Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

patnor1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119362706#Comment_119362706

and?

Do you think they would publish something which does not have some solid basis? We hear constantly to trust the science :)

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119362773#Comment_119362773

But the vaccines do grant you immunity. You keep trying to run back to this argument whenever you want to deflect.

it's really funny cause it's also the same kind of misrepresentation you accuse other people of.

Why did you link to Natural News? Why not just link to the BMJ article itself?

Do you think that Natural News is a legitimate source? Yes or no?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119362773#Comment_119362773

This is from an article you linked to;

Protection of natural infection against reinfection wanes and may diminish within a few years. Viral immune evasion accelerates this waning. Protection against severe reinfection remains very strong, with no evidence for waning.

So if you don't accept the protection the vaccines provide as being beneficial, then neither is 'natural immunity' - cos you aren't immune.

That's in the study you linked to, so you must think it a valid source.

Checkmate and game over.

patnor1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119362769#Comment_119362769

You should really try to write. You do have habit of thinking of what other think and explaining to the world of what is going on and then building whole fantasies based on.... your own fantasy.

This is prime demonstration of why people try not to engage with you since you constantly build your arguments on stuff which you mostly dreamed and try to present it as some facts.

patnor1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119362786#Comment_119362786

Everyone who will read that exchange will see exactly what I said and what you replied to it. No need to try to deflect, it is all still there.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119362808#Comment_119362808

Ok.

So what's the real explanation then? Why did you post from an obviously false source? Where did you really find it? Why are you really refusing to address the issue with using Natural News as a source?

If I'm wrong, why not educate us?

But you won't. You;ll ignore and dodge. Because what I wrote is correct.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119362818#Comment_119362818

Yes, they will. I'm not deflecting. I said that vaccines grant you immunity because they do.

You however are deflecting. I asked you a simple yes or no question.

Is Natural News a a legitimate source? Yes or no?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119362807#Comment_119362807

Again foiled because he didn't actually read what he link dumped.

patnor1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119362754#Comment_119362754

Oh well, it is one random "expert" here another one there, it seems more of them "randomly" keep coming. It was told many times by a lot of people that this will take some time. It is pretty evident by increasing list of side effects and risks and decreasing number of "vaccines" on offer.

As for your last question the answer is resounding yes. It is intended to generate an immune response to provide protection against coronavirus. Only problem is that it does not work. I will repeat here what I said over a year ago since it is still valid:

patnor1011 wrote: »

You are right. It doesn't. It offer you possibility of having covid infecton milder when you eventually contract it. Which itself is hard to prove as nobody can even pretend to know how covid would hit individual with vaccine or without it. It all depends on everyone's own immune system and state of health.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119362864#Comment_119362864

It is not one random expert v another. You have one random expert ranged against every major health authority in the world. You made the argument based on credentials and authority. You lost.

Read the last article you link dumped.

If it doesn't work neither does natural 'immunity' of which you made such great claims.

Protection of natural infection against reinfection wanes and may diminish within a few years. Viral immune evasion accelerates this waning. Protection against severe reinfection remains very strong, with no evidence for waning.

How did that article prove that "Protection against severe reinfection remains very strong."

Hoist on your own petard.

bad2thebone

Why am I under the impression that the pro covid 19 vaccine side are telling the vaccine hesitant people that they're reading all the evidence arse way's and nothing is acceptable if its anything to do with the vaccines being dangerous.

There's a lot of evidence out there from different parts of the world that it's not as safe as they thought. Supposedly it's clogging up arteries, undertaker's are seeing strange autopsies and talking about strange clots etc which they never observed before.

It doesn't effect everyone but there's a problem along the line somewhere.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mod Note:

If you are going to claim the following:

Supposedly it's clogging up arteries, undertaker's are seeing strange autopsies and talking about strange clots etc which they never observed before.

Then you need to provide something more than hearsay

EyesClosed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119362926#Comment_119362926

I'd be happy to listen to a conspiracy if there was one presented, there isn't.

All we are getting is links to seriously obvious fake news sites that keep spinning lies from studies which say you can't represent them the way the fake news sites are.

So what's the conspiracy?

