"They" can't change history, but they're doing their best to rewrite it on the fly. Don't let them, and start demanding a whole new sodomy-centered prison system for everyone involved
I was really hoping the one statistician I'm aware of who treads this site would make a good-faith argument, You're obviously now.
You are basically accusing me of fakery now. That the NIH was lying (or incorrect) in mid-May when it said there were no clinical data hearkening to the possibility of shots-induced myocarditis is *undeniable*. You don't like my example, and you insist on wandering into the weeds of peer review and the path to ultimate publication. OK, but this ignores the fact that clinical data out of Israel and elsewhere existed that suggested a strong possibility of a connection. And since they are no longer denying one, why would you defend these people?
You've now had two chances to respond to the main point of the post: The 770 safety signals and the FDA refusing to release the VAERS data until legally forced. You have not. And you've watched the media lie and and lie and lie, and Fauci lie and lie and lie, and despite (I think) acknowledging that this is happening, you hold me to such a high standard that if I write NIH instead of NIAID, you see this as reason to discredit what I write altogether.
This is actually amazing to me. Just amazing. It is YOUR COLLEAGUES (or people who also work intimately with data) who are coming up with these concerns. I invite you or anyone to poke holes in THEIR work, I defer to the knowledge needed to produce their work, like this:
I guess I’m naive but I never thought people would be swayed so easily. I don’t understand how a person can’t take a step back and look at the ABSURDITY of all this.
Just because you put up a screen shot doesn't automatically make what is in it true. In most instances I don't have the background (or the time) to verify what is in it.
"I for whatever reason assume the NIH and NAIAD automatically crawl the Web for published articles. Especially about the covid vaccines, and especially then. The average person may have to wait until the official publication date, but not Fauci, Incl."
In most instances the "average person" does not have to wait. Anyone can do a search on PubMed. Since several years before the start of the pandemic PubMed has been providing access to at least the abstract (full article in case of open-source journals) as soon as it is available online. Until the article appears in print PubMed lists it as "Online ahead of print." It looks like there are at least 6 articles on which I am a co-author that currently have that designation, for instance: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36599095/. Also, what has become much more frequent during the pandemic is use of preprint servers, such as medRxiv (see, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MedRxiv). In rapidly-evolving fields, especially in the case of something like a pandemic, the publication process is too slow. But preprints haven't been peer reviewed, so there isn't any reasonable quality control on what is "published". (In the physical sciences and mathematical fields it can easily take more than a year from submission to a journal to appearing in print -- even if accepted by the first journal to which one submits. So it is important to have ways to access developments in one's field before they appear in print.)
If you have errors in the two things I know a little about, how can I trust the accuracy of anything else you write here.
"As a reminder, Anthony Fauci was then the director of the NIH (and still thinks he is)." Fauci was never "the director of the NIH". He was director of one of the institutes. (He was director for a long time, making one wonder whether it may be good to have term limits on institute directors.)
"A month and a half later, the NIH in effect denied having even published this case study."
The NIH did no such thing. PubMed is essentially a database providing information about any articles published in the hundreds (thousands?) of journals it covers. The NIH doesn't decide whether or not an article should be included in PubMed.
The PubMed Central version of the full article includes this disclaimer: "This disclaimer relates to PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Bookshelf. These three resources are scientific literature databases offered to the public by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM). NLM is not a publisher, but rather collects, indexes, and archives scientific literature published by other organizations. The presence of any article, book, or document in these databases does not imply an endorsement of, or concurrence with, the contents by NLM, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or the U.S. Federal Government."
So, blame the editors of the journal (Radiology Case Reports). I would have said blame the peer reviewers, but the publication timeline doesn't seem to have allowed for much in the way of peer review: "Received 6 May 2021, Revised 10 May 2021, Accepted 10 May 2021, Available online 18 May 2021, Version of Record 9 June 2021." Although I occasionally been asked to do an expedited review (within 48 hours), the standard timeframes for reviews for the medical journals for which I do statistical reviews are 10-14 days.
I was really hoping the one statistician I'm aware of who treads this site would make a good-faith argument, You're obviously now.
You are basically accusing me of fakery now. That the NIH was lying (or incorrect) in mid-May when it said there were no clinical data hearkening to the possibility of shots-induced myocarditis is *undeniable*. You don't like my example, and you insist on wandering into the weeds of peer review and the path to ultimate publication. OK, but this ignores the fact that clinical data out of Israel and elsewhere existed that suggested a strong possibility of a connection. And since they are no longer denying one, why would you defend these people?
You've now had two chances to respond to the main point of the post: The 770 safety signals and the FDA refusing to release the VAERS data until legally forced. You have not. And you've watched the media lie and and lie and lie, and Fauci lie and lie and lie, and despite (I think) acknowledging that this is happening, you hold me to such a high standard that if I write NIH instead of NIAID, you see this as reason to discredit what I write altogether.
This is actually amazing to me. Just amazing. It is YOUR COLLEAGUES (or people who also work intimately with data) who are coming up with these concerns. I invite you or anyone to poke holes in THEIR work, I defer to the knowledge needed to produce their work, like this:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2022/12/29/the-unbearable-cost-of-sycophancy/
...you know that these injections are vaccines in the same way cherry bombs are can openers."
literally and figuratively a very accurate description."
Says it al.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
Voltaire, 1765
It's all theme and variation and people are so caught up with virtual rather than actual then the cycle just keeps on repeating.
Thank you, Kevin for your continuing output of succinct writing with a detailed descriptive twist.
This article is a public (and pubic) service. Thank you.
I guess I’m naive but I never thought people would be swayed so easily. I don’t understand how a person can’t take a step back and look at the ABSURDITY of all this.
Just because you put up a screen shot doesn't automatically make what is in it true. In most instances I don't have the background (or the time) to verify what is in it.
"I for whatever reason assume the NIH and NAIAD automatically crawl the Web for published articles. Especially about the covid vaccines, and especially then. The average person may have to wait until the official publication date, but not Fauci, Incl."
In most instances the "average person" does not have to wait. Anyone can do a search on PubMed. Since several years before the start of the pandemic PubMed has been providing access to at least the abstract (full article in case of open-source journals) as soon as it is available online. Until the article appears in print PubMed lists it as "Online ahead of print." It looks like there are at least 6 articles on which I am a co-author that currently have that designation, for instance: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36599095/. Also, what has become much more frequent during the pandemic is use of preprint servers, such as medRxiv (see, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MedRxiv). In rapidly-evolving fields, especially in the case of something like a pandemic, the publication process is too slow. But preprints haven't been peer reviewed, so there isn't any reasonable quality control on what is "published". (In the physical sciences and mathematical fields it can easily take more than a year from submission to a journal to appearing in print -- even if accepted by the first journal to which one submits. So it is important to have ways to access developments in one's field before they appear in print.)
If you have errors in the two things I know a little about, how can I trust the accuracy of anything else you write here.
"As a reminder, Anthony Fauci was then the director of the NIH (and still thinks he is)." Fauci was never "the director of the NIH". He was director of one of the institutes. (He was director for a long time, making one wonder whether it may be good to have term limits on institute directors.)
"A month and a half later, the NIH in effect denied having even published this case study."
The NIH did no such thing. PubMed is essentially a database providing information about any articles published in the hundreds (thousands?) of journals it covers. The NIH doesn't decide whether or not an article should be included in PubMed.
The PubMed Central version of the full article includes this disclaimer: "This disclaimer relates to PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Bookshelf. These three resources are scientific literature databases offered to the public by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM). NLM is not a publisher, but rather collects, indexes, and archives scientific literature published by other organizations. The presence of any article, book, or document in these databases does not imply an endorsement of, or concurrence with, the contents by NLM, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or the U.S. Federal Government."
So, blame the editors of the journal (Radiology Case Reports). I would have said blame the peer reviewers, but the publication timeline doesn't seem to have allowed for much in the way of peer review: "Received 6 May 2021, Revised 10 May 2021, Accepted 10 May 2021, Available online 18 May 2021, Version of Record 9 June 2021." Although I occasionally been asked to do an expedited review (within 48 hours), the standard timeframes for reviews for the medical journals for which I do statistical reviews are 10-14 days.