Address my question what are the probably of finding ZERO antibodies in a subject after injecting the vax TWICE?
Totally possible. Likely even. It could be a clerical error and was never administered, the vial could have been switched, the batch could have been left out and gone bad, or been missing a stabilizing reagent on it's creation, or the antibody test was fouled up for of a hundred different reasons. The administrating nurse could have misread her protocol and treated patient #xxx as a placebo when they were actually assigned to the vaccine. There are a thousand different explanations for this. Anomalies are routine in complex systems. And you don't go wasting your time hunting down a thousand different possibilities for your single odd annecdote that week. Even if the patient was delivered the actual vaccine and biologically she's just weird - she's an efficacy outlier not a toxicity outlier. You add her result into the mix and you get your high level amalgamate efficacy percentage.
Now if there's a PATTERN develops you hunt it down, but otherwise you look at your one outlier, your thousand normal results, and you move on. You can always circle back but your time is better served elsewhere. When your novice junior scientist comes to you and says this one patient makes no sense, they are completely negative, no antibodies no nothing, YES, you shrug your shoulders and move on.
Assuming an appropriate sample size where such outliers can be discarded. How big would that sample size be on average GIVEN the high effectiveness stated by pfizer?
Piss on pfizer's efficacy numbers. They straight up fabricate data. They aren't getting their bullshit numbers by errantly ignoring outliers. It comes from high level stat juking - you know, the kind where you count deaths within 14 days of of vaccination as 'uinvaccinated'. That kind of malfeasance. Pfizer is bullshit, the vaccine is bullshit, their top people should hang, but this one pfizer boss shrugging his shoulders at an anomaly has nothing to do with any of that. Your warranted general anger and skepticism is misplaced IN THIS CASE.
You are unfortunately selected not foremost for your intelligence after all.
Plenty of scientists are fucking retarded because they are ONLY selected for their intelligence. But your assertion that they AREN'T selected for their intelligence is flat out wrong.
This idea that your plumber down the street (or you) would make a better scientist could be true, but likely is not. I've met plenty of smart motherfuckers without high degrees. But if they can't do math and bomb their SATs because they are academically lazy and couldn't be bothered to pay attention in HS they definately aren't going to succeed in a curriculum more demanding that the one in HS they got C's on. And even more importantly:
--------- (and I desperately need you to appreciate this) -------------
You think your annecdotal level problem soving translates - this pipe seems weird, how do I resolve this isolated instance - but it doesn't. You need to work abstractly and to find the predictive truth from the complex and imperfect data. Non scientists think scientific data is clean. But it's not. It's a mess. You're investigating messy compex systems with a slew of variables you can't control for. Particularly in Biology. You have interns that fuck shit up, nurses that don't pay attention, some asshole that left a bottle out, and that's before you even get to the headache of cell cultures behaving differently today than they did yesterday, and the reality that the same human being is broadly differently proteomically in the morning than they are in the evening, let alone two DIFFERENT people. You and your lab can be the most careful and stringent possible and you will STILL, ALWAYS end up with anomalies that you wil never in a thousand days track down because the tiniest most minute thing which may not even be under your control can throw things off wildly. You have to toss your hubris and go high level, rise above the inexplicables and let the anomaly take it's place in the noise to derive predictive truth from. You will not get there by trying to hammer down every loose nail until you finally arrive at a perfect system - you will never ever get there. I speak from my and every other scientist's experience in what actually works. This is a fact of reality, not an erronious dogma of an arrogant preiesthood.
--------- (I desperately need you to appreciate this)-------------
Here's an example of your sort of novice thinking not translating
Gregor Mendel, the monk that worked with pea plants and discovered hereditary trait inheritance and pioneered the dominant/recessive thinking that was at the forefront of developing the line of investigation that would lead to genetics... that guy... remember him?
He fabricated his data.
He knew he was on to something but he ended up with all these anomalous results. He planted his plots, did his cross polination noted the results... and fuck, they were usually close but then this plot or that was way off. One plot may have even given the opposite result from what he predicted it should. Inexplicable! So he faked the numbers. We've know the genetics now, and have done the math on his extensive 'recorded' results and the probability of them being so perfect is near impossible. We understand statistics, and he didn't.
If he had understood statistics (or reasonably believed that the readers of his work did) he wouldn't have felt the need to do what he did. But like you, and like all green as fuck scientists, he felt things had to be clean. He was needlessly perturbed by his inexplicable results because he (like you) fail to appreciate just how common they are in complex systems and that the solution is statistics and not wild goose chases looking for meaning where ABSENT A PATTERN none is likely to exist. Thank god he didn't spend years delaying his publication while he tried in vain to find a reason for those endlessly unavoidable anomolies where none existed... but novices thiking like you think would.
In his case he committed the sin of lying. In your case you want to ascribie meaning where none is evidenced and waste time that isn't warranted. Sorry, but your fantasy of having a better mind for science than scientists like myself or the pfizer boss is straight wrong. You could get there, but in your case you're the sort of intern that would need years of frustrating failures before you accepted reality for what it is rather than what you want it to be -- and you wouldn't be alone in that regard. Junior phizer scientist is right there with you in that journey.
