Relaxation of Restrictions, Part XII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

You can call it what you want, but me posting here a couple of interesting studies is not misinformation. These are results of scientific work and are posted here with no intention to deceive anybody. I have mentioned these here as they are peer-reviewed research pieces published most recently and are to provide a more than adequate support to an argument I was making earlier, which was that protection from vaccines is short lived, infection provide strongest and longest immunity, and that vaccinating children makes no sense from medical perspective (I claimed that much earlier this year too). These are becoming facts to the scientific community at large but interestingly do not trickle through the media yet. Will they ever?

In fact there are some people here who purposely or not, time and time again, claim that the vaccine is as good as previous infection or that the people are getting re-infected as frequently following previous infection as those following vaccination. They are the ones spreading the misinformation. What they are saying is simply not true. The mRNA vaccines were supposed to work like that but sadly they don't. I provided independent evidence that supports my point of view. That is all.

Contrarian thinking gets often labeled 'misinformation' and contrarians are often called different names i.e. 'conspiracy theorist', and we have seen a lot of that here. It is nothing more than a defensive mechanism that is used to discredit and marginalise others with different point of view, so that the existing beliefs of the herd can prevail. The governments and the media have done that a lot recently too.

You clearly have no interest in critically looking into your choices in the context of a new information, and that is totally fine with me. But labeling a post 'misinformation' simply because it challenges your beliefs is not acceptable.

That and the fact that the population becomes more immune as more and more people gets natural immunity from being infected in the previous waves. We are on a good trajectory.

Just because you are not aware or reject new evidence does not mean that it does not exist, but sure bury head in the sand. It is better that way, right.

"Duration of mRNA vaccine protection against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 subvariants in Qatar": https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.03.13.22272308v1.full.pdf

And "Duration of immune protection of SARS-CoV-2 natural infection against reinfection in Qatar": https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.06.22277306v1.full.pdf

These two most recent papers provide a very good evidence that challenges your very dated beliefs. The fact that mRNA vaccines wane quickly is a public knowledge at this stage anyway. RTE did not mention it yet? Then it surely isn't true. Good luck to you.

Man, you have to laugh...🤣

The government is to end public testing in the Autumn.

It follows advice from the new CMO.

Better late than never. What an incredible waste of money. Perhaps over a billion spent on testing.

Now you're contradicting yourself. As you've said, Omicron paved the way for the removal of restrictions. So why, according to you, will these same restrictions be reinstated when Omicron and it's many subvariants are going nowhere. Indeed one could argue that the subvariants are even less harmful than the original Omicron, which itself was less harmful than Delta. I just don't see the case for restrictions. But it won't stop some posters fantasizing about them on here..

Check your facts before spreading misinformation.

The paper on vaccines study has been submitted on 13th March and published since: Nature Communications doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-30895-3. The second paper was only submitted on 7th July and is awaiting the review. There is nothing unusual about that. Both come from the same group of people, same country. Moreover the latter only confirms what has been concluded by researchers in other countries already. I have provided the context for these papers the first time I mentioned and quoted from them in my post #33464 on 19/07/22 at 11:33 am.

You keep on advocating for the vaccines and discrediting all the facts and information that argue against them with all the bullsh1t at your disposal. I suggest that you provide a solid evidence to support your arguments rather than a constant nonsense. It does not stand up to any scrutiny.

I understand that, by your own admission, you are now on your 5th vaccine. Is it possible that you are totally biased and have gone that rabbit hole way too far to see the light any more? And no evidence will change that? As I said before, confirmation bias and sunk cost fallacy have no limits. You are a perfect example of that. Stay there if that is what you want in a hope to keep your reality intact, I could not care less. With all above considered, you have no credibility whatsoever imo. 

Well, for example as per post #33482 - vaccines are not much good for the kids and young folks. If anything quite the opposite. There is a strong argument that for that cohort risk vs benefit should be re-evaluated as there does not seem to be a medical justification to vaccinate children as such. Especially against omicron.

