Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

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

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:

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.

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.

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