Statistics is not Evidence based medicine

 

"Evidence based medicine" refers to medicine that uses certain statistical methodology.  However, this statistical methodology is in conflict with good scientific methods and is not a proper use of evidence.

Copyright Carl Janssen 2022 September 2

Limitations and criticism

There are a number of limitations and criticisms of evidence-based medicine.[71][72][73] Two widely cited categorization schemes for the various published critiques of EBM include the three-fold division of Straus and McAlister ("limitations universal to the practice of medicine, limitations unique to evidence-based medicine and misperceptions of evidence-based-medicine")[74] and the five-point categorization of Cohen, Stavri and Hersh (EBM is a poor philosophic basis for medicine, defines evidence too narrowly, is not evidence-based, is limited in usefulness when applied to individual patients, or reduces the autonomy of the doctor/patient relationship).[75]

http://web.archive.org/web/20220823161227/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine

What Makes You You? By Tim Urban

You are not your brain or your body by Tim Urban 

https://qz.com/500566/what-makes-you-you/

http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://qz.com/500566/what-makes-you-you/

bitchute.com/video/Z2i9VQNktYs/

http://web.archive.org/web/20220828042142/https://www.bitchute.com/video/Z2i9VQNktYs/

What Makes You You?

By Tim Urban

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/what-makes-you-you.html

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/what-makes-you-you.html

Statistics is Neither Math Nor Science when probability is invoked or evoked

Dark Mathematical Magicians, Statistical Sorcery and Superstition

If there is one most important lesson to get from this article it is that you can know fake science is being used if you see the phrases "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant."  

When you look at what percentage of articles have these phrases in peer reviewed scientific journals, however unscientific you thought the majority viewpoint scientific establishment was you will realise it is much faker then that.  

Take the wildest mainstream science denial theories of fake globe earth, fake moon landings, fake pictures of space, fake spinning earth, fake gravity, fake dating of fossils, rocks, manuscripts and artifacts, fake dinosaurs,, fake billions and millions of years, fake big bang, fake nukes, fake discovery of the atom, fake theory of special relativity, fake DNA, fake vaccine theories and fake global warming theories add them all together and they do not add up to even 1% of the amount of fakery there would be in the mainstream scientific establishment if this one claim is true.  Although I am not saying whether or not those mainstream science denial theories are true by putting them in this list, simply comparing the triviality of even the combination of all of them when compared with the hoax of the legitimacy of using statistical significance as part of science.

Not all statistics is unscientific.  There is a field of statistics called descriptive statistics in which quantities are directly measured.  This field can be scientific or used as part of a legitimate scientific method when probability is not involved.

Descriptive Statistics may give you a frequency without a probability meaning that it can be potentially legitimate

A frequency can be directly measured but a probability can not

For example if Cathy the Cat Lady has 7 black cats and 3 white cats and no cats with both black and white fur in her house's cat room right now and she has no other cats anywhere else in the world.  Someone can personally count how many cats are in that room of each type and get a number of each type without assigning a probability.

From the numbers they personally observed they can calculate frequencies that 70% of her cats are black and 30% of her cats are white.  

Inferrential Statistics is where the line between fantasy and reality is magically conjured into existence through the use of probability and guessing.  Inferrential statistics are where you try to guess what quantities are that you never measured based on information you have actually measured in your descriptive statistics.  

One extremely common problem with inferrential statistics is infering that data you never measured would be a normal distribution curve if you actually measured it based on the descriptive data you did measure and can objectively know is not a normal distribution curve.

The most common and most serious problem, however, is believing you can know the probability of a meaurement at all.  The entire foundation of any and every statistical test that can get a result of either, "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant" is that probabilitiy exists and can be a quantity other than 0% or 100% which it can not and therefore might as well not exist as will be explained much later in this article.

 In the infiltrated academic fields of so called biology, sociology, psychology, pharmacy, exercise physiology, healthcare and industrial engineering "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant" is used as the standard for knowing "the truth" about the results of an experiment.  But this standard has not been used  to arrive at any hard science by competant people who know what they are doing. 

Although Isaac Newton's work on gravity and astronomy has never beem confirmed by the common person, the rest of his laws are very useful, and he never arrived at them using tests to see if they were, "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant."

The force of Local Gravity can be measured by dropping an object in front of a ruler and filming it without testing for if it is  "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant" because the object will be exactly where it is supposed to be based on the model if you adjust for air friction

 But the force of gravity in outer space has never been proven to the non space ship affording commoner and the Universal Gravitational constant is a fraud.  The mass of large objects like buildings and walls right next to the testing equipment is always ignored making the whole thing a big joke. 

 If Isaac Newton really existed he has been the most important scientist and mathematician in all of history because of what Newtonisn Physics teaches about, Torque, Work, Force, Mass, Acceleration and Momentum which is a prerequisite for all work in all other fields of science that use those measurements.  Not even one theory Isaac Newton arrived at was achieved by testing for being "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant," every correct theory he ever had are confirmed because they make correct predictions which is how real science works and not because of something labeled as being "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant," occured which is not how real scientists do research only how people who are paid lots of money to pretend to be doing science do research.

In inferrential statistics someone might say there is a 70% chance a cat will be black and a 30% chance a cat will be white because the probability is assumed to be the same as the frequency.  But, this is magical thinking

In reality zero of her cats have a 30% chance of being white and zero of her cats have a 70% chance of being black.  7 of her cats have a 100% chance of being black with a 0% chance of being white and 3 of her cats have a 100% chance of being white and a 0% chance of being black.

That is where I am wrong.  Pulling a rabbit out of a hat is much less likely to get you bitten than pulling a cat out of a hat [ citation not needed . ]  If a magician pulled a cat out of a hat and they personally did not know what color the cat was until they pulled it out of the hat there would be a 70% chance it was black and a 30% chance it was white.

But I am not wrong at all.  Just because the magician does not see the cat before he pulls it out does not mean it is not a black or white cat.  If the cat is black there is a 100% probability the cat he pulls out will be black and a 0% chance it will be white.  If the cat is white there will be a 100% chance it will be white and a 0% chance it will be black.

