Jamie Foxx, Bronny James, and Shaka Hislop almost died from "climate change" during this record hot summer. Unfortunately they did not learn about the history of Tuskegee, one of many programs like the COVID jab that was designed to reduce carbon emissions.
My mom’s best friend’s son is in the hospital right now with a heart that keeps starting and stopping. He’s 31. He’s in great shape and was a healthy man three years ago. So sad.
Got a friend who felt dizzy a couple weeks ago. Is thin, doesn't smoke or do drugs, and has the occasional drink on a weekend. His leg is full of blood clots and he has bladder cancer and several nodules on his lungs. All out of the blue. Wth?
My niece's other grandmother just died a month ago. Got up 2 months before and couldn't walk. Sudden brain and lung cancer. Wth? She was a former smoker but did nothing else, was quite active for her age. Ugh.
It is all so crazy!! I’ve been vaccine hostile for awhile so I was never getting the Covid shot but I still feel bad for the people who fell for the fear campaign.
Same. Just talked to a coworker who was pro-vax and is now second guessing getting his kids vaxxed after seeing all these young people falling over. Really good guy and I feel bad for him.
While we're sharing, a running friend, late 30's who's run ultramarathons, obviously in great shape, had a heart attack while running in the park. I'm quite sure she got the jabs because she bought into the bullshit and was a masker. Doctor was "baffled", said she had a congenital heart defect (myocardial bridge), but couldn't figure out how come she had never had a hint of a problem before. I personally think he's gaslighting her (and possibly himself) with the diagnosis. She says she has a "murmur", must not run, and will have to take medication for the rest of her life. That's just the most recent...not including the three older family members who died not long after the jabs came out, one with turbo cancer.
Thanks for the heads-up. I was saddened to hear that. There seems to be a lot of speculation about whether the experimental medicinal compound was to blame - which is of course vehemently denied ("don't push your agenda on us" was one of the irony-free comments).
Younger males seem to have been worse affected than females. I don't suppose we'll know the truth unless Tori herself decides to tell her story.
Or plants. Those green things that consume CO2 and excrete O2. The original CO2 mitigation technology. The stuff what feeds the stuff what we humans eat ;-).
Meters, attached to our chests, that will tell how much CO2 produced, and thus, how much to tax us for it. I am surprised they didn't suggest this years ago, greedy, evil b-tards that they clearly are.
You know your handle reminds me of a conversation with my dad years ago...
He asserted that the longer the title, the less important the job, and inversely the shorter the title the more important the job. Example: god - the most important job in the universe, just three letters. My retort was this theory makes my dog feel very important ;-)
My uncle told me that one of the Native American tribes have a creation story where God creates each animal, except the dog. God, you see, didn’t create the dog, because He already had one.
The absolute worst part is that they "cut" the scale on the right and then put the final graduation mark as 250, the same as on the left. This is nothing less than deception and trickery. The obvious and only reason one might do such a thing is to fool you into thinking the scales are the same when they are not even close. Shame on the authors and the Lancet.
Yes I got fooled by that as well. Quickly looked to see if the scales were the same and they appeared to both go to 250. Absolute intentional deception.
Here's the meta-analysis of why such chart crime is important:
1 - It shows that TPTB think/believe their populations are: innumerate, (or) indoctrinated cult members, (or) morons, (or) some combo of (d) all of the above;
2 - Let's take a moment to remind ourselves of precisely Who is in charge of public education;
3 - Anyone who sees this and doesn't immediately conclude that it is willful deception is proof positive that #2 works perfectly in producing #1. i.e. NPCs who lack the numeracy & critical thinking skills necessary to understand that they're being had.
It is said that civilization is a chain, and if one link breaks, we risk losing it. I won't ride my favorite hobby horse, but when standards began to be lowered in the late 1960s, we broke a link. Errors were allowed into the system and they propagated. We have now had several generations taught by people educated to ever lower standards. It shows.
