The real takeaway here should be that the AJM should be laughed off of the roster of referenceable journals. Any journal with so little editorial judgement as to publish this pile of really stinking garbage (it is way worse than Vinay [who is always too kind] points out) does not deserve to be able to anoint a paper as being referenceable. Further, whoever reviewed this (if anyone) should never review a paper again.
I review lots of papers. This would have gone straight into the "Reject" pile -- not even the "Major revision with resubmission" pile. There is just no there, there. This is a clear demonstration that figures lie and liars figure.
Scary this is published and scary that anyone would give it any attention/credence.
Actually, there are many potential “vaccidents” that have occurred from “medical emergencies “ likely caused by sudden heart attacks and/or death that could be linked to vaccination . It is now widely known and accepted that the Covid shots are causing myocarditis and other heart problems. These shots are not safe nor effective .
"These data suggest that COVID vaccine hesitancy is associated with significant increased risks of a traffic crash. An awareness of these risks might help to encourage more COVID vaccination."
How's this, an awareness of causality might help to encourage better research.
it’s interesting that they can find US data for vaxxed vs unvaxxed in car accidents, but not for population level mortality/all cause death (and not with this “vaxxed”-only-14-days-post-final-dose nonsense).
Just when you think "the science" couldn't get any worse!! Fortunately the insurance companies are also aware of the payout they are experiencing due to young guys expiring.
Well my ‘study’ about this issue of unvaxxed vs. vaxxed drivers is strictly ‘observational’ in it’s nature.
I live in Metro San Diego where there are a lot of cars (with drivers) on the freeways and surface streets. Since I am in a major City in CA where people continue to ‘mask up’ and the Covid Jab & Booster ‘campaign’ to get said ‘shots’ has been relentless since they were rolled out in early 2021, I have assumed with relative certainty, that there are far more people who got these ‘shots’ than did not, who are also driving. So this means there are far more likely Vaxxed and Booster’ed drivers on the freeways and surface streets than ‘unvaxxed’ drivers.
Over this past year I have seen all manner of ‘vaxxidents’ that left me wondering what the hell happened here. In the past two months I have been in intersections where drivers have mistaken an oncoming traffic lane for a left hand turn lane and we’re driving on the wrong side of a two way oncoming traffic street. This just happened to me this past Sunday in downtown San Diego! If I had not been an ‘unvaxxed’ driver driving slowly as I turned from a one way street onto a two way street, I would I have been struck by a vehicle who was going the wrong way on said two way street!
I have witnessed very bizarre driving on the freeways as well. Driving that was hazardous to other cars and myself had I not been paying attention while driving. Is this pure coincidence now that there are more bad drivers now? I think not. It is commensurate with the amount of vaxxed drivers (of all ages) who are now back on the roads driving.
Isn’t one of the known ‘side effects’ of these EUA mRNA vaxxines ‘brain fog’?
This study is hilarious. Of note, the risk is higher for 65+ vaccinated compared to unvaccinated. The risk is higher for unvaccinated driver's yes, but also for unvaccinated passengers and pedestrians. So, somehow being an unvaccinated pedestrian is more risky than being a vaccinated pedestrian when it comes to vehicle accidents. So, not just driving, but also vaccination helps protect you from automobile accidents while walking. The risk increases the later in the day it is, with the risk at night 66% higher than in the morning. So the vaccination reduces risk more at night than during the day...............absolutely crazy that the AJM published this Canadian laughingstock.
This is right up there with 'eating ice cream causes polio'. To paraprase a childrens movie, "are you sure you are using the word causation correctly ? I do not think you know what that word means"
If you take two groups of 1,000 sheep, one of which lives in a barn all year around, is fed a balanced diet, and given all medical care and jabs, and the other which lives semi-wild on a Scottish mountain, then there may be different mortality rates. That is true.
So what?
I'd always take the mountain life and not the shed.
I don't understand how these authors can't see how frankly dangerous their conclusions are.
I have a hunch that studies might be able to find that, for instance, that women who have had abortions are at greater risk of various poor outcomes than women who of have not. This would, obviously, not be a reflection of the risks of abortion, but of the greater likelihood that women who have sought out an abortion are in poor economic circumstances, engaged in risky behaviors, etc than women who have not.
Would it be OK to take account of this in insurance assessments? I strongly suspect these authors do not think so. This is only because one group fits their preferred political profile, and the other does not.
The question should be why did a journal publish such flawed research? Did anyone review this work?
Vaccinated and 91. Wish I could do a double like for this post. Dr Prasad is so good at exposing nonsense use of data.
The real takeaway here should be that the AJM should be laughed off of the roster of referenceable journals. Any journal with so little editorial judgement as to publish this pile of really stinking garbage (it is way worse than Vinay [who is always too kind] points out) does not deserve to be able to anoint a paper as being referenceable. Further, whoever reviewed this (if anyone) should never review a paper again.
I review lots of papers. This would have gone straight into the "Reject" pile -- not even the "Major revision with resubmission" pile. There is just no there, there. This is a clear demonstration that figures lie and liars figure.
Scary this is published and scary that anyone would give it any attention/credence.
Actually, there are many potential “vaccidents” that have occurred from “medical emergencies “ likely caused by sudden heart attacks and/or death that could be linked to vaccination . It is now widely known and accepted that the Covid shots are causing myocarditis and other heart problems. These shots are not safe nor effective .
The conclusion is absolutely priceless:
"These data suggest that COVID vaccine hesitancy is associated with significant increased risks of a traffic crash. An awareness of these risks might help to encourage more COVID vaccination."
How's this, an awareness of causality might help to encourage better research.
it’s interesting that they can find US data for vaxxed vs unvaxxed in car accidents, but not for population level mortality/all cause death (and not with this “vaxxed”-only-14-days-post-final-dose nonsense).
I first read about this study a few days ago, I thought someone has written a parody paper. But no, it's real.
These two threads eviscerate the paper, way more than Vinay has here.
https://twitter.com/ClareCraigPath/status/1602650802186772481 b
https://twitter.com/FamedCelebrity/status/1602792547381702656
Just when you think "the science" couldn't get any worse!! Fortunately the insurance companies are also aware of the payout they are experiencing due to young guys expiring.
Yet another pathetic attempt to further stigmatize people who are dubious about untested medicines being forced on them by those in power.
how dose this garbage even get past the editors to review? How do reviewers recommend it be accepted?
I keep thinking they can't sink any lower, but alas...
Well my ‘study’ about this issue of unvaxxed vs. vaxxed drivers is strictly ‘observational’ in it’s nature.
I live in Metro San Diego where there are a lot of cars (with drivers) on the freeways and surface streets. Since I am in a major City in CA where people continue to ‘mask up’ and the Covid Jab & Booster ‘campaign’ to get said ‘shots’ has been relentless since they were rolled out in early 2021, I have assumed with relative certainty, that there are far more people who got these ‘shots’ than did not, who are also driving. So this means there are far more likely Vaxxed and Booster’ed drivers on the freeways and surface streets than ‘unvaxxed’ drivers.
Over this past year I have seen all manner of ‘vaxxidents’ that left me wondering what the hell happened here. In the past two months I have been in intersections where drivers have mistaken an oncoming traffic lane for a left hand turn lane and we’re driving on the wrong side of a two way oncoming traffic street. This just happened to me this past Sunday in downtown San Diego! If I had not been an ‘unvaxxed’ driver driving slowly as I turned from a one way street onto a two way street, I would I have been struck by a vehicle who was going the wrong way on said two way street!
I have witnessed very bizarre driving on the freeways as well. Driving that was hazardous to other cars and myself had I not been paying attention while driving. Is this pure coincidence now that there are more bad drivers now? I think not. It is commensurate with the amount of vaxxed drivers (of all ages) who are now back on the roads driving.
Isn’t one of the known ‘side effects’ of these EUA mRNA vaxxines ‘brain fog’?
This study is hilarious. Of note, the risk is higher for 65+ vaccinated compared to unvaccinated. The risk is higher for unvaccinated driver's yes, but also for unvaccinated passengers and pedestrians. So, somehow being an unvaccinated pedestrian is more risky than being a vaccinated pedestrian when it comes to vehicle accidents. So, not just driving, but also vaccination helps protect you from automobile accidents while walking. The risk increases the later in the day it is, with the risk at night 66% higher than in the morning. So the vaccination reduces risk more at night than during the day...............absolutely crazy that the AJM published this Canadian laughingstock.
This is right up there with 'eating ice cream causes polio'. To paraprase a childrens movie, "are you sure you are using the word causation correctly ? I do not think you know what that word means"
If you take two groups of 1,000 sheep, one of which lives in a barn all year around, is fed a balanced diet, and given all medical care and jabs, and the other which lives semi-wild on a Scottish mountain, then there may be different mortality rates. That is true.
So what?
I'd always take the mountain life and not the shed.
I don't understand how these authors can't see how frankly dangerous their conclusions are.
I have a hunch that studies might be able to find that, for instance, that women who have had abortions are at greater risk of various poor outcomes than women who of have not. This would, obviously, not be a reflection of the risks of abortion, but of the greater likelihood that women who have sought out an abortion are in poor economic circumstances, engaged in risky behaviors, etc than women who have not.
Would it be OK to take account of this in insurance assessments? I strongly suspect these authors do not think so. This is only because one group fits their preferred political profile, and the other does not.