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....
-
-
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 -
Replying to @doritmi @JHowardBrainMD and
Problem is that it’s just inventing something for the FDA to chase their tails over. Then anti-vaxxers can say “why aren’t they looking at this??” It’s just bad faith all the way down.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
Yup. And if the FDA does look at it urgently, antivaxxers will find something else. It's a page from the same playbook they've been doing for years, and Dr. N is, unknowingly I believe, contributing to that.
-
-
I'm sure you are right about science deniers. They think pigs fly too. But, as it pertains to the immunological concern I've raised,
@US_FDA@pfizer@CDCDirector MUST adjudicate the risk I've flagged and rule it out urgently. I'd love nothing more than to be wrong about this.0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.