O/T Covid Vaccine mRNA

[frogmiller]

The Daily Telegraph - 5th June 2024!

Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths

Experts call for more research into side effects and possible links to mortality rates

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...excess-deaths/

[KerrAvon]

The Daily Telegraph - 5th June 2024!

Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths

Experts call for more research into side effects and possible links to mortality rates

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...excess-deaths/

I've read the article in the Telegraph and also the paper in the BMJ upon which it is 'based'.

I could bore you with my views, but this bloke says it better than me:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GoP33N4Qw8Q

As it is such weak science, I'm surprised that the BMJ published the paper on which the Telegraph article is based, but I guess everyone has a bad day at the office.

[frogmiller]

I've read the article in the Telegraph and also the paper in the BMJ upon which it is 'based'.

I could bore you with my views, but this bloke says it better than me:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GoP33N4Qw8Q

As it is such weak science, I'm surprised that the BMJ published the paper on which the Telegraph article is based, but I guess everyone has a bad day at the office.

Regardless whether it’s weak science or not. And your scientist who is an expert in communication puts it in another light the fact is that it has still been given the go ahead to be published and reported in the national press.

[ragingpup]

Regardless whether it’s weak science or not. And your scientist who is an expert in communication puts it in another light the fact is that it has still been given the go ahead to be published and reported in the national press.

THat's fair enough - the Telegraph has always taken a very impartial, balanced stance on pandemic reporting. The data must be robust.

[KerrAvon]

Regardless whether it’s weak science or not. And your scientist who is an expert in communication puts it in another light the fact is that it has still been given the go ahead to be published and reported in the national press.

The point is that it hasn't been reported in the national press - an interpretation of it has, which bears no resemblance to what is (and isn't) in the actual paper.

Who should we trust to interpret the paper? A holder of a PhD in Molecular Biology or a click-bait hunting journalist? That shouldn't be a difficult question to answer.

You could read the paper yourself - complete with the header now attached by the BMJ in which it calls out the mis-reporting of it in the press

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

The Daily Telegraph - 5th June 2024!

Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths

Experts call for more research into side effects and possible links to mortality rates

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...excess-deaths/

I've been in science based jobs for all of my working career. During that time it became quite obvious to me that science isn't a static thing what was true one day might be different the next day.

So it is with medical science, treatments are developed usually over years but in the covid jab case in a hurry. Once something has been developed and deemed " safe" it's released to the general public and the feedback loops start but this time backed up statistically by having a large number of " guinea pigs" rather than s restricted number of laboratory ones.

To be honest I would be more alarmed if nobody was looking into " excess deaths" it seems a logical thing to do.

But if there are studies into this and the results don't support the view that the covid jab is to blame then will the anti-vax people accept it?

I think not