Universal Healthcare (M4all): Italy’s government chooses if you live or die with/out the Coronavirus
- Thread starter Warren Moon
- Start date
Great - Thanks!
Now link me in that article where the threshold level of "non-existence" significance is listed?
I dont think you fully understand . . . Are you saying <5% (or p value <0.05) means non existent? It actually means to reject the null hypothesis and assume the data is randomly distributed
. All you had to say was you meant it was less likely, but you continue with "non existent" which you still cant give me a statistical threshold for.And secondly, correlate your now personally established "non-existent" threshold of 5%, apply it to your own thread argument, and proceed to bush this thread
Great - Thanks!
Now link me in that article where the threshold level of "non-existence" significance is listed?
I dont think you fully understand . . . Are you saying <5% (or p value <0.05) means non existent? It actually means to reject the null hypothesis and assume the data is randomly distributed
And secondly, correlate your now personally established "non-existent" threshold of 5%, apply it to your own thread argument, and proceed to bush this thread
Just google it. No one even uses 5% but to the “elite” less than 2-1.5% is the gold standard.
u were wrong get over it.
To the bolded - again, pure lies
. I work in clinical immunogenicity, - 5% and 0.1-1% thresholds are very significant for different reasons you donkey 
Again - I'm asking you for facts - you arent providing me with any thing because you're talking bullshyt. Link me legit statistical papers defining your claims of:
1. "non existent" statistical thresholds
2. "elite" 2-1.5% gold standards
If you cant, then just admit you're lying and keep it moving
To the bolded - again, pure lies
Again - I'm asking you for facts - you arent providing me with any thing because you're talking bullshyt. Link me legit statistical papers defining your claims of:
1. "non existent" statistical thresholds
2. "elite" 2-1.5% gold standards
If you cant, then just admit you're lying and keep it moving
right. What’s the difference for clinical immunogenicity and polling data statistical significance (And any other statistical studie)
The clinical immunogenicity threshold is attributed to all other statistical thresholds.
Woah buddy u got me on that one. You’re fields methodologies are the baseline for all statistical thresholds.
fukk how did I mis that.
I forgot about the field you work in sets the standards for statistical thresholds in every study.my bad
right. What’s the difference for clinical immunogenicity and polling data statistical significance (And any other statistical studie)
The clinical immunogenicity threshold is attributed to all other statistical thresholds.
Woah buddy u got me on that one. You’re fields methodologies are the baseline for all statistical thresholds.
fukk how did I mis that.
my bad
You again probably need to re-read what you said you donkey
So i told you some fields do use 5%
I thought you just said no one does? Even the one website you did link stated a 5% one tailed or 2.5% two tailed significance you moron, but apparently you say no one uses it . . You are a special kind of idiot.And why do you keep avoiding coming up with any stats papers referencing your:
1. "non existent" statistical thresholds
2. "elite" 2-1.5% gold standards
Provide evidence or just take the L
You again probably need to re-read what you said you donkey
So i told you some fields do use 5%
And why do you keep avoiding coming up with any stats papers referencing your:
1. "non existent" statistical thresholds
2. "elite" 2-1.5% gold standards
Provide evidence or just take the L
Please provide the evidence that I’m wrong
You again probably need to re-read what you said you donkey
So i told you some fields do use 5%
And why do you keep avoiding coming up with any stats papers referencing your:
1. "non existent" statistical thresholds
2. "elite" 2-1.5% gold standards
Provide evidence or just take the L
Read the bolded - You proved yourself that you were wrong
Now for like the 5th time of asking,
Link me stats papers referencing your:
1. "non existent" statistical thresholds
2. "elite" 2-1.5% gold standards
show me the studies where they used 5% or 2.5%?
Read your own link dipshyt
Now for like the 6th time of asking,
Link me stats papers referencing your:
1. "non existent" statistical thresholds
2. "elite" 2-1.5% gold standards
Read your own link dipshyt
Why do studies use 5% or less than 2% significance in studies? What makes them pick one or the other?
Ill might tell you once you stop deflecting and link me stats papers referencing your:
1. "non existent" statistical thresholds
2. "elite" 2-1.5% gold standards
Or just admit you made it up and keep it moving
Ill might tell you once you stop deflecting and link me stats papers referencing your:
1. "non existent" statistical thresholds
2. "elite" 2-1.5% gold standards
Or just admit you made it up and keep it moving
Show me. I didn’t make it up, maybe I’m wrong.
How am I wrong? Please share the knowledge
Are you retarded?
You made the claim, there is absolutely nothing i can find to confirm what you are saying hence i'm asking you to provide me with your sources, which you repeatedly cant come up with
Just admit you made it up and keep it moving, or show the evidence. Surely you're not this stupid?
Are you retarded?
You made the claim, there is absolutely nothing i can find to confirm what you are saying hence i'm asking you to provide me with your sources, which you repeatedly cant come up with
Just admit you made it up and keep it moving, or show the evidence. Surely you're not this stupid?
What’d you find that confirmed I was wrong?
