Coronavirus 2019-2020 thread (no unsubstantiated rumours!)

[Quickie]

No p-values for Hazard Ratio means this is useless, we are unable to determine if the differences are due to random chance or not.

Also, I wouldn't trust TriNetX EHR data, since it's only from 52 organizations in US, it's hardly representative sample size.

Also, propensity score matching leaves unmeasured confounding.

And finally, the conclusion of the article is:

There are confidence levels provided.

(B) 12 week HR (LCL,UCL)
Retinal vascular occlusion 3.54 (3.03, 4.11)

At LCL, HR is 3.03 which is very high. And the high end is 4.11

As to your claim of the study being of a hardly representative size. The N value = 95,156,967 (US Collaborative Network). That is over 95 million subjects.

I have seen so-called authoritative studies in which potentially life-changing decisions were made on the masses that have N-value only in the hundreds or even less.

 

[Phead128]

I have seen so-called authoritative studies in which potentially life-changing decisions were made on the masses that have N-value only in the hundreds or even less.

Yes, because randomized controlled trials (RCT)s control for unmeasured confounding and can make causality conclusions, whereas retrospective observational studies unable to control for all confounding factors and can only make association claims.

That's why an mRNA RCT with 30,000 individuals trumps an mRNA observational study with 95 million individuals. Otherwise, FDA can just approve drugs based on observational data for $300K instead of running phase 3 clinical RCT trials that cost $20 million dollars.

 

[Quickie]

Yes, because randomized controlled trials (RCT)s control for unmeasured confounding and can make causality conclusions, whereas retrospective observational studies unable to control for all confounding factors and can only make association claims.

That's why an mRNA RCT with 30,000 individuals trumps an mRNA observational study with 95 million individuals. Otherwise, FDA can just approve drugs based on observational data for $300K instead of running phase 3 clinical RCT trials that cost $20 million dollars.

Did you happen to have access to this study? it seems like you already make the conclusion that this study is unscientifically done, and useless.

All these studies are carried out by practicing top-of-the-class (at least it should be) scientific researchers who should know what they are doing.

Really, to be fair, all these critical studies rightly deserve the proper scientific peer reviews (and certainly NOT just the random internet hate comments just because it goes against certain vaccines) because the truths that will be revealed can save untold people from suffering and deaths.

 

[Phead128]

Really, to be fair, all these critical studies rightly deserve the proper scientific peer reviews (and certainly NOT just the random internet hate comments just because it goes against certain vaccines) because the truths that will be revealed can save untold people from suffering and deaths.

"A random internet user" with a PhD degree in Epidemiology. Yes that's me, so before you spread misinformation, what is your background in epidemiology and database analysis?

The conclusion of the article is:

"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

."

So stop cherry-picking your conclusions from the study. The authors clearly stated that vaccines are safe because the retinal occlusions is extremely low. So stop exaggerating the "suffering and deaths".

 

[Quickie]

No, I noted the limitations of observational data that anyone who took Epidemiology 101 should remember.


My PhD degree in epidemiology is focused on retrospective observational database analysis using large databases.

My full-time job is analyzing retrospective databases like claims and EHR data similar to TriNetX.

"A random internet user" with a PhD degree in Epidemiology. Yes that's me, so before you spread misinformation, what is your background in epidemiology and database analysis?

The authors concluded that COVID vaccination is still safe because the rate of retinal adverse effects is extremely low, but here you are exaggerating the suffering and deaths. Do you prefer to cherry pick your results from that study?

The conclusion of the article is:
"Vaccination is suggested to protect against COVID-19, since the incidence of retinal vascular occlusion remains extremely low."

I just present the study as it is for the information of the members.

It's up to the members here to judge the validity of the study by themselves.

If you think the study is just "an attempt at misinformation", you will have to go to the authors of the study to make your point.

 

[LawLeadsToPeace]

Did you happen to have access to this study? it seems like you already make the conclusion that this study is unscientifically done, and useless.

All these studies are carried out by practicing top-of-the-class (at least it should be) scientific researchers who should know what they are doing.

