Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

1375376378380381419

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yea man. Ignoring all of the misinformation, out of context quoting, scaremongering etc that Natural News and it's ilk do to claim their article acceptable because it quotes one thing from the BMJ is defending them. Arguing that they might have a point is defending them.

    And of course when I asked if you were doing so. You refused to answer.

    You could have cleared that up by answering the question directly.


    And notice how you're still unable to bring yourself to simply state that Natural News is invalid and untrustworthy.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Did you even read my post?!

    I don't believe Natural News is a reliable source 



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yes I did. However you like to play wordgames.


    But ok I will take this at face value. You argee that Natural News is an invalid and unreliable source.

    As such I will withdraw my comment.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭EyesClosed


    You're misrepresentating me now. I never said that they didn't like to a real source, I said they will have misrepresentated it to suit their needs as we have seen here time and time again.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,936 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    That is how he operates every single time. Funny that he is even trying to accuse others of playing word games when it is exactly what he does.

    This was exposed many times in the thread by a lot of people yet it is always the same. Twist a little, add something imaginary and then press on attributing it to someone. Drown every response in you guys... dodging...etc... It brings nothing to debate it is just an attempt to distract from the topic. Best to not engage and ignore.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But yet this only seems to happen when you guys are caught out in something.

    Like for example claiming a study says the opposite of what it does because you didn't understand a word it used.


    It's weird cause pointing that out seemed to be pretty on topic yet you ignored all the points made against that.


    Seems to me that you guys just look for excuses to avoid and ignore and do anything except discuss your claims.


    Also bares pointing out that as far as I remember you were the fella posting from Natural News as if it were a reputable and reliable source.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yea this is the point that they keep dancing around.


    As we've seen they don't read half the links they post past the headlines or past the snippets tweeted out. They certainly don't look into the context or the source or even think about how the factoid fits into their worldview.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I am not misrepresenting you, I didn't claim you said they did not link to a real source, my point was that you weren't aware of the BMJ being the source because you didn't bother to read it.

    Hence the point that it's pretty weak to be handwaving about misinformation if you are not aware of what the information is in the first place.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭hometruths


    It brings nothing to debate it is just an attempt to distract from the topic.

    Spot on.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,386 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    The BMJ is not the source, unless the contents of the source actually match the claims made for it.

    At the moment, the source is not the BMJ.

    So where's the BMJ letter, and where are the responses to that letter?

    A letter to the BMJ is not the same as a proper study.

    And where is the actual study? Where was it published? Where was it reviewed?

    Does the content of the letter or study match the claims made for it by these dodgy sites?

    Because it has happened dozens of times on the thread that the claims made for a study aren't found in the study, and are in fact directly contradicted by the study.

    Only recently we had false claims made about mRNA vaccines for a study into non mRNA vaccines, and false claims made because someone misunderstood the word attenuate.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But the point you are ignoring and handwaving about is that Natural News constantly produce misinformation. They constantly misrepresent things and twist things to suit their anti-science agenda.

    You agree with this assessment since you've agreed that they aren't reliable or trustworthy.

    So, it doesn't matter what's actually in the article, because experience and common sense should tell people that whatever is in there is either lies, or it is twisted truth.


    You guys have been quoting articles from the BMJ etc non-stop, but it hasn't once stopped you from being wrong.

    One example being how Pat claiming that a study said the opposite of what it did simply because he didn't understand a word. Or your previous misadventure in misrepresentation.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭hometruths


    It's a common theme in here that anything that could conceivably question the safety and efficacy of the vaccines is unreliable, untrustworthy, invalid, illegitimate etc because of the source that is questioning it.

    Have any of the vaccine defenders seen anything that questions the safety and efficacy of the vaccines from a source they do consider reliable? Anything at all?



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    No. You guys have not provided anything. You have only provided shite from crank sites like Natural News. Or information that you are blatantly misrepresenting and distorting. All the while you keep dodging and ignoring and avoiding all of the shady tactics, dishonesty and outright lies the sources you cling to use.


    If you lot had any reliable trustworthy sources, you wouldn't have to cling to shite from Natural News, Info Wars, Epoch times etc etc.

    If you had any reliable trustworthy sources, you wouldn't have to invent (and vaguely hint at) a conspiracy to explain why none of them support your claims.


    Likewise, don't you find is suspect that any information or evidence you are provided that contradicts your anti-vaxx agenda, you deem to be untrustworthy, corrupt, or you just somehow know better than the experts who provided it.

    Have you not seen anything at all that shakes your faith in the sources you use and cling to?

    Has the fact that you've been shown constantly to be wrong and misrepresenting cause you to wonder why you're doing that?

    Does the fact the only people who support you and back you up are the type of conspiracy theorists you get offended being compared to not make you wonder why?



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,386 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    I reject the premise.

    The common theme is that the questions being raised here come from such sources, or misrepresentation by those sources of studies which don't support the conclusion the sources draw from them.

    Safety issues with the vaccines have been looked into by regulators, in response to safety signals e.g. AZ association with clots, Moderna with myocarditis in younger men.

    These have been looked into by regulators and they balance this data against the risk of covid and this is reflected in the official advice.

    It is not that the vaccines don't have side effects, what the pro-vaccine side says is that the side effect risk and severity are significantly outweighed by the risk and severity of covid.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭hometruths




  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭hometruths


    The question I am asking is not about the sources anti-vaxxers are citing that you don't trust. I am asking about the sources that you do trust.

    In all your extensive reading about vaccines from sources that you do consider to be reliable, trustworthy and valid, have you ever encountered anything that questioned the safety and efficacy of the vaccines?



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yes. As Odyssey has points out, things like the blood clot issue and the slightly increased incidence of myocarditis where identified by actual experts.

    All studies that look into the safety and efficacy of the vaccines are inherently "questioning" those things.

    I have not seen anything from any reliable sources that support any of the vague and contradictory conspiracy theories you guys have been suggesting and define as "questioning."

    I have not seen anything that suggests risks or lack of efficacy that you guys believe.


    Any chance you'll be answering my questions to you?

    if not, then I see no reason to answer any more of yours.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Which questions are you worried about?

    Stuff like this?!

    Have you not seen anything at all that shakes your faith in the sources you use and cling to?

    Your clinging to the idea that I have quoted naturalnews etc, but this never happened.

    By all means take issue with actual sources I have cited and I'll answer whether or not my faith has been shaken in them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yup. Questions and points dodged. More misrepresentation.

    No thanks.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I'm not dodging the question, I am asking you which of the sources that I use and cling to do you consider unreliable and trustworthy.

    Until I know what sources you are talking about I cannot answer your question.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    No thanks man. Your badgering add nothing to the debate and I won't engage.

    I've answered your question directly, fully and concisely. Take it or leave it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,936 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    You notice? He would never say he was wrong. Not once, it may be some sort of narcissisms or something similar. One has to point it to him 20x and still he would try to deflect and generalize with "you guys" and such. Fact is he tried to belittle you claiming something which is not true and he already knows he messed up as he mentioned it in reply to my post saying

    "Also bares pointing out that as far as I remember you were the fella posting from Natural News as if it were a reputable and reliable source."

    yet he is incapable to say I was wrong Hometruths I confused you with someone else... Nope, he just keep piling on and no matter how many times you say he is mistaken he keep on adding more crap...



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol Bizarre interpretation of what happened.

    I didn't mess up. I explained why I believed that Hometruths was defending the Natural News link you posted. None of which was due to me misremembering anything.

    I only rescinded my statement that be believed that Natural News was a reliable and valid source when he finally stated (still a bit indirectly) that it wasn't. Something that I note you don't at all comment on.


    And this is all hilariously hypocritical given the last link you tried to dump.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I think he knew full well I never argued that naturalnews was a valid and trustworthy source. Doesn't stop him from claiming that though.

    You got it right on page 1 of this thread when you called him out for "this childish tactic you seems to employ time and again saying that someone else said something when you know it is just your own interpretation of what was written all the while you claim people said that."

    It's amazing he's still at it nearly 400 pages later and believes anybody takes him seriously.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,481 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Seriously before you start accusing others and claiming that they will never say they are wrong even though it is pointed out 20 times you really should look in the mirror. You made a claim about me in this thread that was disproved rather easily. You repeated your lie many times yet you never said “I’m sorry, I was wrong”.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol. I dunno man. I'm getting plenty of thanks from folks.

    You're only getting support from a dude who link dumps from a source you agree is invalid and untrustworthy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭323


    OK, England alone, as they've been keeping some of the best statistics in the world. Highly jabbed as was Ireland.

    30,000 Excess Deaths Involving Heart Disease in England, according to the British Heart Foundation

    Thats an average of over 230 additional deaths a week above expected heart disease death rates. Just a coincidence, nothing to do with the COVID injectables I'm sure.

    https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/news-from-the-bhf/news-archive/2022/november/extreme-heart-care-disruption-linked-to-excess-deaths-involving-heart-disease

    “Follow the trend lines, not the headlines,”



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭EyesClosed


    Could it be that a virus which has known to effect cardiovascular systems happened to around the same time?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,936 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    Funny you mention this because you are in the same bed as it seems. Your likes are from roughly 3-4 people always the same one's, your own personal echo chamber. Could be friends, colleagues or your alter ego who knows...



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol nope. Sorry man. Don't know any of them outsite the site. Nor are they alternate accounts.

    They're just other people who seem to take me somewhat seriously.



Advertisement