No link no surprise. Because then people would be able to see the table 1 you're ommitting to support your bullshit narrative - also I'm pretty sure it says right in there that it's from a preprint that missestimated the amount of vaccines given.

Statistics that show the majority of deaths from COVID-19 are among vaccinated people reflect the fact most people are vaccinated, not that the vaccines are ineffective, as implied in a social media post. Similar statistics show COVID vaccines continue to reduce the risk of dying and severe illness

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-casualties-vaccines-idUSL1N32R1UI

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/30/fact-check-misleading-claim-deaths-fully-vaccinated-people/4856504001/

Neeewwp you're just programmed to believe so.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf

Read the indictment and decide for yourself, folkerinos

However, it would seem as if most people have not actually read the paper in its entirety, because what it actually found was that the bivalent vaccine reduced the risk of getting infected with COVID-19.

First, it’s worth explaining what we mean by a preprint. Most scientific research is presented at scientific meetings and published in scientific journals. Preprints are scientific manuscripts uploaded to the internet without any external peer review. The potential for problems was illustrated back in 2021 when a University of Ottawa study suggested that the rates of post-vaccine myocarditis were several-fold higher than previously reported. That assessment was wrong. The researchers had miscalculated the number of vaccine doses administered in Ottawa during that time. They eventually took down the paper, but not before it was widely shared and fuelled a fair bit of vaccine hesitancy. While peer review has its share of issues, at least it protects against easy-to-spot errors and misinterpretations.

The Cleveland Clinic study is such a preprint. But even if we put concerns about preprints aside, this one fundamentally does not support the things people are saying it does. It does not say that the bivalent booster increases the risk of catching COVID. The top line results show that the bivalent booster reduced COVID infections by 30 per cent. This result is supported by a recent New England Journal of Medicine analysis that found the bivalent booster was better than the original vaccine and had an effectiveness of 59 per cent against hospitalization and 62 per cent against hospitalization or death.

The claim about vaccines making things worse stems from some of the secondary results and appears to fall victim to an epidemiological concept called the Table 2 fallacy. The name comes from the convention that Table 1 in most papers presents the characteristics of patients and Table 2 looks at the relationships between various factors and the end result being studied.

Here’s an illustrative example. If you were studying whether people who carry lighters are at increased risk for lung cancer, you would have to adjust for smoking status. People who carry lighters are indeed more likely to get lung cancer. But if you adjust for smoking status, then obviously, it’s not whether someone carries a lighter per se that predicts lung cancer risk. Conversely, if you wanted to see whether smoking increased the risk of lung cancer (by comparing smokers to non-smokers), the presence or absence of a lighter in someone’s pocket shouldn’t affect the results all that much.

The Table 2 fallacy states that you should not assume that all factors should be adjusted for in the same way. If you want to study lighters, you should adjust for smoking. But if you want to study smoking, you don’t really need to adjust for lighter ownership. These relationships are not interchangeable.

So, if researchers want to study the benefits of the bivalent booster, they should adjust for prior vaccination. But the same formula cannot be used to tell you anything about the protective or harmful effect of prior doses that you adjusted for. It is a subtle but important mathematical principle that is often overlooked. Because if you want to study the number of prior doses, a much more important variable to consider is the timing since your last dose, which is probably more important.

@DrLabos

Keywords: COVID-19vaccinevaccinationBivalent Vaccine

However, it would seem as if most people have not actually read the paper in its entirety, because what it actually found was that the bivalent vaccine reduced the risk of getting infected with COVID-19.

First, it’s worth explaining what we mean by a preprint. Most scientific research is presented at scientific meetings and published in scientific journals. Preprints are scientific manuscripts uploaded to the internet without any external peer review. The potential for problems was illustrated back in 2021 when a University of Ottawa study suggested that the rates of post-vaccine myocarditis were several-fold higher than previously reported. That assessment was wrong. The researchers had miscalculated the number of vaccine doses administered in Ottawa during that time. They eventually took down the paper, but not before it was widely shared and fuelled a fair bit of vaccine hesitancy. While peer review has its share of issues, at least it protects against easy-to-spot errors and misinterpretations.

The Cleveland Clinic study is such a preprint. But even if we put concerns about preprints aside, this one fundamentally does not support the things people are saying it does. It does not say that the bivalent booster increases the risk of catching COVID. The top line results show that the bivalent booster reduced COVID infections by 30 per cent. This result is supported by a recent New England Journal of Medicine analysis that found the bivalent booster was better than the original vaccine and had an effectiveness of 59 per cent against hospitalization and 62 per cent against hospitalization or death.

The claim about vaccines making things worse stems from some of the secondary results and appears to fall victim to an epidemiological concept called the Table 2 fallacy. The name comes from the convention that Table 1 in most papers presents the characteristics of patients and Table 2 looks at the relationships between various factors and the end result being studied.

Here’s an illustrative example. If you were studying whether people who carry lighters are at increased risk for lung cancer, you would have to adjust for smoking status. People who carry lighters are indeed more likely to get lung cancer. But if you adjust for smoking status, then obviously, it’s not whether someone carries a lighter per se that predicts lung cancer risk. Conversely, if you wanted to see whether smoking increased the risk of lung cancer (by comparing smokers to non-smokers), the presence or absence of a lighter in someone’s pocket shouldn’t affect the results all that much.

The Table 2 fallacy states that you should not assume that all factors should be adjusted for in the same way. If you want to study lighters, you should adjust for smoking. But if you want to study smoking, you don’t really need to adjust for lighter ownership. These relationships are not interchangeable.

So, if researchers want to study the benefits of the bivalent booster, they should adjust for prior vaccination. But the same formula cannot be used to tell you anything about the protective or harmful effect of prior doses that you adjusted for. It is a subtle but important mathematical principle that is often overlooked. Because if you want to study the number of prior doses, a much more important variable to consider is the timing since your last dose, which is probably more important.

@DrLabos

Keywords: COVID-19vaccinevaccinationBivalent Vaccine

However, it would seem as if most people have not actually read the paper in its entirety, because what it actually found was that the bivalent vaccine reduced the risk of getting infected with COVID-19.

First, it’s worth explaining what we mean by a preprint. Most scientific research is presented at scientific meetings and published in scientific journals. Preprints are scientific manuscripts uploaded to the internet without any external peer review. The potential for problems was illustrated back in 2021 when a University of Ottawa study suggested that the rates of post-vaccine myocarditis were several-fold higher than previously reported. That assessment was wrong. The researchers had miscalculated the number of vaccine doses administered in Ottawa during that time. They eventually took down the paper, but not before it was widely shared and fuelled a fair bit of vaccine hesitancy. While peer review has its share of issues, at least it protects against easy-to-spot errors and misinterpretations.

The Cleveland Clinic study is such a preprint. But even if we put concerns about preprints aside, this one fundamentally does not support the things people are saying it does. It does not say that the bivalent booster increases the risk of catching COVID. The top line results show that the bivalent booster reduced COVID infections by 30 per cent. This result is supported by a recent New England Journal of Medicine analysis that found the bivalent booster was better than the original vaccine and had an effectiveness of 59 per cent against hospitalization and 62 per cent against hospitalization or death.

The claim about vaccines making things worse stems from some of the secondary results and appears to fall victim to an epidemiological concept called the Table 2 fallacy. The name comes from the convention that Table 1 in most papers presents the characteristics of patients and Table 2 looks at the relationships between various factors and the end result being studied.

Here’s an illustrative example. If you were studying whether people who carry lighters are at increased risk for lung cancer, you would have to adjust for smoking status. People who carry lighters are indeed more likely to get lung cancer. But if you adjust for smoking status, then obviously, it’s not whether someone carries a lighter per se that predicts lung cancer risk. Conversely, if you wanted to see whether smoking increased the risk of lung cancer (by comparing smokers to non-smokers), the presence or absence of a lighter in someone’s pocket shouldn’t affect the results all that much.

The Table 2 fallacy states that you should not assume that all factors should be adjusted for in the same way. If you want to study lighters, you should adjust for smoking. But if you want to study smoking, you don’t really need to adjust for lighter ownership. These relationships are not interchangeable.

So, if researchers want to study the benefits of the bivalent booster, they should adjust for prior vaccination. But the same formula cannot be used to tell you anything about the protective or harmful effect of prior doses that you adjusted for. It is a subtle but important mathematical principle that is often overlooked. Because if you want to study the number of prior doses, a much more important variable to consider is the timing since your last dose, which is probably more important.

@DrLabos

Keywords: COVID-19vaccinevaccinationBivalent Vaccine

However, it would seem as if most people have not actually read the paper in its entirety, because what it actually found was that the bivalent vaccine reduced the risk of getting infected with COVID-19.

First, it’s worth explaining what we mean by a preprint. Most scientific research is presented at scientific meetings and published in scientific journals. Preprints are scientific manuscripts uploaded to the internet without any external peer review. The potential for problems was illustrated back in 2021 when a University of Ottawa study suggested that the rates of post-vaccine myocarditis were several-fold higher than previously reported. That assessment was wrong. The researchers had miscalculated the number of vaccine doses administered in Ottawa during that time. They eventually took down the paper, but not before it was widely shared and fuelled a fair bit of vaccine hesitancy. While peer review has its share of issues, at least it protects against easy-to-spot errors and misinterpretations.

The Cleveland Clinic study is such a preprint. But even if we put concerns about preprints aside, this one fundamentally does not support the things people are saying it does. It does not say that the bivalent booster increases the risk of catching COVID. The top line results show that the bivalent booster reduced COVID infections by 30 per cent. This result is supported by a recent New England Journal of Medicine analysis that found the bivalent booster was better than the original vaccine and had an effectiveness of 59 per cent against hospitalization and 62 per cent against hospitalization or death.

The claim about vaccines making things worse stems from some of the secondary results and appears to fall victim to an epidemiological concept called the Table 2 fallacy. The name comes from the convention that Table 1 in most papers presents the characteristics of patients and Table 2 looks at the relationships between various factors and the end result being studied.

Here’s an illustrative example. If you were studying whether people who carry lighters are at increased risk for lung cancer, you would have to adjust for smoking status. People who carry lighters are indeed more likely to get lung cancer. But if you adjust for smoking status, then obviously, it’s not whether someone carries a lighter per se that predicts lung cancer risk. Conversely, if you wanted to see whether smoking increased the risk of lung cancer (by comparing smokers to non-smokers), the presence or absence of a lighter in someone’s pocket shouldn’t affect the results all that much.

The Table 2 fallacy states that you should not assume that all factors should be adjusted for in the same way. If you want to study lighters, you should adjust for smoking. But if you want to study smoking, you don’t really need to adjust for lighter ownership. These relationships are not interchangeable.

So, if researchers want to study the benefits of the bivalent booster, they should adjust for prior vaccination. But the same formula cannot be used to tell you anything about the protective or harmful effect of prior doses that you adjusted for. It is a subtle but important mathematical principle that is often overlooked. Because if you want to study the number of prior doses, a much more important variable to consider is the timing since your last dose, which is probably more important.

@DrLabos

Keywords: COVID-19vaccinevaccinationBivalent Vaccine

One of Canada's* top universities - but like who gives a shit about trivial geographical knowledge?when the real point of the post was exposing you for the bullshit irrelevant fallicious tactics you use to distort the truth

Ah mb Ontarioian bias

Still though, v&c uses the fallacy everyday like it means anything.

Or an above average conspiritard level. Of course pharma companies have a vested interest in a somewhat educated population you absolute numpty they go after graduates for their labs.

Nothing can change the fact that the unvaccinated are at a higher risk:

"That’s why, when CDC adjusts for some of these factors (age and population size), we still see that unvaccinated people are at much greater risk of death and other severe outcomes than people the same age who have stayed up-to-date on boosters. Older people are at greater risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 than younger people, but vaccines and boosters still lower that risk substantially."

Table 2 fallacy in action.

https://omegacanada.win/p/16bPZmbkDZ/the-table-2-fallacy-how-antivaxx/

"That’s why, when CDC adjusts for some of these factors (age and population size), we still see that unvaccinated people are at much greater risk of death and other severe outcomes than people the same age who have stayed up-to-date on boosters. Older people are at greater risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 than younger people, but vaccines and boosters still lower that risk substantially."

