givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
The condition turned out to be rare—occurring in roughly one in 200,000 people who received the vaccines—but Eichinger’s worries were borne out.
0.0005% produce antibodies showing they expire the effect…
And and even smaller percentage of those people had complications.
dgdft@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
This paper is immunology research, not a political message. You don’t need to drag this in here.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago
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.
dgdft@lemmy.world 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago
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.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
Oh no, how dare we pollute discourse with peer reviewed scientific publications.
dgdft@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
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?