Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

drunkmonkey · 23-07-2022 05:12PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119377444#Comment_119377444

They've asked me to "Show us the stats that show pregnant women are more at risk from vaccines from covid. You won't be able to."

I can't because we don't have a study on it with the current variant. It's why I asked them to produce their evidence which they can't either for the same reason. Risk/Reward has changed, that's not to take from Gates saying they got their stats wrong from the beginning recently.

It was a stupid demand, whataboutery even the same as all the things you've just tried to write off in the one paragraph.

If for every 1/5000 letters the postman dropped off one of them exploded and seriously injured someone you wouldn't see that as a safety concern?, that's unbelievable considering where we are now.

I know you won't answer that last question, you'll mention something about Israel and Twitter rather than admit that postman might be a threat to life.

23-07-2022 05:17PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119377486#Comment_119377486

But you haven't actually shown that the vaccine will kill 1/5000 people. That was another example of a claim you made, was shown up as you misrepresenting things, then was abandoned.

But you're now claiming that the vaccines are harming pregnant women.

If you don't have the stats for that, how do you know it's true?

drunkmonkey · 23-07-2022 05:39PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119377508#Comment_119377508

Where did I say it will kill 1 in 5000, The German health ministy said there is a serious injury for 1 in every 5000 injections given, they put out the appeal to report more as they believe injuries are being under reported, they have safety concerns, you should to.

Show me the risk/reward for omicron for pregnant women using the whuhan jab booster? See you can't produce that information but you demand I do, can you see why i'm calling it whataboutery, classic fudge tactics striaght out of the good information handbook.

23-07-2022 05:45PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119377579#Comment_119377579

But thats misrepresentation on your part.

Your demand is also not relevant. You've already been shown that unvaccinated pregnant people are more likely to wind up in the ICU.

But even if you were shown this, that doesn't mean that your claim is therefore now supported.

So again why are you claiming that the vaccine is harming pregnant women when you've nothing to show this is the case?

Also could you clarify what you mean by "good information handbook."

It's a very strange thing to claim.

bad2thebone · 23-07-2022 07:30PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119377353#Comment_119377353

Absolutely criminal, It's so sad really.

When it comes down to effecting the menstrual cycle's it's serious.

Printing that its not a concern is really rubbing the salt into the wound.

And if they knew already they should have had it advertised that any woman who's thinking of trying for a child, no way should they take the vaccine. But no the rolled it out like confetti, they were having vaccine party's and everything.

I Imagine it's a lot of the same idiot's who did the ice bucket challenge. Pouring cold water over themselves and nominating another fool.

I declined and I am glad I don't fall for the latest thing.

What's next, eating insect's seems to be the new thing. People will go along with it like that fish eating dead skin off their toes.

A pint of maggots please, menthol if it's available.

hometruths · 23-07-2022 09:22PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119377948#Comment_119377948

I Imagine it's a lot of the same idiot's who did the ice bucket challenge. Pouring cold water over themselves and nominating another fool.

Very good comparison and most insightful.

bad2thebone · 23-07-2022 09:37PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119378335#Comment_119378335

I was always the one at the party who wouldn't play rock the boat, pass the parcel or musical chairs.

Hide and seek was more my thing or getting lost wandering down the train tracks or something....

astrofool · 24-07-2022 12:58AM

Anyone spreading misinformation re: pregnant women is an absolute piece of sh*t, that's the beginning and end of it.

A few hung around the pregnancy forum like a bad smell, no surprise to start seeing similar posts here now that all the reasonable arguments have been dispelled.

24-07-2022 01:03AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119378335#Comment_119378335

Can we take that to include the recent claims about harm to pregnant women?

Yet again you are deafingly silent then conspiracy theorists make unsupported and false claims, yet feel the need to jump in and support their posts.

I get the feeling in a few pages when this latest tangent is dropped you will be very offended when someone suggests that you share their belief.

drunkmonkey · 24-07-2022 01:08AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119377610#Comment_119377610

Lol, you said Pregnant People...

Seriously.

From here on in you can refer to me as He, Them, Sir, Lancelot the 4th

You've diddle squat to back up your ICU claim.

drunkmonkey · 24-07-2022 01:22AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119378992#Comment_119378992

Prey tell, young valiant astrofool, what is this misinformation you speak of?

