4 ms·

I have to disagree about the intent to deceive here. The author circled the total deaths and indicated that the study showed no advantage of vaccination. No mat

I have to disagree about the intent to deceive here. The author circled the total deaths and indicated that the study showed no advantage of vaccination. No matter how you slice it, that is clearly wrong, and certainly a former biologist would know that. It's also worth noting that the study had 30,000+ participants, and among them, there were only 2 instances of severe Covid in the vaccinated and 106 in the placebo group. Yet the author of the article chose to take a chart from one of the supplemental appendices out of context and deliberately misrepresent even that. This was not accidental, or just sloppy.

nkurz 5y ago
I'm not sure which person you are referring to as "the author", but for clarity, the slide is a screenshot taken from a slide used in a presentation by Peter Doshi: https://rumble.com/vqc2ww-dr.-peter-doshi-of-the-british-medical-journal-argues-the-public-was-lied-t.html https://rumble.com/vqc2ww-dr.-peter-doshi-of-the-british-med... (at 1:41). It's used as it was presented there, and was not altered by the author of the Substack post, Joomi Kim. When I claim that it wasn't intended to deceive, I'm referring to Dr. Kim's use of it. I don't know enough about Dr. Doshi to speak to his intent. I don't think it was Kim's intent to claim that there is "no advantage of vaccination", nor do I think she made this (erroneous) claim. Instead, I think she was using the slide to make the specific legitimate claim that Fauci and Walensky overstepped the conclusions of the study when they claimed that "clinical trials have shown that the vaccines ... are highly effective ... against death". I think this is useful evidence the official sources are willing to tell "noble lies" for what they think is a good cause. Whether that evidence matters in the face of a Covid pandemic seems to be a point of dispute.
- vannevar 5y ago
  Your reading of the author's intent is generous, but since neither of us can read minds, we'll just have to disagree about intent here. It's clear from the rest of the linked study, however, that Fauci and Walensky did not overstep---the disparity in severe disease between the vaccinated and unvaccinated was large (2 vs 106). Coupled with clinical knowledge about the link between severe disease and death (a very high correlation, people with mild covid were not simply dropping dead), and the lack of any link between the vaccine and death, they were on solid ground to say the vaccine protected against death. No one expected the vaccine to cure cancer or prevent suicide, they expected it to prevent death by Covid. And it has.

nkurz 5y ago

I'm not sure which person you are referring to as "the author", but for clarity, the slide is a screenshot taken from a slide used in a presentation by Peter Doshi: https://rumble.com/vqc2ww-dr.-peter-doshi-of-the-british-medical-journal-argues-the-public-was-lied-t.html https://rumble.com/vqc2ww-dr.-peter-doshi-of-the-british-med... (at 1:41). It's used as it was presented there, and was not altered by the author of the Substack post, Joomi Kim. When I claim that it wasn't intended to deceive, I'm referring to Dr. Kim's use of it. I don't know enough about Dr. Doshi to speak to his intent. I don't think it was Kim's intent to claim that there is "no advantage of vaccination", nor do I think she made this (erroneous) claim. Instead, I think she was using the slide to make the specific legitimate claim that Fauci and Walensky overstepped the conclusions of the study when they claimed that "clinical trials have shown that the vaccines ... are highly effective ... against death". I think this is useful evidence the official sources are willing to tell "noble lies" for what they think is a good cause. Whether that evidence matters in the face of a Covid pandemic seems to be a point of dispute.

vannevar 5y ago
Your reading of the author's intent is generous, but since neither of us can read minds, we'll just have to disagree about intent here. It's clear from the rest of the linked study, however, that Fauci and Walensky did not overstep---the disparity in severe disease between the vaccinated and unvaccinated was large (2 vs 106). Coupled with clinical knowledge about the link between severe disease and death (a very high correlation, people with mild covid were not simply dropping dead), and the lack of any link between the vaccine and death, they were on solid ground to say the vaccine protected against death. No one expected the vaccine to cure cancer or prevent suicide, they expected it to prevent death by Covid. And it has.