"Sadly we had to take the vax injured data out to get this through peer review."

Nothing we didn't know...but breathtaking to see it described so explicitly.

An anaesthesiologist who tweets by the name dryostradamus had some interesting things to say this week.

On Wednesday evening (assuming he’s in the USA) he said:

Note the “there’s no fucking way long covid is caused by the vaccine”.

But after a few pointed questions asking why he was talking about getting a “pure vaccine group” from the sample of a study he was involved in, he moves (in less than a day) to:

“We had to take the vax injured out of the paper to get it through peer review”

Here’s the mention of the final peer-reviewed version:

You can find the preprint here and the peer-revierwed version in Nature here.

Now, whilst I think his reasoning by which he semantically distinguishes “long covid” (which I don’t think exists as a distinct entity in the unvaccinated) from “long vax” is plainly ridiculous, and the AI-driven cytokine analysis technique described in his paper is an example of an over-hyped technology seeking a use, I did find his comments about journals and peer review notable.

Later, he fleshed out how it works:

By the way, I previously wrote about peer-review: