Anti-vaxxers

astrofool

There's already a thread in the coronavirus forum (it's likely it would be moved there):
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058187904

pearcider

pearcider wrote: »

You ignored this part of the post. I guess because you can’t argue with the facts that we have no long range clinical data for these novel therapies.

I ignored nothing. I replied directly to that section of the post and spoke at length about why saying they were developed quickly is only showing half the picture. The illusion that anti vaxxers want to push is that they were rushed and therefore are somehow more risky. And it is that illusion which should be dispelled because it is as harmful as it is dishonest.

The _only_ part of it that borders on a useful point to make is that of "Long Term Data" but this point is hardly unique to Covid. How much "Long Term Data" do you reckon most seasonal flu jabs have for example? Do you/we have comparison charts for how much "Long Term Data" was available on all the vaccines our species has ever produced and deployed?

But as another user already pointed out before me - you would also have to be clear what you even mean by long term data. There is a massive difference between long term trials into efficacy and how long the vaccine confers immunity - and long term safety trials. Which vaccines for example have displayed harmful effects over a delayed long term period compared to short term instant effect? And in what decade were the vaccines you identify here deployed? And what exactly was the harm/risk identified in context rather than just numbers cited in isolation like badabing106 has been trying to pull?

pearcider wrote: »

Also to suggest the VAERS reporting is irrelevant just shows how arrogant you are.

Facts remain true regardless of who espouses them. So your personal attack here is as false as it is petty and unwarranted. A system for reporting is just that - a system for reporting. The number of reports in that system is in fact entirely irrelevant and tells us nothing. There is simply no information one can glean from that statistic. At. All. And this fact is not going to go away by simply flinging personal insults at anyone who points this out.

I listed _some_ of the reasons why this is a fact. So it is rich for you to falsely accuse me of ignoring things when you simply ignored that aspect of my post. Not just slightly ignored. But entirely ignored. I can list even more reasons if you want. But only on condition you do not dishonestly and wilfully connive to ignore them too. So perhaps start by going back and addressing the ones I already listed.

Reporting systems of this type are not useless however. The data inside them if processed correctly give us pointers for where we might direct further study - or raise statistical red flags that might be useful to us. But that is literally it. Someone point out there is 30, 30000, or even 30million reports in such a system however is saying less than nothing.

So yes - regardless of how much it might emotionally trigger you to know this - merely citing the number of reports inside such a system is less than useless. It is a non-point and a statistic that tells us nothing at all.

But by all means undermine my knowledge of the subjects of things like epidemiology and regale me with your knowledge of why citing that statistic in isolation from anything else tells us anything useful at all. Because points and rebuttals are much more substantive than personal insults. So perhaps try one sometime.

pearcider wrote: »

The real issue for me and many like me is the lack of trust in the HSE and the WHO.

Then that is on them to change this. I am discussing the vaccine itself and any reasons there might be to consider it harmful or risky. If you want a separate tangential discussion about the HSE or the WHO that's fine with me. But it has less than nothing to do with me - the points I have been making - what I have been discussing - or the posts I chose to reply to. Just like if I was discussing a change in some law - that dodging the discussion into one about how little you trust the government implementing that law - would just be an ad hominem change of subject.

There is a conspiracy theory forum for most of the accusations you have levelled against WHO and China however. I imagine people happy to change the subject to the conversation _you_ want to have instead of the one _I_ have been having will be found there.

But a "Gish Gallop" (For that is what the majority of your post here is) of barely tangential conspiracy theory assertions is not at all replying to a single thing I have said. So it is unclear to me - if it is even clear to you - what you think any of that has to do with replying to me.

Dohnjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a conspiracy theory forum for most of the accusations you have levelled against WHO and China however. I imagine people happy to change the subject to the conversation _you_ want to have instead of the one _I_ have been having will be found there.

Indeed, many of these posters are active on the conspiracy theories forum, there's a heavy overlap between anti-vaccine views and insane conspiracies

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed, many of these posters are active on the conspiracy theories forum, there's a heavy overlap between anti-vaccine views and insane conspiracies

Agreed. But to play advocate for them - at least with many antivax nonsense there is at least some useful data there. Where my definition of conspiracy theories is borrowed from another poster - but it is generally theories based on a _lack_ of evidence rather than an existence of it. That is things like "Why were these documents destroyed it must be aliens" kind of thinking where they are using the unavailability of evidence _as_ evidence. For me that defines conspiracy theory.

