Does anyone have valid reason to discount the report? I haven’t read it yet.. but don’t want to waste my time if it is junk. “Not peer reviewed” is a silly statement. So is the concept that you have to be a doctor to do statistical analysis. Now an infectious disease background would be helpful to discuss why something might be misleading in the numbers...but I don’t hear that.
“Now an infectious disease background would be helpful to discuss why something might be misleading in the numbers...but I don’t hear that.”
Well if someone with a virology background were writing the report they probably would mention that Delta appeared in India before the vaccines were even released. Can’t have that, it spoils the story.
They might also mention that Delta and Omicron elude the vaccines due to having spike proteins sufficiently different than the Alpha spike used to create the vaccines.
And they might mention that RNA viruses like Covid are the kings of transcription error, which is what results in mutations. The existence of vaccines can’t prevent or accelerate that.
Jesus Christ himself could say the shots are killing people and the vaxxers would make fun of him and say he isn’t qualified to make that statement. No one is in a vaxxers mind. Only Fauci, the CDC, WHO and CNN are to be believed.
In today’s world, in which scientists and physicians have to sing the party lines or lose their jobs, the concept of “peer review” should be read with cynicism. They accept politically correct articles and articles that back the narrative du jour. Just read professional journals, alumnai journals, ‘special reports,” etc. Peer reviewed materials are the ones that a thinking person should suspect of being false, white-washed, pushing an agenda, trying to delegitimize opposition to claims of “man-made global warming, cooling, or any kind of change,” “Wuhan Lab created virus,” “the efficacy of Iveremectin on Cvoid early stages, etc. “Peer review” my eye in today’s world.