Coronavirus

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

I don't think I did say you're biased. As you said yourself; everyone is, so it doesn't even bear stating. As far as I can see, the weight of evidence shows that mRNA vaccines do not increase mortality. In the largest population study conducted, the group who had received mRNA vaccines had a lower mortality rate. And a significant proportion (but not all) of that was explained by more individuals in one group dying of/with/whichever-preposition-you-like covid. I linked to that study directly, not Fauci or any other stooge talking about it. So far, you have linked to precisely zero studies. What, then, are your conclusions based on? I have no idea. You told me to watch Dealglish. No, I won't watch a stooge who has stock share in a rival vaccine company. Show me the studies that particular scientist is leaning on and I'll have a look.

[son of the Morrigan]

Right.

We're both biased to a certain degree. Lets forget about bias.

You've no time for Dalgleish, thats fine, I respect him as an award winning oncologist.
Lets forget about Dalgleish.

We were talking there  mostly about cancer.
I dont do links, but ya can google - National library of medicine. Exploring the potential link between mRNA covid 19 vaccinations and cancer.

Its fierce interesting information with links to loads of referenced studies.

Theres other studies regarding miocarditis, multi organ failure, etc. etc. If ya look for them.

As an aside. When I mentioned I'd be reading studies in the middle of the night, I'd be up anyway, watching cows to calve, ewes to lamb, All that fun stuff.
It helps keep me awake.
I'm not fully a lunatic, just so ya know.

[son of the Morrigan]

Oh, and p.s. I didn't get to that french study yet, I will. Ive other stuff going on.
Just to note, theres more to this than mortality, theres ilness.

In cancer cases for instance, given the strides foward in modern cancer treatment,theres a good chance a patient who developed cancer post vaccination will not appear as a mortality stat.
And thank God, and medicine, and science for that.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Grand; I did say links but a named study is just as good. Plenty to be getting along with in that paper as a departure point for exploring the current vaccination-skeptic landscape.

[son of the Morrigan]

Sound Man.

Sorry about the lack of link, I'm incapable of doing that, on account of me being a bogman.

[Giggles]

You pick at it like an ape picking dried shite from the hairs around his arse.

Gave me a right giggle reading that in work today     

[Goosebumples]

Hey I had a look at that paper, just a few things to note; it establishes no causation, its a case study design that references many other case studies, but proposes potential research gaps that are necessary to dig into, citing a lack of evidence. Thats not to say it is without any merit just something worth considering. It offers questions and further lines of inquiry, rather than causation. I didnt read it too in depth, but thats what I gleaned from skimming it.

As I said, I dont do research in this field but ill give you any further insight I can to help out. For some context, Im far more junior in my career than black shepard, Im halfway through my Phd, and hold a level 9 in research development and practices, and have read 100s and 100s of papers at this stage and only lately feel even somewhat equipped to ascertain the rigour of peoples methodological design. It takes a long time to get a handle on this (evidenced by the fact that I still havent entirely myself).

The other thing that strikes me about it is the fact oncotarget was deslisted from databases and journal ranking lists due to a lack of rigour in their review process. It has since been relisted, however, this is precisely the type of journal I would personally avoid when attempting to establish my own ability to analyse research design critically.

As you're clearly sincere in your desire to learn, I would reccomend for a couple of your late night reading sessions to use web of science, or maybe scopus, as your database, consult a credible academic journal ranking list (such as scimago or the like, not sure what the norm is in this field) and filter out all but the top ranking journals, use boolean searches to target the topic broadly (preferably with a precise question in mind), and start with a few systematic review articles (these are excellent resources for delving into a topic, synthesising the findings from many other papers) to get a grasp of the current state of these topics. (Sci hub is a good resource should the article be paywalled).

Hope this helps you on yer quest for knowledge 

[Emphyrio]

Hey I had a look at that paper, just a few things to note; it establishes no causation, its a case study design that references many other case studies, but proposes potential research gaps that are necessary to dig into, citing a lack of evidence. Thats not to say it is without any merit just something worth considering. It offers questions and further lines of inquiry, rather than causation. I didnt read it too in depth, but thats what I gleaned from skimming it.

As I said, I dont do research in this field but ill give you any further insight I can to help out. For some context, Im far more junior in my career than black shepard, Im halfway through my Phd, and hold a level 9 in research development and practices, and have read 100s and 100s of papers at this stage and only lately feel even somewhat equipped to ascertain the rigour of peoples methodological design. It takes a long time to get a handle on this (evidenced by the fact that I still havent entirely myself).

