[michaelrpeskin]

Yeah, I only read the abstract and looked at the plots, but this is what I hate about public health papers:

They say the prevalence of virus is down. They don't say that the cancer rate is down (granted too early to tell), nor do they talk about any adverse events or all cause mortality differences (again, probably too early to tell)

The only thing they can conclude is that the treatment given to stop the virus, stops the virus. But they don't mention any tradeoffs.

Not trying to be an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist, but good science needs to talk about the whole picture.

[okaram]

This is one research paper reporting on particular results.

It is DEFINITELY not too early to tell. Cervical cancer rates in Australia, which adopted the vaccine widely and early have decreased, and it has been widely reported ( https://www.canceraustralia.gov.au/cancer-types/cervical-can... )

[gizmo686]

Research papers are not literature reviews. This paper reports on the results of this study. And that study only investigated what it investigated.

In the case of public health, there are a bunch of organizations that keep on top of the research and maintain a more comprehensive view of their perception of the current consensus.

For day to day guidance, individuals should be referring to either those sources, or healthcare professionals.

If people are looking at individual studies like this to make decisions, something has gone very wrong.

[wat10000]

You can’t talk about the whole picture unless you have all the parts. There’s no reason all of those parts have to come from the same study.

The first thing on your list of complaints is something that by your own admission cannot yet be determined. If you’re not trying to be an anti-vaxxer, you’re doing a bad job of it.