Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise

>Yeah, that's making the point for me.

Yeah, I'll help you make your point when it's accurate. That's called science.

Just fix the problems in your argument and I'll help you make it.

> a cohort is simply a defined group of people followed over time.

Yes, and the group is defined very clearly here, as is usually the case. I appreciate that you've conceded that it does not include everyone, as we see in your next quote:

> It used the hospitals EHR to identify the numerator (the heart inflammation cases) out of the denominator (the entire regional population).

So it compared something studied in the cohort (the numerator) to something not studied and outside the cohort (the denominator). So now let's establish whether or not the denominator can be used without calling ourselves science deniers.

And as we go, let's consider that a slight adjustment to that denominator has a multiplicative impact on the result! So we really want to get that dialed otherwise our interpretation could lie very, very far from the truth.

Your next quote leads us right to the most convincing point about the denominator.

> You are confusing PCR testing with serology.

I said all methods measuring prevalence in 2020 were wrong. That doesn't imply confusion with PCR. Serology also was wrong.

Just to find something agreeable to cite, here is the CDC stating very clearly that we shouldn't use serology for this kind of decision making. [0] "Negative results do not rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or patient management decisions, including infection control decisions."

So, assuming you trust the CDC publishes good science, then you know damned well you can't trust that denominator you keep throwing around as fact. At the very least, you're in opposition to CDC guidance if you want to keep using that denominator. You're not a science denier are you?

> This is... literally what I've been doing the entire time.

Well, you may want to read back. The claim that a cohort includes everyone is not remotely in the realm of science. Neither of us can conceive of an experiment that would obtain the denominator to be used in the math above. Not as it is, and definitely not if you defined it as "everyone else." And that's been my point for the last few comments. It's an illogical, fantasy based approach to interpreting the data. You did not test everyone, and you never will for any research ever in the past or future. It's not even fathomably possible.

The denominator, implicitly, makes broad assumptions about cultural, environmental, and economic factors, and that's just the beginning. There are countless other factors that we haven't even thought of yet. So that denominator, can be seen as a wild guess at best, and at worst it's a blatant falsehood if the study was published after whatever research the CDC is relying on to tell us not to use it. And therefore, it must be considered with all of the ambiguity that it implicates, as a wild guess or a blatant falsehood.

I don't like to take things that are wild guesses and stuff them into my math. There's a special word for that, pseudoscience. I have more respect for science than to do that.

So, all things considered, I'll take your word for it that sticking to the science is literally what you've been doing. And you can literally do it better by not using wild guesses to try to make the math say what you want.

If you will use numbers that are based on measured (or even measurable!) data, I'll be more inclined to lend belief to what insight you have that's worth exploring. And I hope you will.

--

Summary: If you have an argument that makes sense, I'll gladly follow it. But you're not there yet.

Your argument is entirely based on a denominator that doesn't remotely meet what modern philosophers of science would refer to as worth believing in. It's a wild guess that the CDC says is inaccurate for weighing this kind of decision.

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/covid/hcp/clinical-care/overview-testing...

Do you have the prevalence numbers or not? You're not going to convince me that LATER we got better at testing and so you're using those test estimates to plug into this older study. That's not what was discussed in this research, obviously.

That wouldn't be scientific at all, would it?

I think you're trying to make the case that the estimates are good enough, but you haven't done a good job of substantiating that claim. You have provided no evidence other than your personal hearsay that the CDC and WHO agree on something that they never said. Go ahead and link to it if they did. I'll wait.

Separately you keep saying I misunderstand when it's clearly the opposite. Let me break it down for you clearly because, from my perspective, you are just plugging random bullshit into the wrong place in a math problem:

>The denominator is literally the exact number of registered citizens in that district. There are no guesses, "wild" or otherwise.

Right! But that's not what you're claiming. How does this tell us how many people were infected and asymptomatic? You are aware that "registered citizens in the district" is not the same is "infected people with no symptoms" right? So why are you plugging it into a math problem where "infected people with no symptoms" is the expected variable for substantiating your claim?

> Spain has a universal healthcare registry. Everyone living in that district has a medical record which can be continually tracked, which is used in this study.

Great! So tell us how many people were infected with no symptoms in 2020 so that we can make an effort to believe your claim that vaccines are less harmful than infection! It's pretty simple math, you just need the data that you claim to already have but refuse to share!

You are saying that COVID is worse than infection, so tell us when you tested people with no infection so that you can say that! When did you perform that test that you keep acting like is common sense knowledge? Why don't you just show us the number so we can stop the discussion and go home satisfied in our medical knowledge?

> The CDC quote you linked tells doctors not to use antibody tests to triage acute patients because antibodies take weeks to form.

It implies something about the data, even if you twist like you did. I personally prefer to go with the exact quote, which I gave you. But your twist on it isn't any better for your argument. It, in both cases, draws significant doubt about the accuracy of the test.

Let's pretend I have an allergy to the COVID protein. Should I use that test to make a decision about my vaccination?

I think you should go to prison if you said yes. Don't you? You'd be a murderer.

But you're going to use it to make a broader, less evidence based claim than that?

Summary: Please provide the prevalence data. A bunch of people that you didn't test, whether you call them the cohort or not, does not establish prevalence. You need to include "asymptomatic infected" numbers to make your claim. As far as we know so far, you don't have those numbers. And, the CDC and the WHO don't even claim to have them, which is why your claim sounds so implausible. I mean, unless you're at the forefront of research at the CDC or something. But I don't see that this is the case.

Sanity check for yourself.

This study finds a mechanism of action for vaccine caused myocarditis, and rate of incidence.

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/12/myocarditis-v...

My interpretation of the Spanish study allows for both articles to be totally valid.

Your interpretation requires that you think you are smarter than one of these groups of researchers. It requires that Stanford's study is wrong.

Honestly, which is more likely?

It's okay to learn something here. You thought the denominator was people that weren't infected. You didn't think that it might be a group of 100% infected. But it could be. We simply don't know.

It's okay to not have realized that. The scientific thing to do here is learn from your mistake.

> You are saying that COVID is worse than infection, so tell us when you tested people with no infection so that you can say that! When did you perform that test that you keep acting like is common sense knowledge? Why don't you just show us the number so we can stop the discussion and go home satisfied in our medical knowledge?

That's the neat part, you don't have to. Vaccinated people had a prevalence rate of 5/100k. Unvaccinated AND symptomatic covid had 200/100k. Unvaccinated and asymptomatic or uninfected at 70/100k.

It doesn't matter what fraction of the unvaccinated group was asymptomatic, because the total average of the group you are advocating to stay in (70) is still 14 times higher than the group you are telling people to avoid (5).