If the vaccine is bad cool, why is it bad, and what's it going to do?

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119362978#Comment_119362978

You'll have to go through the whole thread to find out you're not the first to ask all these questions. I'm wondering what's going on too.

Because all the naysayers can't be part of the conspiracy.

I don't think there's a conspiracy, but there's something going on somewhere.

It'll probably come out in trickle's and be brushed under the hedge, until it's broken down and nothing to see here folks. It's going to be year's before these vaccines will be understood.

You can't vaccinate yourself out of a pandemic, I keep hearing from one side and the other say's we have to vaccinate ourselves out of the pandemic....it's an absolute quagmire.

EyesClosed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119363071#Comment_119363071

I have read the entire thread. I know I'm not the first to ask those questions, nobody has answered them.

And no it won't take years, the vaccines are overwhelming safe, the only people who say they are not are linking to nonsense fake news sites.

The vaccine worked wonders in so much as it totally removed the strain of covid they where made for. But this has all been said over and over on this thread.

You don't believe there's a conspiracy... So what's the problem?

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119363266#Comment_119363266

What's the problem ? I think it's pretty clear what the problem is.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119362926#Comment_119362926

Why? Because that's the default position that the 'skeptics' fall into when the facade they've raised around themselves begins to crumble.

If you keep putting up bullshit 'evidence' and it keeps getting destroyed, that's not because the other side are getting desperate and won't accept anything, it's because your evidence is bullshit. Occam's razor applies here.

There's a lot of evidence out there from different parts of the world that it's not as safe as they thought.

You cannot seriously point to a handful of experts with "lots of evidence" and say 'look at all this evidence', while ignoring the fact that there are literally tens of 1,000's of experts with 100,000 times more evidence saying the opposite. Well, you can, but you look like a fool who can't understand basic maths. And that's before we even get into the nitty gritty of this "evidence", which is almost always either falsified or misinterpreted by those who stand to lose most by it, so try to turn it around.

It's like looking through the window at a load of mental patients. "You can't trust Big Pharma cos they want your money, instead look at this guy's video on youtube with a Patreon and Cashapp link in his bio"

Look at it this way:

Imagine you're blindfolded and standing in a room full of 1000 chefs.

You're handed a sandwich and told you can eat it, if you want.

You ask all 1,000 doctors what's in the sandwich, and 995 of them say it's a dog-sh1te sambo, don't eat it.

5 of them are saying it's a ham and cheese toasty, tuck in.

Would you take a bite?

By pointing to the outliers in the medical profession and saying you believe them about the vaccines being unsafe and hey, they're doctors......you're implicitly saying you don't believe the other 99.5% of doctors who say they are safe.

EyesClosed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119363286#Comment_119363286

If it's clear... Then please tell me

Big Bag of Chips

@bad2thebone

Supposedly it's clogging up arteries, undertaker's are seeing strange autopsies and talking about strange clots etc which they never observed before.

Supposedly? Is this hearsay or is there evidence of this? Undertakers don't carry out autopsies/post-mortems. Have you evidence of reports coming through from cardiologists? Vascular surgeons? Coroners?

Please do not post hearsay or "supposedly" arguments. If you are going to claim something such as the above then please provide verifiable links.

Thanks

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119363428#Comment_119363428

I'll have whatever you had for breakfast, you're as sharp as a Fällkniven.

That's an intense reply.

I presume it wasn't a ham and cheese sandwich you had this morning.

You're after making an absolute hames of it, you went around in one big circle like you always do.

Just one big emotive rant.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119363537#Comment_119363537

The only problem is @Big Bag of Chips no matter what link any one post's they'll google something that will contradict it.

Then say look it was debunked by a fact checker from their own trusted main stream news feed.

Then they'll take you around in circles, call you name's or suggest you're unable to add,subtract,divide, multiply or know how to do simple maths, or call you a conspiracy theorist or borderline nutter.

So it's pointless posting link's at this stage.

I see where you're coming from suggesting a link or more plausible evidence.

But we could post contradictory link's all day and waste so much time talking in circles and asking the same old questions over and over.

