Humans were built with an immune system so that they could carry on with day to day activities regardless of when minor cold / flus are present in their communities. All this emphasis on sheltering etc is worse than any cold / flu ever was. We have turn society into a bunch of hypochondriacs. Of course I’m sure hypochondriacs are great for the pharmaceutical business.
Immune systems haven't fared well throughout human history as a magical protector of infective evils. Just look at the diseases and pandemics that have decimated populations in the past.
As for avoiding sources of infection...even people in ancient times figured out that isolation and "quarantine" helped reduce disease spread. It's just simple common sense.
yet, here we are. 8 billion of us. and never before "thoughout human history" literally everbody shit their pants and cowered in the farthest corner of their dark cave.
You are probably too young to remember people shitting their pants about HIV, or polio, and certainly too young to recall Spanish flu from 100 years ago.
Did you literally (sic) shit your pants, btw? I didn’t shit mine.
Please look up the meaning of the word “literally”, it doesn’t mean what you think. Those caught in a cholera epidemic might literally do it, but not a covid pandemic.
Treating it as another respiratory virus makes sense some four years after the outbreak of the original pandemic, after all the measures against the 1918 influenza pandemic didn’t continue indefinitely. What this doesn’t do is say that SARS-CoV-2 is benign and can be ignored.
The C19 vax rate has plummeted. Let's pretend that the last 4 years never happened and that COVID-19 is no different than the flu. Such was considered nonsense only a short while ago.
I can't speak for Dr. Offit, but I think what he's saying is not that there are no differences between Covid and flu, but simply that both can kill you, especially if you're in a high risk group. (But some young/low-risk people also die). We've always known this about flu, but never really acted on it, and he's saying we should change our attitude towards flu and other deadly respiratory viruses, especially since we now have one more of them that can kill us, or disable us for a long time. Whether we test to find out which it is depends on whether we plan to seek treatment, and regardless of which one it is, we should take precautions to protect others. The problem is not only that many people focus more on their own needs than others, but also some don't even realize Covid is still around and a danger. I recently had an unvaccinated friend say to me, "Oh, is Covid still killing people?" Her source for news had never told her that and she just assumed there was no more danger from Covid, even though she's a senior.
Pretty sure that the CDC’s new advice to practice prevention strategies, including masking, once returning to normal activities after the reduced isolation period will be ignored.
An 3/10/24 NY Times opinion piece written by Daniela Lamas, a critical care doctor from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston (and given prominence on their digital homepage) neglected to mention anything about the recommended prevention strategies. Just one day fever free, Dr. Lamas said, and you’re good to rejoin society. Irresponsible.
Here is the wording from the CDC’s new guidelines:
“Step 2: Resume normal activities, and use added prevention strategies over the next five days, such as taking more steps for cleaner air, enhancing your hygiene practices, wearing a well-fitting mask, keeping a distance from others, and/or getting tested for respiratory viruses. People can choose to use these prevention strategies at any time.”
The CDC’s use of the word “and” means that using added prevention strategies is part of the guidance after exiting from isolation.
Using “these prevention strategies at any time” refers to strategies people can take when they are NOT sick - in order to prevent illness in the first place.
Once again, the CDC guidance is so muddy that it’s no surprise most people have just tuned them out.
Precisely. Having empathy for your fellow human beings is not a trait that the culture in the USA encourages, instead promoting on “rugged individualism”. When it comes to preventing the spread of preventable disease, that can be a massive problem as Dr. Offit has documented across multiple books re: vaccine refusal and the consequences thereof.
This is a sensible approach to the issue, particularly as it emphasises that there are respiratory viruses other than SARS-CoV-2 that are potentially dangerous and worth preventing.
“Thus, we cannot reject the assumption that the effect of the filtered lymph is not due to toxicity, but rather to the ability of the agent to replicate.” F. Loeffler 1898
Principles of Virology 4th ed Flint, Skalka et al 2015
Virology is an assumed science, built on the back of the legitimate study of bacteria. The properties ascribed to virus particles, that of causing disease, is a conclusion drawn from assumptions about what is going on.
What Dr Offit describes as viral infection & replication may be incorrect. It is no coincidence that over the decades various growth mediums have been used to help culture viral particles (eg dulbeccos). It also isn't a coincidence the latin root of the word virus in essence means poison. The modern usage of virus may be an inversion.
There needs to be a major re-evaluation & a very close scrutiny of the foundational assumptions & beliefs of the entire field of virology. Unfortunately this is highly unlikely to come from people like Dr Offit or Dr Plotkin, partly because they would have to reassess their entire lifes work.
Somehow humans have come through 1000’s of years, biological life forms have come through millions of years, i think natural immunity has worked ok. But my point was that during the vast majority of the time people don’t need to do anything, just go about your life, but public health with too much authority have many people more anxious about colds / flus than is necessary, mental health problems have soared right alone with the over emphasis on disease.
It’s no different than keeping the accountants in the office, they have no business on the shop floor, they just screw things up. It’s great getting input from public health, but they shouldn’t be in charge of making the final call.
Before COVID-19 most people were taking respiratory virus infections for granted -- they were always there, mostly causing "just"illness, overlooking the thousands of babies and older adults who died every year. The uptake of flu vaccine (which is offered free to those with insurance) is a small fraction of those who could prevent hospitalization or worse. RSV vaccine and mAb have just become available for adults, pregnant women and young children -- and has been effective at preventing serious disease -- but also has not been accepted as necessary. These contagious diseases can kill -- and for RSV and influenza (as well as SARS-CoV-2) -- vaccines could impact public health, if people can be convinced to take then.
Or to mask in public when crowded and/or sick. Though as Dr. Offit rightfully points out, c19 and like virii are frequently at their worst re: spread before onset of the illness.
I recently heard a person who had Covid say he never tested because the tests have become rather expensive. He was relatively young and seemingly healthy, but I just hoped that he assumed he had Covid and acted accordingly to protect others. (He did give it to his wife, so he owes her big time!). Since the numbers from all the respiratory diseases are cumulative, not testing but just assuming you have something potentially deadly to others makes sense unless testing concretizes the concept and increases the likelihood of protecting others.
Most likely your friend did give it to his wife but he does NOT owe it to her big time! It is highly likely he gave it to her before either of them knew that C-19 was in the Manse as he was most viremic (shedding the most virus particles and thus most contagious) prior to the onset of any symptoms. This is characteristic all URI viruses which is what makes them so hard to avoid and why good vaccines are the best (but imperfect) defense. Its easy to blame one's partner or coworker for "giving" them a virus and in many cases its true. But that doesn't make them culpable for spreading a pathogen that is silent & unrecognizable in its most contagious stage. So please, lets stop that blame game.
The CDC made some major mistakes in the 1st two years of the C-19 Panic-demic and has appropriately been in the dog house as a result. It still has some atoning to do but these current guidelines make complete sense based on our current understanding of the disease
The CDC only has “some” atoning to do? They can start by apologizing for lying to the American people about both the virus and the vaccine, recommending draconian measures based on zero science, and try and jail the corrupted leaders who led us there. There is no atoning without accepting responsibility.
Your only defense is to argue the definition of “lying”, then cry about whataboutissm? Sorry, whataboutism doesn’t work here - which side abused their positions of authority to make fundamental lies to justify horrible policy that infringed on the most basic of our rights, while arrogantly presenting themselves as unquestionable “The Science” and simultaneously leading efforts to censor all who dare to not fall in line. The other side was using real evidence to preserve rights.
Do you honestly believe that dishonesty should be tolerated if it means suppressing your opposition?
That's not my "only defence", it's merely one example of your hypocrisy.