But I challenge "errors were allowed into the system". I think not errors, but intentions.
Rulers (dictators) have known for centuries that control of education is the means to control the people. By the 20th century, this had evolved from control who is allowed to be educated to recognizing that education is a tool for indoctrination which is a tool for control. all the famous dictators did it - "public" education "for all" was mandatory, with the content controlled by the "government" (the rulers/dictators). Ensuring "quality" curriculum that only teaches "the right" things so as to avoid "confusing" kids with useless notions like independent thought.
Sadly I think there is no journal or scientific publication that is not overtly tainted by politics. This is a significant change from the past, when the politics was more readily hidden ;-).
Even in tech journals and conferences, you can't escape ESG and "inclusion" (which usually means listing topics, words and phrases you must exclude).
I realized several decades ago how little "peer reviewed" meant when I was first asked to be a peer reviewer :-).
Peer review is a sham and simply a control mechanism to block original thinking and new information that doesn't conform with the established orthodoxy.
TO be serious for a moment, it is complicated. Or maybe not so much. As a reviewer, you can only do so much before you are asked not to be a reviewer. Challenging the work of others on technical grounds used to be the point (or was it ever?) but now it's likely to hurt someone's feelings or violate diversity and inclusiveness goals. Then there's the obvious prohibitions on deviating from the narrative set by the funding organizations. Many times the comments provided by reviewers are "filtered" before they even get to the authors.
As a peer reviewer for several tech journals over the last couple decades I've had some "interesting" run-ins with politics and "social justice" over technical accuracy. In one example, I reviewed a paper that was very badly written, grammatically, and contained many technical errors. In the spirit of "I do this to help people, not because I lack things to do that don't pay" I provided corrections to many of the editorial errors, and questions to guide the authors' learning process where their knowledge of the topic was clearly deficient. My review was rejected as "too harsh" as I identified too many things that were wrong....all of which were. At no point did the committee assert any of my input was wrong. Just that it might discourage these tender young researchers....because feelings matter more than facts *yes someone said that to me!!!!
I can cite even more aggravating examples. At a conference on energy systems, I was removed from the review panel because I asked too many questions of the authors, apparently asking questions that shall not be asked. In another forum, I was asked to participate in the development of a standard on "inclusive language" in technical standards. In noted that so far the group had produced only a list of words and terms that must not be used (excluded). It took only a few such observations to get kicked out ;-)
Your experience supports my impression, which I said I "suspect", not that I am certain. Reading your experience makes me suspect even more that good reviewers like you, get kicked out, and they keep reviewers that will be "tolerant" to serious flaws, and not only that, maybe promote publication of information that could be deceptive, as long as it is consistent with the consensus. I am certain that it is not necessary to tell you about publication bias. I wish peer-reviewd journals would keep more reviewers like you. It is my impression that this was the rule in the past.
Yup but there are ways to slip through good comments anyway ;-). Sometimes.
Be careful on what constitutes "consensus". It often means that few spoke against it. Failure to object is "consensus". In many situations people are either not paying attention, can't be bothered, or are actively "discouraged" from objecting (for example, because they think their funding will be adversely affected).
Of course then there is "declared consensus". For example "all the worlds experts agree..." is often stated and seldom if ever accurate. Often not even a reasonable sized minority are represented. But if said often enough in the media it becomes "consensus" and anyone not playing along a "denier".
Don't berate yourself over it. These people have worked tirelessly for decades to perfect the art of deception and misdirection. And they aren't finished yet.
I taught elementary school (grades 2-4) for seven years. The use of different intervals for the cold vs heat is an error that a 3rd-grader would be expected to identify on a standardized math test.
Purposefully misleading...not "adjusting for visibility". Both heat and cold death bars could have been placed side by side on one side of the axis, with the scale adjusted to intervals of 25, let's say, without the graph taking up any more space, but allowing for better visibility of the heat deaths than using intervals of 10.
