metmom wrote: “Not pure speculation.”
Anyone who uses the childrens health defense as a source is a certified anti-vaxxer.
It is speculation that the change in cycles fully accounts for the reductions in illnesses. BTW, how does the reduction in cycles account for decreases in deaths and hospitalizations.
metmom wrote: “How do we know then, that the “new” science is not more propaganda o coerce people into taking the vaccine? Do you really trust the government that much?”
How do we know that the “new” anti-vaxxer rhetoric is not more propaganda to scare people away from the life saving vaccines?
I trust the physicians I know personally far more than I do medical advice from anonymous posters on the internet. I trust peer reviewed studies published in reputable medical journals far more than I do the childrens health defense or America’s Front Line Doctors.
The more cycles the more room for error, the more false positives.
It’s disingenuous to compare 28 cycles to 35 cycles and claim that the numbers actually mean anything.
Twenty-eight cycles is not going to have the false positive rate that 35 will and comparing the numbers to “prove” that the vaccine is causing case reductions is fraudulent.