Let's be reasonable and objective... do you think those who misled the public and endangered lives (causing deaths while doing so) should be held accountable, no matter which "side" this was and whether this is the CDC or the politicians/scientists mentioned?
Yes, the Pharmaceutical companies should be held criminally liable for the vax injured, as well as the public officials that told us the lie of “safe and effective”, when they had no evidence it was true.
What about the high prevalence of asymptomatic spread of covid though? Yes of course symptomatic people should stay home to avoid spreading anything. But a person with no or mild symptoms can still have enough viral load to light up a test aka be contagious, and the people they infect might have severe consequences including long covid.
When I got Covid in Aug 22, I tested negative through the worst of it (tested twice a day for several days) and then tested positive for 10 days after feeling completely fine, no symptoms. This was a common effect for many adults I know. Were we shedding dead cells? Why did I not test positive with more than mild symptoms?
My 9yo son tested positive during the Omicron wave as soon as he went back to school after Christmas. I only tested him because I’m a scientist and wanted to try the new fun tests out- lit it up in seconds. Tested again, solid positive. The school was supposed to send the tests home before the holiday but they conveniently forgot because they knew the wave was coming and didn’t want to lose attendance funding. I was recently boosted and didn’t get infected but my husband did who was not boosted and had much much less physical/close contact with our son.
Not true. A number of well controlled studies have shown there is no statistically significant difference in rebound rates identified among persons receiving treatment and those not receiving treatment. See https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7251a1.htm?s_cid=mm7251a1_w
Check out trial epic sr- paxlovid no benefits for vaccinated, paxlovid big benefit for drug company thus must advertise to sell worthless possibly harmful med
Well I've got a good one. When will Offit and others recognise the recent scientific research indicating the effectiveness and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines were highly exaggerated in the clinical trials and observational studies? https://okaythennews.substack.com/p/science-summary-covid-19-vaccines
You seem to have fallen for the sleight of hand exaggerations in the various published Peter Doshi offerings. You as a coauthor of some of these revisionist analyses should be ashamed of the deception involved.
Let's take a look at one major example.....the calculation that was used to state that even a vaccine with no efficacy would turn out to be "effective" on analysis, which Doshi calls the "Case-counting Window Bias". By the window he means the interval after the vaccination was given but before it becomes fully effective (usually 1-2 weeks after the second dose in many studies).
The first deception is the implication that the Pfizer studies were biased by the "case-counting window effect". This is not so; they analysed efficacy as judged from 7 days after the second dose for BOTH active and placebo arms of the study.
Then there is the deception that in other types of study this window bias operates to "highly exaggerate" vaccine efficacy. This is untrue; the effect size of this would be much more limited in cohort/observational studies, because the window period comprises only a very small proportion of the total observational period, which often extends out to 6 months or more in these types of studies.
Doshi presents a table of the hypothetical efficacy of a vaccine which has zero effectiveness (Table 1), but there are problems with this.
He applies the time periods of 36 days before the vaccines become effective, and 84 days as the end of observations. These are supposedly from the Pfizer study, but these would not be the parameters used in an observational study (and I challenge you to provide one which has used these).
The rate of acquisition of Covid is appx 3 cases per day, amounting to 257 in the placebo group over 84 days. In the vaccine group, assuming it is 100% effective after 36 days, the number of cases accrued would be 108 (these are the number of cases occuring only in the first 36 days, and no cases accrue afterwards since the vaccine is 100% effective).
The calculations of overall vaccine effectiveness in this hypothetical scenario would be that the vaccine is "only 59% effective".This is clearly a ridiculous conclusion since it counts cases that occured during the time BEFORE the vaccine was effective as being vaccine "failures", even though the vaccine proves to be 100% succesful after the time when it becomes effective.
The second major deception is to state that a "case counting window" is applied in safety studies. This is untrue. For safety studies no window is applied; possible side effects are counted from the time of the first vaccination on Day 1 so as to include all early effects like allergic reactions and local/systemic reactions.
