Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Igotadose · 12-06-2022 4:01pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119192282#Comment_119192282

Uhuh.

King Mob · 12-06-2022 4:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119192282#Comment_119192282

Says the guy that is literally copy and pasting from twitter without question.

This quote is a perfect example of both.

It's not a quote from Einstein.

The Nal · 12-06-2022 4:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119192312#Comment_119192312

Wasnt related to the vaccine though. He had a pre existing heart condition.

Another own goal from Buzz.

sydthebeat · 12-06-2022 4:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119192312#Comment_119192312

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/covid-19-vaccine-did-not-cause-actor-vivekhs-death-panel/article37131622.ece

snore... you make it so easy buzz buzz.

Vivekh’s death , the report said, was a coincidental event, for which a clear cause other than vaccination was found on investigation. He had suffered “acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock with ventricular fibrillation in a known case of hypertension”, it said.

but of course you wont believe any of this because it doesnt fit with your scummy ghoulsih need to link peoples deaths with vaccinations.

astrofool · 12-06-2022 5:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119191806#Comment_119191806

As said, you're in the spiralling out of control phase of the re-reg, better rein it in 🤣

astrofool · 12-06-2022 5:22pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119191889#Comment_119191889

It was table 3.6 which contains the data, if you want to post the data table on the uncertainties, please do so.

My point was:

a) The trials were massive

b) the data was comprehensive

We had 95% efficacy against symptoms with a very high confidence and a 66% efficacy against severe symptoms with low confidence. The approval was granted based on those numbers, by the time the Irish authority approved it, we had the data from:

Moderna across 3 authorities.

Pfizer across 3 authorities.

All showing effectiveness against severe disease. I would call that comprehensive, it's certainly more comprehensive than the approval of all other medicines, if you can show it's not comprehensive vs. other medicines, please do so.

I completely stand over this and I think it's funny that you've now directed your whole argument to prove a statement that I made wrong, the trials involved nearly 200,000 people, all trials showed efficacy against severe disease, to go on you need to show that 200,000 is not a massive number for a medical trial and that the data from all the available trials was not comprehensive, I know you can't, so good luck with spinning out:

the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials that were then repeated with real world data.

Now, remembering we are currently within the very public approval document published by the EMA and read by the approval authorities in each country.

And that your argument was that the authorities "got lucky" with the very effects they were approved for directly.

I've already been through the random items you have conceded on (worldwide spin conspiracy, what vaccine failure means to name but 2).

Has anybody been persuaded by his arguments? His peerless grasp of data? Is there anybody who has read astrofools posts and thought, "By gosh, astrofool is on to something, why did the regulators think there was only limited data on severity with no reliable conclusion, the efficacy on severity is clearly proven by extremely comprehensive data."

Well, the regulators agree with me (well, more correctly, I agree with them) as they approved the vaccines.

Again, we're back to you trying to show us where the approval authorities made a mistake.

And as you are using their approval directly (to attack me) it's fair to say that you've conceded on that again.

I'm sure that some of the anti-vaxxers who like to use their feelings as data points will side with you :)

But science is completely against you.

hometruths · 12-06-2022 5:48pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119192682#Comment_119192682

It was table 3.6 which contains the data, if you want to post the data table on the uncertainties, please do so.

Sure it contains data. Data for which you provided an accompanying explanation of the confidence intervals:

And just to show the data table (95% CI would mean there's a 1/20 chance that if the trial was repeated it wouldn't show substantially different numbers, with a 95% chance of those numbers varying between 90.0 and 97.9), again, this CI was included in the day 1 data for all vaccines, which is what the real world data later improved upon):

You posted this explanation and data in support of your argument that the data on severity was extremely comprehensive.

This data is nothing to do with severity - it is all cases of Covid. You cited this data as backing up what was said in section 3.3, this data relates to section 3.2.

Even after it has been pointed out to you I am now not sure if you even realise that you're using the wrong data to back up your argument, which is a measure of your understanding of this. But it blindingly obvious.

