Respectfully your post is a misguided attack. I made no leaps. I said its cryptic to me (and others I must presume) what Renz's error is. I subscribe to RTE and read nearly all of them. I had to go read a Mercola article to see that what I think MC is saying is that the Renz team is referring to data that was compromised before they made…
Respectfully your post is a misguided attack. I made no leaps. I said its cryptic to me (and others I must presume) what Renz's error is. I subscribe to RTE and read nearly all of them. I had to go read a Mercola article to see that what I think MC is saying is that the Renz team is referring to data that was compromised before they made their calculations. Without going into specifics of lets say miscarriages. While using the overall doctor interactions as a proxy which actually show increased soldier - doctor interactions but it is said that things like Bells Palsy incidence is lower. Well this is data he can access. If the military's only accessible data (even if compromised) shows a 300% increase of miscarriages, thats not Renz's fault. Are we to assume the DOD lawyers are waiting with some new secret cleaned up data to kneecap Renz's claims? In either case it opens an avenue of discourse to figure it out. Do we think magically everything we think is wrong and the government has some bouquet of true data to alleviate al of concerns? Probably not.
It's a complex puzzle, to figure out the DMED data, and it's not yet figured out .. MC may seem cryptic, but he's tried to super - very - extra - clearly - spell out exactly what he sees as the errors. Yet there's uncertainty on what the actual numbers are, what happened with the data, etc. But MC does know that the dataset is not reliable. And by quoting it as reliable, Renz is making a serious error.
MC has a video where he goes into this for over an hour, as well as various articles.
I'm not good with interpreting numbers, so I can't speak to specifics. But Crawford's diligence with making sure he can back up what he claims is solid, and if there are pieces missing and uncertain places, he's honest about that also.
Something happened with the data that still needs to be figured out. But everyone investigating / talking about this should be looking in the direction of figuring that out, instead of skipping over it and going with numbers that can't be verified ...
Thanks for the reply. I watched parts of that explanation video with distracted attention yesterday and re-read MCs Chaos agent 3. So far most of my takeaway is the Medical Freedom Movement is a very fractured bunch at this point. I think I see that Renz et al produced a graph of total interactions where they used very low, seemingly made from thin air, totals in the 2M range for prior to 2021.
"Respectfully your post is a misguided attack. I made no leaps. I said its cryptic to me (and others I must presume) what Renz's error is."
It is not an attack it was a reply to criticisms of a film adding a legitimate overview of the DMED data analysis by a qualified subject matter expert who did the calculations the film misrepresented. Cryptic to you is a personal problem it's not on me to have every remark within your frame of reference. Nor is it my job to defend the critics beyond citing their references.
"If the military's only accessible data (even if compromised) shows a 300% increase of miscarriages, thats not Renz's fault."
When errors in the calculations are discovered and ignored by excluding the person who found the error that is on Renz and perfectly reasonable to note. Just because the spin supports my beliefs in the harm of the jabs does not make it okay to twist truth and undermine all those who are totally truthful.
"I still dont get your animus to my question of where to catch up"
Hilarious distortion of the exchange where you characterize my citation of Crawford's DMED as "a misguided attack" go read your comment. You didn't ask for any reference but I supplied it in my first reply.
To follow up with a passive aggressive jab about "smart people who get things" is an absurd way to make you a victim; there's ample examples of my challenges and confusion with math elements in Mathew's Substack comments but seems easier to bestow me with superior intellect than accept you made an error.
Thanks I always a fab day; life is short it's the only way to go! :~)
Respectfully your post is a misguided attack. I made no leaps. I said its cryptic to me (and others I must presume) what Renz's error is. I subscribe to RTE and read nearly all of them. I had to go read a Mercola article to see that what I think MC is saying is that the Renz team is referring to data that was compromised before they made their calculations. Without going into specifics of lets say miscarriages. While using the overall doctor interactions as a proxy which actually show increased soldier - doctor interactions but it is said that things like Bells Palsy incidence is lower. Well this is data he can access. If the military's only accessible data (even if compromised) shows a 300% increase of miscarriages, thats not Renz's fault. Are we to assume the DOD lawyers are waiting with some new secret cleaned up data to kneecap Renz's claims? In either case it opens an avenue of discourse to figure it out. Do we think magically everything we think is wrong and the government has some bouquet of true data to alleviate al of concerns? Probably not.
It's a complex puzzle, to figure out the DMED data, and it's not yet figured out .. MC may seem cryptic, but he's tried to super - very - extra - clearly - spell out exactly what he sees as the errors. Yet there's uncertainty on what the actual numbers are, what happened with the data, etc. But MC does know that the dataset is not reliable. And by quoting it as reliable, Renz is making a serious error.
MC has a video where he goes into this for over an hour, as well as various articles.
I'm not good with interpreting numbers, so I can't speak to specifics. But Crawford's diligence with making sure he can back up what he claims is solid, and if there are pieces missing and uncertain places, he's honest about that also.
Something happened with the data that still needs to be figured out. But everyone investigating / talking about this should be looking in the direction of figuring that out, instead of skipping over it and going with numbers that can't be verified ...
Thanks for the reply. I watched parts of that explanation video with distracted attention yesterday and re-read MCs Chaos agent 3. So far most of my takeaway is the Medical Freedom Movement is a very fractured bunch at this point. I think I see that Renz et al produced a graph of total interactions where they used very low, seemingly made from thin air, totals in the 2M range for prior to 2021.
"Respectfully your post is a misguided attack. I made no leaps. I said its cryptic to me (and others I must presume) what Renz's error is."
It is not an attack it was a reply to criticisms of a film adding a legitimate overview of the DMED data analysis by a qualified subject matter expert who did the calculations the film misrepresented. Cryptic to you is a personal problem it's not on me to have every remark within your frame of reference. Nor is it my job to defend the critics beyond citing their references.
"If the military's only accessible data (even if compromised) shows a 300% increase of miscarriages, thats not Renz's fault."
When errors in the calculations are discovered and ignored by excluding the person who found the error that is on Renz and perfectly reasonable to note. Just because the spin supports my beliefs in the harm of the jabs does not make it okay to twist truth and undermine all those who are totally truthful.
I still dont get your animus to my question of where to catch up to you smart people who get things. But have a nice day.
"I still dont get your animus to my question of where to catch up"
Hilarious distortion of the exchange where you characterize my citation of Crawford's DMED as "a misguided attack" go read your comment. You didn't ask for any reference but I supplied it in my first reply.
To follow up with a passive aggressive jab about "smart people who get things" is an absurd way to make you a victim; there's ample examples of my challenges and confusion with math elements in Mathew's Substack comments but seems easier to bestow me with superior intellect than accept you made an error.
Thanks I always a fab day; life is short it's the only way to go! :~)