38 Comments

The question should be why did a journal publish such flawed research? Did anyone review this work?

Expand full comment

It was "pal reviewed."

Expand full comment

🤣👍

Expand full comment

Vaccinated and 91. Wish I could do a double like for this post. Dr Prasad is so good at exposing nonsense use of data.

Expand full comment

So are you still driving? 🙄🤔

Expand full comment

Yes ,very carefully and at the speed limit. Wherever I go I have a following of drivers who want to speed.

Expand full comment

Various factors are at play here in your scenario…not necessarily related to Vaxx/Un-vaxxed status…Age of the drivers…the majority of all drivers under 60 or so (I have I observed) drive fast, do not observe speed limits, do not even understand basic ‘rules of the road’ regarding when and how to lawfully change lanes and other various traffic laws that one is tested for when one is granted a license to drive! And now that they have received the EUA mRNA ‘inoculations’ are even more ‘brain dead’ IMHO, about how to drive safely, without endangering others on the road! This is especially apparent in major metropolitan areas across the country! I know it is in mine!

Expand full comment
founding

The real takeaway here should be that the AJM should be laughed off of the roster of referenceable journals. Any journal with so little editorial judgement as to publish this pile of really stinking garbage (it is way worse than Vinay [who is always too kind] points out) does not deserve to be able to anoint a paper as being referenceable. Further, whoever reviewed this (if anyone) should never review a paper again.

I review lots of papers. This would have gone straight into the "Reject" pile -- not even the "Major revision with resubmission" pile. There is just no there, there. This is a clear demonstration that figures lie and liars figure.

Scary this is published and scary that anyone would give it any attention/credence.

Expand full comment

I can't "like" this comment enough. Scary is the right word to describe this. I'm really scared of the direction some of these major medical and psycholoy journals are headed.

Expand full comment

Just when I think I can’t possibly read anything stupider. Idiots never fail to come up with something even more ridiculous. The supply of stupid is bottomless.

Expand full comment

Actually, there are many potential “vaccidents” that have occurred from “medical emergencies “ likely caused by sudden heart attacks and/or death that could be linked to vaccination . It is now widely known and accepted that the Covid shots are causing myocarditis and other heart problems. These shots are not safe nor effective .

Expand full comment

I partially wonder… Like many other ridiculous articles… That because there have been so many MORE “accidents” randomly that happen with an adult at the wheel of a vehicle… Heart attacks, seizures, etc. hence creating an accident… That this is yet another way to deter the attention from this increasing phenomenon… Trying to focus on vehicle accidents and attempt to take it a 180° to skew the attention on it all....

Expand full comment
founding

The conclusion is absolutely priceless:

"These data suggest that COVID vaccine hesitancy is associated with significant increased risks of a traffic crash. An awareness of these risks might help to encourage more COVID vaccination."

How's this, an awareness of causality might help to encourage better research.

Expand full comment

it’s interesting that they can find US data for vaxxed vs unvaxxed in car accidents, but not for population level mortality/all cause death (and not with this “vaxxed”-only-14-days-post-final-dose nonsense).

Expand full comment

Sorry, obviously this is Canadian data, not US, but the premise holds, i.e., “Why aren’t there more studies showing outcome differences between Vaxxed and Unvaxxed, ceteris paribus?

Expand full comment

I first read about this study a few days ago, I thought someone has written a parody paper. But no, it's real.

These two threads eviscerate the paper, way more than Vinay has here.

https://twitter.com/ClareCraigPath/status/1602650802186772481 b

https://twitter.com/FamedCelebrity/status/1602792547381702656

Expand full comment

Just when you think "the science" couldn't get any worse!! Fortunately the insurance companies are also aware of the payout they are experiencing due to young guys expiring.

Expand full comment

Yet another pathetic attempt to further stigmatize people who are dubious about untested medicines being forced on them by those in power.

Expand full comment

how dose this garbage even get past the editors to review? How do reviewers recommend it be accepted?

Expand full comment

I keep thinking they can't sink any lower, but alas...

Expand full comment

Well my ‘study’ about this issue of unvaxxed vs. vaxxed drivers is strictly ‘observational’ in it’s nature.

I live in Metro San Diego where there are a lot of cars (with drivers) on the freeways and surface streets. Since I am in a major City in CA where people continue to ‘mask up’ and the Covid Jab & Booster ‘campaign’ to get said ‘shots’ has been relentless since they were rolled out in early 2021, I have assumed with relative certainty, that there are far more people who got these ‘shots’ than did not, who are also driving. So this means there are far more likely Vaxxed and Booster’ed drivers on the freeways and surface streets than ‘unvaxxed’ drivers.

Over this past year I have seen all manner of ‘vaxxidents’ that left me wondering what the hell happened here. In the past two months I have been in intersections where drivers have mistaken an oncoming traffic lane for a left hand turn lane and we’re driving on the wrong side of a two way oncoming traffic street. This just happened to me this past Sunday in downtown San Diego! If I had not been an ‘unvaxxed’ driver driving slowly as I turned from a one way street onto a two way street, I would I have been struck by a vehicle who was going the wrong way on said two way street!

I have witnessed very bizarre driving on the freeways as well. Driving that was hazardous to other cars and myself had I not been paying attention while driving. Is this pure coincidence now that there are more bad drivers now? I think not. It is commensurate with the amount of vaxxed drivers (of all ages) who are now back on the roads driving.

Isn’t one of the known ‘side effects’ of these EUA mRNA vaxxines ‘brain fog’?

Expand full comment

I have noticed a clear increase in angry reckless driving. For example, ramming the car in front when the freeway is at a complete stop, tailgating during high traffic. My town was full of friendly drivers before the pandemic, now that’s changed. Why? I’m not sure, but something is impacting peoples anger and judgement.

Expand full comment

This study is hilarious. Of note, the risk is higher for 65+ vaccinated compared to unvaccinated. The risk is higher for unvaccinated driver's yes, but also for unvaccinated passengers and pedestrians. So, somehow being an unvaccinated pedestrian is more risky than being a vaccinated pedestrian when it comes to vehicle accidents. So, not just driving, but also vaccination helps protect you from automobile accidents while walking. The risk increases the later in the day it is, with the risk at night 66% higher than in the morning. So the vaccination reduces risk more at night than during the day...............absolutely crazy that the AJM published this Canadian laughingstock.

Expand full comment

This is right up there with 'eating ice cream causes polio'. To paraprase a childrens movie, "are you sure you are using the word causation correctly ? I do not think you know what that word means"

Expand full comment

If you take two groups of 1,000 sheep, one of which lives in a barn all year around, is fed a balanced diet, and given all medical care and jabs, and the other which lives semi-wild on a Scottish mountain, then there may be different mortality rates. That is true.

So what?

I'd always take the mountain life and not the shed.

Expand full comment

I don't understand how these authors can't see how frankly dangerous their conclusions are.

I have a hunch that studies might be able to find that, for instance, that women who have had abortions are at greater risk of various poor outcomes than women who of have not. This would, obviously, not be a reflection of the risks of abortion, but of the greater likelihood that women who have sought out an abortion are in poor economic circumstances, engaged in risky behaviors, etc than women who have not.

Would it be OK to take account of this in insurance assessments? I strongly suspect these authors do not think so. This is only because one group fits their preferred political profile, and the other does not.

Expand full comment