MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4280559488 · doi:10.1101/2022.04.19.22274036

A Statistical Argument Against Vaccine Injury

2022· preprint· en· W4280559488 on OpenAlexaff
Jacques Balayla

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdverse effectVaccinationMedicineArgument (complex analysis)Actuarial scienceDemographyStatisticsMathematicsEconomicsInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Vaccine hesitancy is a major threat to public health. While the root causes of vaccine hesitancy are numerous, they largely revolve around some form of perceived risk to the self. In particular, the unknown long-term risks are amongst the most frequently cited concerns. In this work, we show that regardless of their peak onset following vaccination, the incidence of adverse outcomes will follow some distribution f ( x | µ, σ 2 ) of mean onset µ , and standard deviation σ , and variance σ 2 . Despite the small proportion of events at the tails of these distributions, the large-scale public deployment of vaccines would imply that any signal for a given adverse outcome would be observed soon after distribution begins, even in cases where t x < t µ− 3 σ . The absence of such an early signal, however low, would suggest that long term effects are unlikely and that vaccine safety is therefore likely. Indeed, when enough individuals have been exposed to a new therapy - even if the majority of adverse outcomes only manifest at a future time t µ , the number of adverse outcomes given by the cumulative density function (CDF) near t 0 + dt > 0. Otherwise stated: We evoke the theory behind normal (Gaussian) and skew-normal distributions and use Chebyshev’s Theorem to evaluate the COVID-19 vaccine data as an example. The findings of this study are not vaccine-specific and can be applied to assess the health effects of the mass distribution of any good, treatment or policy at large.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.164
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.164
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.013
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.186
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies→French-language works237,207→