The reality is however if you instigate any mass medical intervention - such as rolling out a vaccine - you are going to harm and even kill some people. It simply will happen. As I pointed out earlier in the thread - people get irreparably damaged or even killed in the dentist chair.

So when people come in moaning that some vaccine gave 80 people narcolepsy - they may in fact be right. (80 cases existing in the court does not prove anything though - perhaps zero of those cases actually were caused by the vaccine even assuming the cases themselves even have narcolepsy).

But even if we grant/find that 80 people were given narcolepsy by a Vaccine - that has to be taken in the picture of the quantity of suffering and death alleviated or prevented by the vaccine. We instigate vaccination on a mass scale _despite_ the minutia of harm we know it will cause. And we do it for good reason. And it is up to us as a society to hold that reasoning accountable to ensure we do it in the right contexts and withhold it in others.

And many anti vaxxers miss that big picture. But in fairness to them - unlike conspiracy theorists - at least their evidence of people harmed by the vaccine (sometimes, not always) actually does exist. They just misunderstand or misapply what that evidence actually is and means. And many of them do not understand it even when it is explained to them. Whether wilfully or just do to cognition failures/incapabilities on their part is of course down to the individual.

But the human heart overrides intellect quite often. And the fact is that the tiny minority of people harmed by vaccines are visible real people. Where as the millions of people who do _not_ get sick due to vaccination are by definition invisible. The former appeal to the human heart. The latter to the intellect. And too often people are only moved by the latter and so turn to antivax nonsense peddlers. Often - not always - with their heart in the right place while they are at it.

Despite the short shrift he has been getting for example - I suspect so far that unlike many here that volono above is actually quite genuine - open to reason - and open to having his mind genuinely changed on the topic.

volono

volono wrote: »

It's a silly example but one that did happen to me personally, off of boards. I was told!!!! in conversation , paraphrasing here but "You'll probably die if you don't take it, kill others because you don't".
I'm not sure what yourself or others think, I genuinely believe that's insane, it goes back to a complete lack of information and all you hear is soundbites, ya know

Us in the science world do have a very bad reputation for communication with the public. Many people - Ben Goldacre being one of the more accessible to the lay man - have written about this.

Worse still - Ben Goldacre has also pointed this out at length - many of the "Science Writers" in our media tend to have absolutely no science background. So they unwittingly pedal half truths and uninformed and sometimes erroneous opinion pieces too.

So in the end it unfortunately falls to the public to educate themselves and each other in conversations such as the one you and I are having. So that when someone like yourself comes in and says "Oh my god the VAERS system has 30000 reports in it - this has to be bad" we can point out why that is not so bad or relevant at all so you can relax. While news media who love click bait titles will happily scream about the 30000 reports because people will read that. Fear sells. Ignorance sells.

But yes I do not see "Viral Load" mentioned too much in the media. And where it is - the meaning of it is rarely explained. I think the public have this image of a virus as a "unit". You as an infected person can infect another person with that "unit" - or you don't. And if you are immune naturally or with vaccine then you are "unit" free.

The reality of disease and vaccine however is that you can still be infected and you are never wholly "immune". And when you are infected - or you infect someone else - the quantity of virus passed can be relevant to how sick a person gets. This "Load" can be small or large.

And as someone vaccinated or who has recovered from a disease you can still be infected and infect others. But the "load" you infect others with will be substantially decreased - therefore the load they infect others with lower too - and so on and so on down the chain.

Which is why vaccinations are important even to "Healthy People" who are not too worried about catching a disease because they feel they will recover from it quickly and easily and with no side effects. People take the "me me me" view of vaccinations too often because they think only "What benefit will it confer upon me". Whereas much of the benefit of vaccines to society goes far beyond any one individual.

Scare mongering "You will die or kill others" is unfortunate. But not entirely inaccurate either therefore. But you would never catch me screeching that at someone as it will only close down further already closed minds.

volono

To Taxahcruel, Astrid, Neyite and Cram. I started a new thread in the coronavirus forum. I'd really appreciate it if you's could make afew postings in it, share some links etc. Thanks,
edit: mods already removed it, that didn't last long. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my posts and the few links. I realise now I was woefully misinformed with what I was saying but I think that's the problem to begin with, the complete lack of info out there. I find it absolutely infuriating that were being told Vax,Vax,Vax. But knowing nothing about it. The media are next to useless imo. Probably why this anti Vax stance is so strong!!!. I've learned more in the last couple of days through yous posting and those links than I have in the last year. Funnier again is that this is an anti Vax thread on the internet!!! That's not right whatever way I look at it. I looked at maybe 100 pages of this thread and now understand the fatigue part, cram I think said. It must be exhausting, this tit for tat posting all the time. I think taxcruel mentioned about an irrational fear, I certainly have that around vaccines but I will take one now when offered. The unit and the me,me,me, taxcruel mentioned , I'd certainly fit into that category of people but again it's ignorance on my part. As for safety concerns, the pros seem to far outweigh the cons and we can all be in a car crash tomorrow anyway. I wish I knew more about them, maybe yous could post some more links to articles etc here. Again, thanks for the time and patience. Just to finish I briefly looked at some of these conspiracys that are mentioned, it's just too big of a blackhole to go down, I'd lose my sanity soon after I think.

corkie

@volono your post is still there buried in another thread, which I predicted when you posted.

Moved but not deleted.

volono

Sorry corkie, I didn't realise that. Although I'm a long time member of boards, I access it through my phone and usually just look at the home page to see if anything interests me and then the sports section. I wouldn't be fully up to speed with the whole site. Thank you.

the beer revolu

My, my, it's extremely refreshing for a poster on ah to put their hands up and say that they were misinformed and wrong - to actually take in and process counter arguments and reform their outlook.
Fair play.

Seth Brundle

https://twitter.com/billybragg/status/1396046851632152585?s=19

dxhound2005

volono wrote: »

As for safety concerns, the pros seem to far outweigh the cons and we can all be in a car crash tomorrow anyway. I wish I knew more about them, maybe yous could post some more links to articles etc here. Again, thanks for the time and patience. Just to finish I briefly looked at some of these conspiracys that are mentioned, it's just too big of a blackhole to go down, I'd lose my sanity soon after I think.

If you really want to find out more, there are thousands of sources like these:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tung-Le-10/publication/340535627_The_COVID-19_vaccine_development_landscape/links/5ead65c5a6fdcc7050a1c089/The-COVID-19-vaccine-development-landscape.pdf

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32623-4/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR2zWTx86uAi8IhL5Vy_CBMs7y1xQ33ODsVeym3FVtUKdJXBx5dSJH7g6K0

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00434-6

But unless you have the education level to understand the science, then like most other things in the world you will just have to accept the science. On the basis that there is not some "they" out there who are trying to poison us, and not everything in the world is a conspiracy.

volono

Dxhound, thanks for posting those links, appreciate it. Cheers also for inferring I'm too stupid to read them. It's not about this "they" you mention , it's the fact that all I've seen and heard in the media is about misery ,deaths and case numbers. R.T.E. is our national broadcaster here, why couldn't they of had a afew days, a week in a studio explaining all these things, instead of soundbites that are incoherent and leave you in the dark, commercial reasons aside , it'd be better than neighbours and home and away.
I don't understand this, well it's science so that's that, end of discussion, your wrong, your a loony etc.
It's like saying, Well the science says that taking a flying leap off a bridge works, so we all should do that. Well I'd say fair enough but explain it to me , show me.
If you'd bothered to read my last post, you'd see that i mentioned I looked through that keyhole of conspiracies and it's a blackhole. Thanks again for the links anyway.

moonage

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.

Yes, in the EU the Covid vaccines got Conditional Marketing Authorisations.

One of the criteria for this emergency use is if "the medicine fulfils an unmet medical need". Because of treatments like ivermection this criteria was not met and the vaccines shouldn't have been authorised. Ivermectin has been around for decades, has a good safety profile and is cheap—but it's being suppressed so that vaccines will be the only game in town.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfqxCkJw0Rk

ancapailldorcha

moonage wrote: »

Yes, in the EU the Covid vaccines got Conditional Marketing Authorisations.

One of the criteria for this emergency use is if "the medicine fulfils an unmet medical need". Because of treatments like ivermection this criteria was not met and the vaccines shouldn't have been authorised. Ivermectin has been around for decades, has a good safety profile and is cheap—but it's being suppressed so that vaccines will be the only game in town.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfqxCkJw0Rk

Any actual evidence instead of some random podcast?

Pherekydes

moonage wrote: »

Yes, in the EU the Covid vaccines got Conditional Marketing Authorisations.

