• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Tell me CDC hasn’t gone to the dark side...

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
"... the CDC’s report of a steady increase in nonfatal gun injuries is out of step with a downward trend we found using data from multiple independent public health and criminal justice databases."

My cousin's husband is an ER doc. In 2015 he mentioned his ER had been reporting gunshot wounds for three decades to the police, by law. So I'm not sure where any "uptick" might be originating, unless the cops themselves are fudging the figures, which I find highly doubtful.

I very seriously doubt the CDC would fudge the data then flag it "with an asterisk indicating that, according to the agency’s own standards, it should be treated as “unstable and potentially unreliable.”
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
...gone to the dark side? Were the CDC ever on the side of light and right? Where guns are concerned of course.

Their reports are both extensive as well as highly illuminating. Drain Brammage is most commonly achieved via willful ignorance.

Examine the data. It's there.
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
When liars figure, figures lie.

I've seen you state this on numerous occasions, and as a life-long student of statistics, I really detest your statement as it's grossly ignorant with respect to reality.

Reality rules, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to teach you statistics. Instead, follow this link and GROW A BRAIN. All lessons. Don't EVEN until you've mastered them. GROW a brain.

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
I've seen you state this on numerous occasions, and as a life-long student of statistics, I really detest your statement as it's grossly ignorant with respect to reality.

Reality rules, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to teach you statistics. Instead, follow this link and GROW A BRAIN. All lessons. Don't EVEN until you've mastered them. GROW a brain.

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability

One would suppose if one, such as yourself, were brainwashed by academician(s) into believing in the myth and magical world of statistics, you would find them to be a comfort within your sphere of your reality.

However, as in all things mythical and magical, that you failed to learn from the academician(s) that the gatherers of said statistics are self promoting and only gleaning the ‘numbers’ to further themselves, either academically, business-wise, or to satisfy their narcissistic egos!

It is interesting to note the data gathered and presented is only important to the eyes of the self-promoting owner of data. Period! Whether the data assures continued employment or the boost their narcissistic ego amongst their cohort.

please be a gatherer and believer in your reality, ‘fraid i feel Disraeli said it quite correctly and succinctly ...

LIES, DAMN LIES, & STATISTICS
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Their reports are both extensive as well as highly illuminating. Drain Brammage is most commonly achieved via willful ignorance.

Examine the data. It's there.

Of course since9 the CDC’s data is there flagged with an *

the FBI’s data is there, dutifully reported for one and all to awe over and to misquote for their own self promotion; but not every LE agency in this country reports their data into the great barrel in the sky ~ so the data is incomplete now isn’t it.

So since9, in your educated opinion data is invaluable...I am sure you are aware of the studies saying men do not wash their hands after visiting restrooms!

Could you tell me how that data was gleaned? Did they put a researcher in the bathroon, clipboard in hand watching? Did the install cameras only in the men’s rooms to watch? Did researchers out of the blue approach blokes and interview those leaving the male facilities? [of course those interviewed always told the truth?

But wait, why are the females exempt from the question of hand washing?

Further, how does a gentleman who uses the restroom contribute to the country’s influenzas pandemic?

Let’s see, male uses the facility, does wash his hands, then touches the faucet to turn off the water, paper dispenser, then the facility door...ya i see how that modality keeps the spread of germs down. Sure glad the female population doesn’t contribute to the spread of germs...
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Their reports are both extensive as well as highly illuminating. Drain Brammage is most commonly achieved via willful ignorance.

Examine the data. It's there.
Why waste any tax payer funds on a study that does not contribute to restoring individual liberty. Statistical analysis is akin to political polls...ya only get out what you wanted to put in...garbage in garbage out...or, why does anything from the CDC not related to DISEASES!!! concern anyone...unless, of course, you agree with the CDC that guns are a disease that needs to be eradicated.

Heck, the FBI gun "statistics" should be viewed in the most skeptical light...
When liars figure, figures lie. - color of law
Wise fella CoL is.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Why waste any tax payer funds on a study that does not contribute to restoring individual liberty.

Because studies are good for all sorts of other things other than "restoring individual liberty," such as either confirming or refuting the safety, harmfulness, and usefulness of medicines, determining the load rating, longevity, and wet/dry traction of various makes and models of tires, identifying the effectiveness of individual stores as compared to others within one's division, determining line voltage under various loads over time so as to preempt brownouts before they happen...

Statistical analysis is akin to political polls...ya only get out what you wanted to put in...garbage in garbage out...

It's a little (meaning a lot) more complicated than that.

...or, why does anything from the CDC not related to DISEASES!!! concern anyone...unless, of course, you agree with the CDC that guns are a disease that needs to be eradicated.

Of course not. Why would any sane, rational adult believe that?

Unless, of course, they were referring not the lawful ownership of firearms but their prevalence in crime, particularly in certain high-crime areas like certain parts of Chicago, D.C., and Detroit... Even then, guns aren't the disease, but their unlawful use is certainly symptomatic of the disease.

Heck, the FBI gun "statistics" should be viewed in the most skeptical light...Wise fella CoL is.

