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

13567…419

Comments

  • #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you are ignoring the disclaimers. You are saying that the data shows that the vaccines have a large amount of side effects, including deaths.

    The data cannot show this.


    Sorry, but given how you have not been entirely honest about the data in the first place I do not accept that you are accurately representing things about this case also.
    I suspect that you are ignoring or glossing over certain things like you did with the disclaimer.

    Well than rather than repeat the same argument, maybe try addressing points.


    I see and have acknowledged the disclaimers quite clearly and repeatedly.

    You however fail to see that they are the exact same disclaimers that have always been on preliminary records of adverse reactions to all substances. Therefore the playing ground is level. The differences in the game playing out on the same playing ground are therefore in the game and not in the grounds.

    Edit _ I do not have time to go round and round with this today. People can, as they say, make up their own minds.


  • #63
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    isha wrote: »
    I see and have acknowledged the disclaimers quite clearly and repeatedly.
    Ok. So why then did you claim that the vaccine is linked with a large amount of adverse side effects including death?

    The disclaimer states clearly that this is not a conclusion you can reach using that data. Yet...
    isha wrote: »
    You however fail to see that they are the exact same disclaimers that have always been on preliminary records of adverse reactions to all substances. Therefore the playing ground is level. The differences in the game playing out on the same playing ground are therefore in the game and not in the grounds.
    So you claim, but you haven't actually shown.

    For example you claimed that the vaccines have had a higher number of adverse reports than other drugs.
    You have not shown this.
    Can you show evidence to this effect?
    isha wrote: »
    Edit _ I do not have time to go round and round with this today. People can, as they say, make up their own minds.
    Yes. People always say this when they have a dramatic exit away from points that are challenged.
    It rarely has the effect they think it does.


  • #64
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    You would have dismissed the same data in relation to Pandemrix, iirc you were all for it any nay sayers were conspiracy theorists.
    Bossche went back and looked maybe you should as well just on the off chance you could be wrong again.
    Hmm you must be misremembering things.

    Cause I remember a lot of conspiracy theories about how the swine flu vaccine was going to be super deadly/microchip filled/infertility causing/being the mark of the beast.
    I don't remember any conspiracy theorists claiming that the vaccines were going to cause higher instances of narcolepsy in a small number of people.


  • #65
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok. So why then did you claim that the vaccine is linked with a large amount of adverse side effects including death?

    The disclaimer states clearly that this is not a conclusion you can reach using that data. Yet...

    So you claim, but you haven't actually shown.

    For example you claimed that the vaccines have had a higher number of adverse reports than other drugs.
    You have not shown this.
    Can you show evidence to this effect?


    The substance is being linked in exactly the same manner to adverse events, reactions and deaths, as previous substances have been linked to adverse events, reaction and deaths.
    The exact same manner - LINKED by medical personnel in preliminary official records - ''I'' am not saying it, they are..
    ie in preliminary reports with disclaimer attached.

    The preliminary reports from medical personnel with disclaimer attached show - for a fact - that this substance has received preliminary reports with disclaimer attached from medical personnel far in excess of the preliminary reports received for almost any other substance I can think of. In a short few months the reports have amounted to more than reports made on all vaccines in decades together.

    The difference now is that in previous cases substances were withdrawn, for far fewer preliminary reports with disclaimer attached, pending closer scientific examination of the adverse events and the safety of the substance.

    These are the facts.


  • #66
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    King Mob :

    I believe people should listen to trained medical professionals and not random people on the internet.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Captain Furball View Post
    So if it's not dangerous or will be dangerous, how do you know it's not dangerous, if it's not fully tested?


    King Mob :
    I didn't say it's definitely not dangerous.
    However seeing as it's based heavily on the season flu vaccine it probably isn't going to be dangerous.

    Maybe someone can finally provide some scientific evidence that the vaccine is dangerous.

    King Mob - 31st August 2008 re Pandemrix

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix#Adverse_outcomes

    The adverse outcomes were becoming known while vaccination was continuing. Including in Ireland.
    According to the BMJ, event tables embedded in nine reports spanning the four months between December 2009 and March 2010 offer a glimpse into the vaccines’ safety profiles. “For a range of concerning adverse events, reports were coming in for Pandemrix at a consistently higher rate than for the other two GSK pandemic vaccines – four times the rate of facial palsy, eight times the rate of serious adverse events, nine times the rate of convulsions. Overall, Pandemrix had, proportionally, five times more adverse events reported than Arepanrix and the unbranded vaccine.”

    Number of questions
    The BMJ article was referenced during the High Court case, where counsel for GSK submitted four articles were published challenging it.

    Vaccination remains a safe and effective public health intervention. But with the conclusion of the test case on Tuesday, a number of important questions need be answered:

    – Did the Irish regulator (the Health Products Regulatory Authority , or HPRA) analyse this data? Did it consider alerting doctors about the emerging concerns?

    – Was the chief medical officer in the Department of Health informed? If so, why did Pandemrix continue to be administered to Irish people as the pandemic was on the wane?

    – Were Bennett and others given sufficient information to enable them to make an informed consent about taking the vaccine?

    – Is it reasonable and ethical to take shortcuts with the approval of medicines in the context of a global health emergency?

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/narcolepsy-case-raises-important-questions-about-vaccine-approval-1.4088792


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    isha wrote: »
    The substance is being linked in exactly the same manner to adverse events, reactions and deaths, as previous substances have been linked to adverse events, reaction and deaths.
    The exact same manner - LINKED by medical personnel in preliminary official records - ''I'' am not saying it, they are..
    ie in preliminary reports with disclaimer attached.
    Ok. But this also means they are linked in the same say that are other adverse effects that turned out not to have anything to do with the substance.
    isha wrote: »
    The preliminary reports from medical personnel with disclaimer attached show - for a fact - that this substance has received preliminary reports with disclaimer attached from medical personnel far in excess of the preliminary reports received for almost any other substance I can think of. In a short few months the reports have amounted to more than reports made on all vaccines in decades together.

    The difference now is that in previous cases substances were withdrawn, for far fewer preliminary reports with disclaimer attached, pending closer scientific examination of the adverse events and the safety of the substance.

    These are the facts.
    Ok. If they are facts. Show this.

    Show that the vaccines are getting far more reports than other substances.
    Show that the current vaccines have gotten more reports than all other vaccines together.


  • #68
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,067 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    King Mob wrote: »
    Hmm you must be misremembering things.

    Cause I remember a lot of conspiracy theories about how the swine flu vaccine was going to be super deadly/microchip filled/infertility causing/being the mark of the beast.
    I don't remember any conspiracy theorists claiming that the vaccines were going to cause higher instances of narcolepsy in a small number of people.

    I'm saying if the data was there, I don't think we had it. Your right the data can be misread in a multitude of ways and it all still needs to be properly verified. It's worth checking where you see the smoke all the same.

    The point being if Narcolepsy was mentioned as a possible side effect it would have also been dismissed. We're still in the first few minutes of this, we have experts warning us about what we're doing using previous experience as a guide.

    Did you read the Q&A from Bossche, he's saying the same thing as a good few other people, do you think what's happening in the Seychelles and a few other places is down to just dodgy Vaccines, or as Bossche makes the case it's down to the virus adapting in the vaccinated.

    The fact that fully vaccinated have to wear masks tells me that public health experts still see them as a threat. We're dealing with a lot of unknowns.


  • #69
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    King Mob wrote: »
    Show that the vaccines are getting far more reports than other substances.
    Show that the current vaccines have gotten more reports than all other vaccines together.


    https://www.adrreports.eu/

    See an earlier post for instructions.


  • #70
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    isha wrote: »
    King Mob - 31st August 2008 re Pandemrix

    The adverse outcomes were becoming known while vaccination was continuing. Including in Ireland.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/narcolepsy-case-raises-important-questions-about-vaccine-approval-1.4088792

    You seem to have not read my post very closely.
    I didn't say it's definitely not dangerous.
    However seeing as it's based heavily on the season flu vaccine it probably isn't going to be dangerous.
    I was wrong on the "probably", but that's why I said probably and not definitely.

    You are also misrepresenting things again, unsurprisingly.
    You say that adverse outcomes were becoming known, however I made that post in 2008 as you helpfully point out.
    The article you link is from 2019 and references reports and studies that came out post 2010. The actual study that definitively showed the link did not get published until 2017. Unfortunately I cannot see into the future.

    And notice here how I ask:
    Maybe someone can finally provide some scientific evidence that the vaccine is dangerous.

    Was any scientific evidence presented in that thread?

    Additionally, you are ignoring the context of the thread.
    The claims of adverse effects being made were not slightly higher instances of narcolepsy.
    The claims of adverse effects were things like death, infertility and being marked by the beast.

    Any chance you could provide a link to to this post as I'm slightly curious about the specifics of the context?

