A window in to the evil that is the trans grooming movement
(cutdowntree.substack.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (51)
sorted by:
Additionally there was a recent study that was widely reported to show "gender affirmation treatment" as being effective for teenagers. The problem with it is that the untreated side of the study had like 90% attrition, so the study couldn't show anything either way. They didn't even try to explain the attrition; they just ignored it all together. Maybe they left the study so they could get "girl juice" elsewhere or maybe they naturally desisted (as most teenagers do if you leave them alone and don't pump them full of hormones).
The studies will (almost) always support the regime. We saw this with masks and ivermectin. Masks studies always showed a small positive effect within the margin of error. Early on there was that Dutch (I think) study that showed masks didn't work to protect the wearer. It was widely criticized. Funnily it actually shows a small positive effect within the margin of error, but the conclusion was masks don't work. Thereafter any study with a small positive effect within the margin of error would have a conclusion that states masks work well. Even with the effect always being small and positive you can't draw any conclusions because you don't see the studies that aren't published.
IVM was the opposite of masks. Almost all studies (including those used by NIH to conclude IVM doesn't work) showed a strong positive effect but within the margin of error because the studies were always wildly underpowered. But an effect within the margin of error was suddenly not good enough because the science will always agree with the regime.
Climate change. Glyphosates. Anything. The science will always agree with the regime. And the regime will agree with what gives them power (including agreeing with corporations that their wildly profitable products are indeed safe). Remember the 80s food pyramid? Again, the studies actually showed that high carb diets were bad but the conclusions said they were good. It only fell apart because everyone got fat and diabetic. 'Eat the wheat' was the original 'eat the bugs.'
There’s been a lot of discussion about just how rotten the academy is in terms of research. You can’t just trust the papers abstract or conclusions because often enough, either through malice or incompetence, the published data is the opposite of what the authors conclude.
oh god yeah, you had that dutch study on the effectiveness of the vaccine against omicron, and it was showing negative effectiveness after 2 months
In the discussion/conclusion they were clearly forced to come up with excuses for why that was, how it was maybe changed and risky behavior in the vaccinated, and how its still valuable and useful at the current schedule...