Theres no consistency here, well I suppose I'm playing into it too. But I think it's a stalemate here.

EyesClosed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119363660#Comment_119363660

I've not called you names or argued in circles.

The links others have dumped are from nonsense sites.

All I've asked you is what's the problem with the vaccines... You have ignored me.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119363671#Comment_119363671

No I'm not ignoring you, I'm just down from a ladder. I'm pruning back a wisteria having a look as it's growing up into the eaves of my house, and I'm trying to concentrate

It's not possible to give you a response when I'v a secateurs in one hand and holding onto to the ladder with the other. If you're familiar with a felco no 2 you'll understand, it's not nice when it misses the steel toe cap.

Unless you can suggest a safer way, I'm busy I'll get back to you after the jobs done.....

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119362754#Comment_119362754

Is the vaccine intended to generate an immune response to provide protection against coronavirus? yes or no.

It was originally intended, and approved, to prevent symptomatic Covid infection.

And at the time of approval, the term vaccination was defined by the CDC as preventing a disease:

Vaccination: Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent the disease.

And now the CDC has updates the definition of vaccination to:

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

Et voila, now it can be said the vaccines were never intended to prevent symptomatic infection, they were always intended to protect infected people from severe symptoms.

Neat trick, but it is total nonsense.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119363576#Comment_119363576

Thank you for proving my point for me.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119363875#Comment_119363875

Ok. So you too are now arguing that the vaccines aren't actually vaccines. Cools.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119363891#Comment_119363891

Well I say it as it is. Glad you appreciated my observation. First time for everything.

You're more than welcome.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119363875#Comment_119363875

All you have are semantic games.

Is "preventing the disease" the same as preventing "infection"?

We can argue semantics all day.

The medical reality is:

How do vaccines work? They generate an immune response. Do the coronavirus vaccines generate an immune response? Yes.

So are coronavirus vaccines or not?

If they are not, explain why they are not and flu vaccines and TB BCG vaccines are.

Answer please.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119364156#Comment_119364156

Is "preventing the disease" the same as preventing "infection"?

Yes.

How do vaccines work? They generate an immune response. Do the coronavirus vaccines generate an immune response? Yes.

Yes they generate an immune response. Some vaccines generated better immune responses than others. What the covid vaccines do not do is what they were intended to do - they don't provide immunity.

If they are not, explain why they are not and flu vaccines and TB BCG vaccines are.

I am not saying they are not vaccines. The flu vaccine is an interesting comparison.

In previous years when flu vaccines resulted in a very high level of breakthough infections the reaction was an acknowledgement that the vaccines were not working very well as intended, but they were still worthwhile because they were reducing the severity of the breakthrough infections.

For some reason, faced with a similiar situation re the covid vaccines we are unable to be as realistic. We are instead saying the vaccines are working brilliantly.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119364220#Comment_119364220

So they are vaccines. So you disagree with the comments on this thread implying they are not?

They are working very well as intended. They are working very well from the perspective of when they were designed and planned. Hopes were raised when they exceeded those expectations on initial view versus original strain and early variants that they might provide long lasting sterilizing immunity however covid variants have disappointed those hopes.

But the fundamental point is - had we been offered vaccines of this effectiveness in spring 2020 we would have said they were working very well as intended.

So I fundamentally disagree with the assertion they are not working very well as intended.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119364255#Comment_119364255

So I fundamentally disagree with the assertion they are not working very well as intended.

Given they are not working very well specifically as approved - i.e to prevent symptomatic infection - I struggle with the logic behind saying they are working very well as intended. It makes no sense at all.

That's not to say there is absolutely no benefit to the vaccines, or they are a total waste of time. Clearly there has been a benefit in reducing the severity of the breakthrough infections.

But they are called breakthrough infections for a reason - the virus has broken through the protection the vaccines were intended to provide.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119364290#Comment_119364290

I don't think you can talk about intention without talking about the intent of the people who designed it and commissioned it.

Also, they did offer significant protection against breakthrough infections performance against original strain \ earliest variants.

Which is the variants they were approved against.

But as we're agreed they are vaccines, and they provide significant protection against severe covid, I think that is sufficient for the context of this thread.