Cable Forum - View Single Post

**Hugh** · 20-10-2022, 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

omg, he's an eminent consultant cardiologist. Besides, the official MHRA figures show "In the United Kingdom, since the vaccine roll-out there have been almost 500000 adverse event reports recorded (via the Yellow Card system) in association with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations involving over 150000 individuals. In terms of the number of reports per person (i.e. having received at least one dose), the MHRA figures show around 1 in 120 suffering a likely adverse event that is beyond mild. However, the MHRA are unclear about the rate and furthermore do not separate out the serious adverse events. Nevertheless, this level of reporting is unprecedented in the modern medical era and equals the total number of reports received in the first 40 years of the Yellow Card reporting system (for all medicines– not just vaccines) up to 2020"

Would you rather not know?!

https://healthfeedback.org/claimrevi...9-vaccination/

Quote:

Inadequate support: Malhotra’s claim that COVID-19 vaccines might do more harm than good is based on anecdotal evidence and low-quality studies—some of them disputed—that are insufficient to support his claim.

Cherry-picking: The article cited mainly studies suggesting a negative effect of COVID-19 vaccines, but didn’t acknowledge the wider body of evidence showing that the vaccines are safe and effective.

Quote:

The now-published study was initially available as a preprint—a manuscript that hasn’t undergone peer review—in June 2022. Health Feedback previously reviewed it and found that the authors’ analysis didn’t support their conclusion. Scientists such as surgeon and cancer researcher David Gorski, biostatistician Jeffrey S. Morris, and nanomedicine expert Susan Oliver pointed out several issues in the study that indicated potential p-hacking.

P-hacking (also known as data dredging or data snooping) is the manipulation of data analysis to make the results look statistically significant when they aren’t. The study by Fraiman et al. showed several signs suggesting that the authors had analyzed data in a manner that favored their hypothesis.

Quote:

Malhotra’s article provides insufficient evidence for informing public health decisions

Malhotra and those promoting his claims presented the article in the Journal of Insulin Resistance as a peer-reviewed scientific study offering “real evidence-based medicine” as opposed to that guiding public health policies. As we explained above, that isn’t the case.

Literature reviews come in many forms, but not all are equally reliable. The practice of evidence-based medicine uses a specific methodology called systematic review. This type of review aims to answer a research question by identifying all the studies that meet a pre-specified eligibility criteria. The eligibility criteria also involves assessing the quality of the studies evaluated[22]. This approach makes systematic reviews reproducible and minimizes the risk of bias.

This methodology contrasts with that exhibited in Malhotra’s article, which used low-quality evidence—including disputed studies, anecdotes, and anonymous sources—all of which tended to support Malhotra’s hypotheses, but failed to also consider peer-reviewed published studies that contradict Malhotra’s hypotheses, suggesting that the conclusions are affected by bias.

In summary, the aforementioned limitations make Malhotra’s article unreliable for informing public health decisions about COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. The article cherry-picked evidence supporting the narrative that COVID-19 vaccines are ineffective and possibly harmful, while ignoring the larger body of evidence showing that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.