Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Options
1…215216218220221…419

Comments

  • Options
    #6512
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,674 ✭✭✭whippet


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179707#Comment_119179707

    my kids still believe in Santa and that does not make Santa real



  • Options
    #6513
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,819 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179720#Comment_119179720

    My point exactly. It's wishful thinking. They're deluded. Deluded for well intentioned reasons, but deluded nonetheless.



  • Options
    #6514
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,674 ✭✭✭whippet


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179742#Comment_119179742

    Good man



  • Options
    #6515
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179702#Comment_119179702

    And remind us, what was your argument to show that they were lying about the case rate data?

    Something about not understanding their explanation...?



  • Options
    #6516
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,815 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179359#Comment_119179359

    The video was made "under duress"?

    Here's a fact-check on it

    https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-study-emergency-idUSL2N2X21LM

    Here's another fact-check

    https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/emergency-call-study-at-the-heart-of-anti-vaxx-misinformation/

    The author of the study:

    But Prof Levi told AAP FactCheck the claim that the study showed a causal link between vaccines and the increase in emergency calls is wrong.

    “I do not support any interpretation of the paper as a proof that the vaccine has caused this increase in EMS calls. The paper only shows correlation and calls to check the matter broadly and explore all possible causes,” Prof Levi said in an email."

    also

    "Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong, told AAP FactCheck the study has statistical and methodological weaknesses which make it hard to infer much from the results."



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6517
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,674 ✭✭✭whippet


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179773#Comment_119179773

    so the author of the study has admitted that it isn't accurate and @drunkmonkey still needs to cling on to it as some form of bias confirmation?



  • Options
    #6518
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,502 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179702#Comment_119179702

    Demonstrate what you think this means as I think (well know) you have it wrong, once that is proven, then everything you've built on it will fall apart.

    primary function of the Covid vaccines was intended to be anything other than to prevent symptomatic cases of Covid

    But I think you know this already (I don't think you know why you're wrong, but you realise you're wrong and have built yourself up so much that you can't face the reality).



  • Options
    #6519
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,819 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179773#Comment_119179773

    Amazing how quickly posters can provide sources to directly contradict another posters claims if they're available.

    The reason nobody has provided a source to contradict my claim about the primary function of the vaccines on approval is there are no sources.

    If I am wrong, no doubt somebody will post such a source.



  • Options
    #6520
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,815 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179804#Comment_119179804

    No. The issues with your claim have been explained thoroughly. Multiple times. You've just made a personal decision not to accept them, and no one can stop you doing that.

    The other poster wasn't making a subjective claim, they were referencing a paper, one which has been shown as weak. Of course like you they can decide to endlessly reject that evidence and claim it stands. Anyone can do this. You're on a forum where posters have spent years claiming e.g. the world is flat and no one can convince them otherwise - and they are correct, no one can convince them otherwise.

    That's how this clown-fest works. It's why you are here.



  • Options
    #6521
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179804#Comment_119179804

    And this is about as close as you will get to challenging another conspiracy theorist's claims...



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6522
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,127 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179773#Comment_119179773

    The ruters one is just dishonest from the outset. That doesn't surprise me.

    You have to take on board what Prof Levi said, he didn't say there wasn't a spike. All other factors need to be ruled out. I can understand that, lots of people locked at home, forced to breathe through contaminated masks, alcohol and drug abuse, plenty of things that could have influenced the spike in heart problems, I don't know if any of them can cause myocarditis.

    We've also the good old climate change and Christmas trees.



  • Options
    #6523
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,674 ✭✭✭whippet


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179804#Comment_119179804

    here is a little snipped from the actual authorisation for the Pfizer vaccine from the FDA outlining why it was authorised. It specifically references the effectiveness rates and clearly points out that it is not 100% effective nor has even been claimed to be. So how can anyone claim that the primary purpose was to stop transmission. The research, the trails, the application, the approval and the pharmacovigilance always said there would be.



    DA’s analysis of the available efficacy data from 36,523 participants 12 years of age and older without evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to 7 days after dose 2 confirmed the vaccine was 95% effective (95% credible interval 90.3, 97.6) in preventing COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after the second dose (with 8 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group compared to 162 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group). Based on these data, and review of manufacturing information regarding product quality and consistency, FDA concluded that it is reasonable to believe that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‐19 Vaccine may be effective.

    https://www.fda.gov/media/144412/download

    Your strawman argument about 'primary function' is just that.



  • Options
    #6524
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,819 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179857#Comment_119179857

    So how can anyone claim that the primary purpose was to stop transmission.

    You’re shifting the goalposts, I said the primary purpose was to prevent symptomatic Covid, nothing about transmission.



  • Options
    #6525
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,815 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179842#Comment_119179842

    Those fact-checks are not for you. None of this is.



  • Options
    #6526
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,815 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    "Sorry guys but I've now decided vaccines are dangerous, you'll never convince me otherwise. If you can't convince me it means my arguments are all valid"



  • Options
    #6527
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179138#Comment_119179138

    Get the boat.

    Your direct quote was "If the vaccine impaired long term immunity in the vaccinated would that be a safety issue?". You didn't mention Covid at all, you just said impaired immunity. And that's the entirety of your unprompted post. You weren't replying to anyone, you just put it out there as I've pasted above. I'll let others decide if that reads more like "long-term immunity to covid" or "long-term immunity full stop".

    Interestingly, you thought you had some smoking gun which proved it was impacting on long-term immunity and tried to tease it out like some gameshow host.

    Then, when you were pushed, it was pointed out that the study you linked didn't say anything about impairing long-term immunity.

    You said it did.

    Then, when you were asked where exactly it said that, you changed your stance completely and said "well it points to it". Intellectually dishonest, trying to snare people in some sort of 'gotcha' moment which never came, and outright lying.

    Like I said, get the boat.



  • Options
    #6528
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,819 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179824#Comment_119179824

    The other poster wasn't making a subjective claim, they were referencing a paper, one which has been shown as weak.

    I’m not making a subjective claim. I am stating a fact:

    the primary function of the vaccines as approved was to prevent symptomatic Covid cases.

    And I have referenced the reports from five different regulatory authorities.



  • Options
    #6529
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,674 ✭✭✭whippet


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179866#Comment_119179866

    ok - so lets strip this back - can you tell me who would have outlined and defined what the 'Primary Purpose' of each vaccine actually was. As you are hanging your hat on this argument surely you can point to an actual statement of the 'primary purpose' for each of all the vaccines which have been authorised.

    As each vaccine has it's own authorisation each would have had to had this magical 'Primary Purpose' stated somewhere. There are 9 vaccines approved by the WHO currently - so there will need to be 9 different 'Primary Purpose' as each application would have been totally independent of each other and are totally different products

    So - if you can show me where the 'Primary Purpose' was laid out in an official document or statement to the licensing authorities we can discuss further.

    BTW anything other than the Primary Purpose being written down on an official application for license or license approval is just hearsay.



  • Options
    #6530
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179882#Comment_119179882

    His argument also eventually shifted to "yea, but the news piece says it, so it must be true."

    It was very clear he never actually read the paper. Just the tweet.



  • Options
    #6531
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,815 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179887#Comment_119179887

    An earlier vaccine trial showed limited certain results against earlier variants of Covid

    Current vaccines have varying results against the current/dominant variants.

    You have a whole personal spiel around that. That's your "thing" here. Other anti-vaxxers have their own, different, personal spiels.

    You referenced reports but it was clear to anyone with a brain that you didn't understand them (or didn't want to)



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6532
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,819 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179891#Comment_119179891

    I have done this citing 5 different regulatory authorities and shown you that there was only one specific purpose that approval was granted for:

    to prevent Covid 19.

    this is the only purpose. I have used the term primary function to distinguish this from the fact that undoubtedly the vaccines are now being administered for another function - I.e to reduce the severity of outcomes, a secondary function, but there was insufficient data on this at time of approval hence my confidence you will find no source to either contradict my claim or backup your claim that the primary function was to prevent severe Covid.

    It would not have been approved without sufficient data, and you can’t link to data that doesn’t exist.



  • Options
    #6533
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179945#Comment_119179945

    He's already admitted that the vaccine does work on the other variants. And aside from his refusal to challenge all of the false safety claims made by his fellows, he's accepted that the vaccines are safe.

    His issue stems entirely from the his notion that they didn't approve the vaccine for this in the initial approval.

    That's it.

    Not a safety issue. Not even an issue.



  • Options
    #6534
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,502 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179955#Comment_119179955

    Again, what do you think this means in a medical context for a medicine (I'm not going to give examples anymore as you are unable to understand them anyway):

    to prevent Covid 19.



  • Options
    #6535
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,674 ✭✭✭whippet


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179955#Comment_119179955

    and the term on the approval documentation and application was 'Primary Function' ?



  • Options
    #6536
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,819 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179981#Comment_119179981

    In a medical context it specifically means to prevent infection. Infection being defined as laboratory confirmed symptomatic Covid.

    we know this is true because the vaccine failure definition confirms it. And the vaccine failure definition is written in accordance with CIOMs standards.

    i.e in a medical context.



  • Options
    #6537
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,819 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119179945#Comment_119179945

    And again. It’s like bingo.

    not one poster has been able to cite a single source or link to anything to demonstrate that the primary function of the Covid vaccines was intended to be anything other than to prevent symptomatic cases of Covid.

    Your argument is simply I don't understand.



  • Options
    #6538
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,674 ✭✭✭whippet


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119180010#Comment_119180010

    can you point to where it is specifically mentioned in any approval / application document for a license? otherwise it is your out of context definition and irrelevant to your argument

    I'm out ....



  • Options
    #6539
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,502 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119180010#Comment_119180010

    OK, and how do they use this information for approval of a medicine (any medicine)?

    Also, give a worked example from a trial of how a medicine (any medicine) prevented infection.



  • Options
    #6540
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119180030#Comment_119180030

    I think he's just stuck on a loop.

    He thinks he's got a kill argument thay somehow counter balances all of the bullshit from his friends.

    Might as well just give him the point out of pity at this stage.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6541
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,674 ✭✭✭whippet


    he is asking us to prove or discredit the existence of something that does not exist and never has .... so no matter what we say he will claim his argument stacks up.

    I'll be putting him on ignore now



Advertisement