Post AwhVZx0IxbPCGYoq4e by henjin@gigaohm.bio
(DIR) More posts by henjin@gigaohm.bio
(DIR) Post #AwdhmHcOdzuLqbLi3k by Sustain26@gigaohm.bio
2025-07-29T11:00:51.628504Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(DIR) Post #AwdhmIEgLeX5lLGHjc by Cathie_Leavitt@gigaohm.bio
2025-07-29T21:34:54.721422Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
Following up:"A generation marked by hypoxia and cognitive undernourishment—set in motion by the ill-considered mRNA vaccination of expectant mothers, and sustained through subsequent births to vaccinated and repeatedly boosted women."https://theethicalskeptic.com/2025/07/29/gen-v-the-vaccinials/This preprint (note authors) is referenced in one of the footnotes:"Synthetic mRNA Vaccines and Transcriptomic Dysregulation: Evidence from New-Onset Adverse Events and Cancers Post-Vaccination"Natalia von Ranke, Wei Zhang, Philipp Anokin, Danyang Shao, Ahmad Bereimipour, Minh Vu, Nicolas Hulscher, Kevin J. McKernan, Peter A. McCullough, John A. Catanzarohttps://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202507.2155/v1
(DIR) Post #AwhVZvnVRhZcWZp6UC by henjin@gigaohm.bio
2025-07-30T13:45:56.146016Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
That's a fake plot. ES claims that ages 0-5 have 68% excess deaths from non-COVID natural causes.I got only about 3% excess ASMR in 2024 relative to a 2010-2019 linear baseline, but the ASMR was still lower in 2024 than in any previous year except for 2020: https://sars2.net/ethical2.html#Excess_deaths_from_natural_causes_in_ages_0_5.
(DIR) Post #AwhVZx0IxbPCGYoq4e by henjin@gigaohm.bio
2025-07-30T13:48:04.649122Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I used WebPlotDigitizer to digitize the excess deaths in his plot: https://automeris.io/wpd/. I then reverse engineered his baseline by subtracting the digitized excess deaths from the actual weekly deaths with underlying cause A-Q. The yellow line here shows that Ethical Skeptic's baseline roughly overlapped with my red and blue baselines in 2019, but the slope of his baseline changed dramatically after 2019.By 2024 his yellow baseline produced about 50% excess deaths, even though my blue and red baselines produced only close 0% excess deaths on average in 2024.
(DIR) Post #AwhVZy5IwUzzcMALVQ by henjin@gigaohm.bio
2025-07-30T13:48:17.138535Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Here in order to convert Ethical Skeptic's baseline to yearly deaths, I calculated the weekly average deaths for each year, divided it by 7, and multiplied it by the number of days in the year. It shows how his baseline took a sudden dive downwards after 2019.He assumed that ages 0-5 would've had about 40% less deaths in 2024 than 2019, which is completely unrealistic.
(DIR) Post #AwhVZz63BDBokxWSJ6 by henjin@gigaohm.bio
2025-07-30T14:00:45.894847Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I think Ethical Skeptic is intentionally producing disinformation. He used to be a department head of black ops at the Office of Naval Intelligence, and afterwards he worked for the intelligence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rogerbcunningham/details/experience/.
