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".
-
-
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 -
Replying to @notdred @noorchashm and
Thanks. That’s what I thought. But I assumed he wasn’t just making it up.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @JHowardBrainMD @notdred and
If you look at the ACIP meeting, they have, for one example, a slide about all deaths after vaccines in longterm care facilities amd go over whether that’s a safety signal. No deaths - or other serious events - are ignored. But they may conclude they’re not vaccine related.
3 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @doritmi @JHowardBrainMD and
I think what he means is “we need to do a separate analysis just of people that had COVID before to see if there’s more risk, and that separate analysis has not been done.” That might be right (that not done).
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @doritmi @JHowardBrainMD and
Except that there’s no biological reason to do it. May as well invent any possible issue he wants and then complain that the FDA isn’t analyzing it. It just doesn’t make sense.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @notdred @JHowardBrainMD and
I have to say thang whether that is a plausible thing to look at is outside my lane, and I’m going to leave it to you experts. Dr. N is welcome to try and convince the experts to do that sub analysis.
6 replies 0 retweets 7 likes
It is not plausible from a basic science standpoint, as Dr. Noorchashm has relied on older (last April is old in a pandemic!) science that has since been shown to have been invalid, as I discussed here.https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/02/05/dr-hooman-noorchashm-and-screenb4vaccine-revisited/ …
-
-
Exactly. And indulging these improbable analyses just means we’re more likely to find a false association that they can then dunk on.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
David suggestion: try to make your writings more crisp and to the point. Verbal diarrhea loses your focus and doesn't draw and audience. Keep it short and crisp. U have promise as a physician writer.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
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.