Is that all you take from this study? This is not much of a ground braking conclusion as Pfizer have told us all that months ago. Putting that into context i.e. efficacy over 2 month period from injection may make it sound far less impressive. But of course you know better and accuse me of being selective. Lol. We have been there before, you and I. Let's don't waste each other's time.

yes, i am the one who has done the first and you the second, and i only deal in reality and objectivity and only interpret everything correctly.

All I see on this thread is people who claim they're always right and just blather about it.

And people who post links to actual facts which can be discussed.

I'm always happy to have a discussion about actual data. It's how I went from being completely behind Holohan and co at the start, to realising their primary focus was on deflection and not being held responsible for anything, over actually giving a damn about public health.

...and if a committee (of peers) review doesn't find any serious flaws in the paper?

Peer review became a thing in 1944. It isn't essential to science, was unheard of for most of the golden ages of science (from about 1700 to about 1965), and is just a bureaucratic mechanism. A committee of scientists look at a paper to comb it for errors and then either it is vetoed or rubberstamped.

I see nothing wrong in discussing pre-reviewed papers. It doesn't indicate gullibility unless you think these particular scientists have form for producing work that doesn't stand up to scrutiny or deliberately conning people. Do you think that? Or is just that any paper that doesn't buttress faith in mRNA vaccines is automatically suspect?

By my own admission I'm contrarian and also skeptical when it comes to the extremes. I was skeptical when the media reported that there was a killer virus on the loose - a new bubonic plague that would kill more than hundred thousand people in Ireland alone and hundreds of millions more worldwide. I was skeptical also when the same media told us all the fairytale that there will be a new drug created in an incredibly short time that will make this virus go away. I was skeptical to hear that the great rollout of vaccines and lockdowns was the the only strategy for dealing with covid. Then the vaccines came and the claims for them have shrunk month after month. A year ago we were told they were safe and 95% effective, and would stop the virus transmission. Then it deteriorated as we were told that the vaccinated will still get the virus, and can pass it onto others, but they won't get very sick and go to hospital. That also turned out not to be true. And then came the the booster with a promise to protect from severe illness and death. That also did not happen to be true and triple vaccinated are dying from covid.

I believe that vaccine is a useful drug for specific cases. It should be used when protecting people who are most at risk and for whom the risk of getting the virus exceeds the risk associated with the vaccines. That is what they are good for and nothing else. I also think that a lot more could have been done with regard to anti-viral drugs and treatments that were proposed by many experts but quickly dismissed by the media who were only interested in pushing the vaccine narrative.

I'm very much against "No one is safe, until everybody is vaccinated' type of an approach to it. They are vaccinating 6 months old babies in US and in Canada the PM said that people have to take a jab every 9 months to enjoy life as a citizen of a free society. Australian government is coercing double vaccinated into taking the booster. With how much we know about covid these days, there is no justification for this whatsoever. Never before has anyone invented an experimental medicine without a long term safety record that all 7.5bn people on the planet were supposed to take it. Let's not forget that perfectly healthy people who on the initial promise of a vaccine to stop the transmission have only taken it to protect others have lost their lives or got severely injured - something that should also be acknowledged and considered.

It has been the worst public policy in modern times. Without a doubt.

Lastly, you have been constantly and without justification throwing labels at people. In your posts here (#33486/33488/33492) you have accused me of misquoting, spreading misinformation and trolling. I did not think that this discussion needed to get personal. I responded in a good faith and tried to keep the conversation focused on a merit. It is you who reduced it to a tit for tat. Now you are complaining about me implying that you get your knowledge from the RTE? What is wrong? You don't like this approach when it is directed at you? If so, one advice - don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you.

In your opinion.

Feel free to take one every year for the rest of your life.

I won't be.

@Goldengirl "Back in the olden days/ Golden Age of Science (indeed !) , pioneer scientists were paid a commission to come to a certain conclusion to suit their patrons and only the very lucky few had patrons with a real altruistic interest . This is why academics set up their own reviews through the various scientific societies, but still commerce had more than its share of influence .

Those same conflict of interests exist today . Hence why peer reviewed articles, while not fool proof are considered as more reliable having been vetted for any abuses or mistakes .

It's called progress, growleaves.

And I think you know all of the above so I question your reason for posting such bs in the first place ."

Most of the scientific discoveries of the 20th century were the culmination of centuries of progress.

No one disputes that were many great scientists of the past and centuries-worth of progress. My point is a bureaucratic mechanism for trying to limit corruption can't be definitive.

If anything today's milieu is far more corrupt. Read David Healy's Let Them East Prozac for an insider-whistleblower expose of the pharma industry's corruption. Peer review cannot guarantee integrity.

"Are posters who disagree with the general narrative not allowed to post in this thread, no matter if they are making a sensible argument , without their honesty being impugned ?"

I didn't say you were dishonest, I just think you may have strong biases and now you've reversed this same "accusation" back onto me and I'm not taking offence.

No I mean posters who were very abusive against pro-restrictions posters got banned. Look at the 'banned' list on the first page.

Glad to hear it 😁

The point I was making in my post #33482 was that there is no evidence that vaccination protects children against getting very sick and requiring oxygen and ICU treatment, and that that risk vs benefit for this cohort was stacked against the vaccines. I was not making a review of the paper as such, rather quoting lines of the paper that supported that statement. The link to the paper was provided for everybody to read and make what they want from it in a hope that it would spur an interesting discussion. Yet you labeled it misquoting (?) and pulled out lines from the paper about the effects on hospitalisation numbers that were absolutely irrelevant to the statement I was making. I also provided you with the reason why that was the case.

You went on a rant, threw a few more labels and attempted to discredit the quoted papers. You even took a dig at the current state of the Qatari healthcare system. Well done.

In February I said that the coercive measures and restrictions that were introduced to deal with the pandemic were unjust, unethical and unscientific. I also said that whoever recommended vaccinating kids and young people 'just in case' was a charlatan. I got a lot of stick from the usual crusaders for that.

There is more information that slowly comes to light. Top officials of CDC, FDA and NIH started leaving those agencies and speak up more openly on how flawed or weak data is used to make critical public health decisions, and on those agencies' myopic focus on covid instead of overall health.

Decisions on using masks at school and school closures, and mandating vaccines and boosters for young healthy people without supporting data while ignoring completely the natural immunity - all were politically influenced, wrong and against the science.

Most recently on a decision that the vaccines should be given to kids aged 6 months to 5 years of age, was on a basis of extremely weak and inconclusive data provided by Pfizer and Moderna. The data was so weak that no reputable medical journal would accept such as sloppy work on a such a small sample size (992). One CDC official commented: "You can inject them with it or squirt it in their face, and you will get the same benefit". Similar story goes with booster recommendations while the data showed no clear benefit against severe decease for people under 40.

Denmark announced that their decision to recommend vaccines to any children under 16 was a mistake.

All in here: https://www.commonsense.news/p/us-public-health-agencies-arent-following?triedSigningIn=true

Political pressure and shady ethics, not science. What a man will do in a pursuit of profits...

Since February-ish you can only get a PCR test if you're vulnerable, over 70 or in hospital but realistically they were only PCR testing on admission to hospitals... I think most or all of the testing centers are now closed

Open to correction, but I think these cohorts will no longer be tested when this change happens

You can but why would you want to? Antigens do the job better than PCRs ever could, getting tested now to find you caught it last month is a bit pointless. There's surely some other country that needs the vaccines more than we do here in Ireland. They'll get used don't you worry

So essentially, 183 people out of 5384 died because of Covid? The remainder had at least one other existing and serious underlying medical issue.

While genuinely sad, unfortunately some deaths were inevitable, but it puts into perspective how disproportionate our responses really were - especially when we started to get data on who was actually at real potential risk and who wasn't.