Ah so what you're saying is that a completely unrelated study from ~20 years ago somehow impacts the research that's just been released? That does not follow. As I said, happy to hear an actual criticism if you've got one
The paper that you're citing argues that correcting for age is inappropriate because it's possible that not all children in the "vaccinated" group actually received vaccines during the study period so it may have introduced bias
-
-
The new study defined "vaccinated" FROM THE TIME OF CONFIRMED VACCINATION, which means that this criticism does not apply. You are very simply incorrect, as I said
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
That's not correct either. Not that this is a particularly good criticism - adjusting for age should CORRECT, not exacerbate, this problem - but it's not even the argument that paper makespic.twitter.com/1mAqyWvdfh
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.