    Edit: Never mind. Found it.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055603210
    The Op of the thread demonstrates my point nicely.


  • #71
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    isha wrote: »
    https://www.adrreports.eu/

    See an earlier post for instructions.
    So then no, you cannot provide the evidence for you claims.
    Cool.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    The point being if Narcolepsy was mentioned as a possible side effect it would have also been dismissed. We're still in the first few minutes of this, we have experts warning us about what we're doing using previous experience as a guide.
    Yes, if someone was without evidence claiming that the vaccine was causing narcolepsy, they shouldn't be taken seriously.

    Why, before the evidence was available, should we have believed that narcolepsy was an issue?

    What side effects of the current vaccines should we take seriously now?
    Several people on this thread have claimed that the vaccines might have caused 1000s of deaths. Do you think this is a valid concern? If so, what evidence are you using to support this?
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Did you read the Q&A from Bossche,
    No I haven't.
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    The fact that fully vaccinated have to wear masks tells me that public health experts still see them as a threat. We're dealing with a lot of unknowns.
    Lol. This is a very big stretch.
    In what way are they a threat?


  • #73
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,067 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Read some of the Q&A they're more of a threat to themselves if he's to be believed. Not asking you to read them all just some. I didn't make the stretch Bossche did, he doesn't say mask the vaccinated but reading between the lines them more than anyone should be masked and isolated.
    I do think they may be related to some deaths, that's just going on my own experience not what I've read somewhere on the internet.

    I'm not saying he's correct or should be listened to but I had seen a previous discussion between him and another doctor about early intervention which I did agree with, I'm not inclined to dismiss him as a crazy just yet, I'm not really interested in a vaccine until we're heading into flu season so plenty of time to see if there's any basis for his claims.

    Have a read of the one about the Seychelles, it was dismissed so quickly by our resident experts as a dodgy china vaccine it set off my Spidey senses straight away.


  • #74
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Read some of the Q&A they're more of a threat to themselves if he's to be believed. Not asking you to read them all just some. I didn't make the stretch Bossche did, he doesn't say mask the vaccinated but reading between the lines them more than anyone should be masked and isolated.
    No, sorry. I'm not super interested in what one specific person has to say without evidence.
    My own experience tells me he's either a crank, or he's being misrepresented by cranks.
    The fact you have to "read between the lines" usually means the latter.

    Could you please explain what you by:
    public health experts still see them as a threat.
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    I do think they may be related to some deaths, that's just going on my own experience not what I've read somewhere on the internet.
    What experience allows you to make this conclusion? :confused:


  • #75
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,067 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    You are discussing it so it's worth understanding what he's saying, you still haven't made a comment on the places with high vaccination rates and high cases. I can only assume you've accepted it's a dodgy vaccine.

    They have to wear the mask because they can still catch and transmit the virus, we're not sequencing or mass testing the vaccinated to see if what goes in is the same as what comes out, it's all in the Q&A.

    I don't what to get into my own experience but I had a friend who died a few hours after getting the second jab a couple of weeks ago. He felt sick after it didn't want to go for a beer, said he'd go to bed instead, never made it to bed, yea I know it was just a coincidence, no autopsy report yet.


  • #76
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    You are discussing it so it's worth understanding what he's saying,
    I wasn't discussing it.
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    you still haven't made a comment on the places with high vaccination rates and high cases. I can only assume you've accepted it's a dodgy vaccine.
    And this wasn't something I was discussing either. So I'm not accepting anything. I don't know what you're refering to.
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    They have to wear the mask because they can still catch and transmit the virus,
    Ok. So are you saying that this indicates that the vaccine doesn't work? Or...?
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    I don't what to get into my own experience but I had a friend who died a few hours after getting the second jab a couple of weeks ago. He felt sick after it didn't want to go for a beer, said he'd go to bed instead, never made it to bed, yea I know it was just a coincidence, no autopsy report yet.
    I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe this.


  • #77
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    patnor1011 wrote: »
    "The current consensus of some virologists and related scientists is that Covid is natural."

    You just changed the sentence to form a falsehood.


  • #78
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    isha wrote: »
    While I am here I may as well mention Geert Vanden Bossche. He does not come across as a fevered person in the way that some can. His educated and experience based rationale for why mass vaccination should not be carried out in the heat of a pandemic, a rule well known to immunologists up until now, makes sense. Vaccination in such circumstances directly encourages vaccine escape.

    It remains to be seen whether or not his prognoses come to pass, and I would dread it if they do, but in any event the substance of his arguments should be under consideration in open scientific debate at the highest levels. That it is completely ignored is another strange thing and that I am again having to post in the conspiracy forum to avoid the wrath of moderation and of readers desperate for a silver bullet solution to all our covid ills, is also odd.

    https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/

    His theory is shaky to say the least

    https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/doomsday-prophecy-dr-geert-vanden-bossche


  • #79
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    isha wrote: »
    The preliminary data on this substance is recorded in the same manner as the preliminary data on any other substance. Nothing has changed. The same disclaimers and reservations have applied heretofore. It was the same when Pandemrix was receiving reports in 2009 as it is now when Moderna (et al) are receiving reports in 2021. The only difference is the response to the preliminary reports.

    If someone receives a vaccine, and they die of natural or other causes within a time period, that death can be reported to a system e.g. UK's Yellow Card as related to the vaccine. With millions of extremely old and frail people being vaccinated, a significant number will have died within those time-frames, many will have been reported to those systems.

    Conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers have seized on these gross numbers in order to scare-monger about vaccines. In cases that have been analyzed, an extremely low number have discovered a direct link between deaths and Covid vaccines. They ignore that part because it doesn't fit their false agenda.


  • #80
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,067 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    King Mob wrote: »
    I wasn't discussing it.


    And this wasn't something I was discussing either. So I'm not accepting anything. I don't know what you're refering to.


    Ok. So are you saying that this indicates that the vaccine doesn't work? Or...?


    I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe this.

    I'm not asking you to believe, it happened, if he was 20yrs older and in bad health I would have thought nothing of it, nothing more to say on it only I'll miss him.

    As for your other comments your not discussing, disappointing you won't give your own 2 cent or even read the Q&A to see a possible alternative reason for the outbreaks in the vaccinated when other posters are willing to put themselves out there and have the discussion regardless of what anyone else thinks.


  • #81
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    I'm not asking you to believe, it happened, if he was 20yrs older and in bad health I would have thought nothing of it, nothing more to say on it only I'll miss him.
    And as I said, I don't believe this.

    And even if it was true, it would be a very bad line of reasoning.
    Everyone I know who has gotten the vaccine have been perfectly fine. Can I now conclude that the vaccine is perfectly safe?
    I know at least 10 people who've got the vaccine compared to your one case.
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    As for your other comments your not discussing, disappointing you won't give your own 2 cent or even read the Q&A to see a possible alternative reason for the outbreaks in the vaccinated when other posters are willing to put themselves out there and have the discussion regardless of what anyone else thinks.
    But I have given my 2 cents.
    He's either a crank or he's being misrepresented by cranks.
    What he says doesn't really matter unless there's actual evidence behind it.

    I take it though that you have no comment on the other antivaxx posters here who've been misrepresenting various adverse reaction data?
    Is that an acceptable tactic for you.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,067 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    King Mob wrote: »
    And as I said, I don't believe this.

    And even if it was true, it would be a very bad line of reasoning.
    Everyone I know who has gotten the vaccine have been perfectly fine. Can I now conclude that the vaccine is perfectly safe?
    I know at least 10 people who've got the vaccine compared to your one case.


    But I have given my 2 cents.
    He's either a crank or he's being misrepresented by cranks.
    What he says doesn't really matter unless there's actual evidence behind it.

    I take it though that you have no comment on the other antivaxx posters here who've been misrepresenting various adverse reaction data?
    Is that an acceptable tactic for you.

    I probably know more people than you that's the difference there. I didn't say it killed him, he felt sick after it and was dead within a few hours. I'm not saying it was the vaccine just looking at the timeline it's extremely coincidental. I don't know of anyone else that happened to. It has raised some eyebrows locally though.

    Your calling him a crank without even reading what he said, I'll assume you didn't check to see if there's a possibility he might know what he's talking about either. As noted we'll know if he's a crank either way in a while, I will look more into his comments later especially in relation to outbreaks in highly vaccinated areas.

    I did comment on the way the data can be misinterpreted but that works two ways, they did look at it and you refused to so I'd take it the antivaxxer as you've called them is more educated on the data to discuss the data at this point.

    Some very educated people are being dismissed out of hand that's very concerning, in the last 7 days i've seen two Nobel prize winners ridiculed on boards.


  • #83
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    If someone receives a vaccine, and they die of natural or other causes within a time period, that death can be reported to a system e.g. UK's Yellow Card as related to the vaccine. With millions of extremely old and frail people being vaccinated, a significant number will have died within those time-frames, many will have been reported to those systems.
    .

