7 ms·

Population level studies (including risk studies) will reduce complex conditions to specific modelled criteria in order to try to ensure validity. This is espec

Population level studies (including risk studies) will reduce complex conditions to specific modelled criteria in order to try to ensure validity. This is especially true when you're dealing with complex health conditions which exist on a spectrum (i.e. heart/circulatory system damage). It is extremely important to note that individual case reports are meant to highlight exceptional cases explicitly and to provide the medical community with a starting point for population level studies. It is irresponsible to present individual case reports as, in any way, representative of risks for the average individual. This leads to extremely distorted estimates of risks - especially in laymen. Is it possible some will experience effects like those described? Yes, of course. Anything is possible. However, we have to look to well controlled population level studies to get context as to just how likely negative impacts are, for the average person. The answer to that? It's extremely, extremely unlikely - i.e. so much less likely than it is likely to be caused by eschewing the vaccination and getting the disease. This is at the very heart of how the medical community and regulators either approve or reject vaccine candidates and medical practices/procedures. In short, please stop misleading people by editorialising, re-framing, and presenting data/case reports improperly and without proper context so as to lead people to faulty conclusions.

legalcorrection 4y ago
That’s not true for younger people. The risk of the vaccine is probably higher than the risk of the virus for them. Search elsewhere in this thread.
- justinjlynn 4y ago
  What I have stated is true with regards to studies, their construction, and case reports - in general. As to your statements about the risk of vaccination versus the risks of infection without, in younger people, you are also, sadly mistaken. In short, your conclusions are likely not based on an independent evaluation of the evidence but evaluation of evidence preselected to support your particular conclusion. Search elsewhere for an explanation of why this is true.
  - mattwilsonn888 4y ago
    Two people saying "trust me."
    - justinjlynn 4y ago
      It's a whole lot more than just two people saying "trust me". It's a hundred countries, thousands and thousands of organisations and experts, and millions and millions of others. All these people, orgs, countries and authoritarians and big pharma moguls who would just love to call each other out on the conspiracy and provide incontrovertible evidence of foul play -- if there were any. Seriously; what is it with people who think that half the world can keep a secret from the other half? Four people can barely keep a crime secret; when it gets to ten, it's just about impossible. Why is any of this different? I honestly just don't get it.
      - ztrww 4y ago
        Why do ypu need a conspiracy where incompetence would suffice (not saying that’s the case but nobody fully understanding what’s happening seems like a more reasonable explanation compared to “foul play”)? Also it’s not unreasonable to believe that many of the researchers understood that not all the side effects were known but still judged that deploying the vaccines is worth it because the benefits outweigh the risk by a magnitude or two (again it’s hard to say if they were right).
        justinjlynn 4y ago
        Yes, the struggle between knowing enough to act correctly and not acting because we don't know enough to act is the trade-off we wrestle with at the heart of medicine. This is what it means to do no harm. Improper actions don't need to be the result of a conspiracy to result in disaster, no. However, what we do have to do, is work with the best information we have to make the best decision we can and act when we're confident we know enough. Where we don't make the right decision, in hindsight, we learn from it for the future. If our processes and systems, uncorrupted - as best we can tell, say that it's much, much more beneficial to perform a procedure or take a medication then we generally do that. That's how modern medicine, as we know it, has worked since it has been modern medicine. It's always a game of statistics and learning.
- azinman2 4y ago
  Every previous study I’ve read that’s looked at this states the opposite.
  - logicchains 4y ago
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10928-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10928-z this study in Nature shows the risk of heart problems for young men is greater from the vaccine.
    - hokkos 4y ago
      At the top of the article : Editor’s Note: Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this article are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the Editors. A further editorial response will follow once all parties have been given an opportunity to respond in full.
    - korm 4y ago
      This study is written by biased authors [1], and they're simply measuring the emergency calls for cardiovascular events in different age groups over time. They literally don't know if the affected individuals were even vaccinated or if they had covid. We really can't infer that the risk from vaccination is higher from this study. [1] https://concerneddoctors.org/testimony-of-retsef-levi/ https://concerneddoctors.org/testimony-of-retsef-levi/
    - inferiorhuman 4y ago
      > this study in Nature No, that's been published in Scientific Reports not Nature. Scientific Reports has a vastly higher acceptance rate, engages in pay to play, and published a picture of Donald Trump hidden in baboon feces. You're relying on junk science.
ThunderSizzle 4y ago
> It's extremely, extremely unlikely - i.e. so much less likely than it is likely to be caused by eschewing the vaccination and getting the disease. > In short, please stop misleading people by editorialising, re-framing, and presenting data/case reports improperly and without proper context so as to lead people to faulty conclusions. I guess it was hard to follow your own advice and not editorialize an opinion that is not qualified medical advice from a personal doctor.
- justinjlynn 4y ago
  This is essentially the same as replying "no u". The risk results in question are clear and numerically comparable on their own. It's not a complex diagnosis, analysis, or treatment issue that would require a specialist's medical opinion. All you need is the knowledge of someone who understands basic arithmetic, statistics, and logic. This is not editorialising. This is not misrepresenting data or reports to mislead. I welcome you to try again - preferably with a point beyond "no u" next time.
  - raxxorrax 4y ago
    Not at all as you did not apply the quality control to the data as you suggested it needed to have to come to a conclusion.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  that post you're responding to was not misleading, but rather quite clear and on point bringing up individual case reports for a population-level question is indeed pretty ridiculous, especially in the comment section of a study which addresses the question much better this also applies to sources of info: if someone is trusting individual doctors they found on the internet instead of a consensus of the population of doctors, they are also likely to mislead or be misled.

