The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Torfuscation – Gaming Study Design to Effect an Outcome

As important as is the mode of inference one employs commensurate with study completion, is the design of the study itself. Before one begins to attempt to reduce and analyze a body of observational resource, the ethical scientist must first select the study type and design that will afford them the greatest draw in terms of probative potential. The intricacies of this process present the poseur an opportunity to game outcomes of science through study design, type and PICO features, such that it produces outcomes which serve to further the political, hate or religious causes of their sponsors.

There are several ways to put on the appearance of conducting serious science, yet still effect outcomes which maintain alignment with the agency of your funders, sponsors, mentors or controlling authorities. Recent ethical evolution inside science, has highlighted the need for understanding that a researcher’s simply having calculated a p-value, applied an arrival distribution or bounded an estimate inside a confidence interval, does not necessarily mean that they have developed a sound basis from which to draw any quality inference. In similar philosophy, one can develop a study – and completely mislead the scientific community as to the nature of reality inside a given issue of contention or science.

We are all familiar with the trick of falsely calling a ‘survey of study abstracts’, or a meta-synthesis of best evidence, or an opinion piece summarizing a body of study from one person’s point of view – a ‘meta-analysis’. A meta-analysis combines congruent study designs and bodies of equivalent data, in order to improve the statistical power of the combined entailed analyses.1 The fake forms of meta-analysis do no such thing. A meta-analysis is a secondary or filtered systematic review which only bears leveraged strength in the instance wherein randomized controlled trials or longitudinal studies of the same species, are able to be combined in order to derive this higher statistical power. Every other flavor of such ‘blending of study’, does not accomplish such an objective. Such blending may, and this is important, actually serve to reduce the probative power of the systematic review itself. Nonetheless, you will find less-than-ethical scientists trying to push their opinion/summary articles upon the community as if they reflected through convenient misnomer, this ‘most rigorous form of study design’. One can find an example of this within the study: Taylor, Swerdfeger, Eslick; An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies; Elsevier, 2014.2

This equivocal sleight-of-hand stands as merely one example of the games played within the agency-influenced domains of science. With regard to manipulating study design in order to effect a desired scientific outcome, there are several means of accomplishing this feat. Most notably the following methods, which are all called collectively, torfuscation. Torfuscation involves employing a less rigorous study type (lower rank on the Chart below), an ineffective study design, or a type of flawed methodical PICO-time analysis, which will serve most often to weaken the probative potential of a study which could ostensibly serve to produce an outcome which threatens its sponsors.

Torfuscation

/philosophy : pseudoscience : study fraud : Saxon : ‘hide in the bog’/ : pseudoscience or obfuscation enacted through a Nelsonian knowledge masquerade of scientific protocol and study design. Inappropriate, manipulated or shallow study design crafted so as to obscure or avoid a targeted/disliked inference. A process, contended to be science, wherein one develops a conclusion through cataloging study artifice or observation noise as valid data. Invalid observations which can be parlayed into becoming evidence of absence or evidence of existence as one desires – by accepting only the appropriate hit or miss grouping one desires as basis to support an a priori preference, and as well avoid any further needed ex ante proof.  A refined form of praedicate evidentia or utile abstentia employed through using less rigorous or probative methods of study than are requisite under otherwise ethical science.  Exploitation of study noise generated through first level ‘big data’ or agency-influenced ‘meta-synthesis’, as the ‘evidence’ that no further or deeper study is therefore warranted – and moreover that research of the subject entailed is now socially embargoed.

Study design which exploits the weakness potential entailed inside the PICO-time Study Design Development Model3 (see Study to Inference Strength and Risk Chart below), through the manipulation of the study

P – patient, problem or population
I – intervention, indicator
C – comparison, control or comparator
O – outcome, or
time – time series

Which seeks to compromise the outcome or conclusion in terms of the study usage; more specifically: prevention, screening, diagnostic, treatment, quality of life, compassionate use, expanded access, superiority, non-inferiority and or equivalence.

Meta-Garbage, Deescalation and PICO-time Manipulation

One example of tampering with the PICO-time attributes of a study, would consist of the circumstance wherein only medical plan completed diagnostic data is used as the sample base for a retrospective observational cohort study’s ‘outcome’ data. Such data is highly likely to be incomplete or skewed in a non-probative direction, under a condition of linear induction (a weaker form of inference) and utile abstentia (a method of exclusion bias through furtive data-source selection). In similar fashion and as example, if the average age of outcome diagnosis is 5.5 years, and the average slack time between diagnosis and first possible recording into a medical plan database is 4 to 18 months, then a constraining of the time-series involved inside a study examining that data, to 4.5 years, is an act of incompetent or malicious study design. But you will find both of these tricks to be common in studies wherein a potential outcome is threatening to a study’s sponsors; agents who hope to prove by modus absens shallow and linear inductive inference that the subject can be embargoed from then on. Just such a study can be found here: Madsen, Hviid; A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism, 2002.4 A study may also be downgraded (lower on the chart below), and purposely forced to employ a lesser form of design probative strength (Levels 1 – 7); precisely because its sponsors suspect the possibility of a valid risk they do not want exposed. This is very similar to a downgrading in inference method called methodical deescalation – a common trick of professional pseudoscience. One may also notice that often, studies employing these three tricks are held as proprietary, concealed from the public during the critical study design phase. This is purposeful. This is oppression in the name of science. One may also notice that the ‘meta-analysis’ decried earlier in this article, cited this very study just mentioned as a ‘best evidence study’ inside its systematic review. If you meta-study garbage, you will produce meta-garbage as well (see Secondary Study in the Chart below).

The following is The Ethical Skeptic’s chart indexing study design against mode of inference, strength and its risk in torfuscation. It is a handy tool for helping spot torfuscation of the three example types elicited above, and more. The study types are ranked from top to bottom in terms of Level in probative strength (1 – 7), and as well are arranged into Direct, Analytical and Descriptive study groupings by color. Torfuscation involves the selection of a study type with a probative power lower down on the chart, when a higher probative level of study was available and/or warranted; as well as in tampering with the PICO-time risk elements (right side of chart under the yellow header) characteristic of each study type so as to weaken its overall ability to indicate a potential disliked outcome. The Chart is followed up by a series of definitions for each study type listed. The myriad sources for this compiled set of industry material are listed at the end of this article – however, it should be noted that the sources cited did not agree with each other on the material/level, structure nor definitions of various study designs. Therefore modifications and selections were made as to the attributes of study, which allowed for the entire set of alternatives/definitions to come into synchrony with each other – with minimal overlap and confusion. So you will not find 100% of this chart replicated inside any single resource or textbook. (note: My past lab experience has been mostly in non-randomized controlled factorial trial study – whose probative successes were fed into a predictive model, then confirmed by single mechanistic lab tests. I found this approach to be highly effective in my past professional work. But that lab protocol may not apply to other types of study challenge and could be misleading if applied as a panacea. Hence the need for the chart below.)

Study Design Type Definitions

PRIMARY/DIRECT STUDY

Experimental– A study which involves a direct physical test of the material or principal question being asked.

Mechanistic/Lab – A direct study which examines a physical attribute or mechanism inside a controlled closed environment, influencing a single input variable, while observing a single output variable – both related to that attribute or mechanism.

Controlled Trial

Randomized (Randomized Controlled Trial) – A study in which people are allocated at random (by chance alone) to receive one of several clinical interventions. One of these interventions is the standard of comparison or the ‘control’. The control may be a standard practice, a placebo (“sugar pill”), or no intervention at all.

Non-Randomized Controlled Trial – A study in which people are allocated by a discriminating factor (not bias), to receive one of several clinical interventions. One of these interventions is the standard of comparison or the ‘control’. The control may be a standard practice, a placebo (“sugar pill”), or no intervention at all.

Parallel – A type of controlled trial where two groups of treatments, A and B, are given so that one group receives only A while another group receives only B. Other names for this type of study include “between patient” and “non-crossover” studies.

