Just curious then why do you not believe the vaccine is involved in RHS in the case study then if the researchers conclude that’s likely the cause of it?
Just curious then why do you not believe the vaccine is involved in RHS in the case study then if the researchers conclude that’s likely the cause of it?No double standards on my side.
Nowhere in my comments have I said this. I have just pointed out it is a case study of one individual and no definite association was concluded.Just curious then why do you not believe the vaccine is involved in RHS in the case study then if the researchers conclude that’s likely the cause of it?
Apparently it was removed after it was leaked into the public domainNo double standards on my side.
They don’t link anything in relation to those percentages.
So do you believe the vaccine is likely the cause then or not because your previous comments give the impression you don’t believe it? Came across very dismissive of it even.Nowhere in my comments have I said this. I have just pointed out it is a case study of one individual and no definite association was concluded.
I cannot say as the study does not have a definitive conclusion and in their analysis, the p value was 0.07 which means it is not a significant result.So do you believe the vaccine is likely the cause then or not because your previous comments give the impression you don’t believe it? Came across very dismissive of it even.
Heres another case, this time a female.
Thats fine you’re entitled to believe what you do. I respect we’re all different here.I cannot say as the study does not have a definitive conclusion and in their analysis, the p value was 0.07 which means it is not a significant result.
There was no mention of the vaccine regarding factors her doctors were considering. I didn’t share it as a gotcha. I wouldn’t say she is a small isolated sample, many people have suffered what she has, blood clots and heart related issues but it was not the vaccine.Thats fine you’re entitled to believe what you do. I respect we’re all different here.
Your rationale behind this vs the Mrs Beiber case is why I say it’s double standards, because Mrs Beibers case was also a small isolated sample and yet you were quite certain those doctors in her case were right. So much show that you shared it more than once as a “gotcha” and refuted any other suggestion as to why she had a blood clot. Her case wasn’t a clear cut 100% explanation either but you believed that one anyway!
Vaccine aside - why did you believe their conclusion as what caused the blood clot if it was only a one person sample if that’s the reason you don’t believe the researchers in both of those case studies I shared.There was no mention of the vaccine regarding factors her doctors were considering. I didn’t share it as a gotcha.
Yes, we certainly believe different things and have our opinions.
The study you posted, the researcher themselves said there is no definitive association. I am just repeating myself here, have already discussed this at length and I really don’t fancy repeating myself any further.Vaccine aside - why did you believe their conclusion as what caused the blood clot if it was only a one person sample if that’s the reason you don’t believe the researchers in both of those case studies I shared.
Not to mention the cases I shared were on recognised and reputable platforms. Mrs Beibers case is going off her account and interpretation only, that was shared on social media - I thought that was frowned upon to give credibility to anecdotes shared on social media platforms.
No problem at all! No answer is an answer. I’m just explaining why I feel you’ve double standards so you don’t feel I’m plucking it out of thin air.The study you posted, the researcher themselves said there is no definitive assocation. I am just repeating myself here, have already discussed this at length and I really don’t fancy repeating myself any further.
I don’t know what else to add to this conversation. I think we’ve spoken at length about it and could probably publish our very own case study about it.No problem at all! No answer is an answer. I’m just explaining why I feel you’ve double standards so you don’t feel I’m plucking it out of thin air.
You could always answer the questions you skim by and don’t acknowledgeI don’t know what else to add to this conversation. I think we’ve spoken at length about it and could probably publish our very own case study about it.
The way I see it is you're saying there's no definitive proof that the vaccine was the cause, which doesn't mean it isn't, just that we can't say for sure that is or isn't based on the information available.I don’t know what else to add to this conversation. I think we’ve spoken at length about it and could probably publish our very own case study about it.
There is definitely a majority here in terms of opinion but I also think it is important for discussion to be had from another perspective/viewpoint/opinion/belief/whatever you want to call it.It's twofold; it distracts from the main points we're making and it also adds to the hostile 'piling on' atmosphere, which I've spoken about before.
It's the groupthink mentality, when a group of people who are in the majority all share the same viewpoint so feel more emboldended to attack those in the minority. Seen it before over and over. Usually results in the minority withdrawing, but I'm made of tough stuff, so I'm going nowhere.
I have acknowledged things more than I needed to. For what? Just repeating myself. My only bias is #FundedByPfizer.You could always answer the questions you skim by and don’t acknowledgenow there’s an idea to keep us all out of trouble. You’d have to declare all your bias though
All jokes aside hopefully this is the first of many to get compensated for their injury’s from vaccination
‘What’s done is done’: Okanagan man one of the first in Canada to be compensated for vaccine injury | Globalnews.ca
The husband and father of two young boys was diagnosed with the disorder less than two weeks after receiving the Astrazeneca COVID-19 vaccine last spring.globalnews.ca
Thank you, there wasn’t anything more to it. 🥲The way I see it is you're saying there's no definitive proof that the vaccine was the cause, which doesn't mean it isn't, just that we can't say for sure that is or isn't based on the information available.
Which sounds logical to me.
Yea you know what, you are so right. Entirely logical to believe a personal account on a YouTube vlog and at the same time deny 2 published case studies were the researchers believe the vaccine is likely to be responsible.The way I see it is you're saying there's no definitive proof that the vaccine was the cause, which doesn't mean it isn't, just that we can't say for sure that is or isn't based on the information available.
Which sounds logical to me.
I didn’t deny.Yea you know what, you are so right. Entirely logical to believe a personal account on a YouTube vlog and at the same time deny 2 published case studies were the researchers believe the vaccine is likely to be responsible.
You said the sample was too small for you to be sure, but yet a personal vlog on YouTube is enough size of a sample for you to be certain. That’s denial in my eyes, you disagree, you’ve made clear you’ve nothing further to say on it.I didn’t deny.Please can you not twist what I have said.
The researchers themselves did not say it was a definitive association, hardly denial.You said the sample was too small for you to be sure, but yet a personal vlog on YouTube is enough size of a sample for you to be certain. That’s denial in my eyes, you disagree, you’ve made clear you’ve nothing further to say on it.
Everyone here can read. The researchers believe it’s likely the cause. A bit like the YouTube video said she believed her doctors thought it was likely x y and z. Both weren’t 100% definitive but you chose to only believe the social media platform because apparently 2 cases have a smaller sample size than 1 anecdotal experience - that’s cool I’m not arguing or trying to prove you otherwise nor am I twisting anything.The researchers themselves did not say it was a definitive association. No I don’t have any further to say but will speak up as you are twisting what I have said.
You have, by saying I have denied/dismissed it is the vaccine when all I have said is there is no definitive association.Everyone here can read. The researchers believe it’s likely the cause. A bit like the YouTube video said she believed her doctors thought it was likely x y and z. Both weren’t 100% definitive but you chose to only believe the social media platform because apparently 2 cases have a smaller sample size than 1 anecdotal experience - that’s cool I’m not arguing or trying to prove you otherwise nor am I twisting anything.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?