(DIR) Post #AwhVZzscGe2PBaFF0S by henjin@gigaohm.bio
2025-07-30T14:01:24.391450Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Ethical Skeptic was friends with Lloyd Pie, who was the main person saying that the so-called Starchild skull was a human-alien hybrid. In 2011 Lloyd Pye wrote an article about the skull where he said: "Roger Cunningham is a good friend who recently offered me some great ammunition for dealing with critics and skeptics who insist we can't assert anything meaningful about the Starchild's DNA until we sequence its entire genome." (https://www.ufodigest.com/article/how-can-we-say-we-have-proof-the-starchild-is-alien/amp/) And then he quoted this proof by Ethical Skeptic that the skull was alien:> (Quote) With only .001% recovered base pairs (approx. 30,000) of the Starchild's 3+ billion base pair nuclear genome, the required Confidence Interval has not been achieved. Nonetheless, by establishing that only 2% of the recovered amount (.02% x 30,000 = 600) was not found in the NIH database (and thus not found on Earth to this point), it would statistically confirm that the ultimate recovery of the entire genome would prove beyond doubt that it is "not human." And, indeed, the NIH database did not contain at least a few thousand of the base pairs from the Starchild's nuclear genome.> (Quote) These numbers solidly establish proof of the Starchild's "alien" genetic heritage. However, because the vast majority of scientists have no understanding of these basic statistical facts, they will stubbornly insist that the only acceptable result is 100% recovery of both the nuclear genome and the mitochondrial genome.When Lloyd Pye's team sequenced the skull, some of the sequencing reads had no hits on BLAST, which Lloyd Pye interpreted to mean that the reads were alien. He has now died, so his website is run by his family. It says that the owner of the skull "has since conducted a DNA test that recovered only a part of the Skull's DNA (a similar test was already carried out under Lloyd's leadership in 2003), and has declared that the Skull is human, case closed" (https://www.lloydpye.com/lloyd-pye-autobiography/).Lloyd Pye's career trajectory took him from a military intelligence agent to Hollywood scriptwriter to alien skull peddler: "He voluntarily enlisted during the Vietnam War and was recruited by Military Intelligence; however he was stationed stateside throughout his service. He went on to become a Hollywood script writer and author, publishing several fiction books before he wrote his best known text, the 1997 non-fiction opus 'Everything You Know Is Wrong' (EYKIW). Following the success of EYKIW he was recruited to lead an investigation into the Starchild Skull, an unusual skull that some believe may contain alien DNA." (http://www.lloydpye.com/biography/)Pye's bio for his spy novel said: "Lloyd Pye is a former Military Intelligence Agent turned writer who in the late 1970's became friends with John Draper, AKA 'Cap'n Crunch,' the legendary leader of the earliest group of phone phreaks. Draper provided much of the history and insight for this book, which was technically accurate before the end of the Cold War." (https://www.iuniverse.com/BookStore/BookDetails/116237-mismatch)Lloyd Pye also mentioned Ethical Skeptic in an article published in 2004, where he wrote: "As Roger Cunningham was reading through the section of the book dealing with these matters, something caused him to put on his thinking cap and, being a number cruncher at heart, he decided to play around with what he had read. It wasn't long before one very important number literally leaped off the calculator at him: 3600." (http://www.zetatalk3.com/info/tinfo27y.htm)A newsletter by Jeff Rense in 2000 included an article by Lloyd Pye which said: "The idea behind this article was suggested to me by Roger B. Cunningham. Roger is a graduate of Georgia Tech, where he concentrated on systems and statistics. He has an MBA in finance from the University of Maryland. He was a Naval Intelligence Officer." (http://www.gbppr.net/ufoupdates/pdf/2000-06.pdf)
(DIR) Post #AwhVa0UC0w5z47pFZo by henjin@gigaohm.bio
2025-07-30T14:54:05.241291Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
You can try to go here: https://wonder.cdc.gov/mcd-icd10-provisional.html. Click "I Agree", in section 1 change "Group Results By" from "Residence Census Region" to "Year", in section 3 click "Single-Year Ages" and select ages 0-5, in section 6 select the categories between A00-B99 and Q00-Q99, and scroll to the bottom and click "Send".The results show that the rate of deaths per 100,000 people was about 81.6 in 2018 and 81.3 in 2024. In order for 2024 to have 68% excess mortality relative to a baseline of 2018, the mortality rate would need to be about 137 (1.68 times 81.6).Ethical Skeptic's new "vaccinial" plot is blatantly fraudulent even by his standards.
