Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » MRNA covid vaccines caused pregnant rats to have autistic male offspring
  1. Results 91 to 120 of 144
  2. Page 4 of 5
  3. First
  5. 2
  6. 3
  7. 4
  8. 5
  10. Last

Thread: MRNA covid vaccines caused pregnant rats to have autistic male offspring

post 1696689293 01-20-2024, 05:41 PM
-
#91
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2006
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,385
  6. Rep Power: 316746
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Nope

ANOVA's and t-tests are not the most appropriate (maximizing entropy) for counts and times to event. Both are Gaussian.

They just aren't the best models.

That's your opinion..if you feel a study must be done using different standardized tests, we'll wait for your work to be published
post 1696689753 01-20-2024, 05:51 PM
-
#92
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By Paul
That's your opinion..if you feel a study must be done using different standardized tests, we'll wait for your work to be published
Tee hee.

Not at all just my opinion.

Counts are discrete.

Times to event have a lower bound at zero.

The assumptions of ANOVA and t-tests aren't new nor secret.

post 1696689953 01-20-2024, 05:54 PM
-
#93
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2006
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,385
  6. Rep Power: 316746
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Tee hee.

Not at all just my opinion.

Counts are discrete.

Times to event have a lower bound at zero.

The assumptions of ANOVA and t-tests aren't new nor secret.

Again, you have to show levels differ between the test rats to such a degree that it would effect outcome and explain why you think there would be such a degree of variance
post 1696690093 01-20-2024, 05:56 PM
-
#94
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By Paul
Again, you have to show levels differ between the test rats to such a degree that it would effect outcome and explain why you think there would be such a degree of variance
The thing about glm's is the lm. Contrasts are right there for evaluation
post 1696690143 01-20-2024, 05:57 PM
-
#95
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2006
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,385
  6. Rep Power: 316746
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
The thing about glm's is the lm. Contrasts are right there for evaluation
...explain why you think there would be such a degree of variance?
post 1696690453 01-20-2024, 06:03 PM
-
#96
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By Paul
...explain why you think there would be such a degree of variance?
Wat?

ANOVA's also assume sphericity. Why would that assumption hold with count data across this number of groups? Why didn't they report the the results of the default Mauchly's test?

Even theveryold version of SPSS they used (15.0? Lol) offers more appropriate options
post 1696690913 01-20-2024, 06:12 PM
-
#97
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2006
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,385
  6. Rep Power: 316746
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Wat?

ANOVA's also assume sphericity. Why would that assumption hold with count data?

Even the old version of SPSS they used offers more appropriate options
you did not answer the question. Again..you stated that "t-tests are inappropriate since they assume unbounded, continuous, dependant variables."


What variables? Why would you think such a degree of change between the rats are present?

You also claimed.."changes were still within typical rat behavior"...that was not the finding of the study. They saw a reduction in cognitive ability and all other aspects..

"autism-like behaviors, characterized by a marked reduction in social interaction and repetitive patterns of behavior. Furthermore, there was a substantial decrease in neuronal counts in critical brain regions, indicating potential neurodegeneration or altered neurodevelopment. Male rats also demonstrated impaired motor performance, evidenced by reduced coordination and agility. Our research provides insights into the effects of the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine on WNT gene expression, BDNF levels, and certain neurodevelopmental markers in a rat model."
post 1696691333 01-20-2024, 06:19 PM
-
#98
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By Paul
you did not answer the question. Again..you stated that "t-tests are inappropriate since they assume unbounded, continuous, dependant variables."


What variables? Why would you think such a degree of change between the rats are present?

You also claimed.."changes were still within typical rat behavior"...that was not the finding of the study. They saw a reduction in cognitive ability and all other aspects..

"autism-like behaviors, characterized by a marked reduction in social interaction and repetitive patterns of behavior. Furthermore, there was a substantial decrease in neuronal counts in critical brain regions, indicating potential neurodegeneration or altered neurodevelopment. Male rats also demonstrated impaired motor performance, evidenced by reduced coordination and agility. Our research provides insights into the effects of the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine on WNT gene expression, BDNF levels, and certain neurodevelopmental markers in a rat model."
Their models were inappropriate.

The outcomes were counts, times to event, and cycle thresholds.

In correlated/repeated (within subjects) measurements.

They used one- and two-way ANOVA's and t-tests.

I don't really know what to say in response to someone suggesting that's fine/conventional
post 1696691533 01-20-2024, 06:24 PM
-
#99
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2006
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,385
  6. Rep Power: 316746
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Their models were inappropriate.

The outcomes were counts, times to event, and cycle thresholds.

In correlated/repeated (within subjects) measurements.

They used one- and two-way ANOVA's and t-tests.

I don't really know what to say in response to someone suggesting that's fine/conventional
Their model was not inappropriate. Again....Shapiro-Wilk test is just a statistical test used to check if a random sample comes from a normally distributed population. Nothing wrong with using that test

If you are going to argue ""t-tests are inappropriate since they assume unbounded, continuous, dependent variables."...you have to explain/prove that these variables differ so much that it effects outcome and explain why these variables would even differ.

