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.
-
-
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 @noorchashm and
Like antivaxxers, you have insinuated that provaccine advocates are basically fascists who want to round up antivaxxers and the vaccine hesitant and forcibly vaccinate them.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @noorchashm and
Like antivaxxers, you have invoked the "too many too soon" trope (a trope for which there was no evidence) in which you suggested that too many vaccines at a young age can cause inflammatory and autoimmune conditions.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @noorchashm and
Like antivaxxers, you have accused pro-vaccine advocates who criticize you of being "unconcerned" about vaccine safety—and unfairly and inaccurately, too.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @LouKellett and
U are pretty darned unconcerned about vaccinating people who are already infected with SARS-CoV-2, because it is your prejudice that they are not at risk. Ur prejudice goes in the face of immunological basic science and SOC in medicine. We do NOT immunize the actively infected.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @noorchashm @LouKellett and
You are pretty all fired concerned about vaccinating those already infected because it is your prejudice that they ARE at horrible risk. (See how that works?) And, no, it does NOT go against the standard of care, as we've explained to you many times.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @LouKellett and
Yes. I do believe that it is potentially dangerous to vaccinate the infected - esp those who are elderly and frail with CV disease. I am not sure how else to state this for it to sink in 4 U. The hypothesis is based on the principles of cellular immunology and autoimmunity.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @noorchashm @LouKellett and
But, interestingly, no evidence. Your entire hypothesis rests on the assumption that SARS-CoV-2 infects vascular endothelial cells and that viral proteins there can be the target of an immune response from the vaccine.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Here's the problem. As Ed and I explained, the latest data don't support the basis of your idea because it turns out that SARS-CoV-2 appears not to infect vascular endothelial cells. You ignore that and don't even engage that data. Instead you keep repeating your mantra.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @LouKellett and
Ed the undergrad? Ok. Let me ask you this...Where do U think the thromboembolic complications associated with COVID-19 come from? Clotting at the vascular endothelium, No Professor?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @noorchashm @gorskon and
1) I’m no longer an undergrad 2) the fact that you point to my education instead of addressing the points which I have supported with evidence is the definition of an ad hominem fallacy 3) you have addressed none of the issues with your hypothesis which is telling
1 reply 0 retweets 6 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.