Anti-vaxxers

ancapailldorcha

pearcider wrote: »

The real issue for me and many like me is the lack of trust in the HSE and the WHO. These are corrupt and incompetent bodies. I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them. The WHO has worked with Communist China to cover up covid. The wuhan lab was experimenting with gain of function research into bio weapons (funded by creeps like Fauci). They’ve sidelined good therapies that vastly reduce deaths like ivermectin. Finally you have the globalist freak show called the party of davos posting on Twitter that the lockdowns are good for our cities and would be a good green policy going forward.

The whole thing stinks.

So we're back to this unsubstantiated conspiracy drivel, then.

pearcider

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So we're back to this unsubstantiated conspiracy drivel, then.

You delete any comments you don’t like. You’re a joke.

ancapailldorcha

pearcider wrote: »

You delete any comments you don’t like. You’re a joke.

And there's the victim complex. I have not deleted anything. Have you any proof or might we be as well adding UFO's and reverse vampires to the mix?

pearcider

astrofool wrote: »

I think that's an anti-vaxxer B-I-N-G-O.

Facts are facts. But you continue believing that mega corps like Pfizer and Moderna care about the little people and they haven’t a vested interest in vaccinating the world every year. I guess they’re non profits now lol.

pearcider

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

And there's the victim complex. I have not deleted anything. Have you any proof or might we be as well adding UFO's and reverse vampires to the mix?

You mod opinions you don’t like...seen it many times deny it if you wish. I couldn’t care less.

astrofool

pearcider wrote: »

Facts are facts. But you continue believing that mega corps like Pfizer and Moderna care about the little people and they haven’t a vested interest in vaccinating the world every year. I guess they’re non profits now lol.

Your post is a barren wasteland of facts, but quickly:

Vaccines have passed all safety trials, trials are still running into the long term efficacy not safety trials.

VAERS reporting specifically not to misrepresent the data via a disclaimer on the site that you clearly didn't read.

The HSE is an independent organization from the WHO, as is the EMA, CDC, NIAC, NHS etc. the possibility of all these organizations with millions of employees conspiring and leaving no evidence is beyond ridiculous.

pearcider

astrofool wrote: »

Your post is a barren wasteland of facts, but quickly:

Vaccines have passed all safety trials, trials are still running into the long term efficacy not safety trials.

VAERS reporting specifically not to misrepresent the data via a disclaimer on the site that you clearly didn't read.

The HSE is an independent organization from the WHO, as is the EMA, CDC, NIAC, NHS etc. the possibility of all these organizations with millions of employees conspiring and leaving no evidence is beyond ridiculous.

Firstly, Long term safety is not established. Dres it up however you want. Emergency use authorisation was granted despite the fact that there were effective therapies available such as ivermectin. This was purely financial decision. No money to be made from ivermectin of course. No vaccine passports needed. No need for mass surveillance of the population along the communist China model.

That does not make the Vaers data “irrelevant”.

I didn’t say the HSE was involved in a conspiracy. I said they were incompetent. Plenty of evidence for this. The WHO did conspire with the communist party though that much is true. They have a chequered past as does their DG. No trust in the means no trust in their policies or their vaccines. They are in the pockets of criminal organisations like Pfizer...these are the same lads who had to make the largest pay out in criminal history (Bextra) the have a long history of tax evasion, bribery and have lost so many law suits its hard to count. The rest of them are the worse.

ancapailldorcha

pearcider wrote: »

Firstly, Long term safety is not established. Dres it up however you want. Emergency use authorisation was granted despite the fact that there were effective therapies available such as ivermectin. This was purely financial decision. No money to be made from ivermectin of course. No vaccine passports needed. No need for mass surveillance of the population along the communist China model.

That does not make the Vaers data “irrelevant”.

I didn’t say the HSE was involved in a conspiracy. I said they were incompetent. Plenty of evidence for this. The WHO did conspire with the communist party though that much is true. They have a chequered past as does their DG. No trust in the means no trust in their policies or their vaccines. They are in the pockets of criminal organisations like Pfizer...these are the same lads who had to make the largest pay out in criminal history (Bextra) the have a long history of tax evasion, bribery and have lost so many law suits its hard to count. The rest of them are the worse.

