#statistical manipulation

No, this terrible rendition of Lilo & Stitch is not a success (yet). While $341.7 Million dollars seems like a lot, what if I were to tell you the movie cost $200 million just to make and advertise? That means that the movie has only actually made Disney a measly $141 Million dollars. And since Disney is a massive company, those earnings are barely profits.

The press is trying to play on people's FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) with dark money from Disney. These articles are PR in the guise of news. It is actual propaganda.

To put it in context, the original Lilo & Stitch from 2002 cost $80 Million to make, and the movie earned $270Million in the global box office. This was considered a financial underperformer and "modest" return. That's over three times the budget for the film.

Of course we are unsure of the money spent on marketing as studios typically do not share that information, but we are aware that even the original film had an inflated marketing budget compared to other movies coming out at the same time as well. But a marketing campaign being the same price as the film itself is pretty unheard of and partly why Disney is boasting about the amount of money they are spending on this film.

But the fact that advertising costs are typically hidden should also raise some eyebrows. Why would Disney give a firm number for their advertising budget? It's reasonable to take that 1 Million as a rough estimate. It probably is a higher number.

I also want to mention it seems odd how quickly we are getting Global boxoffice numbers. It feels like they may be trying to beat the bad press coming out.

But at the end, this still isn't a runaway success. Even by Disney's own reported numbers, this isn't that impressive. But the media will try and tell you it is.

This is how propaganda works.

by Ira Stoll

An encouraging development in the Israel-Hamas war is that the online pro-Israel press watchdogs finally seem to be getting the upper hand over the New York Times.

A few recent examples tell the story.

A New York Times Sunday opinion article by Megan Stack, headlined “Don’t Turn Away From the Charges of Genocide Against Israel,” was authoritatively debunked by Shany Mor in a thread on X that has attracted nearly a quarter-million views.

Mor faulted Stack’s piece for “rank dishonesty,” noting that it “truncated” the “legal definition of genocide,” omitting “a crucial part of the definition.” Mor also faults the Stack piece for misquoting Israelis to depict them, falsely, as having genocidal intent.

More concludes: “Rather than trawling the internet for truncated quotes, we might want to investigate why so many of our self-appointed humanitarians have spent decades fantasizing about the day when they could drag the Jews in before a tribunal to face the charge of being the real Nazis.”

A column by Nicholas Kristof that also ran in the Sunday New York Times got a similar online dragging, and deservedly so, from the X account of Salo Aizenberg. Aizenberg noticed that in a comparison between American bombing Iraq and Israel bombing Gaza, Kristof used a comparison that started in 2004 rather than 2003. “To push fake narrative one must misrepresent,” Aizenberg wrote, in a post that attracted more than 380,000 views. “If one seeks to compare US & Israel bombing numbers to draw conclusions one MUST begin with the start of each invasion. Anything else is grossly misleading.” Aizenberg described the Kristof column as “statistical manipulation and a “major misrepresentation.”

I'm not really sure what you are getting at Anon, but I did play around with Google Trends in response and I have some things to point out.

Research Proves That Flu Shots Are Medically Useless

October 21, 2012

Dr. Walter K. Crooks, DC,

Member of the Pastoral Medical Association

Have you been waiting in line to get that needle full of Animal DNA, Human Fetal Tissue From Abortions, Mercury Formaldehyde and many more lovely, life improving ingredients? 

Well you may want to read this post first….

A recent study out of the University of Minnesota (UM) suggests that it isn’t necessary, having found that the two groups most at risk from developing serious complications from the flu, seniors and children, derive little or no benefit from getting flu shots.

Michael Osterholm from the UM Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy analyzed more than 12,000 peer-reviewed studies, documents, transcripts, and notes dating back to the 1930s, and found that there was very little solid evidence that the flu shot provides any real protection for most people.

"We found that current influenza vaccine protection is substantially lower than for most routine recommended vaccines and is suboptimal…we can no longer accept the status quo regarding vaccine research and development." said Osterholm about the findings.”

In Osterholm's opinion, a flu shot should ideally be between 85 and 95 percent effective in all age groups before ever being considered effective and useful. This means that the types of flu shots currently administered to hundreds of millions of Americans every single year are COMPLETE MEDICAL QUACKERY.

Yet even this researcher manipulates the numbers to get results. (Can You Say Unethical?!?!),  He claims efficacy in 60% of those vaccinated, but the facts tell otherwise, as do his own numbers.

When taken in the light of the research that was used for this studies' research, the efficacy associated with influenza vaccine is negligible at best.

In a major study published in Lancet 2011, which involved 13,095 non-vaccinated adults who were monitored to see if they caught influenza, which 357 of them did, in fact, contract influenza resulting in 2.7% infection rate.

The vaccinated group, on the other hand, had an overall infection rate of 1.2%.

So even if you believe this study, and even if you believe all the pro-vaccine hype behind it, the truly "scientific" conclusion from this is rather astonishing:

Flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of every 100 adults injected with the vaccine!

So where does this "60% effective" come from?

This is know as “Statistical Manipulation",and it's an old statistical trick that the vaccine industry (and the pharmaceutical industry) uses over and over again to trick people into thinking their useless drugs actually work.

First, you take the 2.7% in the control group who got the flu, and you divide that into the 1.2% in the treatment group who got the flu. This gives you roughly 0.45. You can then say that 0.45 is "45% of 2.7," and claim that the vaccine therefore results in a "60% decrease" in influenza infections. This then becomes a "60% effectiveness rate" claim.

The overall "60% effectiveness" being claimed from this study comes from adding additional data about vaccine efficacy for children, which returned higher numbers than adults. 

