Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on March 18, 2020, 03:48:17 PM

...
I care not about your thoughts or feelings regarding my medical qualifications or occupation. You can believe what you like about me - it matters to me not at all. Given my aforementioned propensity for privacy, I'm not about to dox myself by uploading a copy of my graduation certificate or medical license to satisfy the whims of some conspiracy nut.

Might I suggest that if you are going to keep your credentials secret you do the same for your vocation? Why don't you just let your content speak for itself?

I actually don't know the precise details of the ethical rules governing medical doctors. They are significantly more strict and formalized then most professions, no? I hardly ever see anonymous people running around on random message boards claiming to be medical doctor who are not scammers. In fact I don't know that I ever have. What is the policy of the bodies governing licenced medical doctors here?

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on March 18, 2020, 03:48:17 PM

Now, on to the paper. You have done what the vast majority of quacks do when "examining" scientific literature - start with a preconceived notion, search for a quotable sentence or paragraph which supposedly supports that notion, and not actually read the paper from which the quote has come from.

First of all, some limitations of the study:

People with both influenza and non-influenza positive specimens were excluded from the analysis. In other words, anyone who had both flu and coronavirus was excluded, whereas anyone who didn't have the flu but did have coronavirus was included. The latter group is predominantly comprised of individuals who were vaccinated, skewing the results against this group.

Individuals who gave multiple specimens were excluded from the analysis. This is essentially the same error that we just discussed. Unvaccinated individuals who had both flu and coronavirus were excluded from the analysis, while vaccinated individuals who did not have flu but did have coronavirus were included, again skewing the results further.

I'm not going to defend the study. It seemed a bit shoddy to me, and also a bit desperate to conclude that flu vax was the bomb (as they almost always are.)

I read it again fairly carefully and I saw no specific mention of 'coronavirus' being treated any differently in sample selection than any of the other non-influenza viruses. Nor did the n-values for coronavirus or metapneumovirus seem out of range for the other non-influenza infections examined. Frankly the above sounds a little like something you wishfully pulled out of your a...oh ya...be polite. Anyway, maybe you could point me to where coronaviruse was identified as being specially (and invalidly) treated in sample selction or analysis?

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on March 18, 2020, 03:48:17 PM

As we have all seen over the last few weeks, not all coronaviruses are the same. The behavior of one cannot be generalized to the behavior of them all.

SARS-cov-2 is (supposed to be) super deadly it seems extra important to take all steps to mitigate it.

Lest it be forgotten, my interest in this study was in the unusually high mortality rates quite specific to the older crowd. The question comes up (or should) what is it that's different about older people? One (of many) things is that they get the flu vaccine at a much higher rate. I never said anything remotely like 'it has to be the flu vaccine'. I mearly took interest in a study which showed some interesting things about the relationship between the flu vaccine, coronavirus, and other non-influenza viruses. It was the violent reaction to any questions here, and the censorship, which raised my eyebrows.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on March 18, 2020, 03:48:17 PM

Next, the results.

Quote

Additionally, the laboratory data in our study showed increased odds of coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in individuals receiving influenza vaccination.

Emphasis mine. The laboratory data. This includes individuals who were colonized with coronavirus or metapneumovirus, but were not infected or unwell. Colonization with a wide variety of viruses and bacteria is both exceedingly widespread and entirely normal.

Seems like you are at best saying that the study sucked due to invalid sample selection (which I would tend to agree with for other reasons.) I would say that you need to squint pretty hard at the words "the laboratory data" to even make that assertion.

And again, please show me where in the study it singles out coronavirus and metapneumonavirus for special and invalid treatement. If it's in one of the footnotes (which I did not study in detail) where you find your case, which one?

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on March 18, 2020, 03:48:17 PM

Quote

The minute differences among the vaccine effectiveness of all three control groups does not support the virus interference concept.

No virus interference.

Quote

Both the unadjusted and adjusted models did not show significant evidence of virus interference

No virus interference.

Quote

The overall results of the study showed little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination

No virus interference.

Those 'no virus interference' statements seem from my read to be only valid when 'averaged' across the entire pan set. Specific differences between coronavirus and most of the rest seem to have been observed and noted.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on March 18, 2020, 03:48:17 PM

So, to summarize:
Absolutely no evidence of virus interference.
Skewed data by removing a bunch of non-vaccinated individuals who had coronavirus.
Even then, coronavirus colonization (and not necessarily infection) was associated with (but not caused by) vaccination.

You have a different definition of 'absolutely no' than I do. But surely you'll be happy to have further research on the fairly important topic. I'll keep my eyes open for you.

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on March 18, 2020, 03:48:17 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on March 18, 2020, 02:02:38 PM

And of course they had the obligatory 'further research necessary'. After researching these things for a while, 'further research necessary' usually translates to 'do a study designed to not find this pesky association.'

This is one of my favorite quotes ever, because it perfectly sums up the disconnect between actual science and pseudoscience quacks.

Science - let's do further research and see if we can contradict our findings, because only then can we absolutely sure of our findings.
Pseudoscience - we've found a single quote which backs up our pre-conceived notions, let's not only stop looking but ignore everything to the contrary.

Glad you got a kick out of it, but I mentioned it because almost all of the funded research is done by those who desperately want vaccines for all (or more accurately, the funding that goes along with this result.) They are, in my observation, very prone to scientific fraud of various types. That's why I am so skeptical of most of these studies.