RFK jr unfairly treated?

Quote: rxwine

If there is a robot assigned to move patients in a nursing home, and instead it rips off someone’s arm, people will get somewhat UNarmed.

Quote: odiousgambit

.....pregnant women taking Tylenol for no other reason than to show contempt for K...

Quote:

Selection bias

Selection bias occurs when the study's sample is not truly representative of the target population, leading to inaccurate conclusions.

Sampling bias: The process of selecting the sample causes it to not be representative. For example, surveying only premium users of an app to understand general user satisfaction.

Self-selection bias (Volunteer bias): Individuals volunteer to participate in a study and have systematically different characteristics than those who do not. For instance, people who sign up for an exercise study may be more motivated or health-conscious than the average person.

Survivorship bias: Occurs when only the "survivors" of a process are included in the analysis. This can happen when researchers only analyze successful business startups and ignore the many that failed, leading to a skewed understanding of success factors.

Attrition bias: Occurs in longitudinal studies when participants drop out of the study. If participants drop out for reasons related to the study's outcome (e.g., less satisfied users are more likely to stop responding), the remaining group is no longer representative.

Nonresponse bias: Those who don't respond to a survey differ significantly from those who do. For example, a customer satisfaction survey might miss the opinions of very dissatisfied customers who were not motivated to respond.

Information bias (Measurement bias)

This occurs when key study variables are measured, recorded, or collected inaccurately, leading to systematic errors in the data.

Recall bias: Study participants inaccurately or incompletely remember past events or experiences. This is a major issue in retrospective studies, such as when patients with a disease more thoroughly search their memories for possible causes than a healthy control group.

Observer bias: The researchers' expectations or beliefs influence how they collect, measure, or interpret data. An observer might unconsciously rate a treatment group's progress more favorably because they believe in the treatment's success.

Performance bias: Participants or researchers act differently because they know which group they are in (e.g., control vs. treatment). Blinding (keeping group assignments secret) is a common way to minimize this bias.

Reporting bias: This can be a type of information bias, where there are systematic errors in how individuals report information. For example, underreporting socially undesirable behaviors.

Confounding bias
A confounding variable is an external factor that influences both the independent and dependent variables, creating a misleading correlation. For example, a study might find that people who drink coffee are more likely to get lung cancer. However, coffee drinkers are also more likely to be smokers. Smoking, not coffee, is the true cause of the lung cancer. The study is flawed if it does not account for this confounding variable.

Publication and reporting biases

These flaws relate to how research results are disseminated, rather than problems in the study's design or execution.

Publication bias: Studies with positive or statistically significant findings are more likely to be published than those with negative or inconclusive results, which often end up in a "file drawer". This creates a skewed body of published literature on a topic.

Outcome reporting bias: Researchers measure multiple outcomes but only report the ones with significant or desirable results, while ignoring negative or unfavorable outcomes.

Selective reporting bias: Related to outcome reporting bias, this refers to deliberately not reporting all or some aspects of research to suppress undesirable findings.

Quote: rxwine

Because of the greedy aluminum supply industry and their corrupt practices, the approximate 125 grams of "aluminon" contained in every 1 million flu vaccines is causing chronic health disorders.

Or maybe RFK can't support anything but flawed studies?

All the things that need to be run through that make studies weak, weaker, or useless. One of the reasons we need someone fully competent as the head Secretary of Health and Human Services because all these things can and do occur, and at the very least we don't need the worm damaged brain in charge of it all. (...and aluminum product for vaccines is actually made in lab conditions)

Quote:

From the outset, Andersson et al. excluded the very children most likely to reveal injuries associated with high exposures to aluminum adjuvants in childhood vaccines. The exclusion included all children who died before age two, those diagnosed early with respiratory conditions, and an astonishing 34,547 children — 2.8% of the study population — whose vaccination records showed the highest aluminum exposure levels.

Quote:

Preventing confounding factors: In response to the criticism, the study's authors explained that excluding children with serious pre-existing conditions or those who died before age two was a standard methodological practice. It prevents these factors from interfering with the study's ability to assess vaccine safety.

Study design was justified: Dr. Christine Laine, the editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine, the journal that published the study, stated that "retraction is warranted only when serious errors invalidate findings or there is documented scientific misconduct." She confirmed that neither of these conditions applied to the Danish study.

Additional analysis confirmed results: To address the criticism, the researchers conducted additional analyses by re-running their data after excluding the small group of completely unvaccinated children. The findings remained the same, supporting their original conclusions that there was no link between the number of aluminum-containing vaccines a child received and an increased risk of chronic conditions.

Cherry-picking data: The study's senior author, Anders Hviid, noted that Kennedy was "cherry-picking" a single subgroup analysis with a very small number of children to challenge the overall, large-scale findings of the study.

Robust evidence: The researchers and medical professionals involved emphasized that the study's conclusions were consistent with decades of other research, which has repeatedly confirmed the safety of vaccines containing aluminum.

Quote: missedhervee

RFK is unfit to serve as is Trump.

Both of these clowns have long passed their pull date.