Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

King Mob · 15-07-2022 10:27pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119343167#Comment_119343167

Why would I care what the Hart group says?

You believe that the paper is wrong and fraudulent. Why was it published in the Lancet if that's the case?

Still deflecting from the question.

I will take that you are conceding it and admitting you know well why you're relegated to posting this shite here and not in a science forum or medical forum.

King Mob · 15-07-2022 10:29pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119343222#Comment_119343222

Yup. You believe it because it tells you what you want to hear. You did nothing to verify it.

If you didn't get it from Twitter, be honest and tell us where you found it.

hometruths · 15-07-2022 10:46pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119343509#Comment_119343509

Yes, the fully vaccinated are disproportionately represented in ICU. An irrefutable fact.

But I have been saying on here repeatedly that the highest risk factor for a trip to ICU is not your vaccination status, but rather your age and underlying health. Hence I totally agree with your opinion that quoting ICU numbers by vaccination status is an utterly dishonest and deliberate misrepresentation of the data.

Unfortunately it is very common. For example: https://www.rte.ie/news/2022/0316/1286859-hse-briefing/

The Chief Clinical Officer of the HSE said 37% of patients in ICU have not completed their primary course of vaccination.

Speaking at a HSE briefing, Dr Colm Henry said those who are unvaccinated or not fully vaccinated are disproportionately represented in those who are seriously ill.

Sadly up until now arguing that these numbers need to be considered in terms of age and underlying health has fallen on deaf ears.

But good to see the penny has finally dropped despite the persistent utterly dishonest and deliberate misrepresentation of the data.

King Mob · 15-07-2022 10:50pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119343638#Comment_119343638

Lol.

But when anti vaxxers misrepresent stuff, that's no issue for yourself.

King Mob · 15-07-2022 10:54pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119343206#Comment_119343206

And remember we keep getting told that no one here is proposing a conspiracy theory. We keep getting told that no one here is interested in discussing the conspiracy theory. We keep being told that they are being unfairly forced to post here because the science and medical forums are part of the conspiracy.

They aren't looking for answers. They aren't looking for discussion.

They just want to dump propaganda they found on social media to pretend that they are rebel researcher who've figured out secret information.

odyssey06 · 15-07-2022 10:54pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119343638#Comment_119343638

You were aware of the importance of age and still made the claim, when you admit you knew this.

Your post was a deliberate attempt to deceive - a pack of lies.

It's not about what your highest risk factor is. It is about whether vaccination significantly reduces your risk, controlled for other factors. Which it does, indisputably.

You know this and continue to post lies on the thread.

How is Paul Reid's claim false?

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/inside-an-icu-where-70-per-cent-of-covid-19-patients-are-unvaccinated-1.5738198

https://abcnews.go.com/US/vast-majority-icu-patients-covid-19-unvaccinated-abc/story?id=79128401

hometruths · 15-07-2022 10:58pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119343667#Comment_119343667

You were aware of the importance of age and still made the claim, when you admit you knew this.

Yes, just as the Chief Clinical Officer of the HSE was aware of the importance of age when he made the same claim, and every other vaccine fanatic wailing about the pandemic of the unvaccinated has been aware of the importance of age when making the same claim.

odyssey06 · 15-07-2022 11:02pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119343676#Comment_119343676

Nope. Show us how the Clinical Officer of the HSE's claim could be wrong, taking into account age.

Are you seriously going to claim, looking at the age breakdown for vaccinated versus unvaccinated in Ireland and relative risk of covid, that somehow there's more unvaccinated in ICU because they were older???

Bearing in mind the common knowledge that the very old and very frail aren't admitted to ICU but receive palliative care more usually.

You know you can't do this and continue to lie in an attempt to deceive.

Your posts are utterly dishonest attempts at deception, deliberately misusing facts.

And you continue to deny the truth of the significant reduction in risk of ICU admission due to vaccination.

Unvaccinated individuals aged 50 and over are 5 times as likely to be admitted to hospital as fully vaccinated individuals. For adults under 50, whilst the numbers admitted to hospital are lower, an unvaccinated individual is almost 18 times as likely to need hospitalisation.

https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/news/vaccination-status-deaths-and-hospitalisations-report

hometruths · 15-07-2022 11:41pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119343696#Comment_119343696

Nope. Show us how the Clinical Officer of the HSE's claim could be wrong, taking into account age.

I am assuming he knew the age and health profile of those in ICU. In the same briefing he also said "73% of Covid-positive cases in hospital are now over 65 years of age."

