If true, that means the groups are different in many other aspects other than the vaccine.

The study does not control for the differences. No causality can be inferred.

So what you're saying is that they are comparing two distinct self-selected populations that differ in many other aspects than just taking the vaccine.

Why would you ascribe any difference to the vaccine rather to any other difference between the groups?

You're basically saying that the study compares two distinct populations that differ in many other aspects rather than just by vaccine.

Why then do you ascribe the difference in mortality to the vaccine?

In your flying car, no less.

That drives/flies itself

I was working in customer support for one of the first ISPs in my country when the switch from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 happened.

Windows 95 was a massive jump in usability.

Regular people simply do no understand the overlapping windows metaphor. When a windows disappears behind another they are often completely helpless. The taskbar was a life saver.

Nothing in the study actually supports the claim in the headline and much of the text, though.

How exactly extraterretial life is a statistical fact?

How is it not? Other than extremely anthropocentrically?

There are at least 200 billion trillion stars in the universe that we are aware of. That is a number beyond our comprehension. Stars generate elements. Elements form molecules. Life is built on some of these molecules.

The statistical argument is basically:

Multiplying a number beyond our comprehension by an unknown probability >= 2

Right?

I would say the statistical argument is the null argument. To invalidate it you should instead need to come up with a reason why in a billion trillion structurally relevant constructions we must be the only one where life emerges.

I too always claim my position is the null argument.

There's a video review on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3c4mQty_so

The more modern approach is fake it until a liquidity event.

> motivated by Netanyahu's almost certain knowledge that he'll go to prison if and when he loses his grip on the reins.

Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is determined by trial in an open court where defendent has the right to cross examine witnesses and present evidence. Do not assume guilt or innocence based on heavily politisized reporting.

For anyone who is not following the trial, Netanyahu was charged with bribery and a few lesser charges which do not have a direct US equivalents. As soon as the prosecution's case-in-chief was over, the judges publicly notified the prosecution that they should drop the bribery charges as they are unlikely to be able to prove them.

The prosecution case for briberty was built on a hypothesized meeting in which Netanyahu supposedely instructed the director general of the ministry of communications to serve the interests of Elovitch.

During cross examination, the defense managed to prove conclusively that such a meeting, as described, could not have occurred. They also showed that the prosecution had in its possession all the necssary evidence to show such a meeting could not have occurred.

https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/local/409910/ (use Google Translate)