Interesting problem. The study population changed when death forced the dry tinder out of the study. I don't see any way to adjust the data to adjust for the bias.
"This is called SURVIVOR BIAS (aka “Survival Bias” or “Survivorship Bias”), and is a well-known problem with clinical trials that require second, or third exposures. "
I saw a study where the same people were used in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. All started out in the unvaccinated group and were vaccinated over time. There was clear survivorship bias in that study.
Does the concept of survivorship bias in this case lend more credence to the notion of cumulative injury, when we see young and healthy dropping after the 3rd or 4th dose?
Logically Survivor bias makes sense, but I know that before your discussion and helpful sample showing the breakdown, I had no real idea.
I doubt 99% of practicing medical professionals are aware of the concept, and of how this sleight of hand makes all of the study data more than suspect.
The CDC and FDA scientists understood this concept of Survivor bias and the way it impacts understanding of product safety in drug trials.
Even well read science geeks like myself are playing catch-up, and can’t realistically know as much as a person with a doctorate in Epidemiology.
This makes it all the more egregious that our government’s scientific community isn’t breaking ranks en mass for such extreme dishonesty in how the EUA of the Covid-19 shots were approved and mandated.
We pay their salaries. We are entitled to their honesty.
Interesting problem. The study population changed when death forced the dry tinder out of the study. I don't see any way to adjust the data to adjust for the bias.
"This is called SURVIVOR BIAS (aka “Survival Bias” or “Survivorship Bias”), and is a well-known problem with clinical trials that require second, or third exposures. "
I saw a study where the same people were used in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. All started out in the unvaccinated group and were vaccinated over time. There was clear survivorship bias in that study.
are we also assuming that the contents of each vial administered is consistent, without variation of concentration or ingredients?
Do those who stated it cannot be measured get a prize?
Does the concept of survivorship bias in this case lend more credence to the notion of cumulative injury, when we see young and healthy dropping after the 3rd or 4th dose?
Logically Survivor bias makes sense, but I know that before your discussion and helpful sample showing the breakdown, I had no real idea.
I doubt 99% of practicing medical professionals are aware of the concept, and of how this sleight of hand makes all of the study data more than suspect.
The CDC and FDA scientists understood this concept of Survivor bias and the way it impacts understanding of product safety in drug trials.
Even well read science geeks like myself are playing catch-up, and can’t realistically know as much as a person with a doctorate in Epidemiology.
This makes it all the more egregious that our government’s scientific community isn’t breaking ranks en mass for such extreme dishonesty in how the EUA of the Covid-19 shots were approved and mandated.
We pay their salaries. We are entitled to their honesty.