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

199100102104105251

Comments

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


    Thank you for confirming that you are a re-reg or had multiple accounts. What were the account names? Always good to have honesty so we know where everyone stands.



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


    mm hmm. That's nice.

    However we've had plenty of experience with conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers reregging. Why they do it, we don't know and they won't say.

    You've already announced that you're leaving, yet here you are still posting. Repeated dramatic exits are also a hallmark of conspiracy theorists in these parts.


    And no, why would I be tired of this? All we need to do is to point out the obvious lies and contradictions in your position, ask you something really basic questions that expose how silly and ignorant your theories are, then watch you freak out, dodge and then run away. It's not that hard really.



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


    There's more of us than you :)


    Don't think there is, otherwise how would you account for the vast majority of the population having leaped at the chance of getting the vaccines and return to normal without believing any of the rubbish spouted on here about fake safety issues, magnetic vaccine, 5g vaccines or Bill Gates trying to track us or sterilise us or kill us off in some other way.


    Conspiracy theorists are the outlier in society.



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


    Yes, when you come back I will be here and I’ll challenge nonsense and lies when I see them. It’s better than letting conspiracy theorists spread crap.

    Yes, conspiracy theorists are quite predictable. The latest addition to their tools pretending to be just asking questions is so easy to spot though. CT’ists should really put more effort in if they want to lie about their stance. I’ve seen better fibs from my toddlers.



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


    This tactic seems to be a result of the grifters shifting their grift away from detailed and specific claims. It's more profitable for them to keep things vague to allow the theories they're selling to fit with more worldviews. The best way to do this is to ask questions for their suckers to answer for themselves.

    So when a grifter asks stuff like "Why are they pushing dangerous vaccines?", by not supplying it can fit with people who believe "Because they're trying to depopulate the planet" as well as with people who believe "cause they're just in it for profit." Or with people who think "it's the mark of the beast!"

    And since conspiracy theorists seem to only be able to parrot what they hear from their grifters, they can only ask the same open ended questions.


    Also, I think a lot of them have learned from previous interactions with friends and family that if they are open and clear about what they believe, the conversation never goes great for them. Either because what they believe is so ridiculous and/or they are not able to actually explain it. So they've found that sticking to vague, non-committal questions makes them sound cooler and more informed and mysterious than if they just admit they believe it's the lizard people or the Jews or whatever.



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



    You can tell by the way conspiracy theorists never question each other, how much they question the grifters who are selling them these conspiracies in the first place.



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



    *Whilst lecturing everyone else to "question everything"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,136 ✭✭✭Shoog


    This is the very definition of what a CT'er does, he insinuates that he has some hidden knowledge which makes him superior to everyone else - he understands more of what going on. To be a CT'er is to puff yourself up and imagine yourself one of an enlightened elite.


    Its so tiresome. the shrillness and stridency of the CT'er has somewhat diminished since its become obvious that most of them are getting their info from Russian troll farms 😂



  • Registered Users Posts: 547 ✭✭✭shillyshilly


    but remember not to question the parts that unravel the conspiracy.... surround those parts with mystery and Bill Gates



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,137 ✭✭✭323


    Straight from the horses mouth, so to speak. Investors have to told about potential risks

    We may not be able to demonstrate sufficient efficacy or safety of our COVID-19 vaccine and/or variant specific formulations to obtain permanent regulatory approval in the United States, United Kingdom, European Union or other countries where it has been authorized for emergency use or granted conditional marketing approval.

    Direct from Pfizer’s annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about how “profitable” their vaccine will be for shareholders. It states the following in the “Risk Factors for investors/shareholder’s section:

    • Our revenue depends heavily on sales of our COVID-19 vaccine, and our future revenues from our COVID-19 vaccine are uncertain.
    • Our commercial revenue is based on preliminary estimates of COVID-19 vaccine sales and costs from Pfizer Inc., or Pfizer, that are likely to change in future periods, which will impact our reported financial results.

    Strange how a suggestion anywhere apart from this tread that these experimental injections are not been given regulatory approval or been shown to be safe brings down the wrath of mods and has caused numerous accounts to be canceled, yet Pfizer say just that to the financial regulators and their investors?

    “Follow the trend lines, not the headlines,”



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


    And another out of context quote with no source misrepresented by an anti-vaxxer.


    Is there a reason you're not providing a source?

    Is it because you didn't get one in the tweet you're copying it from?

    Or is it because you know the link doesn't actually support what you're claiming?



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,830 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    hahahahahahahahahaha


    what an absolute tool you are !!!! did you actually read the document that that statement comes from????

    what youve posted is the "Risk Factor" that they go on to answer

    they clearly state:

    Investing in the ADSs involves various risks. You should carefully read and consider the matters discussed in this Annual Report under the heading “Risk Factors,” which include the following risks


    so....

    Risk Factor:

    We may not be able to demonstrate sufficient efficacy or safety of our COVID-19 vaccine to obtain permanent regulatory approval in jurisdictions where it has been authorized for emergency use or granted conditional marketing approval.



    Response:

    Our COVID-19 vaccine has been granted full U.S. FDA approval for individuals 16 years and older, emergency or limited use authorization in a number of countries and approval for use in certain other countries. Our COVID-19 vaccine has not yet been approved by regulatory authorities in many of such countries. We and Pfizer intend to continue to observe our COVID-19 vaccine and other variants of a COVID-19 vaccine candidate in global clinical trials. It is possible that subsequent data from these clinical trials may not be as favorable as data we submitted to regulatory authorities to support our applications for emergency use authorization, marketing or conditional marketing approval or that concerns with the safety of our COVID-19 vaccine will arise from the widespread use of our COVID-19 vaccine outside of clinical trials. Our COVID-19 vaccine may not receive approval outside of the emergency use setting in the countries where it is not currently approved, which could adversely affect our business prospects.


    so the vaccine was granted licence BEYOND emergency use, and was given FULL APPROVAL in august 2021 in the USA


    so your statement above :

    these experimental injections are not been given regulatory approval 

    is a lie... which makes you a liar.

    quite a thick ignorant one at that



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,703 ✭✭✭whippet


    your factually incorrect.

    The vaccine has full license and approval from the FDA - it moved from 'emergency' license in 2021. the use of the vaccine in some circumstances / demographics is still under EUA .. it is fully approved for the main demographic.


    Also - of course they can't predict with 100% accuracy of what the future revenues will be for the covid vaccine - as they have no certainty around when it will no longer be required, superseded by a different product / competitor .. which vaccines schedules it will be included on (if any) and of course how the new anti-virals will work.

    So .. selective quoting from a 34 page document proves that you know nothing about it and it is a clear attempt by people to discredit the vaccine.

    Clutching at straws really

    and just so you can see - below from the horse mouth is the FDA confirming that Pfizer's vaccine is full approved for over 16s ..... not an emergency license ... not an experiment ... not a trial. So if you say any different you are telling lies, are misinformed or are just parroting nonsense you got from grifters.


    https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine



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


    Yup. Either didn't actually read the document beyond what was in the tweet he's stealing from. Which would make him a gullible mark for the grifters.

    Or he did read it and left out that context on purpose, which would make him a liar.


    So which is it @323? A or B?

    Or are you going to be a coward and vanish from the thread without a response?



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


    Context below: (clue: it's a disclaimer)

    SEC filing for 2021.



    D. Risk Factors

    Our business is subject to various risks, including those described below. You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below and in our future filings. If any of the following risks are realized, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially and adversely affected. Additionally, risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and/or prospects.

    Investing in the ADSs involves various risks. You should carefully read and consider the matters discussed in this Annual Report under the heading “Risk Factors,” which include the following risks:

    •Our revenue depends heavily on sales of our COVID-19 vaccine, and our future revenues from our COVID-19 vaccine are uncertain.

    •Our reported commercial revenue is based on preliminary estimates of COVID-19 vaccine sales and costs from Pfizer Inc., or Pfizer, as Pfizer’s fiscal quarter for subsidiaries outside the United States differs from ours and creates an additional time lag. These estimates are likely to change in future periods, which will impact our reported financial results.

    •We may not be able to demonstrate sufficient efficacy or safety of our COVID-19 vaccine and/or variant-specific formulations to obtain permanent regulatory approval in the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, or other countries where it has been authorized for emergency use or granted conditional marketing approval.