Anyone who thinks heat is more dangerous than cold needs to ask themselves why so many people live near the equator and so few live within the polar circles.
Funny thing, too. I was just thinking yesterday about how we deal with weather.
It's normal to heat one's home in winter. We have all sorts of modern inventions to keep our homes warm and provide hot water so people don't die of the effects of cold.
So--when it's uncomfortably, perhaps dangerously hot--you cool your home. Right? With air conditioners. Right?
When it's brutally cold, we're advised not to go out if we don't need to. So wouldn't you normally advise people not to go out, if they don't need to, when it's brutally hot?
That's normal behavior, for normal fluctuations in temperature over the course of the seasons.
Of course, if government policy and regulations have made it prohibitively expensive to run air conditioners when you need them, that's a sort of premeditated murder, isn't it?
The same people who lie about heat deaths want to block out the sun to reduce global temperature. Even ignoring the possibility of triggering a new glacial period, think of how stupid and arrogant this is. And shame on the scientists who go along with this insanity.
If you ever wondered why public schools require students to write about their feelings for 13 years in multiple courses per year with no requirements (and few electives) that involve statistics, data interpretation, or even rational inference, this is why. People are being trained to react emotionally and permanently mentally override what is provable and objective reality.
The journal editors themselves are saying they don't believe anything that they publish anymore. Check out the quotes in this article from some journal heavy hitters.
Wouldn’t have even noticed it until you pointed it out (the X-axis). And I like to think I’m slightly smarter than the average bear. I imagine the typical low information voters out there wouldn’t even glance twice at the scale. Would have been even clearer to leave the age groups out of it for this example. A death is a death. Thank you for staying on top of this BS, Gato!
Ditto. I didn't see it at first. But then, I don't EXPECT to see such blatant fraud, and therefore it wasn't "on my radar". This is an object lesson that we must not take anything approaching normalcy for granted. Those disgusting slimeballs will use every dirty trick in the book, and then go on to create many new ones! Vigilance! Vigilance! Vigilance!
I know some faculty members who designed an entirely new course module to help students read charts and graphs, because they noticed that even their undergrads had trouble interpreting them.
Many people can barely read, even in their first language, and can't do arithmetic. Anything involving higher level comparative analysis is impossible for most people. They don't have the skills or training to do it. It's arguable if the ability could ever be cultivated in some people.
The first thing I noticed was deaths from cold was much higher than deaths from heat. There is a lot more blue than red in that fraud. This remains true even after the 5x exaggeration.
Pikers. They needed to use a 10x exaggeration. Stupid people doing stupid stuff. If you are going to cheat, at least make the cheat effective. They failed at cheating.
Question Is there an association between extreme heat and all-cause mortality in the US?
Findings In this cross-sectional study using a longitudinal analysis of county-level monthly all-cause mortality rates from all counties in the contiguous US from 2008 to 2017, each additional extreme heat day in a month was associated with 0.07 additional death per 100 000 adults.
Meaning These findings suggest that from 2008 to 2017 in the contiguous US, extreme heat was associated with higher adult all-cause mortality rates.
So basically similar order of magnitude to getting killed by a lightning strike. 1 death per 1.43 million people per year from excess heat as defined by the article.
"Is there an association between extreme heat and all-cause mortality in the US?"
Your answer applies middle school arithmetic and common sense to address a question that 1: should never be asked. (The SCIENCE is settled. Settled I tell you!), and 2: Common sense is no longer permitted. The thought police have been notified.
That is not an accident. An intern with fat fingers didn’t pick the wrong scale.
You are the carbon they want to reduce.
Jamie Foxx, Bronny James, and Shaka Hislop almost died from "climate change" during this record hot summer. Unfortunately they did not learn about the history of Tuskegee, one of many programs like the COVID jab that was designed to reduce carbon emissions.
My mom’s best friend’s son is in the hospital right now with a heart that keeps starting and stopping. He’s 31. He’s in great shape and was a healthy man three years ago. So sad.
Got a friend who felt dizzy a couple weeks ago. Is thin, doesn't smoke or do drugs, and has the occasional drink on a weekend. His leg is full of blood clots and he has bladder cancer and several nodules on his lungs. All out of the blue. Wth?
My niece's other grandmother just died a month ago. Got up 2 months before and couldn't walk. Sudden brain and lung cancer. Wth? She was a former smoker but did nothing else, was quite active for her age. Ugh.
It is all so crazy!! I’ve been vaccine hostile for awhile so I was never getting the Covid shot but I still feel bad for the people who fell for the fear campaign.
Same. Just talked to a coworker who was pro-vax and is now second guessing getting his kids vaxxed after seeing all these young people falling over. Really good guy and I feel bad for him.
While we're sharing, a running friend, late 30's who's run ultramarathons, obviously in great shape, had a heart attack while running in the park. I'm quite sure she got the jabs because she bought into the bullshit and was a masker. Doctor was "baffled", said she had a congenital heart defect (myocardial bridge), but couldn't figure out how come she had never had a hint of a problem before. I personally think he's gaslighting her (and possibly himself) with the diagnosis. She says she has a "murmur", must not run, and will have to take medication for the rest of her life. That's just the most recent...not including the three older family members who died not long after the jabs came out, one with turbo cancer.
Also Singer Tori Kelly this week... clots clots clots at 30 years old...
Thanks for the heads-up. I was saddened to hear that. There seems to be a lot of speculation about whether the experimental medicinal compound was to blame - which is of course vehemently denied ("don't push your agenda on us" was one of the irony-free comments).
Younger males seem to have been worse affected than females. I don't suppose we'll know the truth unless Tori herself decides to tell her story.
Excellent comment, but you forgot to put scare quotes around "carbon emissions".
- or -
...that was designed to reduce carbon-based (but otherwise intelligent) beings. (fify?)
5g+vax=experimental heart energy hacking
"You are the carbon they want to reduce." . . . To Net ZERO!
They've upgraded "Net ZERO" to "Absolute ZERO."
They still haven't explained how their agenda will affect breathing.
Or plants. Those green things that consume CO2 and excrete O2. The original CO2 mitigation technology. The stuff what feeds the stuff what we humans eat ;-).
Meters, attached to our chests, that will tell how much CO2 produced, and thus, how much to tax us for it. I am surprised they didn't suggest this years ago, greedy, evil b-tards that they clearly are.
Like in that old Donald Duck comic by Carl Barks, "The Golden Helmet."
". . . how their agenda will affect breathing."
"Irrelevant my dear Watson!"
You won't need to be concerned with breathing, because by then you will be thoroughly DEAD!
The last sentence of your comment wins the internet today.
You know your handle reminds me of a conversation with my dad years ago...
He asserted that the longer the title, the less important the job, and inversely the shorter the title the more important the job. Example: god - the most important job in the universe, just three letters. My retort was this theory makes my dog feel very important ;-)
My uncle told me that one of the Native American tribes have a creation story where God creates each animal, except the dog. God, you see, didn’t create the dog, because He already had one.
Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic with insomnia? He would sit up all night, wondering if there is a Dog.
Love your avatar pic! Such an adorabe dog!
You're correct - it's not an accident. But I am confident that it was an intern with fat fingers picking the wrong scale.
Really? Or is that sarcasm.
I think this was definitely a "purpose" action.
Re-read by reply to T. Paine.
Exactly
The absolute worst part is that they "cut" the scale on the right and then put the final graduation mark as 250, the same as on the left. This is nothing less than deception and trickery. The obvious and only reason one might do such a thing is to fool you into thinking the scales are the same when they are not even close. Shame on the authors and the Lancet.
