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!
I do think it's helpful to keep an eye on the narrative. As an investigative tool. Breaking it down--bringing it to peoples' attention can actually be helpful.
I recently watched John Corbett's video on The Great Narrative and why these stories are in fact, the catalyst for all of the rest. Culture is the driving factor here and the narrative creates and sustains the culture. Schwab understands that once he and his soldiers get culture established across nations, the job is more than halfway done. Hearts and minds first, then the hammer. This is why the global agenda has been so effective so far (people on board with deadly injections, media has been captured and controlled, censorship is on the rise)--and why those of us trying to fight it have been less effective.
Totally agree - an informed opinion is the best opinion. And of course, keep your friends close but your enemies, even closer. That being said, it's a fine line. In this particular article however I personally found engaging in such unadulterated BS gave the NYT credence. Some articles though, absolutely yes, such as the hit piece on JFK Jr. It kills me every time I read something that says: According to the NYT . . . from that point on you know the article is worthless.
When trying to inform readers about the reality, like Toby does, he needs to consider that mainstream media shapes reality purely by publishing content that is widely assumed to be relevant. Thus, in the case of any NYT OpEd, reality is already shaped by the mere existence of the OpEd in the NYT, simply because people have to assume that the NYT is in fact so widely read that whatever the NYT puts out influences people's thinking and opinions (for good or for worse).
To put it in the words of a much more competent person than me, Michael Meyen, a professor for journalism and communication at the university in Munich, Germany: "The mainstream media put us in a propaganda matrix giving rise to a constructed reality." A very good book on this topic is unfortunately in German, but here is a very good and concise summary and review of its contents in English language:
In my opinion, writing a substack blog about the issues and events happening in reality necessarily needs to first resolve the question what reality for most people actually is. In approaching a response to that question you need to find out in what reality people actually live in. Whether you like it or not (I certainly don't) - any mainstream media content is part of that constructed reality, specifically for things that people are not able to experience or judge first-hand, such as nationwide statsitical effects or outcomes of clinical trials.
So I agree with Toby here that it is probably wise to examine crucial mainstream media content once in a while to keep attached to reality.
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.
You are most welcome! There is a further and amusing irony in the matter of Clayton.
His book, _Bernoulli's Fallacy_, gives the most convincing answer that I've seen to the following question: In the statistics wars, why did frequentist rubbish triumph over Bayesian sense? His answer is that frequentism, based on an "objective" notion of probability, won because (fake) objectivity is needed whenever elites use mathematics for social control.
The Bayesian notion of probability is "subjective" -- that is, probability reflects a degree of belief, rather than an objective property of the world. So it's not suited for social control. For social control via mathematics to work, the people have to be convinced that their oppression is divinely or, in this case, mathematically ordained, so there's no use fighting it. And frequentist statistics was developed by the leading eugenicists of the day, including Galton, Pearson, and Fisher. The support for eugenics was far from secret. Fisher, for example, was head of the Department of EUGENICS at University College, London (later renamed the Department of Genetics).
Meanwhile, the current democidal Convid "vaccination" drive, a play for mass depopulation with enslavement of the survivors, has been set in motion by the eugenics heirs of Galton, Pearson, Fisher, and Rockefeller. Clayton is totally blind to this connection and instead tries to support it using Bayesian statistics!
But, as my wife pointed out to me, perhaps there is a Bayesian description of his blindness. As a good meritocrat, his prior probability for the "Deep State is hunting us" theory is incredibly tiny -- much tinier than for the theory that the internet is overrun with right-wing conspiracy theorists trying to undermine science. Thus, almost no matter what evidence he sees -- say, healthy children getting strokes and heart attacks post-jab and even dying in their sleep -- he can explain it away. Indeed, such evidence only increases his belief in the "right-wing conspiracy theorists are everywhere" theory.
Meanwhile, I was luckier. I had happened to read _JFK and the Unspeakable_ by James Douglass just before the Convid scamdemic was launched, and I had anyway long thought that 9/11 was done by the US government. So I started with a much higher prior probability for the "Deep State is hunting us" theory. When I saw that the jab campaign continued ahead no matter how many deaths showed up in VAERS, in comparison to the swine-flu campaign ending after 25 or so deaths, I became fairly sure that the "they're hunting us" theory was right.
