SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Skybird · 03-03-23, 07:58 AM

Absolutely stunning to learn how monumentally we got lied to and got betrayed. Lesson learned for the rets of my life. Had little faith only before all this in government "authority" - not even that rest has remained now.

Where I feel humbled is that I went wrong because I violated my own priority rule: do not trust governments. Never. This time I did, gave it the benefit of doubt. And (deservedly, I suppose) got royally kicked their boot up my azz.

This and the wanted corruption of scientific integrity is something I cannot forgive. I feel humbled - but much much more I feel angry, and furious.

We got lied to and betrayed.

My father was knocked down completely by the jab, took one and a half day in hospital, we did not know whetehr he ever would leave again, he was completely knocked out. He did not want it, I talked him into it. They almost made me kill my father.

I never forgive them this. Because at that time they knew it already. And the liar at the top of the hierarchy knows it from all beginning on.

On the mask issue in Campbell's video its nevertheless worthy to know WHY the masks seem to not work. I never trusted the surgical masks, they are little more than just thin paper, but the PP2 and PP3 masks? They are particle masks, and virusses are thought to not float in the air all by themsleves, but being attached to particles and droplets of sizes that are perfectly caught by the material in PP2 and PP3 masks. Thats where the truist in these masks came form, and what it is based on. If a fish has a diameter of 5 cm and you throw out a net with a mesh size of 2.5 cm, you expect the fish cannot physically pass through it. I can imagine that these masks were not worn correctly, or that infeciton took place by other ways, may it be by carelessly moving the infected fingertip under the masks to scratch an itching, or by contamination of clothing and skin, rmeving the maks, and then tocuing the face, anything like that. And lets face it, many many people in oublic wore their masks absolutely wrong and carkless and sloppy.

I also want an explanaiton why there have been in parts very well done research studies formt he fiorst 12-18 motnhs, namels in the context of airplane cabins, why they back then found SIGNIFICANT reduction in virus distribution amongst passengers if netilation shcemes did not chnage but passngers wore masks. Medcram channel had one or two such studies explained, they were very clear in their conclusion, and conclusive.

It somehow makes no sense to me. I wonde rwhether the conclusions now are based on some so far unidentified meta-statistical effects. In other words: i do not yet trust the conclusions thoroughly. There are still questions that demand answers. In a way the reuslts of this metanalysis makes little sens eonly if taken for itself. It needs further practice-oriented research.

Its s bit like with getting a high correlation. It might be hiugh and very signficant, still that is no evidence for a causal linear link: a high correlation always indicates the need for further research anbd itself only says that ther eis somethign. What it is still needs to be found out.

------------

In 2015 and 2016 the American health ministry was confronted with research done by Reuters regarding corruption in the health priudcts idnustry, and that they managed to get reocmmendaitons for the use of certian dentla health care products like dental floss and miniatrue tooth brushes for the space betwene teeth. Reuters brought a story that these were recommended due bribery and corrupotion, and that the study basis supproting the claim thes eitems were useful, were methodologically extremely weak. Actually it turned out that the sutdy basis did not justify any accoridng recomemndaitons for th euse of dentla floss and interdental mini tooth brushes at all. The Cochrane foudnation said they had done two emtanaqylsis in revcent years with several dozen studies examined, and that their findings were against suich reocmemndaitons given, In a reaction, the recommendation was deleted from the official Recommendations for American Citizens for a healthy life style, which is published by the American ministry of health. The president of the German association of parodontologists in 2016 was quizze doin thse events and said that they also promtie the priorit yise of these little tooth b riushes before the use of dentla floss, and again the Cochrane foundation came up and said they had done meta-analysis on these as well - and again with cracking results showing no relevance of these at all. Back in late 2016 I finished following this story with two dentists telling me they were worried that now people would stop brushing their teeth at all. - Why am I telling this? To illutrate that these kind of meta-analsis done are not the final word on anything, usually, and are a complex and mixed matter that often,m all too often needs further investigation. Every statistical process and methjod is limite din ots ranbge of poissibve putcomes by the methods choosen to run the analysis, and if the anylsis method is such and such, it necessarily excludes from the beginning outcomes that it is not fit to ever generate and express. The Cochrane anylsis, tow of theem, show that we should not and must not use dsntal floss or small interlink tooth brushes. But does that make sense, even more so when the use of tooth picks to remove something sticking between youre teeth also is stasticially found to not be useful?

Things may not be as simple and obvious as they seem.