(DIR) Post #AwhVa1C9NVG1GSOM5o by forward-ho@gigaohm.bio
2025-07-30T18:46:22.794770Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
You aren’t addressing the experiments and the science you are instead attempting to steer opinion using statistics finessed to fit model predictions. For example, “unvaccinated” extends for days after receiving a shot with adverse events reported during this post-period classified as “unvaccinated“ adverse events.
(DIR) Post #AwhVa1tklO8TRgnB3Y by henjin@gigaohm.bio
2025-07-31T02:52:08.805401Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
What experiments or science did Ethical Skeptic do? He retrieved data from CDC WONDER like me, but he applied a completely ridiculous baseline to the data, where he assumed that deaths in ages 0-5 would've dropped by about 37% between 2019 and 2024. If in reality the deaths dropped by only about 4%, he says it means there were about 50% excess deaths in 2024.The number of deaths with underlying cause A-Q in ages 0-5 was 19015 in 2019 and 18207 in 2024, so the deaths dropped by about 4%. My reverse engineered approximation of Ethical Skeptic's baseline gave me 19311 deaths in 2019 and 12117 deaths in 2024, so the deaths dropped by about 37%. So ES gets about 50% excess deaths in 2024 by dividing the actual deaths 18207 with the baseline value of about 12117.ES will block you if you ask him to document his methodology or to share his spreadsheets or code. He probably knows himself that his methodology does not stand up to scrutiny.
(DIR) Post #AwhVa2Peqlel2diemm by forward-ho@gigaohm.bio
2025-07-31T05:43:54.385917Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
So we both agree you are both data peddling and I would add, both of you saying a lot but leaving out so very much more. Neither of you working to reveal that which IS (true) but both of you labouring under the weight of finessed voluminous data to coax opinions in the direction you WANT to be true. Alternatively (working in an entirely opposite, thrilling, and unpredictable direction) there is (real) science which always discovers either a thing IS, or it IS NOT, with no say in the matter. No getting to “finesse” your way into a handy or convenient belief. The “spin“ is left for the (unconscious) propagandists, relying on models and predictions to arrange for those “convenient and profitable results“ while gobbling up resources, obscuring the waters, and returning us to the dark ages in the process. You can’t tell science like you tell an unsuspecting public what you want it to believe, then throw all kinds of numbers at it to convince it (science) to tell you what you want. A serious researcher first confirms the quality of the observational tools, the objectivity of the lens, the fitness of the data and the database it’s working with. Satisfied with his training and his tools he then goes to work in a lifetime of finding out a thing either IS, or IS NOT. By necessity of conscience, the scientist or researcher soon becomes expert at spotting bias (including the bias of his or her own wish for the world to be a happy place). The (real) scientist or researcher by extension becomes the inadvertent expert in spotting deception i.e. that which is NOT: the one thing which stands between himself and the Truth. In nature, in life.
(DIR) Post #AwhVa31aZjzuwHSwuO by Cathie_Leavitt@gigaohm.bio
2025-07-31T18:20:37.215103Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
I appreciate The Ethical Skeptic's work. It seems to me is trying to direct the attention (of those willing to be shown) in a certain direction, in this case, toward strenghthening (but never proving) a null hypothesis which he formulates as follows:"Null Hypothesis: A Vaccine Reaction is a cerebral and immune system disruption of unknown magnitude and persistence."https://theethicalskeptic.com/2018/01/14/vaccinials-the-betrayed-generation-of-americans/"The null however is not assumed to be true in a hypothesis reduction (series of hypothesis feature tests and eliminations), neither in advance of nor after testing completion in which an alternative fails. Science is constantly seeking to modify, strengthen or falsify the null hypothesis."https://theethicalskeptic.com/2015/08/17/the-four-types-of-null-hypothesis-fallacy/TES has not (yet) taken on the challenge of disproving, modifying or strengthening Dr. Couey's assertion that "IM injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb." He's also solidly grounded in the contagious RNA virus pandemic potential belief model. However, to his great credit, he offers an analysis of the CDC Wonder data that seriously questions their deceptive mantra about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.