There was some lack of clarity. Most people produced antibodies from this vaccine. Antibodies to COVID-19, that is. Some small portion produced antibodies to VITT(?) or whatever and only some of them experienced complications from that, which is what you were referring to. It took me a few minutes to understand what you were saying, too.
Dismissing COVID vaccines as being ineffective is, sadly, political, and it wasn’t clear if you were talking about COVID antibodies or the different antibodies that caused this rare side effect.
I’ve already explained everything above. If I cared, I might benupset for getting downvotes when I never once disagreed with anything anyone else said in this thread, instead I’m just disappointed and bemused in the complete lack of reading comprehension shown. I choose to believe that rather than it being malice and trolling, because it simply isn’t clever enough.
You’re talking about the incidence rate as a way of downplaying the importance of the research, when the research is interesting specifically because they were able to identify such a highly specific mechanism that only happens in such rare circumstances.
The incidence rate isn’t a focus of the article, so why else is that what you’re lasering at if not to make a statement?
Except everything else is assumptions you’re making…
You really wanted to tell people not to make it political, but no one did so you just randomly accused me of it for no logical reason.
I legitimately don’t know why mods have banned you, but at least there’s something I can do. Because explaining this over and over clearly won’t help you understand anything.
That’s my question too: Why ignore the focus of the peer-reviewed research to latch onto a political talking point about how this isn’t significant because it impacts so few people?
This paper is immunology research, not a political message. You don’t need to drag this in here.
…
Please quote the part of my comment that you believe is political.
Because I honestly have no idea what you’re complaining about…
There was some lack of clarity. Most people produced antibodies from this vaccine. Antibodies to COVID-19, that is. Some small portion produced antibodies to VITT(?) or whatever and only some of them experienced complications from that, which is what you were referring to. It took me a few minutes to understand what you were saying, too.
I talked about how rare it was.
No one in this thread has made any political comments, except all the people hunting for imaginary people making this political.
Dismissing COVID vaccines as being ineffective is, sadly, political, and it wasn’t clear if you were talking about COVID antibodies or the different antibodies that caused this rare side effect.
Literally the only person who hadn’t said anything political…
Literally haven’t disagreed with a thing you said, yet here we are…
What are you reading that comes off as him dismissing anything?
I’ve already explained everything above. If I cared, I might benupset for getting downvotes when I never once disagreed with anything anyone else said in this thread, instead I’m just disappointed and bemused in the complete lack of reading comprehension shown. I choose to believe that rather than it being malice and trolling, because it simply isn’t clever enough.
You’re talking about the incidence rate as a way of downplaying the importance of the research, when the research is interesting specifically because they were able to identify such a highly specific mechanism that only happens in such rare circumstances.
The incidence rate isn’t a focus of the article, so why else is that what you’re lasering at if not to make a statement?
Yes…
Except everything else is assumptions you’re making…
You really wanted to tell people not to make it political, but no one did so you just randomly accused me of it for no logical reason.
I legitimately don’t know why mods have banned you, but at least there’s something I can do. Because explaining this over and over clearly won’t help you understand anything.
Oh no, how dare we pollute discourse with peer reviewed scientific publications.
That’s my question too: Why ignore the focus of the peer-reviewed research to latch onto a political talking point about how this isn’t significant because it impacts so few people?