legalcorrection 4y ago

That’s not true for younger people. The risk of the vaccine is probably higher than the risk of the virus for them. Search elsewhere in this thread.

justinjlynn 4y ago
What I have stated is true with regards to studies, their construction, and case reports - in general. As to your statements about the risk of vaccination versus the risks of infection without, in younger people, you are also, sadly mistaken. In short, your conclusions are likely not based on an independent evaluation of the evidence but evaluation of evidence preselected to support your particular conclusion. Search elsewhere for an explanation of why this is true.
- mattwilsonn888 4y ago
  Two people saying "trust me."
  - justinjlynn 4y ago
    It's a whole lot more than just two people saying "trust me". It's a hundred countries, thousands and thousands of organisations and experts, and millions and millions of others. All these people, orgs, countries and authoritarians and big pharma moguls who would just love to call each other out on the conspiracy and provide incontrovertible evidence of foul play -- if there were any. Seriously; what is it with people who think that half the world can keep a secret from the other half? Four people can barely keep a crime secret; when it gets to ten, it's just about impossible. Why is any of this different? I honestly just don't get it.
    - ztrww 4y ago
      Why do ypu need a conspiracy where incompetence would suffice (not saying that’s the case but nobody fully understanding what’s happening seems like a more reasonable explanation compared to “foul play”)? Also it’s not unreasonable to believe that many of the researchers understood that not all the side effects were known but still judged that deploying the vaccines is worth it because the benefits outweigh the risk by a magnitude or two (again it’s hard to say if they were right).
      - justinjlynn 4y ago
        Yes, the struggle between knowing enough to act correctly and not acting because we don't know enough to act is the trade-off we wrestle with at the heart of medicine. This is what it means to do no harm. Improper actions don't need to be the result of a conspiracy to result in disaster, no. However, what we do have to do, is work with the best information we have to make the best decision we can and act when we're confident we know enough. Where we don't make the right decision, in hindsight, we learn from it for the future. If our processes and systems, uncorrupted - as best we can tell, say that it's much, much more beneficial to perform a procedure or take a medication then we generally do that. That's how modern medicine, as we know it, has worked since it has been modern medicine. It's always a game of statistics and learning.
azinman2 4y ago
Every previous study I’ve read that’s looked at this states the opposite.
- logicchains 4y ago
  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10928-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10928-z this study in Nature shows the risk of heart problems for young men is greater from the vaccine.
  - hokkos 4y ago
    At the top of the article : Editor’s Note: Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this article are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the Editors. A further editorial response will follow once all parties have been given an opportunity to respond in full.
  - korm 4y ago
    This study is written by biased authors [1], and they're simply measuring the emergency calls for cardiovascular events in different age groups over time. They literally don't know if the affected individuals were even vaccinated or if they had covid. We really can't infer that the risk from vaccination is higher from this study. [1] https://concerneddoctors.org/testimony-of-retsef-levi/ https://concerneddoctors.org/testimony-of-retsef-levi/
  - inferiorhuman 4y ago
    > this study in Nature No, that's been published in Scientific Reports not Nature. Scientific Reports has a vastly higher acceptance rate, engages in pay to play, and published a picture of Donald Trump hidden in baboon feces. You're relying on junk science.

ThunderSizzle 4y ago

> It's extremely, extremely unlikely - i.e. so much less likely than it is likely to be caused by eschewing the vaccination and getting the disease. > In short, please stop misleading people by editorialising, re-framing, and presenting data/case reports improperly and without proper context so as to lead people to faulty conclusions. I guess it was hard to follow your own advice and not editorialize an opinion that is not qualified medical advice from a personal doctor.

justinjlynn 4y ago
This is essentially the same as replying "no u". The risk results in question are clear and numerically comparable on their own. It's not a complex diagnosis, analysis, or treatment issue that would require a specialist's medical opinion. All you need is the knowledge of someone who understands basic arithmetic, statistics, and logic. This is not editorialising. This is not misrepresenting data or reports to mislead. I welcome you to try again - preferably with a point beyond "no u" next time.
- raxxorrax 4y ago
  Not at all as you did not apply the quality control to the data as you suggested it needed to have to come to a conclusion.
ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
that post you're responding to was not misleading, but rather quite clear and on point bringing up individual case reports for a population-level question is indeed pretty ridiculous, especially in the comment section of a study which addresses the question much better this also applies to sources of info: if someone is trusting individual doctors they found on the internet instead of a consensus of the population of doctors, they are also likely to mislead or be misled.