I'm breaking down this article critiquing NSW Health's handling of COVID-19 vaccine data and narratives. I'm looking at claims about vaccine efficacy, safety, and possible manipulations, staying neutral without prioritizing mainstream views over alternative ones.
The piece holds up internally really well—it logically links supposed tricks like lumping data together and delaying how they classify vaccination status to the weird gaps in hospitalization rates between vaxxed and unvaxxed folks.
To check these ideas on COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy—like whether unvaccinated hospitalizations got puffed up or if vaccines actually caused more cases—we could have independent folks audit the raw data from NSW Health's records. They'd re-crunch the numbers, splitting out "unknown" from true zero-dose groups and counting people as vaccinated right after their shot. We could also compare with places using similar mRNA vaccines, like other Aussie states or global data sets, to verify excess deaths after shots and side effects. Track long-term results with randomized groups, using stats to adjust for stuff like age, health issues, and exposure.
But lots could block these tests. In academia and regs, Big Pharma cash might make people shy away from questioning vaccine mandates or mRNA side effects, to keep grants flowing. Those revolving doors between agencies and companies like Pfizer or Moderna? They breed bias, pushing pro-vaccine stories over anti-vax questions to protect jobs. Peer review often shuts down "fringe" ideas on vaccine harms with gatekeeping or career hits. Plus, media and policy hype during pandemics ramps up misinformation fears, scaring off deep dives into data fiddling or vaccination-linked excess mortality.
