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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

16465676970251

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    They lie because they think they're fooling people.

    I think that when they interact with other conspiracy theorists they find that people will usually believe what they claim without much critical thinking, and they find that making catchy or bold statements gathers them a lot of support and attention. This leads them to be tempted to stretch things here and there, like perhaps a brother who has a job tangential to hospital work becomes "a consultant for a hospital." That would certainly sound more impressive than "my brother sells office supplies to a hospital and said..." and get a lot more attention and props.

    No other conspiracy theorists challenge them on this stuff, so they assume that no one else would either. So in places like here where this kind of thing is exposed, it's very upsetting for them. They don't seem to understand why we aren't impressed by fibs and truth stretching.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    And they constantly change those stories, deliberately keeping them vague, dodging questions that expose them, deflecting constantly, avoiding giving links and sources - all of which demonstrate these people are not only lying, but are doing so knowingly.

    While at the same time flanked by other people who are telling a slightly (or completely) different lie. All in unspoken agreement that they won't challenge each other, and will back each other's lies up, no matter how contradictory.

    And all the while lecturing others on the "truth".

    And trying to turn the forum into an echo chamber where their views can't be challenged normally, while labelling others who question them of being a part of a conspiracy against them.

    Never ceases to amaze, it's incredible



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    As I keep saying I don't think they're the ones making the conspiracy theories vague. I think that comes from the producers of conspiracy theories, and the theorists aren't willing or able to make stuff up on their own.

    The dodging and lying and dishonesty, that's all them though.


    It's why they want to ban dissenting thought here. That way it will be another place where they can roleplay at being an expert and have people indulge that.

    Though I think that given how conspiracy theorists here rarely actually comment on each other's theories (except to make a show about how mean we all are) that most wouldn't find that indulgence here at all. They'd post some link they found from their browsing. Make a vague statement about how the conspiracy is out there and they're wise to it cause they're so smart and informed. Then no one else would post about it cause even other theorists would find the theory silly.

    Any indulgence they'd feel from posting would be entirely ficitional.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    And all the while lecturing others on the "truth".

    And trying to turn the forum into an echo chamber where their views can't be challenged normally, while labelling others who question them of being a part of a conspiracy against them.

    More than a hint of irony here!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,644 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    It was conspiracy theorists who called for the forum to be closed down, it was conspiracy theorists that requested that they be allowed to post whatever they want without being questioned on thier claims.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    It's conspiracy theorists who cry "suppression" whenever they're asked to actually discuss or explain their conspiracy theory.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    I don't think you understood his post or what irony means I think.

    Could you point out where dohnjoe or anyone not a conspiracy theorist has called for opinions to be disallowed from the forum?

    Could you point out where dohnjoe or anyone not a conspiracy has said some ideas cannot be questioned?

    Could you point out where anyone has claimed that conspiracy theorists are part of a conspiracy?


    Or better yet, could you go back and address some of the points you've left dangling?

    Particular points like:




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Agreed, the irony and hypocrisy is off the scale.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Wednesday is Scottish weekly data publication day:

    Showing once again that across all vaccination statuses the unvaccinated are contracting covid at the lowest rate, and quite significantly lower at that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,487 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    I didn’t look at the chart and I’m taking your word for it. So think about it. Vast majority of population is vaccinated. Small minority is not. Therefore it makes sense that most people catching covid are in the large majority. Your post is not a gotcha, it’s showing your lack of comprehension of basic enough maths.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Hi. Sorry. Why are you ignoring the points I made earlier?


    Is it because tou cannot address them honestly and are now trying to deflect away from them?


    If so. I think that perfectly demonstrates the points about you conspiracy theorists we were just making you lazily objected to.

