-
2041
-
It is not a "well designed 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.
4014 -
That link appears to be to a blog, not a study. Can you link to a study?
437 -
purebIood wrote:
In other news: water is wet.
1125 -
statfool wrote:
It is not a "well designed 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.
But no design study was good enough for Fauci shots.
726 -
ok, so provide the study wrote:
That link appears to be to a blog, not a study. Can you link to a study?
If you read the blog, you can easily find the study.
167 -
“Study”: Cool. There are lots of studies. Please explain in depth your scientific rationale for believing in some studies but not in others.
Lest you want to play whataboutism, I am absolutely fine with asking that question of anyone.
96 -
The Pandemic’s Wrongest Man: In a crowded field of wrongness, one person stands out: Alex Berenson
226 -
Objective OP wrote:
“Study”: Cool. There are lots of studies. Please explain in depth your scientific rationale for believing in some studies but not in others.
Lest you want to play whataboutism, I am absolutely fine with asking that question of anyone.
The OP's source author writes conspiracy thriller novels. Such as "The Deceivers", The Russians don't just want to influence American elections--they want it all.
133 -
ok, so provide the study wrote:
That link appears to be to a blog, not a study. Can you link to a study?
From the blog:
50 -
If it's true, it will be censored by the big pharma cash cow anyways. They are willing to do whatever to die on the hill of maintaining their army of loyal, impressionable and duped sheep. They will suppress any truth contrary to the agenda and shame the source, like clockwork. Time to wake up.
1017 -
FaUCI!!!
55 -
63
-
How much does this Alex guy make off you fools. Just follow the money with these chemtrailers, flat earthers, and antivaxxers, illuminati, etc. etc.
104 -
This study had an n of 46 million.
187 -
It's been 4 years, move on Karen
103 -
purebIood wrote:
Oh shtt no, are you serious?
Trump got his vaccine before it was even available to the American public and he’s having cankle and bruised hand problems, as well as cognitive decline. I voted for him and I’m worried his health issues are because of the vaccine. What do you think?
82 -
purebIood wrote:
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.
110 -
statfool wrote:
It is not a "well designed 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.
The researchers tracked almost 2,000 Swiss healthcare workers during the 2023-2024 winter season. They found those who had received one booster were 56 percent more likely to get sick, while those who had received two were 70 percent more likely.
Even after the researchers matched the workers by risk factors, they found those who had received at least one Covid booster were about 50 percent more likely to be sick. They posted their findings on Aug. 9 in an open-access journal published by Nature.
116 -
Sure Jan wrote:
This study had an n of 46 million.
Huh?
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
85
