Posted on 05/14/2020 6:45:04 AM PDT by bitt
Yes, it’s substantially correct. This type of phrasing is used because of how difficult something is to prove as a fundamental cause - without any doubt - just by seeing them together lots of times.
“Vaccine...interference was significantly associated with...”
This means one cannot PROVE that it was CAUSED BY it, just that the two were observed together more than can be explained by chance...meaning that the vaccine was often observed along with unusually higher than usual levels of coronavirus and of human metapneumovirus.
This phrasing means an observation is being made that they tend to occur together, rather than a smoking gun of proof that one is definitely caused by the other.
This is probably a terrible example because the converse is true, but I hope it helps a little: smoke is more often observed along with fire than can be expected by sheer coincidence, although smoke itself does not CAUSE fire. Cars and drivers usually are observed together, although cars do not cause drivers to come into existence.
Interesting: thank you!
Very true.
Wouldn’t one also need to know the count of troops who were vaccinated? I’m doubting it’s 100%?
Just FYI, Black Agnes is making a well known statistical argument, not being rude to you.
Yep - some of them drugs can do wonders for a lot of folks but end up being the death of others. Praying you’re in the first group...we take D and Zinc and I added NAC (because a nurse who deals with Covid patients recommended it) and 8 ounces of tonic (quinine) water to our daily regimens.
We aren’t being stupid but we are also not being obsessed and so far, neither of us has reason to believe we have had the virus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.