Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Silvanus]

From your source:
There was no evidence for imprinting compromising protection against severe COVID-19, but the number of severe COVID-19 cases was too small to allow concrete estimation.

A cherry-picked quote, stripping the context that it refers to the longer term. I acknowledged that protection wanes with time- this is uncontroversial.

What really matters is this (from 'analysis'): "Boosters substantially reduced infection and severe COVID-19, particularly among individuals who were clinically vulnerable, affirming the public health value of booster vaccination".

Also, your study was observational and retrospective.

lol, fucking obviously. You really do just trot any old non-criticism when you don't like a study's findings.

The people that get boosters and don't get boosters are 2 different types of people that will get covid at different rates regardless of the booster or not.

And you have compelling evidence that other confounding variables fully account for the discrepancy, do you? Even though you can't seem to name even one?

It also included not eating yolks... Again, you simply won't answer the question of why guidance would be to give kids eggs without yolks?

Why would I answer it? You've not even shown that such guidance exists. All you can provide is guidance that included. Eating. Yolks.

Consensus =/= majority

Majority view goes quite a long way towards consensus. At present, you hold a view supported by a minority, and I have a view supported by a majority (as per your own source), and here you are whining that I don't have enough. It's classic stuff.

My source was explaining 2 different takes; hence, it will agree with me and disagree with me. If you wanna go by something that's over 50 years old and current data doesn't back it up, then by all means believe that if you want. Again, the Minnesota Coronary study proved that saturated fat isn't harmful to the heart / cardiovascular system. And that study has very best methodology you can have because the food given to the participants was completely controlled whereas nutritional studies are basically surveys and people always lie. And they usually just find links/correlations like how red meat is considered bad when there's no evidence for that. It's the same as your booster study; the people that eat red meat and don't eat red meat are 2 different types of people. Health conscious people avoid red meat because they were told it's bad and do several other things that are actually healthy while people that eat red meat are less likely to be health conscious and do a bunch of actual unhealthy things, that's how red meat is linked to poor health outcomes.

It was explaining different takes... and quite clearly stated the one that disagrees with you had more support. You really shot yourself in the foot.

 

[Gergar12]

It's structural. In the US If you are a dynamic democratic-leaning voter, you don't join the government or politics; you enter the tech industry. They make more than the senators, and some senior devs at say OpenAI make more than the president.

If you are a dynamic Republican-leaning voter you crave power, get an MBA, and or become a business owner or C-Suite. You then join an exclusionary club, lose a sense of reality oftentimes, and become a multi-millionaire and perhaps a billionaire. You then fund much more dynamic republican staffers and media people who curb-stomp the Democrats. To get even more money.

Even though the smartest people who earn lots of money know there is a diminishing marginal return to how much money can get you happiness, health, wellness, etc. And while this limit has been increasing to say 5-10 million dollars needed for retirement, it's not 500 billion, 1 trillion, or even 50 million. But you do get more power to... get more power and money via campaign contributions.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

A cherry-picked quote, stripping the context that it refers to the longer term. I acknowledged that protection wanes with time- this is uncontroversial.

What really matters is this (from 'analysis'): "Boosters substantially reduced infection and severe COVID-19, particularly among individuals who were clinically vulnerable, affirming the public health value of booster vaccination".



lol, fucking obviously. You really do just trot any old non-criticism when you don't like a study's findings.



And you have compelling evidence that other confounding variables fully account for the discrepancy, do you? Even though you can't seem to name even one?



Why would I answer it? You've not even shown that such guidance exists. All you can provide is guidance that included. Eating. Yolks.



Majority view goes quite a long way towards consensus. At present, you hold a view supported by a minority, and I have a view supported by a majority (as per your own source), and here you are whining that I don't have enough. It's classic stuff.



It was explaining different takes... and quite clearly stated the one that disagrees with you had more support. You really shot yourself in the foot.

Again, like Paul Offit said, you can't stop people from getting covid so unless a booster is lowering severe covid (hospitalizations/deaths), there's no point to it. There's a reason why observational studies are not considered strong evidence. Also, your study found that from the 7th month and on, people with the booster got higher infection rate than those not getting the booster. Unless you can predict when you're going to get covid, the boosters are pointless.

