Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

23-08-2022 11:11PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119512327#Comment_119512327

Lol wut?

What gives you the impression I'm "emotional"?

Any chance you'll be going back to your claims that the vaccine has a clear link to a decrease in fertility?

Cause the last study you posted directly stated there wasn't a link. I'm still very curious to know if you actually read the paper before post it.

23-08-2022 11:12PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119512629#Comment_119512629

No one holds this position.

odyssey06 · 23-08-2022 11:14PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119513051#Comment_119513051

Another big claim made without evidence.

Meanwhile the issue is actually looked into and discussed in public.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3

For new readers of the thread perhaps you can clarify your view on vaccines, psychological operations, 5g and Bill Gates as per earlier posts on the thread.

hometruths · 23-08-2022 11:19PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119513042#Comment_119513042

So I asked you:

For the avoidance of doubt do you consider mandatory vaccination to be coercion. Yes or no?

and kernkraft replied:

nope... because mandatory does not equate to compulsory.... you still have the choice not to take any vaccine.

As I said at the time - peak Emperor's New Clothes

It is now an even better example of vaccine fanaticism - highlighting the revisionist cry of "That never happened!":

"Coercion was used in the vaccine rollout"

"That never happened!"

"Sure it did, what about mandatory vaccinations?"

"nope... because mandatory does not equate to compulsory.... you still have the choice not to take any vaccine."

Some time later...

"People argued on here mandatory vaccinations are not coercive"

"That never happened!"

23-08-2022 11:20PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119512424#Comment_119512424

You keep claiming this, but you keep ignoring what you've already quoted.

They are also using the research and data gathered for the previous version of the vaccine.

As you've said you've nothing to show that the new version of the vaccine is significantly different to make all of the evidence of the previous vaccines safety and effectiveness irrelevant.

I asked you to explain why they are being allowed to apply for emergency approval, and as always when you're asked a difficult question that exposes your beliefs, you dodge.

odyssey06 · 23-08-2022 11:27PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119513144#Comment_119513144

As I said the original posts need to be read in context and not rely on lines quoted out of context. Paying particular attention to whether Ireland was being discussed specifically, pressure v coercion and the strict legal meaning of mandatory, compulsory or coercive versus its general use.

kernkraft500 · 24-08-2022 01:13PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119513144#Comment_119513144

are you still going on about that :-D :-D

we get it, you don't understand words in general language can be synonymous, but in legal terminology can have different definitive and unambiguous meanings

patnor1011 · 24-08-2022 01:55PM

Trust the science schtick being called in question. Mainly when you look at who and why is making and publishing "studies" (some of which did not even happen)

Opinion peace of former BMJ editor.

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/

24-08-2022 02:01PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515167#Comment_119515167

Already been posted.

Which specific studies about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines have been fraudulent? Cause this editorial is not talking about any of the vaccine trials or research papers.

Is the argument that "if some studies are fraudulent, therefore all must be"?

Cause if so, you might not want to think about all of the conspiracy theories and anti-vaxx claims that have been proven wrong...

Also, I'm curious, isn't the BMJ part of the conspiracy here? Or are they not now they've published this one article that seems to be doing the rounds in anti-vaxxer twitter this week?

hometruths · 24-08-2022 02:30PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119511407#Comment_119511407

So it was not bullshit after all, according to Fortune:

But unlike previous applications, Pfizer and Moderna's filings are missing one piece of information: clinical trial data of their vaccines.

That’s deliberate. In June, the FDA asked vaccine manufacturers to start developing BA.4 and BA.5 boosters for a fall vaccination campaign. To help the drugmakers hit that fall deadline, the FDA said the companies did not need to include data from a clinical trial.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/an-fda-change-to-vaccine-authorization-allowed-pfizer-and-moderna-to-apply-for-ba5-booster-approval-without-key-data/ar-AA112B9b

hometruths · 24-08-2022 02:33PM

And not everyone agrees that the mice data idea is a good idea:

For the first time, the FDA is planning to base its decision about whether to authorize new boosters on studies involving mice instead of humans.

