A scientific study from a Professor of epidemiology in the university of Pittsburgh has caused some controversy for being described as showing that the most educated people are more likely to reject the experimental COVID19 shots. Fact checkers claimed to debunk the graph being shared on social media. Let's take a look...
This graph forms the basis of posts made by several well known commentators online, which went viral. It appears to show very clearly that those with either the most or least mainstream academic education are more likely to reject the experimental COVID19 shots. However, this isn't exactly true - as these fact checkers claim to point out, the data in the study in question has been somewhat filtered in order to produce this graph. Let's not forget that statistics are often used to sell the world on all manner of ideas that could just as easily have been used to sell the opposite if they were shown in a slightly different way.
None the less, I am pretty clear that the fact checkers ALSO misled people.
Who Is Right?
The above graph is actually representative of a snapshot in time (from May) where out of those who have not received a COVID19 shot, the most educated were most likely to turn the shots down - along with the least educated.
The data in the study shows that previous months were different, with those with the lowest education being most likely to turn down the shots in previous months but their perspectives gradually changing up to May, where they became somewhat more accepting of the shots than the most educated group.
The 'fact checker' makes a big deal of the fact that the study was looking at changes in vaccine acceptance over time, but totally fails to acknowledge that during May, yes, the most educated WERE the least likely to get vaccinated out of all of the groups. The most educated group were the least likely to change their minds over time - they were determined to not get the jabs, even in the face of mounting pressure from governments and in light of emerging new data. Their concerns appear to be maintained.
This kind of finger pointing by fact checkers while blatantly demonstrating the same biases they are complaining about is VERY COMMON. Perhaps they have an agenda themselves and think that if you didn't notice the bias in the original article they are 'debunking' then you won't notice the same bias when THEY do it the other way around.. Even when it is being pointed out to you directly!
Either they think you are dumb or they themselves are in massive denial.
Analysing The Data
Without spending hours going over this, the data from the actual study, as I interpret it, shows that:
- For some reason, those with the highest level of (mainstream) academic achievement are consistently most likely to not want a jab.
- Those with the least amount of (mainstream) academic education are also quite likely to reject the jab but became more accepting over time.
- Those who are closer to the middle of the acadamic education scale were consistently more accepting of the jabs over time.
Now, this graph does not differentiate between those who are still actively in education and those who have finished and are perhaps working in their career/job, in relation to their education level. So we can't know the effect of work status on the the observed shape of this graph that relates to their education process.
So is there something about the education process that we can discern that might account for the shape of this graph? Our biases will have us trying to explain it's shape according to what we think is true - so if we think the experimental shots are awesome then we might conclude that the least educated were rejecting the jabs due to ignorance and the most educated were rejecting them due to (insert justification for disliking Doctors and Professors here). If we think that the jabs are a bad idea then we will likely claim that the Doctors know best and the least educated people haven't been corrupted by the education system yet.
However, both of these polarisations have points that need to be highlighted. If the most educated know the most and are most likely to reject the jabs, then why do those in the middle level of education most accept the jabs? Is there really something that happens at PhD level that magically makes you super smart? Don't people who reject the university education system also tend to blame the failings on the system partially on the Professors? Perhaps there is an agenda by the professors to mislead their students into having the jabs while secretly not having them themselves (but publicly admitting to it in a questionnaire!?).
One valid observation might be that those in the middle of the education process are the least free to think of their own free will, since they are being conditioned to repeat what they are told - whereas those who have their Doctor qualifications are more free to experiment and are perhaps older too. Since the study also shows that older people are generally more accepting of the jabs, age might not be so relevant as the fact that they are qualified and let loose in the world to experience and think for themselves.
The least educated might perhaps be explained as being hesitant due to a combination of them being younger (and thus at less alleged risk from COVID19) and also being less trusting of older people in general - such as those pushing the shots. They may also have received less information via education that led them to trust in the people pushing the shots too. As their freedom became more closely associated with the shots, they may have become more accepting without questioning the risks as much as they could.
The bottom line is that the most educated group remained unhappy with receiving the jabs despite new data emerging. This suggests to me that this group does indeed perhaps know something that the majority don't and they are not impressed by the efficacy or safety of the jabs. Given my recent analyses of the vaccine injury reporting systems, this is hardly surprising. It only takes a minimal amount of knowledge of data to query these systems and realise that the shots are not a great idea, but this is not the kind of activity that many people engage in. I suspect PhDs have the time and experience to do this kind of enquiry themselves, plus to communicate with their peers who have done the same.
The study in question does show that at least since May, the most educated were the most likely to reject the experimental covid19 shots. The least educated were also quite likely to reject them but were becoming more accepting over time.
The most educated seem to be resistant to changing their thinking about the shots, which could be due to them feeling self empowered enough to not be intimidated by coercion and state control policies. They may also be more aware of the risks involved and prefer to strengthen their own immunity and health naturally (with no risk as a result of that process).
The students appear to not be influenced by the most educated which might mean that they are not in contact with them (because the most educated are working outside of academia) or that the most educated simply do not influence the less educated with regards to shots - which would make sense since they are not typically employed to advise on shots unless they are medical doctors with patients.
Ultimately, everyone has to do their own due dilligence research on this topic and it may be that those in active university courses are simply too buys to do this and too pressured by their universities to get the shots in order to continue their education and try to not get bankrupted in the process.
I think it is likely that the data shows a combination of higher awareness among doctors of the risks of the shots and the reality of COVID19, along with the pressures on those in active higher education to conform and keep their heads down. Those with less education are more likely to be free but also more responsive to pressure when push comes to shove.
There IS an information war taking place and the experimental shots are at the forefront currently. Any time anyone is misleading with data on the topic of life and death matters we need to be very cautious and not forget who they are.
Fact checkers are notorious for this and have been shown many times to be heavily funded by vested interests, including Bill Gates - who himself, via his foundation, also funds the development of most 'vaccines' and even the MHRA, the UK's drug approval board!
With this in mind, it is hardly surprising that the fact checker biased their report.
At the same time, the reporters and bloggers who covered this originally typically also did a poor job of understanding and explaining the data, leaving holes in their commentary that the fact checkers could exploit.
There is no way around it, if we are going to comment on data from studies, we need to take more time than many are doing to look into the data and to make the best points possible. I myself often don't have time to do this but I will go to some lengths to explain this and go into detail and rather than make blanket statements I aim to leave space open for change and new light to be shined on the subject.
Wishing you well,
Read My User Guide for Hive Here