Crossover – A longitudinal direct study in which subjects receive a sequence of different treatments (or exposures). In a randomized controlled trial with repeated measures design, the same measures are collected multiple times for each subject. A crossover trial has a repeated measures design in which each patient is assigned to a sequence of two or more treatments, of which one may either be a standard treatment or a placebo. Nearly all crossover controlled trial studies are designed to have balance, whereby all subjects receive the same number of treatments and participate for the same number of periods. In most crossover trials each subject receives all treatments, in a random order.

Factorial – A factorial study is an experiment whose design consists of two or more factors, each with discrete possible values or ‘levels’, and whose experimental units take on all possible combinations of these levels across all such factors. A full factorial design may also be called a fully-crossed design. Such an experiment allows the investigator to study the effect of each factor on the response variable or outcome, as well as the effects of interactions between factors on the response variable or outcome.

Blind Trial – A trial or experiment in which information about the test is masked (kept) from the participant (single blind) and/or the test administerer (double blind), to reduce or eliminate bias, until after a trial outcome is known.

Open Trial – A type of non-randomized controlled trial in which both the researchers and participants know which treatment is being administered.

Placebo-Control Trial – A study which blindly and randomly allocates similar patients to a control group that receives a placebo and an experimental test group. Therein investigators can ensure that any possible placebo effect will be minimized in the final statistical analysis.

Interventional (Before and After/Interrupted Time Series/Historical Control) – A study in which observations are made before and after the implementation of an intervention, both in a group that receives the intervention and in a control group that does not. A study that uses observations at multiple time points before and after an intervention (the ‘interruption’). The design attempts to detect whether the intervention has had an effect significantly greater than any underlying trend over time.

Adaptive Clinical Trial – A controlled trial that evaluates a medical device or treatment by observing participant outcomes (and possibly other measures, such as side-effects) along a prescribed schedule, and modifying parameters of the trial protocol in accord with those observations. The adaptation process generally continues throughout the trial, as prescribed in the trial protocol. Modifications may include dosage, sample size, drug undergoing trial, patient selection criteria or treatment mix. In some cases, trials have become an ongoing process that regularly adds and drops therapies and patient groups as more information is gained. Importantly, the trial protocol is set before the trial begins; the protocol pre-specifies the adaptation schedule and processes. 

Observational – Analytical

Cohort/Panel (Longitudinal) – A study in which a defined group of people (the cohort – a group of people who share a defining characteristic, typically those who experienced a common event in a selected period) is followed over time, to examine associations between different interventions received and subsequent outcomes.  

Prospective – A cohort study which recruits participants before any intervention and follows them into the future.

Retrospective – A cohort study which identifies subjects from past records describing the interventions received and follows them from the time of those records.

Time-Series – A cohort study which identifies subjects from a particular segment in time following an intervention (which may have also occurred in a time series) and follows them during only the duration of that time segment. Relies upon robust intervention and subject tracking databases. For example, comparing lung health to pollution during a segment in time.

Cross-Sectional/Transverse/Prevalence – A study that collects information on interventions (past or present) and current health outcomes, i.e. restricted to health states, for a group of people at a particular point in time, to examine associations between the outcomes and exposure to interventions.

Case-Control – A study that compares people with a specific outcome of interest (‘cases’) with people from the same source population but without that outcome (‘controls’), to examine the association between the outcome and prior exposure (e.g. having an intervention). This design is particularly useful when the outcome is rare.

Nested Case-Control – A study wherein cases of a health outcome that occur in a defined cohort are identified and, for each, a specified number of matched controls is selected from among those in the cohort who have not developed the health outcome by the time of occurrence in the case. For many research questions, the nested case-control design potentially offers impressive reductions in costs and efforts of data collection and analysis compared with the full case-control or cohort approach, with relatively minor loss in statistical efficiency.

Community Survey – An observational study wherein a targeted cohort or panel is given a set of questions regarding both interventions and observed outcomes over the life or a defined time period of the person, child or other close family member. These are often conducted in conjunction with another disciplined polling process (such as a census or general medical plan survey) so as to reduce statistical design bias or error.

Ecological (Correlational) – A study of risk-modifying factors on health or other outcomes based on populations defined either geographically or temporally. Both risk-modifying factors and outcomes are averaged or are linear regressed for the populations in each geographical or temporal unit and then compared using standard statistical methods.

Observational – Descriptive

Population – A study of a group of individuals taken from the general population who share a common characteristic, such as age, sex, or health condition. This group may be studied for different reasons, such as their response to a drug or risk of getting a disease. 

Case Series – Observations are made on a series of specific individuals, usually all receiving the same intervention, before and after an intervention but with no control group.

Case Report – Observation is made on a specific individual, receiving an intervention, before and after an intervention but with no control group/person other than the general population.

SECONDARY/FILTERED STUDY

Systematic Review/Objective Meta-Analysis – A method for systematically combining pertinent qualitative and quantitative study data from several selected studies to develop a single conclusion that has greater statistical power. This conclusion is statistically stronger than the analysis of any single study, due to increased numbers of subjects, greater diversity among subjects, or accumulated effects and results. However, researchers must ensure that the quantitative and study design attributes of the contained studies all match, in order to retain and enhance the statistical power entailed. Mixing lesser rigorous or incongruent studies with more rigorous studies will only result in a meta-analysis which bears the statistical power of only a portion of the studies, or of the least rigorous study type contained, in decreasing order along the following general types of study:

Controlled Trial/Mechanism
Longitudinal/Cohort
Cross-Sectional
Case-Control
Survey/Ecological
Descriptive

Interpretive/Abstract ‘Meta-Synthesis’ – A study which surveys the conclusion or abstract of a pool of studies in order to determine the study authors’ conclusions along a particular line of conjecture or deliberation. This may include a priori conclusions or author preferences disclosed inside the abstract of each study, which were not necessarily derived as an outcome of the study itself. This study may tally a ‘best evidence’ subset of studies within the overall survey group, which stand as superior in their representation of the conclusion, methodology undertaken or breadth in addressing the issue at hand.

Editorial/Expert Opinion – A summary article generally citing both scientific outcomes and opinion, issued by an expert within a given field, currently active and engaged in research inside that field. The article may or may not refer to specific examples of studies, which support an opinion that a consilience of evidence points in a given direction regarding an issue of deliberation. The author will typically delineate a circumstance of study outcome, consilience or consensus as separate from their personal professional opinion.

Critical Review/Skeptic Opinion – A self-identified skeptic or science enthusiast, applies a priori thinking with no ex ante accountability, in order to arrive at a conclusion. The reviewer may or may not cite a couple examples or studies to back their conclusion.

Sources: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

     How to MLA cite this article:

The Ethical Skeptic, “Torfuscation – Gaming Study Design to Effect an Outcome”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 15 Apr 2019; Web, https://wp.me/p17q0e-9yQ

April 15, 2019 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Institutional Mandates, Tradecraft SSkepticism | , , | 2 Comments

Six Vaccinial Generation Trends Fueled by Concealed Profits

Vaccines, once critical interventions which saved lives, have morphed into a pseudo loss-leader product. A key lever in turbocharging pharmaceutical company price-to-earnings and return-on-research investment performance benchmarks. This robust financial boon is but a moon-cast shadow compared to the cost which is born by US families in terms of permanent injury to their children. Six clear warning signs are manifesting socially today, which both serve to confirm such injury, and as well forebode critical implications in terms of US national security in the decades to come.

Within this article we will examine three issues regarding vaccine injury, all of which should pique the concern of ethical pro-vaccine citizens. First, how the industry deludes itself unto ignorance as to how lucrative and conflict-of-interest-inducing vaccine profits are indeed. Second, how the industry deludes itself into dismissing vaccine precaution over a handful of shallow linear induction exclusion bias mega-data studies, which stand as ‘proof of an absence’ (pseudoscience) of vaccine entailed risk. Third, it will highlight and document six key indicators underway now which confirm the risk around which parents and other scientifically literate observers are sounding alarm. An update of my Poisson arrival distribution estimate of both subclinical and detected decrements in cerebral function impact upon this generation of kids is also tendered herein.