24-07-2022 01:49AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119379006#Comment_119379006

Lol. Mask slipping again.

You're dodging the question still.

You've already been shown that pregnant people are more likely to wind up in the ICU if they are unvaccinated.

But as I explained, this is irrelevant to the question I'm asking you.

Even if that wasn't true, it doesn't then support your claim that the vaccine is causing harm to pregnant people.

Please support this claim.

bad2thebone · 24-07-2022 09:04AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119378992#Comment_119378992

So would you think it's advisable for a woman who's trying to get pregnant and have a child to take something that could potentially mess up her cycle ?

Therefore unable to conceive, especially when their clock is ticking , and their periods much heavier than usual.

That's not normal Astrofool, definitely not and I'm surprised you're not concerned or see that it's a potential flaw in the vaccines.

Fr0g · 24-07-2022 12:47PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119372079#Comment_119372079

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119375775#Comment_119375775

Did I really have to spell it out for you. You and KM do this all the time.

Fr0g · 24-07-2022 12:51PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119374388#Comment_119374388

Anne McCloskey was suspended because she said that children don't need the vaccine. 'flu is more deadly to children than COVID so why don't we insist on giving children the flu vaccine and why haven't we been doing it prior to 2020.

24-07-2022 12:52PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119379916#Comment_119379916

Lol for a dude making a big deal out of ignoring me, you sure mention me a lot...

Your complaint on top of being false is completely hypocritical as you and other conspiracy theorists have been constantly misrepresenting everything.

Most recently you misrepresented the VAERS data, then also misrepresented our arguments pointing this out as "dismissing the VAERS data" etc.

astrofool · 24-07-2022 01:09PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119379273#Comment_119379273

Another bunch of dangerous misinformation, pregnancy is a high risk condition for COVID, those spreading utter stupidity about it are the scum of the earth with a brain smaller than a fruit fly.

But just to break it down for the fruit flies here.

All treatments and vaccines have impact on the menstrual cycle, anything that generates an immune response will do the same.

The impact is orders of magnitudes less from a vaccine than it is from a virus.

SARS-COV2 is one of the virus that causes serious issues and has high impact.

If you're reading guff around it, understand that you are a mark and people are using you to spread misinformation because you're not clever enough to understand otherwise.

hometruths · 24-07-2022 01:26PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119379926#Comment_119379926

According to a very recent study of over 250,000 children aged 5 - 11 (Singapore from 21 Jan 2022 - April 8 2022) she might have a point, the risk/benefit analysis doesn't look great for kids: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2203209

Among hospitalized children, only five received supplemental oxygen, four of whom were admitted to the intensive care unit. Of these five children, one was unvaccinated, two were partially vaccinated, and two were fully vaccinated. No deaths attributable to Covid-19 (as determined by the cause of death reported to the Ministry of Health) were observed during the study period.

No deaths at all in the 250,000 children, and out of 5 cases of very severe Covid only 1 was unvaccinated. This has to be weighed against:

In Singapore, 22 serious adverse events after vaccination (0.005% of all doses administered) among children 5 to 11 years of age were reported to the Health Sciences Authority as of February 28, 2022

Obviously only covers period up to Feb 28, there may have been further reports over course of the study, but nonetheless that is 22 severe adverse reactions in the vaccinated vs 1 severe covid in the unvaccinated.

The risk/benefit for kids looks skewed towards not getting the vaccine based on this.

24-07-2022 01:39PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119380047#Comment_119380047

That's not what the study concluded though:

CONCLUSIONS

During a period when the omicron variant was predominant, BNT162b2 vaccination reduced the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and Covid-19–related hospitalization among children 5 to 11 years of age.

Complete misrepresentation as always.

And of course, you cut out parts of the quotes you do use.

A strength of this study is the use of a comprehensive national data set of both vaccinations and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and disease severity reported to the Ministry of Health. The results of this study may provide insights to enable decision makers to weigh the benefits against the potential risks of vaccination of children. In Singapore, 22 serious adverse events after vaccination (0.005% of all doses administered) among children 5 to 11 years of age were reported to the Health Sciences Authority as of February 28, 2022.20 Beyond the short-term and long-term health risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children (including MIS-C21 and “long Covid”22), high infection rates among children may lead to transmission to older adults23 and may increase the risk of overwhelming existing health care capabilities during the omicron wave. It appears that these risks can be mitigated by the vaccination of children.

Did you miss that part as well?

Oh, and of course, for those 22 cases? Same tired, debunked misrepresentation we keep seeing around the VAERS data:

https://www.hsa.gov.sg/Docs/Default-Source/Hprg-Vcb/Safety-Update-On-Covid19-Vaccines/Hsa-Safety-Update-No-11-On-Covid-19-Vaccines-%2828-February-2022%29.Pdf

Interpretation of the data AEs are reported by healthcare professionals to HSA when they suspect that the AEs may be associated with the vaccine. This does not necessarily mean that the vaccine has caused the AEs. In some instances, these AEs are related to an underlying or undiagnosed disease or the natural progression of an underlying disease. It may be coincidental that the event occurred around the same time when the vaccine was given but is not caused by the vaccine. The causality based on isolated cases of individual events usually cannot be established as many illnesses cause the same symptoms and signs, and there are generally no confirmatory tests for diagnosing an AE. Hence, AEs are assessed and interpreted in the context of background incidence rates of such occurrences (i.e., historical rates in our general population unexposed to the COVID-19 vaccines). While each individual report is carefully reviewed, the totality of data from all sources (e.g., mechanistic actions, clinical assessments of local AE reports from healthcare professionals, public self-reported AEs, epidemiological studies, literature and overseas reports) has to be considered before drawing any evidence-based conclusions on the safety of the vaccine.

Miss that too, yea?

Fr0g · 24-07-2022 01:54PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119379928#Comment_119379928

Again, where have I made a big deal of ignoring you? Do you even realise that you have just proven my point?

24-07-2022 02:03PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119380162#Comment_119380162

Here:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119372160#Comment_119372160

And the fact that you've not at all responded to my answer to that post.

odyssey06 · 24-07-2022 02:07PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119379926#Comment_119379926

Your statement is false on multiple levels.

We don't 'insist' on covid vaccines for children, nor do we insist on vaccines for flu for them. The vaccines are recommended and should be taken.

https://www2.hse.ie/screening-and-vaccinations/covid-19-vaccine/get-the-vaccine/covid-19-vaccination-for-children/

And that isn't just what she said is it?

Dr McCloskey said she was "distraught" by the number of young people "damaged" by "unlicensed and unapproved" vaccines.

She said many young people had been "coerced, bribed or bullied" into being vaccinated and that vaccines were "malevolent".

There is no evidence to support Dr McCloskey's comments.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-58667747

A former Aontú councillor, Dr McCloskey posted a controversial video on social media in August inferring vaccinations had caused young people to become seriously ill with Covid - and falsely claimed "unapproved" vaccines were an "experimental genetic therapy".

https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2021/10/25/news/suspended-anti-vax-gp-accuses-health-minister-of-crimes-against-humanity--2488408/

Fr0g · 24-07-2022 02:11PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119380207#Comment_119380207

That's hardly making a "big deal". I made a valid point that you both deliberately misquote me (proven above) and misrepresent what I say. I am not going to argue over "you said said I said". You constantly try to drive the thread off topic. I asked you what is VAERS used for? Why does it exist? You have not given me an answer.

24-07-2022 02:15PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119380245#Comment_119380245

Ok cool. So will take that to mean you're not going to go back and support your misrepresentations of us "dismissing" the VAERS data etc. That's fine.

As for your question, maybe do your own research? Maybe have a read of the VAERS website rather than just the snippets you're fed by twitter?

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

The primary objectives of VAERS are to:

Detect new, unusual, or rare vaccine adverse events;

Monitor increases in known adverse events;

Identify potential patient risk factors for particular types of adverse events;

Assess the safety of newly licensed vaccines;

Determine and address possible reporting clusters (e.g., suspected localized [temporally or geographically] or product-/batch-/lot-specific adverse event reporting);

Recognize persistent safe-use problems and administration errors;

Provide a national safety monitoring system that extends to the entire general population for response to public health emergencies, such as a large-scale pandemic influenza vaccination program.

And while you're there maybe have a read of this too. In particular the very large detailed disclaimer:

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

Fr0g · 24-07-2022 02:27PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119380224#Comment_119380224

I made a statement. You asked me to provide evidence. I gave you 2 examples. You dislike the fact that I provided evidence that you knew nothing about. You proceed to attack the evidence. I have made my point. If you questioned the vaccines you were made an example of.

If a doctor can't raise alarm bells about a vaccine they claim is harming their patients for fear of losing their license. That is not medicine. It's politics and propaganda. You know why there is no evidence to support her claims? Because they haven't been investigated.

24-07-2022 02:33PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119380324#Comment_119380324

But the vaccines aren't unapproved and they aren't "experimental genetic therapy".

Why do you think it's ok for her to lie to "question the vaccine"?

Should she be allowed to lie and present misinformation as long as it's in service of saying the vaccines are bad?

odyssey06 · 24-07-2022 02:44PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119380324#Comment_119380324

You made a specific claim: that doctors were being struck off without hearings to support your claim.

Of the 2 examples you cited: No doctor was struck off. A doctor in NI was suspended. And in the ROI case a doctor was suspended and there was a hearing in the High Court.

You have failed to provide any examples of a doctor struck off without a hearing.

Struck off has a specific meaning in relation to a Doctor. You know this because it has been explained to you already.

Your respond that I disliked the evidence. Which is an irrelevent attempt at a smokescreen.

Yes, I am attacking the evidence you provided, because it failed to support your claim -> that is how it is supposed to be.

I have provided evidence as to why it was entirely the correct decision to suspend the doctors in question.

They weren't suspended for merely raising safety concerns about the vaccines but for making false scientific claims about coronavirus - refusing to refer patients for tests, claiming covid was no worse than the flu, refusing to participate in vaccination, refusing to adhere to hse guidelines, or claiming that vaccines were unapproved and experimental and 'malevolent'.

You have entirely failed to substantiate your claims with supporting evidence.

Fr0g · 24-07-2022 03:11PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119380418#Comment_119380418

The definition of "struck off" is to be removed from a position of responsibility. You are nitpicking over language. They questioned the vaccine and they were removed. If a doctor is raising red flags over a medical procedure that is adversely affecting their patients the first action should be to investigate the patients. That wasn't the case here. In both cases they were "removed from their position of responsibility". (feel free to use your own terminology).

It would seem no one can question the "safe and effective" vaccine or they are dragged over hot coals. This, despite the fact that it is still failing after 4th and 5th doses. If you have to keep taking it, it is a treatment not a vaccine. As a vaccine it has failed utterly.

24-07-2022 03:30PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119380526#Comment_119380526

Lol.

Literally every claim in that post is incorrect.

That is not the definition of "struck off". https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/struck-off#:~:text=The%20removal%20of%20a%20doctor,physical%20violence%2C%20homicide%2C%20etc.

They didn't "question the vaccine" nor were they "raising red flags." Odyssey has explained this to you.

They weren't showing that the vaccines were "adversely affecting their patients" Nor is it "the first action" to investigate claims in that way.

You also forget that part of your claim was "Without hearings."

People are not dragged over hot coals for questioning the vaccine.

It is not "failing."

And that is not the definition of "treatment" or "vaccine."

Are you just ignoring my points again?

Have you read the VAERS website after I linked it to you to answer your question? Do you understand how you were misusing it?

robinph · 24-07-2022 03:31PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119379916#Comment_119379916

Yes, please do spell out exactly what you are trying to say, speaking in riddles is clearly not getting your message across.

As for the analyse the cases/ data comment, that confusion would be down to you misunderstanding what the likes of the VAERS data is used for. They look at the overall data to see if there are unusual patterns that need further investigation, and if so may further look at individual cases. At no point though will you hear anything about individual cases as taken from such data as that would be a clear breach of privacy.

Data similar to VAERS is collected worldwide, and is looked into worldwide by local and international bodies trying to spot odd patterns. That you think that for some reason all these data collection bodies, and the even more research bodies looking into it are for some reason keeping quiet about something sinister behind the data is frankly ridiculous.

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Comments