Hi Steve. Thanks for this. I comment very rarely. But I've been following your offerings and COVID era studies fairy closely for the last few years, and I greatly appreciate what you've done. I was just now reading this study and also reading Prasad's comments. Your article shows how to assess the paper properly. I initially felt the exc…
Hi Steve. Thanks for this. I comment very rarely. But I've been following your offerings and COVID era studies fairy closely for the last few years, and I greatly appreciate what you've done. I was just now reading this study and also reading Prasad's comments. Your article shows how to assess the paper properly. I initially felt the excitement of reading a "mainstream," peer-reviewed journal article that acknowledged some major adverse events, followed by the more sobering realization that the effects were vastly underestimated, with some signals entirely ignored. EHRs vastly underestimate adverse effects, as you've emphasized here and for the last few years. There's no age stratification here. The reported reduction adverse effects is actually ridiculous, as you clarify. There's a lack a Bell's palsy signal, among other things. And from this, Prasad figures some of it out, but not all of it, as usual. And worse, despite the study's flaws, ignoring the study's profound limitations, the authors and others will suggest that the adverse effects are minor compared to the benefits of the C19 vaxxes. That's already happening, as shown here: https://journals.lww.com/neurotodayonline/fulltext/2024/04040/global_database_confirms_low_rates_of_adverse.3.aspx?context=latestarticles
Given the fact that EHRs vastly underestimate adverse effects, are you able to apply correction factors, as you've done previously, to obtain proper estimates of adverse effects from this paper? Best, David Henry Peterzell
Hi Steve. Thanks for this. I comment very rarely. But I've been following your offerings and COVID era studies fairy closely for the last few years, and I greatly appreciate what you've done. I was just now reading this study and also reading Prasad's comments. Your article shows how to assess the paper properly. I initially felt the excitement of reading a "mainstream," peer-reviewed journal article that acknowledged some major adverse events, followed by the more sobering realization that the effects were vastly underestimated, with some signals entirely ignored. EHRs vastly underestimate adverse effects, as you've emphasized here and for the last few years. There's no age stratification here. The reported reduction adverse effects is actually ridiculous, as you clarify. There's a lack a Bell's palsy signal, among other things. And from this, Prasad figures some of it out, but not all of it, as usual. And worse, despite the study's flaws, ignoring the study's profound limitations, the authors and others will suggest that the adverse effects are minor compared to the benefits of the C19 vaxxes. That's already happening, as shown here: https://journals.lww.com/neurotodayonline/fulltext/2024/04040/global_database_confirms_low_rates_of_adverse.3.aspx?context=latestarticles
Given the fact that EHRs vastly underestimate adverse effects, are you able to apply correction factors, as you've done previously, to obtain proper estimates of adverse effects from this paper? Best, David Henry Peterzell