scientific discovery for the Left!
Categories
An important
Category: Science
for me, but here’s an optimistic article for you. You know, I can’t help but worry that voter fraud might well win the day.
So don’t get cocky!
I mean, Kamala is truly demonically disgusting. Hearing her crow about how she can destroy innocent people’s lives “with a stroke of my pen” was just chilling!
When I saw that clip, my first thought was, “Holy crap, what kind of monster IS this? And how could a moral person vote for THAT?
But back to the ranch…
People seem to be turning in the right (Right) and moral direction. Almost all the polls suffer from kind of a “lemming effect.” It is VERY difficult to contact people in this age of cell phones and caller ID.
So ALL there actually is is statistical “bootstrapping,” and THAT is indeed prone to investigator bias. You actually can’t lift yourself off the ground by pushing up on your own bootstraps!
In other words, scientific validity is highly suspect! The assumptions and even methods are usually hidden behind a defensive industry jargon. And yet, those methods and assumptions virtually 100% determine the outcome of the poll! As one commenter put it:
One rather gets the impression that even political junkies are one more election cycle away from giving up entirely on polls in general. They can’t build a sample, they can’t find the population, it’s all becoming increasingly imaginary. [emphasis in original]
But in the current situation, polling outfits want to make it seem close enough that people won’t say, “Oh c’mon!” if fraud carries Kamala’s worthless carcass over the finish line.
My worry is that Democrat voter fraud will overcome the voice of the people. I dearly hope not…
You’re not anti-science, are you?
Folks, eat natural. Eat safe. Eat meat. The trendy (and often extreme) vegetarianism and veganism are simply not scientifically supported.
Myocarditis and pericarditis only occur after vaccination and not after COVID-19 infection, according to a recent preprint led by researchers at Oxford University, which compared health outcomes among COVID-vaccinated and unvaccinated children. [emphasis added]
The study (as reported here) is more than a little mealy-mouthed. As a published scientist, to me the doublespeak is really quite obvious:
Despite having higher chances of heart inflammation, vaccinated adolescents had significantly lower chances of testing positive for COVID-19 and needing COVID-related hospitalization and critical care compared to their unvaccinated counterparts.
So yeah, they had more heart inflammation, but those who were “vaccinated” need fewer hospitalizations! And just how much less common are COVID hospitalizations due to the vaccines? A little? A lot? How common is it for children to get COVID anyway? And who gives a rip if they test positive but are asymptomatic? And of those who DO get symptomatic, what percentage need to be hospitalized? 1%? 4o%? there is a BIG difference there!
1% could indeed be statistically significant, but not clinically important at all! I’ve done a lot of both research-wise, and statistical or mathematical significance is a whole different animal than clinical relevance, particularly as the statistical number gets smaller and smaller.
Categories
Guess what, all
you enviro-wackos?
does my research methodology heart good!
Categories
If you are at
all scientifically rigorous, you reject the mask mandates. Because there is no science that supports them. Yes, they may fit with your political aims, but the actual science just doesn’t support them.
The Cochrane review’s lead author, Oxford’s Tom Jefferson, said of masks in a subsequent interview with Australian investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi, “There is just no evidence that they make any difference. Full stop.”
… In fact, 16 RCTs have tested whether masks effectively reduce the spread of viruses. Not one has found compelling evidence that they do. Two have found statistically significant evidence that masks are counterproductive—that they increase the spread of viruses—probably because masks are frequently moist or dirty, and people often touch them.
…Trying to block a virus with a mask is like trying to keep mosquitos out of your yard with a chain-link fence.
…In a way, Oreskes has provided a public service with her article, as has Scientific American in running it. The article makes clear how willing mask advocates are to sacrifice scientific objectivity on the altar of their newfound religion.
Categories
You wanna know
why people no longer implicitly trust “experts?
Categories
It’s a pretty
impressive intellectual tour-de-force. If you are at all interested in such things, you need to give it a listen.
The major problem, as I see it, is that people generally don’t understand the scientific concept of validity–are you measuring what you think you’re measuring?
Instrumentation is a big deal. Let’s say that it’s 1974 and I put up a thermometer to measure the temperature. It is in the middle of immense grasslands, so there is little interference from other sources.
BUT, come 2021, that thermometer is now in the middle of a mall parking lot–it is surrounded by asphalt for miles around. Needless to say, that area is no longer a grassland.
Do you think that the 1974 readings might be different than the 2021 readings? Yeah, maybe…
See, this is where the scientific concept of validity comes in. And if I adjust the readings to take account of the new conditions, upon what is that adjustment based? And just who decides the magnitude of the adjustment? And how is their decision scientific and not raw politics?
See, if I “adjust,” is what I’ve done now politics and not science at all? Not that it’s ALL not politics, but still…
Categories
It’s time I
posted some of the many memes I’ve collected. TBH, I pretty much have no idea where I got most of them, so I really can’t give credit…
More will come soon–this is just the first batch.
