It's the same story all over again. Every time they claim to be comparing some phenomenon following the vaccine vs following infection, they muddy the waters so much that it's impossible to tell what's what.
And then they use their false comparison (which always seems to show worse effects after infection) to insist on even MORE vaccination.
Looks like anyone that had covid and vaccination within 90 days of each other was excluded from any analysis. Can't see why they would do that.
Studies that defines any kind of risk and control periods (i.e. 90 days after exposure and 90 days before exposure in this case) tend to be highly sensitive to those definitions. Studies can totally flip or conceal depending on what you pick.
I would ad that “infected,” at this point, is so vague as to be meaningless; the definition of infected changed in 2020 to be “positive PCR test” (which is diagnostically meaningless as used during this crisis) or any symptom that may be interpreted as infection.
I could laugh off the junk science if only it wasn't used by my government to ruin my life and deprive my mother of my daily care. Due to junk science worship and real science denial, she is stuck in a nursing home that won't allow indoor visits from me without proof of 2 doses (and a useless mask of course). What's really ludicrous is that she is not injected, does not have to be masked, and they're fine with that.
They excluded data from inpatients and only looked at one outpatient center. They say this is to correct for confounders without saying what those confounders are. I'd personally like to know what the rates and relative risks are of the most severe cases that required inpatient care.
My brother-in-law got POTS almost immediately after the last bivalent booster shot (along with high blood pressure and neurological memory issues). He did not have it previously despite having Covid earlier this year. People might call that anecdotal, but it is a real data point to me!
Comparing infection to vaccination is a ludicrous idea to start with, when you consider that the proportion of exposed who become infected is perhaps as low as half. However, the exposure risk for the vaccine is 100%. And the way these vaccines fade and need boosting, it’s more like 400%, 500%, 600%…
It's the same story all over again. Every time they claim to be comparing some phenomenon following the vaccine vs following infection, they muddy the waters so much that it's impossible to tell what's what.
And then they use their false comparison (which always seems to show worse effects after infection) to insist on even MORE vaccination.
Looks like anyone that had covid and vaccination within 90 days of each other was excluded from any analysis. Can't see why they would do that.
Studies that defines any kind of risk and control periods (i.e. 90 days after exposure and 90 days before exposure in this case) tend to be highly sensitive to those definitions. Studies can totally flip or conceal depending on what you pick.
Thanks for catching that.
I would ad that “infected,” at this point, is so vague as to be meaningless; the definition of infected changed in 2020 to be “positive PCR test” (which is diagnostically meaningless as used during this crisis) or any symptom that may be interpreted as infection.
Very good and valid point.
I could laugh off the junk science if only it wasn't used by my government to ruin my life and deprive my mother of my daily care. Due to junk science worship and real science denial, she is stuck in a nursing home that won't allow indoor visits from me without proof of 2 doses (and a useless mask of course). What's really ludicrous is that she is not injected, does not have to be masked, and they're fine with that.
Many got infected and never tested or used home antigen tests and never reported
They excluded data from inpatients and only looked at one outpatient center. They say this is to correct for confounders without saying what those confounders are. I'd personally like to know what the rates and relative risks are of the most severe cases that required inpatient care.
My brother-in-law got POTS almost immediately after the last bivalent booster shot (along with high blood pressure and neurological memory issues). He did not have it previously despite having Covid earlier this year. People might call that anecdotal, but it is a real data point to me!
"Everywhere I look, are examples of data cookery and manipulation to warp public perception on vaccine safety and efficacy."
Narcissists like you only look in the mirror. Nice projection of your own data fraud and lies.
Comparing infection to vaccination is a ludicrous idea to start with, when you consider that the proportion of exposed who become infected is perhaps as low as half. However, the exposure risk for the vaccine is 100%. And the way these vaccines fade and need boosting, it’s more like 400%, 500%, 600%…