I've ironically heard of this because I've seen it in movies and also I've had a chance to question a nationally recognized "expert" on some of his methodology and the guy was a moron who clearly had already decided an answer beforehand and made the data fit
I once worked on a clinical lab instrument which never touched a patient and simply automated a portion of a diagnostic process that had previously been manual. System failure would not result in the death of a patient because you could always fall back to doing the manual process (it just took longer).
The clinical trial for that system took 3 years despite it being in wide use (in non-clinical contexts) for over a decade.
I don't know whether or not this is true, but I always go back to how quickly the clinical trial for something that was going to be injected into the body was approved and executed. Something seemed off about the whole thing.
But they were able to speed up the all the checks and balances they normally have to do because of the ungodly amount of money we as taxpayers showered them with /s
I know you're joking, but it's a common argument that I wanted to comment on.
If you have a teacher who you know only skims over your essays, do you spend as much time on them as you do for the teacher who you know reads each one thoroughly?
That's the dynamic at play here: people respond to incentives, and if they're incentivized to do good work they will. If they aren't, they won't. It won't happen immediately, but that will be the trend.
Pfizer claimed the 2 weeks post vax is when someone is only considered "fully vaccinated". if someone caught covid within those 2 weeks after the vax [which was most likely], they moved those people into the "unvaccinated" data category.
We’ve all heard of the replication crisis in academia. But not many have heard how randomized control trials are also faked -
by choosing ANOTHER “endpoint” after the trial begins and the data looked bad…
And also by “unblinding” the control arm and giving the poison to everyone so long term effects can never be see (also done here)
Not a good sign they trust their answers.
I've ironically heard of this because I've seen it in movies and also I've had a chance to question a nationally recognized "expert" on some of his methodology and the guy was a moron who clearly had already decided an answer beforehand and made the data fit
I once worked on a clinical lab instrument which never touched a patient and simply automated a portion of a diagnostic process that had previously been manual. System failure would not result in the death of a patient because you could always fall back to doing the manual process (it just took longer).
The clinical trial for that system took 3 years despite it being in wide use (in non-clinical contexts) for over a decade.
I don't know whether or not this is true, but I always go back to how quickly the clinical trial for something that was going to be injected into the body was approved and executed. Something seemed off about the whole thing.
But they were able to speed up the all the checks and balances they normally have to do because of the ungodly amount of money we as taxpayers showered them with /s
I know you're joking, but it's a common argument that I wanted to comment on.
If you have a teacher who you know only skims over your essays, do you spend as much time on them as you do for the teacher who you know reads each one thoroughly?
That's the dynamic at play here: people respond to incentives, and if they're incentivized to do good work they will. If they aren't, they won't. It won't happen immediately, but that will be the trend.
As Chris Martenson of Peak Prosperity says: "show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcomes".
Not surprising but is there a better source? This guy is an investor.
Pfizer claimed the 2 weeks post vax is when someone is only considered "fully vaccinated". if someone caught covid within those 2 weeks after the vax [which was most likely], they moved those people into the "unvaccinated" data category.
It's actually worse IIRC.
They labeled treatment failures as "unvaxxed" for anyone that caught the rona until two weeks after their SECOND dose.
Thanks - I forgot that little fraud.
(that was especially true for people hiding at home until they went out and got the shot)
Pfizer deliberately sabotaged their own control group three months into the study.
Yes it means long term side effects will NEVER be uncovered. Its a nice strategy they used that reduces shareholder liability.
They say they are doing this “because it is inhumane to deprive the volunteers of the shot”
But never trust anyone who says it was long term tested.
But mRNA vaccine technology has been studied for decades /s
/eyeroll