If he pulls out each cat exactly one time then the frequency he pulls them out will be 70% black and 30% white but there will be no probability of a 70% chance of being black nor a probability of a 30% chance of being white each time he pulls a cat out as I already explained.

The scientific method involves proposing a possible mechanism by which things work and making a measurable mathematical model to make future predictions based on what would happen under experimental circumstances if that mechanism genuinely existed and followed that mathematical model.   The model is then tested based on experiment.

There are three types of mechanisms

1 A physical mechanism

2 A chemical mechanism

3 A mechanism of choice - Something that explains why someone will choose something based on their goals and the information they have access to

None of these types of mechanism can be based on probability 

1 Physical and Chemical mechanisms

 There is either a 0% or 100% chance any claim about a specific object at a specific location, at a specific time is true and those are the only two probability values that can exist in reality.  There is never a probability that is less than 100% and greater than 0% such as 50% of something being true.  Just like not knowing the cats color did not mean there was a probability a cat has a certain fur color other than 0% or 100% in reality

2 Choice mechanisms

Although what goals and knowledge someone else  has is unknown there can likewise be only a 100% chance or 0% chance any claim about their goals or knowledge is true at any specific time and not any value other than those two values such as 50% for similar reasons

No legitinate mechanism of explanation therefore can be based on probability theory

A legitimate scientific model has a mechanism of explanation

There is then no scientific basis for any model to represent reality that uses the type of inferential statistics based on probability theory, since no legitimate mechanisms are probabilistic

In Short : Inferential Statistics that are based on probability theory are not legitimate science

Statistics is Neither Math Nor Science when probability is invoked or evoked

Statistics is magic.

Statisticians can be of the spell school of geometry in which geometric bell curves and tables are drawn on paper to work mind deceiving magic on the reader 

http://web.archive.org/web/20220811075624/https://www.docdroid.net/e2GQmdw/players-option-skills-powers-rtf

Statisticians cast wild magic spells where their methods are based on occasionally arriving at the right conclusion for the wrong reason

http://web.archive.org/web/20220811075323/https://www.docdroid.net/4adfMyZ/the-complete-wizards-handbook-rtf

Statistics is evocation magic because it calls to mind people to imagine things that are not true 

transitive verb To call to mind, as by suggestion, association, or reference.

transitive verb To create anew, especially by means of the imagination.

transitive verb To summon by magical or supernatural power; conjure.

http://web.archive.org/web/20220707094055/wordnik.com/words/evoke

Statistics is of invocation magic because it is a religious act of imploring aid from a belief in the higher power of probability theory

late 14c., "petition (to God or a god) for aid or comfort; invocation, prayer;" also "a summoning of evil spirits,"

http://web.archive.org/web/20211023090227/etymonline.com/word/invocation

Of the spell school of song magic in which word are used like magic spells to trick people into believing in something that is not true

http://web.archive.org/web/20220811075624/https://www.docdroid.net/e2GQmdw/players-option-skills-powers-rtf

Statisticians  use mind effecting magic from the school of enchantment charm when people are forced or charmed into obeying stupid ideas because they are labeled as statistically significant

http://web.archive.org/web/20220811075323/https://www.docdroid.net/4adfMyZ/the-complete-wizards-handbook-rtf

Syatistics is illusionary magic in which people hallucinate reality being other than what it is caused through the suggestion of things being "statistically significant" even if they are not practically significant

Statistics is a form of necromancy.  Not necromancy in the sense of creating undead beings but in the sense of trying to foretell the future or past from the dead through ways that do not logically make sense except to someone doing magical thinking.

With statistics people imagine to get information from the dead they simply do not have access to when statistics is used instead of understanding physical and chemical mechanisms of biological causes of death and the fossilization process in forensics, paleontology, osteo-archeologists and actuarial "science."  A paleontologist with no soft tissue might use "rigorous scientific methods" to know what a dinosaurs body was like from statistical analysis of bone measurements, while ignoring the fact that no such physical mechanism of how the dinosaurs body worked could be observed without the never found muscle and connective tissue.  But, that is ok because no physical mechanism is needed when it comes to statistical science, so why should a physical mechanism like a body be needed for any biological science experiment.

A necromancer is a person who practices necromancy, a discipline of black magic used to communicate with the dead to foretell the future.

http://web.archive.org/web/20200323070613/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necromancer_(disambiguation)

Statistics is faith healing magic.  I do not know how the chemical mechanism for this medicine works but it showed "statistically significant differences" compared with a placebo, so if I just trust the science I will be healed by my faith in the scientific study, if I shut up and do as I am told.

Granted I could think that it did not work for some of the patients to heal them and some got worse after taking the medicine, and without knowing the chemical medicine I could not know which category I am in.  But if I actually knew the chemical and physical mechanism of both the medicine and my body I could know if there is a 100% chance the medicine will heal me or a 100% chance it would do nothing or a 100% chance it would make me worse. 

 But that type of thought would just be the devil trying to get me to doubt the, "statistically significant difference" and I should just take the medicine without knowing what category I am in, because I can not be healed without enough faith in statistical science

Statistics is like ancient divination in which people imagined to be able to detect things they can not know by normal means with the use of magic.  What kind of magic was this?  In ancient days people would intentionally do things that people today would consider to produce random results.  People in ancient times thought these random results could produce supernatural guidance through auspicious signs and omens. 

Using random results to get supernatural guidance would be called laughable in modern times.  But, today scientists with real credentials devote their entire career to studying randomness but instead of calling the study of randomness divination, they call the study of randomness statistics. 

 They still look for auspicious signs and omens, but today call these signs and omens, "statistically significant results" and "not statistically significant results."  

A result is said to randomly change from the omen of "statistical significance" to the omen of "no statistical significance" randomly every once in a while no matter how an experiment is set up, unless G-d forbid, they actually observe the causal mechanism and measure the data directly instead of statistically inferring it. 

