The CDC's failure to use multivariate analysis shows the total depravity of the vaccine program
Discover more from uTobian
The CDC's failure to use multivariate analysis shows the total depravity of the vaccine program
Quant genius Mathew Crawford is doing a brilliant series of articles exploring the possibility that vaccine efficacy — for all vaccines — may be zero and that any claimed benefit from shots is actually a wealth effect (said differently, when one controls for wealth any supposed benefit from the vaccine disappears). I would like to add my two cents to this debate.
As many of you know, I got a master of public policy degree from UC Berkeley in 2012. What you may not know is that UC Berkeley is usually the top rated quantitative public policy program in the country. So what that means in this case is that it is heavily focused on econometrics.
Econometrics is beautiful. It usually starts with a large data set for a population. Then one uses sophisticated statistical software (STATA, SPSS) to analyze the data. Econometrics involves massive equations that are looking for the effect of a particular variable, while controlling for a wide range of additional variables.
There is a humility to econometrics as well — so-called “dummy variables” are added to account for factors one may have overlooked and error measures are added to almost every equation to reflect that the data is gathered by humans and there will always be some error.
What’s fascinating about econometrics is that if one really builds the model correctly, the largest effect size that one will ever see for a single variable is about 0.3. This means that X intervention explains 30% of the outcome — the rest of the variables explain the rest. We live in a multivariate world.
Even with all of that complexity, there are still those (such as the great economist Steve Keen) who argue that econometrics, with its 15, 50, or even 100 variables is still completely inadequate and that if one really wants to understand how the world works, one must utilize the tools of physics (and supercomputers) to build models with millions of variables and account for things like chaos theory (this approach is called econophysics).
So that was my background when, in 2015, in the midst of a Ph.D. program in political economy, I started researching autism and decided to read a vaccine safety study for the first time. There are about 20 studies that the CDC points to as showing that there is no relationship between vaccines and autism. I assumed that I would not be able to read or understand these studies at all. Given what I knew about the complexity of econometrics, and knowing that the human body, biology, chemistry, and the immune system are even more complex than economics, I assumed that I would be looking at equations involving calculus, that used advanced statistical software to analyze hundreds or perhaps thousands of variables that impact health and disease.
The reality is quite different. Vaccine safety studies tend to be bivariate — they only look at two variables — the vaccine (independent variable) and whether someone suffered an adverse event (dependent variable). It’s actually even worse than that. Vaccine safety studies almost always look at children who have received the full vaccine schedule as compared with children who have received the full schedule +1 more vaccine. And on that basis, they decide whether the 1 additional vaccine is safe. There is no unvaccinated control group. And they do not control for hundreds of other variables that influence health and disease.
When I read a vaccine safety study for the first time, a sickening panic swept over me — “no, no, no, this cannot possibly be. THIS is what the CDC is relying upon!? THIS is what the CDC is using to claim that vaccines are safe!?” Far from being too advanced, these studies are so crude they would fail any Statistics 101 class in any college in America. Tears streamed down my face.
So I read another, and another, and another “vaccine safety” study (eventually reading all 20). And they were all the same. These studies are preposterous because they cannot possibly answer the question they are trying to tackle because their methods are too basic. Vaccine safety studies contain no biology, no chemistry, and vanishingly little statistics. These people are doing arithmetic, badly. In fact, they resemble a card trick more than anything having to do with science. I realized that the CDC has no idea what it is doing — the entire field of pediatrics and public health is a Potemkin Village, a Ponzi scheme, the worst intellectual fraud that I have ever seen.
I wept because of the implications (and hoped against hope that I was misunderstanding something). These are some of the most consequential studies ever produced — because their findings impact the health of 95% of the children in the developed world. Yet the field itself is stunted and basic — at least 100 years behind their colleagues in the physical sciences or even the quantitative branches of the social sciences. The vulgarity of vaccine safety studies is covered up by the PR machine for the most ruthless industry in the world (and a web of financial relationships that has become “too big to fail”).
(You can find the full citations and links for all 20 studies in my thesis).
Here’s the point I want to make: The CDC’s failure to use proper statistical tools (multivariate analysis and beyond) is a threat to national security. But the reason why the CDC relies upon crude bivariate analysis (that is categorically rejected by all fields of scholarly endeavor except vaccine safety studies) is because rigging these studies is the only way to hide the fact that these shots do not work and cause catastrophic harms. If the CDC ever used proper statistical methods, the national vaccine program would come to a screeching halt because the entire program is based on fraud.
But here’s what I cannot figure out — why do scholars in these other fields, who actually know their stuff, fail to call the CDC out on their chicanery? Even worse, why do scholars in these other fields — who could spot the errors in these “vaccine safety studies” in about 10 minutes if they did any due diligence — poison their own kids and themselves? We live in the dumbest era in human history — we have the tools to know and do better and yet mainstream society still participates in self-inflicted genocide because they just want to fit in.
Blessings to the warriors. 🙌
Prayers for everyone fighting back against the most egregious fraud in human history. 🙏
In the comments, please let me know what’s on your mind.
As always, I welcome any corrections.
The CDC's failure to use multivariate analysis shows the total depravity of the vaccine program
Hi Toby, I have been researching the effectiveness and safety of Vaccines for 23 years, right after my children were born. Like you, I have found that everything related to vaccines is criminal fraud but still most people are so brainwashed that they believe all the lies and deception. One of the things that is missing from most statistical analysis on the safety of vaccines is the how and why. I believe that if we say that vaccines are bad for children's health, we need to explain why. Most people have been told that vaccines have eradicated infectious diseases and they are an important part of protecting your children against these diseases and they believe all the propaganda. In order to help convince more people, we need to answer why are vaccines bad for children and the obvious answer is that they are full of toxins, including mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, etc., etc. For most people it is actually easier to understand that toxins are bad for you, than the meaning of statistics. I would suggest that you do an analysis of the ingredients in the various vaccines and explain how the various toxins can end up causing the various side effects like Autism. I read an article where the author was suggesting that parents injecting their children with vaccines are committing child abuse and can be accused of attempted murder. Looking forward to your analysis.
this is great. thank you.