It is totally laughable - and this is the sort of thing you use to stand over ridiculous claims of like "This has been explained to you like a five year old"

Not even a five year old would try and argue that Table 3.6 relates to the data discuss in Section 3.3.

It really is that stupid.

patnor1011 · 12-06-2022 6:02pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119190456#Comment_119190456

Not "this" discussion. Anywhere else on boards you will be required to be polite and your rather poor debate skills, dishonest tactics and rude behavior will not be tolerated long. You do have free reign to insult anyone you want on conspiracy forums as rules are different here.

Discussing covid vaccines safety is not yet allowed outside CT forums but as time progress and more of issues come to the light it will be harder to ignore them.

patnor1011 · 12-06-2022 6:09pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119190668#Comment_119190668

LMAO.

So from none whatsoever you progressed to "known and accounted for".

One would say that you are evolving but it is rather that some issues can not be denied anymore so you try to brush them off with something like "it was to be expected, stuff like that happens... pros outweigh the cons... and similar nonsense.

patnor1011 · 12-06-2022 6:14pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119190940#Comment_119190940

Dishonest tactic but that is what you guys do always.

This thread is not about holocaust or vaccines in general as you are trying to suggest. It is about covid vaccines safety.

astrofool · 12-06-2022 6:31pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119192809#Comment_119192809

Just to note that I posted the table to stop you from spinning off into other random arguments (which seems to have worked for now).

At least you've conceded on the massive trials and comprehensive data across multiple trials.

And we're now into an argument about the table being used which clearly shows the numbers involved (and the data and CI, the only thing unlisted is the upper and lower bounds which I had already quoted).

So I'm unsure what you're arguing about anymore.

Again, if your goal is to attack me, have at it, it's funny watching incompetence and I can be more patient than others.

(and don't rise to little yellow chickens like bad2thebone).

astrofool · 12-06-2022 6:33pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119192913#Comment_119192913

It hasn't been about safety for a while, right now it's all facebook posts, 1 lad using the approval authorities data in a misguided attempt at proving another user wrong and some people's feelings about vaccines.

Almost as if there wasn't any safety issues to chat about.

12-06-2022 7:29pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119192913#Comment_119192913

So far nobody has provided proof of it being unsafe... And much of the time it just seems to be posters being annoyed by @King Mob or somebody else debunking the same old stuff.

And for some reason I can't get rid of @drunk_monk's username being tagged... Wut..

bad2thebone · 12-06-2022 7:41pm

Funny how pharma elite's are being investigated for paying to be injected with saline solution. Strange how so many young kids are having heart attacks, rise in shingles.

Alleged adverse effects from vaccines, mass vaccination campaigns with emergency approval. Mandatory vaccines for going on holidays and gigs etc if they were so safe for people who weren't vulnerable or elderly why did y'all line up for the my new word compliments of a new poster the needle craft lol

Monkey pox spreading like wild fire, blaming bisexual and bisexual men, now it's supposedly airborne.

What's going on, elite's doing simulations of viruses and low and behold there's an outbreak soon after.

And they have vaccines already in store for something that only breaks out in Africa.

Fish been found with seratriline off the coast of America, antidepressants....

The road to nowhere I think...

Thanks to big pharma :)

snowcat · 12-06-2022 7:54pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119192308#Comment_119192308

I got that too. Seems there might be a conspiracy that the EPV's believe in.

snowcat · 12-06-2022 8:03pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119192913#Comment_119192913

The EPV's do not understand that. They believe anyone questioning a new drug is an 'anti vaxxer'. Traditional vaccines are a long way from the ones I have an issue with which are the GMO MRNA ones. That have yet to be proven long term and are not looking great even in the short term.

bad2thebone · 12-06-2022 8:14pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119193319#Comment_119193319

LoL were they starting to call you a rereg too. Well from what I seen today and a friend sent it on to me. A lot of scientist's and other needle pushers could be in for a surprise.

Bill Gates seems to be the first to distance himself from saying everyone should have taken the vaccines and they were for the vulnerable and elderly.