We didn't say bias, did we? I said counting window issue, and it is an issue. You may not care what happens in the possibly months between the 1st jab and 'full vaccination', but I do. I want to know if they're getting more or less COVID, other infections, anything else. But you keep lying, buddy, it suits you ;)
“We didn't say bias, did we? I said counting window issue”
Nope, you also referred to it as “bias”.
Here are your actual words in your article:
“In Article 2 the cheeky Lataster declared that Doshi’s team has actually understated things. The case-counting window bias is often accompanied by a definitional bias”
Doshi refers to “bias”, and you state he doesn’t go far enough and understates the problem. But now you go all mealie-mouthed and hide behind the vague scientific term “issue”.
Once again, that was referring to the example of an observational study, where the term 'bias' is apt, not the clinical trial. I give the benefit of the doubt in not assuming you're that stupid, hence I prefer to call you a liar.
You talked of the "highly exaggerated" effectiveness caused by what Doshi calls "case-counting window BIAS", so yes, you are talking about bias, and you described it as "bias" in the substack article by you that you cited.
Please stop lying, it isn't a good look when a simple mouse click can reveal the truth of the matter..
I also note you have no reasoned, scientific response to my comments other than ad hominems and insults.
Are you daft? It was a case counting window bias for the observational studies example and a case counting window issue for the trials. But at least you're not just a liar, you're so much more ;)
Humans were built with an immune system so that they could carry on with day to day activities regardless of when minor cold / flus are present in their communities. All this emphasis on sheltering etc is worse than any cold / flu ever was. We have turn society into a bunch of hypochondriacs. Of course I’m sure hypochondriacs are great for the pharmaceutical business.
Immune systems haven't fared well throughout human history as a magical protector of infective evils. Just look at the diseases and pandemics that have decimated populations in the past.
As for avoiding sources of infection...even people in ancient times figured out that isolation and "quarantine" helped reduce disease spread. It's just simple common sense.
yet, here we are. 8 billion of us. and never before "thoughout human history" literally everbody shit their pants and cowered in the farthest corner of their dark cave.
jesus.
You are probably too young to remember people shitting their pants about HIV, or polio, and certainly too young to recall Spanish flu from 100 years ago.
Did you literally (sic) shit your pants, btw? I didn’t shit mine.
Please look up the meaning of the word “literally”, it doesn’t mean what you think. Those caught in a cholera epidemic might literally do it, but not a covid pandemic.
I agree. You should stay forever isolated. Thank you.
Yep.Be afraid.
People still pay attention to the CDC, huh. Okay
Regardless of whether people pay attention, many employers will use the guidelines in what they expect or require of sick employees.
Treating it as another respiratory virus makes sense some four years after the outbreak of the original pandemic, after all the measures against the 1918 influenza pandemic didn’t continue indefinitely. What this doesn’t do is say that SARS-CoV-2 is benign and can be ignored.
The C19 vax rate has plummeted. Let's pretend that the last 4 years never happened and that COVID-19 is no different than the flu. Such was considered nonsense only a short while ago.
I can't speak for Dr. Offit, but I think what he's saying is not that there are no differences between Covid and flu, but simply that both can kill you, especially if you're in a high risk group. (But some young/low-risk people also die). We've always known this about flu, but never really acted on it, and he's saying we should change our attitude towards flu and other deadly respiratory viruses, especially since we now have one more of them that can kill us, or disable us for a long time. Whether we test to find out which it is depends on whether we plan to seek treatment, and regardless of which one it is, we should take precautions to protect others. The problem is not only that many people focus more on their own needs than others, but also some don't even realize Covid is still around and a danger. I recently had an unvaccinated friend say to me, "Oh, is Covid still killing people?" Her source for news had never told her that and she just assumed there was no more danger from Covid, even though she's a senior.
Pretty sure that the CDC’s new advice to practice prevention strategies, including masking, once returning to normal activities after the reduced isolation period will be ignored.
An 3/10/24 NY Times opinion piece written by Daniela Lamas, a critical care doctor from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston (and given prominence on their digital homepage) neglected to mention anything about the recommended prevention strategies. Just one day fever free, Dr. Lamas said, and you’re good to rejoin society. Irresponsible.
Here is the wording from the CDC’s new guidelines:
“Step 2: Resume normal activities, and use added prevention strategies over the next five days, such as taking more steps for cleaner air, enhancing your hygiene practices, wearing a well-fitting mask, keeping a distance from others, and/or getting tested for respiratory viruses. People can choose to use these prevention strategies at any time.”
The CDC’s use of the word “and” means that using added prevention strategies is part of the guidance after exiting from isolation.
Using “these prevention strategies at any time” refers to strategies people can take when they are NOT sick - in order to prevent illness in the first place.
Once again, the CDC guidance is so muddy that it’s no surprise most people have just tuned them out.
Precisely. Having empathy for your fellow human beings is not a trait that the culture in the USA encourages, instead promoting on “rugged individualism”. When it comes to preventing the spread of preventable disease, that can be a massive problem as Dr. Offit has documented across multiple books re: vaccine refusal and the consequences thereof.
This is a sensible approach to the issue, particularly as it emphasises that there are respiratory viruses other than SARS-CoV-2 that are potentially dangerous and worth preventing.
is there even such a thing as a "Virus"?
“Thus, we cannot reject the assumption that the effect of the filtered lymph is not due to toxicity, but rather to the ability of the agent to replicate.” F. Loeffler 1898
Principles of Virology 4th ed Flint, Skalka et al 2015
Virology is an assumed science, built on the back of the legitimate study of bacteria. The properties ascribed to virus particles, that of causing disease, is a conclusion drawn from assumptions about what is going on.
What Dr Offit describes as viral infection & replication may be incorrect. It is no coincidence that over the decades various growth mediums have been used to help culture viral particles (eg dulbeccos). It also isn't a coincidence the latin root of the word virus in essence means poison. The modern usage of virus may be an inversion.
There needs to be a major re-evaluation & a very close scrutiny of the foundational assumptions & beliefs of the entire field of virology. Unfortunately this is highly unlikely to come from people like Dr Offit or Dr Plotkin, partly because they would have to reassess their entire lifes work.
Somehow humans have come through 1000’s of years, biological life forms have come through millions of years, i think natural immunity has worked ok. But my point was that during the vast majority of the time people don’t need to do anything, just go about your life, but public health with too much authority have many people more anxious about colds / flus than is necessary, mental health problems have soared right alone with the over emphasis on disease.
It’s no different than keeping the accountants in the office, they have no business on the shop floor, they just screw things up. It’s great getting input from public health, but they shouldn’t be in charge of making the final call.
Before COVID-19 most people were taking respiratory virus infections for granted -- they were always there, mostly causing "just"illness, overlooking the thousands of babies and older adults who died every year. The uptake of flu vaccine (which is offered free to those with insurance) is a small fraction of those who could prevent hospitalization or worse. RSV vaccine and mAb have just become available for adults, pregnant women and young children -- and has been effective at preventing serious disease -- but also has not been accepted as necessary. These contagious diseases can kill -- and for RSV and influenza (as well as SARS-CoV-2) -- vaccines could impact public health, if people can be convinced to take then.
Or to mask in public when crowded and/or sick. Though as Dr. Offit rightfully points out, c19 and like virii are frequently at their worst re: spread before onset of the illness.
I recently heard a person who had Covid say he never tested because the tests have become rather expensive. He was relatively young and seemingly healthy, but I just hoped that he assumed he had Covid and acted accordingly to protect others. (He did give it to his wife, so he owes her big time!). Since the numbers from all the respiratory diseases are cumulative, not testing but just assuming you have something potentially deadly to others makes sense unless testing concretizes the concept and increases the likelihood of protecting others.
Most likely your friend did give it to his wife but he does NOT owe it to her big time! It is highly likely he gave it to her before either of them knew that C-19 was in the Manse as he was most viremic (shedding the most virus particles and thus most contagious) prior to the onset of any symptoms. This is characteristic all URI viruses which is what makes them so hard to avoid and why good vaccines are the best (but imperfect) defense. Its easy to blame one's partner or coworker for "giving" them a virus and in many cases its true. But that doesn't make them culpable for spreading a pathogen that is silent & unrecognizable in its most contagious stage. So please, lets stop that blame game.
The CDC made some major mistakes in the 1st two years of the C-19 Panic-demic and has appropriately been in the dog house as a result. It still has some atoning to do but these current guidelines make complete sense based on our current understanding of the disease
Yes, agreed with everything you said. I was just kidding about his wife, although most men DO owe their wife big time! 🤣
The CDC only has “some” atoning to do? They can start by apologizing for lying to the American people about both the virus and the vaccine, recommending draconian measures based on zero science, and try and jail the corrupted leaders who led us there. There is no atoning without accepting responsibility.
You clearly have a different definition of lying than the one which is generally accepted, namely a deliberate intent to deceive.
Are you recommending jail time for folk like Trump, Atlas, DeSantis, Ladapo et al? …looks like it.
Your only defense is to argue the definition of “lying”, then cry about whataboutissm? Sorry, whataboutism doesn’t work here - which side abused their positions of authority to make fundamental lies to justify horrible policy that infringed on the most basic of our rights, while arrogantly presenting themselves as unquestionable “The Science” and simultaneously leading efforts to censor all who dare to not fall in line. The other side was using real evidence to preserve rights.
Do you honestly believe that dishonesty should be tolerated if it means suppressing your opposition?
That's not my "only defence", it's merely one example of your hypocrisy.
Let's be reasonable and objective... do you think those who misled the public and endangered lives (causing deaths while doing so) should be held accountable, no matter which "side" this was and whether this is the CDC or the politicians/scientists mentioned?
Yes, the Pharmaceutical companies should be held criminally liable for the vax injured, as well as the public officials that told us the lie of “safe and effective”, when they had no evidence it was true.
What about the high prevalence of asymptomatic spread of covid though? Yes of course symptomatic people should stay home to avoid spreading anything. But a person with no or mild symptoms can still have enough viral load to light up a test aka be contagious, and the people they infect might have severe consequences including long covid.
lol. Remember when they ruined the whole world over a cold.
When I got Covid in Aug 22, I tested negative through the worst of it (tested twice a day for several days) and then tested positive for 10 days after feeling completely fine, no symptoms. This was a common effect for many adults I know. Were we shedding dead cells? Why did I not test positive with more than mild symptoms?
My 9yo son tested positive during the Omicron wave as soon as he went back to school after Christmas. I only tested him because I’m a scientist and wanted to try the new fun tests out- lit it up in seconds. Tested again, solid positive. The school was supposed to send the tests home before the holiday but they conveniently forgot because they knew the wave was coming and didn’t want to lose attendance funding. I was recently boosted and didn’t get infected but my husband did who was not boosted and had much much less physical/close contact with our son.
I read sonewhere antivirals can cause a rebound effect, is that true?
Not true. A number of well controlled studies have shown there is no statistically significant difference in rebound rates identified among persons receiving treatment and those not receiving treatment. See https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7251a1.htm?s_cid=mm7251a1_w
Thanks! Much appreciated, I'll take a look? I hope the study differentiates btw timing of treatments..
Check out trial epic sr- paxlovid no benefits for vaccinated, paxlovid big benefit for drug company thus must advertise to sell worthless possibly harmful med
They aren't as entertaining as they used to be.
Well I've got a good one. When will Offit and others recognise the recent scientific research indicating the effectiveness and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines were highly exaggerated in the clinical trials and observational studies? https://okaythennews.substack.com/p/science-summary-covid-19-vaccines
I see you describe yourself as an "academic specialising in misinformation".
....I couldn't have described you better myself.
Stop it, that's my joke!
You seem to have fallen for the sleight of hand exaggerations in the various published Peter Doshi offerings. You as a coauthor of some of these revisionist analyses should be ashamed of the deception involved.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.13839
Let's take a look at one major example.....the calculation that was used to state that even a vaccine with no efficacy would turn out to be "effective" on analysis, which Doshi calls the "Case-counting Window Bias". By the window he means the interval after the vaccination was given but before it becomes fully effective (usually 1-2 weeks after the second dose in many studies).
The first deception is the implication that the Pfizer studies were biased by the "case-counting window effect". This is not so; they analysed efficacy as judged from 7 days after the second dose for BOTH active and placebo arms of the study.
Then there is the deception that in other types of study this window bias operates to "highly exaggerate" vaccine efficacy. This is untrue; the effect size of this would be much more limited in cohort/observational studies, because the window period comprises only a very small proportion of the total observational period, which often extends out to 6 months or more in these types of studies.
Doshi presents a table of the hypothetical efficacy of a vaccine which has zero effectiveness (Table 1), but there are problems with this.
He applies the time periods of 36 days before the vaccines become effective, and 84 days as the end of observations. These are supposedly from the Pfizer study, but these would not be the parameters used in an observational study (and I challenge you to provide one which has used these).
The rate of acquisition of Covid is appx 3 cases per day, amounting to 257 in the placebo group over 84 days. In the vaccine group, assuming it is 100% effective after 36 days, the number of cases accrued would be 108 (these are the number of cases occuring only in the first 36 days, and no cases accrue afterwards since the vaccine is 100% effective).
https://ibb.co/r2pgYnj
The calculations of overall vaccine effectiveness in this hypothetical scenario would be that the vaccine is "only 59% effective".This is clearly a ridiculous conclusion since it counts cases that occured during the time BEFORE the vaccine was effective as being vaccine "failures", even though the vaccine proves to be 100% succesful after the time when it becomes effective.
The second major deception is to state that a "case counting window" is applied in safety studies. This is untrue. For safety studies no window is applied; possible side effects are counted from the time of the first vaccination on Day 1 so as to include all early effects like allergic reactions and local/systemic reactions.
We didn't say bias, did we? I said counting window issue, and it is an issue. You may not care what happens in the possibly months between the 1st jab and 'full vaccination', but I do. I want to know if they're getting more or less COVID, other infections, anything else. But you keep lying, buddy, it suits you ;)
“We didn't say bias, did we? I said counting window issue”
Nope, you also referred to it as “bias”.
Here are your actual words in your article:
“In Article 2 the cheeky Lataster declared that Doshi’s team has actually understated things. The case-counting window bias is often accompanied by a definitional bias”
Doshi refers to “bias”, and you state he doesn’t go far enough and understates the problem. But now you go all mealie-mouthed and hide behind the vague scientific term “issue”.
Yep, you are an expert in misinformation.
Once again, that was referring to the example of an observational study, where the term 'bias' is apt, not the clinical trial. I give the benefit of the doubt in not assuming you're that stupid, hence I prefer to call you a liar.
You talked of the "highly exaggerated" effectiveness caused by what Doshi calls "case-counting window BIAS", so yes, you are talking about bias, and you described it as "bias" in the substack article by you that you cited.
Please stop lying, it isn't a good look when a simple mouse click can reveal the truth of the matter..
I also note you have no reasoned, scientific response to my comments other than ad hominems and insults.
Are you daft? It was a case counting window bias for the observational studies example and a case counting window issue for the trials. But at least you're not just a liar, you're so much more ;)