pull down to refresh

42 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln OP 18h \ parent \ on: Study of 1.2 Million Children Finds No Risk From Common Vaccine Additive science
Yeah, that's the risk when relying on agenda experts to interpret the original results.
Edward Belongia, a retired epidemiologist who studied vaccine safety for decades and who was not involved in the current research, told Stat News that this is "the largest and most definitive observational study on the safety of vaccine-related aluminum exposure in children" he knows of.
He said it "should put to rest any lingering doubts" about the potential health risks.
I'm sure the original authors are more nuanced than Edward here.
Incidentally, that's also how i found out about this study, a local Fauci-style expert who was also saying this is the final nail in the anti vaxxers coffin (it isn't, and it shouldn't be).
There are established methodologies that can be used without denying control group kids vaccines, which is the usual objection.
Can you elaborate? I'm not up to speed on this.
write
preview
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 17h
Yeah, there was a clever design to measure the harms of smoking while pregnant.
Obviously, you can't just assign one group of women to a treatment group and have them smoke two packs a day.
What you can use in these situations is an "intent to treat" strategy. In that study, one group of women received some extra literature and counseling about the harms of smoking. That group of women, who previously reported the same smoking rates as the control group, smoked less during their pregnancies. By attributing the reduction in smoking to the intervention (and assuming there was no other channel by which that intervention impacted health) you can treat the difference smoking as though it's exogenous.
In other words, it's almost empirically equivalent to actually assigning one group to smoke more, without being morally equivalent.
reply