The conclusion reached by the researchers was that unvaccinated infants who had less doctor visits than vaccinated infants, were statistically associated in having less recorded diagnoses of Asthma or Eczema.
I can't wrap my head around how 'ascertainment bias' explains away an association of increased statistical probability between vax…
The conclusion reached by the researchers was that unvaccinated infants who had less doctor visits than vaccinated infants, were statistically associated in having less recorded diagnoses of Asthma or Eczema.
I can't wrap my head around how 'ascertainment bias' explains away an association of increased statistical probability between vaxxd infants and their diagnoses of allergic diseases. Am I missing a crucial point here or am I being bamboozled?
I have to keep rereading sections of this paper and they still seem illogical to me. Would love to have any assistance in translating parts or elucidating what statements such as "We calculated rates of disease from the end of the exposure period, which we defined *arbitrarily*" or "this limited association is more likely to be the result of bias (What Bias?!?!) than a biological effect" or finally
"because most children are vaccinated, and therefore do not develop allergic disease, it is difficult to obtain numbers adequate to examine the vaccination-allergic disease relationship."
Table 2 and 3 directly contradict this statement??!?!
It was screenshots of table 2 and 3 that struck me. All the adjustments the researchers added as their calculations do not make logical sense to me when I can see differences in the data showing a clear association between MMR and/or DPPT vaxxd infants having more allergic diseases.
I think Jon Rappoport broke it down in a substack podcast much better than this, i'll have to find it again.
There's also a speicifc date and vaxx dosage exclusion applied to the captured data of vaxxd infants used in their study. It seems to be a similar use of selective data capturing as a way for obscuring vaxx injuries caused soon after vaccinations were administered. Reminded me of how death and disease are recorded arbitrarily for covid.
The conclusion reached by the researchers was that unvaccinated infants who had less doctor visits than vaccinated infants, were statistically associated in having less recorded diagnoses of Asthma or Eczema.
I can't wrap my head around how 'ascertainment bias' explains away an association of increased statistical probability between vaxxd infants and their diagnoses of allergic diseases. Am I missing a crucial point here or am I being bamboozled?
I have to keep rereading sections of this paper and they still seem illogical to me. Would love to have any assistance in translating parts or elucidating what statements such as "We calculated rates of disease from the end of the exposure period, which we defined *arbitrarily*" or "this limited association is more likely to be the result of bias (What Bias?!?!) than a biological effect" or finally
"because most children are vaccinated, and therefore do not develop allergic disease, it is difficult to obtain numbers adequate to examine the vaccination-allergic disease relationship."
Table 2 and 3 directly contradict this statement??!?!
It was screenshots of table 2 and 3 that struck me. All the adjustments the researchers added as their calculations do not make logical sense to me when I can see differences in the data showing a clear association between MMR and/or DPPT vaxxd infants having more allergic diseases.
I think Jon Rappoport broke it down in a substack podcast much better than this, i'll have to find it again.
There's also a speicifc date and vaxx dosage exclusion applied to the captured data of vaxxd infants used in their study. It seems to be a similar use of selective data capturing as a way for obscuring vaxx injuries caused soon after vaccinations were administered. Reminded me of how death and disease are recorded arbitrarily for covid.