Why isn't the MSM reporting on this?

COVID Vaccine Recipients Also Less Likely to Die of Other Causes
— Study found downstream health effect for vaccination

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19vaccine/95220?xid=nl_covidupdate_2021-10-25&eun=g1943859d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyUpdate_102521&utm_term=NL_Gen_Int_Daily_News_Update_active

Because it's not bad news. 

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Because it's not bad news. 

I disagree. It's definitely bad news for some.

Bad news for anti vaxxers? I suggest if that's what you mean, come right out and say it.

2 minutes ago, Bluetongue said:

Bad news for anti vaxxers? I suggest if that's what you mean, come right out and say it.

Do I really have to? But since you insist, yes, it is bad news for anti vaxxers.

57 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Because it's not bad news. 

Well there are 2 kinds of bad news: news consumers are drawn to one kind and shun the other.

On 10/26/2021 at 3:32 AM, placeholder said:

Why isn't the MSM reporting on this?

Because its misleading, intellectually obtuse rubbish.

"...this study found that COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower non-COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons."  In a similar analogy, drinking a jar of paint thinner will lower your chances of getting hit by a bus while crossing the street.

This is the kind of thing that can be both true and undermine the deteriorating credibility of the CDC .What the study perhaps is actually finding is not that the vaccine has benefits in non-Covid causes, but those who get the vaccine are more risk adverse than those who don't want it.

You can make up any statement to sell those shots because they're new enough there's no fair way to dispute the statement. ie: Vaccinated men are less likely to erectile dysfunction.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm#contribAff

I expected an anti-vax thread but it's the opposite ! Why not edit the header ? Interesting news but I agree it's early days to draw any conclusions . . . .

 

BTW you can clip these long links at the first question mark i.e. https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19vaccine/95220?

2 hours ago, ebice said:

Because its misleading, intellectually obtuse rubbish.

"...this study found that COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower non-COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons."  In a similar analogy, drinking a jar of paint thinner will lower your chances of getting hit by a bus while crossing the street.

This is the kind of thing that can be both true and undermine the deteriorating credibility of the CDC .What the study perhaps is actually finding is not that the vaccine has benefits in non-Covid causes, but those who get the vaccine are more risk adverse than those who don't want it.

You can make up any statement to sell those shots because they're new enough there's no fair way to dispute the statement. ie: Vaccinated men are less likely to erectile dysfunction.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm#contribAff

It's takes an awful lot of naivete on the part of some people to assume that the potential weaknesses of a study hadn't been accounted for by the scientists and statisticians conducting it. Had you bothered to read the introduction to the study you would have found this:

 "To ensure comparable health care–seeking behavior among persons who received a COVID-19 vaccine and those who did not (unvaccinated persons), eligible unvaccinated persons were selected from among those who received ≥1 dose of influenza vaccine in the last 2 years."

And as earlier studies have found, those vaccinated with flu shots seem to be less likely to suffer severe symptoms from covid and die from it. So, if anything,in this regard that variable was overcompensated for since no such flu shot criterion was imposed on those who had been vaccinated.

And, despite this, the authors of the study did, in fact, acknowledge that risk factors might still have influenced their report.

And the study was huge:

"The cohort consisted of 6.4 million COVID-19 vaccinees and 4.6 million unvaccinated persons with similar characteristics as the comparison groups."

That's about 3% of the U.S. population.

4 hours ago, ebice said:

Because its misleading, intellectually obtuse rubbish

 

....... deteriorating credibility of the CDC

If you read the whole study, and not just the headliner ... agree, misleading indeed.

 

CDC cred ... lost that a long time ago with me.

4 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

If you read the whole study, and not just the headliner ... agree, misleading indeed.

 

CDC cred ... lost that a long time ago with me.

Given that you have provided no evidence that you even have read any of the study, much less all of it, I'm a bit dubious of the soundness of your critique. 

I read the linked study in the OP.  Unless there's another mentioned somewhere, then yea, didn't read that.