    •Significant adverse events may occur during our clinical trials or even after receiving regulatory approval, which could delay or terminate clinical trials, delay or prevent regulatory approval or market acceptance of any of our product candidates.

    •We face significant competition from other makers of COVID-19 vaccines and may be unable to maintain a competitive market share for our COVID-19 vaccine.

    •We have only recently built our marketing and sales organization. If we are unable to continue to increase our marketing and sales capabilities on our own or through third parties, we may not be able to market and sell our product candidates effectively in the United States and other jurisdictions, if approved, or generate product sales revenue.


    Note the word "may". You are an airline company, the risks that face your investors: your planes MAY crash, which MAY affect share price. It doesn't mean they will crash. Jesus christ.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Hoop66


    Option C without a doubt. But that doesn't mean they're not a gullible mark and a liar too!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,137 ✭✭✭323


    Straight from the horses mouth, so to speak. Pfizer’s annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

    We may not be able to demonstrate sufficient efficacy or safety of our COVID-19 vaccine and/or variant specific formulations to obtain permanent regulatory approval in the United States, United Kingdom, European Union or other countries where it has been authorized for emergency use or granted conditional marketing approval.

    Also, in the “Risk Factors for investors/shareholder’s section

    Our revenue depends heavily on sales of our COVID-19 vaccine, and our future revenues from our COVID-19 vaccine are uncertain.

    Our commercial revenue is based on preliminary estimates of COVID-19 vaccine sales and costs from Pfizer Inc., or Pfizer, that are likely to change in future periods, which will impact our reported financial results.

    Strange that a year ago, even a hint here that Pfizer’s shots were not approved could lead to a ban. Yet Pfizer’s documentation for investors clearly states they're still not approved.

    “Follow the trend lines, not the headlines,”



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,830 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Nothing but a blubbering idiot at this stage



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


    @323 When you don’t understand the document or context you make yourself Look foolish when you try to make it look like you understand. It’s ok not to understand something, but it is not ok to lie about it to push an agenda based on bullshit.



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


    Yes, that's what you claimed a few posts ago.

    But several posters have pointed out issues with you claim. You are just ignoring them and spamming the same shite.

    This seems to be because you aren't able toform your own opinions and arguments and can only parrot what you learn from Twitter grifters.


    Why do you think that ignoring points and repeating the same lie again using the same phrasing and the same mindless Twitter commentary would convince anyone? Why do you think it makes you look like anything except a spambot?


    You won't answer though. Conspiracy theorists aren't able to confront this stuff.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,809 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    I miss the old anti-vaxx thread. This one's become so boring and predictable, anti-vaxxers deny they're anti-vaxxers, eventually the (virtual) mask slips, they spam with Twitter junk, run away, reincarnate perhaps, repeat, repeat.


    But, hey, where'd we be without the humour they're currently providing? Like this: looking for the bluetooth signals in cemeteries to see if the deceased were vaccinated! Chips give off bluetooth, doncha' know?






  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,767 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    anti-vaxxers really are a specialist kind of simple



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



    And we find them in abundance in their natural habitat; on conspiracy theory forums



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat


    Again the extreme pro vaxxers, pro drug, pro gmo, pro chemical, pro "trust the science". Mainly i dont understand the science but the experts have said its ok so it is.

    There is no great conspiracy with the vaxxes. They seem to be fine, they have not killed anyone (debatable).

    Again I will draw an analogy with GMO food. Yes it seems fine. Yes it has been declared safe. Yes it will solve the world hunger problem. However What will happen to our birds bees etc in 10-20 years and what surprises do we have in store with pharma enhanced food?

    In the long run do I want it in my body?

    Yes if i go out for a meal ill eat it. Yes it wont kill me. Do I agree with it. No. Am I a conspiracy theorist? The extreme pro druggers/vaxxers would think so.



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


    There's no such thing as "pro-vaxxer", it's a term invented by people who have a completely irrational view to validate their tribalism. Likewise "flat-earthers" have invented a term for people who believe the world is round - aka everyone

    You are simply taking the "I'm just concerned about vaccines" approach in order to try and separate yourself from the full-on loons. Problem is you rely on a lot of the same faulty talking points.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat


    Ok. Give me a term then that describes someone that believes we should vaxx kids that have statistically zero risk from covid for covid. (With the risks from the vaccine factored in)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,703 ✭✭✭whippet




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat


    I think there is a very emotional and synaptic response to being called a anti vaxxer or a pro vaxxer. The pro vaxxer loved it as a way to denegrade the lesser beings that were the anti vaxxers and were jumped on by the media et al as uneducated or unscientific. However when the vaccices started to underperform the platform shifted. We had a divergence from the vaccines will protect you (full Stop) to the vaccines will protect you from serious illness and death. (We sort of expected that!). Again when you were never really in risk from the virus due to age etc the arguement for the vaccines really wained. Now we all sort of expect that the vaxx was grand. We think or was Omicron just milder?



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


    Still no such thing as a "pro vaxxer."


    You guys are all anti vaxxers though.

    How come you're ignoring all of the claims made by your anti vaxxer buddies?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,326 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    Omicron did all the work, the vaccines took the credit.

    The skeptics in this forum would literally take or do anything to fit in. Very sad.

    For some reason this old video popped up in my youtube recommended (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7yb3AfHYNY) It gives a stark 10 year before and after of patients who started on a treatment of OxyContin for pain relief in 1998. Initially of course doctors, patients and patient's families singing it's praises from the rooftop as a revolutionary new medication only for things to start deteriorating very quickly and ultimately destroying their lives.

    But but but, FDA, but but but Science, they are never wrong!!



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


    FYI @snowcat. Before you leap onto supporting this chap because he's on your side, he believes that all space flight is faked and he is possibly a flat earther.


    Gosh it sure looks like a lot of the folks agreeing with you hold some really embarrassing views. Weird that...



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat


    Yes keep telling yourself that. You are a prime example of an extreme pro vaxxer. A mirror image of an extreme anti vaxxer. I am neither extreme pro or extreme anti but that seems to infuriate you and some of your friends.



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


    Not sure why you are bringing up oxycontin in a thread about covid vaccines?


    The only similarity is that they are both made by drug companies, but then the only similarity between JFK and Diana is that they both died in a car and that doesn't stop conspiracy theorists from getting the topics mixed up in threads around here.



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


    However when the vaccices started to underperform the platform shifted. We had a divergence from the vaccines will protect you (full Stop) to the vaccines will protect you from serious illness and death. (We sort of expected that!). 

    This is my problem with the vaccines. When the vaccines were first rolled out the clear expectation was that the primary function was to prevent catching Covid.

    When it became abundantly clear that this was not working as intended, but they were having good effect in preventing serious illness and death, very few vaccine proponents acknowledged this. It was spun as if the primary function all along was to reduce serious illness and death, and anybody who thought they were taking the vaccine to prevent them getting Covid just didn't understand how vaccines worked.

    This is total and utter nonsense, and as far as I am concerned it undermines all subsequent claims about the vaccine efficacy and safety.



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



    This is my problem with the vaccines. When the vaccines were first rolled out the clear expectation was that the primary function was to prevent catching Covid.


    No it wasn't. There was never any claims of the vaccines being infallible they were just hopeful of having something that was at least 40% effective at reducing symptoms / death.


    The only people claiming that the vaccines were meant to be a miracle cure is conspiracy theorists, who two years ago were telling us that covid didn't exist, or that these vaccines they are now so concerned about didn't exist either.



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


    No it wasn't. There was never any claims of the vaccines being infallible they were just hopeful of having something that was at least 40% effective at reducing symptoms / death.

    I never said the vaccines were designed or claimed to be infallible. That's ridiculous. I said they were claimed and approved to prevent Covid. Not necessarily to do that with 100% success, that's also ridiculous, but there is no doubt originally the primary function was to prevent Covid - not reduce serious symptoms/death.

    And for you to claim now that the vaccine was originally approved and rolled out in the hope of "having something that was at least 40% effective at reducing symptoms / death" is a blatant lie and exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.

    It is impossible to take seriously any claims or arguments on vaccine efficacy or safety from vaccine proponents who try to rewrite history, whether it is an anonymous internet poster or the FDA, the CDC, HSE, WHO etc etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,181 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    Exactly.

    However, certain regular posters here do suffer from some form of selective amnesia.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,181 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    Not sure? That is because you choose to ignore another similarity which is that serious damage or side effects started to show only after some time passed or after prolonged use.

    What are we on now? Second booster which has to be taken within 4 months after the first one.



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


    It's true though. Ask him yourself if you doubt.

    Likewise you've been constantly ignoring the lies and dishonesty pumped out by "people just concerned about the vaccine".

    Why are you hit by such selective mutism when you see this? Is it because you believe there aren't any examples?


    Still no such animal as an "extreme pro vaxxer" though. No matter how much you keep telling yourself that.



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


    Pat, why are you pretending you didn't open this thread based on trying to lie about the Vaers and eudravigilance data?

    What serious effects do you believe the vaccines cause only after extreme long terms and repeated use? What other vaccines show similar?

    And what precisely is this based on other than your personal untrained, highly biased and very dishonest opinion?



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


    I didn't say that the vaccines were 40% effective. I said that when in early trials the likes of WHO were hopeful of something that would be at least 40% effective, and that if they managed that it would be good enough to make a difference and that is approximately the effectiveness of other vaccines, such as the annual flu ones which vary between 40-60% only depending on the year.


    It turned out they were far more effective than that.



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


    Is there anything showing up regarding serious side effects that only appear after a year?


    As for opioids, it was well known the effects of them. The thing with Oxycontin was that they claimed it didn't have those effects and there was conspiracies with trying to hide that information etc.



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


    Effective at what? You said "they were just hopeful of having something that was at least 40% effective at reducing symptoms / death"

    Whilst that may have turned out to be what the vaccines were effective at, it is a lie to claim that is what was hoped for when the vaccines were initially approved.

    The hope and expectation, and hence the marketing, was entirely focussed on the fact that they would be effective at preventing symptomatic cases of Covid.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,703 ✭✭✭whippet


    what scientific metrics are you using for your 'opinion' ?

    When we had a couple of thousand cases our hospitals were over run and pressure on ICU beds was almost unmanageable .. yet when we had 20-30k cases per day our hospitals managed .... the effects of vaccines on the potency of the virus was profound.



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


    I'm on about before the vaccines were approved, when they were still being developed and not even started testing yet. Then the WHO was just hopeful of something, anything, that would work a bit. Absolutely no expectation that any vaccines would emerge anything like as effective as they turned out.

    Even the least effective ones that finally got released were well above what was hoped for back in early 2020, or late 2019 before anyone had actually heard of covid.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,330 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Do we need to start a new thread for the Monkeypox vaccine conspiracy, luckly enough they had some freeze dried since 2019, https://www.newsweek.com/monkeypox-cased-uk-massachusetts-case-vaccine-ordered-us-1708075

    Any trial data on mixing the monkeypox with 2 jabs and 2 boosters?



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


    Your post confirms exactly what I am saying - the huge volume of cases is a very clear indicator that the vaccines were not effective at preventing symptomatic cases of Covid.

    As to the fact that the hospitals managed at best suggests that the benefits of the vaccine were reducing severe outcomes of covid rather than preventing cases in the first place. Also exactly what I have been saying.

    I say "at best" because we'll never know for sure if the hospitals coped because Omicron was a milder variant thus reducing the severity, or the vaccines reduced the severity.

    Either way it does not contradict the opinion that the vaccines have been very poor at preventing cases of Covid. it bolsters it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,703 ✭✭✭whippet


    but your opinion is just that .. an opinion. There are scientific studies done by actual experts and scientists that would not support your opinion. Everyone is entitled to an option - it just does not make that opinion correct



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


    I'm on about before the vaccines were approved, when they were still being developed and not even started testing yet. Then the WHO was just hopeful of something, anything, that would work a bit.

    Fair enough, I wouldn't dispute at that all. But you initially posted to contradict my post "When the vaccines were first rolled out the clear expectation was that the primary function was to prevent catching Covid."

    In the context of my point on claimed efficacy and safety, the reasons why the vaccines that had been developed were approved for human use is very important. It is very different from some vague aspirations as to future success whilst being developed.



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


    That the vaccines were initially granted approval solely to prevent symptomatic cases of Covid is a statement of fact.

    If it is your opinion that with a 90%+ vaccination rate and over 20k cases a day that is evidence that the vaccines are effective at preventing Covid, then fair enough.

    In my opinion, it is evidence that the vaccines are not effective at preventing Covid.



Advertisement