James Lyons-Weiler has published an analysis claiming that Paul Thomas’ “Vaccine-Friendly Plan” is safer than the current CDC-recommended vaccine schedule because contains less aluminum. Unsurprisingly, The modeling behind the analysis is risibly incompetent. Same as it ever was.
Search: “vaccinated vs unvaccinated”
We found 57 results for your search.
Recently, antivaxxers were all over social media after Tucker Carlson touted a “revelation” that the phase 3 clinical trial used to support licensure of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine didn’t examine its ability to block transmission as meaning that its inability to block transmission had been “covered up”. It wasn’t, and antivaxxers are ignoring everything we’ve learned over the last two years to make the claim that vaccines “don’t prevent transmission”.
Sadly, the COVID-19 pandemic hasn’t stopped antivax “scientists” from publishing crappy antivax studies that don’t show what they claim they show, as Paul Thomas and James Lyons-Weiler’s most recent “vaxxed/unvaxxed” study shows.
“Not antivax” COVID contrarian Dr. Vinay Prasad demonstrates why skepticism is necessary and how evidence-based medicine (EBM) fundamentalism harms childhood health by inadvertently (I hope) echoing a very old antivax trope about randomized clinical trials for the childhood vaccine schedule, you know, to “rebuild confidence.”
A recent survey suggests that a disturbingly high percentage of physicians are either vaccine hesitant or actually antivaccine. Those of us who have been writing about the antivaccine movement know that this is not new, but it seems new to our colleagues who weren’t paying attention before the pandemic.