It is not the "assumption of causation", I am attempting to stimulate in folks like you - it is the "dedication to hyper-vigilance" in perilous waters U need to acquire, Dr. Gorski! But U R too overconfident, binary and intellectually lazy in your medical utilitarianism.
-
-
Replying to @noorchashm @LouKellett and
No, Dr. N, it is EXACTLY the assumption of causation that you are promoting, just as antivaxxers do; only you are too wedded to your idée fixe and ignorant of what antivaxxers do to realize that's what you're doing. (No more Mr. Nice Guy in the face of your continued insults.)
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @noorchashm and
Seriously, one major reason I can't take you seriously any more is that you keep repeating antivaccine talking points and using antivaccine techniques and strategies to promote your idée fixe. At first I thought it was unintentionally, but now I'm not so sure.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @noorchashm and
I and several others who have long studied the antivaccine movement have repeatedly tried to educate you about antivaxxers and their techniques of misinformation that you were using. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a long time, but You can no longer claim ignorance.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @noorchashm and
You've been informed of the techniques and tropes that antivaxxers use to spread their narrative and how you were using the same sorts of techniques and tropes, but you continue to use them.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @noorchashm and
The worst example is your continued use of anecdotes to support your idée fixe, just like antivaxxers do. It's almost as though you've been scouring Twitter and the news looking for such anecdotes to point to and blame vaccinating the previously infected for.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @noorchashm and
That's not all, though. Like antivaxxers, you attack your critics as arrogant close-minded zealots who can't even consider the possibility that you might be right and
#CovidVaccine might be dangerous in the previously infected.2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @LouKellett and
Sorry I don't into your classical narrative of anti-vaxX. I think U ought to try and understand the nuance in my argument. U might find that I am more of friend to public health than you are trying to contort.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @noorchashm @LouKellett and
There is no nuance in your argument. I've looked. You have one idea, and it doesn't change or adapt to evidence. You haven't responded to
@ENirenberg or my citation of the evidence that leads us to believe your idea has low scientific probability. Instead you just double down.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @LouKellett and
Yes. My "hypothesis" is quite specific and directed. And I am laser focused on it. We should not be indiscriminately vaccinating the infected.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Exactly! There's no nuance at all in your thinking!
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @LouKellett and
I'll broaden it for you. Any tissues that might be harboring SARS-CoV-2 viral antigens in the the infected will be targeted by the vaccine immune response. This is hypothesis predicated on basic Immunological science. Why U do not get this as an MD/PhD is beyond me.
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.