From the last available NPHET meeting minutes, mid February 2022, a few weeks before Colm Henry made that claim:

According to HSE data as of 15th February 2022, where vaccination status was known, 43% of COVID-19 cases in ICU were unvaccinated and 56% were fully vaccinated, of whom 41% were recorded as having received a booster/additional dose.

This 43% unvaccinated is exactly the sort of stat that gets quoted to stoke the pandemic of the unvaccinated narrative. But further reading of the minutes reveal:

It was noted that those currently being admitted to ICU are predominantly those who are unvaccinated with co-morbidities or with high grade immunosuppression. The triple vaccinated high grade immunosuppression admissions seen in 2020/21 are not a marked feature of ICU admissions at present. The number of unvaccinated patients with no co-morbidities admitted to ICU is also now small

This is not a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Yes, statistically the unvaccinated were disproportionately represented in ICU, but they were not in ICU because they were unvaccinated. The same logic would now apply to the vaccinated who are disproportionately represented in ICU.

Are you seriously going to claim, looking at the age breakdown for vaccinated versus unvaccinated in Ireland and relative risk of covid, that somehow there's more unvaccinated in ICU because they were older???

I simply pointed out the % by vaccination status in ICU. You objected to this by quoting the age breakdown of the hospitalised. I agree that's an important factor. What's the disagreement here?

My point is I think the tiny number of those unvaccinated currently in ICU are more likely to be older with underlying health issues, rather than fit young anti-vaxxers sticking it to the man. I'd agree probably not in their 90s though.

I think we can definitely agree we are not in a pandemic of the unvaccinated stage though.

hometruths · 15-07-2022 11:50pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119343696#Comment_119343696

And you continue to deny the truth of the significant reduction in risk of ICU admission due to vaccination.

I have never once denied this. I have always acknowledged the real world data on this hitherto has been irrefutable. And if you are at an elevated risk either due to age or health or severe complications from Covid, you'd be a fool not to get vaccinated.

But that's not a good argument for vaccinating toddlers who are at a higher risk of going to ICU from a car crash than Covid.

King Mob · 16-07-2022 12:01am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119343870#Comment_119343870

And which has the higher risk for toddlers again? Going to the ICU due to covid, or due to the vaccine?

You ran away from that point last time. So bit weird for you to try it again.

Fr0g · 16-07-2022 9:31am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119343580#Comment_119343580

Because it completely dismantles the ridiculous claims made by the paper. It's mathematical modelling it is not a scientific study it does not prove anything. It is only as accurate as the underlying assumptions. The Hart group is not the only publication that tore it apart.

It is funded by the usual suspects that have an interest in promoting the vaccine

I have shown previously that there was no excess deaths in Ireland in 2020.

I post here because of the level of ignorance and complete lack of critical thinking displayed by yourself and others. You completely believe everything you have been told by authorities with no desire to question any of it despite many contradictions and inconsistencies.

Remember that time when the coronavirus wasn't airborne?

Remember when the director of the CDC admitted she was acting on information she got from CNN?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11015235/Health-experts-quitting-NIH-CDC-droves-embarrassed-bad-science.html

King Mob · 16-07-2022 9:45am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119344612#Comment_119344612

Ok. So according to you, the paper was publish in the Lancet cause people at the Lancet were bribed by "the usual suspects."

Ok. Cool. So why were you earlier posting studies from the Lancet, a journal you think is corrupt and part of the conspiracy?

Your reason for why I should listen to an anti-vaxxer group is not convincing.

And again, you guys are the ones literally copy and pasting shite from twitter, Tucker Carlson and now the Daily Mail again.

If you are here to "tackle ignorance" why do you not "tackle" any of the misinformation and ignorance coming from the anti vaxxers?

Fr0g · 16-07-2022 11:38am

Ok. So according to you, the paper was publish in the Lancet cause people at the Lancet were bribed by "the usual suspects."

It's all in the text if you bothered to read the links you post to.

Ok. Cool. So why were you earlier posting studies from the Lancet, a journal you think is corrupt and part of the conspiracy?

I never said that The Lancet was corrupt or part of any conspiracy. You keep lying about what I'm saying.

Your reason for why I should listen to an anti-vaxxer group is not convincing.

Simply branding anyone who questions anything about the vaccines an "anti-vaxxer" is cover and disingenuous. It's a handy catch all phrase to dismiss any and all dissent from the narrative. Considering all the once CTs that turned out to be true I would have thought that any sensible person would have some reservations about any of the narrative that remains in tact. As we have seen the safe and effective narrative has been breaking down since early last year.

