CIPRO SUPERINFECTION: the possibly rare(but not so random reverse lottery)
Posted , 3 users are following.
For those of you following my series on collegian calculus you may recall I used the college's own numbers to demonstrate how it works but then using the rules of pure math was forced to throw all their numbers out(the large anomoly hidden inside the token numerator). But even if the college's numbers can't be used for scientific purposes ( empirical data), I would like to call attention to an error I made in my original calculation.
I wish I had somebody to point out these mistakes as I do not wish to appear overtly biased or even subconsciously as was the case here. I will admit the college's animus towards the public (their blunt instrument) was the cause of my internalized bias which led me to err even though something was nagging at me the whole time that my math was suspect. I won't apologize too loudly however as the error led to an epiphany.
You will recall how I eliminated 100 from 120( ruling against a doctor over a 10 year period) to approximate how many of the remainder were conventional cases of malpractice not sexual impropriety. So I figured 20/6500 was a solid approximation but technically that was wrong because I failed to subtract 100 from the denominator as well. 20/6400 is the correct ratio which yields .003125, a difference of .000048 and using rules of significant digits still rounds to 3/1000. In other words in a population of 6500, 100 people could be eliminated from the equation yet the ratio remains the same.
So which ratio would be considered the threshold to be still considered "rare ". Or in terms of the government, what numbers would they consider acceptable collateral damage in their experiments with Cipro? 100/6500?, 3/1000?, 1/1000? Unfortunately we cannot know how rare superinfection is because the college's numbers don't qualify as scientific data given the anomalies present.
The fact is this whole argument about Cipro side effects being rare is just a distraction, a smoke screen or a red herring. Is it necessary to quantify a ratio when you consider the issue is not so much the rarity of side effects but the certainty?
Rare may seem a practical argument but if it's not random then it's irrelevant. CIPRO SUPERINFECTION is unavoidable given the warnings and safety protocols were eliminated in favor of the college's thin, engineered protocol. Yet it's totally foreseeable given the knowledge of the actual manufacturer recommendations and the proper testing (in a test tube). Cipro Superinfection is not rare, but an engineered reverse lottery which is not random, but rigged, given the event is foreseeable and preventable if it weren't completely ignored.
0 likes, 2 replies
miriam65408 eric_51094
Posted
Hi Eric, I was perhaps the only person who read the other post and I couldn't point out any errors as I didn't truly understand it (although I did study maths!).
Can I politely suggest you keep this type of discussion on the same thread and not start a new one? If you can picture some poor soul just freshly hit by Cipro and looking here in sheer terror, this is probably not the type of information they want to read.
Your argument is fine and there are possibly several people who might want to join you in this discussion but keep it down (as my mum would say) and leave room for people just seeking help to find it.
Did you look for a Canadian group yet?
I can message you with some addresses in you want - I know there are at least two very big and very active groups. I think there is to be a big rally somewhere there soon (I'm UK so won't be going!).
eric_51094 miriam65408
Posted
Hello Miriam. All of my posts on here are exact copies of letters I write to the college and the government. I mentioned that in a previous post but I understand that they are full of anger and sarcasm so I promise no more of my angry manifestos. However its unlikely I will tone it down so I would very much appreciate if you could send me that contact info.
I know I have been long winded but I believe I have arrived at the point I was trying to make with the government which is superinfection is not random but calculated (Collegian calculus). There is only an illusion of randomness effected by eliminating all traces of the warnings and safety protocols and any mention of the word superinfection . Ironically it is because superinfection is completely ignored and written out of the treatment that it does exist.
I grasped on this concept as something concrete and proveable (if possibly rare). I know the subject of peripheral neuropathy is stalled because there is no proof it's not random. But Superinfection is proven ( by laboratory tests done by the manufacturer and german scientists as well as their case studies. That's all I've been trying to get at. Even if you think it's beyond the scope of this forum I think it's wise to tackle a problem from different angles.
Thanks for your patience and input.