Watch them here in this country gaslight the **** out of everyone and the provaxxers trying to pretend that they knew all along the vaccines were only for the vulnerable and elderly. And it was optional for everyone else.

But yet they encouraged medical apartheid and the media were at it too.

Medical apartheid. It won't be hard to figure out who's going to be compensated for being pushed out the door.

Ching ching for a small percentage of people I see coming.

hometruths · 12-06-2022 8:26pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119192988#Comment_119192988

At least you've conceded on the massive trials and comprehensive data across multiple trials.

I haven't conceded on anything, I ignored the rest of your post because it's the usual mix of waffle, lies, misrepresentation, misunderstanding, deflection and clutching at straws. I focused on the table and numbers because you as much as you may try, you can't waffle your way out of that.

And we're now into an argument about the table being used which clearly shows the numbers involved (and the data and CI, the only thing unlisted is the upper and lower bounds which I had already quoted).

Really? You now say the upper and lower bounds are unlisted, but you'd already quoted them? In the post with the table you include your "I'll explain how CI's work for halfwits" piece:

And just to show the data table (95% CI would mean there's a 1/20 chance that if the trial was repeated it wouldn't show substantially different numbers, with a 95% chance of those numbers varying between 90.0 and 97.9), again, this CI was included in the day 1 data for all vaccines, which is what the real world data later improved upon)

Just like the table, the upper and lower bounds for the severity data are "unlisted" in the above analysis.

But perhaps you'd clarify "a 95% chance of those numbers varying between 90.0 and 97.9"?

To a halfwit like me they appear to be upper and lower bounds, but as you say "the only thing unlisted is the upper and lower bounds which I had already quoted", so they must be some other numbers.

What are they if they are not upper and lower bounds?

snowcat · 12-06-2022 8:40pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119193347#Comment_119193347

Interesting article here in the heady days of the start of the vaccine rollout. A couple of standout quotes before the mantra changed.

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-health/have-no-fear-vaccine-here

Should the coronavirus then at some future time invade the body, the antibodies will recognize its spike proteins and latch onto them preventing them from interacting with receptors on the surface of cells. Since that interaction is a necessary prelude for the virus’ entry into a cell, infection is avoided. This is the principle behind both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

As far as possible long-term consequences go, there is just no way to know for sure before that long term has passed.

Admittedly, with complex situations such as the efficacy and safety of vaccines, there has to be some educated guesswork based on short-term trials and existing knowledge about immunology, physiology, molecular biology, and pharmaceutical chemistry. Certainly, unknowns remain, including whether at this point the vaccines are appropriate for pregnant women, children, or people with autoimmune disease. To be sure, science cannot provide all answers immediately. It can be likened to a race towards a finish line with that finish line always moving a little further away. But the gap between the racers and the line is constantly narrowing.

snowcat · 12-06-2022 9:41pm

King Mob will be on saying the original vax was for Alpha. It was also stated by Pfizer et al at the time that if a new variant came out they would GMO a new vaccine in I think 28 days? Not a problem. Just take the damn injection. They never did that though. They built vast stockpiles of the existing vaccine that was designed for alpha. Went ah shure that one is fine. It protects against severe illness and death..we have lost the funding now. That one is selling fine, there is no need for a vaccine against the new variants.

shillyshilly · 12-06-2022 10:23pm

Good weekend everyone?

I see @snowcat has resorted to replying to themselves again... nothing strange in that at all...

Still no sign of these "known" safety issues you guys keep on mentioning (which is the title of the thread, but funnily enough hasn't been discussed in a while other than random unsupported accusations of it being false)...

@hometruths good to see you're being as pedantic as ever about points and not answering questions...

looking forward to tea break in the morning, I'm sure you guys will have fantastic updates !

xoxo

astrofool · 12-06-2022 10:31pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119193443#Comment_119193443

Note the 66.3 (the decimal .3 might be off, you can argue if it isn't .3) in the table, the upper and lower bound are listed in the paragraph above, also quoted.

