- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Study: MRNA Vaccines Increase Risk of Contracting COVID-19; Each Booster Shot Raises Risk
Posted on 12/29/22 at 8:46 am to crazy4lsu
Posted on 12/29/22 at 8:46 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
What exactly do we need to dispute? It's a study, not a definitive analysis of a vaccination program
Multiple physicians in this thread said it was a poor study and not peer reviewed.
That’s not a critique of the study.
I’m asking them to read the study and tell me specifically why the study is flawed. They can be as precise as they want, I’m qualified for this discussion.
quote:
We could look at it as though the vaccines were complete failures, which this study doesn't suggest.
You could make a very strong argument that’s what this study suggests CURRENTLY.
2
Posted on 12/29/22 at 8:46 am to WaWaWeeWa
I wasn't aware he claimed to be an ED physician.
He's still not a peer for the purposes of reviewing this literature.
Pulling out a graph that lacks context is massively misleading. If you're skilled enough to interpret it well, why aren't you?
And you didn't answer my question - didn't you yourself claim to be a physician and if so, why are you referring to people as "COVIDIANS"?
He's still not a peer for the purposes of reviewing this literature.
Pulling out a graph that lacks context is massively misleading. If you're skilled enough to interpret it well, why aren't you?
And you didn't answer my question - didn't you yourself claim to be a physician and if so, why are you referring to people as "COVIDIANS"?
Posted on 12/29/22 at 8:47 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
I’m asking them to read the study and tell me specifically why the study is flawed.
Is this standard health communication practice recommended by public health experts for physicians communicating with the public - to recommend individuals personally review scientific literature and draw their own conclusions?
This post was edited on 12/29/22 at 8:49 am
Posted on 12/29/22 at 8:50 am to TigerDoc
quote:
And you didn't answer my question - didn't you yourself claim to be a physician and if so, why are you referring to people as "COVIDIANS"?
This kind of non sequitur makes your initial condescension regarding data interpretation hilarious.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 8:50 am to TigerDoc
quote:
He's still not a peer for the purposes of reviewing this literature.
He’s a physician and he’s claiming the study is flawed. Any reasonable human should be able to articulate why they believe something. He can’t fall back on the excuse that I won’t understand the complex scientific discussion.
quote:
Pulling out a graph that lacks context is massively misleading. If you're skilled enough to interpret it well, why aren't you?
I agree. That’s why I read the study and even tried to find ways it could be wrong. The authors of the study tried to minimize the results as best they could as well through statistical analysis. It was obvious they didn’t want to find these results and try to explain it away as behavioral.
quote:
And you didn't answer my question - didn't you yourself claim to be a physician and if so, why are you referring to people as "COVIDIANS"?
Are you trying to make me seem less credible by claiming I’m unprofessional on an anonymous message board?
Posted on 12/29/22 at 8:53 am to TigerDoc
quote:
Is this standard health communication practice recommended by public health experts for physicians communicating with the public - to recommend individuals personally review scientific literature and draw their own conclusions?
You’ve demonstrated that you don’t have an answer as to why this study is flawed by avoiding debate.
Pretty sad actually for someone who I’m sure would claim is a big proponent of scientific fact and open debate.
Do better.
This post was edited on 12/29/22 at 8:54 am
Posted on 12/29/22 at 8:55 am to WaWaWeeWa
I expect physicians to take appropriate care with health communication that the general public doesn't, and you're giving mixed messages about which standard I should hold you to.
Are you a physician?
Are you a physician?
Posted on 12/29/22 at 8:57 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
Multiple physicians in this thread said it was a poor study and not peer reviewed.
That’s not a critique of the study.
I’m asking them to read the study and tell me specifically why the study is flawed. They can be as precise as they want, I’m qualified for this discussion.
Sure. In my view, the discussion portion is weak, as there is very little interest in possible molecular explanations of why increased vaccine doses increase COVID-19 risk. In addition, though this isn't the purpose of their study, shouldn't we know what the quality of the reinfection was before describing this vaccination program as a complete failure?
quote:
You could make a very strong argument that’s what this study suggests CURRENTLY.
But the study itself suggests a protective effect even with the reinfections, does it not?
Posted on 12/29/22 at 8:57 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
Do better.
It's not the study that's flawed. It's the use of this graph to mislead the non-expert reader about the conclusion of the study.
Do you disagree? I'll explain what I mean if you do.
This post was edited on 12/29/22 at 9:16 am
Posted on 12/29/22 at 8:57 am to WaWaWeeWa
He's up voting his own posts and down voting the others. His ideological lunacy also very much outweighs whatever education he has or claims to have. He's a zero faith poster and has been for quite some time.
Do with that info what you will.
Do with that info what you will.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 8:58 am to TigerDoc
quote:
It's not the study that's flawed, is the use of this graph to mislead the non-expert reader about the conclusion?
Yeah the graph doesnt really match what the conclusion of the study is
Posted on 12/29/22 at 8:58 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
But the study itself suggests a protective effect even with the reinfections, does it not?
Yes, and this goes to my point. This graph is supposed to suggest the opposite.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 9:05 am to GRTiger
You could use this same technique to pill people into believing any number of dubious conclusions - e.g. that lead is healthy.
If you post a misleading graph cycled through a propaganda outlet for the purposes of manipulating people's motivated reasoning leading them to misunderstand the scientific literature, that's bad and poses real-world risks to their health, not just internet shitpoasting consequences.
If you post a misleading graph cycled through a propaganda outlet for the purposes of manipulating people's motivated reasoning leading them to misunderstand the scientific literature, that's bad and poses real-world risks to their health, not just internet shitpoasting consequences.
This post was edited on 12/29/22 at 9:07 am
Posted on 12/29/22 at 9:14 am to TigerDoc
quote:
I expect physicians to take appropriate care with health communication
Regressive's lack of self awareness is staggering.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 9:16 am to Turbeauxdog
One of these days you'll have a substantive comment to contribute, but apparently today is not that day.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 9:25 am to Jyrdis
quote:
got vaccinated early on because what was being published made it seem like the right thing to do. After the booster, I was done. When I’m constantly being told I need a third, fourth, etc booster I sense I’m being fed complete BS. I’ve also had Covid twice. It sucked, but nothing to be scared of—some chills and lethargy.
They already had reinfections and word on myocarditis in other countries before I was even eligible. The bad news on these was out early if you were willing to look.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 9:27 am to dgnx6
quote:
They already had reinfections and word on myocarditis in other countries before I was even eligible. The bad news on these was out early if you were willing to look.
This. There were plenty of us warning yall not to get an experimental jab for a virus where a majority of the cases were asymptomatic.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 9:28 am to TigerDoc
quote:
One of these days you'll have a substantive comment to contribute, but apparently today is not that day.
The substance I provide is helping to ensure no one ever takes you seriously about any topic ever.
Because there's nothing about you that should be taken seriously.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 9:33 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
We could look at it as though the vaccines were complete failures, which this study doesn't suggest.
As you already know, I’m not against the vaccines being used for those with major health issues, or those over 60 that choose to get it.
That being said,
quote:
Or we could see that the context of reinfection might be that spike protein antibody response was effective enough at clearing an initial infection, with the side effect that not all immunologic material underwent T-cell dependent activation of B cells, which would lead to reinfections in subsequent generations of the virus, as each minor difference in viral protein structure would require new antibodies.
is RARELY acknowledged by the Covidians.
A global rollout was never going to work due simply to logistics.
As such, claiming it to be a panacea was moronic.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 9:35 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
The substance I provide is helping to ensure no one ever takes you seriously about any topic ever.
Because there's nothing about you that should be taken seriously.
I got my first dose of this clown last night. He is a legitimate moonbat.
Page 9 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News