pbaka's comments

Except Oswald was not such a loser, as he was a double agent while in the SSSR [1], and he was staying at the home [2] of George de Mohrenschildt [3], who used to be member [4] of the Nazi Gehlen SS Division which was incorporated the CIA and german BND after WWII [5], and who was expulsed in 1957 by Yugoslavia for having spied on military installations there [6].

Most interestingly, the day of his "suicide", de Mohrenshild had given an interview to a certain journalist named Jay Epstein (! - supposedly no relations), during which he claimed "that in 1962, Dallas CIA operative J. Walton Moore and one of Moore's associates had handed him the address of Lee Harvey Oswald in nearby Fort Worth and then suggested that de Mohrenschildt might like to meet him." - which he had also told the Warren commission.

Oh, and he personnaly knew G.H.W. Bush before he became the director of the CIA, the latter having been the roomie of de Mohreshild's nephew [7].

I know that the sound of hooves generally means horses are coming, and the "six degrees of separation" theory... Yet, don't you get the distinct impression we're in the middle of the savannah and insted those sounds might be zebras ?

[1] https://knrasm.typepad.com/.a/6a0154328936da970c0168e5939b50...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_de_Mohrenschildt#Dallas...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_de_Mohrenschildt - a German noble from Bielorussia, where Oswald had "defected" in 1957

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_de_Mohrenschildt#House_...

[5] https://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/germany/gehlen.h...

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_de_Mohrenschildt#cite_n...

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_de_Mohrenschildt#Later_...

OC didn't quite understand what "statistically significant" means in the statistical context. I believe he mixes it with the coloquial meaning of "significance".

A "statistically significant" result is a result unlikely to be explained solely by chance or random factors. It has a very low chance of occurring if there were no true effect in a research study. It does not coloquially mean it's wrong, or unimportant.

The p value, or probability value, tells you the statistical significance of a finding for a given measurement confidence interval. Than can happen for a variety of reasons.

Consequently, a result is significant or not because of all the parameters of the study, for example measurement characteristics, number of samples, etc, but not its results.

While not wrong in the absolute, your answer mixed in examples of unknown cofounding variables which could be the cause of the specific study's result, but they are not in the strict sense examples of statistical insignificance, nor examples of causes of it. Their absence wouldn't have made the study any more significant.

The study OP referenced had 947 patients over ~50 mo. [1], which ought to be a sufficient sample size, but those were split into two groups with different regimens [2]. A third and half had to be excluded because of how measurement was made or after review of the cases [3]. With ~320 per-group, the sample size is not that great anymore, so result might not be that precise, depending on the chosen confidence interval.

Indeed, drilling down [4], we see a 97.5 CI, and probability values for each group of 0.49 and 0.046. That doesn't mean the observed trend is wrong, just that we can't know for sure - hence it's "insignificance" in statistical parlance.

The absence of those effects given by in your examples wouldn't make it any more significant. What could make it more significant ? For example more patients, less exclusions, better confidance interval. If we look at the discussion in [3], the researchers themselves believe a problem was the measurement itself : "A limitation of this analysis is the relatively short duration of follow-up. As of the data cutoff date, the median overall survival was not reached in either group; follow-up is ongoing."

A note on double blind studies : in this particular case, a double-blind randomized control group study is not practicable, as it would be a gigantic breach of ethics.

DBRCT is not an acceptable research technique for all medical scientific endeavors. It has its applications, but this wouldn't be it. You can only measure difference with other cures if such cures exist, not with the absence thereof (i.e. a control, placebo group) if they do exist. A DBRCT'd mean you'd have to refuse care, which is not possible.

Moreover, the medicine was experimental, you can't double blind, as the doctors in charge of the patient must be able to react quickly, and those might not be the clinicians in charge of the study.

Consequently, the study's author were right in making it a simple CRT.

Don't confuse methodology with medicine.

[1] https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02741570

[2] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2...

[3] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2026982

[4] https://www.cancertherapyadvisor.com/home/news/conference-co...

I'm not sure in what sense do you are using "compromised", it is unclear for me in regards to context.

He is not a US citizen, and he was never a "pro-western-mainstream" or "pro-establishment" type (he was born into a cult with a history of systematic children sex abuse in Australia, one of the leaders was close to the AU government, Assange then became a teenage hacker, etc). He was a contrarian against the West from the start, while being of the West.

Do you use the term in relation to some of Wikileaks goals or mission statements, some hacker ethos, in the sense that he compromised himself in regards to some personal conviction of his ?

I was refering to the white house spokesperson's Jen Psaki's comments a couple of weeks ago.

But yeah, you are right, alongside the databases of a couple "private public partnership" homeland security dept's contractors.

A question for you in regards to the subject of the US security apparatus : is it really still "theories" at this point ? Maybe are we starting to talk semi-founded allegations now, no ?

I was not downvoted, I was flagged and removed.

> Side note, it seems like anything COVID related on HN attracts a lot of green accounts.

(waves hand) Those are not the paid trolls you are looking for, it is well known those are only found in Russia.

That's one explanation.

Maybe people also use green accounts because they don't wanna end up on the white houses "disinformation lists", particularly when reading on such an article as this.

Another of my answers under this news article got flagged in less than 2 minutes, even though it was only a sarcastic couple of sentences about first accusing the wrong people then ignoring the lessons of history.

Ironic...

So say we all !