Stock up on bog roll here we go again

[SebastianBlue]

Let me just add something, as someone who is currently carrying out a scoping review for my master's thesis. While it does not involve any original research, it's a perfectly valid method of summarizing the research in a given field and offering insights that individual small-scale studies can't. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis are actually what most decisions in medicine are based on precisely for that reason.

It involves giving a detailed an extensive account of exactly how you conducted the search in order to ensure that no stone was unturned, and the efforts you went to to ensure the reliability and validity of your results. Including but not limited to performing all stages separately with a large team and then discussing any differences in analysis. The methodology stage of the report would include a detailed account of the search terms you used, how many results you found, the criteria you used to include or exclude papers, what data you extracted, and how you intended to synthesize that data with references to various models for each stage. I reckon my methodology section will be approximately 3000 words when I'm finished. Now this isn't a scoping review, but a narrative review should be similarly robust in its methodology is that's the entire paper.

With all of that in mind, I will now copy and paste the entirety of the paper's methodology section:

"A literature review is performed by using the google scholar database."

So yeah, his methodology was "I did a search on Google and picked the papers I liked the look of." That isn't research, it's propaganda.

To be clear, I wasn’t suggesting that a compilation article is inherently problematic (this isn’t actually a meta-analysis, as that would require actual data analysis, methodological rigour, and stat sig findings, with peer-review and likely revision). I wouldn’t even actually hold it to be a narrative review, for the reasons you and I have outlined.

I was only highlighting that it did not represent primary research and articles like these do need to be carefully scrutinised, as their credibility and relevance largely depends on the cited work.

This was particularly important given the context in which it was entered in to the discussion.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

We could do with another epidemic so we can see if the new Health Secretary is any better'n the one we had during Covid, and whether the new one is up to summat in the corridors or committee rooms when they think no one's there bar the camera!

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

Luckily not everyone thinks like you and smallpox was conquered due to a massive vaccination programme.

“Thinks”

You’re giving that thick twat a bit too much credit there mate.

 

[Marklr]

They will accuse you of being a Trump fan anti vax if you are not careful..

I was never anti vac..but made a choice of no vaccine after getting the actual illness in the first cases about before a vax was available.

When I first made enquiries about whether I would need a Vac after having the illness..they told me absolutely not needed..due to the way our immune system works..

Then after a shirt time..and the vax was madr..they tell me I need to get jabbed..and the extra boosters..

Was confused as to why the story changed..

So I opted out. After some extra research with a virology professor.

You were lied to. You should really have followed up with the boosters. Do your bit for the community.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

You were lied to. You should really have followed up with the boosters. Do your bit for the community.

Here's a proper meta-analysis into the effectiveness of the vaccine and dealing with post-covid symptoms, for anyone who's interested.

Note the 14 separate authors.

Here's the short version of the conclusion from the abstract.

"Receiving a complete COVID-19 vaccination prior to contracting the virus resulted in a significant reduction in post-COVID conditions throughout the study period, including during the Omicron era. Vaccine effectiveness demonstrated an increase when supplementary doses were administered."

Although here's a section of the abstract that suggest that our friend might not have been lied to:

" The stratified analysis demonstrated no protection against post-COVID conditions among those who received COVID-19 vaccination after COVID-19 infection."

I don't really have time to read the full thing right now, but it might be interesting for anyone who has.

 

[Marklr]

Here's a proper meta-analysis into the effectiveness of the vaccine and dealing with post-covid symptoms, for anyone who's interested.

Note the 14 separate authors.

Here's the short version of the conclusion from the abstract.

"Receiving a complete COVID-19 vaccination prior to contracting the virus resulted in a significant reduction in post-COVID conditions throughout the study period, including during the Omicron era. Vaccine effectiveness demonstrated an increase when supplementary doses were administered."

Although here's a section of the abstract that suggest that our friend might not have been lied to:

" The stratified analysis demonstrated no protection against post-COVID conditions among those who received COVID-19 vaccination after COVID-19 infection."

I don't really have time to read the full thing right now, but it might be interesting for anyone who has.

So, the vaccine showed no more protection against LONG COVID than having a dose of COVID itself. That makes sense...although studies have shown that the UNvaccinated have a HIGHER chance of developing long COVID after a dose of the virus. And more severe, apparently.

 

[Elbow beards]

Here's a proper meta-analysis into the effectiveness of the vaccine and dealing with post-covid symptoms, for anyone who's interested.

Note the 14 separate authors.

Here's the short version of the conclusion from the abstract.

"Receiving a complete COVID-19 vaccination prior to contracting the virus resulted in a significant reduction in post-COVID conditions throughout the study period, including during the Omicron era. Vaccine effectiveness demonstrated an increase when supplementary doses were administered."

Although here's a section of the abstract that suggest that our friend might not have been lied to:

" The stratified analysis demonstrated no protection against post-COVID conditions among those who received COVID-19 vaccination after COVID-19 infection."

I don't really have time to read the full thing right now, but it might be interesting for anyone who has.

But, but my neighbours cat died exactly 2 weeks after lockdown, I know cos bob from the pub told me, plus what about all them youtube videos, they can't all be wrong.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

But, but my neighbours cat died exactly 2 weeks after lockdown, I know cos bob from the pub told me, plus what about all them youtube videos, they can't all be wrong.

Yeah, the main thing I've learned in the past year is how dense research papers are even when you actually have some expertise in the subject, never mind when you don't. But yeah, your slightly dodgy mate from uni who you now only see on Facebook has got it all figured out.

 

[M23 Citizen]

I know of two, young, healthy men who both died of heart attacks shortly after having the vaccine. Coincidence? Maybe…

The vaccine is likely to have caused me to have Bilateral subsegmental pulmonary emboli (multiple blood clots in both lungs) which itself caused left lower lobe pulmonary infarction (part of my lower left lung was starved of oxygen for so long it died) with right heart strain (PI forces the heart work very hard and mine was over three days and it caused a strain in the right hand side of my heart).

I’ve not been told by any Doctors I’ve spoken to of the vaccines causing a heart attack, and I’ve not read anywhere of the vaccine causing heart attacks either. But it did indirectly eventuate in a heart injury for me.

Thankfully I’ve had a few ultrasounds since and my heart is fully recovered and the blood vessels around my heart are healthy. Also my lungs have not developed Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary disease (hardening of the vessel walls causing high blood pressure in the lungs) which is a risk after having PEs and PI, and something they look for at the severity of the clots I had.

 

[PPT]

The vaccine is likely to have caused me to have Bilateral subsegmental pulmonary emboli (multiple blood clots in both lungs) which itself caused left lower lobe pulmonary infarction (part of my lower left lung was starved of oxygen for so long it died) with right heart strain (PI forces the heart work very hard and mine was over three days and it caused a strain in the right hand side of my heart).

I’ve not been told by any Doctors I’ve spoken to of the vaccines causing a heart attack, and I’ve not read anywhere of the vaccine causing heart attacks either. But it did indirectly eventuate in a heart injury for me.

Thankfully I’ve had a few ultrasounds since and my heart is fully recovered and the blood vessels around my heart are healthy. Also my lungs have not developed Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary disease (hardening of the vessel walls causing high blood pressure in the lungs) which is a risk after having PEs and PI, and something they look for at the severity of the clots I had.

Sorry to hear that. Hope you are on the mend. Scary stuff. Very.