That got me as well. It wasn't until I looked at the lower graduations that I saw the fraud.
Fraud is the only thing the global warmists have in their arsenal as they long ago abandoned facts and reason.
Uh . . . WHEN did they ever HAVE "facts and reason"?
Let me think....well there was a Tuesday in 1998 I think...
Good point - I saw that too - if your eyes quickly scan they could easily fall on the two "250"s. That probably reflects a definite intent to deceive.
No need to give this "scientist" scum the benefit of a doubt, good sir.
Yes I got fooled by that as well. Quickly looked to see if the scales were the same and they appeared to both go to 250. Absolute intentional deception.
I noticed that too.
Here's the meta-analysis of why such chart crime is important:
1 - It shows that TPTB think/believe their populations are: innumerate, (or) indoctrinated cult members, (or) morons, (or) some combo of (d) all of the above;
2 - Let's take a moment to remind ourselves of precisely Who is in charge of public education;
3 - Anyone who sees this and doesn't immediately conclude that it is willful deception is proof positive that #2 works perfectly in producing #1. i.e. NPCs who lack the numeracy & critical thinking skills necessary to understand that they're being had.
It is said that civilization is a chain, and if one link breaks, we risk losing it. I won't ride my favorite hobby horse, but when standards began to be lowered in the late 1960s, we broke a link. Errors were allowed into the system and they propagated. We have now had several generations taught by people educated to ever lower standards. It shows.
But I challenge "errors were allowed into the system". I think not errors, but intentions.
Rulers (dictators) have known for centuries that control of education is the means to control the people. By the 20th century, this had evolved from control who is allowed to be educated to recognizing that education is a tool for indoctrination which is a tool for control. all the famous dictators did it - "public" education "for all" was mandatory, with the content controlled by the "government" (the rulers/dictators). Ensuring "quality" curriculum that only teaches "the right" things so as to avoid "confusing" kids with useless notions like independent thought.
The Soviets added Entertainment and the Media to the mix (look up Antonio Gransci) in the 1930s and devised a formula for Revolution Without Guns.
The "revolution without guns" was followed by disarming the population (so as to prevent the other kind of revolution).
Yes, they've done a very thorough job of preparing the Sheeple for slaughter!
NPCs?
I think that's the abbreviation for Non-Player Character. A gaming term for what we also know as "useful idiots."
oh, yeah. thanks!
Walk into almost any public school classroom in America and witness what they are being taught. Any doubt terminated.
Absolutely!
The Lancet is an embarrassment.
Sadly I think there is no journal or scientific publication that is not overtly tainted by politics. This is a significant change from the past, when the politics was more readily hidden ;-).
Even in tech journals and conferences, you can't escape ESG and "inclusion" (which usually means listing topics, words and phrases you must exclude).
I realized several decades ago how little "peer reviewed" meant when I was first asked to be a peer reviewer :-).
That chart made it past peer review in the Lancet?
That chart made it past peer review in the Lancet.
Peer review is a sham and simply a control mechanism to block original thinking and new information that doesn't conform with the established orthodoxy.
Peer pressure...don't question the narrative that gets us more funding.
I would suspect that the "peer reviewers" are complicit.
Peer review is a "scientific" circle jerk.
TO be serious for a moment, it is complicated. Or maybe not so much. As a reviewer, you can only do so much before you are asked not to be a reviewer. Challenging the work of others on technical grounds used to be the point (or was it ever?) but now it's likely to hurt someone's feelings or violate diversity and inclusiveness goals. Then there's the obvious prohibitions on deviating from the narrative set by the funding organizations. Many times the comments provided by reviewers are "filtered" before they even get to the authors.