One of the criteria for this emergency use is if "the medicine fulfils an unmet medical need". Because of treatments like ivermection this criteria was not met and the vaccines shouldn't have been authorised. Ivermectin has been around for decades, has a good safety profile and is cheap—but it's being suppressed so that vaccines will be the only game in town.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfqxCkJw0Rk

From the manufacturer of Ivermectin:


It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:

No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;

No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and; 

A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

moonage

Pherekydes wrote: »

From the manufacturer of Ivermectin:


It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:

No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;

No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and; 

A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

"Merck’s patent on Ivermectin expired in 1996 and they produce less than 5% of global supply. In 2020 they were asked to assist in Nigerian and Japanese trials but declined both. In 2021 Merck released a statement claiming that Ivermectin was not an effective treatment against Covid-19 and bizarrely claimed, “A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies” of the a drug they donated to be distributed in mass rollouts, by primary care workers, in mass campaigns, to millions in developing countries. The media reported the Merck statement as a blinding truth without looking at the conflict of interests when days later, Merck received $356m from the US government to develop an investigational therapeutic. The WHO even quoted Merck, as evidence, that it didn’t work, in their recommendation against the use of Ivermectin. It’s a dangerous world when corporate marketing determines public health policy. Global vaccine rollout, to everyone, is the policy."

https://www.biznews.com/thought-leaders/2021/05/12/mailbox-ivermectin

ancapailldorcha

moonage wrote: »

"Merck’s patent on Ivermectin expired in 1996 and they produce less than 5% of global supply. In 2020 they were asked to assist in Nigerian and Japanese trials but declined both. In 2021 Merck released a statement claiming that Ivermectin was not an effective treatment against Covid-19 and bizarrely claimed, “A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies” of the a drug they donated to be distributed in mass rollouts, by primary care workers, in mass campaigns, to millions in developing countries. The media reported the Merck statement as a blinding truth without looking at the conflict of interests when days later, Merck received $356m from the US government to develop an investigational therapeutic. The WHO even quoted Merck, as evidence, that it didn’t work, in their recommendation against the use of Ivermectin. It’s a dangerous world when corporate marketing determines public health policy. Global vaccine rollout, to everyone, is the policy."

https://www.biznews.com/thought-leaders/2021/05/12/mailbox-ivermectin

Where is the evidence that it has therapeutic utility in cases of covid? That article looks like clickbait but by all means please share some efficacy data if you have it instead of just dumping links and text.

Pherekydes

moonage wrote: »

"Merck’s patent on Ivermectin expired in 1996 and they produce less than 5% of global supply. In 2020 they were asked to assist in Nigerian and Japanese trials but declined both. In 2021 Merck released a statement claiming that Ivermectin was not an effective treatment against Covid-19 and bizarrely claimed, “A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies” of the a drug they donated to be distributed in mass rollouts, by primary care workers, in mass campaigns, to millions in developing countries. The media reported the Merck statement as a blinding truth without looking at the conflict of interests when days later, Merck received $356m from the US government to develop an investigational therapeutic. The WHO even quoted Merck, as evidence, that it didn’t work, in their recommendation against the use of Ivermectin. It’s a dangerous world when corporate marketing determines public health policy. Global vaccine rollout, to everyone, is the policy."

https://www.biznews.com/thought-leaders/2021/05/12/mailbox-ivermectin

It's a poorly written article. It implies that Merck donated the drug for use in trials for covid treatments, but they began donating the drug in 1988 for river blindness treatments, and have been doing so ever since.

Samsonsmasher

The pandemic and the vaccine are quite clearly a scam.
We know that less than 1% of the population have died and that practically nobody of working age has died or got seriously ill.
We know the pcr tests give false postives and negatives and are next to useless.
Despite masks social distancing and lockdowns the virus spread.
International travel and the reopening of hospitality and entertainment and workplaces has been held up with threats people who are unvaccinated cannot return to normal life.
That's the only reason why most people are taking it.
So this whole thing is bs.
Everyone knows it

mikeorange

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

The pandemic and the vaccine are quite clearly a scam.
We know that less than 1% of the population have died and that practically nobody of working age has died or got seriously ill.
We know the pcr tests give false postives and negatives and are next to useless.
Despite masks social distancing and lockdowns the virus spread.
International travel and the reopening of hospitality and entertainment and workplaces has been held up with threats people who are unvaccinated cannot return to normal life.
That's the only reason why most people are taking it.
So this whole thing is bs.
Everyone knows it

Well yeah most people are not taking it for health reasons, that is correct, we can't deny it.

