He’s cherry picking, for sure.
-
-
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!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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
2. I wasn’t supporting an antivax organisation & it’s at the very least disingenuous of you to so accuse me.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @docdave53 @doritmi and
You cited and therefore amplified the message of
@ChildrensHD, which is@RobertKennedyJr's antivaccine organization. That is indisputable.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @docdave53 and
Seriously, if you really are provax, then the wisest (and least damaging thing to your reputation) to do is to acknowledge that you cited an antivaccine source, apologize, and move on. Your doubling down leads to the impression that you are perhaps not as provax as you claim.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
Or, to clarify in this case, that you responded to an antivaccine source citing the study that that antivaccine source misrepresented as though the antivaccine source's take on that study were not deceptive, distorted, and incorrect.
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.