Post #3374408

2026-06-18 03:40 UTC

@poleguy@mastodon.social @jeneralist@mstdn.science The results are so significant they don't even allow for a comparison study. Because there were zero deaths total in this period, there is nothing to compare.

Replies (3)

@poleguy@mastodon.social 2026-06-18 03:44

@Jumpmed@mastodon.social @jeneralist@mstdn.science Thanks. I suspected so. I saw some of these results reported months ago. I look forward to making time to really read the details.

Open ##3374409
@riley@toot.cat 2026-06-18 06:34

@Jumpmed@mastodon.social You just wait, Cilary Hass will be deeming the study "low quality" because of lack of a "randomised controlled trial" letting half of the young women die of cancer. @poleguy@mastodon.social @jeneralist@mstdn.science

Open ##3374410
@poleguy@mastodon.social 2026-06-18 14:56

@Jumpmed@mastodon.social @jeneralist@mstdn.science Having looked at the paper again, I'm reminded that they do not look at whether individuals were vaccinated or not, so that's the real reason why this study can't publish comparison data. Right: the plots just show a correlation of death rate vs vaccination coverage over time. (Someone could certainly _do_ a comparison study: and there is something to compare: compare 0 deaths in the vaccinated 90% vs 0 deaths in the unvaccinated 10%.... but uh... yeah.)

Open ##3374417