The ‘vaccines proven safe’ pretend science house of cards narrative is collapsing, and its pathologizing apparatchiks are in a furious state of panic. Vaccines do work, however, this socio-epidemiological issue is not turning out to be nearly as transparent and virtue-signal opportune as our simpleton ‘science enthusiasts’ had fantasized.

The industry’s own foisted ‘best evidence’,1 upon diligent inspection, is proving alarmingly shallow in comparison to the wave of new alert-raising deductive and direct studies which arrive now monthly. A paradigm momentum shift which supports our call to undertake ethical intervening action on this issue. Not to eliminate vaccines, but to understand that this decision set bears a concatenating risk of unintended consequence. To force us all to stick our proverbial heads in the sand over vaccine risk constitutes not simply wilful blindness; but because of the entailed monumental impact, rather, court defined malice and oppression.

The Concealed Profits: Blended Cost Fraud

Projections for next year revenues globally derived from the sales of vaccines are on the order of $60 billion US dollars. This reflects a current revenue growth rate of 11% (historically 10 to 15%).2 While these sales represent a mere 4.5% of the overall global $1.35 trillion in market revenue for all pharmaceuticals, if we consider that there are only a subset of companies which manufacture vaccines out of the thousands which compose the pharmaceutical market, this represents a much higher portion of those companies’ revenue bases – becoming critical elements inside their glowing financial performance reports. So much so, that according to the Wall Street Journal, industry leader Merck relies upon vaccine profits as the key beacon inside their annual report.3 However, for the most part the direct profitability of vaccines is hidden through sleight-of-hand expense manipulation on the part of pundits seeking to obstruct and cloud their accountability to the at-risk stakeholder public.

The core principle resides in this – heavy investment/depreciation/research development is conducted inside stand alone, clinical-stage, heavy on one-time-expense startups – who are then bought by the largest 16 vaccine producers once their vaccine has begun its profitability stride. Thereafter, these profits can be tucked inside the blended-expense financials of a much larger corporation. This latter key deception renders the profit level from vaccines hidden from the lay public, and hinges upon this: one cannot distinguish the direct expenses which relate solely to vaccine channel activity, as distinct from the overall business expense base – thereby distributing the actual profitability of vaccines as a product group to appear to be an aspect of the entire business.

If we examine just vaccines as a business segment, this principle can be expressed in the converse. As a business person it is wrong and/or illegal to take costs from less profitable businesses, and load them onto more profitable businesses in order to reduce the profit/taxes reported by the more profitable business. This sleight-of-hand method is exemplified no better than in the pro forma shenanigans framed by authors Stanley Plotkin MD, Walter Orenstein MD and Paul Offit MD, in their book Vaccines: Expert Consult.4 The three authors are not experts on business strategy and finance. They bear not the first inkling of what a technology or treatment Risk Strategy is, nor how to go about conducting one (see item 8. in the Eslick response below).5 This critical ignorance is elicited inside their publication, wherein they employ a surreptitious method of blended-ratio profit and loss calculation (see left hand side of P&L table below), even framing it post tax (a professional error), and failing to use industry standard profit and loss practices, in order to downplay the total profit wound up inside vaccine sales (estimating it erroneously to be around 10% of revenue). Take note that both the expense to sales indices and pro forma which Plotkin, et al. employed on the left in the table below, were Merck Group’s in structure and blended/averaged/distributed cost percentages for their whole business (see Merck Group Consolidated Income Statement for 2017).6 These expense ratios are not representative of their expense structures relating to vaccines at all. This is fast-with-numbers deception on the part of Plotkin, et al. in their book’s misrepresentation of the industry (to be clear: not on the part of any particular tax filing, individual, corporation nor Merck Group). How can a doctor, who has been compensated to the tune of multiple millions of dollars in direct and indirect compensation by all of the Big Four vaccine manufacturers, who cannot even manage his own household income and expenses, nor has ever actually run a business P&L, then pretend to ‘expert consult’ the public on the finances of his very funders?7  It is a fair question.

If similar techniques, allocating costs from ‘cost heavy’ business channels and into ‘cost light’ channels, in order to make the latter group’s profit numbers appear to be less, were to be committed by a business in their tax/earnings reporting, this would be known by another industry and legal name: Fraud.

In the (full industry) Profit & Loss comparatives to the right you can examine a contrast between this bullshit method of profit formulation and the real contribution margin method of cost accounting for vaccines. We also employ here the correct market revenue of $60 billion USD, and not ‘$24 billion’. To be gracious, we shall call the bullshit method, the ‘Blended Cost Method’. I have caught several clients over the decades employing blended cost methodologies to hide embezzlement, mafia payoffs, shipping and ordering mistakes, non-performing managers, weak divisions, or conceal malfeasance from investors or corporate officers and vulnerable companies from hostile acquisition. Vaccine expenses should not be accounted for in this manner. If you and I went out to dinner, and I had Filet Mignon, escargot, cheese cake, caviar and a bottle of fine French wine, while you only had a single Pellegrino water – yet I insisted that we split the check 50/50, you would be pretty damn pissed at the incumbent dishonesty. This practice of blended expense index averaging is no different than that style of dinner check bamboozle.

When fully leveraged, non-slack, direct costs are applied to a contribution profit and loss pro forma and against just the associated vaccine revenue of a non clinical-stage vaccine in its sales maturation curve (the way it is professionally done by real business strategists and those who set direct work content and indirect cost standards inside pharmaceutical manufacturing operations), profit under such vaccine business activity is actually on the order of 80 to 85% EBITDA and 70 to 75% net profit. In other words, vaccines are nigh to six times more profitable than other drugs on average – when accounting is professionally done, benchmark to benchmark.

Why are vaccines so profitable in comparison to the erstwhile 14% which pharma companies make on their other products?8 Because vaccines are quasi-mandatory, are skyrocketing in price (not cost),9 enjoy luxurious economies of scale, they require no marketing and very lean/leveraged/subsidized logistics, place little demand upon corporate sales general administrative and overhead, and further do not have to pass the same rigor/delay in 3-phase clinical trials which other drugs must suffer.10 Most lot monitoring and factory inspection/certification is borne by the FDA itself.11 Expenses to influence legislation and pay off representatives, squelch countering voices through fake skeptics, media and universities, pay rebates and chargebacks to pharmacy benefit managers etc. do not count as ‘Sales and Marketing’ expenses inside GAAP accounting ethics (as these are simply distributions of profits – and not qualified expenses). Counting this as OSG&A allows vaccine companies to lower their effective tax on earnings to around 10% by ‘expensing’ what otherwise would ethically be considered earnings.12 13 Finally, vaccines do not bear the 4% litigation exposure allocation which do most other drugs (hidden inside the figures used on the left of this chart), and what penalties are paid out in legal compensation, are borne directly by a surcharge on those being injured in the first place.14

What a deal! I would love to operate a business enjoying all the above competitive advantages. Were I a fake human, I would live like a rock star – having millions in my personal accounts. I would be a fake skeptic to the nth degree, in order to protect such a gravy train. But most of all – I would hide this cash cow at all costs. I would enlist unpaid apparatchiks to help me obfuscate the issue socially. I would enlist the aid of the media and ensure that any government administration of my domain, represented me and not the people who they are there to serve and protect.

So the value of vaccine margin contribution is of enormous importance to the participating pharmaceutical industry. It not only constitutes 1/3rd of a typical manufacturer’s total retained earnings each reporting quarter, but more importantly, since its segment growth rate is almost twice that of all other activity – vaccines hold down the lion’s share of price/earnings growth (Δ P to E) performance sensitivity, ergo – they have the largest impact upon the company’s stock price.

