3 ms·
What I'm suggesting is that "the science" seek some epidemiology. There's a lot implied in this study. There's some great correlation. But it's not thorough. I
by chiefalchemist 2y ago
What I'm suggesting is that "the science" seek some epidemiology.
There's a lot implied in this study. There's some great correlation. But it's not thorough. It missed key questions (already listed) to the point of being misleading.
It's the ethical equivalent of cherry-picking data to find something you wanted to find. That's science? I think not.
- defrost 2y ago> It missed key questions (already listed) to the point of being misleading. That was your claim. What is your evidence for this? Did you read the actual paper cited in the article. > It's the ethical equivalent of cherry-picking data to find something you wanted to find. They reported what was there. Are you suggesting they didn't run a multi variate regression against vaccination status? > That's science? I think not. Could you remind me when you first ran any regressions on medical data for a cohort of several thousand or more? In the interestes of transparency I first did that in the mid 1980s .. although admittedly I continued in the direction of exploration geospatial statistical applications as part of geophysics.