Swedish Study - Confirms Negative Vaccine Effectiveness

7 hours after I wrote this on the @boriquagato post on US hospitalizations why are so many in the US now so sick?

P.S. never read a published paper in a reputed journal, just scroll to the bottom and click the "supplementary materials". They put all the unsavory stuff there, and you can skip the spin and read the tables straight. Another great trick they use is putting stuff that's important right at the end and often with page breaks that will cut the data and column headers so you cannot make sense of what you are reading. Tricks of the trade.

bad cattitude
why are so many in the US now so sick?
so, we’re finally getting the “hospital crisis” that so many covidians have been clamoring for. there’s only one eensy weensy pequeño problema: it’s not from covid. THIS piece from NPR is incredibly telling. they lay out quite a lot of evidence that we have set our own house on fire, but fail to connect the dots. they ascribe iffy explanations devoid…
Read more

I had an opportunity to actually verify if my suggestions are a fluke or if there is indeed a consistent publishing trick where scientists try their best to make unclear and hard to access, only those parts of the data that make them uncomfortable or they find unexpected.

Example: 25th October Release: Check out Page 29 of this paper:

Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccination Against Risk of Symptomatic Infection, Hospitalization, and Death Up to 9 Months: A Swedish Total-Population Cohort Study

Supplemental Table 5. Vaccine effectiveness in the second matched cohort (N=3,966,630) against Covid-19 hospitalization or death up to 9 months after full vaccination (>14 days after the second dose)”

If you were not careful, you’d never be able to read anything and give up. But this commenter was having none of it and I wish we demand better from those who can present information without the intention to mislead.

If you knew most people won’t read the paper, and that most people will not scroll to “Supplementary Tables” in another “Supplementary Index”. And if you knew nobody would take the time to figure out what formatting trick they need to mentally correct for in order to read the data…then you can safely publish it as a scientist.

What’s a benign explanation for this?

None. It’s a trick of the trade. Reduce the access, legibility, skim over things, or write long sentences and tables that require high working memory to process as they would be cut across pages on purpose. Pfizer’s Efficacy data did the same trick to hide the fact that folks with a positive SARS-COV-2 baseline will get infected at a higher rate than unvaccinated. Essentially causing an outbreak during mass vaccination that feeds into itself (r=1.1) or 1.1x each time someone who was infected is vaccinated.

AlmostWrong’s Newsletter
What if the Negative 10.5% Vaccine Effectiveness explained the AY.4.2 Delta Plus ~10% Transmissibility Advantage causing an outbreak?
(Edit: Only a draft idea will write a proper article with citations and credits at some point) Shortest TLDR Attempt: Delta Plus AY.4.2 Strain transmissibility is a temp…
Read more

Trivia: When Moderna Checked on their Trial participants before the March 26th cutoff in 2021, they found equal RT-PCR asymptomatic infections. The difference was unexplained. Except that 2 additional Placebo infections were added. Who or what or when caused the placebo infections is anyone’s guess. Certainly nobody who had access to unblinded identities.