It's called the healthy user bias and that applies to those that get and don't get covid boosters as well.

Healthy user effect

This kind of bias may be at work in studies that find an unexpected benefit associated with treatment. It refers…

healthjournalism.org

Also included removing yolks... Why are you trying to argue this point when eggs have been demonized? It's common knowledge.

These foods don't deserve their bad reputations, dietitians and doctors say

Eggs, coffee and potatoes are among the foods health experts think get a bad rap for bad reasons.

www.nbcnews.com

The majority of actual experts with regards to nutrition/cardiology don't believe the lipid hypothesis. I care about actual experts opinions and not just general opinion by most in the medical field. Also, as that article has shown, the data doesn't even work with the lipid hypothesis anymore. I care about the actual data.

Actually, it didn't clearly state that lipid hypothesis is agreed upon by the majority; Other experts—likely the majority—still agree with the idea that cholesterol levels are important. And, again, it is not scientific consensus like you claimed.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Again, like Paul Offit said, you can't stop people from getting covid so unless a booster is lowering severe covid (hospitalizations/deaths), there's no point to it.

 

[Silvanus]

Again, like Paul Offit said, you can't stop people from getting covid so unless a booster is lowering severe covid (hospitalizations/deaths), there's no point to it.

And boosters did lower severe covid. This was already covered.

Putting aside the fact that lowering infection rate over a given timeframe will still be beneficial, by spreading the curve and preventing the health service being overwhelmed.

There's a reason why observational studies are not considered strong evidence.

Buddy, you yourself post observational studies constantly. It's unavoidable for something like this. Pray tell, what would you prefer? A lab setting with human test subjects? Get off it.

Also, your study found that from the 7th month and on, people with the booster got higher infection rate than those not getting the booster. Unless you can predict when you're going to get covid, the boosters are pointless.

Why do you think that was? Put some thought into it.

It's called the healthy user bias and that applies to those that get and don't get covid boosters as well.

Healthy user effect

This kind of bias may be at work in studies that find an unexpected benefit associated with treatment. It refers…

healthjournalism.org

So where's your evidence that this accounts for the entire discrepancy? You can't just speculate that a certain effect accounts for a major discrepancy, without a shred of data or any numbers.

Also included removing yolks... Why are you trying to argue this point when eggs have been demonized? It's common knowledge.

That link cites past guidance that has already changed. So they were wrongly criticised half a decade ago? OK? I thought you were whining about how official guidance was still all wrong and that's why people like RFK aren't so bad?

The majority of actual experts with regards to nutrition/cardiology don't believe the lipid hypothesis. I care about actual experts opinions and not just general opinion by most in the medical field. Also, as that article has shown, the data doesn't even work with the lipid hypothesis anymore. I care about the actual data.

So your own article said a majority disagree with you. You claim a majority agree with you, but don't provide anything else. Why should I take that seriously?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

And boosters did lower severe covid. This was already covered.

Putting aside the fact that lowering infection rate over a given timeframe will still be beneficial, by spreading the curve and preventing the health service being overwhelmed.



Buddy, you yourself post observational studies constantly. It's unavoidable for something like this. Pray tell, what would you prefer? A lab setting with human test subjects? Get off it.



Why do you think that was? Put some thought into it.



So where's your evidence that this accounts for the entire discrepancy? You can't just speculate that a certain effect accounts for a major discrepancy, without a shred of data or any numbers.



That link cites past guidance that has already changed. So they were wrongly criticised half a decade ago? OK? I thought you were whining about how official guidance was still all wrong and that's why people like RFK aren't so bad?



So your own article said a majority disagree with you. You claim a majority agree with you, but don't provide anything else. Why should I take that seriously?

I covered it by quoting your study saying there was no evidence of reducing severe covid. And another quote from your study: Booster effectiveness against severe COVID-19 could not be estimated for each of these previous-infection subgroups because of too few severe COVID-19 cases.

