It’s not true and it’s not how pharmacovigilance works.
-
-
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 -
Honestly, it seems to have *enough* plausibility that I'd like to see someone convince the experts to do that sub-analysis. Someone other than Dr.N, preferably, who can make it seem like a reasonable concern and not an idee fixe.
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @JDCBurnhil @doritmi and
Go for it Professors Gorski and Reiss....Call on
@DrWoodcockFDA@US_FDA@Pfizer to do the subset analysis with urgency. Your ad hominem attacks on my position have been unwarranted. The vaccine is critical to public health - but that doesn't obviate the need for risk mitigation.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @noorchashm @JDCBurnhil and
“Hey, you pro lifers, morons, people who don’t care about safety, let’s unite!” Sorry, doesn’t work. You gave us no reason to trust your judgment, and Dr. Gorskon pointed to why your view is problematic. And claiming ad hominem attacks at this point is.... strange.
3 replies 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @doritmi @JDCBurnhil and
I think what is problematic is our contemporary American incapacity to be balanced. Efficacy and safety must be balanced well - especially in emergencies. Consider this: fast forward and my concern is material. Do you know how much credibility U'd lose? Reason shld prevail!
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Consider this: Fast forward, and your concern is demonstrated conclusively to be immaterial (that is, if you can even conceive of that possibility). Antivaxxers will continue to run with it and claim that it is being "covered up" because you let RFK Jr. co-opt your message.
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.