Against my better judgement, I'm going to break my own rule by replying again here, for two reasons. Firstly, in among all the made up nonsense and childish insults you have actually presented something that approaches evidence (although it is not evidence of what you think it is, as we will discuss below), and secondly, although they are more than capable of doing so, it feels a little like I'm leaving nutildah and nullius to fight my battles for me.
A couple of points to clear up first before we examine this paper.
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.
Further, even if this study showed what you think it does (it doesn't), I would likely still have deleted it from my thread because vaccination is entirely is off-topic, as would be my reply below. I can only assume you didn't read my opening post because otherwise you would have realized that and wouldn't have posted so much nonsense in my thread.
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.
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.
Next, the results.
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.
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.
A couple of points to clear up first before we examine this paper.
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.
Further, even if this study showed what you think it does (it doesn't), I would likely still have deleted it from my thread because vaccination is entirely is off-topic, as would be my reply below. I can only assume you didn't read my opening post because otherwise you would have realized that and wouldn't have posted so much nonsense in my thread.
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.
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.
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.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.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.
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.
The point isn't what the studies say. The point is who funded them, and, if appropriate, who funded the funders.
Did you catch that?