Really, to be fair, all these critical studies rightly deserve the proper scientific peer reviews (and certainly NOT just the random internet hate comments just because it goes against certain vaccines) because the truths that will be revealed can save untold people from suffering and deaths.

I just want to give a heads up as an observer, but you essentially commited the appeal to authority fallacy by using the authors' top-of-the-class credentials to defend this study rather than using information from the whole study to counter @Phead128 's argument. Plus you commited the cherrypick fallacy by ignoring the conclusion of the study. So your argument to an observer like me isn't convincing enough.

I just present the study as it is for the information of the members.

It's up to the members here to judge the validity of the study by themselves.

If you think the study is just "an attempt at misinformation", you will have to go to the authors of the study to make your point.

You posted this and made a claim out of it, so it's no surprise someone challenged your idea.

 

[coolgod]

I just want to give a heads up as an observer, but you essentially commited the appeal to authority fallacy by using the authors' top-of-the-class credentials to defend this study rather than using information from the whole study to counter @Phead128 's argument. Plus you commited the cherrypick fallacy by ignoring the conclusion of the study. So your argument to an observer like me isn't convincing enough.

You posted this and made a claim out of it, so it's no surprise someone challenged your idea.

I think @Phead128 argument about p-values in this study is good, however it does seem like he is often giving a holier than thou vibe with his Phd in epidemiology in this thread. We can keep an open mind and debate rationally about covid and covid vaccines, without resorting to calling ppl's arguments conspiracy theories and misinformation.

It's very reasonable to assume there are significant side effects associated with MRNA vaccines, given their short development and testing cycle compared to traditional vaccines. This blindness might just be a statistical fluke, but that doesn't make it misinformation, at worst it makes it an unreproducible result.

Likewise we can also keep an open mind about the possible non-natural origins regarding covid-19, absence of a "smoking gun" in scienctific literature doesn't prove Covid-19 was 100% natural. There are many scientific topics that are taboo and won't get published in respectable journals, non-natural origins of covid is one of them.

 

[LawLeadsToPeace]

I think @Phead128 argument about p-values in this study is good, however it does seem like he is often giving a holier than thou vibe with his Phd in epidemiology in this thread. We can keep an open mind and debate rationally about covid and covid vaccines, without resorting to calling ppl's arguments conspiracy theories and misinformation.

It's very reasonable to assume there are significant side effects associated with MRNA vaccines, given their short development and testing cycle compared to traditional vaccines. This blindness might just be a statistical fluke, but that doesn't make it misinformation, at worst it makes it an unreproducible result.

Likewise we can also keep an open mind about the possible non-natural origins regarding covid-19, absence of a "smoking gun" in scienctific literature doesn't prove Covid-19 was 100% natural. There are many scientific topics that are taboo and won't get published in respectable journals, non-natural origins of covid is one of them.

I have nothing against people posting this content. When mRNA vaccines first came out scientists were gushing about how the vaccines were essentially the silver bullet with its superior efficiacy and using that as a standard to crap on Chinese vaccines,yet they shifted one goalpost over another to advertise mRNA vaccines and crap on Chinese vaccines. I just wanted to point out some flaws with the argument in order to help keep their discussion more cogent.

 

[Quickie]

I just want to give a heads up as an observer, but you essentially commited the appeal to authority fallacy by using the authors' top-of-the-class credentials to defend this study rather than using information from the whole study to counter @Phead128 's argument. Plus you commited the cherrypick fallacy by ignoring the conclusion of the study. So your argument to an observer like me isn't convincing enough.

You posted this and made a claim out of it, so it's no surprise someone challenged your idea.

I did post the whole video so that people can view it whole. It's not a claim I made. I just bring out very brief info directly from it, as it is required in posting anything in this forum as opposed to just posting the video alone.

 

[LawLeadsToPeace]

I did post the whole video so that people can view it whole. It's not a claim I made. I just bring out very brief info directly from it, as it is required in posting anything in this forum as opposed to just posting the video alone.

I worded it badly. My bad. What I meant was that you made a post and peformed a calculation based on data from a study, and someone challenged the data source itself, thereby indirectly challenging the calculation. Such a challenge should have been expected.