Post B0IDNZBgOzd0DHf05Y by pmcdunnough@gigaohm.bio
(DIR) More posts by pmcdunnough@gigaohm.bio
(DIR) Post #B0IDNXMxA7SGZeuyNU by pmcdunnough@gigaohm.bio
2025-11-14T23:45:44.088295Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Assume, which is not obvious, that probability actually means something. It is currently used for extrapolating from small numbers of observations to whole populations. Examples include sequences with many restricted permutations, large populations of humans where opinions on whatever is of interest. The sampling of humans to guess opinions seems to work. Here’s why. Imagine a city with a large population, each with an identical opinion. In that case selecting any person and getting his opinion will allow you to extrapolate perfectly to the whole city. This is never the case of course but the trick is to divide the population into subsets of similar people ( neighbors, basketball players, etc…) in a way that people within each subset think alike. Now you only need 1, or to be safe, a few observation(s) from each subset to extrapolate to the whole population. This is stratification. Your extrapolation will only be as good as you are in identifying subsets of like minded people. Some experienced pollsters are quite adept at this. Notice you aren’t randomizing anything. People randomize out of a convenient way of generating numbers, amongst other reasons which involve reasons I can’t fully describe.In short, you can accurately extrapolate to a whole population only if you are good at identifying similar subsets. Within each of those subsets you can pick anyone you want for an opinion.Somehow there is a link to this way of viewing inference in finite populations to the sequencing issue, but that link is elusive to me. The Bayes folks will convince you with simple formulae but they have a problem in that uninformative priors don’t work in many situations without violating the rules of probability due to Kolmogorov. The same problem happen with Fisher’s fiducial inference and the extension of Fisher’s attempt by Fraser in the structure of inference. Fisher’s emphasis in hypothesis testing was on p values which is a type of random contrapositive ( proof by contradiction) and the medical world has fully embraced this approach.Sorry for the seemingly unrelated topic, but I suspect it is relevant to sequencing, AI claims and even the identification of pathogens under incomplete observation. The 2 pieces which have bothered me for quite a while are the RNA infinite persistence in a pathogenic form similar across different regions & the identification of a sequence from a partial observation of it.The final unknown that jjcouey has mentioned is the IM issue. This seems complicated. My impression is that IM vaccines do sometimes work, but when given to millions you will always have some unfortunate problems. As far as transfection goes I am curious why I know noone ( maybe one but they deny it now) who were harmed by them. It’s also true that I know noone who died in the recent pandemic, except 2 extended family members who were likely killed in the USA by hospital protocols. We are talking the elderly here so this should not be the case.Again, sorry for the confusing post but imho there is a larger link to statistics & our current mess than meets the eye.
(DIR) Post #B0IDNYK9c0oHXGcFea by k0nd0r@gigaohm.bio
2025-11-15T18:59:10.288865Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pmcdunnough Thank you. This single post is infinitely more thought provoking than anything I've seen from JJ and his abortive and tedious "introduction to statistics." This is exactly the kind of thing that drew me to this platform in the first place. Can you recommend any books or other work that explores these issues?My most charitable assessment is that JJ's fascination with Buckminster Fuller's children's books tends down the dangerous path of oversimplification. I've personally watched ER/trauma professionals roll their eyes at "intramuscular injection is dumb." This and his ill advised appropriation of the patently offensive chief wahoo, (even if it is barely modified) seems tailor made to turn people off before they even begin to consider any of his more cogent moments.More recently, JJ and Mark's strawman treatment of the Jewish question, a cartoonish conflation of Jews with the state of Israel, is likewise problematic. It's frustrating that JJ can't seriously engage with concerns from the people on his own platform. I haven't learned any new biology from the stream in months, and he doesn't appear to be interested in unmasking any new frauds, (much less making any new allies) as he continues to harp on McCullough, Malone, McKernan, etc. ad nauseam. So once again, kudos for raising the level of discourse here!
(DIR) Post #B0IDNZBgOzd0DHf05Y by pmcdunnough@gigaohm.bio
2025-11-15T20:37:39.776070Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Thank you. I don’t know if you could find this in any one place. The usual sources would likely present a simplified version of typical calculations used for specific problems, jumping over the tricky issues which underline the methods. If you have a good math background Silvey’s book on Statistical Inference will provide a short discussion of many topics, Cox & Hinkley is a somewhat dated overview of standard math stats and Cox’s texts on inference and applied statistics are advanced gems. I should imagine current texts integrate the influence of the data analyst. I wish I could suggest one book which did the trick, but I have been retired from the area for a long time. I’ll ask people I still know what they might suggest. In clinical trials there are books on design but they rarely discuss the underlying inference problem.JJ Couey is of course approaching matters from a very different perspective, which requires a type of background I don’t have. I am not familiar with the politics of the US beyond what I read.
