My guy. You can't post some garbage sub-stack. You've got to post at least a link to the abstracts. Without the actual data I can come up a few reasons why this may be true such as, those who get the vaccine are more susceptible to respiratory illnesses, which is why they got the shot in the first place.
Not so.
THe pressure to take the jab was intense. The vast majority of Americans took the jab.
My guy. You can't post some garbage sub-stack. You've got to post at least a link to the abstracts. Without the actual data I can come up a few reasons why this may be true such as, those who get the vaccine are more susceptible to respiratory illnesses, which is why they got the shot in the first place.
Not so.
THe pressure to take the jab was intense. The vast majority of Americans took the jab.
This study is about the boosters circa 2024, a period when you guys were gloating that very few were taking them.
Excess disability claims have risen 3 million to as high as 5 million since the covid vaccine came out, depending on whether the trendline starts in 2015 or 2008. It should be possible to do a random sample of this population to determine 1) vaccination status 2) time from vaccination onset of symptoms that led to disability claim and 3) whether the disabled person believed the injury to be vaccine related. A follow-up study could contact the most likely vaccine victims to attempt to validate the premise that their disability might be related to the vaccine. Claims that are injury related could be eliminated from the survey, but the ratio of injury claims to illness claims could be studied immediately to see if there has been a rise in the ratio of illness claims since the vaccine became available.
Edited to add this sentence: I only did a quick math on this, but those excess 5M drawing disability are costing taxpayers many billions of dollars a year!
If I was RFK Jr, I'd have the CDC to coordinate with the Dept of Labor to conduct this study.
How is a jab meant to protect against a corona virus preventing strokes and heart attacks? A jab that we know causes heart problems?
More Big Pharma BS
Hey, im in that study, dont knock it!
also, from the link;
Incidence of cardiovascular disease is higher after COVID-19, especially in severe cases. This may explain why incidence of heart attacks and strokes is lower in vaccinated people compared with unvaccinated people, but further explanations are beyond the scope of this study.
To have a well designed study, you have to randomly assign treatment. Otherwise, even if you try to "match risk factors", usually the more at-risk people are the ones who chose to get treatment. And they have more bad outcomes, as expected.
There are statistical methods that can be used to account for these things. Frankly I'm not going to read through the whole study as it is kind of a nothing burger because it only has short term effects. But if a journal like nature published it the finds are very likely accurate.
Also with 2000 trials it really wouldn't be that hard especially with how much time info they had on people
They posted this link in another thread and completely ignored any critique of the article. Overall a low quality study with no ability to establish causation.
Voluntary surveys such as this are intrinsically limited for a variety of reasons. A glaring weakness with this study is the known presence of confounding variables--the small amount of demographic data available from these participants showed that the vaccinated cohort was older with more medical comorbitities. The authors attempted to account for this with a statistical model and found that their results lost statistical significance--vaccination was not associated with increased incidence of influenza-like illness. Probably something they should have included in the abstract.
However, critically evaluating this study and considering the entire body of literature is to be avoided when one already has a preferred narrative they refuse to reject regardless of reality.
Rofl are there still sheep getting MRNA COVID booster shots?
There are. Certain hypochondriac posters here are planning on telling their provider they have asthma so they can continue to feed their addiction. Problem with that is it can block them from military service or scuba diving.
the small amount of demographic data available from these participants showed that the vaccinated cohort was older with more medical comorbitities.
You mean people who are not in a high risk group and choose to remain unvaxxed are making the correct decision ?
On a different subject, what is your opinion about the latest news on beta blockers ineffectiveness and possible dangers after a heart attack ?
Darvon suddenly became unsafe in 2010 after it was legally available and "safe" for 53 effing years.
COVID infection carries risk. The degree of risk varies depending on your underlying health conditions and vaccination status. However, I have seen previously healthy children end up in the ICU because of COVID. The referenced study does not contain data to suggest COVID vaccination recommendations were incorrect.
Talk to your cardiologist about post-MI beta blockers. The recent NEJM article you are referring to suggests that in a select population (patients who receive modern revasularization without development of heart failure) may not need beta blockers. I don't recall any safety concerns--similar cardiac and mortality outcomes were seen in both groups. This is a good example of physicians following the data as their patient population changes.
Hey. Just go through a series of studies, give us an analysis of the quality of the studies, and then provide your own analysis with clear effort to demonstrate what ways people manipulate data to skew perspective, and then complete it with a strong argument for the way you have maintained a better level of objectivity.
Then I’ll ask the same for people who have other opinions, and I’ll try to draw a reasonable conclusion from the best, brightest, and most apparently forthcoming among you.
To have a well designed study, you have to randomly assign treatment. Otherwise, even if you try to "match risk factors", usually the more at-risk people are the ones who chose to get treatment. And they have more bad outcomes, as expected.
Not sure why you’re saying it’s not well designed. The population consisted of over 1700 healthcare workers during the pandemic. What treatment are you referring to. This study addressed the rate of flu like illnesses after COVID vaccination and after flu vaccination. The conclusion was that more SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations are associated with a higher risk of influenza-like respiratory illness and workdays lost.
