Yes, it was extremely irresponsible to even include that data in the study (which really implied 100% as you correctly pointed out, since no viable pregnancy could have completed in that time-frame).
I wonder why all of the studies on v-safe data are so bad? Are they purposefully giving it to incompetent researchers? The statistical mistakes you pointed out are things you should know not to do even with high school math. Anybody with first-year statistics should for sure know not to do these things.
Really, just adding up percentages calculated with changing numerators.... I bet if they reached a result of 150% they would not have realized something is seriously wrong with their calculation.
Do you need any statistical background to be a medical researchers? I guess the big clue is that they will claim a treatment "shows no benefit" when reaching an outcome of RR = 0.6 p=0.051
Correct. I would hate to think that, having access to the later data in June when they published, they had advance knowledge of the upcoming rates and consciously or subconsciously made a calculation that was in keeping with the later raw data that they had in front of them
Confirmation bias on the part of good actors ?? Possible тАж. But birth rates have plummeted. What about all the high misscairage rates and still births we have heard about from nurses and OBGYNS?
I find it difficult to believe Naomi wolfe and her team are a limited hangout. Stew peters yes. Have you contacted all the Relevent Substack writers as well as ICAN and Childrens health defense ?
Indeed the 82% was incorrect as I've explained, but I suspect a limited hangout started that one
Yes, it was extremely irresponsible to even include that data in the study (which really implied 100% as you correctly pointed out, since no viable pregnancy could have completed in that time-frame).
I wonder why all of the studies on v-safe data are so bad? Are they purposefully giving it to incompetent researchers? The statistical mistakes you pointed out are things you should know not to do even with high school math. Anybody with first-year statistics should for sure know not to do these things.
Really, just adding up percentages calculated with changing numerators.... I bet if they reached a result of 150% they would not have realized something is seriously wrong with their calculation.
Do you need any statistical background to be a medical researchers? I guess the big clue is that they will claim a treatment "shows no benefit" when reaching an outcome of RR = 0.6 p=0.051
"I bet if they reached a result of 150% they would not have realized something is seriously wrong with their calculation." - correct!
I'm unsure who these people are but I do know their methodology is seriously flaky and the fact that they are not responding to requests is of concern
The funny thing is that they inflated the risk and reached a concerningly high value but still said "it's all good"
Correct. I would hate to think that, having access to the later data in June when they published, they had advance knowledge of the upcoming rates and consciously or subconsciously made a calculation that was in keeping with the later raw data that they had in front of them
Confirmation bias on the part of good actors ?? Possible тАж. But birth rates have plummeted. What about all the high misscairage rates and still births we have heard about from nurses and OBGYNS?
I find it difficult to believe Naomi wolfe and her team are a limited hangout. Stew peters yes. Have you contacted all the Relevent Substack writers as well as ICAN and Childrens health defense ?