See Why Novavax is Up 60% in 2018 by The Motley Fool15

This is why the Wall Street Journal reported vaccines’ impact on the stock price for Merck in the way that it did.16 Investor ears perk up when they hear about new vaccine rollouts and clinical stage startups – as they know that they are vastly more profitable than are classic maturation pathway drugs. This savvy ilk of investor tends to cut through the blended cost bullshit (they get this trick too) and invest directly in, and only in, vaccines. Were the Plotkin/Orenstein/Offit method actual reality, vaccines would never impact stock price at all – never garner such attention. The real world actuality is that vaccine development bears enormous significance in impact upon both retained earnings and growth of P/E ratios of a company. If one considers vaccines to further act as loss leaders (albeit profitable loss leaders) – a mandatory sale which forces a customer into a store (or in front of a doctor in this context), the actual opportunity contribution revenue derived from mandatory vaccines is possibly twenty times this global revenue level.

The conflict-of-interest incentive to create new vaccines is therefore unethically and unsustainably high. A vaccine against ebola is an act of mercy. A vaccine against chicken pox, is an act of monetization.

This is why you see people like Paul Offit and Skeptical Raptor clamoring to develop new vaccines and legislate them as compulsory, despite there being ‘little profit’. Yeah right. They will masquerade their monetization scheme as an errand of mandatory mercy.

This all serves to demonstrate why vaccines are the pinnacle of profit for the participating pharmaceutical companies, belying the mere deception imparted by their blended profit margins. Their financial contribution leverages the ‘Return on Research’ performance mark, an industry benchmark for evaluating pharmaceutical corporation financial performance,17 into much higher and more attractive levels as compared to other drug manufacturers – thereby making the vaccine pharmaceutical company a much more lucrative investment compared to the run of the mill competition who must labor under normal business pressures and costs.

Do not listen to inexpert voices such as Skeptical Raptor or Paul Offit on this. The vast majority of these clowns have never run a scientific lab, never made a scientific discovery, never run a business and have never developed a contribution cost decision analysis nor any form of business or market strategy. They are poseurs – with self-identified ‘skepticism’ as their main qualification. They alter the facts (financials) to fit their agency – and hope that you don’t possess the expertise to counter their shallow inexpert pablum.18 They base their pre-emptive agency upon torfuscation, 1% significant inductive, abductive and panductive inference,19 and shallow inexpert academic study – not plenary science. ‘Vaccines don’t cause autism’ is not a scientific hypothesis,20 nor is it even provable by inference – never get your science from a social-bullying dolt who constantly screams this, no matter what letters they advertise behind their name. They attempt to negate your moral and ethical right to at-risk-stakeholder’s voice through sophomoric and ironic accusations of ‘Dunning-Kruger’. A failure to understand that stakeholders have a duty and right to intervene, even in science, when they observe risks, abrogations of ethics, and perceptions of impact which are being ignored by professionals. This is not tantamount to pretending to be one of those professionals, as such accusation constitutes a dilettante straw man/red herring argument which does nothing but serve to destroy the credibility of the person offering it. Not bearing even the first level of acumen necessary to grasp these principles; they are nothing but malicious idiots. I wonder if Raptor, Offit or Novella invest this same level of cursory and lazy incompetence in the other ‘skeptic’ topics inside which they serve as agency (see Ten Reasons Why People No Longer Find Skeptics Credible)? A key hint here which you will find consistent with all fake skeptics – laziness becomes a method of inference.

Vaccine caution voices hold all the necessary elements of hypothesis (i.e. science):
Necessity, Hundreds of Supporting Studies, Conservancy of Risk, Wittgenstein Definition, Parsimony, Address and
Inform Duty Compliance, Supporting Intelligence and Physical/Physiological Mechanism.21

Those who see vaccines as a panacea and profit center hold a couple shallow inductive
utile absentia academic studies (10 specific weak inductive studies by their own meta-study)

– illegitimate money and media control. All this, incompetent and malevolent pseudoscience.22

This sixfold higher contribution margin potential, coupled with an assumption of safety based upon little research, is why our vaccine schedule has grown from a 7 event one in 1983, to a current 53 event schedule in 2019.23 It is why investors clamor to throw dollars at vaccine clinical stage startups.24 All of this to support an industry sub-vertical which operates sans any testing or safety research, or any form of followup study (ignoro eventum) – all of which are the ethical standards inside every other branch of consumer medicine.

How Professionals Cultivate Ignorance Over the Incumbent Risks and Cost

But there is a cost which private citizens are inheriting inside this play, and quietly bearing – part of the unacknowledged value chain of vaccines. The cost is elicited no better than in the closing statement by the author of the Taylor-Swerdfeger-Eslick ‘Vaccines are not associated with…’ ‘meta-analysis’ (sic) referenced above, which narrowed the field of inductive ‘proof’ (there is no such thing, especially in proving an absence) down to ten inductive cohort and case control ‘best evidence’ studies. We shall deal with those ten pieces of scientific garbage in another blog article. But for now, Dr. Eslick:

As an epidemiologist I believe the data that is presented in this meta-analysis. However, as a parent of three children I have some understanding of the fears associated with reactions and effects of vaccines. My first two children have had febrile seizures after routine vaccinations, one of them a serious event. These events did not stop me from vaccinating my third child, however, I did take some proactive measures to reduce the risk of similar adverse effects. I vaccinated my child in the morning so that we were aware if any early adverse reaction during the day and I also gave my child a dose of paracetamol 30 min before the vaccination was given to reduce any fever that might develop after the injection. As a parent I know my children better than anyone and I equate their seizures to the effects of the vaccination by increasing their body temperature. For parents who do notice a significant change in their child’s cognitive function and behaviour after a vaccination I encourage you to report these events immediately to your family physician and to the ‘Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System’.25

   ~ Dr. Guy D. Eslick, Professor of Cancer Epidemiology and Medical Statistics at The University of Sydney, Australia

Indeed Dr. Eslick, my son too had an adverse reaction event in the hours after the DTaP vaccination. Thereafter the ‘event’ involved six excruciating weeks of nightly fever and pain. We were told that vaccines were safe and that this is just a typical effect that will go away. My son never again looked us in the eye after almost that very hour of the ‘typical adverse event’. As parents, we were not trained to recognize this as a symptom of cerebral trauma – and neither was our physician in reality. Neither was he even asked to watch for its occurrence. My son’s function changed from one of bright eyed, expressive and engaging – to what we recognize now was encephalitic, brain injury, shut off from us all – in a matter of hours. Now at age 17 he still cannot tie his shoes, count change, nor tell time.

Our first documentation of a persistent functional-skills problem came in K-4 kindergarten. The diagnosis inside a medical plan did not arrive until age 7. Too late to apply for NVICP remedy, too late to be included your ‘best evidence’ Madsen-Hviid styled ‘study’ – a study design which sampled an average medical plan age of 4.5 years, essentially claiming that my son’s type of injury does not even exist. My son’s case was one of severe impact. How was this study supposed to detect cases of even milder impact? And how many cases of milder impact are there? The simple fact is Dr. Eslick, you and your team of authorities do not know these answers, and you have designed your studies to avoid these questions. This is what serves to establish them as academic pseudoscience.

No, the reality persists that parents are having a hard time attaching the neurological/autoimmune/endocrine malady to its cause – precisely because of their separation in time, a lack of doctor education/vigilance, our collective inability to measure such impacts and the current political ill will surrounding the issue. Not the converse that vaccine and malady are ‘coincidentally juxtaposed in child’s age’ as you and your cabal have pushed without evidence. More cases are obfuscated than are manufactured, by a long shot. You are simply exploiting the convenience that most of the public cannot grasp the trick of disproof-statistics you have pulled. I, and millions of other parents including scientists, engineers, lawyers, doctors and other highly educated professionals, contend that

1.  You carry a fantasy in your institutionally-cocooned mind that vaccine caution voices all live in rural American trailer parks and get our information off anti-science websites. The reality is that you get your information from pre-cooked propaganda, not actual science nor scientific method. You boasted with the word evidence, as this evidence was about 1% inductive into the subject domain at best. The parents challenging you are by and large, those with direct experience (vaccine injured kids); they are brilliant and fully grasp the processes/standards of science. You are the one who needs a change in understanding, not them.

