Leanster2000 t1_j2zqx0c wrote
Reply to comment by lavidadida in Mubasher Saleem 2014 McNair Alum, 29 year old anesthisiology resident, from DTJC, died last week. Many of his fellow residents and classmates tried to revive him by fartuni4
You need to take another look at the data - for older age ranges myocarditis is at background levels - by May 2021, only older and middle age adults had real access to the vaccine, so the the statement there is no link was 100% true at the time. Only when enough young males got the vaccine was there a statistically significant indication that the rate was higher than background. Nothing nefarious there, just math. And again, repeating the point you so obviously sidestepped, the odds of myocarditis are far higher, even in the young male cohort, from myocarditis from unvaccinated covid, and vaccine induced myocarditis is far milder than "natural" covid myocarditis (10x less death rate).
I am not misinterpreting you. The approval process is totally different for vaccines vs therapeutics. There is zero reason to believe they should be the same or compared. The dangerous politics isn't coming from the scientist. There is only one political party that found it worthwhile to shore up the base by seeding doubt in a lifesaving vaccine at the cost of the lives of their own constituents.
https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0000557
lavidadida t1_j30pgfc wrote
You are truly dumb as a rock. The fact that a study had not yet been conducted linking the covid vaccine to myocarditis in May 2021 does not mean that a link did not exist. It did exist then as it exists now - studies are an attempt to determine reality, they do not create facts. Objective reality exists, and scientific studies are attempts to discern that reality. Authorities lied, at minimum about the degree of certainty they could provide.
The FDA runs both approval processes. Feel free to throw out a bunch of irrelevant facts about those processes in response. Kind of like you throw out a complete non-sequitur about political parties and then link to a social science article with absolute garbage methodology. This gives me a good idea of what kind of nonsense you consider science lol. Study of covid mortality that doesn't account for age hahahahaha
Leanster2000 t1_j31qkyh wrote
You are simply not good at math. You realize it is possible that the/any vaccine has a 1 in a 100,000,000 chance of causing _insertyourrarediseasehere_. Until you have a couple of billion doses distributed, you don't know if it is statistically relevant or not. At the point in time the statement was made it was entirely correct with the statistics at that time. The fact that it took a lot longer for these rare side effects to be shown underscores exactly how rare they are and makes my point stronger.
The political impact of covid mortality has been presented by a number of researchers, and the effect is undeniably dramatic, there are others as well, but I guess it is all just a big conspiracy:
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30512/w30512.pdf
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/25/coronavirus-pandemics-politics-masks-vaccines-deaths
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments