Comments by "bruzote" (@bruzote) on "Dr. John Campbell" channel.

Vietnam did a great job by listening to SCIENTISTS (I think from Harvard) and following their advice. Amazing what happens when you don't have a total fool for a leader.
6
@sooky2253 - Define they. While you're at it, ask why you really want to see your dark fantasies as reality.
6
@Honey_Badger_xx - Yes, imagine that people want to see evidence, not your hearsay or ridiculous YouTube conspiracy videos, specific claims and not generalities, and the use of logic, not deluded leaps of fantasy. How could we all be so foolish?
5
These videos bring out the anecdotal comments. Nobody should care. Anecdotes are NOT proof. They are only good for confusing our perceptions. Studies and only studies should be used. Anecdotes are worthless and can even be dangerous. For example, "My mother stopped taking her heart medicine and she is just fine!". "I smoke and I don't have lung cancer!"" Anecdotes. Worthless. Stop posting them please.
4
The p-value does not need to be anything. A frequentist stat model like this should be used by first stating what EFFECT size and what p-value (or probability) you would find personally satisfying to support your hypothesis (e.g., that Vitamin D is worth taking). Of course, your odds should be at least >50% certainty because otherwise you would have not even believe your hypothesis is probably correct in any way.. Nature has not forced upon anyone the idea that we must be 95% certain that the control data and the test data represent different samples. By the way, that does not mean your hypothesis is 95% certain to be right. It ONLY means that a frequentist statistical analysis has shown that there is only a 5% chance that your control data and test data were randomly selected from the same parent population. These odds are degraded by any missed sample selection effects that are non-random. Further, the 5% chance or less that the data is randomly generated does NOT mean you would be 95% certain that the samples are different because your hypothesis is correct. It could be that ANOTHER hypothesis is correct, especially if that alternative hypothesis correlates to the test condition associated with your test hypothesis. All of this is why it is so important to try to use Bayesian analysis, not primitive frequentist statistics promoted as a binary proof of a hypothesis.
3
And people died just like him for months, years and millennia BEFORE the vaccine was invented. So, please stop blaming the vaccine. Surprise deaths are correlated with EVERYTHING that took place in someone's life shortly before that horrible surprise. Why blame the vaccine? My friend died at the age of 36. Should I blame the vaccine? He died decades ago. So, should I blame TV? The toilet paper he used? I could correlate his death with anything. That doesn't make it the cause. Any sense of certainty doesn't change the lack of proof, either. Tragedies confuse people and they want something to blame. I am sorry. That sh*t hurts. But it doesn't mean the vaccine is to blame.
1
@ingeniousman7761 - Your tin foil hat is slipping. If you have a better fuel, come up with it and sell it. What's that? You don't? Just excuses, diversions, and more dark but empty fantasies of a global cabal?
1
@naape2596 - No, you don't.
1
Actually, I am wrong saying even 50% is a key level. The real hypothesis is that ensuring Vitamin D levels are good is a worthwhile endeavor. If the risks of not taking it are 6x higher risk of death when infected with COVID, even a 10% chance that the seen effect is due to Vitamin D might be worthwhile acting on!
1
@siliquaesid703 - It takes an even bigger man to laugh at that man and get away with it.
1
@kdcruz75 - How do you know it's the common cold and not COVID? I have always wanted more reassurance about HOW they are doing testing, but plenty of the people involved in these programs are NOT in Big Pharma's pocket, they are NOT government officials, and their families, friends, and livelihoods have been hurt by this virus. How do you explain that the real geniuses who also have a solid work ethic have not figured out what you have? I will trust them. I still prefer to know, but it seems the media is not working too hard to clarify how the PCR test is specific to COVID. I guess a full damn year is not enough time to look into the matter and share their findings with the public.
1
@Ad_Astra_321 - Sweeping generalizations without any backing are pointless and useless. What do you have to say that is valuable?
1
@kdcruz75 - Dude, your meds are wearing off.
1
@wjs5773 - If other studies are able to generally confirm these results, then telling people to take Vitamin D should be something you hear EVERY day in the media. EVERY day. If that's not happening, something is wrong.
1
Don't forget that plenty of companies tried to make them and they LOST money.
1
@TTR83 - Define not safe enough. When the risk of certain people catching COVID and suffering serious consequences is 100,000 times worse than the risk of a vaccination adverse outcome, who are you to tell people it is not "safe enough"?
1
@beetleything1864 - True. And? Right now it's a bit late to do anything but buy their vaccines.
1
@beetleything1864 - Yes, because the government provided financial backing for those companies that made the deal. Pfizer passed on it.
1
@TTR83 - By your illogical thinking, NOTHING is serious since you have not died from ANYTHING! Do you really believe NOTHING is serious?
1
@bevally1533 - Sorry, man, but I work in Pharma. The money goes to profits, acquisition of companies that did actual research and got good results, political donations, payoff deals to the medical and insurance industries and advertising. I work on the marketing end. I despise that I am part of a process that I think should be changed, but the money is STILL good enough to pull me in. My salary is paid for by YOU (indirectly)! Well, it is paid for by the sales generated by ads, but the ads cost MONEY. The citizen pays for that money. People like you support the business model but it really is NOT in the citizens healthy interest. Thanks for believing you're mostly paying for research. You are not. And if you think Pharma is not supremely corrupt, consider this. I work in consulting. EVERY year I have had to take MULTIPLE versions of anti-corruption training required by the government. Why? Because Pharma companies find that crime pays. When they caught, they sign Corporate Integrity Agreements. Those "CIAs" require employees, contractors and consultants to take the training. And if you work with three companies that all have CIAs, you must take the same type of training for EACH company! It's ridiculous. It goes on and on, every year. The number of hours I have spent in this training goes into the triple digits! Every year I do it. Big Pharma is corrupt. Period. The whole business model is immoral, IMO. Our governments and non-profits could handle research and education. Instead, Big Pharma has corrupted our politicians and even the citizens' values so much they agree to let the business model run on. That is morally corrupt. Once you've got that, don't be surprised that the legal corruption occurs as well.
1
@vsd1988 - My cat peed in the litter box and then later my nana died. Did my nana die because kitty peed? No. Do you know how many people died in the manner you describe before COVID vaccination was a thing? What do you blame those deaths on if not the vaccine? Deaths happen. Look at how they changed after COVID, the vaccine, and people not getting out to the doctor. (Which is a complicated trio already.) Please, don't try to keep cats from peeing in the litter box because nana died, and don't try to stop vaccinations because your unlucky friend died.
1
I am very sorry for your loss. Unfortunately, people died like that BEFORE the vaccine, too, with equally "no good reason". Again, BEFORE THE VACCINE. So stop blaming the vaccine until you can prove THAT is what did it and not some other bad luck event, including "idiopathic" (aka, no known reason) because (again) such deaths also happened BEFORE the vaccine.
1
Perhaps willful neglect of research would be a good choice of words?
1
LOL! Try running an international global conspiracy with the countless people involved and see how well you keep it a secret.
1
@angelab4652 - Though it is all anecdotal. An N of one.
1
@esecallum - Alright, drama queen. "Destroys" is more than going overboard.
1
@jamesguitar7384 - Fine print.
1