These parents want me to show them long-term [vaccine] safety studies, which I am unable to find. Some demand true double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled (using saline controls, not adjuvants) trails proving efficacy, which simply do not exist, even though we keep telling everyone that this is the gold standard in medicine. But my patients don’t accept [unproven safety and efficacy] anymore, not without seeing some proof.

So when I receive all of these communications from different state health organizations telling me how I am supposed to combat the growing threat of vaccine deniers, I feel like a straw man because these communications never present actual evidence to respond to the questions of these parents.

They are just talking points, empty claims and official pronouncements.

     ~Dr. Ray Andrew, MD, Moab Family Health

2. To someone who understands and has done real science, your meta-analysis was not a meta-analysis in the least; but rather an Interpretive/Abstract ‘Meta-Synthesis’.26 You could not combine statistical power between these studies – as they were all apples-to-oranges in both quantitative and qualitative attribute (a requirement of a meta-analysis). Who are you trying to kid? Calling an interpretive abstract survey a ‘meta-analysis’ is a well known trick of science fraud. I am surprised and disappointed that you employed this inside such an important issue to so many people.

Nor was it even that good as an interpretive summary article – as its hypothesis was not supported by the sufficiency nor type of inference employed. ‘Believing the data’ means nothing, as it is the study design, accidental exclusions and inclusions and how you treat them, the way in which the study draws its inference, confidence and method of attachment to hypothesis, along with the parsimonious incremental risk nature of the hypothesis, which are important in science. All features of real science which this study failed miserably. The fact that you did not get this, is illuminating. Cancer epidemiology is not a sound underpinning for understanding systemic epidemiology (see Systemic Failure chart above and to the right). One is discrete, the other is continuous – totally different objective/analytical bases.

3.  You do not know that your kids were not harmed, because you have no direct-measure nor reference usable in telling so. This style of injury will only show up in backward-looking longitudinal aggregate case and control comparatives (hints below). You should have already known this as an epidemiologist. It was, and is, your responsibility now (ignoro eventum). ‘My child had a severe reaction and is fine.’ is called an anecdote. ‘My child had a severe reaction and was harmed for life.’ is called ‘Ockham’s Razor necessity’ under hypothesis reduction theory, and is not equivalent to anecdote. This is usually taught in undergraduate Biomedical Informatics 233: Intermediate Biostatistics: Analysis of Discrete Data, Study Design and Epidemiology, just in case you missed that class. Study up on the topic sometime, it might be useful in your career. Our neurological special needs kids are filling entire leagues in softball and basketball now, and not simply a team in our American towns. The parents attending these events, when I speak with them, they all know something is up. But they are rendered powerless by your group of ‘experts’.

absens sciens absens iniuria – literally, no knowledge – no harm. A procedural fallacy or error in principle similar to ‘what they don’t know, won’t hurt ’em’. An erroneous principle which cites that a person cannot be harmed if they do not know that they were harmed. Alternatively, if a group of people is unaware that a harm has been done, then no one in that group has been harmed. A form of pluralistic ignorance exploitation.

The explosive growth of our town’s special needs kids softball league, is simply a matter of better recruiting.

4.  You possess no awareness (being an Australian not American citizen) that the VAERS/NVICP system is a joke and serves/does absolutely nothing, except make people like you feel good, or provide a buzzword to allow you to pose (to the dilettante) as if you know something of merit about this issue. They may fall for it, but a parent who has been through this knows it better than do you.

5.  You are not aware that the vast majority of even severe vaccine injuries get no compensation by this banana republic award court (NVICS) fantasy you carry in your mind to assuage your conscience over the vaccine injuries you do know about. Despite my son’s permanent disability, we were not able to get it diagnosed and understood until a full 4 years after the court filing window closed. We were told that it would pass; as our doctors were not trained on recognizing vaccine injury to begin with.

6.  Despite this ethically being your job, you have not examined scientifically the measures for 1995-and-later, novel and subclinical and moderate encephalitis, as exemplified by A’ and B’ in the Poisson Arrival chart in section 6. below. You are not truly engaged in your profession, nor fully versed in the claims you publish as ‘science’. Fortunately two researchers have developed injury estimates in your absence (as annotated on Poisson arrival distribution graphic below).27 I have to do this analysis as my third job – after my first two jobs, to pay for the $2.6 million needed to care for a disabled child. People like me have to do the real work, while you and your peers sit on your snide and pretensive asses; doing very little except work to increase your personal acclaim and fortune.

7.  Brain inflammation markers need to be measured for each vaccinated child at 4 months (pre-vax) and 3 years of age (post-vax), and be regularly tracked through longitudinal time-series study – just the type of (conclusive) deductive research that the NCVIA of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) legislation had specified be done, but was never implemented. Yes, the matter is that important – and this serious definitive and probative study would comprise conclusive deductive methodology without endangering lives through cohort-risk direct observation. In absence of such ethical diligence you are guessing (lying to the public) about your knowledge of this topic. And finally,

8.  I want to see the Risk Strategy which needed to be ethically completed for this extensive a Risk Horizon in medical intervention impacting so many people in such a monumental way – conducted on behalf of your clients, the at-risk stakeholders. This is what professional technology strategists, such as myself, do when ethically making decisions which pertain to deployment of a risk-bearing technology or treatment. In fact, I have begun to catalog the ‘thousand studies’ and ‘best evidence’ which your industry has foisted upon a propaganda-vulnerable and injured-but-not-aware-of-it public. A process which will show the shallow, paltry and linear induction effort placed thus far in to assessing vaccine safety. That Risk Strategy will be published at a later date.

If Big-Parma has conducted all the scientific diligence necessary in the rollout of this risk-bearing medical intervention,
then show me the Risk Strategy they employed and should have posted & available for at-risk stakeholder review.

Third party systematic reviews conducted after the rollout of the technology or treatment, do not constitute sufficient ethics nor science.

Yes, this is the unethical system you and your cohorts support – but you, and the obtuse apparatchiks who spout the mandatory rhetoric are too lazy to look at this. What you are supporting Dr. Eslick is called an Omega Hypothesis. It is pseudoscience – and in this case, highly harm-imparting pseudoscience, and not just a blurry photo of Bigfoot. You have compromised the integrity of science, knowing that you would never in your at-risk career dare publish a result which ran counter to the prevailing dogma.

Omega Hypothesis (HΩ) – the argument which is foisted to end all argument, period. A conclusion promoted under such an insistent guise of virtue or importance, that protecting it has become imperative over even the integrity of science itself. An invalid null hypothesis or a preferred idea inside a social epistemology. A hypothesis which is defined to end deliberation without due scientific rigor, alternative study consensus or is afforded unmerited protection or assignment as the null. The surreptitiously held and promoted idea or the hypothesis protected by an Inverse Negation Fallacy. Often one which is promoted as true by default, with the knowledge in mind that falsification will be very hard or next to impossible to achieve.

Harm is happening, and we have no way of immediate measuring nor tracking it. Social resistance is enormous towards conducting any study of mechanism which will threaten it. Harm is a continuous, partly occulted function; not a discrete one as Dr. Eslick would have you (and himself) believe. Below we examine part of the robust intelligence base held by vaccine caution voices, which outlines the social manifesting of this harm function.

It is not the studies by vaccine caution scientists which have swayed me the most.
Rather it is the very studies which vaccine proliferation voices throw at me, which have convinced me of the need to raise alarm.

The Six Horsemen of the Vaccine Injury Generation

Yes, the smallpox and polio vaccines were critical. Yes vaccines can eradicate certain types of disease. But there is a cost – on the order of $185 billion to US households alone, and only if you count the burden borne by the families of the 5% most severely impacted by early and frequent immune activation (see Newborn immune activation may have long-term negative impact on brain function).28 29 Those who enforce vaccine policy, and knowingly and willfully ignore this cost are just as guilty as if they had caused the maladies themselves. Six defined and undeniable trends are already underway, most well represented inside the Vaccinial Generation of kids – those born after 1994. Six related, statistically verifiable and risk-indicating trends which are ignored by the holier-than-thou defenders of pharmaceutical corporate profits. Yes, while a 7 event vaccine schedule can be argued to be a necessary decision of mercy – a 54 event one cannot. It is fueled simply by profit (as we saw above).

