Saturday, January 21, 2017

Believe nothing you hear

I don’t claim to know something just because vested interests have proclaimed it, however many do.

They repeat, parrot style, whatever some institution has proclaimed through the media not stopping to think- does this proclamation suit the agenda of this organization.  If it does suit their agenda can it be trusted?  The answer is "no". 

Nothing proclaimed by an institution that suits their vested interests can be trusted.  Only statements made by TOTALLY independent organization have any measure of validity and even they should be taken with a grain of salt given the fallibility of human nature.


I don’t accept that anyone has any power over me whatsoever, unless I freely give it. Therefore, I don’t believe in “mandatory” anything.

The idea that government knows best is not one I share.

Government is politics, just as big businesses is politics, religion is politics, science is politics and health care is politics.  And politics is built on lies because it is about power not truth.  Forgive me for not believing the hype these folks sell about anything.  I ain't buying it!

Don't believe the hype

When people say "don't believe the hype" they are not saying don't believe the hype about some things but believe the hype about others. They mean don't believe the hype about anything!

Studies, trust and data collection

I don't fully trust any study I haven't performed myself. To be fully confident you have to be involved in both the data collection phase and the interpretation phase. For one's interpretation to be meaningful we must have full faith in the data which is difficult if we didn't collect it ourselves. 

While the data collection phase can be fraught with difficulty there is particularly great danger in the interpretation phase which generally involves statistical analysis. 

This phase is open to great manipulation and requires deep statistical knowledge and the integrity to apply best technique no matter the result. For the possibility of manipulating or massaging the results to suit one's vested interest is always a possibility.

Knowledge required to speak intelligently about vaccines

If people wish to argue about vaccinations they need to understand the difference between the science behind vaccines (how they impact on the immune system and the body in general) and statistical techniques used to analyze health population data to determine the safety and effectiveness of vaccines amongst the population.

My own background is in the kind of multi-variate regression analysis that is used to determine such safety and effectiveness and so I feel as qualified to speak on such matters as anyone else with a deep understanding of statistics, specifically regression analysis.

I don't think many scientists or doctors fit into this category as their statistical background tends to be very weak and superficial, from what I have seen.

In statistics, in particular, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. In regression analysis, where changes in one variable are connected to changes in other variables, the choice of variables to include in one's explanatory equation can radically change one's results, which enables the "massaging" of results by unscrupulous operators seeking a certain outcome.

For those without access to all steps used to arrive at the choice of variables to include the actual results may be misleading. We need to know how relationships change as different variables are added and subtracted from one's explanatory equation. This may reveal if variables are being chosen to arrive at a preferred result. If so, the findings of the research come under question.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

The arrogance of ignorance

If people want to draw conclusions about a matter without doing any research that's fine, but for these same folks to slander those who have bothered to look into the matter seems a bit rich to me.

This is a common theme. People brainwashed by others they trust slamming those who don't share their view. As if they have any original knowledge to begin with. Just hand me downs from someone else's hand me downs, with barely a true fact between them.

If you go far enough up the chain to find where the original knowledge came from you tend to find it's largely nonsense spread by an unreliable source with a dog in the fight. This nonsense is then passed on by bought-out "experts" or journalists who then share it with the public, many of whom think they are so clever for believing the b.s. they are fed.

Vaccine lies

MMR (Mumps, measles and rubella) vaccine insert information:

Does anyone with the slightest background in statistics see the giant hole in logic that you could drive a truck through in the above information?

Basically all infectious diseases, whether there is a vaccine for them or not, were in massive decline in first world countries in the 20th C, which everyone who has researched this area knows. This is believed due to improved standards of living which includes improved sanitation, food supply, housing conditions, etc.

To attribute a portion of the reduction in infectious disease cases to vaccines with any degree of accuracy and reliability a multi-variate regression analysis would need to be done. However, it seems statistics isn't the strong suit of many science majors. Hence, a lot of nonsense gets passed around as fact. In the vaccines case it means their effectiveness is massively overrated, presumably on purpose by the manufacturers and those who benefit from faith in vaccines, but possibly due to sheer ignorance and stupidity.

Monday, January 16, 2017

The advantages and disadvantages of legal drugs

The advantage of legal drugs
-Dependable make-up and dosage
-Legal if used under doctor supervision

The disadvantage of legal drugs
-Requires convincing a doctor you need the drug
-Choice is limited to drugs that treat medical conditions, not necessarily ones that are interesting to try.