So I've seen a few comments and I would like to make a few points of clarification.
First off, this post shouldn't be seen as casting any aspersions towards TSN, but it should be an example that we study reports should be a bit careful in jumping to conclusions, especially ones which may cause people to runaway with conclusions.
Also, this post wasn't intended to provide a robust analysis, but moreso to critique the assumption that was made from this study. Of note, it was the GvB article where I found this study, and at the time of his posting he may not have been aware of TSN's redaction.
As to the title, I definitely understand why it is seen as clickbait, and I probably should have come up with a different title. The title here was in response to the original title, which can be seen on TSN's website.
As a quick note, for websites you can edit titles or anything within the article's content, but after publishing the URL generally remains the same. This is how mainstream media tends to run afoul with stealth edits on their stories post-publication.
You can see TSN's original title in their URL, and it's that title that I was mostly responding to.
And so it was that title that I was responding to with my title.
Lastly, Brian Mowrey below provided some commentary, and it appears Igor mentioned this study specifically in regards to reduced viral clearance. I won't make any remarks in regards to that interpretation unless I look through the supplemental data, but keep in mind that my post should not undermine the study, but merely some of the interpretations floating around in regards to the 5x remark.
I used to subscribe to TSN and now I only get their daily headlines. I was very disappointed when I read the original study referenced by the salacious TSN headline, only to find out that that the study stated that there were no appreciable differences between the two groups -- like you highlight in your analysis. We have a lot of other evidence showing shortcomings with the vaccine -- why then play the same ideological game the mainstream media plays and lose credibility in the process?
I read your original post and papers cited. I found them confusing on many levels: definitions and criteria. I appreciate your perspective. After reading the papers I was unsure of how I would even explain the the results or conclusions to anyone. It is like comparing apples, oranges, and bananas then concluding they are all the same because they are meat.
Aug 29, 2022·edited Aug 29, 2022Liked by Modern Discontent
Neither measure may be a correlate for transmissibility, but for the PCR assay the unvaccinated essentially serve as a negative control validating that the day 10 and day 15 nonconversion in the vaccinated means "something" beyond just leftover virus bits. The unvaccinated do not have the same "leftover bits" on Day 10 and 15 so they either are somehow cleaning them up better; or replication stopped faster before the swab; or these aren't "leftover bits" at all.
I think Igor's take - they appear "slower to clear virus" https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/study-boosted-people-slowest-to-clear - is a pretty fair conclusion. I actually wasn't as impressed by this study (Igor highlights the shaded area, which is just a mathematical fiction) until you brought it back up and I started to look at the raw numbers. It's fairly stark in supplemental Fig S3B that at Day 10 most vaxxed are still PCR positive but less than half unvaxxed; at Day 15 the vaxxed are still chugging along.
Thank you for attempting to be measured and balanced in your writings without bias towards one or the other side. That's exactly what I'm looking for.
I've seen way too many people I have agreed with adopt more sensational headlines over time for clicks and follows while moving further into biased imbalance. Too many seem to be driven to publish regularly than to necessarily take the time for a balanced deeper dive.
Also, a lot of piggybacking on other Substacks for content, not that I don't think it should be done, but it often feels driven to just get something new posted. I appreciate you.
So I've seen a few comments and I would like to make a few points of clarification.
First off, this post shouldn't be seen as casting any aspersions towards TSN, but it should be an example that we study reports should be a bit careful in jumping to conclusions, especially ones which may cause people to runaway with conclusions.
Also, this post wasn't intended to provide a robust analysis, but moreso to critique the assumption that was made from this study. Of note, it was the GvB article where I found this study, and at the time of his posting he may not have been aware of TSN's redaction.
As to the title, I definitely understand why it is seen as clickbait, and I probably should have come up with a different title. The title here was in response to the original title, which can be seen on TSN's website.
As a quick note, for websites you can edit titles or anything within the article's content, but after publishing the URL generally remains the same. This is how mainstream media tends to run afoul with stealth edits on their stories post-publication.
You can see TSN's original title in their URL, and it's that title that I was mostly responding to.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/bombshell-study-vaccinated-5x-more-contagious-than-the-unvaccinated-10-days-after-sars-cov-2-infection-ae391446
And so it was that title that I was responding to with my title.
Lastly, Brian Mowrey below provided some commentary, and it appears Igor mentioned this study specifically in regards to reduced viral clearance. I won't make any remarks in regards to that interpretation unless I look through the supplemental data, but keep in mind that my post should not undermine the study, but merely some of the interpretations floating around in regards to the 5x remark.
I used to subscribe to TSN and now I only get their daily headlines. I was very disappointed when I read the original study referenced by the salacious TSN headline, only to find out that that the study stated that there were no appreciable differences between the two groups -- like you highlight in your analysis. We have a lot of other evidence showing shortcomings with the vaccine -- why then play the same ideological game the mainstream media plays and lose credibility in the process?
I read your original post and papers cited. I found them confusing on many levels: definitions and criteria. I appreciate your perspective. After reading the papers I was unsure of how I would even explain the the results or conclusions to anyone. It is like comparing apples, oranges, and bananas then concluding they are all the same because they are meat.
Thank you very much for clarifying this study promoting something more true and better critical thinking skills.
Fyi, I really don't like imo belittling and sarcastic titles starting with "No, ..... ".
Yes, I'm starting to skeptical of everything so take care of yourself. Eat healthy. Use herbs wisely. Antiviral herbs and have confidence in your body
Thank you. I am glad you are following the evidence and being thorough. Those are rare qualities these days.
Neither measure may be a correlate for transmissibility, but for the PCR assay the unvaccinated essentially serve as a negative control validating that the day 10 and day 15 nonconversion in the vaccinated means "something" beyond just leftover virus bits. The unvaccinated do not have the same "leftover bits" on Day 10 and 15 so they either are somehow cleaning them up better; or replication stopped faster before the swab; or these aren't "leftover bits" at all.
I think Igor's take - they appear "slower to clear virus" https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/study-boosted-people-slowest-to-clear - is a pretty fair conclusion. I actually wasn't as impressed by this study (Igor highlights the shaded area, which is just a mathematical fiction) until you brought it back up and I started to look at the raw numbers. It's fairly stark in supplemental Fig S3B that at Day 10 most vaxxed are still PCR positive but less than half unvaxxed; at Day 15 the vaxxed are still chugging along.
You had me at “we need more reading”
Thank you for attempting to be measured and balanced in your writings without bias towards one or the other side. That's exactly what I'm looking for.
I've seen way too many people I have agreed with adopt more sensational headlines over time for clicks and follows while moving further into biased imbalance. Too many seem to be driven to publish regularly than to necessarily take the time for a balanced deeper dive.
Also, a lot of piggybacking on other Substacks for content, not that I don't think it should be done, but it often feels driven to just get something new posted. I appreciate you.