The real cost of this profit, the six gross indicators of childhood injury are as follows:

note: these are not ‘correlations’, rather fingerprint signals, a much higher consilience in inference than simple correlation. Understanding the difference is critical inside any claim to be scientifically literate.

1.  Fingerprint Signal Rise in Autoimmune Disorders

Rheumatic, endocrinological, gastrointestinal and neurological autoimmune diseases exhibit the following global annual percentage increases per year: 7.1, 6.3, 6.2, and 3.7, respectively. While these rates of increase are rather pronounced, the rates of increase in such maladies in the West, and in particular with respect to kids in the United States, are alarmingly higher than even the global average.30 These increases parallel the surge in cancer incidence – something which is not subject to change in diagnostic protocols. This is strong inference that something which is more prevalent in practice in the US, is causing damage to our kids.

Vaccines are linked scientifically, and by legal precedent to a whole host of autoimmune disorders.31 The tip of this ice berg is only just now being studied. It has already been established that mother’s with autoimmunity disorders have a higher incidence of children on the autism disorders spectrum.32 This is the first of the six horsemen to watch for. The rapid and sudden rise in the rates of autoimmune diseases in our kids, since 1994.

2.  Fingerprint Signal Rise in Developmental Delays

A Centers for Disease Control study of children ages 3 – 17 in the United States indicated a 17% annual increase in the incidence of developmental delays in our kids.33 If you examine the details of the study, the trends run counter to the idea that changes in diagnostic protocols are to blame. The increases are focusing on groups by income class and genetics and gender – not DSM IV protocol rollout patterns. The idea that these increases are attributable to changes in diagnostic protocols is an Einfach mechanism. It just sounds good to a layman. It is pseudo-theory, not even a hypothesis in scientific merit. Simply enforced as an answer on the part of those bearing agency. It is one thing to be credulous and investigate something which is possible, and another level of malice altogether to doggedly deny a calamitous risk, based upon no research and no evidence. The two cases of ignorance are not morally comparative. The latter not constituting skepticism nor science at all.

Physical (PT) and occupational (OT) therapy prescriptions have risen dramatically over the last decade and a half in particular.34 The rise in the employment of PT and OT, particularly in boys in the US, contrasts with the rates of the same presciptives in countries which vaccinate less than do we. This is the second horseman of this apocalypse in national security.

3.  Rise in Incidence of Dyskinetics/Ataxia

While rates of dyskentics attributable to cerebral palsy types of injury curiously doubled from the 1970’s to the 1990’s,35 the rates of non-physical birth trauma/hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy dyskinetics/ataxia overall have risen, especially in the United States. Associated physical changes, such as is the case with scoliosis, have seen a dramatic increase in the last two decades inside the United States.36

My recent (anecdote) sample at a public basketball game, resulted in an estimated 26% of the boys participating in the league, exhibiting some variation of dyskinetic/ataxia malady above and beyond normal youthful clumsiness.37 Habitually contracted extremities and unconscious repetitive motions, as well as the associated physical malformations are all on the rise. Research into this malady category is growing at a fast pace, yet remains in its infancy.

“The most common causes of acute ataxia in children are excessive drug ingestion, drug intoxications and post-infectious cerebellitis” ~Pavone, et. al. Ataxia in children: early recognition and clinical evaluation”38

These symptoms (mild forms thereof) are indicative of cerebral injury/encephalopathy of an origin which is not birth physical trauma nor hypoxia in nature. The injury is stemming from something recent and pronounced in change. Something introduced around 1995. This is the third horseman.

4.  Coincident Falling Trend in Both Standardized Testing and IQ Scores Beginning in 1986

SAT scores are falling, and began this current accelerated downward trend in 2002.39

IQ scores are falling, and began this current downward trend in 1986 after decades of increases.40

The fall in IQ scores in the West is perhaps the most under-reported story of our era. For most of the twentieth century, IQ rose by around three points per decade globally, probably because of better nutrition. [This is called The Flynn Effect].  But that trend has recently gone into reverse in developed countries. [The Flynn Effect has reversed dramatically, starting in 1986, the year Reagan signed the The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA – 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34)]

You hadn’t heard? I’m not surprised. Journalists and politicians won’t go near the subject and you can see why.

But a new study from Norway, which examines IQ scores from 730,000 men (standardized tests are part of military service there) disproves all these ideas, because it shows IQ dropping within the same families. Men born in 1991 score, on average, five points lower than men born in 1975. There must, in other words, be an environmental explanation [- recent in scope and pronounced in magnitude].

~ Dan Hannan, Washington Examiner: Opinion 22 Oct 201841

This is the fourth horseman, and is very stark and well documented.

5.  Shrinking Cranial and Hat/Headgear Sizes

Countering a 150 year trend in head size growth,42 a United Kingdom study in 2015 confirmed the trend wherein the average head circumference of children in the UK was on the decline.43 While the study cites that data regarding neuro-cognitive delays and head circumference is scarce, it does indicate concern that declines persist independent of any known associated microcephaly cause.

Infants with developmental deficits demonstrate delayed acceleration of head circumference velocity, compared with typical infants in the first 2 months. Infants with motor delay manifest decreased velocity, compared with infants presenting other developmental deficits.

~ Tal, Cohen, et al.; Decreased head circumference velocity as related to developmental deficit in infancy; Pediatric Neurology44

More data on this is needed, but eventually merchandising systems for retailers who sell hats should begin to show a decline in average youth head circumference since 1995. Watch for this horseman to continue to develop over the next two decades.

6.  Rise in Youth Anxiety Depression and Suicide

The odds of adolescents suffering from clinical depression grew by 37 percent between 2005 and 2014, according to a study by Ramin Mojtabai, a professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.45

The suicide rate for white children and teens between 10 and 17 was up 70% between 2006 and 2016, based upon the latest data analysis available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.46. For the second decade in a row, the number of children and teenagers taken to the emergency room for suicide attempts or behavior has almost doubled, and the median age is just 13 years of age. Suicide rates among young people are rising, reaching the highest levels since 2000, a June 2019 JAMA published study found.47. But most alarming, the researchers said, was a 21 percent rise in boys aged 15-19 dying by suicide in 2017 from the year before.

This is not anecdote, rather scientific conslience, that both autism and neurological pathology induced suicide are just ‘coincidentally’ hitting United States boys hard as a demographic and are both rising fast in every heavily vaccinated population. To wave this off is criminal in its level of ignorance.

“The numbers [child and teenage suicide] are very alarming. We are seeing an acceleration of this issue, and I worry that we have not yet seen the peak.” ~ Brett Burstein, pediatric emergency room physician from McGill University.48

In a 2014 report in The Lancet Neurology, neurologists Philippe Grandjean and Philip Landrigan cite that a “silent pandemic of neurodevelopmental toxicity” is disabling children around the world and contributing to the meteoric rise of ADHD, ASD, and other behavioral disorders.49 From that study is drawn the following quote:

Disorders of neurobehavioural development affect 10–15% of all births and prevalence rates of autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder seem to be increasing worldwide. Subclinical decrements in brain function are even more common than these neurobehavioural developmental disorders.

In addition, a study by Kraft and Aschner, et. al. identifies the concept of ‘silent neurotoxicity’; in as “high as 29% of the kids surveyed”, a malady defined as one which only exposes itself clinically in our kids, well after their childhood years (A’ and B’ below).50 Finally, if the following results from a study by Mostafa GA, et al. in the European Journal of Paediatric Neurology do not concern you, then you are scientifically brain dead.51

Autistic children had significantly higher percent positivity of serum antineuronal antibodies (62.5%) than healthy controls (5%), P<0.001. The frequency of the positivity of serum antineuronal antibodies was significantly higher in children with severe autism (87.5%) than children with mild to moderate autism (25%), P<0.001. Similarly, the frequency of the positivity of these antibodies was significantly higher in female children with autism (90%) than male autistic children (53.3%), P=0.001.

