"Thirteen conditions representing AESI of specific relevance to the current landscape of real-world vaccine pharmacovigilance were selected from the list compiled by the Brighton Collaboration SPEAC Project..."
So they developed a list of AESI before the vaccination with novel vaccines never before used in humans even began. Does anybody see a problem with that? 😄
Gotta say, that's the most impressive conflicts-of-interest statement I've ever seen. It should win some sort of prize.
And oh yeah, that MMR-autism study of 650,000 kids. When that was published, i took a close look at it. I concluded it was a fine example of "looking through the wrong end of the telescope and then declaring there's no such thing as a star in the sky."
When you can choose to do corporate marketing versus applying the scientific method, you get the illusion of facts. The scientific method is one of the greatest tools that human civilization has produced through trial and error, feedback and re-assessment. It requires a commitment to verifiable facts in order to get a good model of reality. So far, reality is very far away from the dross that passes for peer-reviewed analysis in some journals.
The Data Availability section's "The authors do not have permission to share data." stands out for me. Why should anyone trust a group of researchers who go out of their way to openly say, "It's bad but not that bad, people."?
Who is going to believe in studies of this type when THEY control the official establishments and manipulate the figures. As long as they do not explain what is under the microscopes, any new study that appears has no scientific validity.
Excellent, as always - we depend on your enthusiasm to expose such nonsense!
JLW - "Rare" indeed, another attempt to rewrite history with a wave of the hand like this... https://youtu.be/-RQxD4Ff7dY?t=46
Great pick up of the various sleigh of hand techniques.
"Small but not zero" is still a big move away from the prior complete denial. I do wonder what the powers that be are up to.
I’m not sure where I heard this but if something positive is NOT included it won’t be published..
👏There are a lot of gems in that paper.
"Thirteen conditions representing AESI of specific relevance to the current landscape of real-world vaccine pharmacovigilance were selected from the list compiled by the Brighton Collaboration SPEAC Project..."
So they developed a list of AESI before the vaccination with novel vaccines never before used in humans even began. Does anybody see a problem with that? 😄
Gotta say, that's the most impressive conflicts-of-interest statement I've ever seen. It should win some sort of prize.
And oh yeah, that MMR-autism study of 650,000 kids. When that was published, i took a close look at it. I concluded it was a fine example of "looking through the wrong end of the telescope and then declaring there's no such thing as a star in the sky."
When you can choose to do corporate marketing versus applying the scientific method, you get the illusion of facts. The scientific method is one of the greatest tools that human civilization has produced through trial and error, feedback and re-assessment. It requires a commitment to verifiable facts in order to get a good model of reality. So far, reality is very far away from the dross that passes for peer-reviewed analysis in some journals.
The Data Availability section's "The authors do not have permission to share data." stands out for me. Why should anyone trust a group of researchers who go out of their way to openly say, "It's bad but not that bad, people."?
How did they handle confounding from background rates of COVID?
I love that these are compared to other vaccines and not to the unvaccinated! I didn't get that from the chart I saw! Thanks for laying it all out!
Who is going to believe in studies of this type when THEY control the official establishments and manipulate the figures. As long as they do not explain what is under the microscopes, any new study that appears has no scientific validity.