Like antivaxxers, you have accused pro-vaccine advocates who criticize you of being "unconcerned" about vaccine safety—and unfairly and inaccurately, too.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @gorskon @noorchashm and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
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 -
Replying to @ENirenberg @gorskon and
You're back. Welcome back Ed. Let me give U a research project since David is not willing to read. Please go read Michael Oldstone's work from the Scripps and come back to us. Here U go:https://www.cell.com/fulltext/0092-8674(91)90165-U …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @noorchashm @gorskon and
I’ll consider reading it after you address the gaps in your hypothesis in light of the available evidence.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
I read the paper the last time he keep harping on it. It’s an transgenic mouse model whose relevance to Dr. N’s hypothesis is rather tenuous. Given actual specific models for #COVID19 or human evidence for his hypothesis, I’m not particularly impressed.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @ENirenberg and
David, actually it is the first of a wave of papers that demonstrated a basic cellular immunology principle. There are many more showing the same phenomenon. Look, rationality can prevail in Ur narrative. Some problems are not binary. Your PRO- ANTI- dichotomy is limited.
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.