- Published on
My Research Philosophy
- Author
-
-
- Name
- Posts
- Posts
-
Perhaps the greatest tragedy befalling the American people, is the corporate take-over of science and the loss of scientific independence and integrity in our institutions of higher education – once the best in the world, and the loss of independence for our peer reviewed journals.
It is my goal to bring to your attention research that is vital but has been forgotten or intentionally ignored. I will also bring to your attention research that is controversial but important.
If you have 100 studies that show no link between autism and vaccines does that prove there is no link? Not at all if the study design is wrong.
What if there were 100 articles that showed no link between tobacco and lung cancer? There were – paid for by the tobacco companies.
The challenge with much of the research being published to disprove the link between vaccines and autism or vaccines and health problems, is that they are setting up the studies to look at outcomes that won’t matter. By design the studies will not show anything and are relatively meaningless. What we need when it comes to vaccines and autism or other long-term damage are long term studies comparing fully vaccinated or partially vaccinated children to unvaccinated children.
I have worked in the patient care arena (radiology) for over 40 years. I am currently retired and have time on my hands. I would love to help you in any way I can. Please let me know what I can do.
Congratulations on your new show! I'm already a fan of your work and signed up to donate as soon as I heard about your new project. I became aware of your unorthodox medical practice initially through your contributions to "The Truth About Vaccines," and your occasional appearances on Del Bigtree's "The Highwire." I want to applaud your courage and your dedication YOU ARE A HERO --> KEEP IT GOING!
you are standing up for MEDICAL TYRANNY of the highest proportions.
thank you!
I am a fan of Dr. Paul's YouTube channel, and really appreciate his clear explanations of each procedure shown. You can see his compassion and enthusiasm. I also am impressed that Dr. Paul has decided to review his years of clinical data so as to generate knowledge about his patient population and health outcomes. It also appears that he has connected with a PhD-level researcher to assist with the analytical workload.
Now, however, is when I put on my science hat. Having a PhD, like an MD/DO, does not confer all wisdom for everything science. Different disciplines have their own methodological tools for which they have adapted specific assumptions that are held as truths. This means in plain English that one fields standard operating procedure may be held in the lowest esteem in another field. But unlike Medical Doctors, PhD's can essentially self-label themselves just about anything they want, except for clinical professions like psychology and education. That means that virtually anybody can call themselves a statistician or having a research program of advancing statistical methods. I have a master's degree in biostats from the Harvard School of Public Health, and undergraduate degrees from MIT in applied mathematics and economics, concentrations in data science and computer science applications. I have held positions at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Pfizer, and now one of the largest non-profit data analytics firm (Kingfish Statistics + Data Analytics) in the clinical trial, health economic and outcome research (HEOR) space. I offer this detail not to brag or to pull educational rank, but rather to provide some context around my training and experience.
I think it is important to recognize that even though the data presented from this clinic represent what would seem to be at first pass, the truth of the effect of vaccines over time. There are population selection effects into this particular health clinic that are not considered. Put differently, patients with different types of health preferences and backgrounds were selectively more likely to choose Dr. Thomas relative to another clinic. Following this logic, there are patients who also self select into the vaccine/non-vaccine group. This is a level of confounding that is typically not present in clinical trials, which instead randomize as a method to eliminate potential imbalances between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. The author with Dr. Paul in their latest peer reviewed paper discuss a method (matching) as a way to account for the differences in methodology between retrospective nonrandomized (Dr. Paul's study) and prospective randomized studies (Clinical trial data). There is a mis-conception that matching and therefore fixing the random variability in exposures (vaccine/nonvaccine) can eliminate confounding. However, there are very tight tolerances for this process to work, including the selection of the number of cases to controls (e.g., 1:4 rather than 1:1) and also further stratifying on key demographic and familial backgrounds. For example, it would have been interesting to do a sub analysis whereby biologically linked siblings with discordant vaccination records were examined. Genetic epidemiologists use forms of this ACE models to isolate variation into the genetic and environmental variation. The environmental variation however, is the variability that is not accounted for by genes---which is kind of stacking the deck! Nonetheless, economists and statisticians use principled procedures such as Heckman selection models, or propensity scoring/matching to further strengthen causal inferences. So, to prove that the vaccine has negative short or long term health impact, a researcher must satisfy three conditions: temporal priority (the vaccine of first observation time is given before the onset of the first symptom, confounders such as counterveiling or counterfactual explanations are adjusted through randomization or statistical control, and finally, there is a statistical relationship net of the first two. The study published by Dr. Paul and colleague did make some attempts, but did not use industry-accepted tools that could have been used to offer greater confidence in their findings. Taken together, there may have been differences in heath outcomes between the vaccinated and non-vaccinated, but only through well-controlled experiments and validated analytic methods should be used to support any claims of causal influence that vaccines are indeed bad or generate negative health outcomes. Respectively, JW Chan, MSc.
My family has personally experienced the awful side effects of vaccines. People should be allowed to make an informed and educated decision about vaccinating their child or themselves!
The idea of "must be fully vaccinated" to participate in my community is beyond ridiculous! My whole family had COVID, and while it was not pleasant by any means, we are all fine now. And, if you are vaccinated which you believe will prevent you from getting COVID why are you afraid of unvaccinated people??!
Again, thank you for this channel. I will share with everyone.