    Similarly I think when you are now challenged on this new tangent you're deflecting to you will start ignoring things and try to deflect to another new topic.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Why not just look at the chart, instead of demonstrating the truism "“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Also could you explain this please:

    Data and rates presented in this section are not a measure of vaccine effectiveness

    Vaccine effectiveness is a scientific method used to measure how well a vaccine protects 

    people against outcomes such as infection, symptoms, hospitalisation and death in the 

    ‘real-world’. Unlike case rates, vaccine effectiveness analysis accounts for potential biases 

    in the data and risk factors such as age, sex, prior infection, co-morbidities, socio-economic 

    status, and time since vaccination. This method is the most robust way to measure if a 

    vaccine is working.

    The data and rates presented in this section do not account for these biases and risk 

    factors and should not be used to measure vaccine effectiveness. We include links to 

    vaccine effectiveness studies below.

    There are likely to be systematic differences and biases between the vaccinated and 

    unvaccinated groups, such as behaviour, vulnerability and previous infection, that are 

    unaccounted for when comparing rates. As most of the population is vaccinated, these 

    differences become more evident and could create bias in case/hospitalisation/death rates 

    between vaccinated and unvaccinated population. For example, people who are vaccinated 

    may be more likely to follow other government guidance such as regular testing and 

    reporting for COVID-19, which makes them more likely to be identified as a case than 

    unvaccinated people, resulting in higher case rates in the vaccinated population.

    Why are you misrepresenting this report so blatantly?

    Did you not actually read it?

    Or did you read it and just ignore this part?



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Possibly those who are unvaccinated still haven't been getting tested?

    The people ending up in hospital are mostly unvaccinated though, so that suggests your interpretation of the chart may be wrong :

    In the last week from 15 January to 21 January 2022, in an age-standardised population, the rate of acute COVID-19 related hospital admissions in individuals that received a booster or third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was between 3.0 to 4.4 times lower than in individuals who are unvaccinated or have only received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine 



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Not sure how the amount of people ending up in hospital could effect my interpretation of a chart simply showing the number of cases and nothing to do with hospitalisations?

    The point on unvaccinated people being less likely to get tested is often made but does not stand up to scrutiny.

    Particularly in the context of this chart, the last two weeks of which cover a period in which vaccinated people did not have to have a PCR in order to end self isolation whereas unvaccinated people did have to.

    The entire chart also covers a period in which vaccination certs were in force. To access pubs etc the unvaccinated needed a recovery cert, only available from a positive PCR result. So they were incentivised to get tested, whereas the vaccinated had no such incentive.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    Getting a Covid jab is 200 times safer than taking aspirin.




  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Your fact check articles are entirely to do with the relative incidence of omicron vs delta in the vaccinated in early December - stats from the ONS showed that the vaccinated, if they caught covid, were more likely to catch omicron than delta, compared to the unvaccinated - ie vaccines were working significantly better than against Delta than Omicron.

    Some people misrepresented this as the vaccinated were more likely to catch covid full stop. This is the misrepresentation being fact checked in the links you posted.

    The chart I posted makes no distinction between omicron and delta - it simply publishes the number of positive covid tests per 100k of population of the various vaccination statuses.

    Therefore, as a means of discrediting what I posted, your fact check articles are totally irrelevant regarding the data I posted.

    However as a means of confirming what I posted, the fact check articles are very relevant.

    In December when those ONS stats were taken, the number of Omicron cases were still in the minority. Delta remained the dominant variant.

    As the articles confirm the vaccinated were catching Omicron at a faster rate than the unvaccinated. Given the speed at which Omicron was spreading, there was a good chance that when it did become the dominant variant, the vaccinated would be catching covid at a faster rate than the unvaccinated.

    What the table I posted shows is exactly what has come to pass.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,487 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Whenever you stop being rude you should read the text after the table they you missed. The bit about taking an antigen test. You may have missed it accidentally.





  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    How is the bit about taking an antigen test relevant to your point about the majority being vaccinated ergo the majority of positive tests would be vaccinated?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But the article you posted specifically states that the data you are using cannot be used to reach the conclusion you are reaching.

