@virusesimmunity.bsky.social Sadly, this is how your recent paper is being interpreted and amplified. Unfortunately, it is left very open to this interpretation. - ThreadSky

mackayim.bsky.social • 6 days ago

@virusesimmunity.bsky.social Sadly, this is how your recent paper is being interpreted and amplified.
Unfortunately, it is left very open to this interpretation.

1 / 2

Comments

jncherabiemd.bsky.social•5 days ago

Saying "we need more studies" is not enough. The fact is no one knows what these results mean, nor what this "syndrome" is. Leaving communication so vague is harmful and allows it to be used for malignant purposes. We really must do better in communicating our results...

mackayim.bsky.social•5 days ago

I agree.

pinktweets.bsky.social•6 days ago

There is NO medication, vaccine, or medical procedure that does not have side effects.

mackayim.bsky.social•6 days ago

Correct.

guillermo-s-mother.bsky.social•5 days ago

Thank you for this. Reading the entire thread was helpful in assessing the headlines that will cause most people to cease vaccinations for COVID. We’ve migrated to Novavax, and don’t intend of going back to mRNA, but still/always question whether people had a prior infection.

mackayim.bsky.social•5 days ago

I think that's the wrong response to this preliminary study that seems to be a mess from start to finish. It doesn't really add anything to the story of the COVID-19 vaccine.

serehfas.bsky.social•5 days ago

Did she pull it down? Nothing on her page now.
Such a shame that the same people who have to bite coins to make sure they are real, can cause such a fuss about other things they don't understand.

mackayim.bsky.social•5 days ago

Not sure if it was ever here. I saw it on X.

serehfas.bsky.social•5 days ago

A reasonable article on the same topic.
My layperson's take:
The side effects due to a stirred - up immune system will of course be similar between vaccinated and infected populations.
https://bsky.app/profile/amymaxmen.bsky.social/post/3lix77bdnzs2l

mackayim.bsky.social•5 days ago

And of course Helen Branswell has seen the same thing! My underlying issue-authors need to factor in how their work will be received & ensure their text heads off obvious antiscience attacks. If only to allow others to easily help defend their work for what it is not what it's misinterpreted to be

mackayim.bsky.social•5 days ago

This may seem an unreasonable expectation, but it's one we scientists can't be so naive as to simply dismiss. We write for a wider audience than our colleagues. Even in the scientific literature. And today it *really* matters if we miss defining clearly what our work is and *is not* concluding.

colleenrowe.bsky.social•5 days ago

plus add in quality science journalism - an important piece of the puzzle that is missing (as is true journalism) from MSM

mackayim.bsky.social•5 days ago

Thats not changing anytime soon as it has only been getting worse forany years. There are so few expert science journalists that the horrible takes are to be expected.

colleenrowe.bsky.social•5 days ago

Yep. The control and influence spheres. Scientists can control how they write their papers as you suggest; we can only influence MSM - essentially by our buying and clicking actions. In the bigger picture with the world teetering on a new order, media HAS to change if democracy is to survive.

serehfas.bsky.social•5 days ago

Yes, an extra layer of effort and protection needed!

mackayim.bsky.social•5 days ago

At least it prevents reading bits like "Given the similarities between PVS and long COVID symptoms" and "Given the striking 493 similarities between long COVID and PVS symptoms," and then interpreting it below.
It's always harder to undo a knot like this than to tie it.

mackayim.bsky.social•5 days ago

Please don't bother replying with "non-experts shouldn't read scientific literature". That's unrealistic. People do what they want. It's OA. Some want to know and when they don't, some will get it, some will amplify deliberate disinformation, others be well-meaning but uninformed & misunderstand

pfred60.bsky.social•5 days ago

Thanks Ian.

louisellen.bsky.social•5 days ago

What about "no one should read the Courier Mail". If we could get that up, it would make a huge dent into the amplification of misinformation.

shademar.bsky.social•5 days ago

We shouldn’t gatekeep science, ever. There should be a role and space for science reporting and communication to help make it accessible. We should strive for that in the first place but there will always be a gap that needs to be filled by experts in bridging that gap. It’s an oft neglected skill.

serehfas.bsky.social•5 days ago

I read that, and once past the headline it shrinks down to a minuscule number of people having a rare side effect.

mackayim.bsky.social•6 days ago

Yes, the Prof did account for SC2 infections....

mackayim.bsky.social•5 days ago

*well, said she did anyway😒

imacanadianinusa.bsky.social•5 days ago

The real-life consequences - most likely the death of my 85 yr old parents who now refuse to get ANY vaccines.

They saw the news on FOX.

Wonderful.

gidmk.bsky.social•6 days ago

I'm not sure I agree with that! Based on other international testing standards, it looks like all of the participants were positive for past COVID-19 infection if you look at the graphed values: https://bsky.app/profile/gidmk.bsky.social/post/3livhyrh5ic26

mackayim.bsky.social•6 days ago

Do you mean wouldn't agree with the author staying they'd accounted for past infection in their study?

mackayim.bsky.social•6 days ago

This the relevant context for determining infection, I believe...

gidmk.bsky.social•5 days ago

I think 100% of their anti-N results look consistent with what the ONS and CDC would classify as a past infection (>20-30ng/ml), but they used a cut-off index which is opaquely calculated to say that instead only 50% of their participants had a previous infection.

gidmk.bsky.social•5 days ago

To put it another way, they've classified people with >1,000ng/ml Anti-N IgG as uninfected. That does not seem consistent with international standards for this sort of testing, and usually would be considered evidence of a past infection.

maurogaya.bsky.social•6 days ago

What are you implying with your last sentence ?

mackayim.bsky.social•6 days ago

What I said.

maurogaya.bsky.social•6 days ago

🤔

mackayim.bsky.social•6 days ago

What's unclear?

serehfas.bsky.social•5 days ago

I don't think he's matched the words with the pictures.

quarantegan.bsky.social•5 days ago

The antivax brigade running away with a preprint of a study they don't understand or know how to read in order to foment a ludicrous and unscientific conclusion is not coming as a surprise to anyone... is it?

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply