Harm: point a gun at someone and pull the trigger. Harm: vaccinate a previously infected person and trigger a deadly systemic inflammatory response. Does the incidence matter really? Or the avoidability?
-
-
Replying to @noorchashm @doritmi and
Of course the incidence rate matters! Context is everything, especially in MEDICINE and PUBLIC HEALTH. There are countless drugs with extremely serious or potentially fatal side effects. We choose what to approve based on incidence and relative risk. You know this.
1 reply 3 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @ASRothstein @noorchashm and
I take two different medicines for my Ulcerative Colitis that stops my body from ravaging my colon. They also make me a statistically significant amount more likely to develop skin cancer. These meds are approved for use by the fda the same way the vaccines are. Cost/benefit
1 reply 3 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @ASRothstein @doritmi and
Good. The immunosuppression will likely protect you from COVID-19 disease progression if you get it. Btw,
#ScreenB4Vaccine when it’s your turn Andrew….u don’t want to fall victim like#JBartonWilliams1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @noorchashm @doritmi and
https://www.wric.com/news/u-s-world/tennessee-surgeon-dies-of-covid-related-illness-weeks-after-receiving-second-covid-vaccine/ … You continue to use tragic anecdotal cases to try and support your position without any evidence of a link. We know the vaccines aren’t 100% effective. Absent data you can’t point to random cases and go “see!?”, Show me data for increased risk of death
1 reply 3 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @ASRothstein @doritmi and
It’s not just a “tragic anecdote”. It’s a bellwether index case of iatrogenic harm. The man was an otherwise healthy 36yo with no other health issues, only a PRIOR infection whose vaccination triggered a deadly inflammation in his body. Clue in or stay the hell in your lane!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @ASRothstein @doritmi and
I’m all about Ns of 1!
@GerriShaftel@kwstark@jon_kamp@nytDeniseGrady@DrWoodcockFDA ….surreal how these peanut gallery pundits don’t get what an index case is! Pathetic! Yes! N-of-1, indeed!https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMms1516161 …1 reply 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @noorchashm @doritmi and
You STILL have not provided any data or any statistics to support this being an index case, let alone the existence of a causal relationship. The n=1 here isn’t really an n=1, it’s the n=1 that made the fda look at the DATA which showed an unacceptable relative risk.pic.twitter.com/iE1OV4kO1z
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @ASRothstein @noorchashm and
N=1 can raise questions when we don’t have data (if he had such a case. He doesn’t). These questions can then be examined. It’s not really good as an argument for ignoring increasing large amounts of data.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
N=1 data is hypothesis-generating at best. It’s not hypothesis testing. And it has to be very clear cut even to be hypothesis-generating.
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.