You cannot be serious...
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Humm FBI URC data collection...
1. Not mandated nor manditory on LE agencies, therefore not all States nor agencies submit data.
2. Those agencies reporting DO NOT have to report all indexes, only what the want to report.
3. URC collection methodology isn’t standard across those agencies contributing.
4. URC data isn’t validated or verified, or even spot checked, for accuracy with reporting agencies.

FBI regurgitation of URC data isn’t even up to ethical standards of the ASA especially since the head agency knows their data collected isn’t reliable, hasn’t been verified, not all agencies participated, nor did those agencies who did participate report all their data, etc., yet no ‘flawed data’ notice caveat(s) are attached to the release of their data stream.

garbage in, incorrect stats out but quoted as Gospel, is still garbage!
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Because studies are good for all sorts of other things other than "restoring individual liberty," such as either confirming or refuting the safety, harmfulness, and usefulness of medicines, determining the load rating, longevity, and wet/dry traction of various makes and models of tires, identifying the effectiveness of individual stores as compared to others within one's division, determining line voltage under various loads over time so as to preempt brownouts before they...snipp...

Unless, of course, they were referring not the lawful ownership of firearms but their prevalence in crime, particularly in certain high-crime areas like certain parts of Chicago, D.C., and Detroit... Even then, guns aren't the disease, but their unlawful use is certainly symptomatic of the disease.

You cannot be serious...

you are absolutely correct Since 9, studies are good, when conducted with integrity and ethically, results are independently repeatable, following established methodology.

Several come to mind...
1. Britian’s researcher whose bogus study debunked the effectiveness and safety of administering childhood vaccines to children.

2. The gas mileage studies touting vehicle gas efficiency.

3. Numerous medical studies over the years which were/are unethically run, results biased, yet reported as Gospel to the world. [I mean really, new pharmaceutical medicines meant specifically for females meant to validate safety & effectiveness ONLY tested on male subjects, yes thats ethical now isn’t it]

[sidebar, I’m partial to the validity of the studies perpetuated against people of colour, admistering live syphilis culture into the eyes, body, etc., or the sterilization activites, and so forth...]

4. Psychological studies whose end resulted in participants suffering mentally after the experiment were finished. [Twin studies where identical twin were physically separated at birth with one placed in affluent culture the other placed in a SES culture so researchers could ‘observe’ the results]

[sidebar, I’m particularly partial to the original rational behind IQ testing and development of those psychometric instruments in our society, really fasinating!]

So Since9, keep bring up how ‘good’ studies are in our society as well as how beneficial they are...those sterile or blind or those parents who lost offspring after failing to vaccinate based on the ‘study’ will be happy to attest to the ‘goodliness’ of studies.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Because studies are good for all sorts of other things other than "restoring individual liberty," such as either confirming or refuting the safety, harmfulness, and usefulness of medicines, determining the load rating, longevity, and wet/dry traction of various makes and models of tires, identifying the effectiveness of individual stores as compared to others within one's division, determining line voltage under various loads over time so as to preempt brownouts before they happen...
The above is irrelevant given that we are discussing the CDC...and their flawed "study" regarding nonfatal gun injuries. I happen to agree with David Hemenway. Unless of course if we are to believe that the CDC simply made a mistake in adding/subtracting.

It's a little (meaning a lot) more complicated than that.
No, it is not.

Of course not. Why would any sane, rational adult believe that?

Unless, of course, they were referring not the lawful ownership of firearms but their prevalence in crime, particularly in certain high-crime areas like certain parts of Chicago, D.C., and Detroit... Even then, guns aren't the disease, but their unlawful use is certainly symptomatic of the disease.
There are likely a untold number of unlawful gun uses where no nonfatal, or fatal, injuries result. Given this fact, criminal intent is irrelevant when measuring the prevalence of nonfatal gun injuries. The CDC is focusing on the gun, gun related injuries, and not the gun user. The CDC's premise is based on nonfatal gun injuries to portray guns as a public health hazard.

Of course I am, I stated so in writing. The FBI is no friend, nor upholder, of individual liberty.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/24/fbi-cannot-be-trusted/
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Your post is irrelevant. You slammed statistics as some sort of voodoo science. Clearly, you don't know stats. I do.

End of discussion.

Statistics is voodoo, [not science]] who to a true believer, such as yourself, who consistently misuses the data, yet presents said data as the Holy Grail, it is asolutely unequivocally nothing and worthless.

so, as a self-proclaimed statistician, you are a member in good standing of the American Statistical Association and abide by the ethical guidelines of the ASA? If so, then instead of voodoo chants you have been espousing you should/would be truly upset this nation’s LE agencies, CDC, and other governmental entities are misleading our citizens. but in fact you have no concept the data is invalid!

Lies, damn lies, and statistics is still applicable since you have failed to present any type of valid rebuttal whatsoever, except to say it isn’t so.
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Statistically speaking, any given statistical analysis will be flawed...some intentionally. Stats don't lie...

Correction: "Statistically speaking, some statistical analyses will be flawed.[/QUOTE]

Statistics does not care about your flawed opinion of statistics. Done right, statistics remains sound.

Put another way, if two statisticians come up with different answers, either one, the other, or both of them are doing it wrong.

Put a third way, if you give 30 statisticians a properly formulated and worded problem, you'll receive 25 identical, correct answers and 5 "artistic" but flawed variations.
 
Last edited:
Top