---

But the infection rate went up 7+ months after the booster compared to those that didn't get it. And once boosters came out there was no possible issue in health services being overwhelmed.

---

Dude, observational studies are crap and should only be used as something to come up with a hypothesis, then you have to test it. It's easy to run studies on something like boosters, and you can make Pfizer do it so they can actually earn the billions they are making off of them.

---

Again, I'm not here to prove your claim wrong, you have to prove your claim. The FDA committee said there wasn't enough evidence... What you posted is not enough evidence. You can't run a study with these methods and get legitimate results because people getting the boosters and the people not getting boosters are 2 different types of people. It's the same thing as the evidence for red meat being bad or the same evidence for flu shots that my link actually mentioned.

---

Eggs have been demonzed for like 50 years. Saying people changed their opinion 5 years ago doesn't undo all the harm the guidance caused. The American Heart Association is currently saying you can eat one egg a day. You can egg as many eggs and you want and be healthy (a doctor did an N=1 study and ate 720 eggs in a month, nothing happened...). Below from the AHA and mentioning previous guidance to egg whites and you act like it wasn't a thing. Also, what has RFK Jr wanted to implement that is bad? There's nothing that he said yet with regards to what he wants to change that is going to make people more unhealthy.

Does that mean I can eat eggs?

First, go back and read the part about the importance of an all-around healthy diet.

One large, whole egg contains around 200 mg of dietary cholesterol. Because of that, Van Horn said it once was considered wise to eat no more than two or three yolks per week. Egg whites are not high in dietary cholesterol.

But research regarding the effects of eggs was complicated by the fact that eggs often are eaten with high-fat foods such as bacon, sausage and butter. These days, Van Horn said, if your LDL cholesterol level is low, a few eggs per week are considered tolerable, depending on the overall content of the diet.

The 2019 science advisory says healthy people can include up to a whole egg or the equivalent in their diets each day; given the nutritional benefits and convenience, older people with healthy cholesterol levels can have two.

Here's the latest on dietary cholesterol and how it fits in with a healthy diet

Advice has evolved over the years, but here's what experts say now about dietary cholesterol – including eggs.

www.heart.org

---

The people that understand the mechanisms and actual causation say disagree with the lipid hypothesis. Regardless of what we are talking about, I will take what those people have to say over anyone else. Also, the data agrees with what I've said because what I've said is based off the data.

 

[Silvanus]

I covered it by quoting your study saying there was no evidence of reducing severe covid. And another quote from your study: Booster effectiveness against severe COVID-19 could not be estimated for each of these previous-infection subgroups because of too few severe COVID-19 cases.

No: what you did was cherry-pick a quote about long-term imprinted protection. And you've cherry-picked again, this time a quote about specific subgroups.

Yet the clear conclusion remains this: "Boosters substantially reduced infection and severe COVID-19". You're not going to get past that.

But the infection rate went up 7+ months after the booster compared to those that didn't get it. And once boosters came out there was no possible issue in health services being overwhelmed.

Compared to those who... already had a higher rate earlier, you mean? No fucking shit.

Dude, observational studies are crap

Observational studies are the only achievable way of studying the effects of public health policy at large scale. Get over this pathetic non-complaint.

Again, I'm not here to prove your claim wrong, you have to prove your claim.

I've provided the data. What you've done is claimed that the discrepancy shown in the data is entirely down to a different cause-- this healthy bias. That's a positive claim, and a monumental one at that. You have to substantiate it.

Eggs have been demonzed for like 50 years. Saying people changed their opinion 5 years ago doesn't undo all the harm the guidance caused.

Yet here you are arguing that the current guidelines are worse than a vaccine-denying, chemtrail-conspiracy whackjob, on the basis that different guidelines were poor years ago.

The people that understand the mechanisms and actual causation say disagree with the lipid hypothesis.

Let's hear from them, then.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No: what you did was cherry-pick a quote about long-term imprinted protection. And you've cherry-picked again, this time a quote about specific subgroups.

Yet the clear conclusion remains this: "Boosters substantially reduced infection and severe COVID-19". You're not going to get past that.



Compared to those who... already had a higher rate earlier, you mean? No fucking shit.



Observational studies are the only achievable way of studying the effects of public health policy at large scale. Get over this pathetic non-complaint.



I've provided the data. What you've done is claimed that the discrepancy shown in the data is entirely down to a different cause-- this healthy bias. That's a positive claim, and a monumental one at that. You have to substantiate it.



Yet here you are arguing that the current guidelines are worse than a vaccine-denying, chemtrail-conspiracy whackjob, on the basis that different guidelines were poor years ago.



Let's hear from them, then.

Tell me the difference of severe covid of those not clinically vulnerable to covid in the booster and non-booster groups.

Seems like you're just altering when people get covid vs if they get covid or not.

1) You can easily run of a study of this. 2) I'm not asking you to show the effects of public health policy, I'm asking you to show an intervention works (then you implement a policy after doing that).

AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOUR CLAIM. It's not on me to disprove something that hasn't been proven. I'm telling you how there are massive issues in observational studies and that is true. You can't hinge your proof on an observational study.

None of his guidelines would have anything to do with any of that. I don't know if it's even possible for America to eat unhealthier. Though people keep trying to find a way to accomplish that like saying the impossible/beyond meat is a healthy alternative when it's probably the most ultra-processed food out there. And you know why that fake meat is considered an good alternative? Because it has less saturated fucking fat, this is the clown world we live in.

They are the ones saying the lipid hypothesis doesn't make sense.

 

[Silvanus]

Tell me the difference of severe covid of those not clinically vulnerable to covid in the booster and non-booster groups.

"Among people less clinically vulnerable to severe COVID-19, booster effectiveness was 23·4% (21·1 to 25·7%) against infection and 57·9% (–55·6 to 92·1%) against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19."

Seems like you're just altering when people get covid vs if they get covid or not.

When people get Covid matters a hell of a lot. As does the severity if/when they get it.

1) You can easily run of a study of this. 2) I'm not asking you to show the effects of public health policy, I'm asking you to show an intervention works (then you implement a policy after doing that).

We are literally discussing, right now, whether an approach that was already done in the past worked or not.

AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOUR CLAIM. It's not on me to disprove something that hasn't been proven.

A significant difference between those who had boosters and those who didn't, in both infection rate and severe infection rate, is very strong evidence for the position that boosters made a difference. You then made a counterclaim: that that difference is wholly attributable to another, unproven factor. Either substantiate it or drop it.

None of his guidelines would have anything to do with any of that.

OK, whatever, irrelevant. You were harping on about current guidelines being awful, as a way of making RFK seem reasonable. Are you now acknowledging that your problems with the guidelines are actually just about old guidelines the US has already got rid of?

 

[Agema]

The people that understand the mechanisms and actual causation say disagree with the lipid hypothesis.

Let's hear from them, then.

The lipid hypothesis - that plasma fat concentrations (particularly cholesterol) correlate with increased cardiovascular risk - is alive and well. I would be very concerned about any "expert" who is attempting to argue otherwise.

At best, it might be some constructive criticism of elements around the hypothesis with some unnecessarily controversial headline-grabbing, heading down through a series of ever-more dubious claims eventually into outright crankery.

 

[Chimpzy]

The inside story of Harris' lost gamble on Joe Rogan, Beyoncé and a late Texas rally

A new book by Jonathan Allen of NBC News and Amie Parnes of The Hill has details about the Harris campaign's botched attempt to schedule an interview with Joe Rogan.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Phoenixmgs]

"Among people less clinically vulnerable to severe COVID-19, booster effectiveness was 23·4% (21·1 to 25·7%) against infection and 57·9% (–55·6 to 92·1%) against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19."



When people get Covid matters a hell of a lot. As does the severity if/when they get it.



We are literally discussing, right now, whether an approach that was already done in the past worked or not.



A significant difference between those who had boosters and those who didn't, in both infection rate and severe infection rate, is very strong evidence for the position that boosters made a difference. You then made a counterclaim: that that difference is wholly attributable to another, unproven factor. Either substantiate it or drop it.



