True or false? Reuters "fact check" of the Denmark study showing negative VE

Reuters did a "fact check" of the negative Vaccine Efficacy in the Denmark study and the study author used a hand waving argument to conclude the negative VE is due to a bias. What do you think?

I wrote earlier about the Denmark study showing that vaccine efficacy against Omicron goes negative after 90 days:

I think it’s credible because a paper by nine CDC authors published in JAMA in January 2022 (Association Between 3 Doses of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine and Symptomatic Infection Caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron and Delta Variants) shows in Fig. 3 that the vaccines create negative efficacy for Omicron at month 7, just like the Denmark study showed too (in Denmark it was after 3 months).

So it wasn’t a mistake or an artifact.

But that isn’t going to deter the Reuters fact-checker from their mission to support the false narrative (and not the truth).

There is a Reuters “fact check” that says that the author claimed that the vaccines are fine and that the negative vaccine efficacy reported in the paper was simply due to a “bias.”

Oh really???

Here’s why I think the Reuters “fact check” is garbage

First of all, a hand waving argument supported by no data whatsoever claiming bias is not convincing to me.

Furthermore, I think the Denmark paper was accurate for these 3 reasons:

1. we see negative VE consistently in MANY other studies.

2. VE continues to go negative in that study consistent over time… how can they explain that?

3. if it was behavior differences between vaxed and unvaxed that accounts for the bias, then how come people who got Moderna behave DIFFERENTLY than people who got Pfizer?!?

I am not alone in suggesting the authors claim “there must be a bias” as needed to fit the narrative

One of the commenters on the original paper wrote something very similar to what I wrote:

So assume the results you like (high VE for recent vaccination) are causal, but hand wave confounders at results you don't like (negative VE for distant vaccination)? Science?

I couldn’t have said it any better myself. This was my reaction too when I read the paper.

What do you think?

So who got it right? Me or Reuters?