 They laugh at ancient people for seeking omens from randomness, but their very admission to random false positives and false negatives shows they are still seeking omens from randomness today every time they test to find out if a result is, "statistically significant," instead of testing a mathematical model for a hypothetical mechanism.

In statistical hypothesis testing, a type I error is the mistaken rejection of an actually true null hypothesis (also known as a "false positive" finding or conclusion; example: "an innocent person is convicted"), while a type II error is the failure to reject a null hypothesis that is actually false (also known as a "false negative" finding or conclusion; example: "a guilty person is not convicted").[1] Much of statistical theory revolves around the minimization of one or both of these errors, though the complete elimination of either is a statistical impossibility if the outcome is not determined by a known, observable causal process. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20220602144427/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors

When probability theory, which is the basis for much of inferential statistics is first taught, to defenseless children held captive to the dark magicians ways in public schools, six sided dice are often mentioned a lot in calculations.  These dice trace back to the ancient divination magic of casting lots called cleromancy.  

Cleromancy is a form of sortition (casting of lots) in which an outcome is determined by means that normally would be considered random, such as the rolling of dice, but that are sometimes believed to reveal the will of God according to Proverbs 16:33.

http://web.archive.org/web/20220602113150/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleromancy

Statistics is like the occult school of numerology in that measured numbers are imagined to work according to patterns of statistical magic, without any need to examine mechanism of how something works.  Where as in numerology measured numbers can also magically tell you information without understanding the mechanism of the source of data you are measuring the numbers from.

Numerology and astrology are not considered to be math nor science but numerology uses math to make predictions, and astrology uses both math and astronomy to make predictions.

Statistics is neither math nor science but statistics uses math

Numerology and astrology actually are more useful than statistics.  

Numerology and astrology can have a linguistic purpose to communicate messages symbolically.  

Numerology should be viewed as a form of linguistics that uses math and numbers to communicate coded messages to other people who know numerology and not as a field of mathematics or physical science.

For example if a shoe is One foot and One inch long that does not mean bad luck but if you say a shoe is thirteen inches long someone who knows the code might know you are sending a coded signal which means bad luck.  The Number Thirteen is not an unlucky number because a shoe that is thirteen inches long is no more likely to cause you to trip than a shoe that is one and one twelth of a foot long even though they are both the same length.  Thirteen pairs of an object is the same as Twenty Six objects.  But if you want to communicate a message of bad luck you might call it Thirteen pairs of objects instead of Twenty Six objects.  If you want to make sure you do not give people less than the dozen donuts you asked for you give them a bakers dozen.  A bakers dozen is one dozen donuts plus one extra donut.  They will be happy to have an extra donut if you tell them it is a bakers dozen but do not tell them you are giving them thirteen donuts or they will freak out if they are superstitious.  There is no lucky or unlucky quantity therefore because the same quantity can be changed from considered lucky to unlucky by a change of word labeling magic.  There is no physical mechanism for numerology because when you measure real things you can assign any number you want to them by changing the units.  The purpose of changing around the number in front of the unit is therefore clearly to  change each number to a different to code word when numerology is used.   Therefore numerology clearly is not a physical science but clearly is a real linguistic tool.

Overt is the opposite of covert

If someone wishes to use the news to signal out coded messages they may chose things like fabricating numbers in news stories which are actually fiction being portrayed as non fiction.  They could for example use the code number three hundred and twenty two in order to covertly communicate the message "skull and bones" to everyone who hears the message while only people who know the number means "skull and bones" understand they are receiving the message "skull and bones" and everyone else thinks a quantity is being measured when no such quantity of whatever unit they claim to measure occured.  The number was not used as a measurement but a code word.

The most popular numbers overtly used as code words when trying to make sure the general public does know to put the public in a state of fear are triple sixes or six hundred and sixty six, and thirteen.  Culturally people are taught to fear those numbers so they are displayed on purpose not to measure a quantity but as a overtly displayed code word. 

Some people believe astrology predicts the future so choose to change their behavior based on astrological predictions.  The news cycle contains fictional events prewritten to fit astrological time tables.  Corporate and government managers of society on the top level create a timetable for what policies to set in place at what time based on astrology.  In this way astrology is a communication tool to modify people's behavior which uses math but is not a science.  Even though astrology is not a science, knowledge of astrology can be used to predict the behavior of people who are being influenced by the tool of astrology.

Probability based statistics is neither math nor science but it is used as a magical communication tool to control people's behavior.

You can look at astrology horoscopes and guess how their believers will behave even though they are not fields based on the scientific method.

The phrases, "statistically significant," and "not statistically significant," have no scientific merit.  However, like astrology and numerology which also have no scientific merit, if a scientific journal article claims something, "is statistically significant," or "is not statistically significant" you can guess how it will change the behavior of the superstitious believers.

The scale matters.  If we play make believe and pretend probability theory is true a certain percentage of articles will have the opposite result in terms of statistical significance changing from significant to not significant or not significant to significant for each alpha value.  Then the people in charge only put the one's that fit the scientific consensus on a large scale for distribution.  It is like rolling a die over and over until you get the number you like.  But in reality, data is often simply fake, and people who try to do honest studies simply do not have their work published unless it fits the agenda.  And even if they followed the proper statistics methods and did not get their work censored it is still a victory for the dark magicians because they are perpetuating the lie that inferential statistics based on probability theory is legimate science and inferential statistics is real math, when neither of those claims are true.