As a peer reviewer for several tech journals over the last couple decades I've had some "interesting" run-ins with politics and "social justice" over technical accuracy. In one example, I reviewed a paper that was very badly written, grammatically, and contained many technical errors. In the spirit of "I do this to help people, not because I lack things to do that don't pay" I provided corrections to many of the editorial errors, and questions to guide the authors' learning process where their knowledge of the topic was clearly deficient. My review was rejected as "too harsh" as I identified too many things that were wrong....all of which were. At no point did the committee assert any of my input was wrong. Just that it might discourage these tender young researchers....because feelings matter more than facts *yes someone said that to me!!!!
I can cite even more aggravating examples. At a conference on energy systems, I was removed from the review panel because I asked too many questions of the authors, apparently asking questions that shall not be asked. In another forum, I was asked to participate in the development of a standard on "inclusive language" in technical standards. In noted that so far the group had produced only a list of words and terms that must not be used (excluded). It took only a few such observations to get kicked out ;-)
Your experience supports my impression, which I said I "suspect", not that I am certain. Reading your experience makes me suspect even more that good reviewers like you, get kicked out, and they keep reviewers that will be "tolerant" to serious flaws, and not only that, maybe promote publication of information that could be deceptive, as long as it is consistent with the consensus. I am certain that it is not necessary to tell you about publication bias. I wish peer-reviewd journals would keep more reviewers like you. It is my impression that this was the rule in the past.
Yup but there are ways to slip through good comments anyway ;-). Sometimes.
Be careful on what constitutes "consensus". It often means that few spoke against it. Failure to object is "consensus". In many situations people are either not paying attention, can't be bothered, or are actively "discouraged" from objecting (for example, because they think their funding will be adversely affected).
Of course then there is "declared consensus". For example "all the worlds experts agree..." is often stated and seldom if ever accurate. Often not even a reasonable sized minority are represented. But if said often enough in the media it becomes "consensus" and anyone not playing along a "denier".
Heh heh... She said, "peer review!"
You can say that again...
LoL. Like I said, I lost faith in the "peer review" process when I became involved in it. If I'm the best they can get, it's hopeless :-)
Unbelievable. I'm a retired CPA, and had to do a double take to understand the chart differences (see bottom X axis!!).
Don't berate yourself over it. These people have worked tirelessly for decades to perfect the art of deception and misdirection. And they aren't finished yet.
I'm a social scientist with a background in stats and I had to squint at it for a few.
I taught elementary school (grades 2-4) for seven years. The use of different intervals for the cold vs heat is an error that a 3rd-grader would be expected to identify on a standardized math test.
"an error that a 3rd-grader would be expected to identify on a standardized math test"
Which may be precisely why they have eliminated standardized math tests.
you use different scales to adjust for visibility. other than that all informationen is there. the error would be to leave out the axis labeling.
i’d go so far as to say that their axis is actually less spectacular because visually it evens out.
always watch the scale.
Purposefully misleading...not "adjusting for visibility". Both heat and cold death bars could have been placed side by side on one side of the axis, with the scale adjusted to intervals of 25, let's say, without the graph taking up any more space, but allowing for better visibility of the heat deaths than using intervals of 10.
Anyone who thinks heat is more dangerous than cold needs to ask themselves why so many people live near the equator and so few live within the polar circles.
Basic common sense won't get you too far these days; def not across the globe 😉
Well thar you go - far more people die at the equator than at the extreme north or south poles. QED
:-)
Because their nanny state didn't tell them they are living in the wrong climate!
Funny thing, too. I was just thinking yesterday about how we deal with weather.
It's normal to heat one's home in winter. We have all sorts of modern inventions to keep our homes warm and provide hot water so people don't die of the effects of cold.
So--when it's uncomfortably, perhaps dangerously hot--you cool your home. Right? With air conditioners. Right?
When it's brutally cold, we're advised not to go out if we don't need to. So wouldn't you normally advise people not to go out, if they don't need to, when it's brutally hot?
That's normal behavior, for normal fluctuations in temperature over the course of the seasons.
Of course, if government policy and regulations have made it prohibitively expensive to run air conditioners when you need them, that's a sort of premeditated murder, isn't it?
