This study is not as damning as Nicolas makes it appear. Check out this conclusion: "While acknowledging potential side effects, our findings support the overall safety of the COVID-19 vaccine concerning cardiovascular complications such as myocardial infarction, stroke, and arrhythmia."
I tried writing to the corresponding author, but th…
This study is not as damning as Nicolas makes it appear. Check out this conclusion: "While acknowledging potential side effects, our findings support the overall safety of the COVID-19 vaccine concerning cardiovascular complications such as myocardial infarction, stroke, and arrhythmia."
I tried writing to the corresponding author, but the medical school address in Iran was rejected, so there may be a typo in the print.
That's right. And this is what authors (except the most courageous) voluntarily do when what they are publishing goes against the big pharma interests. They appease big pharma in the abstract and conclusions sections - its like one is reading 2 different papers joined together. This self-censorship is very common.
Thank you, because I read the abstract and conclusion and everything was completely different from what you are saying, however, what I've seen of the data is confusing too. I will have to look properly on my computer rather than the phone, as the discrepancies are doing my head in.
As Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, stated, the study authors will make whatever statements it takes in the ‘conclusions’ necessary to get published. To get to the true meaning of the study read the results vs conclusions. That is where the true outcomes of the study will lie. The conclusions are often loose interpretations that may lean toward fiction in order to allay the needs of sponsors, publishers, etc.
This study is not as damning as Nicolas makes it appear. Check out this conclusion: "While acknowledging potential side effects, our findings support the overall safety of the COVID-19 vaccine concerning cardiovascular complications such as myocardial infarction, stroke, and arrhythmia."
I tried writing to the corresponding author, but the medical school address in Iran was rejected, so there may be a typo in the print.
The abstract and conclusion don't reflect the actual data AT ALL. That's why it's important to look at the results section.
That's right. And this is what authors (except the most courageous) voluntarily do when what they are publishing goes against the big pharma interests. They appease big pharma in the abstract and conclusions sections - its like one is reading 2 different papers joined together. This self-censorship is very common.
Bingo.
Why didn't you mention this important point in your article?
Thank you, because I read the abstract and conclusion and everything was completely different from what you are saying, however, what I've seen of the data is confusing too. I will have to look properly on my computer rather than the phone, as the discrepancies are doing my head in.
This is SOP. What matters is the actual data, not how the authors spin it for publication.
This is probably how they got it published, by using contradictory double speak!
As Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, stated, the study authors will make whatever statements it takes in the ‘conclusions’ necessary to get published. To get to the true meaning of the study read the results vs conclusions. That is where the true outcomes of the study will lie. The conclusions are often loose interpretations that may lean toward fiction in order to allay the needs of sponsors, publishers, etc.
It's fascinating to see the double-meaning in your use of "lie." I believe you meant it in the sense of "be found."