Accordingly, I have updated my Poisson Arrival Distribution chart below. In my best sample estimates working with kids as a highly trained observer, the kids impacted by these subclinical and more severe decrements in brain function comprise as much as 26% – 30% of all births. This is why this issue is a matter of national security:

This is the final horseman and really, the final straw for parents. The only missing element was that – they need to be informed as to what is happening, in order to be able to spot it – and take legislative action. We are tired of being lazily called ‘anti-vaxx’ by people who neither understand any of the above, nor care to know the actual answers. They had them figured out from day one.

(note: as I read this a full week after its posting, the 24 year old, mildly Asperger’s kid four doors down the street committed suicide over the holidays. He could not get the grades to make it into college and was not thriving well in his no-benefits, part time labor and retail jobs. He checked out. His father, brilliant leader of an integrated circuit development firm and mother, highly regarded attorney, are both devastated – wondering what went wrong. If this continues to replicate, our best and our brightest minds will be encephalitic-compromised, and our nation will stand on the precipice of collapse – from chronic injury to our most valuable resource. This could not have happened faster if it had been planned this way. All the kids on our street have suffered chronic and unreasonable levels of autoimmune, endocrine and neurological disorders.52

None of this results from a fucking change in diagnostic methods. Examine the evidence lazy skeptic, as it speaks clearly on this.

And one final suggestion. Keep count of the number of times the word ‘anecdote’ pops into your head per hoc incidents just like this over the coming decade. If your seared excuse for a conscience lets it get past 10,000 – just maybe someday, the irony of this play may compel you to call it ‘data’. But be sure, if you stand intransigently in the doorway on this and ignore CDC officers becoming 8-digit multimillionaires commensurate with the decline in the wellbeing of our youth – and don’t give a shit – you are going to be trampled by angry and powerful, and yes, very scientifically literate and brilliant parents. Mark my words.)

Well, the day of the pretend science enthusiast is coming to a close. Having your kid harmed serves to hone your skills at detecting pseudoscience fairly sharply. A new form of smart, energized and highly science-informed skeptic is arriving on the horizon. One much less tolerant of willful bullshit and incompetence. Parents who will be seeking prison time from the pseudo-scientists and fake skeptics who caused, sustained and obfuscated this enormous holocaust in young persons, not simply excoriation in the media.

To ignore this data above is not ignorance, rather it is a Court defined standard called Malice and Oppression.53 Skeptics love to speak about ‘The Four Horsemen’ – in their obsession over disproving their favorite hated religion. Yawn. Well here are six horsemen which should send one’s investigative instincts into overdrive. An apocalypse is forthcoming in the courts of America over this issue, and the malicious and oppressive forces who have enjoyed legal immunity thus far, are about to be shocked at what will transpire in the coming decade.

     How to MLA cite this article:

The Ethical Skeptic, “Six Vaccinial Generation Trends Fueled by Concealed Profits”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 26 Dec 2018; Web, https://wp.me/p17q0e-9bq

 

December 26, 2018 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Social Disdain | | 15 Comments

The Apothegm Makes the Poison

The dose makes the poison. This statement is not a logical truth. To cough up this notorious fur-ball of an apothegm in a serious broadscope discussion concerning toxicology risk, informs all concerned about your personal ignorance and desire to deceive – moreso than it speaks anything particular about me. The masters who let loose the dogs of skepticism have found such organic lying to be very effective in asset preservation.

One of the most notorious catch-phrases of pseudo-wisdom the ethical skeptic will encounter from a social skeptic poseur, is the apothegm ‘The dose makes the poison’. It is not that this statement is false. The basis of the quip resides in scientific validity and it is categorically true regarding lethality, yes. However the statement is not a logical truth.1 Logical truth is the state of syllogism which the utterer is deceitfully wishing for you to infer regarding this football of an apothegm. It is a means of lying through stating something which is only conditionally accurate – hoping that their victim will accept the statement as one which addresses the context of toxicity. Discussions of this ilk are rarely over lethality, and most often pertain to the impact of a toxin on the population, environment or family. If your conversant conflates these two concepts in order to enforce the entailed organic lie, or hands you cartoon LD50 charts comparing glyphosate with table salt, stop talking with them immediately. They are a non-player character. A social skeptic.

As an ethical skeptic, never ever ever conduct your communication under such misrepresentation by locution – as people spot this, but will not mention it to you. You will lose credibility, yet not know it, nor understand why in the end. The apothegm is not necessarily true (different from being ‘false’), and that is what disqualifies it from being a logical truth (ethical knowledge). This is of critical path importance to the ethical skeptic. Let’s examine a couple examples before we look at the entire domain of such a statement’s limited applicability (Exhibits I and II below).

If I am asked to consume diazinon in my drinking water (we are never ‘asked’, but let’s pretend we live in such an ethical world) for example, because its use increases corn yields 14%, when we have a glut of corn production each year for decades now in the US as it is, the ppm tolerance for diazinon in my water in such a circumstance is ZERO ppm. A Mean Lethal Dose measure-LD50 does not apply because there is no economic benefit to be derived from the risk I undertake. This, though a simple exercise example, is actually how ethical toxicology is done in the big boy world. When I work establishing food and trade markets, this is the type of mechanism I petition to have inserted in the market constraint dynamics and enterprise API’s used by large trade aggregation desks. This is ethics. Everything else is academic – and possibly immoral. I do not care how much you know or that you use pedophrasty to promote your product, placing pictures of starving children into your ads – if you are lazy/greedy, and that laziness or greed serves to harm others – you are acting under malice and oppression by court definition.

The Puppet Show: Comparing Aggregate Benefit to Individual Risk (while Ignoring Aggregate Risk)

If however, I am forced to drink say some dosage of diazinon, because involved stockholders inside several companies know my representatives and key regulatory agency members, and they were able to get the pesticide pushed through for higher-risk use; and furthermore, these stockholders are now able to buy beachfront vacation homes on St. George Island rather than rent smaller back-lane beach cottages – well under that stark risk/benefit scenario, I will then drink the toxin I suppose. Their benefit outweighs my risk. Now the astute ethical skeptic will observe that, toxin risk is never measured in terms of population descriptives – only individual risk. Individual risk LD50 versus a diffuse set of poorly estimated and confirmed aggregate benefits – the risk is never expressed in terms of aggregate risk – and is never followed up on. In reality the state of ethics in toxicology – per below – is one sad state of affairs.

Social skeptics, as usual, provide no help at all in this matter – ironic, when this is their claimed identity and life goal.

Notice that all the measures regarding toxin risk, relate to the individual.2 There are no studies which attach a measured population affect in humans, to an introduced toxin. There are studies of the farming community, and there exists some study of environmental impact – but no studies following up with human populations as a group. Not even devisement of a suitable measure.3 I find that amusing (horrifying), given that the ethical assessment of toxin risk pertains to impacts and measures relating to populations, not individuals. All of the following entries below, two new observations and five previous ones, are cataloged into The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation: Misrepresentation of Evidence or Data and apply in this circumstance:

missam singuli

/philosophy : pseudoscience : study design/ : a shortfall in scientific study wherein two factors are evaluated by non equivalent statistical means. For instance, risk which is evaluated by individual measures, compared to benefit which is evaluated as a function of the whole – at the ignorance of risk as a whole. Conversely, risk being measured as an effect on the whole, while benefit is only evaluated in terms of how it benefits the individual or a single person.

Virtue Telescope

/philosophy : sophistry : deception/ : employment of a theoretical virtue benefit projected inside a domain which is distant, slow moving, far into the future, diffuse or otherwise difficult to measure in terms of both potential and resulting impact, as exculpatory immunity for commission of an immoral act which is close by, obvious, defined and not as difficult to measure. Similar to but converse of an anachronistic fallacy, or judging distant events based on current norms.