If you questioned the "fomite spread" in early 2020 you were considered a conspiracy theorist. That didn't last long. How could all the oh so reliable "experts" get it so wrong. Considering it is a coronavirus wouldn't the default assumption be that it is airborne?

And again, you guys are the ones literally copy and pasting shite from twitter, Tucker Carlson and now the Daily Mail again.

The Daily Mail article is taken from an interview with Dr. Marty Makary from Johns Hopkins University. Just because it was reported by the Daily Mail does not diminish it one iota. Again you are using the medium to attack the content rather than addressing the actual content.

If you are here to "tackle ignorance" why do you not "tackle" any of the misinformation and ignorance coming from the anti vaxxers?

I will tackle it when I see it.

King Mob · 16-07-2022 12:08pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119345188#Comment_119345188

I did read the study. You haven't.

No where in there was there anything about them faking results at the behest of their investors.

You claimed that this false study was published in the Lancet because of it's funding "by usual suspects". If you're not saying that the Lancet was bribed to publish an obviously false paper, what are you saying?

I think this is just a case of you making a vague insinuation that sounds impressive, but when you're confronted and asked to elaborate on it, you don't want to because that will expose how little you know.

So please explain how the funders of the paper got the paper into the Lancet if the Lancet isn't corrupt and part of the conspiracy.

The group you posted are anti vaxxers.

Where do you believe they get their funding from btw? I assume that since you excerised your critical thinking and you question everything you made sure too look into that right?

Cause with the study I posted, all you did was read the declaration in the study that was upfront and open about where their funding was from...

And again, you don't seem to understand how rags like the Daily Mail operate and how they and other media sources can spin things. It's very funny and very telling.

And lol. Ok so no conspiracy theorist has been wrong on this forum?

You now believe that the vaccine is part of a plot to bring around the mark of the beast then, correct?

How about the notion that vaccines make you magnetic?

astrofool · 16-07-2022 12:18pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119342953#Comment_119342953

Nope, just you misunderstanding what the regulators said, as has become your pattern. As said, if you were actually confident, then proven efficacy for severe disease for the trial results would see you concede.

You know I'm right, but you don't know how I'm right due to your limited abilities, so you'll continue with everyone else knowing your wrong and being a laughing stock unable to make any other points, which is also an expected outcome for an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist (your latest "point" also hilariously fell into this).

Either way, you're still stuck down the cul-de-sac with nowhere to go 🤣

astrofool · 16-07-2022 12:22pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119343906#Comment_119343906

At least it's under the same name this time.

Big Bag of Chips · 16-07-2022 9:26pm

@snowcat stick to discussing Covid Vaccine Safety please

Big Bag of Chips · 16-07-2022 9:35pm

@KingMob a poster has posted their opinion, what they think could be plausible. Nobody needs to prove their opinion. If they state something as fact, then it needs to be backed up with proof, evidence, links etc. If they think something is possible links and proof aren't required.

Big Bag of Chips · 16-07-2022 9:50pm

All posters are asked to read The Forum Charter and familiarise themselves of the rules of the forum again before continuing to post here.

I assume most of you have forgotten the guidelines at this stage. By reading the charter and brushing up on the guidelines for posting here it should make the forum a more pleasant place to post. If you cannot post without using phrases such as "liar", "laughing stock" or personally attacking a poster then I suggest you don't post.

patnor1011 · 17-07-2022 10:29am

Finally some sense after 309 pages of name calling and twisting and turning of what was said.

bad2thebone · 17-07-2022 10:39am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119348260#Comment_119348260

About time, fair play to the moderator. He really hit the nail on the head.

Funny how it's gone so quite isn't it.

Most of the good posters have been ran out of here. Hopefully people will be able to post here now without being called names or having them gaslighted, manipulated or accused of being a rereg.

That will make it easier for one side to post for sure.

King Mob · 17-07-2022 11:08am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119348260#Comment_119348260

Still no safety issues though.

Currently the claim is standing at 40,000-100,000 to several million death from the vaccine with absolutely no evidence for such a thing and no credible explanation of how this is being covered up.

hometruths · 17-07-2022 12:52pm

Interesting data from the Netherlands Ministry of Health: (google translation)

In the period from March 15 to June 28, 2022, there was hardly any visible protective effect of the COVID-19 basic vaccination series against hospital and ICU-intake. This is because for the vast majority of individuals who have only received the basic series, it has now been nearly a year since they were vaccinated, and the protection provided by vaccinations (and from previous infections) against hospitalization diminishes over time. The estimated vaccine effectiveness provides a picture of the difference in the risk of hospitalization between groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

Table 3 shows the picture of the difference between in hospitalisation risk between vaccinated and unvaccinated:

"Ten opzichte van niet gevaccineerd" means relative to unvaccinated. "Basis" is primary course - i.e two shots of Pfizer.

