Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ransomnote

“data for 2020 shows doctors in Canada aged 50 and under die at a rate of about 6 per year.

After the latest booster, 6 Canadian doctors, 50 and under, died within a 15 day period.”

I’m sorry, but this is too small of a sample size to make any relevant conclusions. Kirsch should know better.


6 posted on 08/31/2022 11:11:05 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Boogieman

That the CMA has scrubbed all of the earlier data (it had been available back until 2015 until fairly recently) which would provided a much better baseline and has stopped updating should lead one to conclude that “there is nothing to see”

If someone might post the appropriate graphic, I’d be appreciative.


11 posted on 08/31/2022 11:17:49 AM PDT by Hieronymus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Boogieman

The sample size would be the number of doctors in Canada. What is that number?


16 posted on 08/31/2022 11:27:33 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Boogieman
I agree that is too small for a major study BUT one years worth of deaths in 2 weeks is pretty damning. Hard to imagine that no other people will die the other 50 weeks, that the 2 week period is an anomaly.
17 posted on 08/31/2022 11:28:17 AM PDT by Jolla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Boogieman

Mr. Kirsch appears to be suggesting that doctors are uniquely vulnerable to the deleterious effects of the vaccines.

That’s weird, as Canadians are among the most vaccinated people in the world at this point, not just their doctors.


26 posted on 08/31/2022 11:46:02 AM PDT by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, and you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Boogieman

I ran some numbers using the data presented here. Expected annual deaths = 6, deaths in 15 days = 6. Assumed a binomial distribution, and that deaths are distributed uniformly throughout the year.

Doesn’t matter much what the population is. The odds of a concentration like this are about 75,000 to 1.

Since the sample was selected, I don’t consider this overwhelming evidence. But I don’t think we have to ignore it, either.

Note that if there had been 10 deaths, for example, the odds would have been considerably higher - about 100 billion to 1.


51 posted on 08/31/2022 1:24:35 PM PDT by Tymesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Boogieman
I’m sorry, but this is too small of a sample size to make any relevant conclusions. Kirsch should know better.

Huh? Sample size is irrelevant here. What matters is what killed them. If what killed them is unusual, then that is of interest.

For example, let's say you have just ONE Canadian doctor die from his head exploding. Naturally, there would be interest in what made his head explode, regardless of the fact that it only happened to one guy. However, if at least one doctor's head has exploded every year since we started tracking doctor deaths, then I suppose it wouldn't be a big deal.
68 posted on 08/31/2022 5:30:57 PM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson