• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    21 days ago

    Please quote the part of my comment that you believe is political.

    Because I honestly have no idea what you’re complaining about…

    • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      21 days ago

      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.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        21 days ago

        Please quote the part of my comment that you believe is political.

        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.

        • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 days ago

          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.

            • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              21 days ago

              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.

    • dgdft@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      21 days ago

      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?

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 days ago

        You’re talking about the incidence rate

        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.