Copyright Carl Janssen 2022

This generally means that descriptive statistics, unlike inferential statistics, is not developed on the basis of probability theory, and are frequently nonparametric statistics

http://web.archive.org/web/20220529222853/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_statistics

The thing about social science is that it hasn’t produced much. We social scientists don’t have an inferiority complex; we really are inferior.

http://web.archive.org/web/20220519231153/statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/03/12/the-social-sciences-are-useless-so-why-do-we-study-them-heres-a-good-reason/

The past two hundred years of social science have given us nothing as useful and important as what gets produced every day in biology, chemistry, and physics.

http://web.archive.org/web/20220519231153/statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/03/12/the-social-sciences-are-useless-so-why-do-we-study-them-heres-a-good-reason/

Keep Psychology Out of the Science Club

http://web.archive.org/web/20210705160649/https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/07/keep-psychology-out-of-science-club.html

Why Psychology and Statistics Are Not Science

http://web.archive.org/web/20210705160650/https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/11/why_psychology_and_statistics_are_not_science.html

psychology is not a science, and statistics in and of itself is not science either. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20210705160654/https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/11/the_trouble_with_social_science_statistics.html

no statistic has any application to an individual

http://web.archive.org/web/20220608134204/https://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/evistats.html

psychology is not a science, and statistics in and of itself is not science either. 

What would be missing, in a world without statistics?

Science would be pretty much ok. Newton didn’t need statistics for his theories of gravity, motion, and light,

http://web.archive.org/web/20200517144840/https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/23/world-without-statistics/

Modern biomedicine uses lots and lots of statistics, but would medicine be so much worse without it? I don’t think so, at least not yet. You don’t need statistics to see that penicillin works, nor to see that mosquitos transmit disease and that nets keep the mosquitos out. Without statistics, I assume that various mistakes would get into the system, various ineffective treatments that people think are effective, etc. But on balance I doubt these would be huge mistakes, and the big ones would eventually get caught, with careful record-keeping even without statistical inference and adjustments. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20200517144840/https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/23/world-without-statistics/

Although we use many laws and formulae in statistics but still the results achieved are not final and conclusive. As they are unable to give complete solution to a problem

http://web.archive.org/web/20211214014433/economicsdiscussion.net/statistics/8-main-limitations-of-statistics-explained/2321

Law of statistical regularity, are not as good as their science laws.

They are based on probability. So these results will not always be as good as of scientific laws. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20211214014433/economicsdiscussion.net/statistics/8-main-limitations-of-statistics-explained/2321

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=statistics+is+not+science&ia=web

Statistics is a dark art. It’s not a true math in the sense that math is discovered and inherently right or wrong. 

quora.com/Is-statistics-a-science

Statistics is not math

http://web.archive.org/web/20220812110649/https://simplystatistics.org/posts/2012-04-11-statistics-is-not-math/

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=statistics+is+not+math&ia=web

Statistics Is Not Math

http://web.archive.org/web/20150221225715/https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/3169/

Statistics uses math, but it is not math

http://web.archive.org/web/20210502115501/https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/78579/stats-is-not-maths

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=statistics+is+not+logic&ia=web

Howard Zinn

 https://www.howardzinn.org/collection/

http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.howardzinn.org/collection/

Effective hoaxes use prior implanted worldviews

Whereas the promoters of frauds, fakes, and scams devise them so that they will withstand the highest degree of scrutiny customary in the affair, hoaxers are confident, justifiably or not, that their representations will receive no scrutiny at all. They have such confidence because their representations belong to a world of notions fundamental to the victims' views of reality, but whose truth and importance they accept without argument or evidence, and so never question

http://web.archive.org/web/20220530222104/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax

Speaking Statutes and Preterism

And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Revelation 13:15 KJV

http://web.archive.org/web/20111122173744/biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation 13&version=KJV

 consulting statues through which a priest apparently spoke

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_religion

Practices

Oracles

http://web.archive.org/web/20220617082230/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_religion

The ancient festival has been survived by the present-day feast of Sheikh Yūsuf al-Haggāg, an Islamic holy man whose boat is carried around Luxor in celebration of his life

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opet_Festival

http://web.archive.org/web/20220524113604/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opet_Festival

Patterson Quantom Physics Abuse Reason

Steve Patterson Articles

Quantom Physics and the Abuse of Reason

we’re left with two mutually exclusive theories. On the one hand, you have a classically-determined universe, where motion is caused by concrete inputs. And on the other hand, you have the world of quantum indeterminacy, where motion is probabilistic and fundamentally random at the smallest levels. How do we resolve this conflict? We have several options.

http://web.archive.org/web/20220605151500/https://steve-patterson.com/quantum-physics-abuse-reason/

We could say, “Quantum phenomena are more fundamental than classical phenomena, and therefore the principle of indeterminacy is ultimately true. Macroscopic-level motion only appears to be determined, but in reality, it’s probabilistic.”

Or, we might say, “Classical mechanics more accurately describes reality, and the odd results of quantum experiments are due to a lack of sophisticated-enough equipment. We’re simply missing a variable in our experiments which causes the particles to behave in seemingly-unpredictable ways. Once we learn more and can measure more accurately, the missing variable will be found, and we will be able to correctly predict the motion of quantum particles.”

Another option might be to say both theories are inaccurate, and we need to come up with an altogether new theory

http://web.archive.org/web/20220605151500/https://steve-patterson.com/quantum-physics-abuse-reason/

The most obvious answer is the most accurate: the apparatus used to measure quantum phenomena in the double-slit experiment interferes with the results.

https://steve-patterson.com/quantum-physics-abuse-reason/

http://web.archive.org/web/20220605151500/https://steve-patterson.com/quantum-physics-abuse-reason/

Our Present Day Dark Age Part 1

http://web.archive.org/web/20220609224328/https://steve-patterson.com/our-present-dark-age-part-1/

Mind-Body Dualism | Solving the Interaction Problem

http://web.archive.org/web/20220607081659/https://steve-patterson.com/mind-body-dualism-solving-problem-interaction/

Quantum Computers Over Rated

 any problem solvable by a quantum computer is also solvable by a classical computer

http://web.archive.org/web/20220530025425/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing

quantum computers cannot solve any problems that classical computers cannot already solve

http://web.archive.org/web/20220530025425/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing

Group averages vs individual choices

Insurance company A sample size 200

Insurance company B sample size 200

A $300 per year for 100 people, B $400 per year for those same 100 people

A $400 per year for 100 people, B $300 per year for those same 100 people

If some person does a two tailed t test based on the sample results above to try to figure out if one company is cheaper than the other one on average they will find neither one is statistically significantly different

Insurance company A and Insurance company B have the same mean, sample size and standard deviation

People allowed to make individual choices switched companies if it saved them money and did not switch if it did not save them money

People who switched from A to B saved $100 per year on average

People who switched from B to A also saved $100 per year on average

It does not make sense to use a group average to make your decision as a individual

It makes more sense to look at your own individual results than the average results of other people when making life decisions

A statistical t test would be useless to make such a decision in this case

People wear shoe type A and shoe type B for one month each, each person trying both types of shoes

Shoe type A results in 70% of the people slipping on a workplace floor within a month

Shoe type B results in only 30% of people slipping on a workplace floor within a month

The 30% that slipped wearing type B did not slip wearing type A and the the 70% that slipped wearing type A did not slip wearing type B.  