I took it because I need for work, not because I am at risk from Covid.

People refusing covid jabs shouldnt be called anti vaxxers either, its too new.

Its not an mmr jab

CramCycle

moonage wrote: »

Yes, in the EU the Covid vaccines got Conditional Marketing Authorisations.

One of the criteria for this emergency use is if "the medicine fulfils an unmet medical need". Because of treatments like ivermection this criteria was not met and the vaccines shouldn't have been authorised. Ivermectin has been around for decades, has a good safety profile and is cheap—but it's being suppressed so that vaccines will be the only game in town.

Ivermectin was found to discourage Covid 19 from replicating in a flask of cells, at doses far higher than would ever be used in the real world, or has been so far. This isn't to say it can't be used at far higher doses, but that isn't the real issue here. It isn't acting as an anti viral as such but appears to be stopping the internalisation via inhibition. This actually sounds great, we have a chemical in the lab here that is a potent anti viral has a proven safety profile that allows it to be taken at far higher concentrations., Now comes the tricky part which people find hard to comprehend, it does not address the pathway of Covid 19 transmission in the real world, there are no stability studies done to see does Ivermectin even work in this way. For it to be a useful drug in this way, realistically it will have to be aerosilised, without a shift in pH, It certainly shows no signs of being a preventative drug despite some of the claims and if they nailed aerosolisation and stability, it might possibly have some use as a treatment. Regrettably none of this has been achieved, nor does it appear anyone is trying to even do this (bar one), even in the one study that shows it might have a use they don't touch this idea.

The road to getting a drug like Ivermectin from topical treatment to aerosiolised inhalable drug that keeps the function and stability is a far slower process than some like to admit, once you have nailed that formulation and grown a few flask of cells with an air liquid interface, infected them with Covid 19, treated them and showed that has an effect, you then need to move onto the animal trials, first just safety, give a load of lab rats inhalable ivermectin and see how it goes over a few weeks. You can then move onto human safety trials, and so on.

The big issue is that none of that is even remotely possible because no one has even gotten over the first hurdle, one study managed to get it aerosolised in ethanol which has its own issues, so nothing suitable for human treatment so far. Hands up though, there is no harm pursuing this, but the idea that the bottle of ivermectin you pick up at your local creamery and pour on the back of your cattle or sheep is a treatment is a viable treatment for Covid 19 is still laughable. Or the idea that we should or could use it in this way and therefore there is no need for a vaccine is even more laughable.

CramCycle

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

The pandemic and the vaccine are quite clearly a scam.

This I have to hear.

We know that less than 1% of the population have died and that practically nobody of working age has died or got seriously ill.

Alot of this thanks to the sterling efforts of most of humanity.

We know the pcr tests give false postives and negatives and are next to useless.

False negatives are typically down to human sampling error and I am sorry but false positives in Covid 19 PCR testing are not a thing, it simply is a flat out lie.

Despite masks social distancing and lockdowns the virus spread.

It spread a lot less than it would have, several studies showing this.

International travel and the reopening of hospitality and entertainment and workplaces has been held up with threats people who are unvaccinated cannot return to normal life.
That's the only reason why most people are taking it.
So this whole thing is bs.

So discussions are threats now, good to know.

Everyone knows it

You might be one of the only ones, I am glad Covid hasn't affected anyone you know in a negative way, no one you know as long covid or died, good for you, I hope your luck continues.

Seth Brundle

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

The pandemic and the vaccine are quite clearly a scam.

So my aunt died of someting else and the doctors and nurses were all lying as part of some weird conspiracy?

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

We know that less than 1% of the population have died and that practically nobody of working age has died or got seriously ill.

Less than 1% of the population is still a huge number but I'm glad that you now seem to agree that the virus kills.

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

We know the pcr tests give false postives and negatives and are next to useless.

Your source for this is?

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Despite masks social distancing and lockdowns the virus spread.

Did it spread faster than had people not applied social distancing and lockdowns?

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

International travel and the reopening of hospitality and entertainment and workplaces has been held up with threats people who are unvaccinated cannot return to normal life.

If a person is not vaccinated then they are vulnerable to the virus. So those who take the vaccine do so to halp reduce the risk to those vulnerable.
However, yes. We should not allow those who choose to remain unvaccinated for whatever notions they have to potentiall infect someone vulnerable.
Also hospitality and entertainment have the option to protect their staff by excluding the selfish people who choose against vaccination.

