I looked back, and your post is a screenshot about an Israeli paper. Post the link to the actual article, or at least the title, year and authors so I can find it.
I never said I spent my ‘life studying sars viruses’. I’m willing to have a real discussion with you
@Cheapshot but I am already having words put into my mouth, which isn’t fair.
Also, I don’t look down on people, or at least genuinely try not to come across like that. But I also respect when somebody has a lot more training in an area than I do. I don’t argue with my mechanic, lawyer, dentist, accountant …about the things they are experts in. I am extremely pro-vaccine and I practice what I preach. I got my COVID vaccines as soon as I could. And I’ll receive my 3rd as soon as I can. My family is also vaccinated, and I give my family the same advice. And not only is my opinion as valid as any other on this forum, I’ve also backed up my claims and opinions with significant expertise. The one getting attacked here is me, which I expected. Fair, I did start off pretty hot and said this thread is a sess pool. But it is. But look back at just the last few posts. It’s nonstop trash talk about how I can’t think, dumb, pharma shill, etc.. I know that each and everyone of you stubborn asses would also be pissed if a bunch of people started telling YOU what the ‘facts’ were in YOUR field. You KNOW you’d say ‘who the fuck are you to make this claim’ and sure enough there’s no backing it up. I’m not saying you can’t find good information or not allowed to think another way, but if I’m going to be told im a retarded pharma shill, then back that the fuck up. And each one of you would be expecting the same.
Just ONE of of like 30 posts to me is asking me to reply about one doctor, who’s apparently as qualified as me, with a MbChb from England in 1987 with no other degrees, post graduate training or specific training in immunology. He’s also under investigation from the college of physicians and surgeons of BC for making claims without ANY evidence. It appears he did d-dimers on random people (no information on how many, how they were chosen, inclusion/exclusion criteria, statistical analysis, etc…). And you need to understand that ddimers do NOT rule in clots. It’s a highly sensitive, but LOW specificity test which is used in clinical situations of low-moderate suspicion of clots to RULE them OUT. They are also heavily affected by age and renal function. Clots are diagnosed by Doppler U/S, CT-PE or VQ scans. None of which were done. But again, I’m not actually sure because there’s no published method or data to review from him. In medicine, papers need to be peer reviewed and data published so it can be reviewed and scrutinized. Yet here I am still chasing this garbage down, and there already been another 6 posts about ‘what about this’ and ‘what about that’. I don’t have the time for this.
But if you link an actual article I can read and evaluate, I’ll talk about it with you