Saying that there's plenty of evidence while providing absolutely none isn't convincing.

astrofool

pearcider wrote: »

Firstly, Long term safety is not established. Dres it up however you want. Emergency use authorisation was granted despite the fact that there were effective therapies available such as ivermectin. This was purely financial decision. No money to be made from ivermectin of course. No vaccine passports needed. No need for mass surveillance of the population along the communist China model.

That does not make the Vaers data “irrelevant”.

I didn’t say the HSE was involved in a conspiracy. I said they were incompetent. Plenty of evidence for this. The WHO did conspire with the communist party though that much is true. They have a chequered past as does their DG. No trust in the means no trust in their policies or their vaccines. They are in the pockets of criminal organisations like Pfizer...these are the same lads who had to make the largest pay out in criminal history (Bextra) the have a long history of tax evasion, bribery and have lost so many law suits its hard to count. The rest of them are the worse.

And give me an I, INVERMECTIN. (ignoring that equally cheap dexamethasone is being used...).

Vaccines in Europe are not under emergency authorization.

CramCycle

volono wrote: »

No not at all. Ive given you my reasons for not wanting to receive one and imo they're valid

---

to me. I'm all for vaccinations but I feel I DON'T need one for covid19 for my reasons stated above. I'm not saying others don't.

Its not for you, it is for everyone else.

volono wrote: »

CDC's own figures. Vax's that are tested but no long term data set, as of yet. Swedens government own figures and VAERS own figures and I've already contracted covid and recovered, none of that can be considered bullsh*t imo. Hence the reason I DONT feel like I need one. For others it's a completely different story.

As above

moonage wrote: »

People who defend these Covid vaccines so vehemently and who also know the Infection Fatality Rate and how little of a threat the virus is to the vast majority must be suffering major cognitive dissonance.

You could be accused of suffering moral dissonance.

volono wrote: »

Just on the immunity part , would it be right in saying that my body does now have natural immunity after testing positive and being ill with covid last year?
If all these things where covered coherently in the news , on rte shows etc etc I think this tread would be alot smaller. I think it's only right to be able to question whether I really need to take a jab, without being dismissed. It's like , you don't agree, your a loony!!!

You might have a short lived immunity, you might have a long term immunity, it is impossible to say, you may have none at all.

Hotblack Desiato

Funny how people turning their noses up at vaccines are okay with sheep medicine or known toxic chemicals.

volono

To cram , those quotes are from my first couple of posts on this tread, they're a misrepresentation in isolation imo. You say "it's for everyone else", that's just another dismissive response that explains absolutely nothing. He posters Tazcruel, neyite and Astrof made an effort to respond and I thank them for it. From one of the articles I read thru their posts , it doesn't seem your other response is entirely true. From what I read , depending when I or anyone else contracted covid it depended on the viral load at the time of infection, if you where infected your body had an immune response though. It also said they couldn't be sure how long your immunity will last, maybe up to 8 months.. It went on to say that they recommend persons like meself to get the vaccination anyway because it quarantees a uniform immune response in people that take it. That all sounds logical to me tbf. Not to be repeating myself but I don't understand where the dismissive attitude comes from here. I want as much info so as to understand what these vaccines are etc etc. I'm not sure what the problem is with that. To hotblack I literally have no clue what your talking about, forgive my ignorance on the two things you menrioned

badabing106

I think its not easy to guarantee the long term effects of any vacinne unless there are long term studies?

Has anyone mentioned the recent 2009 swine flu pandemic and the vaccine Pandemrix?

The Pandemrix vaccine was one of the vaccines approved for use by the European Commission, on the recommendation of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and this vaccine was used in Ireland.

Use of the Pandemrix vaccine was suspended in Ireland in 2011. When reports emerged of children and adolescents developing narcolepsy after being given the vaccine in Ireland, a National Narcolepsy Steering Committee was established to investigate a potential link.

The committee’s report in 2012 found that there was “a significant 13-fold higher risk of narcolepsy in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated individuals”.

As part of its agreement to secure the vaccine, the Irish government agreed to indemnify the developer GlaxoSmithKline. There are around 80 legal actions being taken in Ireland over the Pandemrix vaccine.

ohnonotgmail

badabing106 wrote: »

Has anyone mentioned the recent 2009 swine flu pandemic and the vaccine Pandemrix?