When you have the time from a fellow scientist Mike Yeadon
You're arguing a strawman, I've sent that same interview to friends and others. Why would you think I haven't watched or don't disagree with him?? You think I'm pro pfizer or pro vaccine or something??
I understand your point the whole time dummy
You clearly don't. Seeing as how I've had to explain the same thing three times now and you're still stuck on the basic premise that anomalous results are routine and uninteresting within complex systems. You are stuck on how interesting it would be if your preferred explanation of the result were true, while ignorign how unlikely it is, all the alternatives, and the low value/cost proposition of chasing that red herring.
I grew up around 140 iq minimum classmates, many of them turned out to be scientists.
Many of them are quite competent and are certainly dummies. Why are you saying things that I never said, indicated, or gave reason to infer I'm thinking?
This is why I called you a dummy. Instead of thinking I'm trying to undermine you or your qualifications. Could it be I was merely testing and adding to you?
And if you truly believe scientist are selected foremost for intelligence you must have never heard of global warming...
Gregor Mendel was a bad scientist by definition but a brilliant man. Actually consider: Does almost brilliant people make the best scientists? Does the most brilliant attempt innovation or do they spend years trying to verify what they know to be true?
I happen to be closely aligned with Taleb Nassim views on complex systems. And like most other engineers, I usually care more about inputs and outputs than the details within a system. However nothing is too complex only incomprehensible to the human mind, if something cant be described or mapped within a reasonable amount of time you just put a black box around it and record the input/output and use it that way until a scientist figures it out. (this is a joke, we know you won't, engineers are smarter than scientists cause they don't have to rely on grants and can become wealthy)
And you should listen to Mike Yeadon again, he sense with his guts and wisdom in addition to his intelligence.
I never share Mike with any non professionals, because Mike himself knows he's ineffective. Guess how many professional actually listen and follow through the whole interview? none. I feel you haven't truly heard Mike Y either.
Side note, it's good to be a dummy what is wrong with you? If you think you know when you don't know, you will never know. If you know and pretend you don't know sometimes you learn new variations or interesting angles.
That guy Nick Karl thought he found a unicorn and his boss isn't the least interested. That's a red flag, I don't care if you are just like that, it just mean there's a red flag on you. (this is an assumption, needs verification)
Companies likes to hire young minds for a reason, and they mostly keep the old boring minds around to make sure the new ones stick to the same standard of boring so communication and teamwork can occur. Stop shitting on the young, they have to fight against the shits we've allowed to occur. (another joke, professionals are usually overworked and overwhelmed [on purpose?] to do much)
Well not me, I tried to resist and was ostracized. But my life's still pretty interesting and I'm doing pretty good right now. And hey listen to some sadhguru it'll do you good. Watch when you feel good and have time.
Totally possible. Likely even. It could be a clerical error and was never administered, the vial could have been switched, the batch could have been left out and gone bad, or been missing a stabilizing reagent on it's creation, or the antibody test was fouled up for of a hundred different reasons. The administrating nurse could have misread her protocol and treated patient #xxx as a placebo when they were actually assigned to the vaccine. There are a thousand different explanations for this. Anomalies are routine in complex systems. And you don't go wasting your time hunting down a thousand different possibilities for your single odd annecdote that week. Even if the patient was delivered the actual vaccine and biologically she's just weird - she's an efficacy outlier not a toxicity outlier. You add her result into the mix and you get your high level amalgamate efficacy percentage.
Now if there's a PATTERN develops you hunt it down, but otherwise you look at your one outlier, your thousand normal results, and you move on. You can always circle back but your time is better served elsewhere. When your novice junior scientist comes to you and says this one patient makes no sense, they are completely negative, no antibodies no nothing, YES, you shrug your shoulders and move on.
Piss on pfizer's efficacy numbers. They straight up fabricate data. They aren't getting their bullshit numbers by errantly ignoring outliers. It comes from high level stat juking - you know, the kind where you count deaths within 14 days of of vaccination as 'uinvaccinated'. That kind of malfeasance. Pfizer is bullshit, the vaccine is bullshit, their top people should hang, but this one pfizer boss shrugging his shoulders at an anomaly has nothing to do with any of that. Your warranted general anger and skepticism is misplaced IN THIS CASE.
Plenty of scientists are fucking retarded because they are ONLY selected for their intelligence. But your assertion that they AREN'T selected for their intelligence is flat out wrong.
