We recently reported on the excellent article by Fung, Jones, and (BMJ editor) Doshi, on biases in observational studies that likely exaggerate the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines, particular the case-counting window bias, whereby COVID cases in the jabbed, but before the 1-3 week window to reach ‘fully vaccinated’ status is over, are ignored, allowing a vaccine with effectiveness of 0% to be perceived as having effectiveness of 48%. Now, a follow-up article reveals several ways in which the situation may be worse.
The safety studies, unlike efficacy studies, I’ve seen don’t count the jabbed as unjabbed during the first two or three weeks. But they do restrict the timeframe post-jab in which attribution can be made rather stringently, which is not appropriate in my mind for a jab that hijacks the patient’s ribosomes and can even be reverse-transcribed to the DNA. Many of them also go hunting in the history of the patients with AEs for alternative causes after the fact, which is plainly biased.
NEW study???!! Nothing new in that. We were reporting this particular fraud since Feb 2021 when the first Israel study was released!
"....the brilliant and incredibly attractive author.." - very droll :)
Good article.
The safety studies, unlike efficacy studies, I’ve seen don’t count the jabbed as unjabbed during the first two or three weeks. But they do restrict the timeframe post-jab in which attribution can be made rather stringently, which is not appropriate in my mind for a jab that hijacks the patient’s ribosomes and can even be reverse-transcribed to the DNA. Many of them also go hunting in the history of the patients with AEs for alternative causes after the fact, which is plainly biased.