So what you're saying is that they are comparing two distinct self-selected populations that differ in many other aspects than just taking the vaccine.
Why would you ascribe any difference to the vaccine rather to any other difference between the groups?
I was working in customer support for one of the first ISPs in my country when the switch from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 happened.
Windows 95 was a massive jump in usability.
Regular people simply do no understand the overlapping windows metaphor. When a windows disappears behind another they are often completely helpless. The taskbar was a life saver.
How is it not? Other than extremely anthropocentrically?
There are at least 200 billion trillion stars in the universe that we are aware of. That is a number beyond our comprehension. Stars generate elements. Elements form molecules. Life is built on some of these molecules.
I would say the statistical argument is the null argument. To invalidate it you should instead need to come up with a reason why in a billion trillion structurally relevant constructions we must be the only one where life emerges.
How did he agree to be a co-author when "he never had access to the data for any of the studies"?
reply