You have done none of the following
post 1696691663 01-20-2024, 06:28 PM
-
#100
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By Paul
Their model was not inappropriate. Again....Shapiro-Wilk test is just a statistical test used to check if a random sample comes from a normally distributed population. Nothing wrong with using that test

If you are going to argue ""t-tests are inappropriate since they assume unbounded, continuous, dependent variables."...you have to explain/prove that these variables differ so much that it effects outcome and explain why these variables would even differ.

You have done none of the following
Who cares if the dependent variable is normally distributed?

Why would anyone expect counts and times to event to be normally distributed?

Weird/incorrect assumption to check.

How do the residuals look?

Variance is modeled. They used inappropriate models.

Counts and times to event are not continuous nor unbounded. That's a fact, not opinion.
post 1696691993 01-20-2024, 06:35 PM
-
#101
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2006
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,385
  6. Rep Power: 316746
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Who cares if the dependent variable is normally distributed?

Why would anyone expect counts and times to event to be normally distributed?

Weird/incorrect assumption to check.

How do the residuals look?

Variance is modeled. They used inappropriate models.

Counts and times to event are not continuous nor unbounded. That's a fact, not opinion.
You are making an assumption that the variables in these mice would be different (or shown to be) if a different test was used..yet fail to explain why that would be, or why you think such a variance in the mice are even present whatsoever.
post 1696692133 01-20-2024, 06:38 PM
-
#102
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By Paul
You are making an assumption that the variables in these mice would be different (or shown to be) if a different test was used..yet fail to explain why that would be, or why you think such a variance in the mice are even present whatsoever.
No.

I explained exactly why that would be
post 1696692683 01-20-2024, 06:50 PM
-
#103
  1. Bodhy
  2. Paddling to New Zealand
  1. Bodhy
  2. Paddling to New Zealand
  3. Join Date: Mar 2020
  4. Posts: 17,326
  5. Rep Power: 0
I would prefer if the discussion moved from squabbling about which statistical test should have been used (I haven't done stats for a decade), to the possibility of whether there can even be autistic rats.
Back off, Warchild.

Seriously.
post 1696692773 01-20-2024, 06:51 PM
-
#104
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2006
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,385
  6. Rep Power: 316746
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
No.

I explained exactly why that would be
No
You have not
post 1696693013 01-20-2024, 06:57 PM
-
#105
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By Paul
No
You have not
1) I dunno where you trained

2) I have explained my position

3) don't take my word for ithttps://www.theanalysisfactor.com/le...t-not-obvious/
post 1696693443 01-20-2024, 07:06 PM
-
#106
  1. jtaylor2010
  1. jtaylor2010
  3. Join Date: Mar 2010
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,186
  6. Rep Power: 441972
Originally Posted By Bodhy⏩
I would prefer if the discussion moved from squabbling about which statistical test should have been used (I haven't done stats for a decade), to the possibility of whether there can even be autistic rats.
How would you define “autism”??





Also, we can look past that term and just focus on these findings if you’d prefer.


“Furthermore, there was a substantial decrease in neuronal counts in critical brain regions, indicating potential neurodegeneration or altered neurodevelopment. Male rats also demonstrated impaired motor performance, evidenced by reduced coordination and agility.”
post 1696693503 01-20-2024, 07:08 PM
-
#107
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By jtaylor2010⏩
How would you define “autism”??





Also, we can look past that term and just focus on these findings if you’d prefer.


“Furthermore, there was a substantial decrease in neuronal counts in critical brain regions, indicating potential neurodegeneration or altered neurodevelopment. Male rats also demonstrated impaired motor performance, evidenced by reduced coordination and agility.”
"Counts"

Are counts not encountered in analysis of data and risk?
post 1696694213 01-20-2024, 07:21 PM
-
#108
  1. nkiritsis13
  2. [_]Living [X]Living Dead
  1. nkiritsis13
  2. [_]Living [X]Living Dead
  3. Join Date: Apr 2010
  4. Location: Rochester, Michigan, United States
  5. Posts: 8,312
  6. Rep Power: 331479
Originally Posted By Stizzel⏩
Probably shouldnt have lied so much about masks, transmission, etc; going so far as to ruin the lives of people who's messaging turned out to be correct. Kind of amazing that the scientific community doesnt understand why no one trusts them. Maybe step out of the echo chamber every once in a while
Enough of the scientific community discredited themselves by choosing to serve political narratives and pharmaceutical interests without question or admission for scientific debate or discussion. They did the damage to themselves by parroting, "trust the science," despite that very concept of trust, or you could sayfaith, going against scientific principles. Even when the conflicting arguments proved valid, even when the pharmaceutical companies and FDA confirmed the very things being cautioned against, you don't see these "scientists" or their cult conceding their hubris and admitting fault.