The Pandemrix vaccine was one of the vaccines approved for use by the European Commission, on the recommendation of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and this vaccine was used in Ireland.

Use of the Pandemrix vaccine was suspended in Ireland in 2011. When reports emerged of children and adolescents developing narcolepsy after being given the vaccine in Ireland, a National Narcolepsy Steering Committee was established to investigate a potential link.

The committee’s report in 2012 found that there was “a significant 13-fold higher risk of narcolepsy in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated individuals”.

As part of its agreement to secure the vaccine, the Irish government agreed to indemnify the developer GlaxoSmithKline. There are around 80 legal actions being taken in Ireland over the Pandemrix vaccine.

its only been mentioned a couple of hundred times.

ancapailldorcha

badabing106 wrote: »

I think its not easy to guarantee the long term effects of any vacinne unless there are long term studies?

Has anyone mentioned the recent 2009 swine flu pandemic and the vaccine Pandemrix?

The Pandemrix vaccine was one of the vaccines approved for use by the European Commission, on the recommendation of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and this vaccine was used in Ireland.

Use of the Pandemrix vaccine was suspended in Ireland in 2011. When reports emerged of children and adolescents developing narcolepsy after being given the vaccine in Ireland, a National Narcolepsy Steering Committee was established to investigate a potential link.

The committee’s report in 2012 found that there was “a significant 13-fold higher risk of narcolepsy in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated individuals”.

As part of its agreement to secure the vaccine, the Irish government agreed to indemnify the developer GlaxoSmithKline. There are around 80 legal actions being taken in Ireland over the Pandemrix vaccine.

This old dead horse gets wheeled out for flogging every so often.

What percentage of people who got Pandemrix developed narcolepsy?

Former Former Former

badabing106 wrote: »

Use of the Pandemrix vaccine was suspended in Ireland in 2011.

See, this is my problem with anti-vaxxers. Picking facts out of context and presenting them as 'evidence'.

The swine flu pandemic happened in 2009. The WHO officially declared it 'over' in 2010.

So, it would have been odd to continue using Pandemrix beyond 2011, no?

But you're presenting it as though it was suspended because of narcolepsy, which is not remotely accurate.

badabing106

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This old dead horse gets wheeled out for flogging every so often.

What percentage of people who got Pandemrix developed narcolepsy?

I don't have the statistics. I presume they are tiny but they could have been large?

ancapailldorcha

badabing106 wrote: »

I don't have the statistics. I presume they are tiny but they could have been large?

Where did you get 13-fold from then? The context is crucial. What is the 13-fold being compared to? Not having the vaccine or a different influenza vaccine?

badabing106

Former Former Former wrote: »

See, this is my problem with anti-vaxxers. Picking facts out of context and presenting them as 'evidence'.

The swine flu pandemic happened in 2009. The WHO officially declared it 'over' in 2010.

So, it would have been odd to continue using Pandemrix beyond 2011, no?

But you're presenting it as though it was suspended because of narcolepsy, which is not remotely accurate.

I agree that it would of have been odd to continue using Pandemrix after 2011, but it is fact is that was continued to be used

Pandemrix was suspended because of its links to Nacrolesosy and that is a fact

Strumms

badabing106 wrote: »

I agree that it would of have been odd to continue using Pandemrix after 2011, but it is fact is that was continued to be used

Pandemrix was suspended because of its links to Nacrolesosy and that is a fact

Pandemrix was manufactured by Glaxosmithcline, who employ over 1000 people here.

badabing106

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Where did you get 13-fold from then? The context is crucial. What is the 13-fold being compared to? Not having the vaccine or a different influenza vaccine?

The study showed a 13.9-fold higher risk of narcolepsy in children or adolescents vaccinated with Pandemrix in Ireland than those not vaccinated with it

ancapailldorcha

badabing106 wrote: »

The study showed a 13.9-fold higher risk of narcolepsy in children or adolescents vaccinated with Pandemrix in Ireland than those not vaccinated with it

I thought you didn't have statistics. Since you've found some, can you tell me how many people got narcolepsy compared to how many did not within the demographic of those who got the vaccine?

badabing106

badabing106 wrote: »

The study showed a 13.9-fold higher risk of narcolepsy in children or adolescents vaccinated with Pandemrix in Ireland than those not vaccinated with it

Where is it?

