(02-26-2024, 05:44 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Lol, if I didn't know better, I'd say you finally took the time to look for something that supports the position you blindly adopted from the CDC and are reveling in the fact that I'm stuck reading this [BLEEP] on a weekday, even though you probably only read the conclusion. I've really lost my appetite for these things, but I'm doing it because I said I would. I'm hardly rattled, though. Since this is old, I have to look at dates and consider all the moving pieces that these people were having to deal with when it was being published. It's really a giant pain. I've forgotten more about this crap than I'd care to admit, but that's what's slowing me down. This nordic study is interesting, but I just don't see how they are attempting to account for all the variables, which is admittedly difficult. Gonna need a day or two before you start gloating.

Lol, yeah...3 seconds of Google Fu is what it took. I read both studies in their entirety overnight, wanted to make sure that it was exactly the data you were unable to find.

Edit: Look, I'm admittedly snarking you a little bit here. I think you have to agree with me that it's a long, long, long drop from "I don't have all the data I would like to have" to "since I don't have exactly the data I want all of the other scholarship on this is invalid and the vaccines were of no benefit." I honestly think you're in the first camp much more than the second; you just seem to think it's my fault that you didn't find the data you want, like I ran up to the CDC, NIH, Yale, McGill, the WHO and such and told them to burn the records so L2L couldn't reveal their giant conspiracy. I'm really not.

Edit 2: And yeah, it bored the [BLEEP] out of me too. I'm not all that into research, I prefer improvement and innovation.

---