But hey, it's not like all that much as changed; try asking these "scientists" what a woman is.
I will stand firm, I refuse to kneel - The fury in me is divine
My dark grave awaits, my fate is revealed - But I'm not afraid to die

If you have any problems or need advice, feel free to ask
post 1696694383 01-20-2024, 07:24 PM
-
#109
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2006
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,385
  6. Rep Power: 316746
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
1) I dunno where you trained

2) I have explained my position

3) don't take my word for ithttps://www.theanalysisfactor.com/le...t-not-obvious/
I’ll try this one more time..You are making an assumption that the variables in these mice would be different (or shown to be) if a different test was used..yet fail to explain why that would be, or why you think such a variance in the mice are even present whatsoever.
post 1696694443 01-20-2024, 07:26 PM
-
#110
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By nkiritsis13⏩



Enough of the scientific community discredited themselves by choosing to serve political narratives and pharmaceutical interests without question or admission for scientific debate or discussion. They did the damage to themselves by parroting, "trust the science," despite that very concept of trust, or you could sayfaith, going against scientific principles. Even when the conflicting arguments proved valid, even when the pharmaceutical companies and FDA confirmed the very things being cautioned against, you don't see these "scientists" or their cult conceding their hubris and admitting fault.

But hey, it's not like all that much as changed; try asking these "scientists" what a woman is.
Maybe just analyze data appropriately or actually share said data, when claimed, to allow others to analyze appropriately
post 1696694493 01-20-2024, 07:27 PM
-
#111
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By Paul
I’ll try this one more time..You are making an assumption that the variables in these mice would be different (or shown to be) if a different test was used..yet fail to explain why that would be, or why you think such a variance in the mice are even present whatsoever.
Nope.

Variance is modeled.

Gaussian is two parameters. Poisson is one. Negative binomial (gamma Poisson) is two.

I'm not talking about "tests".

See resources above
post 1696694553 01-20-2024, 07:29 PM
-
#112
  1. jtaylor2010
  1. jtaylor2010
  3. Join Date: Mar 2010
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,186
  6. Rep Power: 441972
Originally Posted By nkiritsis13⏩



Enough of the scientific community discredited themselves by choosing to serve political narratives and pharmaceutical interests without question or admission for scientific debate or discussion. They did the damage to themselves by parroting, "trust the science," despite that very concept of trust, or you could sayfaith, going against scientific principles. Even when the conflicting arguments proved valid, even when the pharmaceutical companies and FDA confirmed the very things being cautioned against, you don't see these "scientists" or their cult conceding their hubris and admitting fault.

But hey, it's not like all that much as changed; try asking these "scientists" what a woman is.
Exactly. Repped for the strong post
post 1696694703 01-20-2024, 07:32 PM
-
#113
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By jtaylor2010⏩
Exactly. Repped for the strong post
Too many scientists use regression (including those who published this paper)
post 1696695313 01-20-2024, 07:50 PM
-
#114
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2006
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,385
  6. Rep Power: 316746
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Nope.

Variance is modeled.

Gaussian is two parameters. Poisson is one. Negative binomial (gamma Poisson) is two.

I'm not talking about "tests".

See resources above
Nothing you posted had to do with my post. Try again
post 1696695473 01-20-2024, 07:54 PM
-
#115
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By Paul
Nothing you posted had to do with my post. Try again
Your lack of comprehension isn't on me, friend
post 1696695653 01-20-2024, 07:57 PM
-
#116
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2006
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,385
  6. Rep Power: 316746
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Your lack of comprehension isn't on me, friend
Comprehend just fine lol. Nice deflection though
post 1696695733 01-20-2024, 07:59 PM
-
#117
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By Paul
Comprehend just fine lol. Nice deflection though
Not evidenced in your posts
post 1696696803 01-20-2024, 08:22 PM
-
#118
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2006
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,385
  6. Rep Power: 316746
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
Not evidenced in your posts
The fact that you can’t answer a simple question but rather deflect to ad hominem attacks tells me you are not the psedo intellectual you think you are.
post 1696697123 01-20-2024, 08:29 PM
-
#119
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By Paul
The fact that you can’t answer a simple question but rather deflect to ad hominem attacks tells me you are not the psedo intellectual you think you are.
I answered your question(s) - with a reference.

No ad hominems were levied.

I do not think I'm a pseudo intellectual (which is an ad hominem).

Your not understanding the answer isn't on me
post 1696697283 01-20-2024, 08:32 PM
-
#120
  1. Bodhy
  2. Paddling to New Zealand
  1. Bodhy
  2. Paddling to New Zealand
  3. Join Date: Mar 2020
  4. Posts: 17,326
  5. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Paul
The fact that you can’t answer a simple question but rather deflect to ad hominem attacks tells me you are not the psedo intellectual you think you are.
Not being a pseudo-intellectual is a good thing. Generally, we don't think of ourselves as pseudo-intellectuals as that is a negative attribute.
Back off, Warchild.

Seriously.
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts