Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119794079#Comment_119794079

The link you provided opens by stating that vaccines and being physically active have independently been shown to improve health outcomes.

It then closes by saying that vaccines and being physically active together also improve health outcomes.

It says nothing about magic special sauces that mean this particular vaccine behaves differently with exercise. It is just a study about water being wet.

Whoever wrote the study was probably bored that day and needed to write something in order to look busy.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119794079#Comment_119794079

Nope. You know well what you are misrepresenting and I've no particular motivation to explain it to you while you continue to be vague and evasive about the point you're trying to make and about a great many other points.

Particularly I notice that you're asking me this question but ignoring robinph's point.

No great mystery as to why.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119794139#Comment_119794139

There was no need to respond to robinph's pint, he did not accuse me of misrepresenting things, he just stated the obvious, and I'd already thanked lawred's post saying the same thing. No great mystery here indeed.

But now he has answered my question to you, I will address that.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119794189#Comment_119794189

Lol you know with all of this effort you put into explaining why you're not addressing points, you could just address the points without the drama.

Or you could explain your point in posting this study.

However I don't think you will do so as your point was to try and vaguely imply it showed something that put vaccines in a bad light.

I believe this is how it was presented to you when you found d it on ywitter or your social media of choice.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119794117#Comment_119794117

It says nothing about magic special sauces that mean this particular vaccine behaves differently with exercise.

It certainly says that vaccine effectiveness is improved by exercise.

The objective of the study, i.e what they set out to test was (emphasis added):

In this study we tested the hypothesis that regular physical activity acts as an adjuvant to the immune-boosting effect of COVID-19 vaccines, reducing severe outcomes as measured by hospital admission

Below are verbatim quotes:

Physical activity enhances vaccine effectiveness against severe COVID-19 outcomes 

Public health messaging should encourage physical activity as a simple, cost-effective way of enhancing vaccine effectiveness

The findings suggest a possible dose–response. where high levels of physical activity were associated with higher vaccine effectiveness.

there are early signs emerging in the literature that vaccine effectiveness may be enhanced where physical activity is performed regularly

 regular physical activity may increase the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and exhibit a dose–response

You are correct it says nothing about a secret sauce, apologies I thought it was obvious I was being sarcastic, as I totally agree with lawred's point that this is parody level stuff.

It is parody level stuff because quite obviously people who take more exercise will be fitter and healthier than those who don't and thus will have a stronger immune system, irrespective of their vaccination status. I think we're all agreed on that blindingly obvious point

However these authors are inarguably presenting their findings as evidence to suggest this particular vaccine behaves differently - it is enhanced - with exercise. That is quite a stretch. It's the immune system that performs better with exercise, not the vaccine.

Whoever wrote the study was probably bored that day and needed to write something in order to look busy.

I'd totally agree with this. Maybe they needed to write something positive to get funded, and this was the best they could come up with given the limitations. Who knows, but for whatever the reason they managed to get this stuff funded, peer reviewed and published.

sydthebeat

I'm not sure of the point of posting that link to that study in the covid vaccines conspiracy thread??

What's the conspiracy in the study?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119793741#Comment_119793741

Did you even read the article you posted before you went off on your sarcastic rant about mRNA vaccines:

A test negative case–control study design was used to estimate the risk of having an associated COVID-19-related hospital admission, among individuals who were unvaccinated compared with those who were fully vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S (>28 days after a single dose). 196 444 participant tests were stratified into three measured physical activity subgroups with low, moderate and high activity, to test the hypothesis that physical activity is an effect modifier on the relationship between vaccination and hospitalisation.

Starter for ten - what vaccine is Ad26???

I guess this is what happens when lay folk attempt to use information to serve an agenda.

Wouldn't it just be more honest to come out with your agenda instead of these 'coy' link dumps?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119794117#Comment_119794117

I get the feeling if this study wasn't done and if THEY said that the vaccine would be helped by exercise, the antivaxxers would be rattling on about how they're making that claim without evidence. Might even argue that such a thing might be dangerous cause something something young athletes dropping dead...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119794268#Comment_119794268

For reference:

However these authors are inarguably presenting their findings as evidence to suggest this particular vaccine behaves differently - it is enhanced - with exercise. That is quite a stretch. It's the immune system that performs better with exercise, not the vaccine.

There's that misrepresentation.

Also, you're accusing the authors of fraud again.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119794292#Comment_119794292

Fair enough, so the answer to my question "I wonder is it the mRna technology that has managed this or some other secret sauce", is that it must be some other secret sauce. My bad.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119794277#Comment_119794277

Maybe they needed to write something positive to get funded, and this was the best they could come up with given the limitations. Who knows, but for whatever the reason they managed to get this stuff funded, peer reviewed and published.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119794323#Comment_119794323

So nothing beyond your own musings???