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.
To begin with, the odds of neurological injury from the birth dose of hep B vaccine are at least 3%, could be as high as 15%, and some (RFK, Jr.) put the estimate closer to 100%.
But to your question IF we were just flipping a coin -- truly random events -- the results would not be cumulative. The odds of flipping heads twice in a row, is the probability of each individual event multiplied times each other: .5 x .5 = .25.
Vaccine harms are NOT like flipping a coin. Instead, pediatricians are introducing known neurotoxins into the body -- that stay in the body and build up over time (and migrate from the muscle to the bone to the brain). So there is every reason to think that these harms are cumulative. And the body is not a machine. Instead there are cascade effects and things like cytokine storms when the body is overwhelmed. So instead of each vaccine simpley *adding* more risk, there is the possibility of each vaccine amplifying overall risk of harm well beyond even the cumulative risks.
I was pressured to get an exploratory amniocentesis at age 36 (considered a "risky" age to be with child in the USA) whilst pregnant with my youngest child in 1996. I immediately refused, having already educated myself on its risk as a staunch pro-lifer. The OB-Gyn office ridiculed me. The idea was to screen for possible Down's syndrome. I thought, "So what?" I will take whatever God gives me. It is not for me to be the arbiter of who deserves to live and who deserves to die based solely on a dangerous test that could, by the way, produce a false positive result yet cause fetal harm or spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). Ugh.
Mar 7, 2022·edited Mar 7, 2022Liked by Toby Rogers
The studies have NEVER been done on synergistic effects! NEVER! Drs Cowan and Trebin say autism risk is now 1:2. EVERY human is vulnerable to toxins in vaccines!
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!
I do think it's helpful to keep an eye on the narrative. As an investigative tool. Breaking it down--bringing it to peoples' attention can actually be helpful.
I recently watched John Corbett's video on The Great Narrative and why these stories are in fact, the catalyst for all of the rest. Culture is the driving factor here and the narrative creates and sustains the culture. Schwab understands that once he and his soldiers get culture established across nations, the job is more than halfway done. Hearts and minds first, then the hammer. This is why the global agenda has been so effective so far (people on board with deadly injections, media has been captured and controlled, censorship is on the rise)--and why those of us trying to fight it have been less effective.
https://rumble.com/vw8jlx-james-corbett-on-the-great-narrative.html
Totally agree - an informed opinion is the best opinion. And of course, keep your friends close but your enemies, even closer. That being said, it's a fine line. In this particular article however I personally found engaging in such unadulterated BS gave the NYT credence. Some articles though, absolutely yes, such as the hit piece on JFK Jr. It kills me every time I read something that says: According to the NYT . . . from that point on you know the article is worthless.
When trying to inform readers about the reality, like Toby does, he needs to consider that mainstream media shapes reality purely by publishing content that is widely assumed to be relevant. Thus, in the case of any NYT OpEd, reality is already shaped by the mere existence of the OpEd in the NYT, simply because people have to assume that the NYT is in fact so widely read that whatever the NYT puts out influences people's thinking and opinions (for good or for worse).
To put it in the words of a much more competent person than me, Michael Meyen, a professor for journalism and communication at the university in Munich, Germany: "The mainstream media put us in a propaganda matrix giving rise to a constructed reality." A very good book on this topic is unfortunately in German, but here is a very good and concise summary and review of its contents in English language:
https://www.expressis-verbis.lu/2022/01/14/die-propaganda-matrix/?lang=en
In my opinion, writing a substack blog about the issues and events happening in reality necessarily needs to first resolve the question what reality for most people actually is. In approaching a response to that question you need to find out in what reality people actually live in. Whether you like it or not (I certainly don't) - any mainstream media content is part of that constructed reality, specifically for things that people are not able to experience or judge first-hand, such as nationwide statsitical effects or outcomes of clinical trials.
So I agree with Toby here that it is probably wise to examine crucial mainstream media content once in a while to keep attached to reality.