There was no overlap in which someone did not slip wearing either type of shoe and no overlap in which someone slipped wearing both types of shoes

Statistically having a corporate or government policy of forcing everyone to wear shoe type B will result in which slipping incidents then forcing everyone to wear shoe type A

But it might make more sense to let the people decide on their own.  Those who did not slip with their individual results wearing type A shoes might choose to wear type A shoes and those that did not slip with their individual results wearing type B shoes might choose to wear type B shoes.  This might result in lower rates of slips and falls when they knew their individual results and could make choices than forcing those people to all wear the same shoe type based on whatever results had the least falls for the group even in cases in which it resulted in more falls for them as an individual.

Often in real life people who use group average results for other people make a mistake when they can access individual results for themself to make a decision

Since statistics provides no mechanism to explain results it is poor practice to enforce the best statistical results for a group of other people upon a single individual if one has a goal of the best good for a community in addition to being an violation of individual autonomy

Good practice is to find the mechanism that explains which people will have better results and which people will have worse results for making one choice instead of another choice and then to explain that mechanism to people and let them make their own choices

Good scientific practice is based on finding non probabilistic functions by which you can predict output for one set of variables by controlling the input of another set of variables not statistical probability tests which can not predict output as a function of input

Copyright Carl Janssen 2022 June 12

Some unlimited quantities are bigger than others

Infinity is not a whole number nor a real number but a concept or a symbol that has a certain meaning for what to do when put into mathematical operators or functions that use limits in calculus

Infinity is not a whole number

If you were to go to a hotel with an unlimited number of rooms starting at room 1 and each room having a door with a room number label that is 1 higher than the previous room number you would not know which room number to go to if you were told to go to the room with the number label of infinity because there is no whole number that is equivelent to the label of infinity

Infinity is not a real number either

Infinity is not a real number that is not a whole number

If starting at door number 2 each door with a room number label on it is the same distance from the previous door as it is from the next door and that distance is any positive number of meters you want to choose which is greater than zero but not a whole number.  Then if you were told to walk a distance of infinity meters from the first room number label to reach the room number label you are supposed to arrive at for your room then you still could not find the location of your room if you went a specific positive real number of meters that was not a whole number because there is no positive real number that is not a whole number that is equivelent to infinity.  And this would still be the case no matter what positive real number of meters greater than zero you select for the rooms to be apart from each other.

Although infinity is not a real number there can be an unlimited amount for a measurement

There are two types of directions, translational directions and rotational directions

N is a positive real number

If you choose coordinates one coordinate being N meters in one translational direction from where you are and the other being N meters in the opposite translational direction from where you are there would be no limit to the maximum distance between how far apart those two points could be, no matter how large a value could be assigned to N, there could be a larger value assigned to N thus the potential distance between those two points is unlimited

The universe has unlimited length in any direction measured or direction and it's opposite measured and unlimited volume whether the amount of mass in the universe is limited or unlimited although if the amount of mass in the universe is limited then the smallest section of the universe that contains all mass in the universe inside it or the combined volume of all the sections of the universe that contain mass might have a finite volume

One can measure the distance between the coordinates of two parts of the universe that both contain empty space without mass if the universe has a limited amount of mass in it which is confined within borders of a limited volume, limited surface area and limited distance between the two farthest apart points within those borders

There is an unlimited distance in any translational direction that coordinate points can be set apart from each other, such as being N meters apart from each other no matter how large N is and still have a known location, but two coordinate points can not be set a distance of infinity length units apart from each other such as infinity meters apart from each other and still have a known location because infinity is not a number

Infinity plus one is not equal to the number of infinity

Infinity plus one is undefined because infinity is not a number

Infinity times two is not equal to the number of infinity 

Infinity times two is undefined because infinity is not a number

Infinity plus a number other than zero is not equal to itself 

Infinity plus a number is undefined because infinity is not a number

Infinity times a number other than one is not equal to itself

Infinity times a number is undefined because infinity is not a number

It is wrong to use infinity as an excuse to claim you can add a quantity greater than zero to another quantity greater than 0 without increasing the quantity

It is wrong to use infinity as an excuse to claim you can multiply a positive non zero quantity by a number greater than 1 without increasing the quantity

It is wrong to use infinity as an excuse to claim you can multiply a positive non zero quantity by a number greater than 0 and 1 than one without decreasing the quantity

Doubling a positive amount of an unlimited positive quantity will double that quantity

I am not claiming such objects physically exist in real life.  But, a object that is 2 inches by 8 inches but goes on forever in both a third direction and it's opposite, has twice the volume of a object that is 2 inches by 4 inches but goes on forever in both a third dimension and it's opposite, both objects have unlimited volume but neither object has a volume of infinity cubic inches nor infinity cubic inches times a constant that is a real number

N is a positive real number

For real numbers

Each even number except for 0 is twice one and only one odd number

Each odd number except for 0 is twice one and only one odd number

So excluding 0 there are exactly the same number of odd and even numbers

Twice 0 is 0 and half 0 is also 0 and 0 is an even number

So there is exactly one more even number than the number of odd numbers

When 0 is excluded there are either two more odd number than even numbers or an equal number of odd and even numbers between negative N and positive N

When 0 is included there is either one more odd number than even numbers or one more even number than odd numbers between negative N and positive N

The limit as N approaches positive infinity of the number of odd numbers divided by the number of even numbers approaches 1 from below

The limit as N approaches positive infinity of the number of even numbers divided by the number of odd numbers approaches 1 from above

M is a whole number

For real numbers

The number of numbers that are muliples of M excluding 0 is equal to twice the number of non zero integers divided by M

The number of numbers that are muliples of M excluding 0 is equal to twice the number of odd numbers divided by M

The number of numbers that are multiples of 2 excluding 0 is equal to twice the number of odd numbers divided by 2

N is a positive real number

For real numbers

The limit as N approaches infinity of the number of prime numbers divided by the number of composite numbers approaches 0 from above

The big bang makes no sense because the universe has unlimited volume and must be eternal.  

