Where to start with the evidence? Would suggest reading these excellent pieces by @NafeezAhmed
But I guess you probably know all this, given you've been working with them for while? And platforming them.
Myth busting thread on naturally immunity from infection in children. One of the arguments used some, including members of JCVI have been high exposure in kids, which means 1 dose may be adequate. The evidence actually suggest poor neutralisation in kids & rapid waning of Abs 🧵
First, many people don't seroconvert after infection, and with young people this proportion can be even higher. This means that they may not have detectable Abs after infection. Ab levels generally do correlate with protection, so absent antibodies are problematic.
Of course, we cannot rule out T cell responses in these children, but in the absence of clear evidence showing these are present, we cannot assume this, as some appear to have done.
Worth noting that the UK 'experts' talking up 'long-term impacts of vaccines' in adolescents have 0 real experience with vaccine-associated myocarditis vs experts in most other countries- all of whom have come to the conclusion that COVID-19 is *much* more of a risk than vaccines
Please follow reliable experts who have studied this far more than members of JCVI who're busy quote-tweeting anti-vaxx groups like UFT & promoting vaccine hesitancy.
Here are some: @PeterHotez@KatharineSmart@muirtheimhne
And unlike JCVI which *still* has not published it's assumptions for the numbers provided, other countries, and researchers have done the analysis with transparent, published models that can be run and replicated by anyone.
The last few days have revealed connections UsForThem have with HART & with prominent media hosts. They've threatened govt with legal action to remove masks from schools & have explored action against the MHRA on vaccination, with a member of JCVI recently quote-tweeting them!
The question is how much influence UFT have had on policy through the backdoor? There are clearly UFT sympathisers within govt. How has a so-called parent group had such reach across the media, been able to threaten legal action against entities to remove protections for kids?
Who are they, really? And who funds them? The HART logs show UFT signatories actively trying to promote anti-vaxx messaging (e.g. 'vaccines cause covid'), and even hoping that vaccines cause serious side effects (ADE) so they can promote negative messaging on these.
There are 2 questions here: 1. Is it real? It is, & case-control studies have shown this 2. What is it? We need to listen to those with lived experience to understand this.
We should all be worried about 11,000 kids reporting persistent symptoms for a yr regardless of 'controls'.
I disagree that we need a control to study every syndrome in every study. Once we've established the syndrome exists, we need to listen to those with lived experience, investigate it carefully to understand what it is. This is how clinical medicine described new syndromes.
Important not to dismiss people's lived experience. Or trivialise it because we cannot prove a counterfactual scenario for children who have been suffering for over a year after they got infected. If you have a control group, fine. If you don't, it's still very important.
Seeing a lot of minimisation of long COVID again by the usual players based on recent ONS data - interesting that the same people suggesting no one understand ONS methodology, don't seem to have questioned why ONS estimates have changed as much as they have, or what they mean.🧵
So let's get right to it. The ONS infection survey is a very good survey for infection and picks this up through sampling random households in the community. The long COVID survey looks at those who tested positive ~21K people, and compares them to matched controls who were -ve
They ask both groups to answer question about whether they have 1 in 12 symptoms. These symptoms are limited, and don't include things like brain fog, or mood changes, or palpitations, and many other common symptoms of long COVID.
It beggars belief that a member of SAGE (Viner) has written an article in @guardian that references the widely debunked Hoeg preprint estimate of vaccine associated myocarditis and used for modelling risk-benefits of vaccines for kids. Please retract this. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
There are basic standards for rigour in science, and this article doesn't meet them. I don't understand how this got through editorial, given many of us flagged this issue when this paper was platformed in the Guardian. Thorough critique from @gorskon here sciencebasedmedicine.org/dumpster-divin…
We simply cannot have scientific advisors and paediatricians who advise government quoting very flawed estimates based on very flawed methods - when assessing benefits and risks. This is misinforming the public- and is completely reckless.