And of course a smattering of fallacies and crooked thinking art which we have examined before.

idem existimatis – attempting to obscure the contributing error or risk effect of imprecise estimates or assumptions, through an overt focus on the precision or accuracy of other measures inputs inside a calculation, study or argument.

ignoro eventum – institutionalized pseudoscience wherein a group ignores or fails to conduct follow-up study after the execution of a risk bearing decision. The instance wherein a group declares the science behind a planned action which bears a risk relationship, dependency or precautionary principle, to be settled, in advance of this decision/action being taken. Further then failing to conduct any impact study or meta-analysis to confirm their presupposition as correct. This is not simply pseudoscience, rather it is a criminal action in many circumstances.

phantasiae vectis – the principle outlining that, when a human condition is monitored publicly through the use of one statistic/factor, that statistic/factor will trend more favorable over time, without any actual real underlying improvement in its relevant domain or condition. Such singular focus often to the detriment of all other related and appropriate factors. Unemployment not reflecting true numbers out of work, electricity rates or inflation measures before key democratic elections, efficiency focus instead of effectiveness, crime being summed up by burglaries or gun deaths only, etc.

Yule-Simpson Paradox – a trend appears in different groups of data can be manipulated to disappear or reverse (see Effect Inversion) when these groups are combined.

Elemental Pleading – breaking down the testing of data or a claim into testing of its constituents, in order to remove or filter an effect which can only be derived from the combination of elements being claimed. For instance, to address the claim that doxycycline and EDTA reduce arterial plaque, testing was developed to measure the impact of each item individually, and when no effect was found, the combination was dismissed as well without study, and further/combination testing was deemed to be ‘pseudoscience’.

However, given that somebody out there is benefiting, I will gladly accept a drink containing 2 ppm (parts per million) diazinon over one containing 10 ppm, based upon this necessity of individual risk compared to aggregate benefit. Now diazinon features no Efficacy Curve (EC) of benefit for me to ingest, however it does exhibit toxicity measures in 240-day rat studies. Certainly studies of value, and I am glad we completed such diligence. The NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level) of diazinon is set, as a result of such studies, at 0.02 mg/kg-bodyweight per day.4 This would equate to an 8 ounce glass of water per day containing 8.4 ppm or less of the chemical, for my body weight (the ‘lethal concentration mean-LCt50’ being much higher than this – so below this NOAEL level is considered safe). Thus, in theory, that same glass of water with 10 ppm would prompt observable adverse effects in my physiology. It won’t kill me though, right? That’s great news.

Nonetheless, yes, I will choose to drink the lower 2 ppm dose any day. The dose does make the poison, inside this highly constrained conflation of adverse effect and toxicity.

However, to cough up this statement fur-ball at me, in a serious debate about food and water contaminants, means that you are first, clueless enough to have highly underestimated your opponent and second, don’t really understand toxicology nor adverse effect all that well. It tells all concerned more about you, than it does about me. Yes, this includes the case wherein you hold a PhD. LD50, LCt50, NOAEL and other exculpatory idem existimatis contentions of that ilk are most often cited by lazy science poseurs. These measures do not even begin to bear salience or relevance around the list of 20 different ways in which toxicity can harm our citizens and our family members (Exhibit II below).

No, the dose will not kill me. Lethality, and even Adverse Effects are red herrings. We are discussing toxicity.
The discussion has never been about whether or not the contaminant in the glass of water will hurt me right this moment.

If these stats do not address the questions which our families have intelligently raised about toxins
– then why should our scientists and skeptics not have already raised the same questions?

But Table Salt Had a Higher ‘LD50’ What Happened?

But does the dose actually make the poison? Is that a logical truth? If your child accidentally ingests some rat poison – such measures are absolutely critical. But for you and millions of others, hold on just a second. Here it is 20 years later, two decades of confidently ingesting a NOAEL-safe .5 to 2 ppm diazinon glasses of water, most every day, and suddenly, you’ve gained 100 lbs across 3 years and have had to have both of your knees replaced because an aggressive form of rheumatoid arthritis has kicked in. Your same-age colleagues at the plant fully understand and cover for you. Your orthopedic surgeon is hesitant to undergo the procedure because she wants you to lose 70 lbs first. She is not sure that you will be able to handle the difficulties involved in the surgery with the extra weight. Your spouse feels like he must have done something wrong. He changes his diet in an effort to help out, but to no avail. IBS and diabetes start to creep up periodically. All at a fairly young age. But but but… the LD50 of table salt was higher though!5 Must have been the table salt, and coffee too. It’s always the coffee.

We have an apothegm just for this type of circumstance as well: ‘Luck of the draw’.

OK, in an effort to be truthful when held to public account, social skeptics will admit that we have enough epidemiological data to know that the table salt and coffee did not cause your long term exposure physical ailments after all. They just brought up those red herrings years ago in order to look smarter than you – and because this was what they were told to say. Can you as an experienced skeptic now go back then and contact the study group which set the rat-240d-NOAEL for diazinon, and say “Hey, we might need to examine this with a bit more scientific rigor and follow-up.” The fact is, that I just observed adverse effects from something – and there are only a couple culpable ‘somethings’ which could be considered – a set which includes diazinon, the least likely candidate of which is ‘luck of the draw’ (pseudo-theory). The fact is, that what we really needed were human-30y-NOLTAEL, statistics to be derived from comprehensive community data to begin with. The sad fact however is, that they are rarely if ever done. Nobody wants to find out who had the bullet in a one-bullet firing squad.

And herein resides the rub – we don’t think we need to develop human-30y-NOLTAEL because we already have rat-derived LD50, LCt50 and NOAEL data.

To push for further science might endanger the St. George beachfront property. Better enlist the aid of some, compromised-ethics, fake experts who are smart-but-dumb, with dark teeth. If they don’t have any qualifications, have them call themselves ‘skeptics’. You can hire them cheap, all you have to do is pay their celebrity leaders a pittance, and they will do anything. Ignorance is asset preserving. The science is settled. (Another deadly apothegm of social skepticism)

In the Real World, Acute Lethal Dose is Rarely the Issue

These ethical dilemmas, along with the ‘our pesticide is less toxic than table salt’ baloney, elicits just one simple example problem with ‘the dose makes the poison’ apothegm applied as panacea to the entire issue domain inside toxicology. However, even more compounding in risk, is the specter that, there are at least 17 other toxicity expression vectors, which bear a similar incompatibility to the classic ‘LD50 – dose makes the poison’ paradigm. For most toxicity vectors, those we have understood much better than our 1920’s-minded skeptics – the dose does not make the poison. And you are particularly stupid-to-gullible to believe otherwise.

The safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the Roundup weedkiller, has been compared to many things over the years, but the table salt comparison stands out as particularly ridiculous. In fact the state of New York took legal action against Monsanto for false advertising for making this very claim. Monsanto agreed to cease and desist from making this claim, but it is still commonly parroted by aggressive supporters of GMOs and chemical company apologists.

Suffice it to say that no one’s going to intentionally ingest enough salt or glyphosate to immediately die from their exposure, and comparing the LD50 values of chemicals that can have serious health harms other than immediate mortality is so misleading as to be irresponsible.

~ Dr. Nathan Donley, Center for Biological Diversity6

The following pages are available for your use, as you see fit – to partly educate the vulnerable public about what they need to know regarding food/water/medicines toxicology. This is not a case of ‘Dunning-Kruger’ – as toxicology’s application inside this context fails the limits test for application of that ‘fallacy’.7

Such matters are your responsibility as well as your right. If you and your family are getting sick for no reason – raise hell about it. They are just gonna have to put up with us.

However, if you are a professional toxicologist/epidemiologist and wish to make comment/input on the graphics below – I will certainly consider improving them with your help. That would be absolutely appreciated.

Exhibit I

Exhibit II

Appendix

epoché vanguards gnosis

——————————————————————————————

How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Apothegm Makes the Poison” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 29 Nov 2018; Web, https://wp.me/p17q0e-8UR

November 29, 2018 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Argument Fallacies | , | Leave a comment

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: