Too many people would have to keep it a secret...

@Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118793677#Comment_118793677

In case you missed it @Markus Antonius , here's your chance to set the record straight after your claims earlier that you were being misrepresented. You can set out your stall for everyone to see, if you wish.

I predict thatt you won't as it's easier to dodge and go back on your word if you operate in the shadows and never actually commit to your stance. So You'll pretend you don't see this, again, and dodge the questions, again.

Prove me wrong.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118813133#Comment_118813133

Never seen this poster ever support their view or answer any question on it properly

If this forum had a rule whereby people had to outline the conspiracy properly and make some effort to support it, it would be completely empty.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118813432#Comment_118813432

But this is the conspiracy forum! It's for discussing conspiracy theories!

It's not for asking questions about conspiracy theories, explaining conspiracy theories, outlining reasons to believe them or take them seriously, supporting them with evidence and reasoning, giving opinions of conspiracy theories...

Cheerful S

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118803824#Comment_118803824

9/11 complicated mess. There information the hijackers contacts inside America included Saudi spies, embassy staff of Saudi Arabia, and money transfer from ISI general ( Pakistan) to Mohammed Atta all happened (verified). The official narrative this was all Bin laden work bullshit.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118816851#Comment_118816851

Your narrative is that it was a massive plot pulled off by everyone from Secret Nazi's to George Bush.

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716451#Comment_117716451

Can’t address all regulatory agencies, but know a bit about FDA. Worked on an FDA grant funded research team. We had to go through 3 trials that were each subject to not only FDA oversight, but also peer review by scholars outside of the FDA. We had to pass each trial before being allowed to start the next. We were also required to publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal, as well as in a publication that stated our results in terms understood by the public.

Our FDA funded research did not pertain to vaccinations, but had been subject to similar protocols. The likelihood to hide research like this, subject to FDA oversights, peer reviews, and public reports is beyond my imagination.

Furthermore, vaccinations for Covid had research teams doing concurrent studies around the world. Many shared and compared data, analysis, and results. To now claim that all these researchers successfully hid their results in support of some conspiracy theories I find incredible, and personally amusing.

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118875054#Comment_118875054

Stop with the common sense facts please. You have nothing compared to the memes Maeve posts on Facebook

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118875054#Comment_118875054

You are assuming the companies are being honest and open with the data they publish. I've worked for numerous medical device companies, all audited by the FDA - we used statistics as a tool to draw whatever conclusion we wanted.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118876542#Comment_118876542

You engaged in fraud?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118876542#Comment_118876542

Lol. No you didn't.

It's not possible that you are at all involved in a scientific job. You are a flat earther.

Additionally you've show yourself to be a liar and you are very willing to present false information.

So sir, I believe you are lying.

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118876542#Comment_118876542

Incredible content and context.

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118876542#Comment_118876542

Don't believe you!

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118876923#Comment_118876923

What content and context are you looking for? Companies come across insurmountable issues with their products all the time - this is why the design process is iterative, no company comes up with the perfect device/medication from day 1. If you think this is the case then you clearly haven't worked for one. And this is just counting the more honest companies.

Other companies are very dishonest about the data they use. They come up with spurious reasons to nullify valid outliers in data. Anyone who understands statistics knows that you can exaggerate, dampen, hide and conclude anything you want. NPHET was a perfect example of this at the start of the pandemic releasing their daily median figure as if it was some kind of golden metric. 🙄

I've been part of so many acquisitions of companies where they were completely dishonest about their development data. The worst ones are when they dont take random test batches but cherry-pick the best samples for testing. What hope do the FDA have when this data is used in the publications?

And this doesn't even touch on the dishonesty of physicians who get big fat pay cheques from the companies. You are very naive if you think the FDA or other regulatory bodies are some kind of fail-safe mechanism in the industry.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118877759#Comment_118877759

But markus, none of us are stupid enough to believe you, a flat earther and a liar, understands statistics or where part of any "acquisitions of companies".

You are lying again.

Also, if we are to believe that your claims are true, then aren't you disproving the OP?

You're claiming to be a part of a conspiracy and of fraud, yet here you are blabbing about it because of your ego.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118877759#Comment_118877759

Cool, so why aren't you whistleblowing all this?

