There is so much wrong with that article that debunking it would take as much space as the article itself. The number of people who have died from covid-19 are both over inflated and under-stated at the same time. Yes, that's possible. The fact of the matter is that we will never know how many people truly died as a direct result of this virus. To state otherwise is simply irresponsible.
- Levit8

https://www.washingtonexa...death-toll-inflated-by-10

I think the issue here is, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, is that it is unclear if the migraine history was known pre-draft or if it was learned post-draft. Nobody is arguing that there is a history. When was the history learned?

Is there an article/story/statement dated before June 23, 2017 that mentions this history? Sincere question, not being argumentative.
- Scoob

The gentleman in question (Swami) has a thesis that the Flyers are concealing PCS by conjuring up migraines from the past.

The question here is this: based on available evidence or the lack thereof, is his thesis/claim strengthened or weakened? Note: this is completely different from saying whether claim is proved. Someone could have a weak case, and make it stronger, but still not strong enough.

In what follows, I will address only the underlined part above.

What is the evidence?

There are no articles dated before his draft that mention migraines for him. Could it be that this is due to HIPAA (Or really PIPEDA, the Canadian equivalent)? Sure, but less likely that the individual in question would use/be able to use HIPAA to protect himself from this sort of a disorder if there was a history.

If he was in juniors and he had a significant enough migraine history, then the kids/coaches around him would likely know about it and not just his doctor. Given the amount of publicity a projected top 2 pick in the draft gets, how likely is it that the news does not get out? Can you come up with a single athlete in all of pro-sports that has managed to conceal something like this because of HIPAA/PIPEDA? Of course you cannot.

And now think about what he has to gain by keeping it concealed? Migraines have no stigma, and he has to disclose it to all 31 teams anyway. And many a time teams have actually leaked such medical info - HIPAA or no HIPAA. A link Kingkenzo provided in yesterday's thread provides instances.

In summary, it seems unlikely such an event could stay hidden. Further, the athlete in question has no incentive from keeping it hidden.

Thus it seems, prima facie, that the likelihood there were no migraines is increased.

I rest my case, your honor.

Youre not going to find them. The only way someone would be able to find that out predraft is if Nolan's doctors or somebody associated, with access to his medical records, violated HIPAA and leaked that info.
- KINGKENZO

No, you could also simply be a junior teammate of Nolan Patrick, who has played with him, and known about his issues, and seen the complete absence of scouting coverage mentioning this, and leak the news to a reporter.

No, you could also simply be a junior teammate of Nolan Patrick, who has played with him, and known about his issues, and seen the complete absence of scouting coverage mentioning this, and leak the news to a reporter.
- PT21

possible but unlikely

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/house-report-says-floridas-covid-19-death-toll-inflated-by-10
- MJL

I especially enjoyed the final sentence of the article: "It's irresponsible of us."

Glad you're on my side.

There is so much wrong with that article that debunking it would take as much space as the article itself. The number of people who have died from covid-19 are both over inflated and under-stated at the same time. Yes, that's possible. The fact of the matter is that we will never know how many people truly died as a direct result of this virus. To state otherwise is simply irresponsible.
- Levit8

Let me give you a few comments about not just what you write but the way you write them.

1. The Scientific American is a very venerable publication. It would lose a huge amount of credibility if there was something that was obviously wrong about such a contentious issue. It would almost always be vetted by multiple experts before publication.

2. In publications of this stature, things are rarely wrong about leading articles. Graduate students at the beginning of their study try to find fault with journal articles all the time. They almost never do. Its not unheard of, but it is very, very rare.

3. Now, coming to what you wrote, it is usually not a good idea to pretend that you know something that the publication doesn't. The onus of proof is on you, and the probabilities are high unlikely you will make your case.

4. You make matters worse when you claim there is "so much wrong" that it would take as much space as the article. The more wrong an article is, the easier it should be to refute.

5. The word over-inflated does not make sense. Inflation is already over. Over-inflation is like saying my head is above-above my shoulders. It is at best redundant, and more likely evidence of stupidity.

