It was in depth, thorough, and used evidence. That matters.
-
-
No. It was designed to reassure the public . It was not designed to be critical.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @noorchashm @doritmi and
I’ve watched for a week as you’ve narrowly danced around calling vaccines the real threat while always moving the goalposts. This is not a normal drug trial, this is not normal testing conditions or operating procedure. That doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy.pic.twitter.com/80WlrdOyKG
3 replies 3 retweets 24 likes -
Replying to @ASRothstein @noorchashm and
The processes have been expedited but the data has been collected. The investigations into adverse events have occurred. Questions have been asked. You can say you would have also asked for answers to x,y, and z, but instead you’ve spread and amplified disinformation and fear.
2 replies 3 retweets 22 likes -
Replying to @ASRothstein @doritmi and
Stay in your own damn lane! Damn jokers with ZERO qualification to opine! Stay in your own lane!
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @noorchashm @doritmi and
Goal post moving alert: while I am just a lawyer, I had a concentration in bioethics and health law. Please provide detailed examples of data that acip and cdc are ignoring to create reassurance that would be sufficient to support your claims of negligence. No RFK jr.
1 reply 1 retweet 27 likes -
Replying to @ASRothstein @doritmi and
The vaccination of persons with occult or recent infection would exacerbate COVID-19 disease or cause thromboembolic event. Neither of which will be classified as "vaccine related". The following may get you closer to understanding my point.https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3720 …
9 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @noorchashm @ASRothstein and
Wow, that’s really dumb. You must be desperate, because that doesn’t support your hypothesis at all. It’s about coinfection, not vaccines.
2 replies 0 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @ASRothstein and
Clearly you are not a cellular immunologist. Stay on your own lane David. Write a blog.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @noorchashm @ASRothstein and
Perhaps not, but I am PhD molecular and cellular biologist in addition to being a cancer surgeon. You should be able to explain to me how a paper about co-infection with two different viruses is relevant to your hypothesis. Try me.
4 replies 3 retweets 64 likes
I mean, seriously, your appeals to your own scientific authority are not an argument. They do not impress me given your track record over the last few weeks.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @noorchashm and
Its weird that these events are being monitored in the safety studies and are not above background.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @noorchashm and
Why make an argument when you can just tell people they're not qualified to understand your argument?
0 replies 0 retweets 2 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.