 

Are you with the NSA ?  ????

 

Next time before I post, I'll make a vid of me reading ... ???? 

 Although I'm pretty good at 'editing' and could probably fake that   ????

 

TV/AN never disappoints meeting my expectations, mind boggling

15 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

 

Before calling me a liar, did you read the whole study.  A few things in there I had issue with, especially what they excluded from the study.

 

This also turned me off:  "All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Runxin Huang reports support for attending meetings or travel from Dynavax Technologies. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur to support vaccine studies). Elizabeth G. Liles reports research contracts from the National Human Genome Research Institute and Pfizer. Kerresa Morrissette reports research contracts from the National Institutes of Health, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation, outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed."

This article is interesting.

https://wamu.org/story/21/10/12/breakthrough-infections-might-not-be-a-big-transmission-risk-heres-the-evidence/

They should do a study on the comparative early death rates between people who can understand the CNN headline and people laughing at it, because the results are likely to be similar.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/22/health/covid-vaccines-death-rates/index.html

Cause of death classification explained. This should not be the case.

https://week.com/2020/04/20/idph-director-explains-how-covid-deaths-are-classified/

 

14 minutes ago, ebice said:

They should do a study on the comparative early death rates between people who can understand the CNN headline and people laughing at it, because the results are likely to be similar.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/22/health/covid-vaccines-death-rates/index.html

Straw man much?

A troll post and replies removed

45 minutes ago, ebice said:

 

45 minutes ago, ebice said:

Cause of death classification explained. This should not be the case.

https://week.com/2020/04/20/idph-director-explains-how-covid-deaths-are-classified/

 

 

 

This post is truly puzzling. What does the attribution of deaths to covid have to do with a piece of research about the rate of deaths that are not attributed to covid? 

Did you even bother to read the first words of the research article in question?

"COVID-19 Vaccination and Non–COVID-19 Mortality Risk"

Or this?

"Non–COVID-19 deaths were those that did not occur within 30 days of an incident COVID-19 diagnosis or receipt of a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) via reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction or rapid test."

It is to laugh.

26 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Before calling me a liar, did you read the whole study.  A few things in there I had issue with, especially what they excluded from the study.

 

This also turned me off:  "All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Runxin Huang reports support for attending meetings or travel from Dynavax Technologies. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur to support vaccine studies). Elizabeth G. Liles reports research contracts from the National Human Genome Research Institute and Pfizer. Kerresa Morrissette reports research contracts from the National Institutes of Health, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation, outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed."

I'm not calling you a liar. I noted  that your claim to have read the paper wasn't substantiated by any evidence.. Now things have changed. It's now established that

 you've read the potential conflict of interest disclosure. So you have read something. As for the scientific part of the article no real evidence you've read  yet.

And it would be more alarming if those scientists hadn't disclosed potential conflicts of interest. And do you honestly think a huge paper like this published by the CDC has not been and will not be subjected to very close scrutiny.  And it's odd how you, an anonymous party,  apparently resent  having your personal assertions questioned, but jump with alacrity to question the honesty of these researchers whose names we know and whose  qualifications can be easily ascertained.

58 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I'm not calling you a liar. I noted  that your claim to have read the paper wasn't substantiated by any evidence..

The simple fact that I said I did .... no need to substantiate anything.  

3 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Before calling me a liar, did you read the whole study.  A few things in there I had issue with, especially what they excluded from the study.

 

This also turned me off:  "All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Runxin Huang reports support for attending meetings or travel from Dynavax Technologies. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur to support vaccine studies). Elizabeth G. Liles reports research contracts from the National Human Genome Research Institute and Pfizer. Kerresa Morrissette reports research contracts from the National Institutes of Health, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation, outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed."

Almost every scientific study I've read always lists any possible conflict of interest.  It's Standard Operating Procedure. 

7 hours ago, KhunLA said:

The simple fact that I said I did .... no need to substantiate anything.  

Another contributor to The Journal of Because I Said So.