The latest article that is promoted by anti-vaxxers and corona sceptics is published by @MDPIOpenAccess, where someone must have fucked up really bad >> 
>> In the article the authors compare two numbers: the number of people you have to vaccinate to save a life and the number of people who die due to vaccination. Both numbers the authors arrive at are completely wrong (and they probably know this). >>
>> First, the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV) is not the right number to look at vaccine efficacy. This is nicely explained in this article by @ENirenberg edwardnirenberg.medium.com/how-many-peopl… >>
>> Second, the authors use the reported number of deaths after vaccination from the Dutch registrar for adverse drug reactions @Lareb_NL, but ignore all warnings that these numbers are just notifications, from the public and professionals, these have not been checked. >>
>> In Dutch it says: "Death after vaccination does not mean that an adverse reaction to the vaccine caused the death" and "In the reports with sufficient information, existing health problems are the most obvious explanation for death in a large number of cases."
>>
>>
>> This is so obvious, that we can only assume bad intentions or total incompetence by the authors. >>
>> @waukema and Klement belong to 'consortium' of @BorgerPieter which published a bizarre attack on the first PCR test by Drosten, see pepijnvanerp.nl/2020/12/some-c… or integralworld.net/visser194.html >>
>> Aukema, Klement and Borger together also wrote a mathematically silly article on a 'Bayes Line Tool', also aimed at discrediting results from PCR-tests pepijnvanerp.nl/2021/01/bayes-… >>
>> Now they've teamed up with Harald Walach, who has quite a curriculum vitae in pseudoscience which earned the mock prize (“The Golden Blockhead") from @gwup in 2012 psiram.com/de/index.php/H… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldenes_…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
