This actually exists. It’s part of the difficulty in talking about vaccine safety generally. cc @jburcumhttps://twitter.com/SharylAttkisson/status/1006753003842560001 …
-
-
I am pretty well "read up" on it. And even if one is charitable to your point and says the CDC's data is bogus, too many other groups can also show safety and efficacy.
-
Okay, if you say so! You're certainly entitled to do your own research and draw your own conclusions-- more power to you. I just tell the facts as I learn them from time to time.
-
"Do your own research" is kind of a calling card for the anti-science stance permeating our culture. It is a "I *really* know the truth" attitude which is going to bring alot of suffering to alot of people. And already has
-
Talk about anti-science. This is SCIENCE FRAUD. If you'd like to review the data yourself (are you at all qualified?) please contact researcher+statistician Brian Hooker who took CDC's RAW data and came up with the same INITIAL conclusions as the CDC study--before they washed it.
-
The conclusion is invalid because they did the wrong kind of statistics for the type of data, and doing an analysis on that subset wasn't valid based on the research question. That isn't fraud, it is science
-
Now if one wants to propose that subset in a new hypothesis, and do the research, they could. But because plausibility is thin, no reason to do so.
-
I am not a stats expert, but I know enough people who are (people who do bioinformatics and stats in hospitals and academia). I haven't found one who has said the analysis was valid
-
The claim the data was thrown out is one to make it sound conspiratorial. The data is all there and available. Only that particular analysis was removed due to it being invalid.
- 57 more replies
New 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.