- Dec 18, 2012
- 4,560
- 7,516
- 1,930
If you don't show your data you don't have a study, period.
coronanews123.wordpress.com
A widely hailed study which purports to show that heart problems, blood clots, and other maladies caused by COVID vaccines are “rare,” is based on data that the authors say they cannot “share” contrary to bedrock principles of science. Established norms requires that data be made freely available to other researchers in order for the data to be validated and used to reproduce the results.
Children’s Health Defense reports:
“The researchers…said they did not have permission to share data from the study — meaning their conclusions cannot easily be verified or challenged by other researchers.“
The premier science journal Science, for example, states in its policies section:
“All data used in the analysis must be available to any researcher for purposes of reproducing or extending the analysis. Data must be available in the paper or deposited in a community special-purpose repository or a general-purpose repository such as Dryad (see Data and Code Deposition). “
Science further states:
“Problems in obtaining access to published data are taken seriously by the Science journals and can be reported at [email protected].”
Below: Data policy statement from Science. (source)
In the widely disseminated and discussed “COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals,” published n Februay 2024, the authors conclude with the unusual statement:
“The authors do not have permission to share data.”
Below: Authors’ statement in “COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals”
In 2020 at the height of COVID, the prestigious Lancet was forced to retract a study purporting to show that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was ineffective in the treatment of Covid after it turned out the data was fraudulent. But not before the study caused most research on HCQ for COVID to be halted. Nevertheless, a compendium of all known studies on the use of HCQ in the treatment of COVID shows significantly reduced mortality when HCQ is used.
In the “largest” study ever done, 99 million people, even with all parameters stacked in the COVID vaccines’ favor, significant life-changing side effects from the vaccines were still found, but explained away as “rare.”
This is assuming the data is not totally fraudulent to begin with. A study which cannot show its data should never hit the light of day. In 2015 Richard Horton, long-time editor-in-chief of The Lancet, confessed “much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”
Children’s Health Defense reported in February 2024, in “CDC-Funded Study of 99 Million COVID-Vaccinated People Finds ‘Very Rare Adverse Events’”:
A study of adverse events in 99 million people vaccinated for COVID-19 found increased but “very rare” risks of neurological, blood and heart disorders. Myocarditis odds were over 6 times higher than normal after a second Moderna shot.
___
Most significantly, the limitation of data collection of only up to 42 days post-vaccination carries the likelihood of vast underreporting, especially for symptoms that may take longer to develop. For example, McCullough has reported cardiac arrests happening up to two years after vaccine administration.
Second, by red-flagging only those adverse events where researchers are 95% sure the vaccine makes them 1.5 times more likely, some real risks could slip through the cracks when it comes to further studies or the development of remedies.
Lower than “1.5 times more likely” still means higher-than-reported vaccine-related risks. While appropriately cautious, the validity of this statistical distinction merits further evaluation.
Third, the study did not analyze or report on deaths following COVID-19 vaccination. The researchers did not mention vaccine-induced mortality at all and only stated that additional studies are still warranted using methodologies better suited to assess different kinds of data.
Hooker said:
“The authors appear to sidestep the severity of COVID-19 vaccine AEs [adverse events] by avoiding reporting on ‘death,’ ‘hospitalization,’ and ‘serious injury’ associated with the reported conditions as well. These are notably missing and one wonders why they were omitted given the high mortality levels indicated through CDC’s VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System].”
Fourth, the datasets were not globally representative and contained a number of confounding factors. Data from the U.S., which had some of the worst COVID-19 outcomes and ample reporting of adverse events, were not included. Asia and Africa were completely unrepresented.
____
In the section declaring competing interests, some authors acknowledged receiving funding from the CDC directly, though they clearly stated the study’s conclusions were their own.
Some authors reported associations with or funding from other state or country-level health agencies, and relationships with Big Pharma companies such as Gilead Sciences (makers of remdesivir), Novo Nordisk, AbbVie, Sanofi, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline.
The lead author of the study, K. Faksova, is employed by the Danish vaccine manufacturer Staten Serum Institut.
“This is a blatant conflict of interest,” Hooker said.
The researchers also said they did not have permission to share data from the study — meaning their conclusions cannot easily be verified or challenged by other researchers.
