If you want to make a difference then you will embrace accepted statistical methods to properly and objectively test a hypothesis.
I am not vaccinated, have taken graduate level epidemiology and bio statistics courses but your dismissal of accepted data norms does nothing but reduce your credibility in the eyes of those people with an actual formal background in data science.
As much as you don't want to believe it, there is a proper way to look for this data and the survey's you continue to discuss aren't part of the proper way to analyze this type of data.
Imagine how much you would shred the other side if they used a simple survey like yours to promote vaccination.
Completely crazy. There are no "biasses" or "preconceived beliefs" in answering the question "do you have a family member who died in the past 2 years", it's a yes/no answer, they either died or they didn't. The cause isn't addressed by the simple questions asked. This is a case of so-called "experts" complicating things unneccessarily, (or intentionally in an effort to show they know better than you or me). If the question was "do you know anyone who you believe might have died of a covid vaccine in the past 2 years" then OK, that's a different matter and obviously highly subjective. What hope have we got when "experts" incorporate THEIR biasses into the argument?
Unfortunately Jeff's friend is correct that social surveys cannot "prove" anything, though not for the reasons given. A survey relies on people's memories and beliefs. They may suffer from recall bias, remember incorrectly, or believe something that turns out to be incorrect. For example, Uncle Henry may have told everyone he was getting his vaccine on date x, which turned out to be 2 days before he died, but no one knew the appointment got rescheduled for the day after his death. Or he may have had his vaccine appointment but was given a flu vaccine instead by mistake. Or he may have died and no one knew he was injected because he kept that secret from his family. Memories can be tricky and beliefs can be incorrect. Unless the individual taking the survey went with the deceased individual to their vaccine appointment, or has access to the immunization record, their belief about the vaccination date may not be reliable.
Social surveys are an excellent way to collect data to show there is a potential association and sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation using unbiased data collection methods. They are not proof by themselves, but they can be good evidence to say that we should spend the time, effort and resources to prove the association by examining death records and immunization records for everyone in the country. Records of immunization with corresponding death dates would be a reliable way to prove the injection increases deaths. Social surveys are helpful but not sufficient evidence on their own.
All these Doctors, msm etc etc are $$$eyes$$$ears$$$mouth ‘wide shut’. We All know this, they seem to think we’re the ‘conspiracists’, their brains and hearts are dead to this killing field.
I’ve always been sus over the years about Drs sending me for expensive procedures, that on a few occasions created damage, like haemorrhaging, infections etc, that should we’re never needed. But, that’s money for those concerned. I always remember our Precious Dr Wayne Dyer saying that Cancer is a huge money making business, so very true. ❤️🙏🌟
If I recall Dr Judy Mikovits told in an interview a few months ago that they have now found a way of scientifically identifying vaccine related injuries by tests. You may wish to interview her to get some clarity as to the best ways to actually prove vaccine related injuries...
Reporting a death of someone you know is not hearsay. By that standard, non hearsay would be the dead person reporting that he died. How stupid are people getting or how blind?
A survey is perfectly fine for this; it all comes down to the sample design and the questionnaire design. Virtually all research is now conducted using online sample sources, with many approaching the same rigor as traditional telephone probability samples. A sampling approach that uses a reputable online sample provider focused on surveying a representative sample balanced to census data will ensure the sample itself has no more bias than any other survey, including almost every study conducted by the CDC. The issue isn't the methodology in this example; it is the cognitive dissonance and bias of the person objecting.
You can't fix stupid. You can duck tape it, but that's frowned upon! A monkey with a half of a banana and the proper training KNOWS people unnecessarily died from medical malpractice. Unnecessary ventilation and drugs that didn't work. They also knows large numbers are now dying from the death shot, clot shot, whatever you want to call it. They can deny it all they want.
Let me give you some perspective, as I think this conversation is greatly in need of it. And God Bless Steve for all his help ! Please check out this article on "The Great Conjunction of 2020". The planets Jupiter and Saturn last passed this close to each other in 1623 when The Pilgrims of America sat down for their first Thanksgiving meal - the Birth of America. These Great Conjunctions of such close passing come at the time of Regime Change. There is a Great Reset going on, the question is WHICH ONE ?
Steve, the people in the Cell article had specific fluorescent antibody stains to detect spike and vaccine RNA in the samples. I suspect that while so few labs have those stains most doctors will stay quiet about their suspicions. Access to confirmatory lab tests is huge. So I know someone who dropped dead post booster but he was never autopsied, and if he had been there was nothing available to nail the vaccine, so my survey suspicion remains a suspicion. Do you know whether any vax injury specific testing kits are being ramped up?
So in other words, the friend got the jabs and boosters and doesn’t want to be confronted with the possible stupidity and consequences of his own lack of discernment and research. 👍🏼
They have all the data. Already in the very first weeks, they may have experienced increased mortality and serious illness.
Moreover, they can compare covid and vaccine based on lost healthy life years. That would really express the losses. This would presumably give a shocking result.
Coincidence is the leading cause of death these days…
If you want to make a difference then you will embrace accepted statistical methods to properly and objectively test a hypothesis.
