4 ms·

Go read the summary in section 5, the style is pretty weird... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X#sec0085 https://www.scienced

Go read the summary in section 5, the style is pretty weird... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X#sec0085 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002... (I bet you neither would have expected ammonium nitrate explosions getting mentioned in the article!)

r721 5y ago
So many mentions of VAERS too... >While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases.
blackearl 5y ago
I'm definitely not someone who reads these types of articles often but this part definitely stood out to me. Are these analogies common? It seemed odd.
- PopeUrbanX 5y ago
  No, these are clearly very marginal academics ("independent consultants", seriously?) doing bad science.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  No, this article has a number of dog whistles and other verbiage that is meant to appeal to anti-vaxers and conspiracy theorists. It’s not good scientific work. It’s an agenda-pushing piece disguised as a journal article.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jacobolus 5y ago
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100216X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002... > Expression of concern: Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19? > The journal would like to alert readers to the fact that the Special Issue titled “COVID-19 Pandemic: Health impact and Novel research” including the article titled” Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?” are being rereviewed post-publication by an independent Editor and a new set of reviewers, due to concerns raised regarding the validity and scientific soundness of the content. Further updates will be provided to readers once the investigations have concluded.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

r721 5y ago

So many mentions of VAERS too... >While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases.

blackearl 5y ago

I'm definitely not someone who reads these types of articles often but this part definitely stood out to me. Are these analogies common? It seemed odd.

PopeUrbanX 5y ago
No, these are clearly very marginal academics ("independent consultants", seriously?) doing bad science.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
No, this article has a number of dog whistles and other verbiage that is meant to appeal to anti-vaxers and conspiracy theorists. It’s not good scientific work. It’s an agenda-pushing piece disguised as a journal article.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jacobolus 5y ago

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100216X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002... > Expression of concern: Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19? > The journal would like to alert readers to the fact that the Special Issue titled “COVID-19 Pandemic: Health impact and Novel research” including the article titled” Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?” are being rereviewed post-publication by an independent Editor and a new set of reviewers, due to concerns raised regarding the validity and scientific soundness of the content. Further updates will be provided to readers once the investigations have concluded.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]