The total momentum of an entire universe of finite mass within each and every non accelerating reference frame is constant for each such reference frame and does not change with time due to conservation of momentum therefore the universe must be eternal according to the known laws of physics if there was a point in time in which the universe did not exist and then suddenly did exist that would violate the conservation of momentum for all non accelerating reference frames in which the total momentum of the universe was not zero.  The total momentum would change from zero or undefined before the universe existed to a non zero number after it existed which would violate conservation of momentum for such a non accelerating reference frame.  Therefore the universe must have eternally existed and not existed for only a finite or limited time unless the known laws of physics are violated.

No object with mass can travel faster the the speed of light in any reference frame according to special relativity.  The limit as the amount of kinetic energy of that object approaches infinity joules of the objects speed approaches the speed of light from below.  Although special relativity has already been disproven by me, we are going to assume no object travels faster than the speed of light.

http://teachingthenarrowway.blogspot.com/2022/03/fat-runner-paradox-test-for-special.html

A universe that has 100% of all the mass of non photon objects within a border of finite volume and that has a finite chemical and finite kinetic energy and finite mass within that border from a specific non accelerating reference frame would emit photons outside that border traveling at a faster speed than the non photon mass inside that border can travel.  

Electrons drop energy levels and photons are emitted some of them leaving the border resulting in a decrease in the total chemical energy or a loss of total kinetic energy of all particles added together as measured within a non accelerating reference frame in the finite boundary that contains all the mass of non photon particles in the universe unless compensated by nuclear reactions which result in a loss of mass within that boundary

Some photons which were emitted during loss of one type of energy might transfer energy from one type to another occassionally instead of leaving the boarder but some of them will leave the boarder without ever returning to the boarder because they leave at the speed of light and will never contact any object within the boundry again because the objects inside the boundary move slower than the speed of light resulting in a permanent and irreversible loss of the total kinetic energy plus chemical energy plus mass times the speed of light squared inside the boundary

Through nuclear reactions the total chemical energy in the border containing all the mass of non photon particles in the universe can increase at an amount less than or equal to the amount of mass of non photon particles lost in the universe times the speed of light squared.  It is less than or equal to the loss in mass times the speed of light squared because some photons will be emitted that leave the finite border containing all the mass within the universe.  

The absolute temperature is the mean average kinetic energy per molecue.  Thermal kinetic energy is equal to the mean average absolute temperature per mole of molecues times the number of moles of molecues.  The total chemical energy in the boundary of the universe containing all the mass of non photon particles can also increase by an amount less than or equal to the decrease in the total of the mean average absolute temperature per mole times the number of moles in the universe.  It is less than or equal to the loss in mean average temperature per mole of molecues times the number of moles of molecues because some photons will be emitted that leave the finite border containing all the mass within the universe.

 The chemical energy within the boundary can increase by less than or equal to the loss of mass within the boundary times the speed of light squared plus the loss of thermal kinetic energy within the border.  It is less than or equal to because of photons emitted outside the border.

The thermal kinetic energy within the boundary can increase by less than or equal to the loss of mass within the boundary times the speed of light squared plus the loss of chemical energy within the border.  It is less than or equal to because of photons emitted outside the border.  

The mass times the speed of light squared within the boundary can increase by less than or equal to the loss of thermal kinetic energy plus the loss of chemical energy within the border.  It is less than or equal to because of photons emitted outside the border.  

The mass times the speed of light squared plus the kinetic energy plus the chemical energy inside the border would decrease over time at a decreasing rate in any non accelerating reference frame due to emitting photons that leave outside that border.   The farther back in time you look the higher the rate of energy in photons that are emitted outside the border per time.  Looking backwards in time with no limit to how far back in time you go results in an unlimited quantity of mass times the speed of light squared plus the kinetic energy plus the chemical energy inside the border within any non accelerating reference frame.

If the mass times the speed of light squared plus the kinetic energy plus the chemical energy inside the border decreases over time then the mass although it might sometimes increase over time when compared between two short time periods through a decrease in the total chemical plus kinetic energy inside the boundary will in the long run decrease over time within the boundary because it can only increase by a decrease in the total chemical plus kinetic energy inside the boundary which when added to the mass times the speed of light squared inside the boundary is decreasing over time through the expulsion of photons outside that border moving at a faster speed than objects inside that border can move.

This means you can not start with a universe of finite starting mass all enclosed within a finite boundry that did not exist before a finite amount of time ago without violating the known laws of physics.  Any big bang theory involving a universe of finite starting mass violates the known laws of physics.  Any universe of unlimited mass that can not all be contained within a finite border can not expand anywhere and since the big bang is the claim that the universe is expanding such a universe is incompatible with the big bang.

Copyright Carl Janssen 2022

http://web.archive.org/web/20220612042252/https://whichiscorrect.com/boundary-or-boundry/

http://web.archive.org/web/20220624181413/https://linguaholic.com/linguablog/other-than-vs-other-then/

Letting you enemies abort themselves

I never opposed abortion if getting an abortion would save the mother's life and not getting an abortion would result in the death of the mother.  But I supported outlawing abortions after the development of brain cells and possibly also earlier in the past.

Maybe I was wrong in opposing abortion and here is why I might have been wrong.  I am not saying I was definitely wrong but I might have been wrong.

