3 ms·

Thank you. I have appreciated your engagement. Referring to unsettled science as "disinformation" seems premature. Is it not the case that we have some prelimi

Thank you. I have appreciated your engagement. Referring to unsettled science as "disinformation" seems premature. Is it not the case that we have some preliminary evidence that this may be the case? I've seen lots of criticism of the study that led to their updated guidance about this. Confounding variables, etc. But these are experts giving us their expert opinion. Surely it should at least be considered a possibility worthy of more study? Does referring to it as "disinformation" create a chilling effect around truth seeking? Are there other studies, or a "preponderance of evidence", so to speak, that refutes their position? I'm not aware of any. Most often I hear people make "common sense" or "just so" arguments about vaccines in general and how they work. Nothing specific about the covid vaccines. The majority of which, at least in USA, utilize novel tech.

standardUser 5y ago
Fair points, and I don't stand by calling it disinformation. This particular incident has just really frustrated me. I'm not sure exactly what the CDC was thinking by elevating this study so much, or why it was leaked before publication. But it does look suspect to me. The study: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm The limitations discussed in the paper seem to have been completely ignored by the media. That isn't surprising at all, but it is a little suspiring that the CDC made a such a quick and resolute policy change based on a study with such obvious (and some might say peculiar) limitations.