"For the FDA to rely on mouse data is just bizarre, in my opinion," says John Moore, an immunologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. "Mouse data are not going to be predictive in any way of what you would see in humans."

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/08/18/1117778748/whats-behind-the-fdas-controversial-strategy-for-evaluating-new-covid-boosters

24-08-2022 02:52PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515448#Comment_119515448

But as always, you leave out the context of your quote:

But others defend the approach, arguing that the country has had enough experience with the vaccines at this point to be confident the shots are safe and that there's not enough time to wait for data from human studies.

"We have 500 people a day dying of coronavirus right now. Those numbers sadly might very well rise in the fall and the winter. The question is: 'Can we do something better?'" says Dr. Ofer Levy, a pediatrics and infectious disease researcher at Harvard Medical School who also advises the FDA. "And I think the answer is: 'We can, by implementing this approach.'"

And:

The new booster will be identical to the original vaccines except it will contain genetic coding for two versions of the protein the virus uses to infect cells — the protein from the original vaccine and proteins from the BA.4 and BA.5 omicron subvariants.

And some scientists say health officials know enough about how vaccines work to start handling the COVID-19 vaccines like the flu vaccines, which are changed every year to try to match whatever strains are likely to be circulating but aren't routinely tested again every year.

"We're going to use all of these data that we've learned through not only from this vaccine but decades of viral immunology to say: 'The way to be nimble is that we're going to do those animal studies," says Deepta Bhattacharya, an immunobiologist at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Tucson. "We're really not going out too far on a limb here."

But, you are arguing that all of the data gathered about the previous variant's vaccine was not applicable and therefore useless.

What about the new variant makes this so.

According to your article, the only thing they are changing is the genetic coding used.

Is this what you are concerned about? If so, why?

Also, fun to point out that the article does not at all discuss concerns about the safety of the new vaccines. The objections raised are all about effectiveness or public perception of effectiveness.

hometruths · 24-08-2022 02:56PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515569#Comment_119515569

There was no leaving out of context to deceive.

I said "not everyone agrees that the mice data idea is a good idea"

Clearly I am acknowledging that there are others who think approval based on ditching clinical trials in humans in favour of data from mice is fine.

24-08-2022 03:04PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515602#Comment_119515602

Lol weird and misrepresentative way to put it. But yea. There's experts who don't think that there's an issue with it.

The experts who do have an issue with it, aren't concerned about the safety of it.

And since you're ignoring the question, you're now conceding you can't actually explain any rational reason to dismiss all of the data that shows the previous vaccines were safe and effective as irrelevant.

So another nonissue it seems. But I get the feeling that anti-vaxxers are still going to nitpick about it for months.

hometruths · 24-08-2022 03:07PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515651#Comment_119515651

The experts who do have an issue with it, aren't concerned about the safety of it.

Really? Can you quote them confirming that or are you just engaging in deliberate misrepresentation again?

But I get the feeling that anti-vaxxers are still going to nitpick about it for months.

Well if the real world data turns out to be less flattering than that of the mice, I suspect yes it will be an issue for people who think that mice data is too low a bar.

24-08-2022 03:12PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515663#Comment_119515663

Where in the article do any of them say anything about safety?

Of the people they quote, they only refer to effectiveness, not safety.

If they are concerned about safety, why wouldn't they say so?

And no, it's not going to matter what the data says.

The data has shown for ages that the vaccines in use are safe and effective. Conspiracy theorists ignore that.

At what point will you accept that the vaccines are safe and effective?

hometruths · 24-08-2022 03:18PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515690#Comment_119515690

Effective at what? Preventing covid? I am some way off accepting that, but it is blindingly obvious that is not.

But as long as people are talking horseshit that it is effective at preventing covid, it is rational to consider that they could be talking horseshit that it is safe too.

24-08-2022 03:23PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515722#Comment_119515722

Questions dodged again.

No, not just at preventing covid.

But lets leave that nitpicking aside and focus on safety then.

What would it take for you to accept that the vaccines are safe?

What kind of study would satisfy you and why would it be worth doing when according to the article you posted, 500 people per day are daying of covid in the US?

hometruths · 24-08-2022 03:35PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515750#Comment_119515750

As I have said consistently, the safety question can only be considered in the context of the in a risk benefit analysis that detailed exactly why those people died - i.e distinguishing between from Covid and with Covid; how many had serious health issues and what the age profile of those was.

The vaccines do very little do stop infection or transmission, they are only really effective at reducing severe disease and death, so the risk/benefit only really favours those at elevated risk of severe disease or death.

The relentless push to vaccinate and boost every man, woman and child regardless of age or state health is not justified by any study. As long as people are pretending otherwise, I will remain skeptical about all claims relating to the vaccines.

24-08-2022 03:41PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515807#Comment_119515807

Ok. So no evidence will actually convince you.

And also, lol. We're going back to the claim that the death toll from covid is being exaggerated... an oldie but a goodie.

Your article quotes an expert who states: "We have 500 people a day dying of coronavirus right now."

Maybe you shouldn't be reposting an article that contains such misinformation.

kernkraft500 · 24-08-2022 03:55PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515432#Comment_119515432

so it isn't, excellent, science prevails

hometruths · 24-08-2022 03:59PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515833#Comment_119515833

I quoted the article to make the point that not everybody agrees with using mice data for emergency use approval. Nothing to do with death data. You brought that up.

odyssey06 · 24-08-2022 04:05PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515807#Comment_119515807

"The vaccines do very little to stop infection or transmission"

You posted a study from Sweden which showed 15000 cases fewer in the vaccinated group than the unvaccinated control group.

So for 6 months post vaccination by mRNA vaccines, the vaccinated were significantly less likely to be infected.

Vaccine effectiveness of 96% (94 to 97; p<0·001) at 15–30 days and 59% (18 to 79; p=0·012) from day 181 onwards.

Your statement is false and directly contradicted by your own evidence. Your claim has no credibility.

24-08-2022 04:09PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515917#Comment_119515917

Yes, but the article you're citing is also claiming that 500 people per day are dying from covid.

You believe that this is false.

The article you posted contains false information according to yourself.

I brought up covid deaths to highlight the reason why the approval of the vaccines are being accelerated. I made the naive assumption that you agreed with the figure provided in your source. Foolish me.

Also, you keep misrepresenting things and claiming that they are only using the "mice data". You know this isn't true.

24-08-2022 04:10PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515939#Comment_119515939

Yea, but that was like 2 weeks ago. Can't expect him to keep track of his position for that long...

hometruths · 24-08-2022 04:11PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515939#Comment_119515939

The credibility of my claim is in the fact that even the various government health authorities around the world no longer claim prevention from infection is a benefit of vaccination. It's all about the prevention of severe disease and death now.

hometruths · 24-08-2022 04:14PM

To take the CDC as an example:

About COVID-19 Vaccines

COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States are effective at protecting people—especially those who are boosted— from getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying. As with other diseases, you are protected best from COVID-19 when you stay up to date with the recommended vaccines.

Not even a mention about being effective at preventing infection or transmission. To be fair, at least they are now honest about it, that's some progress.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/stay-up-to-date.html

Fighting Tao · 24-08-2022 04:15PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515970#Comment_119515970

Who’d have thunk it. Scientific opinion changes when a new variant arose and didn’t follow the rules of the previous variants, therefore using evidence.

24-08-2022 04:33PM

And notice now how we're once again shifting topics back to the nonsense nitpicking about "well they said it would prevent the virus" etc etc.

Always seems to happen when the previous claim falls apart...

Fighting Tao · 24-08-2022 04:36PM

It’s actually hilarious because the link posted is called “Stay Up To Date”. Science kept up to date and an anti-vaxxer doesn’t like it. New variant, science investigated, and so things changed.

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Comments