3 ms·

The suggestion here is very clearly that the study can answer the question of the relative safety of the vaccines vs. the virus. Which it cannot. Which you ab

• somenameforme 4y ago
  What I'm trying to emphasize is that by your standard of evidence, no study could ever answer anything. And that's not an entirely unreasonable position to take. For instance I know of one scientist, who is part of the National Academy of Sciences no less, who believes that the studies against smoking are insufficiently compelling. And it's for, more or less, similar rational to what you're putting forth here. On the other hand, the viable ability to set up an insurmountable standard of proof does not really change the picture here. The data available, under the time frames studied, do not paint a positive picture of the safety or efficacy of these drugs. If you get into section 5 of the study, you can see how both the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies worked to pad the numbers to make them look better, including things like lumping thousands of individuals into the experimental group even though there had been no follow up on these individuals, meaning they had no idea of their outcomes.