CDC pushes ‘poor quality science’ with latest COVID vaccine study

A leading epidemiologist has expressed concern about a new study published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) claiming there is an increased risk of post-COVID-19 disease in children and adolescents who seek medical care.

In the CDC’s Aug. 5 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), researchers say children ages 17 and younger with previous bouts of COVID-19 are more likely to have unusual conditions, such as myocarditis, cardiomyopathy, kidney failure, type 1 diabetes, and other conditions. The study cited specific disease codes between March 2020 and January 2022.

In conclusion, the agency said all children, even 6-month-olds, should receive COVID-19 vaccines.

“COVID-19 prevention strategies, including immunizations for all eligible individuals ≥ 6 months of age, are critical to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent illness and to reduce the impact of post-COVID symptoms and conditions on public health in individuals aged 0-17 years,” wrote the CDC.

But University of California, San Francisco epidemiologist Vinay Prasad, who has often criticized the CDC and other federal health agencies for their studies during the COVID-19 epidemic, argued CDC researchers urge ‘garbage’ and ‘publishing poor-quality science in MMWR’

“It doesn’t help the vaccine decision,” he concluded on his Substack page last week. “The paper provides no evidence that vaccination would have prevented these outcomes, but worse, where is the evidence that vaccination reduces the risk of these outcomes for a parent making that decision TOMORROW, where a probability of over 90 percent is his child already had COVID?”

“Unconvincing”

“But more importantly, the paper is unconvincing. It’s garbage,” Prasad said. “I still don’t know if a child who had asymptomatic COVID, mild COVID, or severe COVID is at greater risk than if they didn’t have COVID or had a milder version of COVID. I’m interested in it for biological and scientific reasons, but not so much for political reasons, I find.

“If the authors cared about this question, they would have to reconsider the entire study. I think they would want to use seroprevalence to build a cohort and carefully stratify people by disease severity and work from there. It would actually take work, not just messing around with a claims record.”

The CDC’s study, he added, does not separate children who were “sick enough to see a health care provider for COVID” from children who went to a health care provider for reasons other than COVID-19 and “had a resident physician.” where this was the case. The advice was easy.”

“They don’t look at vaccination status, leading to the fact that … claims that vaccines can prevent whatever they find, or that this study shows why childhood vaccines are needed, are unjustified,” Prasad wrote. “The authors could have looked at this explicitly, but decided against it.”

Prasad further argued that CDC researchers did not examine the child’s immunization status and “picked out a huge garbage list of ICD codes that could be possible[y] be linked [COVID].”

“COVID may bring in children who are not in regular care,” the epidemiologist added. “Imagine this: both groups of children have other medical problems equally, but the ‘COVID’ group has more children where COVID is bringing them to the problems [doctor] for the first time (at least in a while), leading to the diagnosis of other issues.”

“Control children come for many visits and other issues are already coded into the system. A positive COVID test does not “cause” the other problems, but is the event that prompts labor in someone who has not been seen [over] 365 days.”

And the unexplained finding that COVID-positive children are less likely to have mental illness, sleep disorders and anxiety suggests that the CDC researchers are “comparing apples and oranges all the time,” Prasad said. “Probably hers [expletive] Methods compare children who are sick with COVID and go to the doctor with children suffering from school closures, disruption to normal social life and all the other terrible restrictions imposed on children.

The Epoch Times has reached out to the CDC for comment.

consequences

Jack Phillips is a breaking news reporter at The Epoch Times, based in New York.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.