The CDC has released a vaccine safety study that, among other things, does not link vaccines to an increased risk of contracting coronavirus.
But it’s a study that’s been repeatedly criticized by the antivaccine movement, who argue that it’s just as dangerous as the one done by the CDC.
The antivaccinationists, for their part, argue that the CDC has gone way too far and should stop issuing the study at all.
They say it’s biased and that the study is misleading.
The CDC said in a statement that it would not be releasing a study with an unfavorable result because the study was done on vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, and because the CDC does not conduct randomized controlled trials, which allow us to test a vaccine’s effectiveness.
Here’s what you need to know about the study.
What does the study show?
The CDC’s vaccine safety research study has found that vaccinated people who received a flu shot between October and December of last year had a lower risk of catching coronaviruses, including the coronaviral coronavillosis coronavax coronavacavirus (CCV) strain, than people who had not received the flu shot.
However, the researchers did not look at those vaccinated individuals who had been hospitalized.
“We know that the increased risk from hospitalization is not due to the vaccine,” the CDC study concluded.
The researchers did say that the vaccine had not been shown to decrease the risk of COVID-19 infection.
Why does the CDC think that vaccinated individuals are at higher risk of becoming infected with coronavivirus?
The researchers used the term “risk” to describe a vaccine response.
In other words, the vaccine would have increased the risk, but not decreased it, if the vaccinated people had been exposed to a higher risk for the virus.
In the case of the CDC’s study, the authors said that, because the vaccine was given to people who were already infected with COVID, the risk was already high.
They concluded that the researchers should not use the term risk.
The study is also being criticized for using an incomplete list of vaccinated people, because they were not vaccinated at all and so their health status and history was not considered.
What happens next?
The study authors have said that they plan to publish their findings in a peer-reviewed journal.
The journal, the Cochrane Collaboration, will then weigh in.
The review is expected to take about a year to complete.
The Cochrane review group is made up of experts who have reviewed more than 300 studies of vaccines.
The reviewers of the study have not yet agreed on how the results should be presented.
“I don’t think there is a way that you can do a definitive review of the evidence,” said Dr. Stephen D. Smith, an infectious disease specialist at Harvard Medical School, in an interview with NPR.
“It would have to be done by a third party.
If it’s done by that third party, then the review will be a very different review.”
What do the antivacare crowd think?
The antivacody crowd is calling for the CDC to withdraw the study from the Cochrotra review, which is expected soon.
“There is absolutely no scientific basis for this study,” said Matthew Hultquist, an associate professor of infectious diseases at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Hultenberg is an outspoken antivaccinate advocate.
“They’re putting the cart before the horse.
They’re taking a position that we don’t agree with,” he said.
The National Vaccine Information Center, which has been critical of the Cochran review, also weighed in on the study’s findings, saying in a tweet that “CDC’s conclusion that vaccination is not a significant risk factor for COVID has been disproven by more than 200 peer-review publications” and that “the CDC has no business conducting clinical trials.”
Hulters also said that the Cochrutra review had “done a disservice to vaccine skeptics.”
What other studies are out there?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is releasing another study on the link between vaccines and COVID.
This study found that the risk from coronavovirus infection is not associated with vaccines.
However it does suggest that the virus could be spread by contact with surfaces that are contaminated with a variety of bacteria.