OK, whatever, irrelevant. You were harping on about current guidelines being awful, as a way of making RFK seem reasonable. Are you now acknowledging that your problems with the guidelines are actually just about old guidelines the US has already got rid of?

And the next sentence after that says something about such a few amount of severe covid cases. With such a small sample size, adjusting for bias or confounders (like healthy user bias) could easily change that result significantly.

The CDC is now arguing that, given the continued evolution of SARS-CoV-2, we should offer a yearly Covid vaccine in a manner analogous to the influenza vaccine. SARS-CoV-2, however, isn’t influenza. Every year, FDA advisors pick strains to include in the yearly influenza vaccine. If they’re wrong, which has happened three times in the past twenty years, protective efficacy against severe disease can fall below 20 percent. In other words, pick the wrong influenza strain and you’re in trouble. That’s not true for SARS-CoV-2. Healthy young people who have been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 with the original vaccine remain protected against severe disease because the parts of these new variants that are recognized by T cells have remained relatively unchanged. T cells, which are long-lived and kill virus-infected cells, are critical in protecting against severe COVID. By likening SARS-CoV-2 to influenza, we have created the false perception that healthy young people who have already been vaccinated or naturally infected or both will be protected against severe disease only if they receive the updated vaccine.

Does Everyone Need a Yearly Covid Booster?

The most recent recommendation by the CDC has come under question.

pauloffit.substack.com

Why does the "when" matter?

You still need the same type of study either way. You know, not observational.

Expert Paul Offit disagrees and you didn't provide strong evidence, observation study is not strong evidence...

The actual things RFK Jr said he wants to do would make people healthier and he is also rather passionate about that. What person that you would like to be appointed would care about doing any of the things that RFK Jr has said he wants to do? Aren't you the one that makes the argument that if a law or bill isn't perfect but makes things better, it should be implemented?

The lipid hypothesis - that plasma fat concentrations (particularly cholesterol) correlate with increased cardiovascular risk - is alive and well. I would be very concerned about any "expert" who is attempting to argue otherwise.

At best, it might be some constructive criticism of elements around the hypothesis with some unnecessarily controversial headline-grabbing, heading down through a series of ever-more dubious claims eventually into outright crankery.

The data disagrees with the lipid hypothesis...

Also, the lipid hypothesis said that dietary cholesterol increases serum cholesterol at one point but everyone is FINALLY acknowledging that that is some bullshit.

 

[Silvanus]

And the next sentence after that says something about such a few amount of severe covid cases. With such a small sample size, adjusting for bias or confounders (like healthy user bias) could easily change that result significantly.

Oh, my good lord: The sample size wasn't small. "Less clinically vulnerable" was defined as under 50 and with one or zero pre-existing conditions. That's hundreds of thousands. What was small was the rate of severe cases among that group-- I.e., it was already relatively low for the two-dose cohort. But guess what? It was still significantly lower for the three-dose cohort.

Why does the "when" matter?

Firstly, because people tend to want more time with their loved ones, strangely.

Secondly, because 10 people admitted simultaneously to a hospital have a poorer chance than 10 people admitted one by one to a hospital.

You still need the same type of study either way. You know, not observational.

We already have mechanical studies to show how the vaccines work on a chemical/biological level. Observational is literally the only way to study the effect of a roleout at scale.

Expert Paul Offit disagrees

I'm so sick of you parroting the same few names, people with public profiles who've grabbed your short attention.

The actual things RFK Jr said he wants to do would make people healthier and he is also rather passionate about that.

He's given fuck-all detail about what he wants to do. You've taken the messages you want to take from that vagueness. Meanwhile, I'm looking at his history of utter idiocy as evidence that he simply doesn't grasp the basics of medicine, and is down a rabbit hole of fruitcake conspiracy thinking.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Oh, my good lord: The sample size wasn't small. "Less clinically vulnerable" was defined as under 50 and with one or zero pre-existing conditions. That's hundreds of thousands. What was small was the rate of severe cases among that group-- I.e., it was already relatively low for the two-dose cohort. But guess what? It was still significantly lower for the three-dose cohort.