    As has always been the case. Millions of old and frail people are vaccinated every year.


  • #84
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    isha wrote: »
    As has always been the case. Millions of old and frail people are vaccinated every year.

    We've never seen vaccination on this scale in this timeframe before. There have been a billion people vaccinated in four months.

    Are you suggesting that these vaccines are risky? if so, spit it out


  • #85
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,067 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Dohnjoe wrote: »

    Are you suggesting that these vaccines are risky? if so, spit it out

    They have already on two fronts, King Mob didn't read what was posted and neither have you or you wouldn't have asked that question.
    The problem lies in the timeframe, we don't know if either are pointing to possible problems just yet, that's not to say there's no emerging evidence.


  • #86
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    I probably know more people than you that's the difference there. I didn't say it killed him, he felt sick after it and was dead within a few hours. I'm not saying it was the vaccine just looking at the timeline it's extremely coincidental. I don't know of anyone else that happened to. It has raised some eyebrows locally though.
    But again, you're most likely making this up.
    And even still, your logic is incredibly faulty.
    You have one case (probably fictional) where you can't even say that the vaccine caused the death.
    Therefore you believe that there is going to be a large number of deaths due to the vaccine.
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Your calling him a crank without even reading what he said, I'll assume you didn't check to see if there's a possibility he might know what he's talking about either. As noted we'll know if he's a crank either way in a while, I will look more into his comments later especially in relation to outbreaks in highly vaccinated areas.
    I said he's either a crank or he's being misinterpreted by cranks.
    In my experience, that's generally how those links go. As I've said the fact you mentioned "reading between the lines" made me think it's the latter.
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    I did comment on the way the data can be misinterpreted but that works two ways,
    That's not a comment on what's being discussed though. We've had antivaxxers telling us that the adverse reaction databases show that the vaccines are dangerous.
    Is this a fair conclusion in your opinion?
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    they did look at it and you refused to so I'd take it the antivaxxer as you've called them is more educated on the data to discuss the data at this point.
    You said that, yet they all seem to either miss or ignore the disclaimers...
    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Some very educated people are being dismissed out of hand that's very concerning, in the last 7 days i've seen two Nobel prize winners ridiculed on boards.
    Yes. Nobel prize winners can believe some silly and wacky things. Just because someone has a Noble Prize, it doesn't mean that they are about question.


  • #87
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    isha wrote: »
    As has always been the case. Millions of old and frail people are vaccinated every year.
    Ok? And? Are you now claiming that more old and frail people are dying due to the vaccine this year?

    If so, you need to provide evidence for this.

    The adverse reaction data cannot be used to support this claim as per their disclaimer.


  • #88
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    They have already on two fronts

    What level of risk do you believe these vaccines represent?

    According to you, how many people have died as a result of Covid vaccines in Ireland?


  • #89
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,067 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    What level of risk do you believe these vaccines represent?

    According to you, how many people have died as a result of Covid vaccines in Ireland?

    No idea it's too early to tell what the risk is, I'd like to see a normal sick season with no restrictions before forming an opinion as to how good or bad they are when the mutations are in full flight.

    Well nobody has died seemingly according to official stats so that's the only figure can be used.


  • #90
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,067 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    King Mob wrote: »
    But again, you're most likely making this up.
    And even still, your logic is incredibly faulty.
    You have one case (probably fictional) where you can't even say that the vaccine caused the death.
    Therefore you believe that there is going to be a large number of deaths due to the vaccine.


    I said he's either a crank or he's being misinterpreted by cranks.
    In my experience, that's generally how those links go. As I've said the fact you mentioned "reading between the lines" made me think it's the latter.


    That's not a comment on what's being discussed though. We've had antivaxxers telling us that the adverse reaction databases show that the vaccines are dangerous.
    Is this a fair conclusion in your opinion?


    You said that, yet they all seem to either miss or ignore the disclaimers...


    Yes. Nobel prize winners can believe some silly and wacky things. Just because someone has a Noble Prize, it doesn't mean that they are about question.

    I've to put you firmly in the conspiracy theorists camp, sorry about that.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    No idea it's too early to tell what the risk is, I'd like to see a normal sick season with no restrictions before forming an opinion as to how good or bad they are when the mutations are in full flight.

    Well nobody has died seemingly according to official stats so that's the only figure can be used.
    And out of curiosity, are you going to be publishing this as part of your PHD research? Or...?


Advertisement