Welcome to The Hub. This is our welcoming tribe dedicated to introducing yourself, meeting new people, and learning about new tribes.
#devnews #trpnews #hashtag #news
AS OF NOW, ADS HAVE BEEN OFFICIALLY REMOVED FROM BOTH TRP.RED AND FORUMS.RED
Thanks to the hard work by @Vermillion-Rx and the donations from him and many others, we've reached out fund raising goal to the point where we no longer need ads.
So now everybody has an ad-free experience.
The weird finger/dick with gel at the end will be sorely missed.
4
9
+ 5
Come join the one and only official Red Pill community for X (aka Twitter) that has just launched:
twitter.com/i/communities/1884709882701709526
It is owned and operated by us and endorsed by @redpillschool as well. It is a relaxed posting environment compared to the standards of r/TheRedPill (including allowing memes and short-format posts)
X has repeatedly demonstrated that it is a friendly place to post RP content and has account growth opportunities. Join and feel free to post memes/thoughts/short-form questions there.
Brand new, so feel free to add to the feed.
~VRX
4
3
Source: 3 master's education courses in research statistics.
And i don't say this to be critical for critical sake. If i were hoping a particular side of a research debate found findings favorable to my stance, I would expect them to provide strong statical support. They did not.
I would be disappointed in the researchers for neglecting to strengthen their study. It really showed next to nill if you understand how statistics work. They did a hatchet job with their findings and failed to do any meaningful analyses. Or worse, they initially did, and it did not show what they wanted, so they released the bare minimum
It is incredibly unusual to only release confidence intervals. I've never seen that in a study
The problem is that regression is correlation. Correlation is not causation. It is not incumbent upon doubters to find that. The researchers provided very little statical support for their findings.
With 200K participants you are going to find statical significance and it will produce a Type I error.
They failed to include effect sizes or even what their alpha value was. It is highly unclear what their significance level even was. Was it .10, was it .05?. If their p value was significant what was the effect size? If it was remarkably small that doesn't bode well for significant findings either.
A massive sample needs string effect sizes to have any statistical importance. The authors demonstrated little to nothing with this study if are are looking for meaningful statistical findings
Read More
1
2
Women are so utterly deceived nowadays...
They are told that the correct reaction to their husband having a mistress is to serve him the divorce papers, while their natural tendency, and the decent thing to do, is to serve him their wet pussy.
Let's reclaim good 'ol traditional values!
The conclusion that the COVID vaccine didn't lead to excess deaths is the most robust finding - and you point to alright.
From a public health perspective, the correlation of the lack of vaccination and higher incidence of death is enough to suggest universal vaccination.
There might theoretically be covarients, and those you identify might be good candidates, but its existence must be proved. In other words, doubters need to find them, and if they can't (which is the case up to now), we have to suppose they don't exist.
(Murders, accidents and other non-related issues are expected to even out between the two groups, that 's why the excess mortality after a pandemic is such a reliable general indicator).
