There is mounting evidence that the rebuttals to his study are hot flaming garbage. He is using classical evidence-based reasoning in this study. How 100% of studies were based prior to Covid. 100%. There has been a huge shift in what is acceptable as far as the quantitative metrics in these studies goes. Of course this new science religion is going to disagree with the methods done... my point in what I posted above. I chose to focus on the mounting evidence coming from every direction that those phase 3 trials are hot garbage with a dead hooker on top. Super thankful for people like this willing to risk their careers and reputations to seek the truth, whatever that may be. It's interesting how the findings differ when doctors are simply seeking the truth vs when they're funded by pharma and dollar signs are driving the intentions.Zobel said:
You realize this is the same paper we discussed a few posts above right? The one with the p-hacking, and apples and oranges comparison?
Further info.Remember the preprint that claimed COVID vaccines caused significant adverse effects, beloved by contrarians? Well it's now been published in an @ElsevierConnect journal - it *really* shouldn't have been, as it remains hot flaming garbage. Here's why...
— Dr David Robert Grimes (@drg1985) September 2, 2022
STRAP IN, IT'S GRIM.. š§µ pic.twitter.com/Us4eNqJbVP
Gig 'em!