Everyone has their own approach to review.

Some are perhaps a little more standard than others

You would let covid fuk your mouth if you could. Wouldn't you...scientist.

They start with this:However,andplus

But apparently what they lack in some of the more foundational stuff, they make up for by teaching magic.

Some folks do seem to think techniques like regression are magic

Tips for regression, continue wearing a mask everywhere you go, only leave the residence when absolutely necessary, and stay up to date on your booster shots.....

I disagree.

In this particular case, I think generalized linear models that account for the nature of the data world have been more appropriate

Rat study alleged to link COVID-19 vaccines to autism cannot be generalized to humans and contains important limitations

https://healthfeedback.org/claimrevi...t-limitations/

Conclusion

Overall, while the Neurochemical Research study’s results can provide grounds for further exploratory studies using more animals, the study contains significant limitations that don’t allow one to reliably draw general conclusions about the vaccine’s effect in rat development, let alone its effect in human development. The authors also cautioned that their results couldn’t be generalized to humans as the study only examined animals.

Numerous scientific studies so far have found no association between autism and vaccination. Social media posts implying that the study shows COVID-19 vaccines cause autism fail to account for its limitations, such as the fact that it evaluated only animals and used a dose of questionable clinical relevance.

In addition to flawed/inappropriate statistical methods.

The paper says the data are available ("The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article and its additional files"), but that statement is not true.

I'd like to see how the results look with more appropriate methods.

You're a covid bug chaser, aren't you.

So they just reiterated what the authors said…. #Deboonked!


It's imperative to recognize the limitations of our research, given that it relies on animal models. Caution should be exercised in generalizing these results to humans. Further rigorous clinical studies are required to confirm these observations in human populations and to ascertain the exact mechanisms at play.

Given the public health significance of understanding the effects of COVID-19 vaccination, especially during pregnancy, comprehensive studies are vital. These should weigh the benefits and potential risks of vaccination, focusing on ensuring optimal neurodevelopmental outcomes. Our findings underscore the importance of continued research in this domain to guarantee the safety and well-being of all individuals, especially those who are pregnant and their offspring.

But there are studies of the effects vaccination on human pregnancy and conception.

They don't support the narrative, so they tend to be ignored 'round here

Seems like some people think the science is settled and that no further research should be done, even if that means potentially putting unborn children at risk. Everyone’s different I guess.

Indeed.

Like those who don't like a single survey-based study and decide everything on a topic is fake

It's mostly new researchers who seem to think science becomes "settled".

Probably shouldnt have lied so much about masks, transmission, etc; going so far as to ruin the lives of people who's messaging turned out to be correct. Kind of amazing that the scientific community doesnt understand why no one trusts them. Maybe step out of the echo chamber every once in a while

I get why people take that perspective.

But, masks work and no other vaccines went through challenge trials prior to approval, either.

I step out of the misc regularly

We're back to saying masks work again? Let me guess, the people still wearing one, it "protects" them?

Back?

U mad they aren't following orders?

Prenatal Exposure to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 Induces Autism-Like Behaviors in Male Neonatal Rats: Insights into WNT and BDNF Signaling Perturbations

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38198049/

"Concerns have arisen about the potential neurodevelopmental implications of these vaccines, especially in susceptible groups such as pregnant women and their offspring.

Our findings reveal that the mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine significantly alters WNT gene expression and BDNF levels in both male and female rats, suggesting a profound impact on key neurodevelopmental pathways. Notably, male rats exhibited pronounced autism-like behaviors, characterized by a marked reduction in social interaction and repetitive patterns of behavior. Furthermore, there was a substantial decrease in neuronal counts in critical brain regions, indicating potential neurodegeneration or altered neurodevelopment. Male rats also demonstrated impaired motor performance, evidenced by reduced coordination and agility. Our research provides insights into the effects of the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine on WNT gene expression, BDNF levels, and certain neurodevelopmental markers in a rat model. More extensive studies are needed to confirm these observations in humans and to explore the exact mechanisms. A comprehensive understanding of the risks and rewards of COVID-19 vaccination, especially during pregnancy, remains essential.

That's the same paper some of us have been discussing....

Just lol

but we already discussed this, you lied about transmittable viral load size...'member?

Yes I know...I did not see this published linked...post number please if I missed it

Linked in the blog post in the OP

and then here on the first page:Some thoughts on the study:They start with this:However,andplus

That's quite a bit of speculation and here-say you have going on in those posts.

First off the Shapiro-Wilk test is just a statistical test used to check if a random sample comes from a normally distributed population. Nothing wrong with using that test


Second if you are going to argue that hormone levels and other factors differ to such a degree in the rats...you have to prove that and I'm curious why you would assume that to begin with..?

Third..you claimed these changes "were still within typical rat behavior"...that was not the finding of the study. They saw a reduction in cognitive ability and all other aspects..

"autism-like behaviors, characterized by a marked reduction in social interaction and repetitive patterns of behavior. Furthermore, there was a substantial decrease in neuronal counts in critical brain regions, indicating potential neurodegeneration or altered neurodevelopment. Male rats also demonstrated impaired motor performance, evidenced by reduced coordination and agility. Our research provides insights into the effects of the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine on WNT gene expression, BDNF levels, and certain neurodevelopmental markers in a rat model."

No.

There's no speculation, simply convention.

Counts and times to event shouldn't be Gaussian.

ANOVA's and t-tests areanachronisms

Again, you have to show levels differ between the test rats to such a degree that it would effect outcome and explain why you think there would be such a degree of variance

Definitely.

But that can be done with appropriate models

Their model was appropriate. You not liking something does not make in invalid

Nope

ANOVA's and t-tests (both are Gaussian) are not the most appropriate (maximizing entropy) for counts and times to event..

They just aren't the best models.