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

1101102104106107251

Comments

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


    As I said the spin is a thing. If there is something you don't understand in what I posted let me know, and I'll try and clarify.

    Re others on this thread, I've seen many lies and falsehoods on here - true. But I don't really share your obsession with having to comment on every single post I disagree with and lump all those posters together as "Wrong".



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


    What "spin" by who?

    1. Vaccines developed, show high efficacy
    2. Vaccine uptake encouraged
    3. Virus mutates
    4. Virus mutates more
    5. Vaccines have less impact (depending)
    6. Vaccine uptake encouraged

    Despite the variants, people are still encouraged to take vaccines because they dramatically reduce deaths from the virus.

    According to you that's "spin" because, let's see if we can get this straight, vaccine approval was gained through real trials with real results that emphasized real reduction in symptomatic Covid cases, and multiple mutations later, emphasis on encouraged vaccine uptake is based on the reduction of deaths/severe Covid. Correct?

    You're in an anti-vax thread on a conspiracy forum, and that's roughly your point?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    Some people are now saying that there was monkey stuff in the vaccines, and it could be something to do with monkey pox.

    We'll be all turned into yetis soon and we'll all disappear.

    Astraseika has monkey stuff I read online.



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


    yep - spin alight - my head was spinning earlier trying to figure out what your problem was but it seems that even you don't know what the issue is.



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


    What spin are you referring to specifically?

    Spin by who and for what purpose?


    Cool. So which posters and which falsehoods have you seen?

    I keep pointing this out, because all of you anti-vaxxers keep claiming that the others don't represent you and such, yet not once have any of you ever challenged each other on those lies and mistruths.

    I think this shows a fundamental dishonesty in your position.

    If you're "just concerned about the vaccines" shouldn't you also want to make sure objections are actually based on truth?

    I think you and your mates are more than happy with lies and misinformation, just as long as vaccines and science in general are doubted and you guys get to be the ones smarter than actual experts.


    For example, this thread was started by patnor claiming that the VAERS data and similar indicated that the vaccines were more dangerous than was known.

    Any comment on this at all?



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


    Yea, it's turned into a clone of the covid measures thread. We can't get anyone to actually explain what the conspiracy is and the thread is a dumping ground for vague and unfocused rage about things people don't understand.



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


    No. The spin is that the vaccines were not originally approved to prevent Covid cases but were in fact originally approved to reduce the severity of Covid cases.

    That is a falsehood.



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


    If you're looking for an example of a falsehood. See above. Any comment?



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




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


    Yes. You are claiming something that isn't true. You are also dodging the questions being asked of you.

    That is a very typical tactic we see among people "just concerned about the vaccine."


    Could you please answer my questions now?

    Or failing that could you explain why you guys don't want to challenge each other directly even when you claim to disagree?



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


    Again, it's almost like he doesn't want to say and outline his conspiracy theory because it's embarrassing to him.



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


    hi gladvimpaker / phishnet / lex luthor etc etc etc ad naseum


    you have no credibility left, if you ever had any to begin with



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


    Can you please specifically tell me what I am claiming that is not true?



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


    I don't think there's any conspiracy here, just a very strange pernickety point



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




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


    Are the vaccines safe to use? Really, we don't need more posts in this forum than in the Russia forum today to answer such a simple question.



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


    Ok, I will give you a very simple example of the type of spin that is widespread.

    In response to my comment about the specific reasons for approval, rather than discuss what the vaccine was specifically approved for a spinner will say something along the lines of:

    Vaccines were developed to reduce transmission and reduce severity of the disease. Keyword: reduce.

    Indeed, the vaccines did reduce transmission (depending on variant, a vaccinated person held the viral load for a shorter period than an unvaccinated person) and they greatly reduced the severity of the disease

    This is just a deflection to try and spin the narrative that in reducing the severity of the disease the vaccines are working exactly as expected by the regulators.

    But that is totally untrue.

    What the regulators expected was the vaccine to reduce the number of symptomatic covid cases. At the time of approval, they had no idea if the vaccines would reduce the severity of the symptoms in symptomatic cases.



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


    Rather pitifully, to be frank.

    If you are unable to figure out which of my claims are untrue, then it rather suggests my claims are true!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    Hi kingmob, shifty, donjoe you guy's have no credibility left, if you had anything to begin with. Bots and shills the lot of ye. Spamming the same **** for months, ye are all the same.

    Coming out with the same nonsense, unable to think for yourselves.

    You'll be running around like monkey's soon, spinning off bars I'm telling ye you'll all be eating humble banana's soon....

    @hometruths they do this to everyone who comes into the thread, they'll twist it to suit their master's.

    They don't debate, they try to get rid of people from getting anything said they'll accuse you of posting things you never posted. Then they will accuse you of doing what they do. Absolute master manipulators. I'd block them as they are bots or from the system.

    I've a hunch who one of them are. A few people have them clocked.

    Watch the onslaught, especially kingmob he's their muscle lol



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


    Hi kingmob, shifty, donjoe you guy's have no credibility left,

    huge difference here bub


    you can see when each of us joined as we do not need to keep re-registering accounts, unlike you, because of the embarrassing idiocy you continue to show.

    nothing you post is ever worth reading

    youre nothing but a low rereg troll



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


    So what is your issue with the vaccine - since I can't work it out ?



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




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



    Nope. I was emphasising that vaccines reduce not STOP, as a general point. It's very common for conspiracy theorists in here to claim that "we were told" vaccines would 100% stop transmission/contraction/etc/etc. That was the point I thought you were making at the time.

    Your post appears to be about the specific development of vaccines and a point that the original e.g. Pfizer vaccine was developed with the key trials data being a reduction in symptomatic Covid. And those who don't pedantically acknowledge this specific are engaging in some sort of "spin" (suggesting they know but are twisting it somehow). Which is a bizarre in itself, and I don't see any connection to any conspiracy, so I have no idea why this is here.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    The cats out of the bag now, go on the three or four of you. Your not pulling the wool over people's eyes nemore.

    Your not interested in the thread,your all just trying to shut people down. And yees don't follow the chartor.

    Ye are all a bunch of the same, how well you know you joined with different accounts at different times

    Ye don't take the heat in other covid forums, because ye will be rombled.

    But because the conspiracy theorists forum is known as a free fur all you get trackten here.

    Rombled yez are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    Maybe at a whippit show I have two the same color as the weimaraner and another a golden color.

    Other than that, I have not come akros you before



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


    trolling level 0 / 10 here bub..... this is your poorest rereg yet... sad !



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




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


    Yes:

    No. The spin is that the vaccines were not originally approved to prevent Covid cases but were in fact originally approved to reduce the severity of Covid cases.

    That isn't what happened.


    Answer my questions now please.



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




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    So there's 4 of ye now. I actually read about this forum underneath a YouTube video lol and they said check it out. It's says, any newcomer will be accused of being a rereg, you'll be called names, your post's will be twisted, you will be tormented, you will be told your a shill, an antivaxxer if you say anything against the vaccines. You will be pitted against each other. You will notice that they are like people who are senior civil servants or have money in the COVID thing.

    Anyone who wants to have a chat here avoid those 4 accounts. They are shills and avoid them at all costs, block them or ignore their vile insults and protestations. They're not interested in the debate.



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


    Lol

    "They aren't interested in debate because anyone who disagrees with me is obviously a paid government agent!"

    "They keep accusing us of being reregs cause we keep reregging and keep accusing us of being anti-vaxxers cause we keep using anti-vaxxer talking points!"

    "They keep insulting us, those filthy shills! Foul civil servants!"


    I'm also curious how you guys are "pitted against each other" when none of you will ever actually address each others posts and throw tanturms when someone dares to compare you to each other. Watch now was all the other anti-vaxxers will pretend these posts don't exist and that you aren't a serial reregger.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,130 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Its a cloning degradation error. With each rereg from the original it gets even more desperate and angry.

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



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I'll take "things that never happened" for $500, please, Bob.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    You want them to address each other because it takes the heat of ye and your multiple accounts. You have been bladdering long enough now. Admit it and walk away from the forum.

    You're a shill, and not genuine.



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


    Nope. I know you guys won't address each other because that's not permitted by the conspiracy theory mindset. If you question one persons conspiracy theory, you question your own, and then doubt starts to creep in.

    I'm just highlighting that this is what all the anti-vaxxers on the thread are doing despite their insistence that they don't share or support the beliefs and behaviours of other anti vaxxers.


    So, since you're being all genuine and such, could you tell us what other user names you've posted under before? Why the new one?



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



    "Rombled", "Bladdering" - Oh gee with these zany made-up words this definitely can't be a re-reg of a regular here ;)



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


    What the vaccines were originally approved for is not up debate. They were approved to prevent symptomatic cases of Covid 19. The EMA links above confirm that. The original EUA approval from the FDA confirms the same.

    So I am assuming it is not that bit of what you quoted you are claiming is untrue. So it must be my claim that "It was spun as if the primary function all along was to reduce serious illness and death,"

    Oddly enough in the discussion my post prompted @whippet said that the vaccines were approved "To reduce the effects of the virus and its transmission" - this is a falsehood. I don't think the poster is some bad faith actor deliberately spreading misinformation, I think it is just an example of how he has fallen for the spin.

    They maybe be some other explanation for whippets false belief in what the vaccines were approved for, I don't know. But there are numerous examples of the spin that the vaccines are working exactly as per the function they were approved for - think of all the "Just got a mild dose of Covid, I'm grateful for my vaccine, this proves it's working" tweets.

    You asked why I haven't comment on all the falsehoods I've seen in this thread. Apart from the fact it would take too long to get involved in a debate with every falsehood posted here, I generally try not to get involved in a discussion that has no chance of proceeding along some sort of logical and reasonable lines.

    For example if somebody is claiming a 5G Bill Gates Microchip agenda, I will steer clear of it because it such blatant garbage the discussion clearly has no chance of logic or reason.



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


    Cool. If you say so man.

    What spin? Who's spinning it? Why?


    What are some specific examples of blatant garbage posted by anti-vaxxers in this thread?

    Would you class say patnor's opening mischaracterizations of the Vaers data etc as blatant garbage?

    How about 323's latest post that he has since abandoned?

    I don't think you will name any specific examples. That would be too close to challenging and disagreeing with another conspiracy theorist.



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


    What spin? Who's spinning it? Why?

    The tweets are just one example. There are thousands. There is a clear narrative across global governments and media to promote the vaccines benefits in reducing ICU cases and deaths as an example of how they're working as intended. I suspect it is simply to encourage vaccine uptake, nothing more sinister than that. I think it is done with good intentions, but I think it is wrong nonetheless.

    Would you class say patnor's opening mischaracterizations of the Vaers data etc as blatant garbage?

    No I don't think saying the VAERs data raises some red flags about vaccine safety is blatant garbage. It is more nuanced than that. But it is a discussion topic I avoid for the reasons I posted above, because I have seen how it plays it out there is no chance of it proceeding along some sort of logical and reasonable lines. Largely because you and your ilk use the VAERS disclaimer to shut down any sensible discussion on the subject. I couldn't be bothered with that.

    How about 323's latest post that he has since abandoned?

    I agree with most of the rebuttals of 323's post in that annual reports are full of those sort of commercial caveats and that in itself does not mean anything. In any event the market has delivered its own verdict on the commercial threats facing the vaccine manufacturers. I'd recommend this if anybody is looking for more in depth discussion on that topic - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAr2CkGPJ8M



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


    There's no "narrative". For example, vaccines reduce severity of the disease, which is true, ergo it gets repeated.

    If I recall, you claimed before that these vaccines aren't vaccines correct? You've labelled them "so called vaccines" right? What's going on with that?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,130 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    I am reminded of ...

    IN DOUGLAS ADAMS'S novel Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, a computer program called Reason can retroactively justify any decision, providing an incontrovertible argument that whatever was decided was the right thing to do.

    This is obviously someone searching for half truths, semantics and weasel words to justify an instinctive \ gut reaction.

    Although also obviously, their arguments are controvertible as they aren't using Reason (or reason).

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    I'm well aware that ye tools accuse anyone who's new of being a rereg. Everyone who wants to have a discussion should put ye on ignore. It's a free for all and you just wind people up.

    Ye think people who used to post here regularly feel as if they have lost the discussion. Far from it it's because you tools keep on swinging and monkey branching and turning the discussion into a rambling pile of ****.

    It's even been discussed elsewhere what a shower of Muppets ye are.

    Ye won't debate in the other covid forums because the 3 of you here won't get away with talking about other members on those forums.

    But ye are rumbled and it's clear ye are trying to dismantle anything that's negative about the vaccines.

    Ye know that they are not what they are supposed to be. It's been posted here time and time again.

    Who in their right minds wants to inject themselves with that ****, millions of spike protiens into their body and their own immune system wondering what the heck are these guys doing here. Creating an absolute mess of the immune systems. I'm sure you shills know the danger's too but ye have to keep on throwing the ball into the other court.

    Hometruths is posting in good faith and you guys are trying to put them off posting here too

    Some journalists lol the same type of chills who are probably with the woke mob.

    Woke mob lol I'm loving it.



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


    There chief benefit is not a prophylactic, i.e preventative, it is not one of active immunisation as intended, thus I referred to them as so called vaccines because they have delivered something which is undoubtedly beneficial, but it is different to what the approved use is.



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


    4 of them? I think there are far more than 4. You've left out @ohnonotgmail , @pjohnson, @storker , @Timberrrrrrrr @Fighting Tao , @banie01 - the circle-jerk gang

    If Leo came out and said "sodomy is the cure for covid" this gang would be the first to have their pants around their ankles



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


    a computer program called Reason can retroactively justify any decision, providing an incontrovertible argument that whatever was decided was the right thing to do.

    Indeed.

    1) Decide to approve the emergency use of a vaccine to prevent cases of Covid 19 because the benefits of preventing cases outweigh the risks of fast tracking approval.

    2) Discover that the vaccine does not actually prevent cases of Covid 19, but it does reduce the severity of cases

    3) Realise that the emergency use does not cover it's use in reducing the severity of cases. Is that a technical problem meaning the approval is actually invalid?

    4) Doesn't matter, just retroactively say we originally approved it to reduce the severity of cases.

    5) Hey presto, vaccine is working as we said it would, we did the right thing.

    Job done.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,130 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    I reject the premise that the vaccine didn't prevent symptomatic infection. It did, of varying degrees versus different variants but at the time of approval this was a valid reason.

    But regardless, in its primary and MORE IMPORTANT role...

    Vaccine is working. We have multiple vaccines that help to save lives and prevent disease. We did the right thing.

    Counter argument is what exactly??? Pedantic jobsworth nonsense.

    We should let patient die because someone filled out the paperwork incorrectly?

    There is zero argument here about the safety of the vaccine. Zero conspiracy theory.

    I don't have clue, and am not alone, in what your real material objection is.

    It's like quibbling we should have made the right decision for reason X and not reason Y and what exactly???

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



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


    There is a lot that I agree with in what you say but it essentially boils down to "OK, it didn't work very well providing the benefits we approved it for, but it did work well providing other benefits, that were unclear at the time of the approval, so it all worked out well in the end, hence we made the right decision"

    Yes up to a point, but essentially we got lucky. The approval of medicines is done on a risk/benefit analysis and if we set a precedent that the benefit side of that analysis is a bit of a grey area, go for it and hope for the best, sure it might work out if we get lucky, I think that's a pretty dangerous precedent to set.



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


    Its good to have someone on board with a degree of realism. Like it or not King Mob most people took the vaccine because they believed it stopped transmission and it was for the greater good..or else so they could go on holidays. You would have had no where near 90% take up if the narrative was it prevents severe illness and death when you were not at risk of severe illness or death. Certainly anyone i know took the vaccine because they believed it stopped transmission..or again because they wanted to travel.

    Remember the mantra at the start of the vaxx program that we would need X amount vaxxed for herd immunity. That went well..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,130 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    No. Based on the variants they were trialled against they were approved for valid reasons. You have failed to present evidence to the contrary disputing those findings.

    The vaccine trials were tracking severity of cases as part of the data collected.

    The trials detected that it triggered an immune response against covid. In the trials this was detected as reduction in symptoms.

    It wasn't merely a matter of 'luck' and it is entirely wrong to present it as such.

    It wasn't like they trialled a vaccine for covid, it was found to have no effect against covid in the real world but hey we got lucky it actually prevents bowel cancer.

    So I entirely reject the premise of your argument.

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



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


    No. Based on the variants they were trialled against they were approved for valid reasons. You have failed to present evidence to the contrary disputing those findings.

    I'm not disputing those findings. Take Pfizer as an example. The findings from the trial data was that the vaccine was 95% effective at preventing symptomatic cases of Covid. The EMA judged the trial data to be sound and consequently approved the vaccine for preventing symptomatic cases of Covid.

    The vaccine trials were tracking severity of cases as part of the data collected.

    The trials detected that it triggered an immune response against covid. In the trials this was detected as reduction in symptoms.

    At the time of the approval, there was not enough data to conclude whether or not there would be any benefits in reducing the severity of the symptoms. That is exactly why they did not approve it for that use.

    It wasn't merely a matter of 'luck' and it is entirely wrong to present it as such.

    If there was not enough trial data regarding reducing the severity of symptoms and time of approval, and subsequently data from real world use showed it was effective at reducing severity, if not luck what would you call it - genius? Psychic?



  • Advertisement
Advertisement