What is a "control group"? Does the "scientific method" need 'em, and do our government experts agree?

One of the most fundamental tools of the "scientific method" is having a "control group."  That's the group that DIDN'T take the pill, or the jab or whatever Faaabulous New Great Thing the "experts" were pushing.

If you hear any so-called "expert" saying "Oh, we don't need such an antiquated method to know if our SuperNewJab works.  We're too sophisticated for that.  So you just need to trust us...cuz we're EXPERTS," shoot that son of a bitch on sight.  He's a con-artist, not a real scientist.

Tony Fauci, I'm looking at you.  Some "reporter" should ask you

1. "Do you know what a "control group" is?"
2. "Do you believe having such a group is a fundamental premise of "real" science?"
3. "Would you accept the results of ANY so-called "scientific study" that did NOT have such a group?

(Like taking candy from a baby.  LIke Democrat pols, Fauxi has been accustomed to NOT having to answer pointed questions for decades.  He can't avoid being trapped by the question line above.)

See, if you don't have a control group, how can you possibly KNOW whether the experimental group is better off for having taken the jab (or whatever)?  You don't have ANY way of comparing.

By demanding that everyone--down to infants!--take the jab, Fauci is trying to eliminate the control group in the U.S.  Of course he'll get huffy and angry, and say that's nonsense.  But it's what he's trying to do.

Next time Fauxi testifies before the senate, senator Rand Paul should ask him the questions above, and should then introduce a bill called the "Vax Control Group Act," which would allow any American who doesn't want to take the vax to become part of the vital, crucial "control group" by not being forced to take the jab.  

Of course it's OBVIOUS that the bill won't pass, but the point is to FORCE the lying, science-denying Dems in congress to go on the record saying a control group is NOT needed to do "real" science.  FORCE the bastards to speak out against the need for such a group.  It would make marvelous video, eh?

Since the pols ruling most nations have ORDERED everyone to take the jab, our only means of comparing the outcomes of vax vs. unvaxxed is by finding a nation that hasn't ordered its citizens to take the vax, and compare their outcome with a nation that has vaxed virtually everyone.  But to have a valid comparison we have to match the two populations for wealth and health.  So if we compared results of a poor, crowded nation with a wealthy, sparsely-populated one, liberal would instantly sneer that the comparison was unfair.

Fortunately we have two comparable nations, one of which hasn't ordered all its citizens to take the vax--and in fact never ordered masking or social distancing.  The other nation ordered the vax, and about 90% of its people are fully vaxxed, and something like 70% have even taken a third "booster shot," which Fauxi has pushed here.

The two nations are Israel and Sweden.  So let's see the results:

 

Wow, would ya look at that!  Nearly-fully-vaxxed Israel--with most residents even having taken the "booster shot" that supposedly provides EXTRA "immunity" when the "immunity" provided by the first two jabs wears off after 4 months--has a death rate roughly 35 times higher than Sweden's.

[Average low-info Democrat voter:]  "Dis not possible!  Dis be lie from right-wing extremists!  Not possible cuz da Doctor Fauci say 'da Science say you take vax so you no get covid!'  Fauci smaht!  Fauxi expert!  Fauxi know Science!  Deplorables don' know Science!  Deplorables stupid!  Fauxi smaht!  You go now!"

First: the CDC quietly changed the definition of "vaccine"--which formerly meant something that would prevent a vaccinated person from *getting* the specific disease--so it now reads "provides protection." which isn't the same thing at all.  Certainly being "immune" is the best protection, but the under the new definition just unilaterally written by the attorneys at the CDC, now they can call something a "vaccine" if it provides even the tiniest improvement in outcome.

Second: The source is those "crazy right-wing extremists" at Johns Hopkins.  Oh wait, maybe they're not right-wing extremists after all.