Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
As usual, great post Jeff.
There's one thing that I don't understand about all these studies. Let's assume one of either the vaccine or infection has a greater risk of causing myocarditis or similar heart issues than the other.
A lot of the population has clearly had both vaccination and infection.
In fact, maybe the combination is of greater risk than each alone?
That makes it harder to know where the greater risk is actually coming from.
Are they controlling for that in some way?
I think you'd want to study the people that definitely had an infection but did not get vaccinated as some kind of partial control. It would be harder to look at those that were vaccinated but never had an infection because many of them may not even know they had it.
|
Re: The bolded text from your quote --
That's exactly what they should study.
That's exactly what the authors of the Penn State meta-analysis didn't study.
Yet it's exactly what the headlines crafted by the CDC and mainstream media led everybody to believe the authors of the Penn State meta-analysis had studied.
And that's exactly my point about the 'phuckery' waiting once you go down the rabbit hole.
The only way you study that is you enlist the unvaccinated into a study and do seroprevalence testing among them. Break them out into two groups: The unvaccinated with and without Covid antibodies. Follow them for a few years and report their medical outcomes including myocarditis.
But for some reason nobody in the scientific community (especially not here in the US) has shown the slightest bit of interest in funding that study.
-jp
.