Still going through the super secret EMA approval document for 1 of the vaccines, still pointing out your misunderstandings.

Still haven't realised that by attacking my points you've abandoned all your original theories.

What else can I get you to do?

(it's getting a bit cruel at this stage).

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119193396#Comment_119193396

I don't think anyone is saying snowcat is a re-reg, they're their own brand of misunderstanding of misinformation where big pharma is the enemy and GMO are everywhere, it's quite delusional (they were also one of the Malone/Ivermectin pushers on the COVID forum).

King Mob · 12-06-2022 10:40pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119192862#Comment_119192862

Lol whinging aside, notice how you didn't answer my question at all.

Why is this discussion not allowed elsewhere on the site?

King Mob · 12-06-2022 10:43pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119193347#Comment_119193347

Still no such thing at EPVs man.

A reminder that you guys have been claim all sorts of ridiculous shite and you refuse to address any of it.

Also really odd that you keep quoting yourself.

hometruths · 12-06-2022 10:58pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119193970#Comment_119193970

Note the 66.3 (the decimal .3 might be off, you can argue if it isn't .3) in the table, the upper and lower bound are listed in the paragraph above, also quoted.

Note the 66.3 in the table?! The only noteworthy thing about 66.3 is it is not in the table anywhere?! Are all these numbers confusing you again?

And the upper and lower bound that you acknowledged are in fact listed in the paragraph are the exactly same as those listed in the table where you say they are not listed! And those that you quoted previously are not listed in the paragraph or the table!

This is just insane. You still haven't even realised you have posted the wrong data when it's been pointed out to you four times. I first said did you do it because you were disingenuous or dumb. I now realise the answer.

Can you spot the difference between this (95% CI: -124.8%; 96.3%) from Section 3.3. and this: 95.0 (90.0, 97.9) from table 3.6?!

And just to show the data table (95% CI would mean there's a 1/20 chance that if the trial was repeated it wouldn't show substantially different numbers, with a 95% chance of those numbers varying between 90.0 and 97.9), again, this CI was included in the day 1 data for all vaccines, which is what the real world data later improved upon)

Your paragraph here about confidence intervals is using the figures for efficacy against preventing Covid infection.

Using the correct figures for severe Covid your paragraph would have read as follows:

And just to show the data table (95% CI would mean there's a 1/20 chance that if the trial was repeated it wouldn't show substantially different numbers, with a 95% chance of those numbers varying between -124.8% and 96.3%), again, this CI was included in the day 1 data for all vaccines, which is what the real world data later improved upon)

Obviously a range from -124.8% to 96.3% is a pretty big range - yet you think this represents proven by extremely comprehensive data?!

You literally haven't a clue what you're talking about. As I say, initially I thought it was just deliberate obfuscation but now I realise it's genuine ignorance, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

King Mob · 12-06-2022 11:07pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119193943#Comment_119193943

Yea. The only one who's tried to claim any safety issues in the last few pages has been buzzer, but not of the others have even acknowledged those claims.

They haven't challenged them and they refuse to state their opinion on the claims.

It's almost like they don't want to discuss the safety issues at all.

Fighting Tao · 13-06-2022 6:13am

I can’t wait for @hometruths academic paper. I’m sure it’s almost ready to be published seeing how adamant they are about being right.

shillyshilly · 13-06-2022 8:41am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119194485#Comment_119194485

the partial quotes to support their argument and data mis-interpretation would be spectacular... Jonathan Swan/Trump interview face on reviewers

edit: just got through the "upper and lower bounds" argument :-D:-D :-D

you guys need to read up on statistics, and get some background on what distributions are used along with how mean and variance work with those distributions...

Pinch Flat · 13-06-2022 9:41am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119194485#Comment_119194485

Probably just being peer reviewed, hold tight

whippet · 13-06-2022 9:51am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119194898#Comment_119194898

who are the 'peers' ? Buzzer and his buddies in the twitter echo chamber?

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Comments