re: New baby on the way - Whooping Cough vaccine

quote:

---

6/23/2022

Your request has been fulfilled. Now please admit that you are an idiot and begin eating your crow.

---

Unfortunately for you, you picked a guy whose original academic focus was research methodology and experimental design to argue with.

The first thing to look for is bias (in this case, funding).

quote:

---

Funding

Schmidt Science Fellowship in partnership with the Rhodes Trust; WHO; UK Medical Research Council; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; National Institute for Health Research; and Community Jameel.

---

Do any of those funding sources have a vested interest in a certain result?

The second item to look for in their summary of methodology is normative factors.

quote:

---

quote:
Based on official reported COVID-19 deaths, we estimated that vaccinations prevented 14·4 million (95% credible interval [Crl] 13·7–15·9) deaths from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 8, 2021. This estimate rose to 19·8 million (95% Crl 19·1–20·4) deaths from COVID-19 averted when we used excess deaths as an estimate of the true extent of the pandemic, representing a global reduction of 63% in total deaths (19·8 million of 31·4 million) during the first year of COVID-19 vaccination. In COVAX Advance Market Commitment countries, we estimated that 41% of excess mortality (7·4 million [95% Crl 6·8–7·7] of 17·9 million deaths) was averted. In low-income countries, we estimated that an additional 45% (95% CrI 42–49) of deaths could have been averted had the 20% vaccination coverage target set by COVAX been met by each country, and that an additional 111% (105–118) of deaths could have been averted had the 40% target set by WHO been met by each country by the end of 2021.

---

This is pathetic.

You don't make estimations of your data to support conclusions.

Data are absolute.

Data are to be measured without expectation.

Data are not to be manipulated/confined to certain data sets to support certain conclusions.

In short, your chosen published work has failed the most basic scientific standard.



My previous post was bait; you were simply foolish enough to take it.