Vaccine Megathread No 2 - Read OP before posting

That’s not what I said but twist away if that’s your thing.

The data’s there if you want to see it, you’re big enough now that I don’t need to spoon feed you. You’re either interested in evolving science or you’re not.

Playing the man not the ball again.

The data’s there if you want to see it, you’re big enough now that I don’t need to spoon feed you. You’re either interested in evolving science or you’re not.

Where?

If its there, you know where it is. Very simple to link it.

Dr John Campbell has a video on the study.

Jesus there's a blast from the past. Is he still promoting ivermectin?

Just a reminder, "Dr" John Campbell is not a medical doctor, and his PhD is nothing to do with epidemiology, vaccines or anything remotely related to pandemics. His PhD is in using digital technology for learning.

You might as well say Plumber Mick Thomas has a video on the study for all the relevance his title has.

This is not a verifiable fact:

• Japan openly compensates Covid 19 vaccine injuries and deaths.

As explained on the thread. That is your misrepresentation of the scheme, as worded it implies causation. That is not a fact.

And then vague weasel words about peer reviewed studies that "raise questions". Could you be any vaguer? None of the studies are linked.

The reason why the messengers like Campbell and Murakami get shot is that they are either dishonest grifters or conspiracy theory nutjobs, who latch onto these claims and have a history of peddling fake news. How many times do they have to get it wrong, based on the same bad faith tactics, and still expect to get the benefit of the doubt?

As the article linked below states:
Failure to account for various confounding factors when comparing mortality in unvaccinated and vaccinated populations has been a common feature in COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, as we discussed extensively in a previous Insight article.

We've been down this road before. False claims made about covid and vaccines that fool the easily fooled or those desperate for anti vax propaganda… but false because it does not follow basic scientific principles.
How many times has Campbell now made antivax claims along similar lines that get such basic principles wrong?

And the substance of what? What have you linked? What message? Where are these studies?
You have linked a single thing. You talk of substance but there is none.

And predictably, the person you cite has form for going down covid conspiracy theory rat holes:
Yasufumi Murakami, a professor emeritus at Tokyo University of Science. Murakami is also a member of the International Medical Alliance, formerly the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group that spread misinformation about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines.

So what are the chances it is either an utterly dishonest piece of fake science from an ideologue… or someone stepping outside their speciality and making basic obvious mistakes as they let their bias and ideological anti vax position override their scientific training. This is basic stuff before you check before going public - unless of course, you're an anti vax grifter trying to get headlines in conspiracy theory feeds.
If anyone peer reviewed this and didn't point out the obvious flaws - they are either incompetent or grifters too.

If the unvaccinated group generally tended to be younger and healthier compared to the vaccinated group, this could explain the lower mortality rate in the unvaccinated group… The group that received five doses is likely an outlier that isn’t representative of the general population. This group could include a greater proportion of people with underlying medical conditions and the elderly. 

In a post on X, Jeffrey Morris, a professor of biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania, commented on the analysis, stating that “The claim is based on misinterpretation and failure to adjust for obvious age confounding”

https://science.feedback.org/review/inadequate-analysis-japan-data-false-covid-vaccine-mortality/

There's nothing to discuss in the study. From the article itself:

although several hypotheses have been proposed to explain these phenomena, the truth remains to be established

The article itself is a hypotheses. It is a group of researchers going, here is variable X and here is variable Y: they might be linked. That's the substance of the article. There's no evidence to back up the theory. That's why its just a hypothesis. It has not been proven to be true.

Japan openly compensates Covid 19 vaccine injuries and deaths.

Already addressed on the thread above.

Peer-reviewed studies are emerging that raise questions about risks.

Academia is full of people publishing theories. Most of them are wrong. The theory has not be proven. Its meaningless.

If the evidence is flawed, the proper response is to critique the study itself

There is little to no evidence in the studies.

People have claimed there is "data there to see" and yet link nothing.

most of the replies here focus on trying to discredit John Campbell personally

Because someone stated: "I’ve been listening and reading to what’s happening there for a while, if you’d like a better understanding of the current situation, Dr John Campbell has a video on the study".

John Campbell is clearly a conman.

Have you read the article? Because all it is is a theory. That's not a critique or criticism of the article, its just a fact.

There's nothing to critique in the article. Its a presentation of stats with a statement saying further research required. They're going to go off and do the research. Cool, they should. However, this article doesn't establish a link between anything. It's just an idea. It add nor detracts from the arguments for the mRNA vaccines.

Misframing — labeling a peer-reviewed analysis as “just a hypothesis” ignores that all science begins with hypotheses and data analysis. That’s the normal process.

Hand-waving facts — Japan’s government compensation program exists, pays out, and is documented. Denying that doesn’t erase it.

Sweeping dismissal — saying “academia is full of wrong theories” is not a critique of the study’s methods or data. It’s a blanket excuse to ignore evidence.

Ad hominem — ending with “Campbell is a conman” is not an argument, just name-calling.

• It's not misframing. The article itself states: "the truth remains to be established". The article does not try to present anything as fact. It does not try to establish the link between the sets of datapoints. It is saying it warrants further investigation. That's not misframing. That's the article.
• Hand-waving facts: I didn't hand-wave anything. I referred you to the previous post where its discussed. The rationale is there. I am not going to retype or present another posters argument as mine. They have succinctly addressed the point. Its telling that you have not actually addressed that post.
• Sweeping dismissal - its not a dismissal. Until a link is established, the theory is meaningless. For your reference, I am an academic. This is my day job. I read many theories, some of them I help advance, others I think are incorrect.
• Yes, it is just name calling. He is a conman. This is a forum where opinions are shared. This is not a court of law or a scientific conference where facts are presented. It is a place where opinions are shared. John Campbell is a f*cking idiot. That's my opinion. You're entitled to your own.

If you want to be taken seriously, address the data and methodology. Everything else is just noise.

I'd advise you follow your own advice and present what you believe the article actually represents and to address the previous post regarding Japans compensation programme.

You are not adding to any argument just trying to dismiss others. Such actions are just noise.

You accept the article is just a theory, right?

Nobody is denying the figures are incorrect. It's a record of compensation payouts. But that's where the significance ends. This data is not causation, it's just correlation. The raw number is just a stat. It doesn't prove a link, and it doesn't stand as evidence of anything other than a government program paying out claims.

You'd agree with that?

You're shifting the goalposts from the paper's scientific rigor to the existence of a government program. You wanted a critique of the paper itself, not the Japanese government. The researchers, not the government, published this article. That is what should be discussed. They are the ones presenting the data and calling for 'deeper investigation' because they did not establish a link.

You accept that the researchers do not establish a link between the variables?

By your logic, every compensation payout Japan has ever made for vaccine injury — across 47 years — would “prove nothing.”

That is your statement, not mine.

I see the standard of discussion here hasn’t changed much.
The strategy of the vaccine zealots is still the same: delegitimize the messenger, move the evidentiary bar endlessly, and reframe inconvenient data as “meaningless” unless it reaches an impossible standard. All wrapped in sneering dismissals to discourage further debate. Not surprising, really.

Their tactics in a nutshell:

1. Ad hominem attacks – discredit the person so the substance can be ignored.
2. Credential gatekeeping – “not a doctor,” therefore nothing said can matter.
3. Shifting goalposts – demand evidence, then rule it out as insufficient.
4. Source-trap – ask for studies, then dismiss them as “just hypotheses.”
5. Misframing – rebut claims that were never actually made.
6. Sweeping dismissals – “academia is full of wrong theories” so debate is pointless.
7. Guilt by association – “anti-vaxxer” labeling to taint arguments without addressing them.
8. Tone manipulation/trolling – provoke, ridicule, and exhaust until discussion collapses.

That isn’t science. It’s rhetoric to shut down uncomfortable questions.

Mod Edit: Warned and threadbanned for uncivil posting

"the vaccine zealots"……"labeling to taint arguments without addressing them"

Hypocrite much?

It's basic statistics. So the question is why are the likes of Campbell and Murakami happy to publicise studies with such obvious flaws.
And when this is pointed out we get desperate attempts at playing the victim on their behalf and absolutely zero in the way of coherent credible arguments or defences of such obviously shoddy studies. Studies are either the product of basic incompetence or worse - deliberately biased attempts to pull the wool over people's eyes. This is how desperate anti vaxxers such as Campbell and Murakami are they have to engage in such tactics.

Have you concluded that there is no causation?