Dr. Armat clearly doesn't understand how VAERS works or how in fact, in actuality, the number of reports of those adverse events is actually lower than what we would expect from random chance alone. Here, I'll teach him. https://twitter.com/RayArmat/status/1366404092021665794 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
The bottom line is that VAERS is not a good argument in favor of
@noorchashm's hypothesis. If anything, VAERS reports have been far less numerous than one would expect if there were zero relationship between#COVID19Vaccine and cardiovascular events.https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/02/17/misuse-of-the-vaers-database-by-antivaxxers-continues-cardiac-edition/ …3 replies 5 retweets 38 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @gorskon @noorchashm
The good news, at least, is that with the Twitter misinformation tag coming, tweets like Dr Hooman’s, which aren’t based on any evidence, but spread fear, will be labeled as such. Baby steps.
2 replies 4 retweets 39 likes -
Replying to @AlastairMcA30 @gorskon
The most shocking and terrifying aspect of information exchange in this day and age is arrogant MDs and PhDs who want to censor and quash ANY concerns about consumer and patient safety. THAT, is the terrifying dimension of the sick psychology you folks are promoting. Truly sick!
8 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
I think you perhaps raised initially valid concerns. With 50+ million vaccinated, there’s no evidence I’m aware of (aside from perhaps 1 tragic anecdote) the vaccine is dangerous in the previously infected. I’ll change my mind if the evidence changes. But for now, good news!
1 reply 1 retweet 13 likes -
By the time the "evidence" emerges, the harm will be a fait accompli. The approach is: mitigate out of an "abundance of caution".
#ScreenB4Vaccine3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
We no longer have to debate hypotheticals. If evidence emerges- hard to imagine at this point- the vaccine is dangerous in previously infected, I will admit it. What would it take for you to say the vaccine is safe?pic.twitter.com/UfC2rWAcpI
2 replies 1 retweet 12 likes -
Yes, after over 75M doses of
#COVID19Vaccine, if there were a safety signal predicted by@noorchashm's pet hypothesis we'd very likely have seen it by now.4 replies 1 retweet 19 likes -
I truly hope that I am wrong. But we're missing it. The RWD surveillance system is not granular enough.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
You keep saying that, but you don't specify how granular it would need to be. Moreover, if we haven't seen a safety signal after 76M doses of #COVID19Vaccine, if there is a risk to vaccinating the occultly infected, it is likely small to the point of undetectability.
-
-
It would need to be an RCT DAVID! A proper one....And until that's done, out of an abundance of caution, high risk patients should be screened and excluded from indiscriminate vaccination.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
RTCs are not reliable for rare events, which is what we must be taking about here. I repeat—>pic.twitter.com/JkSyljOAE6
1 reply 0 retweets 4 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.