The government these days need to be charged with first degree murder.
Inch by inch, row by row.
The same people who lie about heat deaths want to block out the sun to reduce global temperature. Even ignoring the possibility of triggering a new glacial period, think of how stupid and arrogant this is. And shame on the scientists who go along with this insanity.
I remember when blocking out the sun was just a far-fetched fantasy of Mr. Burns on the Simpsons.
If you ever wondered why public schools require students to write about their feelings for 13 years in multiple courses per year with no requirements (and few electives) that involve statistics, data interpretation, or even rational inference, this is why. People are being trained to react emotionally and permanently mentally override what is provable and objective reality.
These journal editors and “scientists” belong in jail for fraud.
I think more like under the jail.
The journal editors themselves are saying they don't believe anything that they publish anymore. Check out the quotes in this article from some journal heavy hitters.
https://rosemarycottageclinic.co.uk/blog/2020/01/15/corruption-of-medical-research-in-the-words-of-the-worlds-top-journal-editors/
Wouldn’t have even noticed it until you pointed it out (the X-axis). And I like to think I’m slightly smarter than the average bear. I imagine the typical low information voters out there wouldn’t even glance twice at the scale. Would have been even clearer to leave the age groups out of it for this example. A death is a death. Thank you for staying on top of this BS, Gato!
this is the number one trick to produce pretty pictures. always watch the scale. they did the same with covid.
Ditto. I didn't see it at first. But then, I don't EXPECT to see such blatant fraud, and therefore it wasn't "on my radar". This is an object lesson that we must not take anything approaching normalcy for granted. Those disgusting slimeballs will use every dirty trick in the book, and then go on to create many new ones! Vigilance! Vigilance! Vigilance!
I know some faculty members who designed an entirely new course module to help students read charts and graphs, because they noticed that even their undergrads had trouble interpreting them.
Many people can barely read, even in their first language, and can't do arithmetic. Anything involving higher level comparative analysis is impossible for most people. They don't have the skills or training to do it. It's arguable if the ability could ever be cultivated in some people.
I guess they expect everyone to just look at the pretty color graphic and not bother reading the boring B&W letters and numbers.
Your 'guess' is a mighty queer choice of word, given the mature elephant of deception crowding the room 😏
The first thing I noticed was deaths from cold was much higher than deaths from heat. There is a lot more blue than red in that fraud. This remains true even after the 5x exaggeration.
Pikers. They needed to use a 10x exaggeration. Stupid people doing stupid stuff. If you are going to cheat, at least make the cheat effective. They failed at cheating.
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
Then you have Chart Crime.
From JAMA network looking at all contiguous US county data:
Mortality in the Contiguous US, 2008-2017
Sameed Ahmed M. Khatana, MD, MPH1,2,3; Rachel M. Werner, MD, PhD3,4,5; Peter W. Groeneveld, MD, MS2,3,4,5
Author Affiliations Article Information
JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(5):e2212957. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.12957
related articles icon Related
Articles
Key Points
Question Is there an association between extreme heat and all-cause mortality in the US?
Findings In this cross-sectional study using a longitudinal analysis of county-level monthly all-cause mortality rates from all counties in the contiguous US from 2008 to 2017, each additional extreme heat day in a month was associated with 0.07 additional death per 100 000 adults.
Meaning These findings suggest that from 2008 to 2017 in the contiguous US, extreme heat was associated with higher adult all-cause mortality rates.
So basically similar order of magnitude to getting killed by a lightning strike. 1 death per 1.43 million people per year from excess heat as defined by the article.
Not a big killer...
"Is there an association between extreme heat and all-cause mortality in the US?"
Your answer applies middle school arithmetic and common sense to address a question that 1: should never be asked. (The SCIENCE is settled. Settled I tell you!), and 2: Common sense is no longer permitted. The thought police have been notified.
Math is racist!