Let's presuppose abortion is an act of killing and in some cases it is more specifically an act of murder.

Most Democratic Candidates support legalized abortion.  Now someone who votes Democrat is more likely to teach their children to vote Democrat and to have the value systems very often that go with voting Democrat including supporting abortion.

There are some exceptions of Democratic Candidates that do not support abortion

https://web.archive.org/web/20030614103243/https://www.ontheissues.org/OH/Jim_Traficant_Abortion.htm

After the Republicans took control of the House in 1995, Traficant tended to vote more often with the Republicans than with his own party. On the issue of abortion, Traficant voted with the position of the National Right to Life Committee 95% of the time in the 105th Congress, and 100% of the time in the 106th and 107th Congresses.If someone who votes democrat does not get an abortion and raised children they would not have raised if they got an abortion their children would be more likely to vote to legalize abortion

https://web.archive.org/web/20220412003322/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Traficant

When I talk about Democrats through the rest of the article I am not talking about the rare exceptions but for people who primarily support taxpayer funding of abortion, more taxes, taxpayer funding of public schools, forced hiring policies controlling the percent of employees based on race, religion, gender identity and sexual orientation, taxing carbon dioxide emissions, internet censorship of viewpoints that do not agree with the democratic party viewpoints and forcing people who do not want to live in a communist society to be coerced to do work for other people through taxation, the right for public school teachers to persuade children under 18 years old that they are transgender without parental permission, the right to surgically remove children under 18 years old anatomical parts without parental consent if the children are persuaded by public school teachers that they are transgender, the right to fine or imprison people who do not call you by the gender pronoun you desire them to, taxing people to pay insurance benefits for monogamous homosexual married couples, arresting police who use force to try to stop black on black violence, open border immigration for people with HIV AIDS, open border immigration for people without background checks to see if they committed violent crimes, etc.

Talking Democrats out of getting abortions or outlawing abortions for Democrats would only spread abortion in the next generation

Democrats tend to support taxing people to spend money on Public Schools.  Public Schools tend to instill in people the Democratic Party value system.

The Democratic Party Value system supports war against people who should not have war waged against them and supports using violent to redistribute wealth, even if they give lip service to opposing war, by supporting tax payer funded schools that teach blind faith in government Democrats support unjust wars.

If people were made fully aware that abortion is killing or murder but not prevented from getting abortions then people who do not value human life would be more likely to choose to get abortions, but people who do value human life would be less likely to choose to get abortions.  Hopefully this would result in the next generation having a lower percentage of people that do not value human life and a higher percentage of people that do value human life.  This might not happen if those who got abortions adopted later and still raised children with their anti life value system.  Also hypothetically if someone got A abortions but still gave birth to X children and raised X children but would have given birth to and raised Y children if they did not get any abortions then if X is greater than or equal to Y then allowing them to get an abortion does not make the situation better in terms of preventing people with anti life value systems from raising children

When people with anti life value systems teach their children an anti life value system those children are more likely to grow up to become murderers or commit other violent acts against non violent people.

Allowing people to voluntarily set up a communal wealth system is not a problem and many voluntary communal societies have successfully worked when the society was allowed to reject members who would not contribute labor to help others in the community such as working to provide food for the community or provide services for the community members which the community members agree are valuable enough to let them stay without producing food in exchange for the food.

New Book: Bernie Sanders Was Kicked Off Vermont Commune for Loafing

https://web.archive.org/web/20160420123527/https://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/new-book-bernie-sanders-was-kicked-off-vermont-commune-for-loafing/2016/04/20/

Imposing communism by force has had a track record of multiple holodomores in which massive numbers of people starved.  

In 1932–1933, a famine known as the Holodomor killed 3.3–3.9 million people in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic

https://web.archive.org/web/20220429172547/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question

https://web.archive.org/web/20220502021057/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Democrats support policies that lead to holodomores in which massive numbers of people starve to death

If Democratic parents raise children who vote and more importantly behave like Democrats more people would be murdered if the parents did not abort the children and successfully instilled Democrat value systems in the children then the number that would be murdered if the parents aborted the children and did not give birth to or adopt any children to replace the children they murdered through abortion

Now not all children that are raised by Democratic parents choose the value system of their Democratic parents so this reasoning might not hold in practice

Although there is an unlimited amount of money since money is created by belief there is a finite amount of food mass per volume in any section of the world of a given volume.  I am not opposed to people receiving welfare if they are offered it but I am opposed to people using violence to force other people to do slave labor work to give them welfare.  Someone can choose to take food stamps while simultaneously voting against any tax that is justified with the excuse of raising funds for food stamps.  

Currently men when looked on as a group as a whole are net tax payers and women looked on as a group as a whole are net tax receivers.  Traditionally women would have children and receive net resources of food from her husband but not from other women's husbands.  The husband who provides the food for his wife's children would get to instill his value system in her children, whether they are both of their biological or adopted children or children she had from a previous marriage in the case of a widow or sometimes in the case of a divorced woman depending on custody arrangements.  

Now some single mothers are exceptions to this but the following applies to the net effect of most single mothers as a group.  Now single mothers will tax men she is not married to, to give food to them without letting that men paying the tax raise her children and teaching them their value system.  These single mothers do not do the work of raising their children because they do not earn the food to feed the children, do not baby sit their own children and do not morally educate their own children instead they send their children to public schools that babysit the children and to public schools to immorally educate the children and tax men they are not married to, to pay for their children's food.  These single mothers tend to vote Democrat and the Public schools they send their kids to tend to teach a Democrat value system.  If voting actually worked there is not way to solve this problem by voting.  The problem can not be solved by voting because single mothers tax men who are not married to them.  This means that married men who try to have as many children as they can support in order to teach them other value systems than the Democrat value system are are limited in how many children they can support because they have to pay taxes to support children of single mothers who vote Democrat, but single mothers who vote Democrat have no limit to how many children they can have and raise to vote Democrat because the more children they have the more tax they can take from men they are not married to.  This is a positive feedback loop that can only be stopped if single mothers no longer can tax men they are not married to.  This positive feedback loop of an ever increasing percent of the population of people who do not work for food taxing an ever decreasing percent of the population who work to produce food tends to lead towards mass starvation.  The only reason it has not yet reached a state of mass starvation in the United States yet is because technology improves over time so one man can potentially produce more food per time now than in the past.