This idea that your plumber down the street (or you) would make a better scientist could be true, but likely is not. I've met plenty of smart motherfuckers without high degrees. But if they can't do math and bomb their SATs because they are academically lazy and couldn't be bothered to pay attention in HS they definately aren't going to succeed in a curriculum more demanding that the one in HS they got C's on. And even more importantly:
--------- (and I desperately need you to appreciate this) -------------
You think your annecdotal level problem soving translates - this pipe seems weird, how do I resolve this isolated instance - but it doesn't. You need to work abstractly and to find the predictive truth from the complex and imperfect data. Non scientists think scientific data is clean. But it's not. It's a mess. You're investigating messy compex systems with a slew of variables you can't control for. Particularly in Biology. You have interns that fuck shit up, nurses that don't pay attention, some asshole that left a bottle out, and that's before you even get to the headache of cell cultures behaving differently today than they did yesterday, and the reality that the same human being is broadly differently proteomically in the morning than they are in the evening, let alone two DIFFERENT people. You and your lab can be the most careful and stringent possible and you will STILL, ALWAYS end up with anomalies that you wil never in a thousand days track down because the tiniest most minute thing which may not even be under your control can throw things off wildly. You have to toss your hubris and go high level, rise above the inexplicables and let the anomaly take it's place in the noise to derive predictive truth from. You will not get there by trying to hammer down every loose nail until you finally arrive at a perfect system - you will never ever get there. I speak from my and every other scientist's experience in what actually works. This is a fact of reality, not an erronious dogma of an arrogant preiesthood.
--------- (I desperately need you to appreciate this)-------------
Here's an example of your sort of novice thinking not translating
Gregor Mendel, the monk that worked with pea plants and discovered hereditary trait inheritance and pioneered the dominant/recessive thinking that was at the forefront of developing the line of investigation that would lead to genetics... that guy... remember him?
He fabricated his data.
He knew he was on to something but he ended up with all these anomalous results. He planted his plots, did his cross polination noted the results... and fuck, they were usually close but then this plot or that was way off. One plot may have even given the opposite result from what he predicted it should. Inexplicable! So he faked the numbers. We've know the genetics now, and have done the math on his extensive 'recorded' results and the probability of them being so perfect is near impossible. We understand statistics, and he didn't.
If he had understood statistics (or reasonably believed that the readers of his work did) he wouldn't have felt the need to do what he did. But like you, and like all green as fuck scientists, he felt things had to be clean. He was needlessly perturbed by his inexplicable results because he (like you) fail to appreciate just how common they are in complex systems and that the solution is statistics and not wild goose chases looking for meaning where ABSENT A PATTERN none is likely to exist. Thank god he didn't spend years delaying his publication while he tried in vain to find a reason for those endlessly unavoidable anomolies where none existed... but novices thiking like you think would.
In his case he committed the sin of lying. In your case you want to ascribie meaning where none is evidenced and waste time that isn't warranted. Sorry, but your fantasy of having a better mind for science than scientists like myself or the pfizer boss is straight wrong. You could get there, but in your case you're the sort of intern that would need years of frustrating failures before you accepted reality for what it is rather than what you want it to be -- and you wouldn't be alone in that regard. Junior phizer scientist is right there with you in that journey.
You're arguing a strawman, I've sent that same interview to friends and others. Why would you think I haven't watched or don't disagree with him?? You think I'm pro pfizer or pro vaccine or something??
You clearly don't. Seeing as how I've had to explain the same thing three times now and you're still stuck on the basic premise that anomalous results are routine and uninteresting within complex systems. You are stuck on how interesting it would be if your preferred explanation of the result were true, while ignorign how unlikely it is, all the alternatives, and the low value/cost proposition of chasing that red herring.
I grew up around 140 iq minimum classmates, many of them turned out to be scientists.
Many of them are quite competent and are certainly dummies. Why are you saying things that I never said, indicated, or gave reason to infer I'm thinking?
This is why I called you a dummy. Instead of thinking I'm trying to undermine you or your qualifications. Could it be I was merely testing and adding to you?
And if you truly believe scientist are selected foremost for intelligence you must have never heard of global warming...
Gregor Mendel was a bad scientist by definition but a brilliant man. Actually consider: Does almost brilliant people make the best scientists? Does the most brilliant attempt innovation or do they spend years trying to verify what they know to be true?
I happen to be closely aligned with Taleb Nassim views on complex systems. And like most other engineers, I usually care more about inputs and outputs than the details within a system. However nothing is too complex only incomprehensible to the human mind, if something cant be described or mapped within a reasonable amount of time you just put a black box around it and record the input/output and use it that way until a scientist figures it out. (this is a joke, we know you won't, engineers are smarter than scientists cause they don't have to rely on grants and can become wealthy)
And you should listen to Mike Yeadon again, he sense with his guts and wisdom in addition to his intelligence.
I never share Mike with any non professionals, because Mike himself knows he's ineffective. Guess how many professional actually listen and follow through the whole interview? none. I feel you haven't truly heard Mike Y either.
Side note, it's good to be a dummy what is wrong with you? If you think you know when you don't know, you will never know. If you know and pretend you don't know sometimes you learn new variations or interesting angles.
That guy Nick Karl thought he found a unicorn and his boss isn't the least interested. That's a red flag, I don't care if you are just like that, it just mean there's a red flag on you. (this is an assumption, needs verification)
Companies likes to hire young minds for a reason, and they mostly keep the old boring minds around to make sure the new ones stick to the same standard of boring so communication and teamwork can occur. Stop shitting on the young, they have to fight against the shits we've allowed to occur. (another joke, professionals are usually overworked and overwhelmed [on purpose?] to do much)
Well not me, I tried to resist and was ostracized. But my life's still pretty interesting and I'm doing pretty good right now. And hey listen to some sadhguru it'll do you good. Watch when you feel good and have time.