We begin with the lag adjust. Our lag adjusts have been dead-on where they should be, around 0 to 3% low (both suitably conservative & consistent).
Lag is a model constraint which affects ALL ICD-10 codes equally, unless someone is tampering with the data.
The only ICD-10 code where we have to use a watered-down lag curve is Cancer.
As well, we observe below the CDC is adjusting cancer deaths AFTER the LAG PERIOD has CLEARED.
So, this is not an issue of the lag we use, rather records are being changed 13 to 24 weeks after filing.
Meanwhile, Abnormal Clinical & Lab Finding Mortality is still being used to conceal extra heart-related deaths, as proved last week. 900 deaths were added into this bucket for MMWR wk 43.
When heart related deaths are run per past (correct) practice, we get the 20-sigma signal.
Non-Natural Cause deaths - now that they are being maintained again - are showing an uptrend once again. I'm glad that the people who caused this retained their power... so promising for the future of our nation. 132 k dead young people.
Vietnam War is envious at the carnage.
Cancer deaths, when done per past practice and not the new 'week 13 - 24 special adjustment' method used since the system upgrade
...are still at a 9-sigma event, even using the watered-down lag curve. I dare not use the real (tested accurate) lag adjust here.
Thus we continue at a 6-sigma overall signal in terms of Excess Non-Covid Natural Cause deaths (the real way to do this)...
396,000 of these deaths to date, and rising at 6 k per week - far higher than the ~1400 Covid deaths per week right now.
Excess All Cause Mortality rose to 5.7%, up from 4.1% last week. Excess Non-Covid Natural Cause Mortality also rose from 13.0% to 13.9% excess.
This is not encouraging, no.
These are raw CDC outputs with a very disciplined lag adjust as we saw earlier - won't see this in media.
At this pace of Excess Non-Covid Natural Cause Mortality, along with Non-Natural Cause Mortality...
Deaths from our panic-solutions will overtake Covid deaths for the whole pandemic on 28 Jan 2024.
Well done experts! So sciencey and stuff.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It is amazing how many legal professionals lack critical language and deductive skills - and completely missed the precedent set by this case. This was not a case-specific ruling.
Justice Alito concurs in his dissent:
“What the officials did in this case was more subtle than [ham-handed censorship] ...Officials who read today’s decision ...will get the message. If a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. That is not a message this court should send.”
And the "enough sophistication" bar is very very low in this instance. As we had three parties with clear sets of communication to intend harm to specific parties. Avoiding this litmus is achievable by even the most obtuse of Party Member in the future.
And here is the kicker:
If this case is re-filed so that a clear chain of standing (not simply 'standing' alone) is established, that IS case specific. A victory for the Plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri no longer serves to dispel the precedent the Court set here.
Even lawyers involved in the case itself did not comprehend the ethical question being answered here.
We are in trouble.
What the unskilled case presentation has done, is akin to 'overselling' in marketing parlance - by having your first product hyped too much and too far ahead of its skis, thereafter under-delivering, a company creates negative goodwill inside their brand.
This is why we have FaceBook and not MySpace.
The second mouse to the trap gets the cheese. But if the first mouse held the locus of human rights, and self-immolates, we have f---ked up for everyone involved.
This is why a strategy is essential in a critical path of prosecution. Not simply a bundle of correct legal principles.
A white crow or dead body observation forces us to introduce a novel paradigm. Thereafter, does that novel paradigm bear elegance, along with greater explanatory and probative power than did the old one.
Skepticism does not mean 'never undertake the risk of proposing a hypothesis'.
The whole mission of ethical skepticism is to dispel this Mind Trick that skepticism is 'doubting everything' (until you are just a Narrative Sponge). Because they never teach you to doubt the Narrative, only new ideas.
I was silent in the vehicle on the way back to the hotel in Cairo. My stomach hung like lead. My colleagues with me on that second trip to Giza nudged: "TES, you OK? You're awfully quiet."
Once seen, this cannot be unseen.
And perhaps this is the culmination of decades of Officer of the Deck and Captain seamanship, along with having headed a materials research corporation
...nonetheless, it was staring us in the face all this time.
It helps to actually read my hypothesis before commenting...
With large language models, our formal publication, speech, and deliverables stand to converge into a stifling uniformity in banal expression - while in contrast our casual communication degrades into a brutish and trite Huxlean nightmare.
Each expression a flawless manifestation of syntax, agreement, and punctuation—a pseudo-product of a vacant and distracted mind, instructed on what and how to think.
A tiger confined to a cage for an extended period, its existence reduced to nothing but a vacant gaze, devoid of the vitality and spirit that once defined its wild nature.