03-03-23, 07:58 AM	#10799
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,741 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	Absolutely stunning to learn how monumentally we got lied to and got betrayed. Lesson learned for the rets of my life. Had little faith only before all this in government "authority" - not even that rest has remained now. Where I feel humbled is that I went wrong because I violated my own priority rule: do not trust governments. Never. This time I did, gave it the benefit of doubt. And (deservedly, I suppose) got royally kicked their boot up my azz. This and the wanted corruption of scientific integrity is something I cannot forgive. I feel humbled - but much much more I feel angry, and furious. We got lied to and betrayed. My father was knocked down completely by the jab, took one and a half day in hospital, we did not know whetehr he ever would leave again, he was completely knocked out. He did not want it, I talked him into it. They almost made me kill my father. I never forgive them this. Because at that time they knew it already. And the liar at the top of the hierarchy knows it from all beginning on. On the mask issue in Campbell's video its nevertheless worthy to know *WHY* the masks seem to not work. I never trusted the surgical masks, they are little more than just thin paper, but the PP2 and PP3 masks? They are particle masks, and virusses are thought to not float in the air all by themsleves, but being attached to particles and droplets of sizes that are perfectly caught by the material in PP2 and PP3 masks. Thats where the truist in these masks came form, and what it is based on. If a fish has a diameter of 5 cm and you throw out a net with a mesh size of 2.5 cm, you expect the fish cannot physically pass through it. I can imagine that these masks were not worn correctly, or that infeciton took place by other ways, may it be by carelessly moving the infected fingertip under the masks to scratch an itching, or by contamination of clothing and skin, rmeving the maks, and then tocuing the face, anything like that. And lets face it, many many people in oublic wore their masks absolutely wrong and carkless and sloppy. I also want an explanaiton why there have been in parts very well done research studies formt he fiorst 12-18 motnhs, namels in the context of airplane cabins, why they back then found SIGNIFICANT reduction in virus distribution amongst passengers if netilation shcemes did not chnage but passngers wore masks. Medcram channel had one or two such studies explained, they were very clear in their conclusion, and conclusive. It somehow makes no sense to me. I wonde rwhether the conclusions now are based on some so far unidentified meta-statistical effects. In other words: i do not yet trust the conclusions thoroughly. There are still questions that demand answers. In a way the reuslts of this metanalysis makes little sens eonly if taken for itself. It needs further practice-oriented research. Its s bit like with getting a high correlation. It might be hiugh and very signficant, still that is no evidence for a causal linear link: a high correlation always indicates the need for further research anbd itself only says that ther eis somethign. What it is still needs to be found out. ------------ In 2015 and 2016 the American health ministry was confronted with research done by Reuters regarding corruption in the health priudcts idnustry, and that they managed to get reocmmendaitons for the use of certian dentla health care products like dental floss and miniatrue tooth brushes for the space betwene teeth. Reuters brought a story that these were recommended due bribery and corrupotion, and that the study basis supproting the claim thes eitems were useful, were methodologically extremely weak. Actually it turned out that the sutdy basis did not justify any accoridng recomemndaitons for th euse of dentla floss and interdental mini tooth brushes at all. The Cochrane foudnation said they had done two emtanaqylsis in revcent years with several dozen studies examined, and that their findings were against suich reocmemndaitons given, In a reaction, the recommendation was deleted from the official Recommendations for American Citizens for a healthy life style, which is published by the American ministry of health. The president of the German association of parodontologists in 2016 was quizze doin thse events and said that they also promtie the priorit yise of these little tooth b riushes before the use of dentla floss, and again the Cochrane foundation came up and said they had done meta-analysis on these as well - and again with cracking results showing no relevance of these at all. Back in late 2016 I finished following this story with two dentists telling me they were worried that now people would stop brushing their teeth at all. - Why am I telling this? To illutrate that these kind of meta-analsis done are not the final word on anything, usually, and are a complex and mixed matter that often,m all too often needs further investigation. Every statistical process and methjod is limite din ots ranbge of poissibve putcomes by the methods choosen to run the analysis, and if the anylsis method is such and such, it necessarily excludes from the beginning outcomes that it is not fit to ever generate and express. The Cochrane anylsis, tow of theem, show that we should not and must not use dsntal floss or small interlink tooth brushes. But does that make sense, even more so when the use of tooth picks to remove something sticking between youre teeth also is stasticially found to not be useful? Things may not be as simple and obvious as they seem. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.