Firstly, because people tend to want more time with their loved ones, strangely.

Secondly, because 10 people admitted simultaneously to a hospital have a poorer chance than 10 people admitted one by one to a hospital.



We already have mechanical studies to show how the vaccines work on a chemical/biological level. Observational is literally the only way to study the effect of a roleout at scale.



I'm so sick of you parroting the same few names, people with public profiles who've grabbed your short attention.



He's given fuck-all detail about what he wants to do. You've taken the messages you want to take from that vagueness. Meanwhile, I'm looking at his history of utter idiocy as evidence that he simply doesn't grasp the basics of medicine, and is down a rabbit hole of fruitcake conspiracy thinking.

The amount of people getting severe covid in that group was very small. If you have say 10 cases of severe covid in one group and 5 in the other group, that's a 50% difference. Then if the healthy user bias and other confounders alter those numbers, you hardly have any difference and it's also not statistically significant.

This isn't 2020, you don't have any chance of covid overwhelming hospitals if nobody gets a booster.

I already gave you an expert saying mechanistically why the booster is not gonna do anything for most people. You have to prove the rollout is necessary BEFORE doing it.

Paul Offit is literally the foremost vaccine expert in the US. What did he say that was wrong? Because unless you can do that, then he is right.

It is really apparent what he wants to do if appointed.

 

[Silvanus]

The amount of people getting severe covid in that group was very small. If you have say 10 cases of severe covid in one group and 5 in the other group, that's a 50% difference. Then if the healthy user bias and other confounders alter those numbers, you hardly have any difference and it's also not statistically significant.

Which the study acknowledged, hence CI90+. Yet, the effectiveness for the other groups was quite similar-- altogether counting to a sample size of over 2million.

So if you want to say the difference for this one specific group was down to some other unidentified factor (even though it was relatively consistent with the rest of the group, up to 2million-strong) you're gonna need to substantiate that claim.

Over the entire group, there's more than enough substance there for strong booster effectiveness in general. Yet you want them to hold off, based on... sheer speculation that the shown benefits might be down to something else in specific circumstances? It's fucking ridiculous. The benefit is shown. The harms are minuscule in comparison. You're talking horseshit.

This isn't 2020, you don't have any chance of covid overwhelming hospitals if nobody gets a booster.

Buddy, survivability is increased with a greater timeframe even outside of 'overwhelming' scenarios.

I already gave you an expert saying mechanistically why the booster is not gonna do anything for most people.

You gave one talking head offering an opinion about the scope of benefit. Whatever. There's plenty of substantiation for the mechanics of a booster. It's settled science, and nobody seriously disputes this, except for dipshits like RFK who have no grasp of medical science.

It is really apparent what he wants to do if appointed.

Yep: sow doubt on vaccine effectiveness and peddle lies about their harms, as he did in Samoa, contributing to outbreaks of preventable diseases like measles.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Which the study acknowledged, hence CI90+. Yet, the effectiveness for the other groups was quite similar-- altogether counting to a sample size of over 2million.

So if you want to say the difference for this one specific group was down to some other unidentified factor (even though it was relatively consistent with the rest of the group, up to 2million-strong) you're gonna need to substantiate that claim.

Over the entire group, there's more than enough substance there for strong booster effectiveness in general. Yet you want them to hold off, based on... sheer speculation that the shown benefits might be down to something else in specific circumstances? It's fucking ridiculous. The benefit is shown. The harms are minuscule in comparison. You're talking horseshit.



Buddy, survivability is increased with a greater timeframe even outside of 'overwhelming' scenarios.



You gave one talking head offering an opinion about the scope of benefit. Whatever. There's plenty of substantiation for the mechanics of a booster. It's settled science, and nobody seriously disputes this, except for dipshits like RFK who have no grasp of medical science.



Yep: sow doubt on vaccine effectiveness and peddle lies about their harms, as he did in Samoa, contributing to outbreaks of preventable diseases like measles.

You don't get it, it's an observational study, you have to substantiate your claim. It's not on me to disprove something that was never proven.