Largest “99 Million” Person COVID Vaccine Study Showing Myocarditis and Clots “Rare” is Based on Secret, Junk Science Data
A widely hailed study which purports to show that heart problems, blood clots, and other maladies caused by COVID vaccines are “rare,” is based on data that the authors say they cannot …
coronanews123.wordpress.com
A widely hailed study which purports to show that heart problems, blood clots, and other maladies caused by COVID vaccines are “rare,” is based on data that the authors say they cannot “share” contrary to bedrock principles of science. Established norms requires that data be made freely available to other researchers in order for the data to be validated and used to reproduce the results.
Children’s Health Defense reports:
“The researchers…said they did not have permission to share data from the study — meaning their conclusions cannot easily be verified or challenged by other researchers.“
The premier science journal Science, for example, states in its policies section:
“All data used in the analysis must be available to any researcher for purposes of reproducing or extending the analysis. Data must be available in the paper or deposited in a community special-purpose repository or a general-purpose repository such as Dryad (see Data and Code Deposition). “
Science further states:
“Problems in obtaining access to published data are taken seriously by the Science journals and can be reported at [email protected].”
Below: Data policy statement from Science. (source)
In the widely disseminated and discussed “COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals,” published n Februay 2024, the authors conclude with the unusual statement:
“The authors do not have permission to share data.”
Below: Authors’ statement in “COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals”
In 2020 at the height of COVID, the prestigious Lancet was forced to retract a study purporting to show that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was ineffective in the treatment of Covid after it turned out the data was fraudulent. But not before the study caused most research on HCQ for COVID to be halted. Nevertheless, a compendium of all known studies on the use of HCQ in the treatment of COVID shows significantly reduced mortality when HCQ is used.
In the “largest” study ever done, 99 million people, even with all parameters stacked in the COVID vaccines’ favor, significant life-changing side effects from the vaccines were still found, but explained away as “rare.”
This is assuming the data is not totally fraudulent to begin with. A study which cannot show its data should never hit the light of day. In 2015 Richard Horton, long-time editor-in-chief of The Lancet, confessed “much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”
Children’s Health Defense reported in February 2024, in “CDC-Funded Study of 99 Million COVID-Vaccinated People Finds ‘Very Rare Adverse Events’”:
A study of adverse events in 99 million people vaccinated for COVID-19 found increased but “very rare” risks of neurological, blood and heart disorders. Myocarditis odds were over 6 times higher than normal after a second Moderna shot.
___
Most significantly, the limitation of data collection of only up to 42 days post-vaccination carries the likelihood of vast underreporting, especially for symptoms that may take longer to develop. For example, McCullough has reported cardiac arrests happening up to two years after vaccine administration.
Second, by red-flagging only those adverse events where researchers are 95% sure the vaccine makes them 1.5 times more likely, some real risks could slip through the cracks when it comes to further studies or the development of remedies.
Lower than “1.5 times more likely” still means higher-than-reported vaccine-related risks. While appropriately cautious, the validity of this statistical distinction merits further evaluation.
Third, the study did not analyze or report on deaths following COVID-19 vaccination. The researchers did not mention vaccine-induced mortality at all and only stated that additional studies are still warranted using methodologies better suited to assess different kinds of data.
Hooker said:
“The authors appear to sidestep the severity of COVID-19 vaccine AEs [adverse events] by avoiding reporting on ‘death,’ ‘hospitalization,’ and ‘serious injury’ associated with the reported conditions as well. These are notably missing and one wonders why they were omitted given the high mortality levels indicated through CDC’s VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System].”
Fourth, the datasets were not globally representative and contained a number of confounding factors. Data from the U.S., which had some of the worst COVID-19 outcomes and ample reporting of adverse events, were not included. Asia and Africa were completely unrepresented.
____
In the section declaring competing interests, some authors acknowledged receiving funding from the CDC directly, though they clearly stated the study’s conclusions were their own.
Some authors reported associations with or funding from other state or country-level health agencies, and relationships with Big Pharma companies such as Gilead Sciences (makers of remdesivir), Novo Nordisk, AbbVie, Sanofi, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline.
The lead author of the study, K. Faksova, is employed by the Danish vaccine manufacturer Staten Serum Institut.
“This is a blatant conflict of interest,” Hooker said.
The researchers also said they did not have permission to share data from the study — meaning their conclusions cannot easily be verified or challenged by other researchers.