There were other problems with the data for children, however, including one study that showed an increase in influenza rates in the second year after the flu shot.

So when the media (or your doctor, or pharmacist, or CDC official) says these vaccines are "60% effective," this, to the average person, means that of 100 vaccinated people, 60 of them will not get the flu.

However, as you have seen, this is not the case, if you were to 100 adults then 1.5 of them would avoid getting the flu.

In other words, to prevent 60people from getting the flu a total of 4,000 people would have to be immunized!

Or, put another way, flu vaccines do nothing in 98.5% of adults.

But you've probably already noticed that the mainstream media won't dare print this statistical revelation. They would much rather mislead everybody into the utterly false and ridiculous belief that flu vaccines are "60% effective," whatever that means.

As for children and flu shots, well the evidence is lacking at best and what is spewed by those that profit from these vaccines is just parroted from what they have been told or seen, because if they would just read some research they would know things such as: A systematic review of 51 studies involving 260,000 children age 6 to 23 months found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;1:CD004879). <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Times; panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-font-charset:78; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;} @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}

How To “Cook The Books” With Statistics!

This little statistical lying technique is very popular in the cancerindustry, too, where these "relative numbers" are used to lie about all sorts of drugs.

You may have heard, for example, that a breast cancer drug is "50% effective at preventing breast cancer!"

 But what does that really mean? It could mean that 2 women out of 100 got breast cancer in the control group, and only 1 woman out of 100 got it in the treatment group. Thus, the drug is only shown to work on 1 out of 100 women. 

But since 1 is 50% of 2, they will spin the store and claim a "50% breast cancer prevention rate!"

And most consumers will buy into this because they don't understand how the medical industry lies with these statistics. So they will think to themselves, "Wow, if I take this medication, there is a 50% chance this will prevent breast cancer for me!"

And yet that's utterly false. In fact, there is only a 1% chance it will prevent breast cancer for you, according to the study.

 Real Protection From The Flu…

<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Times; panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-font-charset:78; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;} @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:.7in .7in .7in .6in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}

Become Pro-Active with your health! Eat more organic fruits and vegetables, especially green leafy veggies, supplement with garlic, colloidal silver, plenty of B vitamins, get plenty of good quality sleep every night and drink plenty of purified, mineral-rich water.

These are just some of the highly effective ways to naturally avoid the flu without risking potentially deadly side effects.

<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Arial; panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073711037 9 0 511 0;} @font-face {font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-font-charset:78; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;} @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}

-->

http://LifeChangingCareHouston.com

Life-Changing Care FaceBook Page 

Follow Us On Twitter! 

Resources: http://www.naturalnews.com/037620_flu_vaccines_effectiveness_exaggerations.html#ixzz29wn0Fb27

<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Arial; panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073711037 9 0 511 0;} @font-face {font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-font-charset:78; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;} @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}

There is a widespread dogmatic belief that when something is said to be a “statistic” it is something immediately true. The problem with this is the boundaries of what a certain statistic encompasses determine its validity. If the boundaries extend over to areas that make the statistic an over exaggeration, then the data acquired is nothing more than wishful thinking. If, for example, a data was gathered on the number of obese children, but the definition of “obese” in this context includes those that are slightly overweight, or are overweight because they are short, or are simply made more of muscle mass rather than fat, then that statistic does not accurately present the disposition of obesity in the country.

Today, the same thing is happening in intellectual circles all over the world. The more prestigious the performer of the research, the quicker it is accepted. But doing this without checking the parameters causes a lot of twisted views on issues. Economics is one aspect where these statistics are mistreated nonchalantly, but social issues are not saved from this mistreatment as well.

In the turn of the 20th century, the gears on social issues were shifted into a much more active role. Debates in colleges, universities, church denominations, and Congress, filled each one’s agendas. One of the first was the condemnation of Americans for the death of Natives in the country. What happened some two hundred years ago is well known history—the Indians were ousted out of their lands, little by little, until the whole United States was under the rule of the white man. Criticism for this action is common and harsh, but what is left untold to masses is the many other instances, in many other different places, for thousands of years, in which this usurpation of land has happened. What is untold to many is that out of the millions of Indian deaths, only some 10% were caused by Americans while the rest were due to disease brought here form Europe. This is not a defense on the blotch that remains in United States history whatsoever; the truth is what we did to the Indians is nothing less of an atrocity, but the facts are facts, and they should not be stretched into unrealistic untruths.

Another is the criticism on the well being of the black American. One of the most famous debates was “Was the American Dream at the Expense of the American Negro?” debated by conservative icon William F. Buckley and civil right’s advocate James Baldwin. At this time, many started believing the United States to be a very prejudice country, and though there is some truth to this, as prejudice exists everywhere else, there is a sense in which the other side of the coin has been left untold: some time after the Civil War in the late 19th century, some 400 hundred colleges have come to integrate blacks into their rosters and began to educate them, not in pity, but because the newly emancipated people showed great promise. Statistically speaking, they have shown they have. The black community has increased literacy rate by 50% in a span of a few generations, what many experts consider as a social miracle.

But these statistics are never regarded, which is why legislations like Affirmative Action are being inputted into the system in order to help up these races that have been, for so long, been under the coercion of the white man. Government must be involved in bettering their lives despite the evidence which shows they have done it better themselves.

This tactic is more of a manipulation of facts to support a conclusion rather than drawing a conclusion from these real facts. That is why in order to pass a universal health care bill, one of the main fallacies given to the public by the Obama Administration is that the United States has a higher death rate than any other country. But that is only because the United States data reports include homocides and car accidents—actions which doctors have no control over. The same reason explains why the infant mortality rate in the United States is higher: all infants that die here are accounted for, not just those that die in the hospital.