6. Regarding your comment: "The number of people who have died from covid-19 are both over inflated and under-stated at the same time. Yes, that's possible" - I reply: No it is not possible, unless you are a character in Alice in Wonderland. There is an objective truth, and either the official death count is more than that, or less. It cannot be both.

7. When someone compounds his errors by using pablum cliches like "fact of the matter", a phrase usually used by politicians when they are trying to assert their subjective perspective, it makes matters worse.

8. Yes, we will never know exactly how many people died from the virus. But there is something called Statistics and probability, so while we may never know, we can come up with pretty good estimates.

My best.

possible but unlikely
- KINGKENZO

Why?

Migraines carry no stigma, and think of the close knit, loose environment of kids that age.

Would you have been able to keep a migraine issue hidden through high school without a single friend/relative knowing if it was serious?

I especially enjoyed the final sentence of the article: "It's irresponsible of us."

Glad you're on my side.
- Levit8

The Washington Examiner is a conservative newspaper with a clear agenda. It is not a Science publication.

It's not relevant.

The Washington Examiner is a conservative newspaper with a clear agenda. It is not a Science publication.

It's not relevant.
- PT21

LOL when you cant attack the content, attack the source.

Let me give you a few comments about not just what you write but the way you write them.

1. The Scientific American is a very venerable publication. It would lose a huge amount of credibility if there was something that was obviously wrong about such a contentious issue. It would almost always be vetted by multiple experts before publication.

2. In publications of this stature, things are rarely wrong about leading articles. Graduate students at the beginning of their study try to find fault with journal articles all the time. They almost never do. Its not unheard of, but it is very, very rare.

3. Now, coming to what you wrote, it is usually not a good idea to pretend that you know something that the publication doesn't. The onus of proof is on you, and the probabilities are high unlikely you will make your case.

4. You make matters worse when you claim there is "so much wrong" that it would take as much space as the article. The more wrong an article is, the easier it should be to refute.

5. The word over-inflated does not make sense. Inflation is already over. Over-inflation is like saying my head is above-above my shoulders. It is at best redundant, and more likely evidence of stupidity.

6. Regarding your comment: "The number of people who have died from covid-19 are both over inflated and under-stated at the same time. Yes, that's possible" - I reply: No it is not possible, unless you are a character in Alice in Wonderland. There is an objective truth, and either the official death count is more than that, or less. It cannot be both.

7. When someone compounds his errors by using pablum cliches like "fact of the matter", a phrase usually used by politicians when they are trying to assert their subjective perspective, it makes matters worse.

8. Yes, we will never know exactly how many people died from the virus. But there is something called Statistics and probability, so while we may never know, we can come up with pretty good estimates.

My best.
- PT21

Your first few points are called an argument from authority and are invalid.

The only statement worth addressing is your final one. "Pretty good estimates"? Did you use that in your thesis paper? Yes we have statistics and probability. Which we can use to support our argument regardless of which side we're.on.

You wasted your time. That, my friend, is stupid.

LOL when you cant attack the content, attack the source.

- MBFlyerfan

The source of news on matters like this is very relevant to their projected accuracy.

If I found two pieces of news about medical matters - one from the Mayo Clinic and the other from Breitbart, why should it even be worth my while to read the latter?

The gentleman in question (Swami) has a thesis that the Flyers are concealing PCS by conjuring up migraines from the past.

The question here is this: based on available evidence or the lack thereof, is his thesis/claim strengthened or weakened? Note: this is completely different from saying whether claim is proved. Someone could have a weak case, and make it stronger, but still not strong enough.

In what follows, I will address only the underlined part above.

What is the evidence?

There are no articles dated before his draft that mention migraines for him. Could it be that this is due to HIPAA (Or really PIPEDA, the Canadian equivalent)? Sure, but less likely that the individual in question would use/be able to use HIPAA to protect himself from this sort of a disorder if there was a history.

If he was in juniors and he had a significant enough migraine history, then the kids/coaches around him would likely know about it and not just his doctor. Given the amount of publicity a projected top 2 pick in the draft gets, how likely is it that the news does not get out? Can you come up with a single athlete in all of pro-sports that has managed to conceal something like this because of HIPAA/PIPEDA? Of course you cannot.

And now think about what he has to gain by keeping it concealed? Migraines have no stigma, and he has to disclose it to all 31 teams anyway. And many a time teams have actually leaked such medical info - HIPAA or no HIPAA. A link Kingkenzo provided in yesterday's thread provides instances.

In summary, it seems unlikely such an event could stay hidden. Further, the athlete in question has no incentive from keeping it hidden.

Thus it seems, prima facie, that the likelihood there were no migraines is increased.

I rest my case, your honor.
- PT21

I'm laughing my ass off with the I rest my case your honor. Any respectable honor would throw your case out of court why also laughing hysterically. Your case is ridiculously weak and completely circumstantial. It doesn't in any way support that the Flyers are lying about his condition. You also ignore that the reason why there was no talk of it or that it wasn't leaked was simply because at that point in time, it was a non issue. Whatever issues he had in the past weren't present. Nothing you've offered increases the likelihood that there were no migraines. Has the player himself refuted that he had migraines in the past pre-draft?

Your first few points are called an argument from authority and are invalid.

The only statement worth addressing is your final one. "Pretty good estimates"? Did you use that in your thesis paper? Yes we have statistics and probability. Which we can use to support our argument regardless of which side we're.on.

You wasted your time. That, my friend, is stupid.
- Levit8

Ha ha.

You are a buffoon, sir.

Now, change your Depends, and go to bed.

The Washington Examiner is a conservative newspaper with a clear agenda. It is not a Science publication.

It's not relevant.
- PT21

This is the expected response from an indoctrinated elitist. The source is not the Washington Examiner! How can you be so stupid? The source is the Florida House.

Ha ha.

You are a buffoon, sir.

Now, change your Depends, and go to bed.
- PT21

Is that how you defended your thesis?

Ha ha.

You are a buffoon, sir.

Now, change your Depends, and go to bed.
- PT21

This is your fall back position. When challenged and beaten, you then attack the poster personally. You're not smart enough to realize that this reflects on you, not the person you attack. You're not smart enough to know how you erode any credibility that you have, which isn't much.

Is that how you defended your thesis?
- Levit8

He makes the comment that the more wrong something is, the easier it is to point out how it is wrong. Yet he responds to you in that manner. Very telling.

Is that how you defended your thesis?
- Levit8

No, my examiners were highly intelligent people.

You, based on your statement that Statistics and Probability can be used to prove anything, in today's age, would make the 8th graders who come to our summer school programs grow silent in embarrassed empathy. If I wanted to debate buffoons, I would just debate MJL.

I don't expect you to know what science, logic, probability, or statistics is. I would not sadly give you any marks for even aspiring to know.

I will however leave you with an article from JAMA, which examined this issue in detail:

https://jamanetwork.com/j...icine/fullarticle/2767980

Here is their conclusion:

Excess deaths provide an estimate of the full COVID-19 burden and indicate that official tallies likely undercount deaths due to the virus. The mortality burden and the completeness of the tallies vary markedly between states.

Good night.

You, based on your statement that Statistics and Probability can be used to prove anything, in today's age, would make the 8th graders who come to our summer school programs grow silent in embarrassed empathy. If I wanted to debate buffoons, I would just debate MJL.

- PT21

You've tried debating me before and it didn't turn out very well for you. Along the lines of your comment that the more wrong something is, the easier it is to refute. If I'm a buffoon, then it should be very easy for you to put me in my place. Again. I challenge you to go over to the Misc forum to keep it off this thread and debate. Any time any place, as long as it is on a topic that I can offer insight on. Unlike you, I'm not an expert on everything.

On another note, you've mentioned me numerous times in your posts. I know what that tells me. You have an issue. It's not going away

No, my examiners were highly intelligent people.

You, based on your statement that Statistics and Probability can be used to prove anything, in today's age, would make the 8th graders who come to our summer school programs grow silent in embarrassed empathy. If I wanted to debate buffoons, I would just debate MJL.

I don't expect you to know what science, logic, probability, or statistics is. I would not sadly give you any marks for even aspiring to know.

I will however leave you with an article from JAMA, which examined this issue in detail:

https://jamanetwork.com/j...icine/fullarticle/2767980

Here is their conclusion:

Excess deaths provide an estimate of the full COVID-19 burden and indicate that official tallies likely undercount deaths due to the virus. The mortality burden and the completeness of the tallies vary markedly between states.

Good night.
- PT21

First, I never said that statistics can be used to prove anything. Scroll up, dimwit. It's right freaking there! You even quoted it! My God, Man!

As it turns out, my education and degree are in the same field that you claim to be knowledgeable in. So yes, I do have a relevant background. I guess I just went to a better school.

Sweet dreams, Snookie.

The source of news on matters like this is very relevant to their projected accuracy.

If I found two pieces of news about medical matters - one from the Mayo Clinic and the other from Breitbart, why should it even be worth my while to read the latter?
- PT21

I wanted to add something to this, in case it is misinterpreted.

Much of the life of an academic goes by in agreeing to serve as referee for journals. There, typically identifying information is stripped from the submission to ensure that everyone gets the same review process, irrespective of whether it is a graduate student or a Nobel Prize winner who has submitted an article.

But in day to day life, you do not have the luxury of examining every single piece of news as inherently being equal to others. You simply do not have time to make the judgment.

So what do you do? You look at the entities that produce information, and see who has the most strongest quality control, who hires the best people, who has the most to lose from a slip-up, and who has the most respect among people who you respect.

And after that, you keep an open mind as much as possible, but you give a priori preference to the ones that pass your tests. In the same way that a GM would trust the analysis of his scout over a source without similar credentials. Especially if that source has himself a history of poor advocacy.

Its not elitism. Its rational allocation of time.

Ok I am done.

Cheers.

First, I never said that statistics can be used to prove anything. Scroll up, dimwit. It's right freaking there! You even quoted it! My God, Man!

As it turns out, my education and degree are in the same field that you claim to be knowledgeable in. So yes, I do have a relevant background. I guess I just went to a better school.

Sweet dreams, Snookie.
- Levit8

Are you drunk?

Here is your statement.

The only statement worth addressing is your final one. "Pretty good estimates"? Did you use that in your thesis paper? Yes we have statistics and probability. Which we can use to support our argument regardless of which side we're.on.

Also, I went to Penn, and I taught at Penn and Princeton for years.

You?

I wanted to add something to this, in case it is misinterpreted.

Much of the life of an academic goes by in agreeing to serve as referee for journals. There, typically identifying information is stripped from the submission to ensure that everyone gets the same review process, irrespective of whether it is a graduate student or a Nobel Prize winner who has submitted an article.

But in day to day life, you do not have the luxury of examining every single piece of news as inherently being equal to others. You simply do not have time to make the judgment.

So what do you do? You look at the entities that produce information, and see who has the most strongest quality control, who hires the best people, who has the most to lose from a slip-up, and who has the most respect among people who you respect.

And after that, you keep an open mind as much as possible, but you give a priori preference to the ones that pass your tests. In the same way that a GM would trust the analysis of his scout over a source without similar credentials. Especially if that source has himself a history of poor advocacy.

Its not elitism. Its rational allocation of time.

Ok I am done.

Cheers.
- PT21

Most strongest? Another line from your gooderest thesis?

Most strongest? Another line from your gooderest thesis?
- Levit8

Strongest. You got me there.

Are you drunk?

Here is your statement.

The only statement worth addressing is your final one. "Pretty good estimates"? Did you use that in your thesis paper? Yes we have statistics and probability. Which we can use to support our argument regardless of which side we're.on.

Also, I went to Penn, and I taught at Penn and Princeton for years.

You?
- PT21

Support and prove are 2 very different things. You should know that.

Waggling your genitals at me just shows your insecurities. I could say I went to Harvard and Chicago and taught at Stanford (I didn't). It wouldn't prove a thing.