Weird how you linked to the study but continue to use the original UNCORRECTED text that is NOT used in the link you provided. Kind of as though, you knew it had been corrected but decided to pick the version that you prefer even though THE AUTHORS have signed off on the corrections. Extraordinarily common theme with the science-denying …
Weird how you linked to the study but continue to use the original UNCORRECTED text that is NOT used in the link you provided. Kind of as though, you knew it had been corrected but decided to pick the version that you prefer even though THE AUTHORS have signed off on the corrections. Extraordinarily common theme with the science-denying antivax crowd....
NO controls, the participants were their own control (which is valid for many inquiries but not this study), NOT statistically tested, "based on data which has not been validated in this population. No statistical comparison was done in this observational study." = pretty much worthless
A great control would have been a population who were unvaccinated, but contracted a symptomatic (however mildly) case of confirmed CVD19. Given we KNOW without any doubt these SAME markers can be elevated/increased following almost ANY kind of immune system challenge.
IOW, these markers can be elevated from contracting CVD19. THAT is the proper context of vaccine safety risk/benefit paradigm and discussion: the vaccine vs. the INFECTION. It is NEVER 'vaccine vs. I'm just gonna tell that virus NO THANK YOU and refuse to get it, by using my Jesus prayer shield'. At least not with a pathogen as highly transmissible and contagious as CVD19. One can reasonably avoid infection with numerous other pathogens that are sorta hard to transmit or contract. e.g. HIV. In these cases, 'vaccination vs. I'm just not going to get it' (by more than a prayer shield) is a rational paradigm. NOT with measles, influenza, CVD19, et. al.
Weird how you linked to the study but continue to use the original UNCORRECTED text that is NOT used in the link you provided. Kind of as though, you knew it had been corrected but decided to pick the version that you prefer even though THE AUTHORS have signed off on the corrections. Extraordinarily common theme with the science-denying antivax crowd....
NO controls, the participants were their own control (which is valid for many inquiries but not this study), NOT statistically tested, "based on data which has not been validated in this population. No statistical comparison was done in this observational study." = pretty much worthless
A great control would have been a population who were unvaccinated, but contracted a symptomatic (however mildly) case of confirmed CVD19. Given we KNOW without any doubt these SAME markers can be elevated/increased following almost ANY kind of immune system challenge.
IOW, these markers can be elevated from contracting CVD19. THAT is the proper context of vaccine safety risk/benefit paradigm and discussion: the vaccine vs. the INFECTION. It is NEVER 'vaccine vs. I'm just gonna tell that virus NO THANK YOU and refuse to get it, by using my Jesus prayer shield'. At least not with a pathogen as highly transmissible and contagious as CVD19. One can reasonably avoid infection with numerous other pathogens that are sorta hard to transmit or contract. e.g. HIV. In these cases, 'vaccination vs. I'm just not going to get it' (by more than a prayer shield) is a rational paradigm. NOT with measles, influenza, CVD19, et. al.