@whatdoiknow @BredIncognito @thebriansims @hutchinson Please read slowly dumbass. https://t.co/6TR1MzhkAT
@marat101669 Прогуглил. Модерну. Третья фаза проведена в конце 2020, на 30 тысячах добровольцев по всей сети поликлиник в США.. Эффективность 94%. Серьезная побочка была у 30, с одной смертью, все они были в группе плацебо https://t.co/94dHhWvPVR https:
@_und3rw0r1d @ImmunoGangsta @rt7683 @joshg99 And published studies show the vaccine is safe + effective, no matter how much you non-expert vaccine denialists try to cycle through documents you don't understand to pretend otherwise. https://t.co/4fpLaWgVv
@TempMental @BredIncognito @thebriansims @hutchinson Dude. PubMed is free. They have always cited side effects. They simply said the incidence of severe side effects is low, which is (still) true. https://t.co/corXmIduTf https://t.co/8NOV2PvRO2 https://t.c
@Snizz807 @hopeFlo55047951 @RVAwonk RCTs are far from being the only way to ascertain efficacy of a treatment, but here you go, an RCT for Moderna vaccines: https://t.co/uIhMKdP0N1
@Cernovich Are you serious about placebo-controlled, randomized, blinded studies for vaccines ? Please refute this or criticize the data, not me: https://t.co/uer1erU19k
@BillAckman This is what live science looks like. We didn't understand everything about the virus and while the efficacy reports https://t.co/tggwNC23Lj were exceptional, the protection didn't last as long as hoped. Virus mutations reduced efficacy hen
@WallyWells31 @BStulberg Huh? Which vaccines specifically lack RCTs? Also work in clinical research and am highly skeptical you are not familiar with the following: https://t.co/patcg8sNq5 https://t.co/0JBQiFYTyc Pfizer and Moderna both went through RCT
@WarClandestine "show us the data" You mean this data? https://t.co/UwY5HvEeeq
@MatrixOracle1 @KeyvanMartin @Johnincarlisle @YouTube The Moderna vaccine underwent a randomized trial in the fall of 2020. I was a participant (randomized to placebo, it transpires). Only 30,000 participants, but enough to show decreased incidence of di
@MalArea51 @voicepop2 @eekymom @PeterHotez 2/ Tell me why these phase 3 studies, completed before the vaccines were approved, were insufficient. Tell me what these studies lacked. What part of the analysis or methodology do you disagree with? https://t.co/
@WarClandestine @Bamfzilla here is another: https://t.co/kHIDeMwwFb
@2ysur2ysub @Kennedy24ENS @TrinityChani it’s so strange that the NEJM would publish one of the most important studies of our lifetime with such a glaring flaw in methodology. It’s so amazing that you and RFK Jr found it https://t.co/c3yGzhEoEc
@nnjaann @RVAwonk The Moderna vaccine: https://t.co/2iMloEctHT
@Plandemie19 @MogeneLacry @f_philippot le rapport avec le COVID ?? Tiens voila des vrais arguments coco : https://t.co/N5Wlrl0ukn
@MogeneLacry @Plandemie19 @f_philippot Pauvre cruche. Toujours 0 arguments je vois à part des photos débiles. Tiens voila des vrais arguments, mais bon tu VAS RIEN COMPRENDRE 😂 : https://t.co/N5Wlrl0ukn
@SeivwrightTrudy @tjmussett i like to do experiments on https://t.co/Rw35cUf7Mv looked up "vaccine placebo" top results are: result 1: placebo was two vaccines (treatment group got three) https://t.co/n3gzKSpf75 result 2: placebo was 0.5ml saline https:/
@CitizenFreePres @CommunityNotes cmon guys this is blatant misinformation. Link: https://t.co/pOQQDn6upS
@glsolon @drbigbeef @CitizenFreePres @SearchWarrant1 Sure here you go. This took 30 seconds of googling by the way https://t.co/pOQQDn6upS
@CHDC2983 @CitizenFreePres RFK is just a misinformed hack and preys on other low information scientifically illiterate voters. Here’s the safety trial that took literally 30 seconds of googling. https://t.co/pOQQDn6upS
@RobbieRob618 @angryamaggdyla @aznananc @DrJenGunter @lindayacc "ThErE aRe No StUdIes".... https://t.co/DvXsHwEIha https://t.co/zLVGpoRlE9
@DianneMacKenzi8 @LegalizeitLala oh look another meme https://t.co/lZezceRTFr https://t.co/00r6x70AYm they were fully tested cupcake. you keep dodging my questions because you don’t like being called out for your BS. I’m finding your ignorance to be ted
@msabouri @DrAseemMalhotra @gmcuk Studies from multiple sources. You’re just invoking more conspiracy nonsense https://t.co/8pa0vhYPhQ https://t.co/nXTwX6fgTS https://t.co/1Gy7CVho0j https://t.co/3IMiwuyuAq https://t.co/hTV5KSMMle https://t.co/ZMzmn
"Once a source is old enough, everything they publish is true! You know, like the Bible!" #DRNIK!!
