Lies, damn lies, and…statistics. That is what I was taught when I learned, but what I most assuredly can say, was a stats class in which we were encouraged to think. I had the opportunity to teach a class last fall at the uni from which I graduated, and I was kind of shocked that these kids didn’t know how many centimetres were in a metre. Really? This is Canada.
Love your post. Thank you, Toby. Keep fighting the good fight.
Please everyone watch, read and share. The kids on Tic Toc are exposing the pedos, who 99% of the adults are cheering for. How sad that they've have to take this into their hands. Please put your 'feeling' about Trump aside; I'm not promoting politics, I did not vote for the guy, but now I UNDERSTAND why, he had to go, and Biden was implanted. Biden is another Zalenskyy. https://www.facebook.com/ronnie.tulear.5/videos/708366973508787
It's not mental illness - it's personality disorders. Most specifically collective or communal and moralistic or altruistic NARCISSISM, with machiavellian psychopaths leading the fray and borderline-personalities joining in.
Mar 7, 2022·edited Mar 8, 2022Liked by Toby Rogers
Americans are taught and programmed by television, marketing campaigns and Hollywood, to be neurotic. Everything goes from being a fad to being an obsession to being a crisis. We are taught to treat food, feelings, relationships, problems and even romance like subjects which need to be 'managed' through constant analysis. Autonomy, the key to freedom, is being obliterated and vilified, which why propagandist hate the 'anti-vaxers', as they call us. Imagine living in a World, where you are illegal, if you don't submit to 'Clinical Trials', being conducted by felons and liars! It's as if the mayority, has lost the ability to decide anything for themselves, without consulting a shrink, a psychic, a doctor or an app, which is why when 'lockdowns and covid restrictions' were enforced, millions were already, not only conditioned to follow this pathology, but suspicious of anyone who questioned it. Now, with Ukraine, it's the same!
C'mon why are you doing this? You play right into their hand. Every time anyone even mentions the NYT you're giving them credence that people still actually read it. Walk away and invest your time in better more prosperous things. Even when I pick up copies for work I won't even read the headlines because it's all total bullshit! I use to subscribe ONLY to stay informed of the lies but now I won't line a birdcage for fear the fumes of preposterous subterfuge would kill the animal!
Oh no—so, is it: some guy with scary hypochondriacal/neurotic (maybe psychotic) anxiety disorder who basically proves that statistics are so prone to manipulation that no one knows what they actually say (kind of like “science”) is a “voice of reason”?
That was a fantastic read! I'd wanted to write a response to that NYT article but you beat me to it in timeliness and at it in wordcraft. Your fundamental thesis is right, that Clayton is in a delusional psychosis.
A few comments, which I've tried to order semi-coherently:
First, I learned of Clayton's NYT editorial when it was mentioned by Alex Berenson. (Without learning of it via a mention, no sane person would ever find it because no sane person would subject themselves to reading through all NYT editorials.) The author's name sounded familiar. Then I realized that he was the author of _Bernoulli's Fallacy: Statistical Illogic and the Crisis of Modern Science_, which I'd just finished reading with great interest 1 week before.
His book is a damning indictment of frequentist statistics and an equally strong argument for Bayesian statistics. This area is a long-standing interest of mine. For many years, I belonged to the Bayesian Inference group in the Cambridge (UK) physics department, where Bayesian inference was (and is) used for interpreting astronomical data. At my former college back in the US, I taught "Bayesian Inference and Reasoning," from the same point of view as Clayton's: that frequentist statistics is confusing rubbish and that Bayes' theorem is the only correct way to reason with uncertainty. (I no longer teach that course because the college fired me for saying too often that "project-based learning is rubbish," which is the educational equivalent of a doctor saying that vaccines are dangerous: It's true, but the danger is to your career.)
Given his book, which is very valuable (for an admittedly narrow audience of mathematically trained people with an interest in the philosophy of knowledge), he can fairly be called a statistics researcher despite its squishy sound. He also teaches a stats course at the Harvard Extension School. (The "Harvard" is a clue that he likely suffers from Covid delusional psychosis.)
In March 2020, I had used Bayes' theorem to see that Covid was a complete fraud and a scamdemic. The reasoning was easy: There were (and still are) no valid sensitivities and specificities for the PCR "tests," so it was mathematically impossible to compute Prob(sick with Covid given a positive PCR test). Yet we kept hearing about Covid cases and deaths ad nauseam from all organs of society. So, the whole operation was plainly a Deep State psyop.
Thus, I was horrified to find that Clayton had done the opposite and had used Bayes' theorem to justify injecting poison into 4-year-olds, including his own.
But his fundamental error isn't what you described when you discussed p values.
P values are extremely confusing. The fundamental p-value misconception is that p values give you a posterior probability. But they don't. Here's where you fall into the trap: "If a p value can tell you that 19 times out of 20 the result was not just due to chance — well, the possibility of being wrong up to 5% of the time is unacceptably high when it comes to medical products."
To reiterate, p values cannot say anything about whether a result was (or was not) due to chance or about the probability of being right or wrong. Rather, a p value is the following irrelevant probability:
Prob(seeing your data or more extreme data, given that there is no effect)
In testing experimental vaccines or gene therapies, the "there is no effect" would be something like "there is no difference in safety when compared to saline placebo." Then the p value would be
Prob(seeing NNN more deaths/injuries in 30,000 healthy participants over 3 months in the jab group vs saline group, given that there is no difference in safety when compared to saline placebo)
But whatever that probability happens to be, it's irrelevant. What you really want to know is the posterior (Bayesian!) probability:
Prob(the jab will cause a serious adverse event, given that Pfizer reported to the FDA [the following trial results])
And that probability actually depends on all your background information. For example, mine would include at least the following:
Prob(the jab will cause a serious adverse event, given that Pfizer reported to the FDA [the following trial results] and that Pfizer ran the trial and that Maddie de Garay's case was excluded from the data and that Pfizer paid the largest regulatory fine in US history and that all studies of vaxxed-versus-unvaxxed show that vaxxed kids are unhealthier and that LNPs accumulate in ovaries and testes and that some of the ingredients are "trade secrets" and ...)
The other place where you fall into the p-value misconception is "with a less than 5% chance that the result was just random." That statement again is of the form
Prob(the vaccine is dangerous, given the side-effects data) < 5%
It is the probability that you want to know, but it's a Bayesian posterior probability, not a frequentist p value.
Second, all the arguments about whether statistical significance should be 5- or 6-sigma are red herrings. They are attempts to patch over the fundamental problems of frequentist p values: that they are an irrelevant probability and that this irrelevant probability leaves no room for prior information. And prior information includes all our scientific knowledge, e.g. of biological mechanisms, causation. Thus, frequentist statistics are anti-scientific. In short, there are no "proper frequentist methods." All of them are wrong (which is also the thesis of Clayton's book).
But I do agree with you that a proper Bayesian analysis of the whole US vaccine schedule, using all available information (vaxxed/unvaxxed studies, toxicology knowledge about the "adjuvants" [poisons] themselves, etc.), would result in
Prob(serious harm from following US vaccine schedule, given all that information) > 99%
Third, you are too kind to the NYT. The NYT doesn't have a "bias." Bias implies lack of awareness, that the biased person is reasoning honestly as he or she sees it but is subject to a cognitive or emotional illusion. However, the NYT, at the top levels at least, is aware of what it's doing -- because, at those levels, it is the CIA, and the Convid scamdemic is a worldwide CIA coup. They chose Clayton as their useful idiot.
They are the psychopaths, not him. He's just mentally ill, as you say. Confirmation is available in his own editorial, where he talks about "outdoor play dates in borderline frostbite conditions."
Fourth, I disagree that Clayton doesn't understand Bayesian -- his excellent book is evidence otherwise -- but agree that he doesn't understand it when it comes to vaccination (your second possibility). Now we are back to the "Harvard". His website says that he lives in Boston. And he's part of the educated elite in the Boston/Cambridge area. Anyone who hasn't lived there, please count your blessings.
But anyone who lives there will appreciate that it's the center of the mass delusional psychosis. I lived in Cambridge, Maskachusetts, for 9 years, including the first year of the scamdemic, and had to leave due to the depth of the delusional psychosis and its danger to our children. Here's an example of its depths.
Last April, the father (healthy, 48 y.o.) of my daughter's good friend from school died suddenly in his garden. It was 1 day after his age group (55 and under) became "eligible" as they say (as if it were akin to being an "eligible bachelor"). It happened in a city of jab fanatics, so my guess was that he had got his first jab the previous day and had a cardiac event or stroke. His obituary said that he died "of no known cause" -- my first personal encounter with that phrase.
But none of the many other parents who knew him ever said anything about the likely cause. And 1 month later, when all their kids became "eligible" after the FDA/CDC criminally authorized the 12+ EUA, their kids got jabbed and were bragging about it to my daughter within days.
I eventually asked the mother of my daughter's friend whether the jab might possibly be related to her (ex-)husband’s death. No answer, even though she had responded right away to my wife's message of condolence. I tried again a few months later, suggesting a VAERS report if relevant, as it might help others to judge the risks. Still no answer.
Jonestown, where the CIA was developing its methods of mind control, seems like playacting in comparison to what is being done to the population now. And Clayton is an example.
This is something I have wondered about and maybe you can help me.
Let’s say your baby is genetically vulnerable to the toxins in vaccines.
let’s say the chance of brain injury from the hep-B shot given at birth is 1/1000.
And the brain damage from the 2-3 shots given at age 2 months are 1/1000 each.
Does the increased risk at 2 months if you have had all 4 shots increase to 4/1000 or 1 in 250?
Or is each shot still 1/1000 risk?
Okay say you get 72 shots by age 5 . Now is your chance of harm more like 1/12?
But I am only talking chance here not cumulative damage which would magnify this.
Sorry for the shoddy math. I am just trying to counter the way they tell you risk as if a shot was taken in a vacuum.
Similarly though I refused to get at amniocentesis when they told me risk was 1/100 for a miscarriage. That’s is incredibly high people! Would you get into a rental car if your baby would die 1/100 times? Never. Yet people accept medial risks like this all the time.
This is the best piece you’ve written. I’m sending it to my 18yo whose statistics class is apparently under-stimulating. I know nothing of statistics. But I think we can all relate to that feeling of - hang on, I actually know something about this and you’re full of s#%* here. It creates both a righteous indignation and also a humility in knowing that it’s safe to expect you may need to be corrected by those who know more.
Sometimes it seems like these people really believe what they're writing, but usually it feels like a combination of extreme careerism combined with a total lack of core moral beliefs. One need not be smart or accomplished to get ahead; one need only be able to adhere to a certain point of view and (often) pretend to be original and gutsy while doing it. (And as an aside, we still don't have a full list of individuals who have received HHS funds to promote the vaccines-- time for a FOIA request?)
Lies, damn lies, and…statistics. That is what I was taught when I learned, but what I most assuredly can say, was a stats class in which we were encouraged to think. I had the opportunity to teach a class last fall at the uni from which I graduated, and I was kind of shocked that these kids didn’t know how many centimetres were in a metre. Really? This is Canada.
Love your post. Thank you, Toby. Keep fighting the good fight.
Excellent post. Spot on.
Fantastic post and very educational, thank you!
Great post, I loved your psychological descriptions of these tweeters! 👏
Please everyone watch, read and share. The kids on Tic Toc are exposing the pedos, who 99% of the adults are cheering for. How sad that they've have to take this into their hands. Please put your 'feeling' about Trump aside; I'm not promoting politics, I did not vote for the guy, but now I UNDERSTAND why, he had to go, and Biden was implanted. Biden is another Zalenskyy. https://www.facebook.com/ronnie.tulear.5/videos/708366973508787
It's not mental illness - it's personality disorders. Most specifically collective or communal and moralistic or altruistic NARCISSISM, with machiavellian psychopaths leading the fray and borderline-personalities joining in.
https://maggierusso.substack.com/p/truth-is-the-first-casualty?s=w
Americans are taught and programmed by television, marketing campaigns and Hollywood, to be neurotic. Everything goes from being a fad to being an obsession to being a crisis. We are taught to treat food, feelings, relationships, problems and even romance like subjects which need to be 'managed' through constant analysis. Autonomy, the key to freedom, is being obliterated and vilified, which why propagandist hate the 'anti-vaxers', as they call us. Imagine living in a World, where you are illegal, if you don't submit to 'Clinical Trials', being conducted by felons and liars! It's as if the mayority, has lost the ability to decide anything for themselves, without consulting a shrink, a psychic, a doctor or an app, which is why when 'lockdowns and covid restrictions' were enforced, millions were already, not only conditioned to follow this pathology, but suspicious of anyone who questioned it. Now, with Ukraine, it's the same!
C'mon why are you doing this? You play right into their hand. Every time anyone even mentions the NYT you're giving them credence that people still actually read it. Walk away and invest your time in better more prosperous things. Even when I pick up copies for work I won't even read the headlines because it's all total bullshit! I use to subscribe ONLY to stay informed of the lies but now I won't line a birdcage for fear the fumes of preposterous subterfuge would kill the animal!
Oh no—so, is it: some guy with scary hypochondriacal/neurotic (maybe psychotic) anxiety disorder who basically proves that statistics are so prone to manipulation that no one knows what they actually say (kind of like “science”) is a “voice of reason”?
Living in Opposite World is fun and logical……
That was a fantastic read! I'd wanted to write a response to that NYT article but you beat me to it in timeliness and at it in wordcraft. Your fundamental thesis is right, that Clayton is in a delusional psychosis.
A few comments, which I've tried to order semi-coherently:
First, I learned of Clayton's NYT editorial when it was mentioned by Alex Berenson. (Without learning of it via a mention, no sane person would ever find it because no sane person would subject themselves to reading through all NYT editorials.) The author's name sounded familiar. Then I realized that he was the author of _Bernoulli's Fallacy: Statistical Illogic and the Crisis of Modern Science_, which I'd just finished reading with great interest 1 week before.
His book is a damning indictment of frequentist statistics and an equally strong argument for Bayesian statistics. This area is a long-standing interest of mine. For many years, I belonged to the Bayesian Inference group in the Cambridge (UK) physics department, where Bayesian inference was (and is) used for interpreting astronomical data. At my former college back in the US, I taught "Bayesian Inference and Reasoning," from the same point of view as Clayton's: that frequentist statistics is confusing rubbish and that Bayes' theorem is the only correct way to reason with uncertainty. (I no longer teach that course because the college fired me for saying too often that "project-based learning is rubbish," which is the educational equivalent of a doctor saying that vaccines are dangerous: It's true, but the danger is to your career.)
Given his book, which is very valuable (for an admittedly narrow audience of mathematically trained people with an interest in the philosophy of knowledge), he can fairly be called a statistics researcher despite its squishy sound. He also teaches a stats course at the Harvard Extension School. (The "Harvard" is a clue that he likely suffers from Covid delusional psychosis.)
In March 2020, I had used Bayes' theorem to see that Covid was a complete fraud and a scamdemic. The reasoning was easy: There were (and still are) no valid sensitivities and specificities for the PCR "tests," so it was mathematically impossible to compute Prob(sick with Covid given a positive PCR test). Yet we kept hearing about Covid cases and deaths ad nauseam from all organs of society. So, the whole operation was plainly a Deep State psyop.
Thus, I was horrified to find that Clayton had done the opposite and had used Bayes' theorem to justify injecting poison into 4-year-olds, including his own.
But his fundamental error isn't what you described when you discussed p values.
P values are extremely confusing. The fundamental p-value misconception is that p values give you a posterior probability. But they don't. Here's where you fall into the trap: "If a p value can tell you that 19 times out of 20 the result was not just due to chance — well, the possibility of being wrong up to 5% of the time is unacceptably high when it comes to medical products."
To reiterate, p values cannot say anything about whether a result was (or was not) due to chance or about the probability of being right or wrong. Rather, a p value is the following irrelevant probability:
Prob(seeing your data or more extreme data, given that there is no effect)
In testing experimental vaccines or gene therapies, the "there is no effect" would be something like "there is no difference in safety when compared to saline placebo." Then the p value would be
Prob(seeing NNN more deaths/injuries in 30,000 healthy participants over 3 months in the jab group vs saline group, given that there is no difference in safety when compared to saline placebo)
But whatever that probability happens to be, it's irrelevant. What you really want to know is the posterior (Bayesian!) probability:
Prob(the jab will cause a serious adverse event, given that Pfizer reported to the FDA [the following trial results])
And that probability actually depends on all your background information. For example, mine would include at least the following:
Prob(the jab will cause a serious adverse event, given that Pfizer reported to the FDA [the following trial results] and that Pfizer ran the trial and that Maddie de Garay's case was excluded from the data and that Pfizer paid the largest regulatory fine in US history and that all studies of vaxxed-versus-unvaxxed show that vaxxed kids are unhealthier and that LNPs accumulate in ovaries and testes and that some of the ingredients are "trade secrets" and ...)
The other place where you fall into the p-value misconception is "with a less than 5% chance that the result was just random." That statement again is of the form
Prob(the vaccine is dangerous, given the side-effects data) < 5%
It is the probability that you want to know, but it's a Bayesian posterior probability, not a frequentist p value.
Second, all the arguments about whether statistical significance should be 5- or 6-sigma are red herrings. They are attempts to patch over the fundamental problems of frequentist p values: that they are an irrelevant probability and that this irrelevant probability leaves no room for prior information. And prior information includes all our scientific knowledge, e.g. of biological mechanisms, causation. Thus, frequentist statistics are anti-scientific. In short, there are no "proper frequentist methods." All of them are wrong (which is also the thesis of Clayton's book).
But I do agree with you that a proper Bayesian analysis of the whole US vaccine schedule, using all available information (vaxxed/unvaxxed studies, toxicology knowledge about the "adjuvants" [poisons] themselves, etc.), would result in
Prob(serious harm from following US vaccine schedule, given all that information) > 99%
Third, you are too kind to the NYT. The NYT doesn't have a "bias." Bias implies lack of awareness, that the biased person is reasoning honestly as he or she sees it but is subject to a cognitive or emotional illusion. However, the NYT, at the top levels at least, is aware of what it's doing -- because, at those levels, it is the CIA, and the Convid scamdemic is a worldwide CIA coup. They chose Clayton as their useful idiot.
They are the psychopaths, not him. He's just mentally ill, as you say. Confirmation is available in his own editorial, where he talks about "outdoor play dates in borderline frostbite conditions."
Fourth, I disagree that Clayton doesn't understand Bayesian -- his excellent book is evidence otherwise -- but agree that he doesn't understand it when it comes to vaccination (your second possibility). Now we are back to the "Harvard". His website says that he lives in Boston. And he's part of the educated elite in the Boston/Cambridge area. Anyone who hasn't lived there, please count your blessings.
But anyone who lives there will appreciate that it's the center of the mass delusional psychosis. I lived in Cambridge, Maskachusetts, for 9 years, including the first year of the scamdemic, and had to leave due to the depth of the delusional psychosis and its danger to our children. Here's an example of its depths.
Last April, the father (healthy, 48 y.o.) of my daughter's good friend from school died suddenly in his garden. It was 1 day after his age group (55 and under) became "eligible" as they say (as if it were akin to being an "eligible bachelor"). It happened in a city of jab fanatics, so my guess was that he had got his first jab the previous day and had a cardiac event or stroke. His obituary said that he died "of no known cause" -- my first personal encounter with that phrase.
But none of the many other parents who knew him ever said anything about the likely cause. And 1 month later, when all their kids became "eligible" after the FDA/CDC criminally authorized the 12+ EUA, their kids got jabbed and were bragging about it to my daughter within days.
I eventually asked the mother of my daughter's friend whether the jab might possibly be related to her (ex-)husband’s death. No answer, even though she had responded right away to my wife's message of condolence. I tried again a few months later, suggesting a VAERS report if relevant, as it might help others to judge the risks. Still no answer.
Jonestown, where the CIA was developing its methods of mind control, seems like playacting in comparison to what is being done to the population now. And Clayton is an example.
This is something I have wondered about and maybe you can help me.
Let’s say your baby is genetically vulnerable to the toxins in vaccines.
let’s say the chance of brain injury from the hep-B shot given at birth is 1/1000.
And the brain damage from the 2-3 shots given at age 2 months are 1/1000 each.
Does the increased risk at 2 months if you have had all 4 shots increase to 4/1000 or 1 in 250?
Or is each shot still 1/1000 risk?
Okay say you get 72 shots by age 5 . Now is your chance of harm more like 1/12?
But I am only talking chance here not cumulative damage which would magnify this.
Sorry for the shoddy math. I am just trying to counter the way they tell you risk as if a shot was taken in a vacuum.
Similarly though I refused to get at amniocentesis when they told me risk was 1/100 for a miscarriage. That’s is incredibly high people! Would you get into a rental car if your baby would die 1/100 times? Never. Yet people accept medial risks like this all the time.
Stockholm Syndrome + Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy = Exogenous Hypochondria
This is the best piece you’ve written. I’m sending it to my 18yo whose statistics class is apparently under-stimulating. I know nothing of statistics. But I think we can all relate to that feeling of - hang on, I actually know something about this and you’re full of s#%* here. It creates both a righteous indignation and also a humility in knowing that it’s safe to expect you may need to be corrected by those who know more.
Mr. Clayton could happily work for Dr. Fauci, methinks
Fantastic response.
Sometimes it seems like these people really believe what they're writing, but usually it feels like a combination of extreme careerism combined with a total lack of core moral beliefs. One need not be smart or accomplished to get ahead; one need only be able to adhere to a certain point of view and (often) pretend to be original and gutsy while doing it. (And as an aside, we still don't have a full list of individuals who have received HHS funds to promote the vaccines-- time for a FOIA request?)
I've given up commenting on posts for Lent. But I'll break my penitential rule to say I think you should submit this article to NYT as an op-ed.
Ok going back in my cell.