I'm not overly critical on RootClaim's efforts, because unlike many people on the pro-vaccine side, they've made an attempt to present an argument. And on first pass, it does seem convincing, however they're relying on the credibility of the institutes they are quoting.
I don't hold them responsible for the failures of the peer reviewed paper, for example, because the publishing journal was the one that let it through. RootClaim likely assumed due diligence had been performed and quoted the conclusion. Many people who wade into the vaccine harms debate make this assumption, and it isn't unreasonable to make.
However I've been involved in the debates for a good decade now, and I'm quite familiar with a lot of the underhanded tricks deployed in peer reviewed papers, and you have to examine them carefully to find the 'gotcha'.
The most common one is circular referencing where the so-called "placebo" isn't a scientific placebo (such as saline), but 'some other vaccine with active ingredients that has already been 'approved' (with a weird assumption that approval means placebo?).
The other is vaccine make/model lumping, where they lump all types of vaccines - even same categories - into a large pot which drowns out the safety signal. Even vaccines for, say, the same virus can have different ingredients, and should not be lumped together.
It'd be like using a Ford Pinto as a "placebo" in a car safety test and reporting your car 'did not blow up more often than the placebo', which doesn't really say anything. Or lumping the Ford Pinto with all other cars and declaring that cars 'did not blow up that regularly on average therefore all cars - including the Ford Pinto - are safe'.
I'm not overly critical on RootClaim's efforts, because unlike many people on the pro-vaccine side, they've made an attempt to present an argument. And on first pass, it does seem convincing, however they're relying on the credibility of the institutes they are quoting.
I don't hold them responsible for the failures of the peer reviewed paper, for example, because the publishing journal was the one that let it through. RootClaim likely assumed due diligence had been performed and quoted the conclusion. Many people who wade into the vaccine harms debate make this assumption, and it isn't unreasonable to make.
However I've been involved in the debates for a good decade now, and I'm quite familiar with a lot of the underhanded tricks deployed in peer reviewed papers, and you have to examine them carefully to find the 'gotcha'.
The most common one is circular referencing where the so-called "placebo" isn't a scientific placebo (such as saline), but 'some other vaccine with active ingredients that has already been 'approved' (with a weird assumption that approval means placebo?).
The other is vaccine make/model lumping, where they lump all types of vaccines - even same categories - into a large pot which drowns out the safety signal. Even vaccines for, say, the same virus can have different ingredients, and should not be lumped together.
It'd be like using a Ford Pinto as a "placebo" in a car safety test and reporting your car 'did not blow up more often than the placebo', which doesn't really say anything. Or lumping the Ford Pinto with all other cars and declaring that cars 'did not blow up that regularly on average therefore all cars - including the Ford Pinto - are safe'.