@EYE_KILL_IT @pleb33life @zwergie1 @GilGamish3 @jvgraz @jimmy_dore Really? You need me to provide you a link to some of the most famous clinical trials of the last hundred years? Really? https://t.co/c3yGzhEoEc https://t.co/OpexaXMKbU https://t.co/zfk
@jvgraz @madamx12369 @zwergie1 @GilGamish3 @pleb33life @jimmy_dore Is the 200 year old New England Journal of Medicine of a high enough standard for you…or are they just part of the big pharma machine dude! Just like big globe is trying to tell us the ear
@JasonAU1776 @JusDayDa @drdrew It is only an experiment while it was under trials. Hence you used the term wrong https://t.co/6l7NRYem5w https://t.co/I68P3Agz5N https://t.co/kkFhqyWkRa
@Parrotpartyuni1 @FormerAntivax @stkirsch Moderna study, highly effective very few adverse events https://t.co/DSiGOX4ZKc
@CorinneReverbel @MahmoudZureik Vous voulez celle du vaccin Moderna aussi, Corinne? Allez hop. https://t.co/RU9dWSScsK
@ashkashlitwin @slacker2007 @Timcast Is a double blind, randomized, placebo controlled, peer reviewed clinical trial published in the most respected medical journal in the world good enough? https://t.co/c3yGzhEWtK https://t.co/OpexaXNi1s https://t.co/Tj
@alan830621 @JeanMarieMarie5 @f_philippot et ça aussi : https://t.co/N5Wlrl0ukn
@VigilantFox Here...Ill help you out on the Moderna vaccine https://t.co/uer1erU19k https://t.co/hS9Em1a1Hq
@JessoMJ @kevinnbass Completed, petal. https://t.co/iuZFjdxP0m
@kevinnbass Are you sure about this ? Here the demographic table of moderna vaccine trial, where 75% of participants are under 65 years old (https://t.co/LF3vQBMDpG) It's quite the opposit. So, we have to assume protective effect of Moderna vaccine ac
@HamrimK @MahmoudZureik Oui il s'agissait bien d'études randomisées en double aveugle, et 40 000 personnes ont participer aux essais de Pfizer, 30 000 pour le Moderna, soit bien + que pour les vaccins précédent. ;) Et on a eu les résultats fin 2020 : https
@Su15100307 @boomertua @ClayTravis @Twitter 90-95% efficacy against systematic infection was found in the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials in 75,000 people: https://t.co/RSyNxjPyR8 https://t.co/IfzYh4f33z https://t.co/K3EWYY4BU0
@Joelblevins1980 @Russia_Nataly @elonmusk "The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease." https://t.co/NX0y2rcK3D
@bpcmd1 @KarlDHarrison @WalkerBragman @TheAtlantic no, that was for the bivalent boosters. have you guys seriously forgotten? https://t.co/00r6x70AYm https://t.co/lZezceRTFr
@STRAT777 @SarahCaul_ONS @stkirsch Correction to the above: it was two weeks after the second dose (of vaccine or placebo). https://t.co/4mHJsabnf8
@Tidiane84101146 @michael45519887 @giOrdanoB6946 @vinceflibustier @QuiroulePierre1 Et hop, rien que cette étude plus de 30 000 personnes. Quel vaccin avant a autant été testé ?? https://t.co/N5Wlrl0ukn
@LawMedLegalRN Ugg. I feel so sorry for the of the MDs who have to work with someone who seems to think the NEJM is wrong https://t.co/nSSQlQmoFc.
