In a massive coup, just a few days ago the influential American Journal of Epidemiology, published by Oxford University Press, released my response to a Johns Hopkins study (Kitano et al.) concluding that the COVID-19 vaccines are still worth the risk in the Omicron era.
The best epidemiologist of our time is Professor John Ioannides and his approach would be far more reliable than the American Journal of Epidemiology in my opinion. I think you've got them rattled Raphael... stand strong 👍
"The best epidemiologist of our time is Professor John Ioannides"
Given the relentless attacks on Ioannides' character and competence when he dared to apply his talents to the possibly-chimeric virus, Con Dassos, Would you agree that we might be excused for thinking Dr. Lataster in rather august company and therefore "hovering directly above the target?"
Correlation ain't axiomatically causation, but the signal keeps getting stronger amidst the now-deliberate increase in background noise.
Dec 21, 2023·edited Dec 21, 2023Liked by Raphael Lataster, PhD
Thanks for pursuing this. Of course, the whole issue of “net benefit” is spurious with vaccines - it sets the margin far too low. If you kill 49 people to save 50 it is a very bad way of saving 50 people and you probably haven’t even got an accurate way of measuring it. It is moving the goal posts from the claim that “the benefits greatly outweigh the risks” a claim which they must reckon to be now unsustainable, although it would be minimally necessary to justify what they do. And, of course, the data is ever biased by gaslighting the harmed.
Exactly right. And there’s the bedrock problem of the whole vaccine edifice: if they really believed that the vaccines have a net benefit, and that harm is rare, they would be liberal in defining and diagnosing vaccine injuries and generous in compensating the vaccine-injured for their sacrifice. That was the premise of the 1986 creation of the VICP. As implemented, vaccine injuries have always been defined using narrow timeframes and absurdly restrictive criteria.
Doctors who will support a vaccine injury claim in the adversarial vaccine court are mocked, ostracized, and subject to Board discipline and insurance decredentialing. Receiving compensation is a challenge for a well-funded and supported parent, and almost impossible for a parent caring for a handicapped child.
Although the 'antagonists' here are not the editors and staff members of AJE that published my critique, and may allow me a further response, but Kitano et al., who performed an inadequate analysis, are effectively funded by Big Pharma, and who were quite nasty in their response.
Yes you're right that correlation does not prove causation; and so the inference that it might is a misdirection of sorts, of course. Correlation describes a situation in statistical terms alone... it's value should therefore be limited to being a guideline for further investigation.
To scientifically prove causation one must undertake experimental studies, only double blind ones using large sample sizes.
Human experimental studies would be most unethical, despite USA, UK, GERMANY having used them historically. Animal studies are the option and are routinely used for such investigation.
I just can't seem to find any relevant/ suitable animal study on the effects of the corona virus vaccine before it's emergency approval in the US. None. That's not science, oh, I forgot it is "THE science" 🤥.
“Lataster may not have understood the fact that the studies used in our analysis already adjusted these confounding factors such as case counting window.”
Less than a decade ago, I would have considered such statements remarkable and astonishing.
Now, it's merely fascinating in the same way that observing the consistency with which pathological liars repeat their false utterances in the face of incontrovertible proof is fascinating.
Opaque adjustment formulae seem to be foundational to academic fraud.
And the obligatory ad hom at the end? An unmistakable pattern emerges, one comprehensible to non-specialists. I base this observation on my encounters with numerous technical specialists in unrelated fields, mostly younger folks whose only perception of "The Narrative" was that "something doesn't add up." Their training included empirical "if this, then that" precepts. Without understanding any of the medical terms, their pattern recognition picked up logical inconsistencies based on unsupported assertion.
Rhetorically: yes, I like it in the way you meant it.
Fundamentally, I find it infuriating, a projection true to type.
My own technical specialties result in a common reply from those who must act on information conveyed but are not steeped in the minutiae; "would you please say that again in English?"
The proper reaction is to start at the beginning and verify that the others are keeping up with the prerequisites in order to make informed decisions. It can be tedious to break subjects down in that fashion, but there can be no obscurantism and the requirements of autonomous action forbid the simple "do as I say" authoritarian approach.
My point is that there are millions of us out here that are trying to retain our objectivity and weigh the arguments and assertions being made on all sides during these very technical expositions.
When I review hit pieces such as that deployed against you, my pattern recognition discerns very strong and entirely unwelcome correlations with liars, cheats and thieves that I have dealt with, and there have been a great many of those over the past six decades.
In other words, it is overwhelmingly tempting to assume a knee-jerk contrarian stance toward that sort of bad-faith actor; adopting an a priori assumption that every utterance is a falsehood.
I cannot allow myself that luxury, and I deeply resent the additional cognitive effort required to sort their lies and half-truths from verifiable fact. It's tiring and I don't need the constant irritant.
To your point; it's not just the graft that's meaningful. There is a panoply of self-interests involved and it isn't just the grifter Gates' money that induces such breathtaking dishonesty, but you already knew that.
I urge you to carry on. You are more effective than might sometimes seem the case. This is an informational war of attrition, so don't let them wear you down. If following the assertions and counter-assertions is tiring for those of us seeking understanding of foundational principles, it must be utterly exhausting for you.
