| Yeah, I appreciated this post: > Oh joy, another paper for the antivaxxers to misinterpret. Some red flags though. > The tone of this paper, particularly the last sentence ("potentially harmful effects") seems suspect...almost as if they were intentionally riling up the anti-vax crowd. > They appear to have misinterpreted the outcome of this study, claiming "higher risk of infection than unvaccinated individuals 9 months post-vaccination". The study makes no such claim that I can find. The tables in the supplement show the only subcohorts with a slightly higher incidence rate for vaccinated individuals at 9 months is age >80 (1.3 per 100,000 person days in vaxxed vs. 1.1 unvaxxed, supplemental table 5) and those requiring in-home care (1.6 vs. 1.5). Also notable is that the only vaccine that shows less effectiveness against infection is the non-MRNA vaccine (supplemental table 6) and that vaccinated individuals in all subcohorts were still substantially protected against hospitalization or death compared to unvaxxed. > The primary source for the claim that mRNA-LNP is inflammatory is a paper authored by three of the four authors of this paper. > Also notable is that at least one of the primary authors - the one credited with writing and editing - is a GBD-adjacent, anti-MRNA, HCQ truther (Don’t Look Up” Your Science—Herd Immunity or Herd Mentality? - "The virus fatality rate did not support lockdowns, blanket restrictive measures, and non-selective mass vaccinations. There was no solid scientific rationale to adopt the untested mRNA-LNP platform over other well-established vaccine formulations to fight COVID."). > None of this means the science in the paper is wrong, but I'd be hesitant to take anything at face value. |