It's always strange that if you quote a +ve vaccine NSE everybody except the antivaxxers agrees, but quote a -ve one and suddenly you're a cherry picker. I quoted only one good study & said "they MAY have a point". Flu vac NSEs in the presence of Covid are as yet undetermined!
-
-
Replying to @docdave53 @gorskon and
It’s not strange. It’s a question of data. Independent data shows preventing measles, for example, has positive general effects. On DTP, the evidence is from one group - and mostly based on a small, 30 year old dataset in a fast changing region.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I can't help you with your comprehension. I quoted one good study and said "They MAY have a point..." I say again that NSEs for flu vaccine in the presence of Covid remain undetermined. I have no problem with data - I have a problem with Gradgrinds on the subject of NSEs.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @docdave53 @gorskon and
You said an antivaccine organization trying to cast fear and doubt about flu vaccines has a point by citing an off topic study that is misrepresented. When corrected, you could have said “I didn’t realize that, this certainly doesn’t support what they’re trying to say.”
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @doritmi @docdave53 and
Instead, you’re trying to double down on casting fear and doubt on flu
#vaccines - against the available evidence. https://www.google.com/amp/s/vaxopedia.org/2020/10/18/association-between-covid-19-deaths-and-flu-vaccination-rates/amp/ … That is in line with what antivaccine groups do. If that’s not you, don’t do it.2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
1. You might want to have a look at my profile. I’m a pro-vaxxer for heaven’s sake. Nothing in medicine is 100%, and to see well done study showing 36% increase in CoVs from flu vac raises questions in respect to CoV19. BCG could be better idea & trials are pending. /2
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @docdave53 @doritmi and
"Provaxxers" in general don't Tweet antivaccine talking points credulously and then double down on the misinformation when shown why those talking points are BS. So you'll excuse me if I remain...skeptical...that you're really a "pro-vaxxer."
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @docdave53 and
You might tell yourself that you're a "provaxxer" in the same way that
@RobertKennedyJr proclaims himself "fiercely pro-vaccine," but your statements and behavior thus far since I first encountered you suggest otherwise.1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @docdave53 and
If you really are "provaccine," the best thing for you to do now would be to simply admit your error, acknowledge that you cited an antivaccine source, apologize for screwing up, and move on. Doubling down after correction suggests you might not be as provax as you keep claiming.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
What was my antivaccine source?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
OK, I'll do what I said you should do. I'll admit missing part of the thread. You didn't *directly* cite CHD, but you did RESPOND to CHD citing the study CHD misrepresented as though CHD's take on it were anything other than deceptive antivaccine nonsense. That's almost as bad.
-
-
David, I have kidney cancer and am looking to BCG vaccine for possible NSEs to help my immunity. I’m pro vax & feel quite insulted when people question my independent thought of which I pride myself. I’m suffering and looking to a vac for help. It’s you who should apologise!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @docdave53 @doritmi and
You credulously spread an antivaccine myth from an antivaccine source about
#COVID19 and then doubled down when corrected. You have no one to blame but yourself.0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.