"That’s merely someone’s letter to the editor ‘interpretation’ (ie. biased *** opinion) of an original study showing “Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus..”"
That someone is the author of the study you quoted. It's G. Wolff telling you to stop abusing his study. Which study? This one! The one you linked.
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X19313647
That's the one you quote as proof that you're more likely to get corona virus if you take a flu shot. And in his rebuttal he tells you you can't make those claims from his work."And you don’t even mention the other supportive evidence showing similar results;"
Rubbish.
Your link [1] starts like this:Rapid Response:
Flu shots and the risk of coronavirus infections
Important editorial notice for readers: This is a rapid response (online comment by a third party) and not an article in The BMJ. It is attributed in a misleading way on certain websites and social media. The Editor, 30/09/2020.
Not work reading then is it. But I did and it's 3 paragraphs quoting something or something else out of context.
Your link [2] is what I made this comment about:
"The study looking at increased risk of non-influenza infection due to TIV was tiny with only 115 participants and a smaller number of infections. They report a headline risk ratio of 4.4 (1.31-14.8) but when they added a couple of confirmed but unreported infections the risk ratio changed to 3.46 (1.19-10.1) getting even closer to no statistical significance. And seeing as you reckon PCR testing is faulty you should disregard this study totally as that is what they used to confirm and classify the various viral infections."
Your link [4] is a link to someone called Doctor Murray website - nothing specific - who seems to think the same as you and operates like you misquoting and misunderstanding medical reports - no doubt he's anti-vax as well.
Your link [5] is to that most respected science journal the gateway pundit. Enough said.
Given that you couldn't even recognise that I responded to you by commenting on the supporting links posted in your own link to childrens defence org. it has become extremely clear that you don't read or understand most of what you post here and you really should stop posting your misleading information and outright lies.
