When the baseline numbers/assumptions are purely hypothetical, it doesn't matter how many equations they run using THOSE numbers in the problem.
Sort of like the climate data that's all based upon fraudulent numbers from the get-go. Erase the fake baseline numbers (or admit you don't actually have any) and you end up with subjective adjectives like "rare" and call it "the science." The only thing that's rare, is to see any of these freaks to telling the truth about any of this.
Thanks, James Lyons Weiller, your article posted just in time. I was seething in confusion at the poor studies that suddenly popped up on the internet. I expect such sloppyines in politics, but not with our health.
Dr. John Ioannidis is famous for stating that all published science data is pretty much false. (In retrospect that statement is like saying grass is green.) Yet, this new paper dares put out estimates with umpteen missing factors...like longterm fallout from vx damage, recurring cancers, explosive cancers, heart failure, aneurysms, etc etc etc.
What about Covid itself with it$ fake PCR tests; it$ lockdowns and resulting suicides; it$ hospital protocols with remdesivir, midazolam and ventilators; it$ gene-disruptive injections that continue to destroy people ?? Who even knows if the sh_t is or isn't shedding on unvaxed making them ill?? Dr. Makis suspects it may be shedding and causing cancer.
Now they intend to release self-replicating injections! One word: Demonic.
Re: "The absence of any mention or adjustment for this well-documented bias significantly undermines the validity of the study's estimates and conclusions." This is a very diplomatic approach indeed.
Dr. Weiler, your assessment of the new Ioannidis preprint seems quite charitable, in particular stating at the end that the “effort to estimate life-years saved—while controversial—represents a meaningful attempt to quantify broader benefits beyond mortality reduction.” Your use of the term “meaningful” in this context is far too kind. Ioannidis and colleagues cite two papers that address serious adverse events (Fraiman et al's and Bardosh et al's), then go on to omit the SAEs from their analysis, even though their inclusion would directly and profoundly impact the life-years saved calculus. Aside from this minuscule sampling of the adverse events literature, excluding SAEs introduces significant bias, as these events directly impact the life expectancy of individuals who experience them, particularly in younger populations where the theoretical benefits of the modified mRNA injections are more marginal and the risks (e.g., myocarditis, with long-range risk of heart failure) more dramatic. Without incorporating SAEs, the estimate of life-years preserved becomes artificially inflated, as it fails to consider the potential real-life consequences of vaxx-related outcomes such as deaths or life-threatening conditions. Furthermore, the omission of SAEs fails to honor the fundamental epidemiologic/public health principle of weighing both benefits AND risks. Given that SAEs can lead to long-term health impairments, including the reduction of life expectancy, their exclusion undermines the accuracy and validity of any life-year calculations. It is difficult to understand how someone of Ioannidis’s stature could reasonably begin to calculate life-years saved without attempting to include SAEs as part of the equation. I encourage your readers to read our two-part Lessons Learned review for a comprehensive overview of these adverse events and other examples of how the scientific community has attempted to obscure, distort, and sidestep their relevance.
The first clue for the world, especially the USA, We didn't bomb the CCP out of existence within 2 weeks of the Lab Leak. Instead Feds pretended that it couldn't have been from a lab that everything that happened leading up to that point was An InsideJob. All to OUST DJT clearly, those in control didn't want to give up control. #DefundTyranny #DepopulateTheDepopulators
When the baseline numbers/assumptions are purely hypothetical, it doesn't matter how many equations they run using THOSE numbers in the problem.
Sort of like the climate data that's all based upon fraudulent numbers from the get-go. Erase the fake baseline numbers (or admit you don't actually have any) and you end up with subjective adjectives like "rare" and call it "the science." The only thing that's rare, is to see any of these freaks to telling the truth about any of this.
For some in the medical/science field, below, it's much easier to lie than to tell the truth. It's called "an agenda":
*https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-blog/2021/june/how-mrna-vaccines-help-fight-cancer-tumors-too
*https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10007716/
*https://jitc.bmj.com/content/10/3/e004371
*https://www.mdedge.com/fedprac/avaho/article/257524/covid-19-updates/complete-remission-metastatic-renal-cell-carcinoma
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8723760/
https://nbcf.org.au/project/using-covid-19-immunity-to-fight-breast-cancer/
Thanks, James Lyons Weiller, your article posted just in time. I was seething in confusion at the poor studies that suddenly popped up on the internet. I expect such sloppyines in politics, but not with our health.
What's with John? Did he REALLY put his name on this paper??
If the suggestions made herein to improve "the study" I don't think it would hold up anyway.
Dr. John Ioannidis is famous for stating that all published science data is pretty much false. (In retrospect that statement is like saying grass is green.) Yet, this new paper dares put out estimates with umpteen missing factors...like longterm fallout from vx damage, recurring cancers, explosive cancers, heart failure, aneurysms, etc etc etc.
What about Covid itself with it$ fake PCR tests; it$ lockdowns and resulting suicides; it$ hospital protocols with remdesivir, midazolam and ventilators; it$ gene-disruptive injections that continue to destroy people ?? Who even knows if the sh_t is or isn't shedding on unvaxed making them ill?? Dr. Makis suspects it may be shedding and causing cancer.
Now they intend to release self-replicating injections! One word: Demonic.
Ioannidis current paper is a farce.
His former one was a simple reality:
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Re: "The absence of any mention or adjustment for this well-documented bias significantly undermines the validity of the study's estimates and conclusions." This is a very diplomatic approach indeed.
Here's a link to the paper since I had to search:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.11.03.24316673v1.full.pdf
Dr. Weiler, your assessment of the new Ioannidis preprint seems quite charitable, in particular stating at the end that the “effort to estimate life-years saved—while controversial—represents a meaningful attempt to quantify broader benefits beyond mortality reduction.” Your use of the term “meaningful” in this context is far too kind. Ioannidis and colleagues cite two papers that address serious adverse events (Fraiman et al's and Bardosh et al's), then go on to omit the SAEs from their analysis, even though their inclusion would directly and profoundly impact the life-years saved calculus. Aside from this minuscule sampling of the adverse events literature, excluding SAEs introduces significant bias, as these events directly impact the life expectancy of individuals who experience them, particularly in younger populations where the theoretical benefits of the modified mRNA injections are more marginal and the risks (e.g., myocarditis, with long-range risk of heart failure) more dramatic. Without incorporating SAEs, the estimate of life-years preserved becomes artificially inflated, as it fails to consider the potential real-life consequences of vaxx-related outcomes such as deaths or life-threatening conditions. Furthermore, the omission of SAEs fails to honor the fundamental epidemiologic/public health principle of weighing both benefits AND risks. Given that SAEs can lead to long-term health impairments, including the reduction of life expectancy, their exclusion undermines the accuracy and validity of any life-year calculations. It is difficult to understand how someone of Ioannidis’s stature could reasonably begin to calculate life-years saved without attempting to include SAEs as part of the equation. I encourage your readers to read our two-part Lessons Learned review for a comprehensive overview of these adverse events and other examples of how the scientific community has attempted to obscure, distort, and sidestep their relevance.
Part 1: https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/101
Part 2: https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/104
The first clue for the world, especially the USA, We didn't bomb the CCP out of existence within 2 weeks of the Lab Leak. Instead Feds pretended that it couldn't have been from a lab that everything that happened leading up to that point was An InsideJob. All to OUST DJT clearly, those in control didn't want to give up control. #DefundTyranny #DepopulateTheDepopulators