I knew it :(vaccine related hearing loss)...

originally posted by: quintessentone

What I am noticing with every thread and study that is sourced, that puts Covid as the leading cause, they do not take into account coincidence, rises in cases of certain conditions ... you get my drift. Some studies seem to look for the result they want and construct their methodology to find that result, some don't, but at least they say more research is needed in the conclusions. The same applies to sudden death stats that are blamed on Covid or the vax, where are the autopsy records and subsequent stats. I believe more research is needed before we can, without a doubt, point to the vax.

The hardest thing to do is to determine causation in a formal experiment. Correlation is not causation and is like the most important thing to learn in a statistics class. When we try to determine causation outside of that very tight controlled environment it is an extremely hard thing to get correct. Our brains are wired for correlations, and so that is really how we think and why it is so difficult for us to do as we can see causation in everything just as we do in all these vacc posts.

Even in tightly controlled experiments it is easy to get the causation wrong, so think about that in the anecdotal world. There was a famous, now infamous study, back in the 80s that came to the conclusion that violence on TV and in games created violence in kids, and people today still believe that 100% as to how strong that statement was. The correlation was that there was more violent kids in the groups that watched violent TV shows and played violent games, and they were correct. The problem was that more naturally violent kids were pulled to these TV and games more than non-violent kids and so they skewed the numbers like crazy. A decade later after this big announcement better and correct follow-on experiments were accomplished that showed TV and game violence actually did not create more violence.

Highly trained people have a hard time getting it all right, so our arm chair scientist here on ATS really don't have much of a chance.

a reply to: MaxxAction
Looked for the study online and the authors seem to disagree with what that article says.

Sudden Hearing Loss Following Vaccination Against COVID-19

Findings In this cohort study of 5.5 million Finnish residents, the data suggested no increased risk for SSNHL following any COVID-19 vaccination.

Meaning Although a large previous cohort study found an increased risk for SSNHL following vaccination with BNT162b2, the present study, which considered additional potential confounders, such as preexisting disease, found no such association.

a reply to: daskakik

Yes I know...

another schizophrenic self cancelling conclusion. The chart in the paper clearly shows an increase of SSNHL in the vaccinated. Not so coincidentally, the paper also says this:

A peak was seen in the SSNHL incidence around February 2021 (Figure 1). We are unaware of what caused this peak, but it did not resemble the pattern seen in COVID-19 cases or COVID-19 deaths in the country.29 Also, in our analysis, SARS-Cov-2 infection remained unassociated with an increased incidence of SSNHL; thus, this peak was likely not due to SARS-CoV-2 infections. The vaccination dates were also not clustered around the SSNHL peak

January/February 2021 was the first round of boosters if I remember correctly.

Also remember, you are never to trust what your eyes can see. You can only take what the "Scientists" are telling you, even if it is in diametric opposition to what you observe.

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
-1984

a reply to: MaxxAction
Seems to me you are doing the same but trusting McCullough instead of the authors of the study. You are the one that put it up here as if it was proof of something but it isn't, unless you accept the spin McCullough put on it.

It is a cohort study so it has its limitations and one of them is providing a direct cause, which is probably why the authors put that disclaimer there.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: MaxxAction
Seems to me you are doing the same but trusting McCullough instead of the authors of the study. You are the one that put it up here as if it was proof of something but it isn't, unless you accept the spin McCullough put on it.

It is a cohort study so it has its limitations and one of them is providing a direct cause, which is probably why the authors put that disclaimer there.

.
It looks like to me another round of vaccine apologetics and complete disregard of reality.

All studies have limitations. So what?

It's like the conversation I had on another thread when I mentioned that the Astrazeneca vaccine has been withdrawn from the market eventhough it was branded a 'miracle' a 'safe and effective' vaccine that has 'saved millions'....But withdrawn quietly and methodically after causing 'rare' blood clots.

I did get some vaccine apologetics and some out of this world excuses.

Likewise in this case, the mRNA vaccines are causing a range of symptoms and conditions. It looks like many more than the Astrazeneca vaccine. Myocarditis, pericarditis, heart failure, heart attacks, strokes, autoimmune disorders, allergic reactions, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia and many other, and maybe tinnitus and hearing loss (it won't be a surprise as it causes many more serious adverse reactions).

We all know by now these serious adverse reactions are 'rare' and the vaccines are 'safe and effective' and they have 'saved the world'.

Nothing to worry about I suppose.

a reply to: daskakik

I have posted my observations about such studies on numerous occasions. Almost without exception in the papers that are brining attention to side effects, it goes something along the lines of: " Blah, blah, blah, vaccine good. We observed X and Y happening in a much larger percentage of people that were vaccinated than were not, but the vaccine has nothing to do with it."

It is bizarre.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
It looks like to me another round of vaccine apologetics and complete disregard of reality.

No apologetics, the vaccines will harm and kill some people. That is just how reality works.

All studies have limitations. So what?

So, what some people post as definitive proof is usually not definitive and often not even proof.

Nothing to worry about I suppose.

Worry away, if that is what you want to do.

a reply to: MaxxAction
It isn't bizarre, it is spin.

Not much different than a small group having a sudden death, which happens, and the opposite side claiming the vaccine had everything to do with it.

I'm on the American Academy of Audiology webpage looking for public warnings and all I can find it this:

COVID-19 Resources
The best recommendation for all practices is to follow the CDC recommendations. As a changing situation, you will want to be up to date to protect your patients, your staff, yourself, and your families.

www.audiology.org...

Well?

originally posted by: MaxxAction
a reply to: daskakik

I have posted my observations about such studies on numerous occasions. Almost without exception in the papers that are brining attention to side effects, it goes something along the lines of: " Blah, blah, blah, vaccine good. We observed X and Y happening in a much larger percentage of people that were vaccinated than were not, but the vaccine has nothing to do with it."

It is bizarre.

They are trying to protect their investment and their product when they are in a denial about what is going on. It's the usual vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
It looks like to me another round of vaccine apologetics and complete disregard of reality.

No apologetics, the vaccines will harm and kill some people. That is just how reality works.

All studies have limitations. So what?

So, what some people post as definitive proof is usually not definitive and often not even proof.

Nothing to worry about I suppose.

Worry away, if that is what you want to do.

It looks like christmas vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality, as usual.

The vaccine injuries are true as you said above. The Astrazeneca vaccine has been withdrawn from the market in the UK, the country that created the vaccine, and its roll out stopped in several other countries eventhough the vaccine was 'safe and effective' and could only cause 'rare' serious adverse reactions.

Is it time the mRNA vaccines to also be withdrawn from the market given that they cause a multitude of health issues.The Astrazeneca vaccine seems benign in comparison...

a reply to: Asmodeus3
[Insert You Keep Using That Word meme here]