We can't say that! It's getting thrown back at us. We're not saying that it's causal, we're not even trying to propose mechanisms. All we're saying is that using government reported data, we see a signal that suggests that certain adverse events are time and location correlated with vaccine roll outs. Could there be other explanations, sure!
Our successful tack has been to take all mention of the vaccine out of it and just report our organized data (organizing government data is always fun) and just publish a paper of data without even suggesting hypotheses to follow up on (doesn't feel like real science to us).
Once that paper gets in the literature, then we can write a second paper referencing that, and go on from there. It's all a political game...that's delaying good science that can save people's lives!
So my guess with this paper is that they have data, they've thought of the vaccine as an issue. But they have to go with a more politically correct reason to get the data out in the open and then they can follow up later once their data is in the literature.
Edit: why the down votes! I'm not saying that it IS the vaccine, I'm saying that it might be and we should study it. But this does show that once you bring up that idea, the censors come out of the woodwork. So frustrating! When politics stop the questions you can ask, we have serious problems.
We're not trying to stoke fear, we're trying to see what's really happening.
Thanks for your hard work. Politics have entirely abducted reason on this topic. We all so clearly fear that the same certain thing may be true, so we are left doing nothing that matters.
Irresponsible science journalism is stoking public fear, not actual researchers trying to do important work. Stop blocking the important work and go chastise the people really causing the problems.
> So my guess with this paper is that they have data, they've thought of the vaccine as an issue. But they have to go with a more politically correct reason to get the data out in the open and then they can follow up later once their data is in the literature. > [article] So what is going on? Experts believe decisions taken by the Government in the earliest stages of the pandemic may now be coming back to bite.
If one reads between the lines, what is the largest "decision taken by the government" that could impact directly health? Vaccines. Of course, since media, big corporations and governments have close ties the truth will take time to get out, if it ever do.
Delays in diagnosis or no diagnosis at all is likely a more fitting explanation.
I don't really think anyone here has the ability or expertise to judge which is more fitting.
For what it's worth, the fact circulatory issues is mentioned in the article should ring alarm bells for COVID vaccines being a potential cause.
We just found out recently the prevalence of myocarditis among teenage boys that get the vaccine is extremely high compared to what was expected.
Your thought process is classic example of zero risk bias.
So safe they need to avoid liability? So safe many of the vaccines had complication rates far higher than any flu vaccine in history?
Look I'm glad we had the vaccines so quickly. Trump pushing them through regulation was extremely good for man kind and we have all benefited.
But stop acting like there is no risk.
We know some people will be harmed by vaccination. Despite that, we need to vaccinate as many people as possible. Because of that, we make it easy for people who've been harmed to claim compensation from a government and industry backed fund, rather than force those harmed people to go through the courts against multi-billion dollar companies with very expensive lawyers.
Despite thousands of reports of injuries, including death, I don’t think anybody has been compensated.
Can you give more details about that part? IIRC it worked as intended.