    In addition, it does not at all state your conclusion. That's something you are inferring (though let's be honest, Some conspiracy grifter on Twitter is inferring and you're just repeating what you are told.)

    And then your article directly states the opposite of what you're claiming.


    You will of course not address this.

    You will not address anyone's points.


    You will not explaithe conspiracy you are suggesting that somehow involves the Scottish health system and fact checking websites.


    Do you not ever wonder why you can't address this stuff?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,487 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Most people are vaccinated, therefore more would get a PCR test.

    Since so many anti-bassets like to think they are sticking it to the man, they are less likely to voluntarily go for a PCR test and rely on antigen tests instead.

    The document basically says that he figures don’t show the real story because asymptomatic people can use an antigen rather than PCR test. It also says that the table can’t be used for gauging vaccine effectiveness.

    I’m trying to figure out what point you are trying to make by posting the table and omitting significant text. I think you are ignoring the text deliberately and thought you would get away without posting it and try to pull the wool over peoples eyes. It kind of makes you look foolish.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    As mentioned above the unvaccinated are incentivised to get a PCR test whereas the vaccinated are not. The idea that they are sticking it to the man by using an antigen test is not really credible.

    The point I am making is that the Scottish data, just like the England and Wales data is showing that the unvaccinated case rates per 100k are lower than all other vaccination statuses.

    That is in an inarguable fact. You can point to various reasons to try and explain this, but all of them are assumptions based on mights and maybes. The fact remains.

    And this is a very surprising fact for vaccines that were approved for emergency use on the basis of 90%+ effective protection against symptomatic disease.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Your views are entirely to do with your personal interpretation (or misinterpretation) of specific data from the UK, stats which are covered in disclaimers and explainers that you "don't get". On top of that, for some strange reason, you completely ignore information contradictory to your interpretations from another region, e.g. the US.

    If asked about vaccine effectiveness against e.g. Delta, you have no issues that I've seen

    Likewise if asked about vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization and death, you have no issues

    So on aggregate, there's no issue with the vaccines.

    But for some reason you insist on attacking (never supporting) them and the only angle of attack you seem to have found currently is specifically UK stats on vaccine effectiveness against Omicron infection, and only by "not getting" the disclaimers on the data.

    Okay..

    All just seems very similar to the same issues as we had with the VAERS data in here. The data is there, but some people decided they "didn't get" the disclaimers surrounding the data, allowing them to misinterpret it, which they did. By a stunning and remarkable coincidence these posters are always against the vaccines.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,487 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    It’s not a fact though if that’s what you are taking from the table. The disclaimer identifies issues with the data that you are ignoring.

    Have you read the document, or are you regurgitating what someone on Twitter/Bitchute says? It does identify vaccine effectiveness from their own data.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    Entrenched non-negotiable "can't explain it to me, so it can't be real" view forming in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,487 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Awaiting next deflection point because no one can identify real safety issues with vaccines.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    You aren't addressing the points. You are just going down the same identical route as other posters on this forum with zany beliefs who accuse anyone of debating with them of being "trolls" or "shills", etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    You are double vaccinated. Your risk of dying from Covid is substantially lower than someone who is unvaccinated. If you get a booster, then the risk you will die compared to someone who is unboosted, is lower.

    Alternatively, if you are unlucky enough to catch Covid, the flipside of that is, during the next few months you will have decent immunity.

    It's like you think there is some "scam" going on, that you are somehow being cheated by the virus. You aren't. Double vaxxed and booster reduces the risk vs just double vaxxed. Why you are going so nuts about it is unclear.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    You have a hybrid case, you are double vaxxed, but have just had Covid. There are quite a few people in that situation (I know a few). You are probably good for the next while, but it's up to you to keep checking with proper medical advice. Remember, we don't have magic instant knowledge on everything and every combination, but at the moment it looks like your immunity will be relatively strong for the next few months.

    A booster is obviously recommended for anyone not in that situation.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,487 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    No idea what you are on about troll….and a hypocritical anti-vaxxer troll at that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,487 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Also a side effect of covid. It’s great to see the EMA on top of issues reported. Therefore it is probably safe to say that they deem the vaccines very safe compared to catching covid and so still let them be used. The link also says that the vaccines are overwhelmingly safe. So what is your point?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,487 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Post before yours, in case you missed it. It covers your post quoted here.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,487 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    No one ever said they’re 100% safe, however they carry much less risk than catching covid. I’d be quite sure that other posters have gone through this with you previously. Obviously it hasn’t sunk in.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    In Scotland from 15th January - 22 January the rate of covid in the unvaccinated per 100k was 297.18 and in the double vaccinated per 100k it was 568.49. That is a fact.

    My interpretation of that fact is that the rate of covid in the unvaccinated per 100k is lower than that of the vaccinated.

    Nobody knows for sure why the rate is lower in the unvaccinated - the authors of the report have offered some possible suggestions. You find the explanations for this surprising fact plausible, I do not.

    I am not misinterpreting or misrepresenting anything. The bottom line is nobody knows.

    The test results data is saying inarguably that the unvaccinated are getting infected at a lower rate than the vaccinated. The explanations as to why this is the case is limited by maybes, mights and more likelys but there is no definitive explanation.

    I have ignored your link to CDC data saying that unvaccinated people are 5 times more likely to catch covid because nowhere in that link does it, or can it, explain why the data published by Public Health Scotland shows that the unvaccinated rate of covid infection per 100k is lower than all vaccinated statuses. It's totally irrelevant. Just like link to data in Jersey was yesterday when we were discussing the UKHSA data.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    It’s not a fact though if that’s what you are taking from the table. The disclaimer identifies issues with the data that you are ignoring.

    What i am taking from the table is that in Scotland from 15th January - 22 January the rate of covid in the unvaccinated per 100k was 297.18 and in the double vaccinated per 100k it was 568.49.

    That is a fact.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,487 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    I quote this text that you deliberately left out: “The rates in Table 13 should not be used as a measure of vaccine effectiveness due to unaccounted for biases and risk factors.”

    There is also the antigen bit that you ignored too.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    You had covid over Christmas. Why didn't you get the booster before Christmas?


    The cases of omnicron that you claim don't exist in hospital due to secret information from your brother also can't have been established before Christmas. Also can't have even been established when you first popped up in the thread telling us about how you wouldn't be getting the booster.

    These are just two things you have invented after you started posting about not getting the booster because you think it's unsafe. So what was your initial reasoning for not getting the booster back in November / December or whenever you were offered it?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    The bit about antigen tests is utterly irrelevant because the data in the table I posted only pertains to PCR tests.

    I did not deliberately leave it anything out. That text does not change the fact that in Scotland from 15th January - 22 January the rate of covid in the unvaccinated per 100k was 297.18 and in the double vaccinated per 100k it was 568.49.

    The caveat about biases and risk factors may change how people interpret the data but it does not change the fact that the data shows that the rate of covid in the unvaccinated per 100k is lower than every other vaccination status, and has been consistently so for some time.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,885 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Those collecting the data point out the limitations from case counts because they're afraid that idiots will misinterpret the data.

    Idiots do so anyway.

    The CSO did similar with their statistics covering the period of the pandemic rather than years as they usually do, the people who put together the reports are usually very clever and I think it's funny that they essentially troll the anti-vaxxers by making sure to include the disclaimers as clearly as possible so that the anti-vaxxers arguments turn into sand very quickly.

    Do you not get embarrassed that someone knew someone like you would try and do this and pre-empted it? Does it not make you doubt yourself to a high degree? The fact you posted it as a gotcha that blew up in your face is pretty funny, time for a bit of introspection.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Why is the caveat there in the first place?

    Why does it say that you cannot use the data in the way you are using it?

    Be honest did you read this caveat before you posted your link?

    Or did you read it, but then ignore it?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Do you not get embarrassed that someone knew someone like you would try and do this and pre-empted it? Does it not make you doubt yourself to a high degree? The fact you posted it as a gotcha that blew up in your face is pretty funny, time for a bit of introspection.

    You've lost me? Where did this blow up in my face?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    I note that he still hasn't and won't say what his imaginary brother actually does as a consultant.

    He's clearly not willing to say because either he's making it up and can't think of a plausible answer.

    Or he knows that his he specifies what his brother does it will expose that he is stretching the true and his brother in no position to actually have any such knowledge.


    I also notice that he seems to have changed his story already. Now he's claiming his brother said that "the people are from the last wave" not "the people all have delta".



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yes there are safety concern about all medicines. No medicines are 100% safe. No one claims otherwise.


    You guys are claiming that the vaccines are more dangerous that other medicines and other vaccines and that their true dangers are being covered up by a global conspiracy that you can't explain or show.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Likewise if asked about vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization and death, you have no issues

    Correct, certainly all the data I have seen thus far would indicate that vaccines are doing a great job on this, particularly against death.

    So let's hope the latest data from Scotland on mortality can be explained by behavioural differences, and not an early indicator re greater prevalence of death from Omicron in the double vaccinated.

    For the last 4 weeks the mortality rate per 100k in the double vaccinated has been significantly higher than the rate in the unvaccinated.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,885 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    The authors knew that idiots would try and misinterpret the data and made sure that it was very clear what the data couldn't be used for (i.e. insinuating that there are more cases in the vaccinated). Someone who was putting together that study realised this and put it in very clear English.

    The fact that you don't see that is mind boggling, I'm sure it must extend to other information you read as well, as I said above, a bit of introspection wouldn't hurt.

    (the fact this needed explained twice is also worrying, even trolls would have tried to deflect to something else by now, I mean, did you really think that was the case given all we know about vaccines and the virus, was it really a point you were going to try and argue and believe you found an angle that no one else has stumbled upon yet, what, 3600+ posts in)



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    The authors knew that idiots would try and misinterpret the data and made sure that it was very clear what the data couldn't be used for (i.e. insinuating that there are more cases in the vaccinated).

    I am not insinuating that there are more cases in the vaccinated. I'm stating it as a fact as that is exactly what the data shows.

    In Scotland from 15th January - 22 January the rate of covid in the unvaccinated per 100k was 297.18 and in the double vaccinated per 100k it was 568.49. That is a fact.

    The authors state that the data should not be used as a measure of vaccine effectiveness. They very clearly state you should ignore the latest data on case rates and look elsewhere for measures of vaccine effectiveness, advice which you are obviously very happy to take. Fair enough.

    But none of that changes the fact that in Scotland over the last four weeks, the case rate per 100k has been significantly lower in the unvaccinated than every other vaccination status.

    That is not an insinuation. It is a fact.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But the source of your data directly states that the data cannot be used to reach that conclusion.

    Is the disclaimer wrong?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,885 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    You can at most say that for that week there were more confirmed cases via PCR testing, that's the beginning and ending of it.

    But again, we know that, there's a disclaimer saying as much. You're so far down the rabbit hole here, causing hassle for your family by being unvaxxed and will probably be paying extra for tests when you travel all while billions walk around care free.

    But anyway.

    Let's assume that it's cases all up, just for fun, by what mechanism do more people get infected when they have antibodies then if they don't (remembering that we still see disproportionate unvaxxed in hospital and ICU despite the unvaxxed being about a decade younger on average). This is your chance to take for some scientific insight, something that others have missed that you have stumbled upon, explain.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    No, we never argued this.

    We have stated repeated that all medicines have some risk.

    We've repeatedly argued against your claims that the vaccines are more dangerous than other medicines or vaccines or that they are secretly more dangerous than officials are saying.

    You have repeatedly lied and claimed that the vaccines are not safe and are not effective.

    These things are simply not true.


    Have you given up your claims about your fantasy brother now?



  • Advertisement
Advertisement