- But they didn't account for the treatment for Covid as being a possible cause for the difference.
- Nor - conveniently? - is there mention of vaxinated vs non-vaxinated. Boosted vs non.
- The final check would be those who knew they had Covid vs those who were asymptomatic. Stress is a powerful force. Those aware of having Covid may have stressed more, which is known to effect the immune system, weight gain, etc.
It reports the correlations found - those that had a COVID diagnosis (with no prior diabetes indicated) had a greater chance of developing diabetes.
It doesn't report that those vaccinated (with no prior diabetes indicated) had a greater chance of developing diabetes NOR does it report a great many other potential relationships.
The probable reason for that lack of reporting is the absence of pattern being present in the data ... it's reasonable to assume that multiple correlations across fields in the EHRs were run (including against vaccination status).
If you suspect a vaccination effect you can always look to Australian health studies - the country has decades of world class near total population records for the entire country and had a near total COVID vaccination program with multiple doses.
Any effects would clearly show up in the before and after M&M stats of 25 million people.
So another "scientific study" with too little actual science? How does this build trust?
* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7993
Here's a nice lady: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Stanley a noted epidemiologist who has demonstrated the need for folic acid in childhood development.
Perhaps start with some first year college texts on ANOVA applications in medicine and agriculture?
There's a lot implied in this study. There's some great correlation. But it's not thorough. It missed key questions (already listed) to the point of being misleading.
It's the ethical equivalent of cherry-picking data to find something you wanted to find. That's science? I think not.
That was your claim. What is your evidence for this? Did you read the actual paper cited in the article.
> It's the ethical equivalent of cherry-picking data to find something you wanted to find.
They reported what was there.
Are you suggesting they didn't run a multi variate regression against vaccination status?
> That's science? I think not.
Could you remind me when you first ran any regressions on medical data for a cohort of several thousand or more?
In the interestes of transparency I first did that in the mid 1980s .. although admittedly I continued in the direction of exploration geospatial statistical applications as part of geophysics.