I am not vaccinated, have taken graduate level epidemiology and bio statistics courses but your dismissal of accepted data norms does nothing but reduce your credibility in the eyes of those people with an actual formal background in data science.
As much as you don't want to believe it, there is a proper way to look for this data and the survey's you continue to discuss aren't part of the proper way to analyze this type of data.
Imagine how much you would shred the other side if they used a simple survey like yours to promote vaccination.
I have no specialized training in this type of thing, but my assumption was that those who do would not give it the time of day.
Completely crazy. There are no "biasses" or "preconceived beliefs" in answering the question "do you have a family member who died in the past 2 years", it's a yes/no answer, they either died or they didn't. The cause isn't addressed by the simple questions asked. This is a case of so-called "experts" complicating things unneccessarily, (or intentionally in an effort to show they know better than you or me). If the question was "do you know anyone who you believe might have died of a covid vaccine in the past 2 years" then OK, that's a different matter and obviously highly subjective. What hope have we got when "experts" incorporate THEIR biasses into the argument?
Unfortunately Jeff's friend is correct that social surveys cannot "prove" anything, though not for the reasons given. A survey relies on people's memories and beliefs. They may suffer from recall bias, remember incorrectly, or believe something that turns out to be incorrect. For example, Uncle Henry may have told everyone he was getting his vaccine on date x, which turned out to be 2 days before he died, but no one knew the appointment got rescheduled for the day after his death. Or he may have had his vaccine appointment but was given a flu vaccine instead by mistake. Or he may have died and no one knew he was injected because he kept that secret from his family. Memories can be tricky and beliefs can be incorrect. Unless the individual taking the survey went with the deceased individual to their vaccine appointment, or has access to the immunization record, their belief about the vaccination date may not be reliable.
Social surveys are an excellent way to collect data to show there is a potential association and sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation using unbiased data collection methods. They are not proof by themselves, but they can be good evidence to say that we should spend the time, effort and resources to prove the association by examining death records and immunization records for everyone in the country. Records of immunization with corresponding death dates would be a reliable way to prove the injection increases deaths. Social surveys are helpful but not sufficient evidence on their own.
All these Doctors, msm etc etc are $$$eyes$$$ears$$$mouth ‘wide shut’. We All know this, they seem to think we’re the ‘conspiracists’, their brains and hearts are dead to this killing field.
I’ve always been sus over the years about Drs sending me for expensive procedures, that on a few occasions created damage, like haemorrhaging, infections etc, that should we’re never needed. But, that’s money for those concerned. I always remember our Precious Dr Wayne Dyer saying that Cancer is a huge money making business, so very true. ❤️🙏🌟
Whoever controls MSM, controls THE MESSAGE and resultantly, the mass formation psychology. Human bias is the rule, rather than the exception.
If I recall Dr Judy Mikovits told in an interview a few months ago that they have now found a way of scientifically identifying vaccine related injuries by tests. You may wish to interview her to get some clarity as to the best ways to actually prove vaccine related injuries...
Reporting a death of someone you know is not hearsay. By that standard, non hearsay would be the dead person reporting that he died. How stupid are people getting or how blind?
A survey is perfectly fine for this; it all comes down to the sample design and the questionnaire design. Virtually all research is now conducted using online sample sources, with many approaching the same rigor as traditional telephone probability samples. A sampling approach that uses a reputable online sample provider focused on surveying a representative sample balanced to census data will ensure the sample itself has no more bias than any other survey, including almost every study conducted by the CDC. The issue isn't the methodology in this example; it is the cognitive dissonance and bias of the person objecting.
You can't fix stupid. You can duck tape it, but that's frowned upon! A monkey with a half of a banana and the proper training KNOWS people unnecessarily died from medical malpractice. Unnecessary ventilation and drugs that didn't work. They also knows large numbers are now dying from the death shot, clot shot, whatever you want to call it. They can deny it all they want.
Do both ways and compare?
Let me give you some perspective, as I think this conversation is greatly in need of it. And God Bless Steve for all his help ! Please check out this article on "The Great Conjunction of 2020". The planets Jupiter and Saturn last passed this close to each other in 1623 when The Pilgrims of America sat down for their first Thanksgiving meal - the Birth of America. These Great Conjunctions of such close passing come at the time of Regime Change. There is a Great Reset going on, the question is WHICH ONE ?
https://medium.com/astrolab21/the-great-conjunction-of-2020-f791304e6bec
Steve, the people in the Cell article had specific fluorescent antibody stains to detect spike and vaccine RNA in the samples. I suspect that while so few labs have those stains most doctors will stay quiet about their suspicions. Access to confirmatory lab tests is huge. So I know someone who dropped dead post booster but he was never autopsied, and if he had been there was nothing available to nail the vaccine, so my survey suspicion remains a suspicion. Do you know whether any vax injury specific testing kits are being ramped up?
So in other words, the friend got the jabs and boosters and doesn’t want to be confronted with the possible stupidity and consequences of his own lack of discernment and research. 👍🏼
They have all the data. Already in the very first weeks, they may have experienced increased mortality and serious illness.
Moreover, they can compare covid and vaccine based on lost healthy life years. That would really express the losses. This would presumably give a shocking result.
We have a right to know.