Comments (50)
sorted by:
VaxedAndContagious1 7 points ago +7 / -0

Objective, observational data makes the Covid Nazi seethe.

Tuchodi was terrified of a flu that has a 99.9% survival rate for healthy people, and got suckered into an experimental injection that Pfizer claimed was safe and effective after a 4 month clinical trial. Tuchodi bizarrely accepted the injections without the long term safety data.

Tuchodi wrote on Omega I rolled the dice and gambled with the experiment after watching TV experts, believing CDC false claims on google, and trusting the Pfizer CEO when he claimed Pfizer’s RNA altering injections were safe.

And I speak for everyone here Tuchodi, we can’t wait for you to follow your own google experts and submit to back to back 4th and 5th BOOSTERS with unknown long term safety data! HURRY GO NOW and please upload the video!! Nothing will make us happier.

Kronder12 1 point ago +1 / -0

Things are going to get wild in 4-dose Israel.

tuchodi -8 points ago +1 / -9

Correlation is not causation. If you don't know what that means look it up.

As a doctor Paul Alexander knows that, but he posts stuff like this.

tek465b 3 points ago +4 / -1

If i fart and it stinks, that mean it's not the fart that stinks, following your logic.

Kronder12 2 points ago +2 / -0

It is possible that just as you farted, Tuchodi also came into the room.

tuchodi -7 points ago +1 / -8

Doesn't change the fact that correlation is not causation, and that Alexander knows it.

tek465b 4 points ago +4 / -0

Doesn't change the fact that the fart stink, and that everyone knows it.

tuchodi -6 points ago +1 / -7

And they know why too. Alexander - and you - may have your suspicions but that's not enough.

DoggyDawg 1 point ago +1 / -0

Correlation is not causation. If you don't know what that means look it up.

Again, i have to quote you due to your history of editing your comments after i destroy them.

Oh my… did you just learn a new stats term? You don’t even understand the term you just learned and you’re already quoting it.

YOU should probably look this up. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. But it could and often does point to causation. It’s the starting point of so many scientific studies.

squiddle 9 points ago +9 / -0

tuchodi seems to have an iq that is hovering around the 80 to 85 level, ie. borderline mildlly retarded

tuchodi -7 points ago +1 / -8

It’s the starting point of so many scientific studies

And until we get there, do them, and publish the results it's good to remember that correlation is not causation.

Alexander should be working on those studies, not speculating.

DoggyDawg 1 point ago +1 / -0

Speculating is the start of the process, genius. Inquiring minds progress science. Nevertheless, you told someone to lookup correlation vs causation. Don’t deflect. You don’t understand this. You need to look this up yourself.

tuchodi -7 points ago +1 / -8

You appear to skipping the research and proof part of science.

DoggyDawg 3 points ago +3 / -0

You would think that only if you’re clueless about stats and science.

Correlation is not causation.

This is YOUR quote. This is wrong. You’re deflecting.

tuchodi -6 points ago +1 / -7

Anyone who - like DoggyDawg - is confused about the difference between correlation and causation can read up on the subject: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=Correlation+is+not+causation&ia=web

DoggyDawg 5 points ago +5 / -0

Correlation does not imply causation

Correlation is not causation

Two very different term with different meanings. One is right. One is wrong.

You misunderstood what correlation vs causation means, as usual with your comprehension of stats and science concepts. You can’t edit your original comment, which is your go-to strategy in theses circumstances and now you’re trying too hard.