Ah yes, par for the course by you fiction writers conspiracy theorists

You've nothing, absolutely nothing, to add to this discussion

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119794318#Comment_119794318

The objective of the study, i.e what they set out to test was (emphasis added):

In this study we tested the hypothesis that regular physical activity acts as an adjuvant to the immune-boosting effect of COVID-19 vaccines, reducing severe outcomes as measured by hospital admission

Below are verbatim quotes:

Physical activity enhances vaccine effectiveness against severe COVID-19 outcomes 

Public health messaging should encourage physical activity as a simple, cost-effective way of enhancing vaccine effectiveness

The findings suggest a possible dose–response. where high levels of physical activity were associated with higher vaccine effectiveness.

there are early signs emerging in the literature that vaccine effectiveness may be enhanced where physical activity is performed regularly

 regular physical activity may increase the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and exhibit a dose–response

I have quoted them verbatim to demonstrate my claim that the authors are presenting their findings as evidence to suggest this particular vaccine behaves differently - it is enhanced - with exercise.

By all means dispute that, and tell me how you think the above are not claims that physical activity enhance vaccine effectiveness. Or ignore me.

But simply contradicting me and accusing me of misrepresentation is merely stating the opposing case with no supporting evidence.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119794335#Comment_119794335

The don't say that the vaccine behaves differently. You're inferring that to misrepresent them.

They don't say that the vaccine is acting different from other vaccines. They don't say that the vaccine is somehow altered or changed due to the exercise. They do not say that the effect is not because of the usual benefits of exercise. The do not state that there is "secret sauce" (Would be helpful if you didn't use coy, sarcastic phrases like this.) They state that the effect is due to the exercise acting as an adjuvant.

They do not say the "vaccine is enhanced."

They say repeatedly: "the vaccine effectiveness is enhanced".

You are able to understand the difference in these statements, so your misrepresentation is deliberate. It's even more blatantly dishonest when it's just been shown that you didn't actually read the study.

And again, funny that you're badgering me to answer your question.

sydthebeat

Someone cant differentiate between the vaccine and the effect the vaccine has on the body

snowcat

https://sluggerotoole.com/2022/10/24/what-is-behind-the-spike-in-excess-deaths/

A reasonable article asking questions to which we have no answers at the moment.

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119794335#Comment_119794335

I fail to see any conspiracy theory evidence in your citation.

Cherry picking quotes as you have above can be misleading all the way to being spurious. For example, such bites of text can suffer from content and context errors. Jacques Derrida was an excellent source in his discussions on signature when deconstructing both philosophical and research positions.

In reading this article, it should be noted that the authors frequently discuss what the data was “associated” with (e.g., correlations within the regression equations used, along with optimization techniques). Furthermore, they frequently used “may have” and “suggests,” such terms consistent with the scientific method. The scientific method does not prove, rather it “suggests.”

My recommendation to you would be to go back and read the study in its entirety. Especially the Strengths and Limitations section, which does not require expertise in research design, analysis, and interpretations (although such knowledge and experiences help).

The main strength of the study was the sample size, which the authors noted. Many past and present medical studies have small case study size problems.

They also discussed several study limitations, which were note worthy, including sampling (select group; pre-Omicron data; potential SES bias; occupational differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects; etc).

A further limitation was mentioned in the Conclusions. The results may not be generalizable to the South Africa population; rather, to the three independent subgroups articulated in the study design. But for the large sample size, I might question if a non parametric analysis may have also been included as a footnote?

My above comments were not intended as a peer review or in-depth vaccination and exercise study evaluation; rather a quick and brief look at the study cited earlier by you. Which, upon reflection, suggest that your citation and quotes failed to support (whatever) argument you were attempting to make. Your argument continues to be unclear to me, and perhaps to others in this thread?

To those that feel the study has no merit (e.g., water is wet). Thanks for the laughs. Unfortunately, some studies appear to be an elaboration of the obvious 🥱🥱.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119794960#Comment_119794960

Your argument continues to be unclear to me, and perhaps to others in this thread?

It's unclear to everyone. This is because he's being vague and evasive on purpose.

Originally he was trying to imply something was suspicious about the study. Either that it was suspicious that exercise was effecting vaccine efficacy so much because the vaccines weren't actually that effective. Or he was implying that the vaccines had some weird ingredient in them that we weren't being told about. Or perhaps the study was fake. Who knows?

He since has shifted the conspiracy when he got caught out for not realising the vaccine in question was not the mRNA ones he's decided to be against. Now it's some vague nonsense plucked out of the air about the researchers faking the study for easy money.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119794367#Comment_119794367

They do not say the "vaccine is enhanced."

They say repeatedly: "the vaccine effectiveness is enhanced".

You are able to understand the difference in these statements, so your misrepresentation is deliberate

I genuinely do not understand the difference between these statements. What is being enhanced if it is not the effectiveness in reducing severe outcomes as measured by hospital admission?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119795602#Comment_119795602

Nonsense. You understand this well enough. You guys seem to think that you can stall for time or something...

If the exercise increases the ability of people's immune systems to respond to the virus, then the vaccine itself is not being enhanced. People's immune systems are being enhanced. It is also accurate to describe this as the vaccine's effectiveness being enhanced because it has.

The study does not say that the vaccine has been enhanced. That's something you're inventing to misrepresent it.

You are simply playing word games to try and get something out of a study you have not actually read and just reposted after it was fed to you by your twitter or other social media.

You have not explained your point. You have not addressed any of the other points I've made in my post.

i'm done talking about this with you. Do not ask me to explain the obvious to you again.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119794960#Comment_119794960

My original post on this study was simply:

Apparently vaccine effectiveness (against hospitalisation) is improved by physical exercise.

This is the stunning revelation in a study recently published in British Journal of Sports Medicine.

I was attempting to make exactly the same point that lawred made - this is parody level stuff.

But predictably I attracted accusations of misrepresentation for this.

And now we're stuck in a pointless argument about whether or not "the vaccine effectiveness (against hospitalisation) is improved" is the same thing as "the vaccine effectiveness is enhanced".

I can drop this and move on because it is totally pointless to argue over the meaning of improved and enhanced. But of course to those who argue there is a significant difference between the meaning of enhanced and improved, if I move on it's because I am dodging their arguments, and proves I am in fact guilty of misrepresentation, and will cite this again and again in the future.

The only other alternative is to choose to argue that in fact enhanced and improved are synonymous, but that will go on for fifty posts and destroys the thread. Which I actually suspect is the intention in the first place to be honest.

Hoop66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119795750#Comment_119795750

Nobody is arguing over the meaning of improved and enhance. It has literally just been explained to you what the difference between "enhancing the effectiveness of a vacccine" and "enhancing a vaccine". You're making up disputes that don't exist because you have been shown to be misrepresenting yet another study.

A perfect illustration of your failure to debate in good faith.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119795750#Comment_119795750

Lol. You're not even representing the post I made correctly.

If you intention was the post the study as an example of something that was an none study, why not say that?

Why go on tangents about "secret sauce" whatever that was? Why pluck a random conspiracy theory out of air about the researchers behind the study doing so for the money?

Why go on a rant about mRNA vaccine when the study has nothing to do with it?

What's actually happening here is you parroted something you found on social media, got caught out for not reading something again, and are now trying to play it off.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119795848#Comment_119795848

difference between "enhancing the effectiveness of a vacccine" and "enhancing a vaccine"

Fine. There is a difference between "enhancing the effectiveness of a vacccine" and "enhancing a vaccine".

Hence my original post on the subject: "Apparently vaccine effectiveness (against hospitalisation) is improved by physical exercise." was not a misrepresentation of the study.

Can we move on now?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119795853#Comment_119795853

If you intention was the post the study as an example of something that was an none study, why not say that?

I thought that the sarcasm was blindingly obvious with the use of the phrase "the stunning revelation"

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119795906#Comment_119795906

If it was sarcasm then only you got it because in other peoples eyes you are the boy who cried wolf. Maybe use ‘/s’ after a sarcastic post so people get what you mean.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119795916#Comment_119795916

because in other peoples eyes you are the boy who cried wolf.

which brings me neatly back to the point I made a few posts above:

if I move on it's because I am dodging their arguments, and proves I am in fact guilty of misrepresentation, and will cite this again and again in the future.

I suspect to any readers to whom I am not the boy who cried wolf, the point was blindingly obvious.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119795906#Comment_119795906

Mm hmm.

I don't think that's true at all.

I've already explained what I believe your actual motivations for posting the study were. You've failed to convince me otherwise. It's clear that you've not convinced anyone else either.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119795989#Comment_119795989

I've already explained what I believe your actual motivations for posting the study were.

So have we really got to the stage where you can dismiss anything you like simply by explaining what you believe a posters actual motivations are?!

Amusingly, speaking of actual motivations, one of the reasons I originally simply made a very short post re the stunning revelations was because I couldn't be bothered getting dragged into yet another argument along the lines of the study said that, no it didn't, yes it did.

And what do you know?! I said that according to the study"Apparently vaccine effectiveness (against hospitalisation) is improved by physical exercise" and you said "They say repeatedly: "the vaccine effectiveness is enhanced".

And here are, not only are we having the study said that, no it didn't, yes it did argument, but also you're citing your beliefs as to my actual motivations as some sort of badge of credibility!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119796145#Comment_119796145

Nope. I'm simply stating my belief about your motivations. I know it's a fool's errand to actually get you to explain them honestly and directly.

As you say, I was correct when you were being intentionally vague in your post.

It's very perplexing that you would post a study you don't believe is very relevant or important in a way so as to avoid discussing it.

Begs the question of why post it in the first place...