One more time...Florida. Under DeSantis and his despicable regime voters rights have been turned back, books banned, guns protected while children are massacred and science ignored or worse, manipulated to support a personal/political bias. Thank you for another clear, fact-based report. As others have written...you rock!
There’s a simple way to clear up whether mRNA vaccines harm men aged 18 - 39. The CDC could commission a survey of doctors working at colleges and the military and ask them whether, in their professional experience, the vaccines have caused harm in this population? The survey would need to be anonymous, overseen by an independent auditor and include a large enough sample to achieve statistical significance and geographic representation.
In the meantime, calling someone a “fraud” when they haven’t been convicted of such amounts to defamation.
Why are some European countries no longer authorizing / recommending covid vaccines for healthy people under 50?
No, it's fraud. When the data didn't support their agenda, they tweaked the design until they could get some that did. Then they misrepresented the data they had, deleted any mention of data that contradicted their agenda, and lied about the results. This is all plainly laid out and proven in the article.
It's fraud, dude. They lied. And they're still lying.
By whom? The State of Florida? Seriously? You really are keen to ignore the facts presented in Dr. Jetelina's article. One wonders why. Or not.
Oh, yeah: still waiting for that big list of European countries recommending against vaccination for younger folks because of non-existent risk factors.
* Partial List * (I don't have time to Google every country's vaccine status)
United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden - for starters - no longer offer / recommend vaccines to healthy people under 50 - male or female.
Germany and Finland do not recommend Moderna for younger men.
Florida has concluded that men aged 18-39 should not receive covid mRNA vaccines. If this is a flawed recommendation because Florida botched the science, as a matter of consistency, the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Finland (and probably other countries) should also be scrutinized. Especially since their positions ("no healthy male or female under 50") is even more sweeping than Florida's.
This post (and the many comments) suggest Florida not only engaged in flawed science, but that they did so intentionally and fraudulently. This would be fine if Florida were the only place on the planet making this type of recommendation, but it isn't.
Denmark currently does not recommend vaccination for anyone under 50, but the reasons have nothing to do with the bogus claims of heart disease, viz. https://www.sst.dk/en/english/corona-eng/vaccination-against-covid-19 This is also true of the UK, where the recommendation is based on the fact that younger citizens are not at particularly high risk, especially if they have already been vaccinated.
You'd know that if you had actually read any of those articles. The article from The Guardian specifically says so. It looks like you trolled for some headlines that appeared to back you up but didn't bother to read any further.
The bottom line is that *nobody but Florida* is recommending against *all* COVID vaccination because of any alleged increased risk. In addition, there is the clearly documented fact in Dr. Jetelina's article that Florida has misrepresented and concealed data. Why you are so desperate to make excuses for them escapes me.
Not to split hairs, but I think it's more a case of the US doing the same thing as the European countries. And now that the US has put the primary series out to pasture, perhaps Florida's caution around Moderna and young men is less of an issue.
Here's the current status (in English) from Germany's Federal Ministry of Health. Look at the section "Which vaccine is recommend for what age group?" Spikevax (Moderna) is *currently* not recommended for anyone (male or female) under 30. So if we're going to criticize Florida, let's criticize every jurisdiction that's making similar health precautions.
If anybody wants to point fingers at Florida, this is a diversion.
You are, once again, misrepresenting what's in the article you are citing. Here's the actual text from the section you cited. It saying nothing about enhanced risks of heart disease for anyone under 30.
==========================================
Which vaccine is recommend for what age group?
The Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) recommends:
Comirnaty® for vaccine-eligible people over the age of 6 months (in a special pharmaceutical form with adjusted dosages for infants and children up to four years or children from five to eleven years old)
Spikevax for people aged 30 or over who may get vaccinated
COVID-19 Janssen vaccine (new name: Jcovden) for people aged 60 or over who may get vaccinated
Nuvaxovid for people aged 12 or over who may get vaccinated
Valneva for people between the ages of 18 and 50 who may get vaccinated
The vaccines adapted to Omicron are only authorised for the booster and should preferably be used for the booster in a formulation authorised for that respective age group.
==========================================
We are "pointing fingers" at Florida because they are making recommendations based on cherry-picked and misrepresented data about an alleged increased risk of heart issues for younger men. *Only Florida is doing that.*
As of October 2022, France still was not recommending Moderna to anyone under 30 due to possible heart risks. To the best of my knowledge, this cautionary advisory still stands.
Yes, some of the links were from 2021. That’s why I provided current 2023 link from Germany. It’s not clear to me that the health scares from 2021 were cleared up if Germany to this day still doesn’t recommend Moderna for under 30.
Many European countries appear to offer a wider selection of vaccines than just the mRNA, which makes it easier for them to recommend something else to younger people while sidestepping possible risks from mRNA. I’ve only checked 5 European countries, yet each one seems to offer more cautionary vaccine guidance than that of the US - why is that?
Denmark never recommended the bivalent booster to anyone under 50. Here’s another current link, this one from Denmark:
Germany's recommendations are not based on any "health scares." The article you posted makes this clear.
You keep asking why these countries are making specific recommendations, and yet you post articles that answer that very question —and not in the way you want them to.
This starts to look like the old "I'm just asking questions" dodge when what you're really doing is making a statement.
Probably because he's a middling physician that once specialized in internal medicine. As a scientist his past performance suggests incompetence. In my profession he'd be classified as "knows enough to be dangerous" and would never be let near anything mission critical that required good operational judgement. His best talents are as a politician.
Thank you for this important detailed analysis calmly demonstrating what can only be called the corruption of a medical study for political purposes. This process is totally unacceptable and the authors of version 6 and the State Health Officer must be sanctioned by whatever professional bodies they belong to, including a lifetime ban from publishing medical literature and loss of license if any. In addition this documentation provides any young man in Florida who remained unvaccinated and caught a serious case of COVID-19 (especially with cardiac complications) good grounds for malpractice actions.
Oh FFS. it's the Hooker reanalysis data contortion to reach the desired conclusion all over again. Except this time it was done by a partisan government office wanting to pander to a political party that for some absurd reason adopted 'resistance to sensible public health measures that protect the citizenry' as a primary platform. If reporters aren't repeatedly peppering that governor with questions such as "Were you personally aware of the scientific data and reporting misconduct performed in your administration?", they aren't doing their jobs.
If this was an article, review, etc., in a journal this would be clear grounds for a retraction. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to exist in politically driven policy.
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
(a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
(b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
(c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
(d) Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
We live in a post-truth society. An intentional delegitimization of science, factuality, and any knowledge claims in general. This intentional move is to suggest that everyone is self-interested; everyone is willing to twist information for their own ends; no previously authorities can be trusted. This is so cynical, so falsely "sophisticated" a mode of thought. The spurious Florida report is a win-win for its issuers. If people believe it- why that's all to the good. If it is debunked- why that's great too as it shows science can't be trusted. The ultimate goal is to render the populace bewildered and malleable. Malleable to whom? Demagogues and conspiracy theorists like those who infest right wing politics at this time. A sorry pass indeed. A coup against the Enlightenment.
I truly hope that a media organization picks up your thoughtfully-written piece and shares it widely. I am appalled by this behavior; though as a Florida resident, nothing here surprises me anymore.
Congratulations on a thorough epidemiological review of a clearly results-oriented science-fiction article. I so miss integrity in the professions - I’m glad and grateful that you’ve retained yours.
This is such important information, but it's a double-edged sword. It shows how the unethically the science was manipulated for a desired outcome (which is wrong!) but it ALSO may confirm in some minds that "science" is unreliable...
This isn't about science being unreliable. It's about the politically motivated cherry-picking of data by people who are more interested in pushing an agenda than at learning the truth. It's no more science than social darwinism, Lamarkism, or Nazi eugenics.
It is shockingly creepy to see results pre-determined and then the data manipulated to fit that conclusion. Thankfully, we have smart people to analyze these reports!
This is how the manufacturers of Prevagen “proved” their supplement works for memory loss in “clinical trials.” Keep moving the goalposts, keep chopping up the data into different sets.
Despicable, and very profitable. I’m still asked on a regular basis “does Prevagen work? Didn’t they prove it works?”
Yes, and, unfortunately, it is stuff like this that adds to people being wary of vaccines. My own son would not have gotten a booster if he didn't need it for college. He started looking into the various companies when trying to figure out which vaccine to get, and he said, "They have all done a lot of bad stuff."
I saw parts of this study being picked apart by people, but not this thorough and succinct evaluation. They transferred the information into a guidance? So wrong. Everything that’s coming out of Florida lately is politically motivated and based on lies. Thanks YLE.
I'd add, as someone who is careful about causal inference (see the Northwestern workshop that I run on Research Design for Causal Inference)that the design should have included a second control period, prior to vaccination. All the most so since results were sensitive to the choice of the treatment period.
One more time...Florida. Under DeSantis and his despicable regime voters rights have been turned back, books banned, guns protected while children are massacred and science ignored or worse, manipulated to support a personal/political bias. Thank you for another clear, fact-based report. As others have written...you rock!
If I could, I would give you a hundred "likes" for your statement. Completely agree with you.
Thank you. I swear...Florida 🤦🏻♀️
Add budding theocracy, Texas to the rogue gallery.
Exactly. Montana coming in a strong 3rd.
The Florida surgeon general should be charged with fraud.
There’s a simple way to clear up whether mRNA vaccines harm men aged 18 - 39. The CDC could commission a survey of doctors working at colleges and the military and ask them whether, in their professional experience, the vaccines have caused harm in this population? The survey would need to be anonymous, overseen by an independent auditor and include a large enough sample to achieve statistical significance and geographic representation.
In the meantime, calling someone a “fraud” when they haven’t been convicted of such amounts to defamation.
Why are some European countries no longer authorizing / recommending covid vaccines for healthy people under 50?
No, it's fraud. When the data didn't support their agenda, they tweaked the design until they could get some that did. Then they misrepresented the data they had, deleted any mention of data that contradicted their agenda, and lied about the results. This is all plainly laid out and proven in the article.
It's fraud, dude. They lied. And they're still lying.
If it’s as bad as you claim, why hasn’t the Florida Surgeon General been prosecuted?
Perhaps because he did what his governor and his party wanted him to do.
By whom? The State of Florida? Seriously? You really are keen to ignore the facts presented in Dr. Jetelina's article. One wonders why. Or not.
Oh, yeah: still waiting for that big list of European countries recommending against vaccination for younger folks because of non-existent risk factors.
* Partial List * (I don't have time to Google every country's vaccine status)
United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden - for starters - no longer offer / recommend vaccines to healthy people under 50 - male or female.
Germany and Finland do not recommend Moderna for younger men.
Florida has concluded that men aged 18-39 should not receive covid mRNA vaccines. If this is a flawed recommendation because Florida botched the science, as a matter of consistency, the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Finland (and probably other countries) should also be scrutinized. Especially since their positions ("no healthy male or female under 50") is even more sweeping than Florida's.
This post (and the many comments) suggest Florida not only engaged in flawed science, but that they did so intentionally and fraudulently. This would be fine if Florida were the only place on the planet making this type of recommendation, but it isn't.
Links below:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/04/people-in-england-aged-49-and-younger-urged-to-get-free-covid-booster
https://www.thesuburban.com/news/city_news/denmark-halts-covid-vaccinations-for-low-risk-people-under-50/article_1e0264ec-dea3-59e0-bf3e-db59eee4378d.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/11gblo0/unvaccinated_in_sweden_under_50_no_longer/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/11/10/germany-france-restrict-modernas-covid-vaccine-for-under-30s-over-rare-heart-risk-despite-surging-cases/?sh=2e2187f22a8a
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-pauses-use-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-young-men-2021-10-07/
Your articles about Sweden and Denmark date from 2021 and are based on a misinterpretation of the actual study: https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.338Y47M
Denmark currently does not recommend vaccination for anyone under 50, but the reasons have nothing to do with the bogus claims of heart disease, viz. https://www.sst.dk/en/english/corona-eng/vaccination-against-covid-19 This is also true of the UK, where the recommendation is based on the fact that younger citizens are not at particularly high risk, especially if they have already been vaccinated.
You'd know that if you had actually read any of those articles. The article from The Guardian specifically says so. It looks like you trolled for some headlines that appeared to back you up but didn't bother to read any further.
The bottom line is that *nobody but Florida* is recommending against *all* COVID vaccination because of any alleged increased risk. In addition, there is the clearly documented fact in Dr. Jetelina's article that Florida has misrepresented and concealed data. Why you are so desperate to make excuses for them escapes me.
Not to split hairs, but I think it's more a case of the US doing the same thing as the European countries. And now that the US has put the primary series out to pasture, perhaps Florida's caution around Moderna and young men is less of an issue.
Here's the current status (in English) from Germany's Federal Ministry of Health. Look at the section "Which vaccine is recommend for what age group?" Spikevax (Moderna) is *currently* not recommended for anyone (male or female) under 30. So if we're going to criticize Florida, let's criticize every jurisdiction that's making similar health precautions.
If anybody wants to point fingers at Florida, this is a diversion.
https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/en/coronavirus/faq-covid-19-vaccination.html
You are, once again, misrepresenting what's in the article you are citing. Here's the actual text from the section you cited. It saying nothing about enhanced risks of heart disease for anyone under 30.
==========================================
Which vaccine is recommend for what age group?
The Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) recommends:
Comirnaty® for vaccine-eligible people over the age of 6 months (in a special pharmaceutical form with adjusted dosages for infants and children up to four years or children from five to eleven years old)
Spikevax for people aged 30 or over who may get vaccinated
COVID-19 Janssen vaccine (new name: Jcovden) for people aged 60 or over who may get vaccinated
Nuvaxovid for people aged 12 or over who may get vaccinated
Valneva for people between the ages of 18 and 50 who may get vaccinated
The vaccines adapted to Omicron are only authorised for the booster and should preferably be used for the booster in a formulation authorised for that respective age group.
==========================================
We are "pointing fingers" at Florida because they are making recommendations based on cherry-picked and misrepresented data about an alleged increased risk of heart issues for younger men. *Only Florida is doing that.*
As of October 2022, France still was not recommending Moderna to anyone under 30 due to possible heart risks. To the best of my knowledge, this cautionary advisory still stands.
So it’s not just Florida!
https://www.connexionfrance.com/article/French-news/Covid-19/RECAP-France-s-booster-campaign-with-new-Covid-vaccines-launches
Canada recommends Pfizer over Moderna for 18-29 year olds:
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/canadian-immunization-guide-part-4-active-vaccines/page-26-covid-19-vaccine.html#a5.3
Yes, some of the links were from 2021. That’s why I provided current 2023 link from Germany. It’s not clear to me that the health scares from 2021 were cleared up if Germany to this day still doesn’t recommend Moderna for under 30.
Many European countries appear to offer a wider selection of vaccines than just the mRNA, which makes it easier for them to recommend something else to younger people while sidestepping possible risks from mRNA. I’ve only checked 5 European countries, yet each one seems to offer more cautionary vaccine guidance than that of the US - why is that?
Denmark never recommended the bivalent booster to anyone under 50. Here’s another current link, this one from Denmark:
https://www.sst.dk/en/english/corona-eng/vaccination-against-covid-19
Germany's recommendations are not based on any "health scares." The article you posted makes this clear.
You keep asking why these countries are making specific recommendations, and yet you post articles that answer that very question —and not in the way you want them to.
This starts to look like the old "I'm just asking questions" dodge when what you're really doing is making a statement.
Agreed, thank you for the clarification. 👍
And murder, I suspect.
Why isn’t the AMA, national and/or state, revoking this fraud’s medical license?
Probably because he's a middling physician that once specialized in internal medicine. As a scientist his past performance suggests incompetence. In my profession he'd be classified as "knows enough to be dangerous" and would never be let near anything mission critical that required good operational judgement. His best talents are as a politician.
Thank you for this important detailed analysis calmly demonstrating what can only be called the corruption of a medical study for political purposes. This process is totally unacceptable and the authors of version 6 and the State Health Officer must be sanctioned by whatever professional bodies they belong to, including a lifetime ban from publishing medical literature and loss of license if any. In addition this documentation provides any young man in Florida who remained unvaccinated and caught a serious case of COVID-19 (especially with cardiac complications) good grounds for malpractice actions.
Oh FFS. it's the Hooker reanalysis data contortion to reach the desired conclusion all over again. Except this time it was done by a partisan government office wanting to pander to a political party that for some absurd reason adopted 'resistance to sensible public health measures that protect the citizenry' as a primary platform. If reporters aren't repeatedly peppering that governor with questions such as "Were you personally aware of the scientific data and reporting misconduct performed in your administration?", they aren't doing their jobs.
If this was an article, review, etc., in a journal this would be clear grounds for a retraction. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to exist in politically driven policy.
42 CFR Part 93
§ 93.103 Research misconduct.
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
(a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
(b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
(c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
(d) Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
We live in a post-truth society. An intentional delegitimization of science, factuality, and any knowledge claims in general. This intentional move is to suggest that everyone is self-interested; everyone is willing to twist information for their own ends; no previously authorities can be trusted. This is so cynical, so falsely "sophisticated" a mode of thought. The spurious Florida report is a win-win for its issuers. If people believe it- why that's all to the good. If it is debunked- why that's great too as it shows science can't be trusted. The ultimate goal is to render the populace bewildered and malleable. Malleable to whom? Demagogues and conspiracy theorists like those who infest right wing politics at this time. A sorry pass indeed. A coup against the Enlightenment.
Yup. Part of the same playbook used by the Nazis and the Soviets.
I truly hope that a media organization picks up your thoughtfully-written piece and shares it widely. I am appalled by this behavior; though as a Florida resident, nothing here surprises me anymore.
It stinks, badly. Heads should roll.
Congratulations on a thorough epidemiological review of a clearly results-oriented science-fiction article. I so miss integrity in the professions - I’m glad and grateful that you’ve retained yours.
This is such important information, but it's a double-edged sword. It shows how the unethically the science was manipulated for a desired outcome (which is wrong!) but it ALSO may confirm in some minds that "science" is unreliable...
This isn't about science being unreliable. It's about the politically motivated cherry-picking of data by people who are more interested in pushing an agenda than at learning the truth. It's no more science than social darwinism, Lamarkism, or Nazi eugenics.
It is shockingly creepy to see results pre-determined and then the data manipulated to fit that conclusion. Thankfully, we have smart people to analyze these reports!
This is how the manufacturers of Prevagen “proved” their supplement works for memory loss in “clinical trials.” Keep moving the goalposts, keep chopping up the data into different sets.
Despicable, and very profitable. I’m still asked on a regular basis “does Prevagen work? Didn’t they prove it works?”
No:
https://mccormickmd.substack.com/p/does-prevagen-really-work-for-memory
Yes, and, unfortunately, it is stuff like this that adds to people being wary of vaccines. My own son would not have gotten a booster if he didn't need it for college. He started looking into the various companies when trying to figure out which vaccine to get, and he said, "They have all done a lot of bad stuff."
Trillions 😳
But entirely on brand for the far right.
I saw parts of this study being picked apart by people, but not this thorough and succinct evaluation. They transferred the information into a guidance? So wrong. Everything that’s coming out of Florida lately is politically motivated and based on lies. Thanks YLE.
Great analysis thank you.
Did the authors of the final draft include any language describing whether the glove did indeed fit O.J.?
No, but I think the next version of it will blame it all on trans people, antifa, BLM, and "globalists" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
😜 had to learn the term “greenwashing” recently. Scary times all around
I don't 'appreciate' how some scientists and doctors follow politics rather than facts. I will ignore any study done in Florida.
I'd add, as someone who is careful about causal inference (see the Northwestern workshop that I run on Research Design for Causal Inference)that the design should have included a second control period, prior to vaccination. All the most so since results were sensitive to the choice of the treatment period.