(DIR) Post #B0IDNZoK5KXK97jrJg by k0nd0r@gigaohm.bio
2025-11-15T20:59:53.277188Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pmcdunnough Thanks, I'll take a look. I haven't dug deep into stats, and my math chops aren't what they once were, but I thouroughly enjoyed David Foster Wallace's "Everything and More" -- though I've eventually come around to the contrarian Miles Mathis position on transinfinite math. Couey's perspective was once valuable; it's a pity I can no longer recommend the stream for fear of embarrassment.
(DIR) Post #B0IDNaYlIfgQT9SwhU by k0nd0r@gigaohm.bio
2025-11-15T21:43:28.051801Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pmcdunnough As I pointed out earlier, his tendency to oversimplification has caused the medical professionals I've spoken with to dismiss him out of hand. The wild graphics and funky presentation certainly don't help his image with them either.My feeling is that as busy professionals, they want a short and concise presentation, not the undigestible mass of videos they are presented with at stream.gigaohm.bio. Jeff's clips are a nice try to address this problem, but alas, insufficient to solve it.Furthermore, I've become increasingly uncomfortable with his divisive insistence on a "conservative antivax movement" as well as the shallow and offensive racial perspectives I pointed out earlier. It's tragic, really, and simply insulting to the intelligence of the very people we'd want to persuade.
(DIR) Post #B0IDNbAL2xk0Lh2xGq by tensorial_strain@gigaohm.bio
2025-11-16T03:49:46.756894Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
What is the basis of these medical professionals to dismiss Dr. J's conclusions? Would you care to share here? Intramuscular injection is dumb; RNA can't pandemic; Transfecting healthy people is insidious; Autism as a word has lost its significance; Viruses are not pattern integrities; Virology is transfection of cell cultures with synthetic infectious clones.Give these medical professional Dr. J's number, tell them to call him and counter his arguments because Dr. J has been asking people to call him and to tear his arguments apart for many months and years.It's interesting you find McDunnough's discussion interesting. Good for you. McDunnough is a Great Barrington Declaration signatory. McDunnough can contact U. British Columbia's Pieter Cullis because Cullis is a fellow Canadian faculty who knows everything about the terrible tragedy of transfecting people, and Cullis still chooses to play dumb.
(DIR) Post #B0IDNbrETU3IUj7D84 by k0nd0r@gigaohm.bio
2025-11-16T05:01:31.684418Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@tensorial_strain @pmcdunnough As you're probably already aware, many of JJ's points have been absorbed into the more prominent figures' shtick, and these are people everyone is already quite familiar with. Probably his most convincing work surrounds his catchphrase "RNA can't pandemic." The red pill expo presentation is probably the best version of this particular argument, which i've tried to highlight.Buried in his streams, even Couey does occasionally grudgingly admit that intramuscular injection is not always harmful. I've pointed out as much in my previous chat history with him if you care to look. But after bringing this to his attention, he stubbornly doubled down on simplifying "intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb" to a blanket "intramuscular injection is dumb" which is particularly wrongheaded in trauma medicine. I'm disappointed that he watered that statement down, and now repeats it like a broken record. Silly me, I was under the impression that his original statement was designed to be as bulletproof as possible to convince medical professionals by using a very specific medical terminology.Moreover, now that Ms. Owens has become a prominent voice, his views on Jews and "whiteness" are outdated and come across as clumsy and insincere. One could even argue that much of his criticism of Soph can be equally applied to him. As an outsider trying to break through the phalanx of disingenuous "freedom fighters" his claims understandably garner additional scrutiny. He and Mark could both benefit immensely from a more nuanced and intelligent discussion of these issues.The ones I've spoken with are unwilling to put their careers on the line for JJ and prefer to make the antivax position based on their own credentials. At this point, the fence sitters have seen plenty of evidence to contradict the Fauci line, but all agree JJ could tighten things up quite a bit compared to his competition.While the Moore trial was being litigated, i held my tongue so as not to give any oxygen to Sasha or McCullough, while avoiding countersignalling JJ's original message. But now that it's all over, the proof is in the pudding, and many of the folks involved in that trial see McCullough and the rest as the heroes that saved Dr. Moore from federal prison. I find myself in an impossible position trying to promote Mark and JJ's work in light of the obvious flaws.