3 ms·
Your language pushes pretty hard for a conclusion. Consider: A friend had no heart issues for 35 years, decided to take a new route to work, and dropped dead o
by gregoryl 5y ago
Your language pushes pretty hard for a conclusion.
Consider: A friend had no heart issues for 35 years, decided to take a new route to work, and dropped dead of a heart attack. Is it coincidental?
Of course it is. Anecdotal / single point evidence is completely useless. The study gives you the actual numbers on how likely it's a coincidence or not.
- aaplok 5y ago> The study gives you the actual numbers on how likely it's a coincidence or not. The study doesn't really do that. What it does is compare different methodologies for counting the number of incidences of (myo|peri)-carditis following the 2nd shot. They conclude that the methodology used officially gives lower numbers than other methodologies. Counting how likely a coincidence it is is something we can do reasonably well using standard null hypothesis testing: compare the number of incidences of pericarditis in a random sample against a sample of patients post-vaccine. But this is not something that the article does. The difficulty, discussed in the article, lies in deciding what counts as "post-vaccine".
- robbedpeter 5y agoThere are multiple data points, evidence of heart issues being caused by vaccines, Moderna in particular because of higher relative doses. It's not unreasonable to suspect causation when the event matches a known pattern.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]