But Vicky's misinformation unravels when we see that she is quoting a paper from Jan 2022 when the majority of the women in the analysis were "unvaccinated". Base rate fallacy anyone?
PS. Vicki is a #muttoncrew member.
PS. Vicki is a #muttoncrew member.
https://twitter.com/crabb_vicki/status/1616243785578471424
Only 12% of the cohort had a "vaccine" but of course these would occupy a lesser proportion of risk-days, because they occurred later in the study period.
Vicky is disingenuous or doesn't understand medical statistics
@profnfenton @MartinNeil9
Vicky is disingenuous or doesn't understand medical statistics
@profnfenton @MartinNeil9
@profnfenton @MartinNeil9 And the vaccines were only being taken up really from June 21, for a study period ending Oct 21 (and starting March 2020).
So the risk-exposure time was much lower for vaccinated women.
Base rate fallacy.
So the risk-exposure time was much lower for vaccinated women.
Base rate fallacy.
@profnfenton @MartinNeil9 One of many ways that the data on the "success" of the COVID "vaccine" in pregnancy has been misrepresented and manipulated.
In fact, by misallocating cases in the few weeks after the treatment, you can achieve "efficacy" which is not real
In fact, by misallocating cases in the few weeks after the treatment, you can achieve "efficacy" which is not real
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