What are you talking about? There's basically no treatments for covid. Just because you are getting a bit more attention in the hospital doesn't mean you'll magically have a better chance at surviving.

Paul Offit is the FOREMOST vaccine expert in the US, he knows what the fuck he's talking about. Also, the rest of the world never agreed that everyone needs boosters, it's not settled science; well, I guess it is settled when nobody is doing what you say is settled science. You keep using terms like "scientific consensus" and "settled science" when they don't apply because they're not true. There's like no one getting covid boosters (except like old people) anymore because everyone knows it's bullshit.

He's not gonna do anything vaccine related...

 

[Silvanus]

You don't get it, it's an observational study, you have to substantiate your claim. It's not on me to disprove something that was never proven.

There is more than enough there to substantiate the fact that booster vaccines were effective. Massive sample size. Very significant results. None of this is seriously disputed science.

You say I "don't get it", and then parrot the same foolish quibbles and non-issues. Quibbles that do nothing to undermine the study or it's conclusions-- and mostly just expose how absolutely little you actually comprehend about the subject or how to evaluate a study.

"It's observational so it's unreliable"? "The findings for one subgroup might be down to a different factor" speculation? Its honestly almost pathetic at this point. You don't grasp the absolute basics of how to discuss this, how to read a paper, or how to evaluate these subjects. You don't.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

There is more than enough there to substantiate the fact that booster vaccines were effective. Massive sample size. Very significant results. None of this is seriously disputed science.

You say I "don't get it", and then parrot the same foolish quibbles and non-issues. Quibbles that do nothing to undermine the study or it's conclusions-- and mostly just expose how absolutely little you actually comprehend about the subject or how to evaluate a study.

"It's observational so it's unreliable"? "The findings for one subgroup might be down to a different factor" speculation? Its honestly almost pathetic at this point. You don't grasp the absolute basics of how to discuss this, how to read a paper, or how to evaluate these subjects. You don't.

You can't give people an observational study and act like it's proof. Your study also didn't do a cost/benefit analysis either, the vaccines aren't just all benefit, there's costs too. Years of observational studies showed that old people getting flu shots reduced all-cause mortality by 50% (you know, VERY SIGNIFICANT RESULTS) and it was later found out that flu shots had little to no effect because it was the healthy old people getting the flu shots and that was the reason. This is why you can't use observational studies... It is disputed science because the rest of the world did not recommend such a thing. I guess you should go talk to Paul Offit and tell him he doesn't grasp the basics on how to discuss vaccines...

The governmental guidelines of cutting fat hurt the very groups that are the most obese. Black people have more insulin response (and insulin resistance) to carbs. The black people IN AN RCT that were put on a low carb diet eating a lot more fat lost over double the weight than the people on the low fat diet. Are you going to keep claiming that eating fat causes you to gain more weight or makes it harder to lose weight? Because that is obviously not true.

 

[Silvanus]

You can't give people an observational study and act like it's proof. Your study also didn't do a cost/benefit analysis either, the vaccines aren't just all benefit, there's costs too. Years of observational studies showed that old people getting flu shots reduced all-cause mortality by 50% (you know, VERY SIGNIFICANT RESULTS) and it was later found out that flu shots had little to no effect because it was the healthy old people getting the flu shots and that was the reason. This is why you can't use observational studies... It is disputed science because the rest of the world did not recommend such a thing. I guess you should go talk to Paul Offit and tell him he doesn't grasp the basics on how to discuss vaccines...

The governmental guidelines of cutting fat hurt the very groups that are the most obese. Black people have more insulin response (and insulin resistance) to carbs. The black people IN AN RCT that were put on a low carb diet eating a lot more fat lost over double the weight than the people on the low fat diet. Are you going to keep claiming that eating fat causes you to gain more weight or makes it harder to lose weight? Because that is obviously not true.

Another waffle through these poorly-understood quibbles and non-issues. Griping about it being an observational study, or about the harms of vaccines, simply shows how little you grasp and how much you've gone down the rabbit hole. These are irrelevances.This isn't serious. You're not serious.