Very well stated and I agree - however when the NYT starts advertising on hip-hop radio you know there in trouble.
Fair point.
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.
What a fantastic comment! Thank you!!!!! 🙌
You are most welcome! There is a further and amusing irony in the matter of Clayton.
His book, _Bernoulli's Fallacy_, gives the most convincing answer that I've seen to the following question: In the statistics wars, why did frequentist rubbish triumph over Bayesian sense? His answer is that frequentism, based on an "objective" notion of probability, won because (fake) objectivity is needed whenever elites use mathematics for social control.
The Bayesian notion of probability is "subjective" -- that is, probability reflects a degree of belief, rather than an objective property of the world. So it's not suited for social control. For social control via mathematics to work, the people have to be convinced that their oppression is divinely or, in this case, mathematically ordained, so there's no use fighting it. And frequentist statistics was developed by the leading eugenicists of the day, including Galton, Pearson, and Fisher. The support for eugenics was far from secret. Fisher, for example, was head of the Department of EUGENICS at University College, London (later renamed the Department of Genetics).
Meanwhile, the current democidal Convid "vaccination" drive, a play for mass depopulation with enslavement of the survivors, has been set in motion by the eugenics heirs of Galton, Pearson, Fisher, and Rockefeller. Clayton is totally blind to this connection and instead tries to support it using Bayesian statistics!
But, as my wife pointed out to me, perhaps there is a Bayesian description of his blindness. As a good meritocrat, his prior probability for the "Deep State is hunting us" theory is incredibly tiny -- much tinier than for the theory that the internet is overrun with right-wing conspiracy theorists trying to undermine science. Thus, almost no matter what evidence he sees -- say, healthy children getting strokes and heart attacks post-jab and even dying in their sleep -- he can explain it away. Indeed, such evidence only increases his belief in the "right-wing conspiracy theorists are everywhere" theory.
Meanwhile, I was luckier. I had happened to read _JFK and the Unspeakable_ by James Douglass just before the Convid scamdemic was launched, and I had anyway long thought that 9/11 was done by the US government. So I started with a much higher prior probability for the "Deep State is hunting us" theory. When I saw that the jab campaign continued ahead no matter how many deaths showed up in VAERS, in comparison to the swine-flu campaign ending after 25 or so deaths, I became fairly sure that the "they're hunting us" theory was right.
Oh that's completely fascinating. Wow!
Thank you for that enlightening comment.
A pleasure to read Toby’s smart essays and in-depth super insightful comments like this one.
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.
To begin with, the odds of neurological injury from the birth dose of hep B vaccine are at least 3%, could be as high as 15%, and some (RFK, Jr.) put the estimate closer to 100%.
But to your question IF we were just flipping a coin -- truly random events -- the results would not be cumulative. The odds of flipping heads twice in a row, is the probability of each individual event multiplied times each other: .5 x .5 = .25.
Vaccine harms are NOT like flipping a coin. Instead, pediatricians are introducing known neurotoxins into the body -- that stay in the body and build up over time (and migrate from the muscle to the bone to the brain). So there is every reason to think that these harms are cumulative. And the body is not a machine. Instead there are cascade effects and things like cytokine storms when the body is overwhelmed. So instead of each vaccine simpley *adding* more risk, there is the possibility of each vaccine amplifying overall risk of harm well beyond even the cumulative risks.
I was pressured to get an exploratory amniocentesis at age 36 (considered a "risky" age to be with child in the USA) whilst pregnant with my youngest child in 1996. I immediately refused, having already educated myself on its risk as a staunch pro-lifer. The OB-Gyn office ridiculed me. The idea was to screen for possible Down's syndrome. I thought, "So what?" I will take whatever God gives me. It is not for me to be the arbiter of who deserves to live and who deserves to die based solely on a dangerous test that could, by the way, produce a false positive result yet cause fetal harm or spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). Ugh.
God bless you for listening to your wisdom within. I think all medical tests are bogus, just like most, if not all, Big Pharma concoctions!
The studies have NEVER been done on synergistic effects! NEVER! Drs Cowan and Trebin say autism risk is now 1:2. EVERY human is vulnerable to toxins in vaccines!
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.