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

That's the only reason why most people are taking it.

Was there a survey done on this or how do you know?

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

So this whole thing is bs.
Everyone knows it

Your claims are BS. Everyone knows it.
You spread toxic sh1te which have the potential to lead to infections and death. You and your claims are a cancer on society! :mad:

ancapailldorcha

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

The pandemic and the vaccine are quite clearly a scam.
We know that less than 1% of the population have died and that practically nobody of working age has died or got seriously ill.
We know the pcr tests give false postives and negatives and are next to useless.
Despite masks social distancing and lockdowns the virus spread.
International travel and the reopening of hospitality and entertainment and workplaces has been held up with threats people who are unvaccinated cannot return to normal life.
That's the only reason why most people are taking it.
So this whole thing is bs.
Everyone knows it

I do wonder what compels people to post such demented and obviously false drivel like the above. Is it the result of an unmet need to feel special or important?

Over a hundred thousand people have died here in the UK. If you had any spine whatsoever you'd stop hiding behind your new Boards.ie account and take responsibility for the bile you're peddling.

Former Former Former

There is very little evidence that ivermectin works to treat Covid, but let's imagine that it does work.

Even if this is the case, there is no conceivable way that ivermectin could prevent Covid infection and spread. Thus, even if ivermectin was approved as a Covid treatment tomorrow, we would still need lockdowns and vaccines to prevent infections spreading like wildfire.

I honestly don't know if people are having a bit of a laugh by peddling this nonsense, or whether they're genuinely buying into this. If it's the former, it's very dangerous because some people will believe it. If the latter, then it is genuinely a form of mental illness. No other way to describe it, there is something broken in the brains of these people.

Timberrrrrrrr

Former Former Former wrote: »

There is very little evidence that ivermectin works to treat Covid, but let's imagine that it does work.

Even if this is the case, there is no conceivable way that ivermectin could prevent Covid infection and spread. Thus, even if ivermectin was approved as a Covid treatment tomorrow, we would still need lockdowns and vaccines to prevent infections spreading like wildfire.

I honestly don't know if people are having a bit of a laugh by peddling this nonsense, or whether they're genuinely buying into this. If it's the former, it's very dangerous because some people will believe it. If the latter, then it is genuinely a form of mental illness. No other way to describe it, there is something broken in the brains of these people.

Just leave them to thier ignorance and laugh at them, at least in here they aren't doing any harm.

ancapailldorcha

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Just leave them to thier ignorance and laugh at them, at least in here they aren't doing any harm.

No. Calling this sort of nonsense out is important. It's causing real damage and costing lives.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No. Calling this sort of nonsense out is important. It's causing real damage and costing lives.

Yep this is the thing that gets to me. Antivaxxers were treated as a bit mental and not viewed to be dangerous for years. This was in spite of the fact that things like measles outbreaks restarted as a result of them, that they actively campaigned against a vaccine that prevents a large proportion of cancers. Now they're doing it with a deadly pandemic. They are incredibly dangerous.

Pinch Flat

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

The pandemic and the vaccine are quite clearly a scam.
We know that less than 1% of the population have died and that practically nobody of working age has died or got seriously ill.
We know the pcr tests give false postives and negatives and are next to useless.
Despite masks social distancing and lockdowns the virus spread.
International travel and the reopening of hospitality and entertainment and workplaces has been held up with threats people who are unvaccinated cannot return to normal life.
That's the only reason why most people are taking it.
So this whole thing is bs.
Everyone knows it

Only gullible people who've chosen to follow the conspiracy theory narrative rather than the science believe this

paul71

Deleted User wrote: »

Yep this is the thing that gets to me. Antivaxxers were treated as a bit mental and not viewed to be dangerous for years. This was in spite of the fact that things like measles outbreaks restarted as a result of them, that they actively campaigned against a vaccine that prevents a large proportion of cancers. Now they're doing it with a deadly pandemic. They are incredibly dangerous.

Absolutely. Measels killed 2.6 million people a year before 1980, mostly children. By 2013 that had fallen to 130k a year, thanks to the WHO vaccination program which is estimated to have saved the lives of 15 million children.

Last year 200k died from that disease. 2020 was the year that the WHO had set as their goal for the complete elimination of measels. Similarly they set the year 2000 as the target date for the elimination of Polio.

Both diseases are still with us and will be killing 100s of thousands of children for years to come because of anti-vaxers and their murderous lies.