McGill.ca - one of Ontario's top universities. And you say fake news? It's not even news it's empirical evidence laid out.

Or are you referring to every piece of garbage V&C has spoon fed you to bring you to this point?

Scared of education, are we?

Nazi propaganda? Really? Like you're cartoonishly evil at this point. This is the troll who runs this website's reaction tomy post of real maga nazis.

https://omegacanada.win/p/16bPZjEl2u/nazis-have-nothing-better-to-do-/c/

Bonus Nazis outside Disney world.

Trying to pretend that socialism=Nazism is a well documented propaganda tactic by degenerates

All you've got is strawman and insults. If you were right about a single thing you wouldn't need to act like children to argue. Then again I really don't think you could debate in good faith if your life depended on it.

An Incomplete list of shit that shows that conservatism is rotting our country: Conservatism is absolute shit. The more conservative a state/nation, the more shit it is to live there. The more progressive a nation, higher the wages, middle class wealth, quality of life, health, happiness, etc.

1. heart disease mortality by state https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/heart_disease_mortality/heart_disease.htm
2. cancer mortality by state https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/cancer_mortality/cancer.htm
3. lung disease mortality https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/lung_disease_mortality/lung_disease.htm
4. accidental death mortality https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/accident_mortality/accident.htm
5. stroke mortality https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/stroke_mortality/stroke.htm
6. alzheimers mortality https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/alzheimers_mortality/alzheimers_disease.htm
7. diabetes mortality (GOP obstructed a bill to cap insulin prices) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/diabetes_mortality/diabetes.htm
8. influenza/pneumonia mortality https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/flu_pneumonia_mortality/flu_pneumonia.htm
9. kidney disease https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/kidney_disease_mortality/kidney_disease.htm
10. drug overdose (wow west virginia) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/drug_poisoning_mortality/drug_poisoning.htm
11. fire arm injury deaths https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm
12. homicide rate (red states help make narco states feel better about themselves) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm
13. violent crime rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_violent_crime_rate
14. septicemia https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/septicemia_mortality/septicemia.htm
15. liver disease https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/liver_disease_mortality/liver_disease.htm
16. hypertension https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/hypertension_mortality/hypertension.htm

Stats on: "Save the children" and "Protecting the unborn"

1. highest teen birth rate in the US and first world https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/teen-births/teenbirths.htm
2. highest birth rate to unmarried mothers https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/unmarried/unmarried.htm
3. maternal mortality from pregnancy or childbirth (planned parenthood provides prenatal, postnatal, and general women's health care) https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/maternal-mortality-rate-by-state and a racial breakdown: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality-2021/maternal-mortality-2021.htm
4. highest preterm birth rate https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/preterm_births/preterm.htm
5. lowest birth weight of newborns https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/lbw_births/lbw.htm
6. highest infant mortality https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/infant_mortality_rates/infant_mortality.htm
7. lowest life expectancy at birth https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/life_expectancy/life_expectancy.htm
8. childhood obesity https://ci.uky.edu/kentuckyhealthnews/2012/08/31/kentucky-ranks-third-among-states-in/Social stats
9. highest divorce rates https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/state-divorce-rates-90-95-99-20.pdf
10. The lowest paid teachers in the nation (and the most demonized for being woke indoctrinators)
11. child abuse, neglect, foster care, etc.
12. Weird republican obsession with supporting child marriage laws.

if you want embarassing just look at your tiny tiny penis.

I know you are but what am I B)

Poor guy thinks mental illness invalidates individuals. You had a tough closed minded childhood, didn't you?

Christians ≠ conservatives.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-needs-stop-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/

You're just a mad little pissbaby aren't you, disinformed and dangeorus? Are you riled up because your turd in charge is facing 500+ years in prison?

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/england-covid-19-mortality-rate-by-vaccination-status

It's all bullshit unsurprisingly

You're literally the textbook definition of a useful idiot.

"Tax exempt institution gets infiltrated by Floridas's moms for liberty trans extremism and wants to flood Canada with 10,000 biased political candidates"

I think y'all are mad for the wrong reasons. Church's aren't supposed to have influence like they're overreaching for.

Bro what?

You should check your T& lead poisoning levels.