Mothra said:
D. C. Bear said:
BearFan33 said:
Here is the problem I see.
I have no idea whether the abstract is good or not. But the fact of the matter is a medical person cannot publish anything anti-vaccine without being tarred, feathered and run out of town. It shouldn't be that way.
Being even skeptical publicly about the vaccine is putting medical professionals at great personal and professional risk and that shouldn't be the case.
If they meet the standards, such abstracts and articles should be published, examined, discussed and, if appropriate, criticized by the leaders in the field. It's always been that way up to the age of covid.
I did not comment on it at first because I also had no idea if it was good or not as I had not looked in to it.
If you read the links, however, it becomes apparent that the poster abstract is not good.
This poster's author was not being tarred, feathered and run out of town because he published something anti vaccine. He was being criticized because what he published appears to have been garbage. Amazing to me how some of the same people who are quick to tell us to "follow the money" as it relates to vaccines and "Big Pharma" are quick to latch on to a third-rate poster from a guy whose primary business seems to be marketing dietary supplements.
I haven't seen anyone on this thread who has "latched on" to the abstract authored by the cardiologist. As I said above, I have no idea if his findings are accurate, but it does appear the AHA thought it wasn't "garbage" or they would not have published it. Certainly, none of the critiques I've seen warrant the garbage label, though I understand why some resident experts are quick to label it as such.
Was I talking about "this thread?" No. The fact that this abstract came to the attention of enough people that it get fact checked is prima facie evidence that people latched on to it.
Here is one of the critiques that you said you have read:
"So I graphed the data from the abstract, it doesn't support the claims, basically, the inflammatory markers are not elevated. I could find no independent validation of this test (one site that sells this test claimed 61% predictive utility, not that good even for the intended use"
Here is another:
Antivaxxers are sharing a poster abstract from the
@American_Heart meeting. It might look official, but a poster is never peer-reviewed. And this one is complete crap if you watch it.
"Complete crap if you watch it" warrants the garbage label, or maybe the crap label.
I was not "quick" to label it as anything. I was quick to point out that the NYT and Russian state-controlled media are not really the same thing. I did not label the abstract as garbage until the evidence on it became apparent.
And, one more thing to note:
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001051"Soon after publication of the above abstract in
Circulation, it was brought to the American Heart Association Committee on Scientific Sessions Program's attention that there are potential errors in the abstract. Specifically, there are several typographical errors, there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used.
We are publishing this Expression of Concern until a suitable correction is published to indicate that the abstract in its current version may not be reliable."
In case you're wondering, that's academic language for "garbage.'