There were 3 deaths at the same clinic in Pittsburgh alone. That, should have set off major warning bells alone. Guess because the deaths were in the elderly, they really didn't count.
I was in the military at the time and the swine flu shots were mandatory.
Not thrilled about using Science Magazine as a source but it was so long ago.
I deal with statistical variance metrics on an ongoing basis, but no familiarity with data compilation, use and misuse is required to discredit the above assertion.
When I have youngsters, with no knowledge whatsoever of statistical analysis, tell me that they want nothing to do with the mass human trials because no one ever corrected the admittedly false cause-of-death reporting that was disseminated early on, we can surmise that a very simple "they lied for money and nobody cares about telling the truth" conclusion can and should be reached by everyone, with no arithmetic required. The utilitarian calculus of relative harm becomes manslaughter (at a minimum) when erroneous data is knowingly used in a foundational manner.
Well, you just carry on, Mark. Your efforts have been effective and are very much appreciated.
Fewer. (Read the post.)
There were 3 deaths at the same clinic in Pittsburgh alone. That, should have set off major warning bells alone. Guess because the deaths were in the elderly, they really didn't count.
I was in the military at the time and the swine flu shots were mandatory.
Not thrilled about using Science Magazine as a source but it was so long ago.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.194.4265.590I
So was I and I got it.
At least we are not dead.
True!
But Mark, "The benefits outweigh the risks!"
I deal with statistical variance metrics on an ongoing basis, but no familiarity with data compilation, use and misuse is required to discredit the above assertion.
When I have youngsters, with no knowledge whatsoever of statistical analysis, tell me that they want nothing to do with the mass human trials because no one ever corrected the admittedly false cause-of-death reporting that was disseminated early on, we can surmise that a very simple "they lied for money and nobody cares about telling the truth" conclusion can and should be reached by everyone, with no arithmetic required. The utilitarian calculus of relative harm becomes manslaughter (at a minimum) when erroneous data is knowingly used in a foundational manner.
Well, you just carry on, Mark. Your efforts have been effective and are very much appreciated.