- 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
0
Posted on 4/14/26 at 4:10 pm to LSUfor8
quote:
They above used a different methodology on the same data. With the number of vaccines children are now exposed to, more of these vaccinated vs non-vaccinated children studies need to be done.
Lol. This is amazing. This journal is the who's who of anti-vaccine morons. My god, the things you idiots believe.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 4:11 pm to Night Vision
The source alone is questionable. Why you guys believe it so thoroughly is some other issue.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 4:12 pm to notsince98
quote:
Not sure why people would downvote this. The presenter goes over good, hard data. It doesn't claim unvaccinated had zero health problems. It goes over the health issues they saw in kids from both groups.
Because it is very fricking stupid and is the same laundering of anti-vaccine views as every other 'study.'
Posted on 4/14/26 at 4:17 pm to LegendInMyMind
quote:
I'd like to see the info/study as it was presented to whomever is funding/doing this "documentary" and compare it to the study that was submitted to Henry Ford. Not the word of the researchers, but the actual data presented in both instances. That would tell the full story.
I like that instinct. In practice, the fastest way to sanity-check these is a few questions - were the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups comparable to start with, was follow-up similar, and were outcomes defined the same way? If any of those are off, different "analyses" of the same data can point in totally different directions.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 4:30 pm to crazy4lsu
A lot of this seems driven by people trying to make sense of conflicting claims and not wanting to get it wrong. I wish more of the discussion focused on what actually makes a comparison reliable vs. misleading, because that’s where these things usually fall apart.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 4:38 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Whoda guessed messing with intact immune systems might have consequences?
What did you learn from that study, Sally?
Posted on 4/14/26 at 4:42 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
What did you learn from that study, Sally?
I'm not playing with you today... busy in the Swalwell stuff and other threads.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 5:48 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
If the underlying groups aren’t comparable, does reanalyzing the same data fix that?
quote:
If any of those are off, different "analyses" of the same data can point in totally different directions.
I think you answered your own question above with your second quote.
That’s what I was getting at when I posted a link to a separate analysis. In the second study, they did find similar results as the first, but even more unfavorable to the vaccinated group.
Now Crazy admonishes any study whose data doesn’t favor the vaccinated group as anti-vax and propagated by those groups. It’s almost as if he’s never championed any studies that are pro-vaccine. It’s perfectly fine to have different opinions without being derogatory.
I haven’t really found any decent studies on vax vs no vax that didn’t have pro or anti-vaccine biases. Until such legitimate studies are done without any biases, there will never be an agreed upon answer. I truly hope such studies are forth coming.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 5:50 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
They listed a few specific flaws - like the groups not being comparable. If those are real issues, the results get hard to interpret. If not, then it’d be worth digging into why they’re being dismissed.
I wonder if these "flaws" would be as important if the results of the study had been different.
Well I don't really wonder, I know.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 5:54 pm to Night Vision
What years were studied?
Posted on 4/14/26 at 5:56 pm to LSUfor8
quote:
Now Crazy admonishes any study whose data doesn’t favor the vaccinated group as anti-vax and propagated by those groups.
Buddy, you want me to clear my schedule so I can teach you immunology?
Posted on 4/14/26 at 5:57 pm to LSUfor8
I think the instinct to want cleaner studies is right. At the same time, I’ve noticed that when the underlying groups differ a lot, the question becomes less "which analysis is right" and more "what are all the analyses picking up on that isn’t actually vaccination."
Posted on 4/14/26 at 6:01 pm to timdonaghyswhistle
How do you usually think about that - do those kinds of flaws matter regardless of which way the results go?
Posted on 4/14/26 at 6:03 pm to crazy4lsu
Not necessary. If I want to learn more about immunology, I’ll find someone who actually is qualified. Besides, I’m sure your schedule has been cleared since 8:30 this morning.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 6:04 pm to LSUfor8
He knows a lot of immunology. You'll find it in his post history.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 6:08 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
My god, the things you idiots believe.
Is there any need to go here? Do you not see that shite like this can only hurt your (the medical industry) cause?
Posted on 4/14/26 at 6:08 pm to TigerDoc
If you’re pro-vax, they’re flaws, and if you’re anti-vax, they’re strengths.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 6:09 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
He knows a lot of immunology.
That may be true, but he shouldn't be acting like a prick to people trying to educate themselves. I would hate to have a doctor like this. A good doctor appreciates a studious patient
This post was edited on 4/14/26 at 6:10 pm
Posted on 4/14/26 at 6:13 pm to AlterEd
He can be blunt, but he does tend to focus on the underlying mechanisms. I think our friend would find it worth engaging him on that rather than the labels.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News