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: network dude
I have not read the paper, nor do I have an opinion on it, but did I miss something?
This has been debunked? Where?

They cherry pick one quote, or attempt a red herring fallacy, or appeal to authority fallacy. Just flip a coin, and pick one.

No actual answer, then?

No, you go ahead and debunk the whole thing using math and data. I'm not accepting your BS fallacies.

Me neither.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

That's the thing though. His paper falls apart before he even gets to the analysis. He breaks the cardinal rule of a correlation analysis. Correlation does not imply causation. And then, on top of that, he does nothing to control for the infinite number of lurking variables.

I don't know if undergrad poly sci students are required to learn statistics, but if I know if turned in a paper with as many foundational errors when I was a psyc undergrad it would've gotten an F.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The paper is garbage…period.