Sociopath Community

AppleGenius said:

Unless the next thing you say actually addresses something I've said, I'm done. Someone else can deal with this nonsense.

I'm done.

Liyang, the fundamental issue is that you are as bad as any bad scientist or medical professional who cheery pick statistics from papers to suite their narratives without understanding what inferences they can reasonably make from those statistics.  

AliceInWonderland said: 

Liyang, the fundamental issue is that you are as bad as any bad scientist or medical professional who cheery pick statistics from papers to suite their narratives without understanding what inferences they can reasonably make from those statistics.  

lol, I cherry picked the Pfizer randomized trial data to my own liking. The gold standard data shows the vaccine does more harm than placebo. And this is cherry picking?

Have you noticed not one person in this thread has discussed the data? Or pointed out from the trial data where I was wrong.

You people need to wake up.

 I counter your claim of cherry picking based on that you are willfully ignoring valid data due to your confirmation bias.

AppleGenius said: 

AppleGenius said:

Unless the next thing you say actually addresses something I've said, I'm done. Someone else can deal with this nonsense.

I'm done.

What kind of scientist does not discuss the data? Typical weak argument and rage quit. 

LiYang said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Liyang, the fundamental issue is that you are as bad as any bad scientist or medical professional who cheery pick statistics from papers to suite their narratives without understanding what inferences they can reasonably make from those statistics.  

lol, I cherry picked the Pfizer randomized trial data to my own liking. The gold standard data shows the vaccine does more harm than placebo. And this is cherry picking?

The problem is not observing that. 

The question is what reasonable inference can you make from that observation. What new hypothesis can you reasonably ask given that inference. What statistics do you need to verify that hypothesis. 

Have you noticed not one person in this thread has discussed the data? Or pointed out from the trial data where I was wrong.

You people need to wake up.

I have asked several critical questions about the data. Yet, all your responses are bad inferences. 

What makes your inferences bad is that they are not supported by the cherry picked statistics you post, hence they are not reasonable. Your actual issue is that you take a statistic and then make a giant leap to an unreasonable inference. It's this giant leap that allows those of us familiar with statistics and probability theory as rigorous sciences and mathematical formulations to conclude that you conform to your own biases. The beautiful irony is that this is the same thing that those shitty scientists and medical professionals you oppose do, except they make their inappropriate inferences in the opposite direction. 

AliceInWonderland said: 

LiYang said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Liyang, the fundamental issue is that you are as bad as any bad scientist or medical professional who cheery pick statistics from papers to suite their narratives without understanding what inferences they can reasonably make from those statistics.  

lol, I cherry picked the Pfizer randomized trial data to my own liking. The gold standard data shows the vaccine does more harm than placebo. And this is cherry picking?

The problem is not observing that. 

The question is what reasonable inference can you make from that observation. What new hypothesis can you reasonably ask given that inference. What statistics do you need to verify that hypothesis. 

Have you noticed not one person in this thread has discussed the data? Or pointed out from the trial data where I was wrong.

You people need to wake up.

I have asked several critical questions about the data. Yet, all your responses are bad inferences. 

What makes your inferences bad is that they are not supported by the cherry picked statistics you post, hence they are not reasonable. Your actual issue is that you take a statistic and then make a giant leap to an unreasonable inference. It's this giant leap that allows those of us familiar with statistics and probability theory as rigorous sciences and mathematical formulations to conclude that you conform to your own biases. The beautiful irony is that this is the same thing that those shitty scientists and medical professionals you oppose do, except they make their inappropriate inferences in the opposite direction. 

I'm not going to do your homework for you. Read the paper.

LiYang said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

LiYang said: 

lol, I cherry picked the Pfizer randomized trial data to my own liking. The gold standard data shows the vaccine does more harm than placebo. And this is cherry picking?

The problem is not observing that. 

The question is what reasonable inference can you make from that observation. What new hypothesis can you reasonably ask given that inference. What statistics do you need to verify that hypothesis. 

Have you noticed not one person in this thread has discussed the data? Or pointed out from the trial data where I was wrong.

You people need to wake up.

I have asked several critical questions about the data. Yet, all your responses are bad inferences. 

What makes your inferences bad is that they are not supported by the cherry picked statistics you post, hence they are not reasonable. Your actual issue is that you take a statistic and then make a giant leap to an unreasonable inference. It's this giant leap that allows those of us familiar with statistics and probability theory as rigorous sciences and mathematical formulations to conclude that you conform to your own biases. The beautiful irony is that this is the same thing that those shitty scientists and medical professionals you oppose do, except they make their inappropriate inferences in the opposite direction. 

I'm not going to do your homework for you. Read the paper.

 I did. And the follow up. And a meta-analysis. And the pertinent parts of the FDA Committee Meeting.

natasha87 said: 

LiYang said: 

natasha87 said: 

liyang is officially exposed as a fraud and potentially a bot

Apple guy just admitted I was correct and he regrets taking 4 experimental vaccines for a Big Pharma lab rat. That's exposed as a fraud? lol

I feel sorry for people like him. This really does suck. Some of my "smart" friends also took the vaccines. These people have PhD's and such. I think they lack intelligence in some ways. Street smarts that you don't get from a book. Gullible and easily manipulated by fear.

First denial then the anger is coming. I was wrong at something tho. I thought the anger phase would be sooner. Denial is taking longer than I thought.

 

you're quite delusional. have u ever been diagnosed with a mental illness?

 Do you have any comments on the trial? Nothing?

AliceInWonderland said: 

LiYang said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

The problem is not observing that. 

The question is what reasonable inference can you make from that observation. What new hypothesis can you reasonably ask given that inference. What statistics do you need to verify that hypothesis. 

I have asked several critical questions about the data. Yet, all your responses are bad inferences. 

What makes your inferences bad is that they are not supported by the cherry picked statistics you post, hence they are not reasonable. Your actual issue is that you take a statistic and then make a giant leap to an unreasonable inference. It's this giant leap that allows those of us familiar with statistics and probability theory as rigorous sciences and mathematical formulations to conclude that you conform to your own biases. The beautiful irony is that this is the same thing that those shitty scientists and medical professionals you oppose do, except they make their inappropriate inferences in the opposite direction. 

I'm not going to do your homework for you. Read the paper.

 I did. And the follow up. And a meta-analysis. And the pertinent parts of the FDA Committee Meeting.

Great, you read it. I can't get my PhD friends to read it. They have cognitive dissonance. They are also in a religious cult of faith in their "peers". Irony for the atheists. lol

This is the paper that is changing minds. "Pfizer's own trial data"

What do you disagree with? Or do you agree with the authors? Did you look at the raw data? What did you think of the math? I'm sure you have an opinion about these simple statistics.

The experimental vaccine obviously caused harm in the vaccine group. And is still causing harm.

"The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group;"

Due to nobody actually reading the paper and making comments. I'll just put the data here.

What's suspicious about this trial data is they stopped the trial after two months as the data was getting very bad for the vaccine group.

"Pfizer limited reporting from dose 1 to 1 month after dose 2."

I suspect many vaccinated people have psychosis as is shown in the data.