Ziekenhuisopnames - hospital admissions, IC-opnames are ICU admissions.

The dutch data is showing people who completed primary vaccination have negative 20% protection relative to those who are unvaccinated - i.e this data indicates that the vaccinated are now more likely to end up in ICU than the unvaccinated. That is pretty worrying if true and definitely a vaccine safety issue.

https://www.rivm.nl/covid-19-vaccinatie/bescherming-coronavaccins-tegen-ziekenhuisopname/booster-en-herhaalprik-bij-ouderen-nodig-om-bescherming-op-peil-te-brengen

https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2022-07/VE_rapport_20220705_definitief.pdf

King Mob · 17-07-2022 1:56pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119348682#Comment_119348682

This kinda just sounds like the same thing you were doing with the previous numbers where you were claiming that the authors were saying something they weren't.

I think we can assume that likewise you won't explain why the report again doesn't mention this apparent effect in their actual conclusions.

And again, we won't hear an explanation about how it could be a safety issue when we've been constantly told in this thread that the virus is harmless.

Fr0g · 17-07-2022 2:39pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119348354#Comment_119348354

I have posted links to the VAERS database which you simply dismiss without reason.

The truth is that VAERS is cumbersome and difficult to use. You have to identify yourself and falsifying reports carries heavy penalties including fines and imprisonment

https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html

Yet the 30,000 deaths and more than 1million AEs are ignored.

There are plenty of examples of excess deaths in highly vaccinated countries since the rollout including in Ireland.

There are now reports of significant drops of the birthrate in the same countries approximately 9 months after the rollout.

https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/dramatic-decrease-in-births-in-germany

Plenty of safety issues if you want to look.

King Mob · 17-07-2022 2:46pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119348998#Comment_119348998

But I'm not dismissing the VAERS database. I'm just pointing out that you are misusing the database.

The database cannot be used to make any conclusions about the safety of the vaccines.

What examples of excess deaths are you referring to that have been linked to the vaccines by actual experts, not people on twitter?

So you're also now claiming the vaccines are causing "significant drops of birthrate".

Do you have any evidence of that?

odyssey06 · 17-07-2022 2:57pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119348998#Comment_119348998

This is simply baseless and dangerous medical misinformation being introduced onto the thread.

To throw this out there and mention "plenty of safety issues" implies this is a safety issue with vaccines.

Correlation isn't causation and the article doesn't even show correlation.

Actual evidence of safety issue = ZERO

the clinical data does not show that COVID-19 vaccinations increase infertility.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-15/fact-check-germany-birth-rate-decline-not-vaccines/101237438

astrofool · 17-07-2022 3:52pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119347013#Comment_119347013

@Big Bag of Chips , similarly, if a poster is presenting misinformation as "fact" should they be reported to clarify that it is their opinion?

That would probably save a lot of the back and forth and some posters ignoring or misreading facts or data (e.g. VAERS data, or the hospitalisation data included above which usually has numerous disclaimers about how the data should not be abused and explanations for the data).

i.e. it can certainly be someone's opinion that the data represents something, but it should be fine to highlight the non-factual parts and incumbent on the poster to clarify it's their opinion only.

Otherwise, the forum just becomes a dumping ground for spreading misinformation.

It should also be incumbent on the theorist to provide proof of their theory if presented as fact, not call on others continually to disprove a negative.

Again, in the specific example, saying 40,000 people have died from the vaccine, even in their opinion, is pure misinformation and can be dangerous if spread unless called out clearly that it's a fantasy number with no basis in reality (especially if a poster has a history of making fantasy claims).

Fr0g · 17-07-2022 4:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119349028#Comment_119349028

I have said before that VAERS is used as a safety signal. What I'd like to know is why this very alarming safety signal is being ignored.

Most highly vaccinated countries are showing a rise in excess mortality since the vaccine rollout. Another safety signal that is being ignored.

Most highly vaccinated countries are showing a significant drop in birthrates 9 months after the rollout. Another safety signal that is being ignored.

While I haven't delved closely into each individual case I am curious why this is not being investigated.

Nor is any of it reported in MSM. Why not?

Climate change is not an acceptable explanation.

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Comments