@michael45519887 @giOrdanoB6946 @vinceflibustier @QuiroulePierre1 Pour ton info c'est un médecin qui fait ça pour que les benêts comme toi puissent comprendre simplement. Mais il met aussi les liens des publications scientifiques dont il s'est servi, mais
@HelloImage80 @jason_willz1 @DeafEnigma @reacharoundu @BarryESharp @Heicapa1 what ones exactly? https://t.co/00r6x70AYm https://t.co/lZezceRTFr you’re a liar
@PeaceInAllTime You mean like these? https://t.co/c3yGzhEWtK Today I learned that antivaxxers don't even know that double blind, placebo controlled, randomized clinical safety trials were published in the NEJM.
@PharmDSanz @ProfTimNoakes @RobertKennedyJr ? Is this really the first time you have seen these? https://t.co/c3yGzhEWtK
@NavyChief77 @NMoonitz @J59589191 @yeahnaa333 @smurfsj @jackdoranjr @cyndikash @AOC Ah. Wrong study. Still demonstrably incorrect.. https://t.co/wuo4KUqA6s
@marcomaniera @1Von80Millionen @MOlschowy https://t.co/Jzf5k68ap9 https://t.co/q8St7J1BcB Aber ich spiele nicht mit Hass- und Lügentrollen.
@GoldEagleIRA @liz_churchill9 That's incorrect. They were not tested for "treating symptoms." Rather, they tested prevention of symptomatic *infection* and found 94-95% fewer *infected* people with symptoms. There was a huge reduction in infections. https:
@armocelu @IvanAle_85 @pi_tres14 @XandraCantor @todomejorqenada @KasnyScience @MartinG39205538 @por_verda @TannedBallsU Otro que no sabe lo que hace un ribosoma y critica la vacunas ARNm…que atrevida es la ignorancia. Por si quieres aprender algo 👇 aunque
@EngineOfPlague @lsdres @Stephenin850 @DiedSuddenly_ It takes one second to find double-blinded studies for COVID vaccines. Below I linked to one. At this point we don't even need studies as population-wide data is now more useful with 70% having taken the
@tilleymylily @SgtKOnyx @OrdnancePackard @Danny__Hoffman Ohh boy. Please. I’m begging you. Tell me where you the NEJM is incorrect? Please be as specific as possible https://t.co/c3yGzhEoEc
@rockafire @ZaleskiLuke @elonmusk I just have one simple question. What is the next experiment after double blind, placebo controlled, randomized peer reviewed clinical trial published in the most respected medical journal in the world? https://t.co/c3yG
@soundtrue2 @ErikLoridan Va manger de la science, et essaie de revenir avec un cerveau. https://t.co/sdqmnhGnFT
@ShlomoKafka @Roberto94807043 How many studies, Shlo? There’s no equivocation here: 94% efficacy. One of countless studies. I have science; you have bull. And you frustrate the crap out of me, because we should know better than to willingly peddle bs propa
@LuvFotos You’re a liar or an idiot, or that sweet spot in the Venn diagram where they overlap. Regardless, what you are, most certainly, is wrong. Results from a trial that commenced July, 2020, published DECEMBER 2020. You numpty. https://t.co/wnyqUaM3t
@TravAlvord @Smurfs34Stephen https://t.co/ofjQIOZvZi A quick Google search. 94% efficacy at preventing covid, but wait, look at all those conflicts of interest! Exaggeration for those who profit from this faulty study.
