Anti-vaxxers crumble as every prediction fails to come true

There is a detailed discussion about the data (Fraiman) which Weinstein referred to above and the analysis on which the death estimate comes from (Rancourt).

 

Why do you keep avoiding my question — how do you think analyzing the raw medical data from each subject reporting an SAE would demonstrate the vaccine as the cause?

 

So, now peer review is useless due to somebody offering an opinion in the Guardian?

Thousands of papers have been peer reviewed appropriately with no issues. Why just cherry pick a few and make the sweeping statement they are useless. There are problems with them to say they are totally useless is a total exaggeration.

 

Because that is exactly what it would prove.

 

Many people are ‘well-qualified’ to analyze data, but what makes either of them qualified to offer expert knowledge related to the data they are analyzing. Are the experts in the fields of vaccines or immunology?

Dowd is an investor.

Rancourt was educated in physics.

Please explain their unique qualifications related to vaccines? Do they possess any expert knowledge on how different vaccines work, how vaccines act on the immune system, and so forth. Have they published anything related to vaccines, immunology etc in important research journals? Are they known as experts in the fields related to vaccines?

 

The three examples out of the many I have given were peer reviewed with no issues until there were issues.

 

That isn’t an answer.

How would it prove it?

 

Data is data. And data analysis is a a mathematical process which is used to look for trends and correlations is a data set.

 

That is my answer.

 

But, you called peer review ‘totally useless’. Again why?

Sweeping statements make you less believable.

Why not just say some peer review has serious issues with it and then point out examples? There are great peer reviews and some terrible. There are some journals that allow anybody to peer review, others have strict rules. It’s hard to take you seriously.

 

So you don’t have an answer. I didn’t think you would because to claim that one can discern causation by simply looking at all the medical data of the subjects in the trials is absolutely wrong. Perhaps, you don’t have enough knowledge to answer properly or perhaps you don’t want to admit you don’t know. To keep repeating over and over causation can be determined from the raw data is misleading misinformation.

The subjects were followed closely during and after the trial in terms of SAE’s and they all had medical investigation into the SAE’s. If anything, the raw medical data will reveal that no causation could be determined. And again, this is something that needs to be followed up with entirely different research when signals for potential serious side-effects to the vaccines occur.

 

I stated that peer review is meaningless.

 

Dr. Fraiman disagrees as posted upthread.

 

A very poor attempt to discredit a process. This is cherry picking and generalizing. It is impossible to have perfection in any process. It evolves and learns and attempts to improve. As stated above, some journals are considerably better than others. Most are science driven, a few are money driven.

It was science that ultimately came to the rescue of its own process. Now, had you taken 20,000 papers and said, oh look hundreds and hundreds of them are all wrong, you might have a point here. Peer review is far from perfect, but it is a very solid process. It says everything, that it rightly catches most of the hogwash well before it gets into the public domain.

 

Bolding mine. People incorrectly extrapolating data from these reports should do well to absorb the two statements. If we are to believe that this company are totally corrupt, what stops them from fudging all the results and covering this up completely?

 

Those two papers which claimed that the Medieval Warm Period did not exist were used by the IPCC to claim the the enhanced CO2 hypothesis explained gobal warming which began in ~ 1850 at end end of the little ice age. The results were pictorially shown as the hockey stick which was part of the IPCC logo for a few years before the gross errors of the peer reviewed papers MBH98 and MBH99.

What came to the rescue were a couple of mathematicians who worked for an insurance company. The science community had nothing to do with discovering the errors.

 

Read your own “bolding”.

The statement above is speculation. “Will reveal” is not the same as “has revealed”.

As Fraiman points out - the data has not been released with conclusions and made available for independent review. Why not?

 

Most published and peer reviewed research findings and published papers are wrong. I had suggested that the poster I responded to do her own research. Maybe she hasn't completed that yet.

https://bigthink.com/surprising-sci...blished-research-findings-are-probably-false/

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

 

The data has not been released. Why not. From Fraiman's paper:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/

 

The CDC which is the nations top public health federal government organization is chartered with protecting the public. How can this be explained within the context of that charter.

This article is behind a paywall

https://www.theepochtimes.com/artic...text=An FDA spokesperson,and Moderna vaccines.

 

More

https://www.theepochtimes.com/healt... agencies, including,uncovered the conspiracy.

 

This is referred to above and was published in the JAMA cardiology website.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2791253

 

More suppressed information on vaccine risk.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/healt...0?ea_src=author_manual&ea_med=related_stories

 

Wrong quote

 

Fraiman stated in the discussion of his opinion paper:

Fraiman did not say that releasing all the subject date would prove that the vaccine caused the serious adverse effects.

He said further analyses will require the release of the data.