Mrna tech

[A990]

...further to "Further to MRNA covid vaccine"


The replication crisis refers to the widespread difficulty in reproducing results of scientific studies, particularly in fields like psychology, medicine, and social sciences. Many published findings, often from high-profile journals, fail to hold up when independent researchers attempt to replicate them. Key causes include:

• Publication bias: Journals favor novel, positive results over null or negative findings.
• P-hacking: Researchers manipulate data or analyses to achieve statistically significant results.
• Small sample sizes: Studies often lack sufficient statistical power, leading to unreliable results.
• Poor methodology: Inadequate controls, vague protocols, or lack of transparency hinder replication.
• Incentives: Academic and funding pressures prioritize flashy results over rigorous science.

Estimates suggest 50-90% of published studies in some fields may not replicate, undermining trust in science. Efforts to address it include preregistration of studies, open data sharing, and emphasizing replication attempts.

[Landdownunder]

Real time scenario ad of friday 95 going pretty good . Do you consent to covid vaccine discussion ensued i thought it just happens, no peter flu vax is ok covid permission needed each time and a waiver signed by me. Will approve it but teaction means trouble. But she got over RSV few minths back “just” sorry bout spelling

[chuckChuck]

A990 show us some credible studies that the covid vaccines don't work.

Scientists also have meta analysis that can look at multiple studies not just single studies.

"A meta-analysis is a powerful research method that statistically combines quantitative results from multiple independent studies on a common question, creating a single "pooled estimate" to provide a more precise and robust conclusion than any single study could offer. It involves a systematic, rigorous process of defining the question, finding studies, extracting data, analyzing combined effect sizes, and transparently reporting results, often using tools like forest plots to visualize outcomes and assess risk of bias. This synthesis increases statistical power, clarifies conflicting findings, and helps make better evidence-based decisions, especially in fields like medicine and health."

[chuckChuck]

Safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials

[url]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38282394/[/url]

Abstract

Vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been discovered within a very small duration of time as compared to the traditional way for the development of vaccines, which raised the question about the safety and efficacy of the approved vaccines. The purpose of this study is to look at the effectiveness and safety of vaccine platforms against the incidence of COVID-19. The literature search was performed on PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, and clinical trials.gov databases for studies published between 1 January 2020 and 19 February 2022. Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis Statement guidelines were followed. Among 284 articles received by keywords, a total of 11 studies were eligible according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria (studies in special populations, e.g., pregnant women, paediatric patients, editorials, case reports, review articles, preclinical and in vitro studies) of the study. A total of 247,186 participants were considered for randomisation at baseline, among them, 129,572 (52.42%) were provided with vaccine (Intervention group) and 117,614 (47.58%) with the placebo (Control group). A pooled fold change estimation of 0.19 (95% CI: 0.12-0.31, p < 0.0001) showed significant protection against the incidence of COVID-19 in the vaccines received group versus the placebo group. mRNA based, inactivated vaccines and non-replicating viral vector-based vaccines showed significantly protection against the incidence of COVID-19 compared to placebo with pooled fold change estimation was 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06-0.10), 0.20 (95% CI: 0.14-0.29) and 0.36 (95% CI: 0.28-0.46), respectively. Injection site discomfort and fatigue were the most common side effect observed in mRNA, non-replicating viral vector, inactivated, and protein subunit-based vaccines. All the approved vaccines were found safe and efficacious but mRNA-based vaccines were found to be more efficacious against SARS-CoV-2 than other platforms.

[A990]

A990 show us some credible studies that the covid vaccines don't work.

Scientists also have meta analysis that can look at multiple studies not just single studies.

"A meta-analysis is a powerful research method that statistically combines quantitative results from multiple independent studies on a common question, creating a single "pooled estimate" to provide a more precise and robust conclusion than any single study could offer. It involves a systematic, rigorous process of defining the question, finding studies, extracting data, analyzing combined effect sizes, and transparently reporting results, often using tools like forest plots to visualize outcomes and assess risk of bias. This synthesis increases statistical power, clarifies conflicting findings, and helps make better evidence-based decisions, especially in fields like medicine and health."

who would fund a study that covid vaccines don't work?

[agstar77]

Scientific studies are not based on assumed outcomes.

[LEP]

Scientific studies are not based on assumed outcomes.

Right and all yield trial results are published too.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Scientific studies are not based on assumed outcomes.

In theory.

[chuckChuck]

Read it again. This meta analysis cited numerous independent studies.

But the loony antiscience antivaxer crowd that claimed Ivermectin prevented and cured covid will believe anything


"Injection site discomfort and fatigue were the most common side effect observed in mRNA, non-replicating viral vector, inactivated, and protein subunit-based vaccines. All the approved vaccines were found safe and efficacious but mRNA-based vaccines were found to be more efficacious against SARS-CoV-2 than other platforms."

[A990]

grok...compare meta analysis to scientific study replication:

• Meta-analysis is great for summarizing and increasing precision, but it can give a falsely precise answer if the underlying studies are unreliable.
• Replication is the gold standard for verifying that a finding is real, but it is slow, costly, and each replication is still just one data point.
• The strongest scientific knowledge comes when findings survive direct replication attempts and then show consistent, moderate-to-large effects in subsequent high-quality meta-analyses.

In practice, the replication crises in psychology, preclinical cancer biology, economics, and parts of medicine have shown that meta-analyses conducted before large-scale replication efforts often overestimated effect sizes dramatically.