The best epidemiologist of our time is Professor John Ioannides and his approach would be far more reliable than the American Journal of Epidemiology in my opinion. I think you've got them rattled Raphael... stand strong 👍
"The best epidemiologist of our time is Professor John Ioannides"
Given the relentless attacks on Ioannides' character and competence when he dared to apply his talents to the possibly-chimeric virus, Con Dassos, Would you agree that we might be excused for thinking Dr. Lataster in rather august company and therefore "hovering directly above the target?"
Correlation ain't axiomatically causation, but the signal keeps getting stronger amidst the now-deliberate increase in background noise.
You're right !
Thanks for pursuing this. Of course, the whole issue of “net benefit” is spurious with vaccines - it sets the margin far too low. If you kill 49 people to save 50 it is a very bad way of saving 50 people and you probably haven’t even got an accurate way of measuring it. It is moving the goal posts from the claim that “the benefits greatly outweigh the risks” a claim which they must reckon to be now unsustainable, although it would be minimally necessary to justify what they do. And, of course, the data is ever biased by gaslighting the harmed.
Exactly right. And there’s the bedrock problem of the whole vaccine edifice: if they really believed that the vaccines have a net benefit, and that harm is rare, they would be liberal in defining and diagnosing vaccine injuries and generous in compensating the vaccine-injured for their sacrifice. That was the premise of the 1986 creation of the VICP. As implemented, vaccine injuries have always been defined using narrow timeframes and absurdly restrictive criteria.
Doctors who will support a vaccine injury claim in the adversarial vaccine court are mocked, ostracized, and subject to Board discipline and insurance decredentialing. Receiving compensation is a challenge for a well-funded and supported parent, and almost impossible for a parent caring for a handicapped child.
Johnson Hopkins seem desperate to go for the man and not concentrate on the data.
Raphael 1, AJE: 0
Although the 'antagonists' here are not the editors and staff members of AJE that published my critique, and may allow me a further response, but Kitano et al., who performed an inadequate analysis, are effectively funded by Big Pharma, and who were quite nasty in their response.
Yeh, I get that. My comment was perhaps a bit succinct :)
Yes you're right that correlation does not prove causation; and so the inference that it might is a misdirection of sorts, of course. Correlation describes a situation in statistical terms alone... it's value should therefore be limited to being a guideline for further investigation.
To scientifically prove causation one must undertake experimental studies, only double blind ones using large sample sizes.
Human experimental studies would be most unethical, despite USA, UK, GERMANY having used them historically. Animal studies are the option and are routinely used for such investigation.
I just can't seem to find any relevant/ suitable animal study on the effects of the corona virus vaccine before it's emergency approval in the US. None. That's not science, oh, I forgot it is "THE science" 🤥.
“Lataster may not have understood the fact that the studies used in our analysis already adjusted these confounding factors such as case counting window.”
Less than a decade ago, I would have considered such statements remarkable and astonishing.
Now, it's merely fascinating in the same way that observing the consistency with which pathological liars repeat their false utterances in the face of incontrovertible proof is fascinating.
Opaque adjustment formulae seem to be foundational to academic fraud.
And the obligatory ad hom at the end? An unmistakable pattern emerges, one comprehensible to non-specialists. I base this observation on my encounters with numerous technical specialists in unrelated fields, mostly younger folks whose only perception of "The Narrative" was that "something doesn't add up." Their training included empirical "if this, then that" precepts. Without understanding any of the medical terms, their pattern recognition picked up logical inconsistencies based on unsupported assertion.
"Adjustments?" Do tell.
Do you like how they basically accuse me of bias while drowning in Bill Gates' money?
Rhetorically: yes, I like it in the way you meant it.
Fundamentally, I find it infuriating, a projection true to type.
My own technical specialties result in a common reply from those who must act on information conveyed but are not steeped in the minutiae; "would you please say that again in English?"
The proper reaction is to start at the beginning and verify that the others are keeping up with the prerequisites in order to make informed decisions. It can be tedious to break subjects down in that fashion, but there can be no obscurantism and the requirements of autonomous action forbid the simple "do as I say" authoritarian approach.
My point is that there are millions of us out here that are trying to retain our objectivity and weigh the arguments and assertions being made on all sides during these very technical expositions.
When I review hit pieces such as that deployed against you, my pattern recognition discerns very strong and entirely unwelcome correlations with liars, cheats and thieves that I have dealt with, and there have been a great many of those over the past six decades.
In other words, it is overwhelmingly tempting to assume a knee-jerk contrarian stance toward that sort of bad-faith actor; adopting an a priori assumption that every utterance is a falsehood.
I cannot allow myself that luxury, and I deeply resent the additional cognitive effort required to sort their lies and half-truths from verifiable fact. It's tiring and I don't need the constant irritant.
To your point; it's not just the graft that's meaningful. There is a panoply of self-interests involved and it isn't just the grifter Gates' money that induces such breathtaking dishonesty, but you already knew that.
I urge you to carry on. You are more effective than might sometimes seem the case. This is an informational war of attrition, so don't let them wear you down. If following the assertions and counter-assertions is tiring for those of us seeking understanding of foundational principles, it must be utterly exhausting for you.