SChall @SharChall · 6m This study report is a Preprint. That's important because it has not been reviewed by others which mean it could be refuted or have a lot of false findings. Readers need to know the significance of this.
There is undoubtedly a correlation between long term health damage and getting your medical news off Twitter.
You do realise that the University that produced the report is nothing to do with twitter? It's also far from the only place I get information from. You'd be surprised who has spoken to some of the key players in many aspects of the whole situation.
You do realise that the University didn't produce the report? Some of the authors are affiliated with Yale, most aren't. For a view of the report, see https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2025...er-course-on-conducting-research-responsibly/. Here's some quotes: "With a topic this sensitive, there is an expectation of scientific precision — well-designed experiments and trials, strong data and unshakable conclusions. Instead, this paper didn’t just miss the mark — it didn’t even hit the target." "... several major flaws weaken the study’s conclusions ..." "Finally, and most importantly, the study does not establish causation. There is no direct evidence linking the immune changes the authors describe to the symptoms reported by PVS patients." "Serious adverse events following vaccination must be thoroughly investigated to ensure public trust, improve vaccine safety and guide appropriate medical responses. However, this preprint irresponsibly fuels vaccine skepticism based on a tiny sample size and inconclusive data. When research lacks clear conclusions but is aggressively promoted, it is fair to question the authors’ motives."
It's interesting that you are demanding of proof for some claims, but don't even offer the names of the ones you mention. The article you link also doesn't dismiss the claims, it merely suggests that more research is needed, which is ultimately what the initial report (and many, many others) are saying. I offered the link as interest, it's not a competition. As I said previously, you'd be surprised who has had conversations with whom on this topic as well as others. As for someone suggesting it as a reason it's not in the main stream media. I can only surmise that they've had no direct dealings with the main stream media or knowledge of a topic that they report on.
You really do make yourself look quite ridiculous ... It's even more interesting that I didn't demand anything. I think it suggests more that it's a shoddy unreliable piece of research. Wow. Is whom in the room with you right now? Can anyone else see them?
That replies says more about your understanding than I think you realise, or would like it to. As you're reduced to such banalities, I'll leave you to it, as you clearly have nothing meaningful to contribute.
Yeah, no politics rule, yet... The politics of the elite doesn't serve any of us on here. The undermining of institutions worldwide is certainly not a conspiracy theory. Hatred, greed, and division, will only ever take society in one direction, and AI has the potential to supercharge that process.
Not really, as I wasn't actually having an argument. The fact you think there was one hints at your insecurity, and also why I felt it's not worth continuing with you.
please log in to view this image PS, you may just want to read the paragraph from S Chall at the top of the post in question.
I am not in possession of a Twitter account. What I am aware of though, is that your responses appear almost exclusively left-brained which can create issues with critical thinking. https://resilient-mind.com/how-left-brain-dominance-is-causing-the-emerging-meaning-crisis/
It's hard to have a conversation with people pushing some bizarre agenda, rather than simply discussing things actually posted, especially when they demonstrate such poor comprehension. They're generally offering personal slights and posting from emotion rather than fact. The first paragraph in the post that seems to have unsettled a couple of people is clear enough, and I put it there because some people are very predictable in how they try to close down discussions, which is very boring for most other posters: "SChall @SharChall 6m This study report is a Preprint. That's important because it has not been reviewed by others which mean it could be refuted or have a lot of false findings. Readers need to know the significance of this."
