Have you ever heard the term "correlation does not equal causation"? That principle is VERY applicable here.
Every year, more than 795,000 people in the US have a stroke. The risk of stroke increases with age; 62% of strokes occur in people age 65 and over. (I assume your friend's father is an elderly man, if this is a friend you knew in high school years ago.) Stroke kills around 160k every year.
Since stroke is a fairly common occurrence and the third leading cause of death, it is inevitable that some people will have a stroke soon after getting vaccinated. That doesn't mean that the vaccine had anything to do with the stroke. It just means that fate decided they would have a stroke that day. Same thing with aneurysm. Those people would have suffered those cardiovascular events regardless of their vaccination history. Furthermore, people often appear perfectly healthy immediately prior to a major health event.
The cv19vx injury support groups are FULL of stories like this.
In other words, those "support groups" are full of people who do not understand the concept of correlation and causation. That does not constitute proof that common medical events are caused by vaccine. It only corroborates the fact that common medical events are common.
Hi Dingbat.
You are now attempting to say that it’s raining while pissing down our leg.
By acting that correlation disproves causation.
Time to dance again.
795,001 if you count Lauren Boebert!
Try not to get too excited.
Say, that gives me an idea.
I can make an Excel spreadsheet of strokes, and one of clot shots.
If they BOTH go up, it PROVES they're related.
Which is literally what you said about BLM riots and COVID cases, while telling me sententiously that "Correlation is not causation."
Dingbat.
That’s interesting, because I have 30 years working in statistics and empirical modeling. I’m not a PhD or an expert, but I do understand the concept of signal vs noise. You know who our sharpest consultants are, in general? Masters degreed people. They tend to combine practical and theoretical well. Some of the PhDs are good too, but they often fail when looking at data which does not match their theory. I know all about massaging data, excluding outliers, having a sense of how human error + test equipment reproducibility affects model quality both from a steady state and dynamic sense. G.E.P Box once wrote: all models are incorrect, but some are useful. Right. Some are useful. If they weren’t useful, the price of many things which are manufactured by optimized computer controls would go up a bunch. I’ve seen very shitty test data used to commission control systems. I’ve seen chance unmeasured disturbances completely overwhelm signal. Modern conventional medicine, outside of emergency/trauma medicine is mostly a joke. Pharma studies are a joke in comparison to the standards I am required to follow in my job. Even lots of studies of natural products are not convincing to me. But vaccine “science” takes the cake. NO true placebo controls going back decades. Ascribing public health improvements to the various vx, which happened years before the vx, is a prime example. It is fraudulent and arguably criminal. But the cv19vx is the creme de la creme of garbage research and falsified results. I could have designed a proper test of vxd vs unvxd but it would have required at least 5 years of data. And it would have been very expensive. Back to the subject at hand...the purported AEs are a safety signal. Huge red flag. You cannot say that they were not the vx. And we cannot say that they were, 100%. Fine. But the cautionary principle requires that we have proper long term clean trial data for both vxd and unvxd. We don’t have good data, because we didn’t allow MDs such as FLCCC to use their clinical expertise in both early treatment and hospital protocols such as MATH+. It would have given us time to do proper testing and evaluation. What we have now is a disaster, one which swung an election and may end up destroying the Republic. And you are in favor of both the narrative and what came after.