@VincetOmniaDeo @jason_willz1 @2PointOhhh Again, your source is not on vaccination (ex: doesn't even mention vaccination, nor say it's using spike in the same form + concentration as in vaccination, etc.). So stop pretending it tells you about vaccine saf
@VincetOmniaDeo @jason_willz1 @2PointOhhh So feel free to stop deceptively abusing sources that are not showing vaccine risk, to pretend they show vaccine risk. There are actual clinical studies for assessing safety + efficacy. https://t.co/4fpLaWgVvc
@Vandelay_Export Ohh boy. Can you answer a question? How do you transmit something you don't catch? Yea. They didn't test for transmission you fucking high school educated virologist. 95% of the non placebo group didn’t GET COVID AT ALL. https://t.co/
@auntiewillow @TigerlillySusan @Doctor_Eric_B @thevegdoc You're a vaccine denialist, not a skeptic, as shown by your approach to evidence. https://t.co/4fpLaWgVvc https://t.co/jvBw6QdH0W https://t.co/2OseV9jfDj
@jeromearmstrong @_everythingism @Anis_Shivani @RobertKennedyJr They can claim that. It doesn't mean they've successfully made a case, anymore than someone successfully made a case that Earth is flat just because they claimed that in the face of published
@jeromearmstrong @_everythingism @Anis_Shivani @RobertKennedyJr Re: "I dunno about mRNA myself" Paranoid conspiracy theories about a subject you admit you don't understand, is not a substitute for published evidence and/or relying on experts' assessment o
@TruthBrigadeUK @KangaDMC @bell00david Here are the studies. They ended in 2020.🤦 https://t.co/81rMQD9h0H
@wildtrailflow @KathrynPaisner @gorskon Asking why people resign from organizations is as irrelevant to the evidence on vaccine safety + efficacy as asking why people resign from NASA is irrelevant to the evidence on anthropogenic climate change. It's con
@pjselby01 Let me know when you finally learn what the "evidence pyramid" is, non-expert vaccine denialist. 🥱 https://t.co/4fpLaWgVvc https://t.co/OZsN0AmIwe https://t.co/ukWQRzZe2j https://t.co/bliHYWD0Xv https://t.co/3XSggEEIPY
@GBNEWS Yes, phase 3 trials were carried out and completed https://t.co/7dtEJettHw https://t.co/pYuPpmtlbM https://t.co/DOiURxcIls
@ABridgen They did go through phase 3. Liar. https://t.co/7dtEJettHw https://t.co/pYuPpmtlbM https://t.co/DOiURxcIls
@noresetrequired @bell00david Literally takes seconds to find the studies Astrazeneca https://t.co/7dtEJettHw Moderna https://t.co/pYuPpmtlbM Pfizer https://t.co/DOiURxcIls
@aDissentient Published February 2021. But we now know the results are a total lie. https://t.co/WWaCPelJfS
@noresetrequired @Antifascistty @ABridgen Moderna P3, quezzies? https://t.co/1hSGhEw6tc
@BarryESharp @reacharoundu @jason_willz1 Surveillance. (2) The vaccines went through all 3 phases of clinical trials back in 2020. Pfizer: https://t.co/lZezceRTFr Moderna: https://t.co/00r6x70AYm AstraZeneca: https://t.co/aZmVvzO0J8
@JessicaBeanTT @zcarbon58 @ShaneAKAProp @SwaledaleMutton @LozzaFox @MattHancock @ABridgen @BadLawTeam Rather than falling for videos, do some research
@anish_koka Highly vulnerable population The highest risk cohort The number (11) who received the vax in this cohort https://t.co/gEDqDq1ADB In the supplementary material and then the supplementary appendix https://t.co/NwAzfCOaNw https://t.co/hLhXPBsj7
@ImmunoGangsta @Jikkyleaks @a_nineties @stkirsch ok EUA is less than ideal but earned full approval with after market testing no? https://t.co/kEPxBMpqZk
@KyleTober @MichelleBaerNDP @waybackmachine @Inquiry_Canada 2/ Tell me why these phase 3 studies, completed before the vaccines were approved, were insufficient. Tell me what these studies lacked. What part of the analysis or methodology do you disagree wi
@DueDiet Los links: • PFIZER: https://t.co/GRtXepFod4 • ASTRAZENECA: https://t.co/lszHErPIN1 • MODERNA: https://t.co/upYHh5W9Yd • JANSEN: https://t.co/W8CCo1o0Wf
@sofedup2here @Lumenaddy @RealCandaceO lets look at what’s going on here. This is the FIRST TIME you are hearing about some of the most important clinical trials published in the past 50 years. This is how poorly informed you are about this subject. Ho
@grapemcgee @robertwalker4 @PostiesFF @AndrewKnack @ABDanielleSmith 3/ But since we're here, tell me why these phase 3 studies, completed before the vaccines were approved, were insufficient. What part of the analysis or methodology do you disagree with? h
@Damn_Yankee38 @Lumenaddy @RealCandaceO I have a highest level of proof available to human kind. You literally fall for quacks on Twitter. You get MEDICAL INFORMATION FROM TWITTER. https://t.co/c3yGzhEWtK