Maybe you should have been doing that instead of creating fake photos on this site and trying to pass them off as real..

robinph

So we now have a conspiracy theorist who is themselves directly involved in conspiracies that they want to see exposed, but they instead decide to continue with being part of the conspiracy rather than exposing it and proving themselves right.

Think they may not have fully thought through the implications of the latest lie when they dreamt it up, like they didn't realise that faking space photos to try and prove that space photos were all faked didn't make the point they thought.

King Mob

And what's the bets now his next post will be along the lines of:

"HAHAHAHA, you idiots fell for my trap again! I was making it all up!"

robinph

The latest "revelation" also goes to show that conspiracies are not revealed by random people on the Internet who had a vision or something, it's people within the conspiracy leaking the information or professional journalists investigating things.

Even though we know his story is really just a lie of course.

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118877759#Comment_118877759

Darrell Huff satirically anticipated the content and context of your above posts about statistics and their misguided use in his old but relevant 1954 book; the book title labeling your material here appropriately.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118879310#Comment_118879310

Haven't seen that book myself but seems you acknowledge that there is dishonesty in the drug industry at least.

Another upcoming beauty will be from one of the worst offenders - the IPCC with their apocalyptic reports. Thousands of faceless scientists all singing the praises of obscure and dubious data that commands the wastage of billions in funding from governments around the world.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118879637#Comment_118879637

Lol. So just ignoring the facts about your own dishonesty then?

Pretty cowardly and hypocritical.

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118879637#Comment_118879637

Would it be wise to first read a book before you draw conclusions about it? Or attempt to interpret the content and meaning of what someone says in the context of a citation used for support?

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118879687#Comment_118879687

Why are you being cryptic with your language? I read a summary of what the book is about:

In 1954, Darrell Huff decided enough was enough. Fed up with politicians, advertisers and journalists using statistics to sensationalise, inflate, confuse, oversimplify and - on occasion - downright lie, he decided to shed light on their ill-informed and sneaky ways - Amazon

Are you saying that this is just satire and that politicians, advertisers journalists are perfectly honest about how they use statistics? Or are you saying the author is just a crank and a conspiracy theorist?

It's a simple question do you agree or disagree that statistics are used, at the very least, to bend the truth?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118879762#Comment_118879762

Lol. So, you don't see the irony in any of what you've just posted, no?

Completely oblivious, or is this another bit where you pretend to be posting something really really dumb to somehow trick us...?

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118879762#Comment_118879762

Huff’s work is most often referenced in introductory statistics classes. I rarely find someone that talks statistics who is not familiar with him. It is a humorous, fast read of about 100 pages.

The summary of Huff’s book you quoted completely missed the points of his arguments. And in your doing so, you supported one of his positions.

You failed to consult and examine the original source, and admitted in not doing so having not read the book. Yet you were willing to draw conclusions that where not informed about the content and meaning of what someone posted in the context of the book being cited.

You then asked a question at the end of your post that was at the nominal data level being a agree or disagree dichotomy, obviously not knowing or acknowledging the limitations in doing so.

I could cite Huff again, or better yet Jacques Derrida and his cautionary remarks about how such oversimplified measures in our complex natural world can be problematic, misleading, and sometimes spurious.

But you already know this, don’t you, based upon your extensive research qualifying experiences posted above in support of your arguments?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118880058#Comment_118880058

You are using reason with someone who thinks the International Space Station is a hoax.

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118880124#Comment_118880124

Oh, this is yet another conspiracy theory? I’ll tell my relative that works at JPL for a laugh the next time I chat with him.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118880222#Comment_118880222

Tip of the iceberg, this poster thinks the moon landings (all of them) were fake, in fact they believe all space travel, by all countries, is faked, and they've hinted the earth isn't round. They don't like to do things by halves in here.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118880058#Comment_118880058

You think that because I haven't read a 100 page book by an american journalist that I don't know how statistics work? Please.

You are trying to talk your way out of a hole...

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118880461#Comment_118880461

You don't know how statistics work.

You believe that the space program is fake and you are a flat earther. It's not possible that you understand any scientific field.

You have also been caught out in many lies. You are a known liar. So you are more likely lying here also.