4 ms·

This appears to have enough informations and citations that it would be interesting to see refutations of their claims.

himinlomax 5y ago
I see à lot more scare mongering, irrelevant paranoia (the definition of vaccine was updated on a website? Oh my clearly a conspiracy) and statistically insignificant anecdotes than valid citations.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  Yeah, the dictionary one is baffling. Miriam-Webster dictionary update their definition of vaccine, after seeing probably millions of hits to that page. The author is implying Miriam Webster is a deep state actor now?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vannevar 5y ago
The very first citation refutes the article. The table was deliberately cropped and blurred to make the details unclear, but if you look at the original it's obvious the table doesn't say what the author says it does (that Covid deaths were the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated groups). This is not just an oversight or innocent misinterpretation, this is a deliberate attempt to deceive. Flagged.
- 389dsf3479 5y ago
  Where does the article say that Covid deaths were the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated groups? What relevant data is missing from the table? As far as I can tell, the point is to show the tiny difference in this particular study between the vaccinated and placebo for both total deaths and Covid deaths. It does that, and looking at the original tables doesn't change anything of note, as far as I can see.
  - vannevar 5y ago
    Right below the referenced table: "Today we have more data, and you can see that there were similar number of deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups. The trials did not show a reduction in death, even for Covid deaths, as opposed to other causes…" (Emphasis mine.)
    - 389dsf3479 5y ago
      That's a quote by Dr. Peter Doshi, not the article. While it's not strictly true if he was referring the that study, the difference is tiny enough that it doesn't matter in my opinion. It wouldn't make any difference if you switched the groups. Regardless, what relevant data is missing from the table? As far as I can tell, you can see all relevant data to determine both total deaths and Covid deaths from the table in the screenshot.
      - kelnos 5y ago
        > That's a quote by Dr. Peter Doshi, not the article. Huh? It's a quote presented by the article as support for their assertion that vaccinated people die at similar rates as unvaccinated people. An assertion that's flat-out false, and that their own source refutes if you look at the original data from it, rather than relying on the misleadingly-cropped and blurred version presented in the article.
      - vannevar 5y ago
        When you copy-paste a massive quote from someone else, prefacing it with "...I encourage you listen to this clip from Dr. Peter Doshi, a senior editor at The British Medical Journal, a highly prestigious medical journal:", I'm going to say it's part of the article. Sure, if you examine the chart closely, like I did, you see that it's not really saying what the author is telling you it's saying. Then if you look up the actual research study (which you'll have to type the url because the referenced links are also screenshots) you see that it definitely doesn't say what the author says it does. But how many people are going to do that? As the author is well aware, not many.

I see à lot more scare mongering, irrelevant paranoia (the definition of vaccine was updated on a website? Oh my clearly a conspiracy) and statistically insignificant anecdotes than valid citations.

thehappypm 5y ago
Yeah, the dictionary one is baffling. Miriam-Webster dictionary update their definition of vaccine, after seeing probably millions of hits to that page. The author is implying Miriam Webster is a deep state actor now?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

vannevar 5y ago

The very first citation refutes the article. The table was deliberately cropped and blurred to make the details unclear, but if you look at the original it's obvious the table doesn't say what the author says it does (that Covid deaths were the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated groups). This is not just an oversight or innocent misinterpretation, this is a deliberate attempt to deceive. Flagged.

389dsf3479 5y ago
Where does the article say that Covid deaths were the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated groups? What relevant data is missing from the table? As far as I can tell, the point is to show the tiny difference in this particular study between the vaccinated and placebo for both total deaths and Covid deaths. It does that, and looking at the original tables doesn't change anything of note, as far as I can see.
- vannevar 5y ago
  Right below the referenced table: "Today we have more data, and you can see that there were similar number of deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups. The trials did not show a reduction in death, even for Covid deaths, as opposed to other causes…" (Emphasis mine.)
  - 389dsf3479 5y ago
    That's a quote by Dr. Peter Doshi, not the article. While it's not strictly true if he was referring the that study, the difference is tiny enough that it doesn't matter in my opinion. It wouldn't make any difference if you switched the groups. Regardless, what relevant data is missing from the table? As far as I can tell, you can see all relevant data to determine both total deaths and Covid deaths from the table in the screenshot.
    - kelnos 5y ago
      > That's a quote by Dr. Peter Doshi, not the article. Huh? It's a quote presented by the article as support for their assertion that vaccinated people die at similar rates as unvaccinated people. An assertion that's flat-out false, and that their own source refutes if you look at the original data from it, rather than relying on the misleadingly-cropped and blurred version presented in the article.
    - vannevar 5y ago
      When you copy-paste a massive quote from someone else, prefacing it with "...I encourage you listen to this clip from Dr. Peter Doshi, a senior editor at The British Medical Journal, a highly prestigious medical journal:", I'm going to say it's part of the article. Sure, if you examine the chart closely, like I did, you see that it's not really saying what the author is telling you it's saying. Then if you look up the actual research study (which you'll have to type the url because the referenced links are also screenshots) you see that it definitely doesn't say what the author says it does. But how many people are going to do that? As the author is well aware, not many.