Thread by @rant_rn

HOW TO BOIL A FROG:

Imagine that someone was able to collect information on occurrences of chest pain in every "otherwise healthy" university student, staff member or faculty in North America that were exposed to chemicals as part of their studies, employment, or tenure.

1/...

Data was collected for decades from the beginning of Sept. to the end of April - every year.

"Inclusion criteria" included all of the above - and "otherwise healthy" was defined as NO previous episodes of chest pain prior to enrollment, employment, tenure - AND..

2/...

...NO pre-existing history of cardiac problems, hypertension or respiratory health issues.

Data for male & female subjects is separated and comparison between to the two is analyzed.

HOWEVER...

3/...

...over the past year, Professor Dimwit changed the "inclusion criteria" for MALES to INCLUDE subjects WITH past episodes of chest pain, AND pre-existing cardiac problems, HTN, & respiratory problems.

Data for male subjects was also collected for a full 12 months.

4/...

Due to a combination of workload & incompetence - data was sometimes not processed & entered in time for weekly & monthly deadlines.

Instead of making corrections & addendums to tables & graphs for the past weeks & months in which the data was actually collected ...

5/...

...& relevant to, he just plugged it into the current daily numbers.

He did however bury a "data caveat" in separate documents that discussed technical data ad nauseum - that no "reasonable" person can be "reasonably" expected to be aware of, let alone locate.

6/...

If people questioned him about changing "inclusion criteria" & the integrity of his data - he shouted at & shamed them with:
- "But they have chest pain!!!"
- "That is what is important!"
- "Do you not care?!?"
- "Are you selfish?!?"

7/...

Now, 2 years later, Dr. Dimwit is applying for a renewal of his research grant.

Given that his "inclusion criteria" is too broad to be useful AND makes it IMPOSSIBLE to compare the data to female subjects....

Should he get the grant?!?

8/...

Given the complete & utter lack of data integrity - AND the deception & fraud perpetrated by including historical data in with current data...

Should he get the grant?!?

OF COURSE NOT!!!

This would NEVER be acceptable practice in the academic, research or business world!

9/..

So WHY do we accept this from our gov't.?!?

1) "Case definition" = "inclusion criteria"
For CV-19 they created a completely unique & faulty one that is FAR too broad to be useful AND makes it IMPOSSIBLE to compare the data to other respiratory illness like Influenza.

10/...

2) Our gov't dumps historical data from past weeks, months AND 2020 into current daily numbers - instead of making corrections & addendums to tables & graphs for the past weeks & months in which the data was actually collected & relevant to.

11/...

OH...but they did however bury a "data caveat" in separate documents that discussed technical data ad nauseum - that no "reasonable" person can be "reasonably" expected to be aware of, let alone locate.

12/...

This CONSISTENT level of #deception AND #fraud would NEVER be acceptable practice in the academic, research or business world!

So once again...WHY do we accept this from our gov't.?!?

This alone should open them up to civil & criminal investigations - as it was...

13/...

...knowingly & willfully perpetrated - AND consistently over an extended period of time up to the current date!

#pushback !!!
#FactsNotFear
#stoplivinginfear

Tweet "caveat":

NO frogs were harmed in the creation of this thread. 😉

Also available on FB: facebook.com/TheRNRant

@Milhouse_Van_Ho @rubiconcapital_ @Golden_Pup @robfoot @LysanderMurphy @Metabo_PhD @DonaldWelsh16 @OnCall4ON @erdocAA @anthonyfurey @SpencerFernando @NursesCanadian @NewBlueON @Roman_Baber @BKarahalios @randyhillier @RickNichollsCKL @LibertyCCanada @NatCitizens @TrueNorthCentre