Brian?

moonage wrote: »

People who defend these Covid vaccines so vehemently and who also know the Infection Fatality Rate and how little of a threat the virus is to the vast majority must be suffering major cognitive dissonance.

First off, kudos on using cognitive dissonance correctly. Most people don't.

Secondly, fatality rate is only one metric to worry about. Serious illness is also important and long term effects ditto.

We have no idea right now of the long term effects. So the educated decision is to actually get the vaccine, which eliminates any worry about cognitive dissonance.

The chances of becoming ill from the vaccine are much smaller than that of getting Covid. So anyone not taking the vaccine based on risk assessment should also be suffering cognitive dissonance. But my suspicion is they are too stupid.

ancapailldorcha

badabing106 wrote: »

www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/influenza/seasonalinfluenza/publications/influenzavaccinationpublications/narcolepsyassociatedwithpandemicvaccination/File,13379,en.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi869qv2drwAhVyQxUIHaatBQoQFjABegQIBBAG&usg=AOvVaw37Y_E4S5D3G-bjcjN-4YLc

From the link:

The incidence rate was 0.4/100,000 person‐years overall age group, 1.9/100,000 person‐years in the 5‐19 age group, and 0.1/100,000 person‐years in those aged 20 and over.

I'm not convinced that you actually read this. We don't say that smoking causes lung cancer because there's a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of getting it from smoking.

The whole document in a functioning link is here.

badabing106

There is 13 fold increase of people developing narcolepsy who have received the vaccine vs people who have not. This result was first completed in Finland, the same in Ireland and other countries

Why are there at least 80 people taking legal action against Ireland and winning cases?

Did the Irish government know of these studies?

Brian?

badabing106 wrote: »

There is 13 fold increase of people developing narcolepsy who have received the vaccine vs people who have not. This result was first completed in Finland, the same in Ireland and other countries

Why are there at least 80 people taking legal action against Ireland and winning cases?

Did the Irish government know of these studies?

Which vaccine?

ancapailldorcha

badabing106 wrote: »

There is 13 fold increase of people developing narcolepsy who have received the vaccine vs people who have not. This result was first completed in Finland, the same in Ireland and other countries

Why are there at least 80 people taking legal action against Ireland and winning cases?

Did the Irish government know of these studies?

Odd how even the meanest bit of effort shuts down the anti-vaxx narrative.

You could easily ask your TD to investigate but you clearly care so little that you won't even do that.

badabing106

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

From the link:



I'm not convinced that you actually read this. We don't say that smoking causes lung cancer because there's a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of getting it from smoking.

The whole document in a functioning link is here.

I'm not convinced you read the conclusion of the report?

10. Conclusion
Through a retrospective population‐based cohort study, we demonstrated that the
increased incidence of narcolepsy in children/adolescents in Ireland from 2009 was
associated with vaccination with Pandemrix. All cases who were tested and results available
at time of chart retrieval (n=17) occurred in those who are genetically susceptible. The
association could not be assessed accurately in adults because of the small number of cases
reported. Our results were very similar to the findings reported from Finland and other
Scandinavian countries.   
Although we cannot exclude any selection or confounding bias which might have
overestimated the risk of narcolepsy linked to Pandemrix vaccination, we believe that the
association was so high that it is unlikely to be explained by any possible bias.  Extensive case
finding was undertaken in Ireland over the last 6 months and it unlikely that 33 – 55 cases in
the unvaccinated cohort of 5‐19 year olds are awaiting presentation to primary care and or
investigation in secondary care.  
Further studies are awaited (e.g. the VAESCO study) that will consider possible confounders
and facilitate better understanding

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Which vaccine?

I see now, the swine flu.

The vaccine was rushed to save lives, unfortunately it may have caused narcolepsy in some people.


It saved millions of lives though, if we hadn't stopped swine flu in it's tracks with vaccines the current pandemic would feel like a seasonal cold in comparison.