Posted on 10/18/2023 3:43:49 PM PDT by ransomnote
Of course, the study was designed to show a different effect. But it "accidentally" revealed that the COVID and flu shots don't reduce your risk of hospitalization from the virus they are designed for
Executive summary
I just love it when a paper designed to show a pro-narrative result accidentally shows data proving that neither the COVID nor the flu shots reduce your risk of hospitalization from their respective diseases for the elderly. A double whammy.
The ridiculous CDC claim
You can’t make this stuff up. You really can’t.
For the record, here’s what the CDC said:
About the JAMA paper
Risk of Death in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 vs Seasonal Influenza in Fall-Winter 2022-2023.
This paper was published in JAMA and had over 100,000 views.
This paper looked at the risk of death in VA patients hospitalized for COVID vs. flu between October 1, 2022, and March 2, 2023. This is virtually all men, and the groups had a similar average age (71 vs. 73).
BASELINE characteristics were determined from the people they enrolled. Between October 1, 2022, and January 31, 2023, they enrolled all individuals who were admitted to the hospital with either COVID or the flu (but NOT both).
Note: the study excluded those hospitalized with both infections. However, many people in the study had taken BOTH the COVID and flu vaccines.
The BASELINE characteristics were the stunning result in my case because the people hospitalized with COVID shouldn’t have the same vaccination profile as the people hospitalized with the flu. More on this below.
But the main point of the paper is to show that if you were hospitalized for one OR the other (not both), that you were somewhat more likely to die from COVID than flu. I don’t disagree with that conclusion.
The paper looked ALSO looked at the risk of dying from COVID for the unvaccinated vs. vaccinated:
MORE AT LINK: VA study published in JAMA shows that COVID *and* flu shots don't reduce your risk of hospitalization
PING
Now Flu shots are “under review” too?
Wow.
I go to the VA. Overall better than civilian because they don’t treat children, and most of the patients are men.
Their vaccination attitude has changed in favor of no-vax-OK since late 2021.
bttt
I’ve never had either. I don’t see the point. Too many people got the flu shot and still got the flu. Really don’t like putting four in substances into my body unless they are absolutely necessary.
And this Bourbon and cigar I’m enjoying right now are absolutely necessary. 😁
I’ve never had either. I don’t see the point. Too many people got the flu shot and still got the flu. Really don’t like putting four in substances into my body unless they are absolutely necessary.
And this Bourbon and cigar I’m enjoying right now are absolutely necessary. 😁
The last time I got a flu shot, I got the Flu.
Ten years of no Flu until the shot.
Now 3 years in with no Flu.
Am I going to get another Flu shot?
NFW.
“four in”
Even with all the AI advances, spel chk still sucks?
WUWT?
Substack pimping is the new blog pimping.
This sentence from the study seems to undermine the case this cretin is trying to make:
“This study found that, in a VA population in fall-winter 2022-2023, being hospitalized for COVID-19 vs. seasonal influenza was associated with an increased risk of death.
....
The increased risk of death was greater among unvaccinated individuals compared with those vaccinated or boosted—findings that highlight the importance of vaccination in reducing risk of COVID-19 death.”
Hey! I meant to say that!🤣
One of my favorite tag lines on a forum:
Dear autocorrect, I’m tired of your shirt!
I have had a similar experience: I get very sick for weeks if I get a flu shot. I do not get sick like that when I do not get it.
This shirt is lamb!
Sorry I missed this one. Has anyone passed it on to the $hot $hills yet?
Here's a literal cut-and-paste from the substack article, so people know why you're blowing smoke. He doesn't ignore or suppress it, like you falsely claim.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Here are the findings for DEATH:
The paper found that there failed to be a statistically significant death benefit from 1 or 2 doses vs. the unvaccinated. It didn’t point this out. This is a big deal: if you were vaccinated with the primary series vs. unvaccinated, they found NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DEATH BENEFIT. At the very best, the benefit was 2.32/1.66 which works out to 40% fewer deaths, but the numbers were simply too small to say it was better (the error bars overlapped by 50%).
For boosted vs. the unvaccinated, the 95% error bars almost touched, so scientists can say that it’s 95% likely that the boosted people died less in the hospital if they got COVID (but there is a 5% chance that there also is no difference). But remember that if you get boosted and are still alive, there is selection bias.
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled VA study published in JAMA shows that COVID *and* flu shots don't reduce your risk of hospitalization, grey_whiskers wrote: Sorry I missed this one. Has anyone passed it on to the $hot $hills yet?
Probably not, because whenever one of the continuous stream of articles exposing their lies is posted, they become invisible and later deny the thread and its content exists at all.
Does repeated influenza vaccination attenuate effectiveness? A systematic review and meta-analysis
...Our estimates suggest that, although vaccination in the previous year attenuates vaccine effectiveness, vaccination in two consecutive years provides better protection than does no vaccination. The estimated effects of vaccination in the previous year are concerning and warrant additional investigation, but are not consistent or severe enough to support an alternative vaccination regimen at this time.
Whoakaaaaay...
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled VA study published in JAMA shows that COVID *and* flu shots don't reduce your risk of hospitalization, mewzilla wrote: |
On a sorta related note from last year, what smells like the beginnings of a modified limited hangout to me... Does repeated influenza vaccination attenuate effectiveness? A systematic review and meta-analysis ...Our estimates suggest that, although vaccination in the previous year attenuates vaccine effectiveness, vaccination in two consecutive years provides better protection than does no vaccination. The estimated effects of vaccination in the previous year are concerning and warrant additional investigation, but are not consistent or severe enough to support an alternative vaccination regimen at this time. Whoakaaaaay... |
I can't even tell what they are lying about....
They were really into the weasel wordage. The conclusion section was labeled “Interpretation”.
Snort.
Sounds like to me that they’re preparing in case they have to admit the darn things aren’t as efficacious as they claim, may cause ADE, and have a higher body count than they’ve admitted to in the past.
IOW, we’ve been lied to.
If so, there’s a shocker, eh...
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.