Charlie was a lucky boy; he got 1 of just 5 golden tickets. We’ve all seen the film and or read the book (I don’t count the sequel as worth watching, [sorry Johnny]). This got me wondering about the ‘science’ of statistics. Now I’m not anti-science, and we need statistics, but not the kind our beloved CDC has been practicing as of late; that’s more akin to witchcraft. I also ain’t no statistician; and if there are some professional number massagers out there, feel free to jump in. I’m more interested in the ontology of statistics; what is it, what isn’t it, and what are its limits.
Case in point, I recently conducted my own ‘experiment’ that seemed to defy the ‘odds.’ On its face, something other than chance, seems to be at play (see Coin Toss Experiment below).
What annoys me about so much of what passes for the ‘science’ of statistics is the notion of randomness, or more to the point, creating the illusion thereof.
Charlie got one of 5 tickets, but there were 5 tickets. The chances of zero people finding a ticket were, well, zero. This is quite different from my guessing experiment where zero correct guesses, however remote, remained a non-zero possibility. Now, what is the likelihood that mRNA vaccines are not killing, maming and sterilizing millions, I repeat, millions of people, not to mention the non-zero likelihood of catastrophic long term effects? Well, it ain’t zero! In fact, the growing likelihood that mRNA vaccines were/are the greatest blunder or crime (depending on your perspective [my money’s on crime]) in human history, is rapidly approaching 1. That is to say, the likelihood of mRNA democide being non-zero is so non-zero as to be the opposite of non-zero, which is 1.
Coint Toss Experiment:
If I have a 1 in 64 chance of guessing 6 consecutive coin tosses in a row (1 game), how improbable would it be to guess 5 perfect games out of 10?
If each game consists of 6 guesses and you want to calculate the probability of getting all 6 guesses correct in 5 out of 10 games, you can use the binomial probability formula.
The probability of getting 5 perfect games out of just 10 tries is indeed quite low. The value I provided earlier (0.02408%) represents the probability of this specific outcome occurring in a single set of 10 games.
To put it in perspective, this means that if you were to play 10 games repeatedly, you would expect to get 5 perfect games, on average, in about 1 out of every 4159 sets of 10 games. It doesn't imply that you're likely to achieve 5 perfect games in just a single set of 10 games; rather, it's an average likelihood over a large number of repetitions.
In practice, due to the low probability of guessing 6 consecutive coin tosses correctly, getting 5 perfect games out of just 10 tries is indeed a rare event, and it would not be surprising if it doesn't happen in a simulation or real-world scenario for a long time.
If people can’t wake up with all the death and suffering from the mRNA jab they never will
Number crunching and law of probability work to support likelihoods... but when you have pages and pages of adverse possibilities assigned to a vaccine that you publish before the first shot goes into a person.. then more pages of the death and misery that happens after you jab multitudes of the healthy.. it gets very hard to deny correlation when you already showed likely outcomes... numbers never lie.. it’s people who hide truth and crunch numbers.