You ignore the evidence of tens of millions of doses of #CovidVaccine administered without a safety signal predicted by your hypothesis. Instead, you keep robotically repeating #ScreenB4Vaccine and how that’s based on your “immunological prognostication.”
-
-
David, again. If COVID-19 disease/death and thromboembolic events days after vaccination are not classified as “vaccine related”, a signal won’t be “seen”. If U do not look, U do not see. What of that don’t u get? Believe me, I’d love to C my prognostication not bear out.
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @noorchashm @doritmi and
Baseline rates, man. If such events occur in the vaccinated at a detectably higher rate than the expected baseline rate, then THAT’S a safety signal, regardless of how the deaths are ruled. After tens of millions of doses, they haven’t. Do you not understand basic epidemiology?
3 replies 2 retweets 13 likes -
You’re wrong about this Dave signals get blunted by noise and by professionals not looking and by system momentum. If u take two seconds to study the hazard that killed my wife u’d understand. That signal was blunted and ignored for over 20 yrs. Pls get a clue. Nuance! Ativan!
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @noorchashm @doritmi and
As sorry as we all are about your wife, there are huge differences here. First, the numbers involved are orders of magnitude larger over a much shorter period of time. Second, there is unprecedented attention being paid to safety monitoring. It’s a VERY different situation.
5 replies 2 retweets 13 likes -
1/2: David, real public health signals get blunted and R subject to noise based on the their frequency and based on the way public health experts classify the variables. COVID Disease/Deaths and thromboembolic events after vaccine are not considered "vaccine related".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @noorchashm @gorskon and
The sad irony, if you had made this claim - that our vaccine surveillance systems were not adequately tracking instances of such adverse events - a week earlier, I might have thought "gosh, maybe he's right, maybe that obvious thing got overlooked." But after a week....
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @JDCBurnhil @gorskon and
The surveillance system is quite robust. U R right. The issue is that Post-vaccine COVID disease/deaths and thromboembolic events are excluded as being vaccine related and dropped. They will not be detected or acted on urgently...until possibly later. Much later.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @noorchashm @JDCBurnhil and
I don’t know if this is true or not. But maybe a more reasonable idea would be to suggest dvts and PEs get included in the surveillance system. It may not be your intention, but you come across, at least to prominent antivaxxers, as someone trying to spread fear and doubt.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @JHowardBrainMD @noorchashm and
It’s not true and it’s not how pharmacovigilance works.
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes
Indeed. Pharmacovigilance looks for ALL serious adverse events after a drug or vaccine.
-
-
For clarity, Pharmacovigalence looks at all serious and none serious adverse events during and post-approval or a drug
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jagmistereus @gorskon and
Yes. And devices too. Except analyses miss signals present in the raw data.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 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.