Suddenly Hermes and La Barbara have returned from Spa 5. He had made the labor camp so efficient that they only needed one Australian man to perform the labor.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220503233255/https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/How_Hermes_Requisitioned_His_Groove_Back

The only way to stop the positive feedback loop that will lead to starvation is to stop taxing men to pay for other men's children which will never happen as long as net tax receivers can vote to tax net tax payers.  This positive feedback loop could be slowed down by letting single mom's get abortions if single mom's would have less children and thus raise less children who vote to tax people to fund net tax receivers.

Democrats also support open borders which when combined with allowing net tax receivers to tax net tax payers will result in mass starvation.  Communal societies only work with border restrictions.  Forced communism plus open borders leads to mass starvation, because you can not close the borders to keep out people who will refuse to produce food but will demand to receive food through the violent imposition of communism.  When these non food producers enter the border and have children they can persuade their children to vote for the value system that will tax the net food producers leading to mass starvation.  Allowing the immigrants who want to violently force other people to produce food for them to get abortions can slow down the positive feedback loop that would lead to mass starvation if non net tax paying immigrants would have less children and thus raise less children who vote to tax people to fund net tax receivers.

Getting an abortion is still killing so I am not suggesting people who oppose the Democrats anti life value system go out and get jobs as professional abortionists.  I am suggesting maybe we should let people know abortion is the killing of a life, and let people who do not value human life get abortions without stopping them.  We should still stop forced abortions of mothers who do not want abortions and who would not die as a result of not getting an abortion.

Presuming the reader is on my team, now we should encourage people on our team to not get abortions.  But on the team that supports all the bad things I listed above that Democrats support, preventing them from getting abortions might lead to an increase in their numbers resulting in mass starvation of both or all teams in the long run and increased violence in future generations in the short run.  We can try to persuade them to change teams and then persuade them not to get an abortion if they switch to our team, but if they will not switch to our team preventing them from getting an abortion might increase the numbers of an army of evil.  

I still maintain that Paul Hill and Scott Roeder committed third party defense and not murder when they executed abortionists, but Paul Hill was executing someone from the enemies team to defend someone else who would likely be recruited to the enemies team which might have increased the number of abortions in the long run even though it decreased the number of abortions in the local geographic area in the short run.  Although Paul Hill technically committed defense it might not have been a wise decision because he may have increased the population of the anti life team by preventing a member of the anti life team from aborting potential recruits of the anti life team who have anti life parents who would try to raise them in anti life values.

Letting the antilife team completely exterminate themselves would result in less abortions in the long run then letting the antilife team procreate more members who will get future abortions.  Perhaps allowing the antilife team to grow in population relative to the prolife team by temporary forcing antilife people not to get abortions instead of allowing them to naturally exterminate themselves would allow them to grow in numbers enough to be powerful enough to not only change the law in the future and resume abortions but also to force abortions on the prolife team as has been done in China with the one child policy. 

But someone might object the Bible opposes abortion.  The Bible classifies causing a parent who should not receive an abortion to have an abortion as murder but actually has prescribed abortions for wicked people or executing the children of wicked people in some cases.

I am not saying we should enforce old testament laws or execute people based on old testament laws in a different geographical location than ancient Israel and a different time period.  I am not saying whether or not people should obey the Bible but simply explaining this for those who object to what I say on the grounds of the Bible.

Exodus 21:22-24 describes up to the death penalty for a man who injures the baby of a pregnant woman with the death penalty in the case of an abortion that results from hitting a pregnant woman but the following exceptions in the Bible in which there is no death penalty for abortion must be considered

Deuteronomy 20:10-18 

Deuteronomy 20:10-11 prescribes not to kill people who make peace with you,

Deuteronomy 20:12-14 prescribes  to execute men only and take the cattle, women and children of people who do not make peace with you 

except those people from specific groups listed in Deuteronomy 20:16-17 who you are to leave nothing alive of not even the cattle, women nor children

The groups described in Deuteronomy 20:16-17 may have committed human sacrifice, incest and bestiality in Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 and because of that leaving any of them alive even their offspring may have resulted in a spread of stds and genetic defects leading unto future generations, and leaving the adults alive may have spread the teachings of the practices of incest, bestiality and idol worship

Leviticus 20:20-21 prescribes the execution of people who committed a specific type of incest and for them to die childless.  They were not to be given an abortion and allowed to live but to be executed.  The execution would result indirectly in an abortion unless the execution was delayed and the woman was allowed to give birth prior to being executed.  However Leviticus 20:20-21 prescribes for them to die childless hence an indirect abortion through the execution of the mother.

Numbers 5 Prescribes giving a woman suspected of adultery drink a solution and if she has committed adultery the result of the solution will result in her having an abortion but if she has not committed adultery the solution will not result in her having an abortion.

Deuteronomy 22 Execution of an adulteress woman would result in an abortion unless the woman is required to have her execution delayed until she gives birth which is not mentioned in the text

The difference between Numbers 5 and Deuteronomy 22 is in Deuteronomy 22 understood in the context of the books of Moses a further degree of proof is required before executing the woman involving a proper court trial with witnesses but in Numbers 5 the proof is insufficient and the solution is given upon suspicion of adultery

Starting in Exodus 11 and continuing in later parts of Exodus, God warns he will slay the firstborn sons of the Egyptians who were supporting Pharaoh in enslaving the Israelites, except perhaps hypothetically for any Egyptians who changed sides to the Israelites side and performed the same passover ritual Israelites were required to perform to prevent their firstborn from being executed.  This would be post birth abortions and might potentially have included pre birth abortions of any Egyptians who were pregnant with their first son but have not yet given birth

Copyright Carl Janssen 2022 May 9