The other thing that strikes me about it is the fact oncotarget was deslisted from databases and journal ranking lists due to a lack of rigour in their review process. It has since been relisted, however, this is precisely the type of journal I would personally avoid when attempting to establish my own ability to analyse research design critically.

As you're clearly sincere in your desire to learn, I would reccomend for a couple of your late night reading sessions to use web of science, or maybe scopus, as your database, consult a credible academic journal ranking list and filter out all but the top ranking journals, use boolean searches to target the topic broadly (preferably with a precise question in mind), and start with a few systematic review articles (these are excellent resources for delving into a topic, synthesising the findings from many other papers) to get a grasp of the current state of these topics. (Sci hub is a good resource should the article be paywalled).

Hope this helps you on yer quest for knowledge 

Jaysus that's quelled my quest for knowledge anyway 🤯

I see some of Morrigan's points, especially on the possible link between protein spikes and cancer. And I would like some data on that.

I also had my doubts about how a vaccine could be brought about so fast, but as has been spoken about, loads of clinical stuff had/has been done on that front for years. Are we putting our faith in big pharma? Ya, we probably are but was it not ever this?

The cardiomyopathy thing, though, is not some conspiracy. It's a publicised fact that it is a rare but serious possible side effect. What doesn't get spoken about is that COVID also causes this.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Ya, it's hard work digging into scientific papers and knowing what to look out for. Like the paper Morrigan linked to (I'm just getting started, and it'll be slow going) cites a 2023 German study which tries to show that vaccine uptake in Germany correlated with increase in excess mortality, and thereby concludes that vaccination rather than COVID "caused" this increase. When I looked at that paper, what jumped out was that they didn't look at who was dying; mainly vaccinated or mainly unvaccinated. And so, naturally, they didn't even mention this high profile 2022 German study:

"Germany's fourth COVID-19 wave was mainly driven by the unvaccinated"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-022-00176-7

I'm expecting much more of this kind of thing, where you often have to not only check the citation, but then check to see to what extent the cited paper is itself potentially, let's say, shoddy.

[Emphyrio]

Luckily, you can present your findings in bullet pointed layman's terms .

[Goosebumples]

And so, naturally, they didn't even mention this high profile 2022 German study:

Just as a small addendum to my initial comment, this would be partially why I reccomend systematic reviews as a good starting point. Assuming their protocol is transparent, rigorous and robust, which it will be in high ranking journals, by the nature of how they identify literature to include in the study they are unlikely to exclude highly relevant well cited work thats integral to the topic. They are of course, not without limitation or bias, but they're the best we've got when synthesising existing literature.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

As a rule of thumb, yes, but definitely not a strict rule. That 2023 German study is published in a journal that's still on Springer's roster, for example, despite having been delisted by Web of Science because of multiple dubious publications and practices. The average curious person can't really know such things though, and the "reputable" journals are too mired in profit-making over public good to really serve as a "moral" example.

And this is part of what I meant by "targeted": studies published in such dubious journals (Oncotarget, Cureus...) very often aren't targeted at the in-the-know scientific community at all, but rather precisely at opposition policy-makers, the skeptical- or conspiratorial-leaning public, full-time contrarian influencers (Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, Tim Pool, etc., etc., etc.), and so on. You don't need to be on social media to be targeted: the right/wrong kind of google query will be enough to place you in the crosshairs of publications written with precisely your type of skeptical personality in mind.

All I can really hope to do is show you that, however corrupt you may think the scientific establishment is, the stuff you're leaning your conclusions on is even less scrupulous when it comes to applying the scientific method in an objective and rigorous manner.

I'll come back with more concrete stuff on that particular paper soon though.

[son of the Morrigan]

Thanks for the feedback lads, and I mean that. 

As I've said, I have no expierence or expertise in this field, a field of cattle Is what I know about.

This isn't about I'm right, your wrong, na na na na na.
It's too serious.

Re. that study.
I don't doubt at all theres problems with it. It proves nothing and I'm not suggesting it does.
To my untrained eye however, it suggests that there is at least some evidence of a causal link and that it has been long known about.

Lads, I've read studies suggesting theres no causal link too. In the intrest of fairness and balance.
Theres plenty of problems with them too, again, to my untrained eye.
Problems such as too many inconclusive findings and stacked conflict of intrests sections.

Its a complex issue with many moving parts.

I will say it's nice to have a chat about it without barging at one another.

[son of the Morrigan]

Luckily, you can present your findings in bullet pointed layman's terms .

 
 The old sea of words does be a bit much by times.

[Emphyrio]

It's all very civilised around here.

Any word on Leather Mike?