📊 WHERE’S THE P-VALUE? THAT ANSWER WASN’T JUST MISLEADING—IT WAS REVEALING.

They Say Astrology Isn’t Real…

So why are billion-dollar companies hiring astrologers in secret?

A few years ago, I attended a research conference where a fellow astrologer presented a bold finding. 

I asked:

"Where’s the p-value?"

They said:
🔍 But When Astrology Is Studied Publicly…

"Nobody uses those anymore."

That answer wasn’t just misleading—it was revealing.

The p-value helps us determine whether a result is due to chance or if it is a genuine occurrence. In astrology, that matters. A lot.

But instead of taking astrology seriously, most researchers dismiss it publicly... while corporations use it privately.

💼 What I Know as a Certified Business Astrologer:

Corporate executives hire astrologers under NDAs, paying $250K–300K annually. They consult for:

• Mergers

• IPOs

• Product launches

• Market trades

• Executive timing

A peer-reviewed study of 1,300 couples showed that Sun-Venus aspects appeared around relationship milestones at odds of 1 in 244 billion. That should have been undeniable.

Instead, the critics sliced the data into tiny samples to dilute the result. It’s a process called p-hacking, and it’s how science can be manipulated to fit an agenda.

The truth was there. But they cut it apart to hide it.

They don’t share the results. They don’t go public. They just quietly cash in on astrology’s precision. 

CRK Astrology Re:Phase __ Standing Up, And For The Truth

We coach. We teach. We guide. But most importantly, we tell the truth:

• Astrology works.

• The elite use it.

• You deserve access too.

It’s not about superstition. It’s about sovereignty, timing, and wisdom.

🔹 Ready to See the System They’re Hiding?

I'm offering readings, coaching, and soon — a free download of my new book:

✨ Placed With Purpose: The Archetypal Industrial Ecosystem ✨

Coming July 3rd. Stay subscribed for first access.

Would you like to book a one-on-one session or collaborate? Just hit reply.

Signature: With fierce clarity,
Christie Rhuems-Kotzman
Founder, CRK | Re: Phase
Conscious Leadership Educator
Certified Business + Medical Astrologer

📱 www.bookcrk.com
📧 cpkotz@gmail.com
📕 Placed With Purpose releases July 3
📍 Featured speaker: "Females Astrologers of Influence". Christie Rhuems-Kotzman: Getting Real About Astrology And The Systems and Scientists That are (P)-HACKING IT For Their Advantage.

Watch on Zoom on July 16th; the link will be provided on my website.

The following article is below. I encourage you to read it because this isn't just about astrology; it's about the spread of misinformation as a whole and how it's falsified. I encourage you to read it because this isn't just about astrology; it's the spread of misinformation as a whole and how it’s shrouded in falsified information.

⇣⇣⇣

What the Astrologically Curious Should Know About P-values

July 16, 2021, is the publication date!

An astrological editor and researcher states that the p-value is the only statistic that measures the level of certainty that a claim is supported by evidence.

A few years ago, in those heady days when we could jet around the world with ease, I ended up at a conference in Florida. A researcher presented an impressive-looking graph supporting an astrological claim. I asked why there was no p-value. The response came as a shock: “P-values are overdone, and no one uses them these days.”

P-values are based on probabilities and, on their own, can be a problem (more on that later). But rejecting them outright is not the solution. At Correlation, the Astrological Association Journal of Research in Science, we publish both qualitative and quantitative research. For the latter, the p-value is critical. It is the only statistic that measures the level of certainty that a claim is supported by evidence or not.

The p-value represents the probability that the result is due to chance. In the social sciences, a p-value of .05 or below is generally considered to be the threshold to determine that a result is significant or unlikely to be a fluke.  At this level (p = .05), there is expected to be only a 5% chance that the result is random and a 95% chance that there is a meaningful correlation or a 1 in 20 chance of a fluke result versus a 19 in 20 chance that the result supports an astrological claim.

The p-value represents the best protection against random artifacts that are inevitable, given the high combinatorial complexity of astrology. A p-value answers key questions: Can the apparent coincidence between the results and astrological claims be dismissed as chance? Or, if the result is close to significance, could a larger sample add sufficient statistical power to confirm or reject the null hypothesis? Given the controversial nature of astrology, this measure will be a critic’s first checkpoint on the list.

For astrological research, the p-value remains our most important starting metric.

More importantly, statistical significance is the gateway and not the destination. As research into astrology advances and results with significant correlations accumulate, we can start to analyze the size of its apparent effects. A p-value does not answer the question “Is this significant correlation meaningful and strong?” On a practical level, a consultant astrologer needs to know if it is probable that this correlation will manifest in personal consultations. Or whether it is only evident in certain conditions, such as in combination with another reinforcing chart feature. For this, we need the Effect Size (ES).

The Effect Size is a quantitative measure of the strength of a phenomenon. In astrology, this primarily refers to the difference between the observed group and the control group, or the expected values. The key metrics — effect size, sample size, and p-value — are all interrelated. The problem with evaluating a study or comparing different studies based solely on p-values is that a large sample with a weak effect size can yield the exact p-value as a small sample with a large effect size. Astrology studies are typically small samples with small effect sizes. The ES enables comparisons among studies of different sizes.

While many astrology researchers are adept at p-value calculations, the Effect Size presents a challenge. The methods of calculating ES vary with different scales, and online documentation does not address some of the unique tests that apply to our field. Nevertheless, the metrics that accompany p-values (such as ES) not only make the findings more informative but also help verify the methods.

At the moment, science is entangled in a “reproducibility crisis.”

Stanford professor John Ioannidis claims that simulations indicate most current published research findings are false (2005). Most are either not replicated or cannot be replicated. This predicament is most prevalent in medicine and in the social sciences, notably psychology. Science students, lecturers, and funded researchers are often under pressure to demonstrate statistical significance. Failure to meet this artificial gold standard diminishes their academic prospects and funding opportunities.

A significance threshold (alpha) of .05 means that 1 in 20 tests is likely to be significant by chance alone. This leaves ample scope for adjusting the results to achieve significance. This is mainly achieved through a practice known as p-hacking, which involves re-analyzing data in various ways to yield a targeted outcome. Astrology is vulnerable to this because there are many variables and many techniques. For example, this can occur with the mixed use of multiple celestial points (such as asteroids, minor planets, nodes, and fixed stars) or the creation of new systems. To counter p-hacking, tests that do not follow the principle of parsimony (i.e., the simplest explanation is usually best) are becoming increasingly rare. Groups with complete birth data are increasingly rare due to this, and those that assess established claims need greater scrutiny.

On the other hand, astrology researchers are not compromised by academic or commercial pressure. No one has an endless supply of fruit flies to sample until the results fit. Even in the era of Big Data, large samples of homogeneous groups with complete birth data are increasingly rare due to data protection laws.

Most p-hacking results in false positives, known as Type I errors, but occasionally samples can be manipulated to produce false negatives – Type II errors. For decades, p-hacking has been used by some critics of astrology to discredit experiments supporting astrology, even after all rational criticism has been considered. In what is also known as “data butchery,” samples are chopped into small parts to push the p-value into statistical insignificance.

If done unintentionally, it is a poor use of statistics, as it contradicts the primary goal of research, which is to generate measurable and testable data. 

If it is done intentionally, then any attempt to ‘divide and discredit’ is an unethical attempt to conceal the truth.

The Carlson Experiment (1985) is still rated as the most famous test that falsifies astrology.

Yet, there is no legitimate explanation as to why Carlson’s results from one test were split into three smaller samples using results from a different test. Upon reviewing the test, I attributed this to a sampling error. However, given the four-year gap between the experiment and publication, it is difficult to rule out the possibility that the significant results (for astrology) were deliberately distorted by p-hacking.

In Dean’s critical studies of Extraversion and Neuroticism (1981-86), the original sample set of 1,198 participants was reduced to a set of 288 subjects (34 percent) with extreme personality scores. These were subdivided into eight blocks of 36 subjects. It was only when the small samples were re-combined that a pattern correlating with the four astrological elements could be measured to a significant level.

To illustrate how sample size affects how significant an outcome is, let’s look at this simple example. When you toss a coin, you have a 50:50 chance of guessing heads or tails correctly. Now, if you do ten successive tosses and find that you have correctly guessed seven times, you might think that you are doing very well and have some super guessing ability because you’ve guessed more than 50% correctly. But in fact, with only 10 tosses, you actually have a one in six chance of getting seven correct just by chance, which statistically is not significant. However, if you increase the number of tosses to 100, and you get 70 correct (still 70 percent), the odds of getting that many correct are roughly one in 25,000. And this, being such a remote possibility, can’t be put down to chance.

If there are no apparent flaws in this highly significant result, a critic may attempt to debunk it by cutting down the number of coin tosses (the sample size). This is done by dividing the results into many smaller samples and/or by eliminating most of the coin tosses using incidental criteria.

Nowadays, data butchery is just as rife.

In Tests of Astrology, the authors (Geoffrey Dean et al.) reviewed Paul Westran’s 2005 study of natal and progressed aspects between 1,300 couples. What the authors don’t report is a staggering p-value result for Westran’s key finding, which was based on seven major and minor aspects between the Sun and planet Venus in the compared natal and progressed birth charts of these couples. The Sun and the planet Venus formed positive or challenging aspects (angles) significantly more often than expected by chance at the start or end of romantic relationships or marriages.

The odds were 244 billion to one against this result being a random occurrence.  

↑ READ THAT NUMBER AGAIN! ↑

Even when broken down into 28 smaller samples, the statistical result remained significant. Without pausing to acknowledge another remarkable p-value of their first reductionist test, our undaunted critical reviewers sliced up the sample further. 

First, they removed almost two-thirds of the couples. 

The remaining 447 pairs were then subdivided into 56 tiny samples for no valid reason. 

Instead of simplifying the data, the reviewers then added another 56 tiny samples by including Sun-Sun and Venus-Venus interactions, which were not part of Westran’s hypothesis. 

Not surprisingly, with the data divided into 112 small samples (some with as low a frequency as 3), the reviewers concluded that the previous emphasis on 0-degree, 120-degree, and 180-degree aspects between the couples’ progressed and natal Sun and Venus placements “disappeared.”

A follow-up peer-reviewed study was published recently in Correlation. By repeating his results in the second study, Westran confirmed that the conclusion reached by Dean and his associates was misleading. It was a clever ruse that broke faith with a researcher who had trusted and cooperated with the authors. But the desperation of this attempted debunk confirms that the research astrologer has come up with a compelling result.

Westran was methodical in collecting data, and all couples included at least one notable partner in the public domain. Anyone can verify birth details by checking biographies published online. In decisions about inclusion or exclusion (for example, due to uncertainty of the birth data), Westran appears to follow consistent and logical rules. Overall, we are impressed by his diligence, transparency, and authenticity.

This is precisely why astrology holds significance for you, for me, and for the entire global community.

While obtaining my certification in astrology and subsequently pursuing further specialization in the fields of Business, Medical, and Evolutionary Astrology, I observed, studied, and acquired a clear understanding of the interconnectedness of these three disciplines. I identified the correlations and developed a comprehensive understanding of the narrative contained within each chart. Such insights left no room for doubt regarding their accuracy, as they were consistently corroborated by the reader. Ultimately, all elements coalesced, emphasizing that astrology is more about reflection than prediction in any given chart.

Consequently, I frequently contemplated whether data manipulation was occurring, an issue well-known as a common strategy employed by individuals with vested interests in maintaining specific narratives on the global stage. This observation does not imply that misinformation is widespread; rather, it affirms its existence. When information is presented transparently and accurately, it is unlikely to be questioned. However, figures supported by authentic data are often, if not invariably, falsified.

This phenomenon is better understood in light of astrology’s increasing credibility. As the discipline begins to receive the recognition it deserves, those who have benefited from its suppression are gradually losing their influence. If data were consistently accurate and transparent, a greater number of individuals would adopt astrology and benefit from its insights. Widespread acceptance of such knowledge would pose a significant challenge to the existing power structures that have historically endeavored to marginalize it.

The reason for this is that the wealthiest 1 percent leverage business astrology to their advantage by employing specialized astrologers who focus exclusively on corporate charts. These professionals analyze the birth charts of corporations and monitor planetary cycles to determine optimal timings for actions such as selling, trading, merging, acquiring, and investing—strategies that can substantially improve financial outcomes. As someone certified in business astrology, I can attest to its lucrative nature, which is often kept discreet through non-compete clauses and nondisclosure agreements. Typically, these astrologers serve only one or two corporations, earning upwards of $250,000 to $300,000 annually, all while remaining largely under the radar and refraining from public promotion.

As these professionals are now being called upon to reveal the truth, many face the difficult decision of resigning and relinquishing their sources of income. I do not assign blame to them for working within a single organization; however, I do hold them accountable for potentially contributing, behind the scenes, to the misuse of power and the dissemination of misinformation.

As astrology increasingly asserts its rightful place on the global stage, it is imperative that its significance be recognized and that it not be slandered or dismissed. This heralds a new era in which astrology, sacred geometry, and the universal source are at the very core of understanding the universe.