Reply With QuoteWhat besides the lack of peer-review makes it questionable?Originally Posted by wal
Damned interesting, and explains the cocaine found in the White House.
Member
Was difficult to track down the source of this, but here it is.
Study of 1.7 Million Children: Heart Damage Only Found in Covid-Vaxxed Kids - Slay News
A questionable source Mark.
Here is the article that it refers to.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...810v1.full.pdf
Bottom line is,
"NOTE: This preprint reports new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice."
TMPHBITEU
What besides the lack of peer-review makes it questionable?
Damned interesting, and explains the cocaine found in the White House.
Member
Slay News Mark, they have a reputation for passing on nonsense and hearsay, they are the questionable relay of unsubstantiated information.
The article itself has not been vetted by reputable people. You don't publish training information that has not been proven, so why pass on something that has has not been checked for accuracy. If I wrote an article on Strength Training you would check my information to see if what I wrote was correct before you would endorse it, yes?
MedRxiv is a pre-print server for unsubstantiated medical documents.
Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
That statement is on the front page of their website, so what do they say? "should not be reported in news media as established information".
You should do the same until you know what you are passing on is true and accurate.
TMPHBITEU
No, wal, I've provided a valuable service here, allowing you to decimate an unapproved story by pointing out the fact that it has not been approved by the gatekeepers, the same people who brought you the past 4 years of public health excellence.
Member
The article hasn't been vetted by reputable people because there aren't any of those left in the field.
Member
Slay News Mark. If it was NY Post or The Atlantic, we could rest assured it was being passed on for prole consumption by reputable people.
From the dubious 'article' (suspiciously not funded by the reputable Gates Foundation), pretending to be a research paper:
The peer review process will hopefully add "...yet" to the end of the sentence."Whilst rare, all myocarditis and pericarditis events during the study period occurred in vaccinated individuals: there were no deaths after myocarditis or pericarditis"
While I'm very much looking forward to the US election being over and done with - what happens if they manage to kill Donald the day before election day (or close to it)? Does it go ahead with Vance stepping in? Or does it not matter because Civil War 2 would be inevitable?
While the imminent Trump/Rogan session will probably be an anti-climax, Rogan will deserve to lose a lot of market value if he doesn't go hard and deep on Warp Speed and Fauci/Birx.
Member
You did not say is was unapproved, you just provided a link to a troll on X.
OK. Have you read that PDF document?
Myocarditis and pericarditis events in children
"No children experienced a myocarditis event, all 3 pericarditis events occurred after first vaccination
and did not require hospitalisation or critical care."
"Whilst rare, all myocarditis and pericarditis events during the study
period occurred in vaccinated individuals: there were no deaths after myocarditis or pericarditis. The
rate of fractures was similar across vaccine groups in both adolescents and children. None of the child
cohort required hospitalisation or critical care after a pericarditis event. In the adolescents the
maximum length of hospital admission was 1 day for critical care and 2 days for hospitalisation."
Pg 7
"However, the reduction in risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation in children (-0.02 for first dose
versus unvaccinated) was lower than the increase in risk of pericarditis (0.22)."
Pg 8
Strengths and Limitations
"Our study has several limitations. First, bias due to unmeasured confounding is possible, although the
detailed data available in OpenSAFELY allowed us to match vaccinated with control individuals on
multiple characteristics. For example, it was not possible to reliably identify individuals with COVID-
19 symptoms prior to testing or hospital admission, because this information is not routinely recorded
in primary care records"
"Third, myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-
19 vaccination were publicly reported from May 2021(12). The vaccinations in our study were after
this date, so there is a potential for ascertainment bias if diagnostic thresholds were lower in
vaccinated than unvaccinated individuals. Fourth, we excluded clinically vulnerable children and
adolescents who were eligible for vaccination before the general roll out, so our results may not be
generalisable to this group. Vaccine safety and effectiveness in this group are important, but there are
significant challenges in controlling confounding arising from unmeasured severity of underlying
conditions that could influence vaccine uptake and effectiveness. Fifth, due to small numbers we did
not study vaccine effectiveness in those who had received a vaccination other than BNT162b2"
Findings in context
BNT162b2 vaccination was shown to be effective in protecting against COVID-19 infection in a
multinational phase 3 trial of 2,260 adolescents aged 12-15 with a median follow up of 2
months(13,14). Multiple observational studies have found that effectiveness wanes with time since
vaccination(15,16). A recent systematic review found generally limited evidence regarding clinical
outcomes of BNT162b2 vaccination amongst children and adolescents(17), although vaccination
lowered hospitalisation rates including emergency admission.
Pg 8
It is not what they say, it is what they don't say that trollers like Slay News use to get "click bait" on their website and they rely on folk like you to pass it on without vetting it first.
Your a good man Mark. I know you provide a valuable service, I have been reading your articles for years. Your the "gatekeeper" round here, if it gets past you then it is approved as far as I am concerned. OK?
Member
Peer review is not a guarantee of accuracy or truth. It's a relatively recent process that started from good premises, but in its current form has degenerated mostly into a conformity check. Peer review process might occasionally catch some egregious mistakes, or manipulations, but offers no incentives to actually test the results in a paper, and therefore verify its results. That would require access to experiment data (not all publications require authors to provide it, actually most don't) and then time to replay the experiment and check the result; as peer-reviewing is not paid, and counts for little in terms of career, very few reviewers bother.
The task of catching bad results falls therefore on the people who will attempt replication of the result after its publication, and sometimes it will take years before this happens.
Plenty of famous, even seminal peer-reviewed articles have subsequently been proved wrong, or even fraudulent. And, in general, a huge percentage of published results cannot be reproduced (General overview: https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a.pdf . An egregious example from the field of cancer research: https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a.pdf ).
So, the fact that a paper has been peer-reviewed means very little, it certifies little more than compliance with some very broad rules, and certainly says nothing about the truth of the content. The process is quite ineffective at its stated goal, and there is a growing movement of opinion to reform it, or even abolish it. After all, before WWII it did not exist, and plenty of good science was done nevertheless.
IPB
Member
Wal, no need to even trust this 'questionable source.' Just trust the FDA
https://www.fda.gov/media/154869/download
Table 1. Pfizer’s Benefit Risk Analysis Age Range COVID-19 cases averted Age 16-17 years 13,843−43,143 Hospitalizations averted Post-vaccination myocarditis 29 to 69 11-54 (among all 16-17 year olds) 23-69 (among male 16-17 year olds)
Age Range Age 16-17 years COVID-19 cases averted 13,843−43,143 Hospitalizations averted 29 to 69 Post-vaccination myocarditis 11-54 (among all 16-17 year olds) 23-69 (among male 16-17 year olds)
Do your own risk analysis to decide if thats ok.
I always keep the above link handy when people bring up the now out of date talking point that 'the vax wasnt harmful' argument. Because, there it is, right in black and white, from the people THEY say to trust, that the vax is in fact harmful. I'm actually shocked it hasn't been removed from the FDA website yet. I guess that's part of the ineptitude of government.
At least not at the FDA. The same article concludes from their BS analysis that its ok to give 69 kids myocarditis IE permanent heart damage vs being hospitalized (and likely to survive even so) in order for pfizer to get their money.
Yet. I hope you are correct about the addition and incorrect about the outcome.
re: election. Lets hope they dont take another crack at DJT. The post election whining is going to be a shit show as it is, whatever the outcome. Thats why we NEED a DJT landslide. It needs to be undeniable.
re: JRE, Part of me hopes this as well, and that DJT is prepared with good answers. As much as I think he needs to win, he was far from perfect. I want answers, but I don't want him to emerge from the interview damaged. The best answer he could give was to admit he was mislead and that the indictments will be forthcoming on Jan 21 2025, IMHO of course.
Member
Voter Turnout
Was speaking with the early voting poll worker in my little corner of Texas about early voter turnout.
Last Prez election this location had 15 (!) early voters total. 4 days in and there have been 90 votes cast already.
Just my verification of the big turnout noise, at least here in Chillicothe America.
Posting Permissions