Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

The Nal · 10-10-2022 01:57PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119725726#Comment_119725726

This flies in the face of the conspiracies laid out in this thread. RFID chips, all about control, big pharma earning money et al.

hometruths · 10-10-2022 01:58PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119725783#Comment_119725783

The purpose of vaccination is not to prevent infection with covid-19, and people aged under 50 are therefore currently not being offered booster vaccination.

Those of us who have been arguing exactly this point for well over a year in this thread have been dismissed as lunatics.

10-10-2022 02:02PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119725841#Comment_119725841

No, you've been arguing that the various medical organisations around the world were involved in a vast global conspiracy to claim that the vaccines prevent covid infection, then to cover up those claims to change it to the idea that the vaccines were to prevent serious illness.

You're the only person making this argument. Who do you believe "those of us" are?

Your fellow conspiracy theorists have not once supported or even acknowledged your silly and frankly boring conspiracy. They were too busy claiming that the vaccines were part of a global satanist depopulation plot etc.

The Nal · 10-10-2022 02:04PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119725877#Comment_119725877

Originally it was because 5G was being rolled out and it was to track us, for reasons TBC. Something about China, socialism etc.

Track us, like Google and the like do already.

Thankfully most of the loonies have vanished from here. Hopefully back living a normal life again after ruining it for 2 years.

Dohnjoe · 10-10-2022 02:10PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119725816#Comment_119725816

You are demonstrating that Florida has taken a very questionable decision re 20 to 39 yr old males that isn't shared by any other state. That Denmark has taken a fairly unique approach to vaccinations for the under 50's, one that I don't disagree with, people under 50 can still get vaccinated if they want, I wouldn't be surprised if the other Nordic countries that have the same levels of high vaccinations and socio-economic situation follow suit. That there was one questionable study in Israel. Also you've touched on vaccinations for the under 5's, and as we all know isn't really a major concern considering Covid doesn't impact that age group as much.

These are separate issues, each has it's own context, but you are ignoring that context in order to collect them all together to make it seem like vaccines are more questionable or dangerous than they are.

I don;t have any knowledge that medical science has missed.

Exactly. Your posts show that you are just a lay-person cherry-picking stuff from the internet to suit a personal narrative you have about these vaccines.

Given that many members of the medical community question the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.

Indeed, they do it all the time.

You don't. You have an agenda to portray these vaccines in the worst possible light using a toolbox of disingenuous techniques as demonstrated by your hundreds of posts here doing nothing but that.

10-10-2022 02:10PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119725891#Comment_119725891

There was that period where the vaccines were going to alter people's DNA to help turn us into cyborgs also.

And then it was claims that the vaccines would kill millions.

Now it's been down graded so much that they're desperately clinging onto the notion that it causes slightly higher numbers of a rare heart issue.

They need a win cause they're not allowed by their religion to accept they might have just been wrong.

Same shite happened with the swine flu vaccine and we still had folks here claiming that they were right about that too. Gonna happen again.

hometruths · 10-10-2022 02:22PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119725950#Comment_119725950

Given that many members of the medical community question the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.

Indeed, they do it all the time.

Which brings me back to my previous point. Are these experts questioning the vaccines objectively and within reason? Or are they lunatics with an agenda?

And as far as I understand you cannot get a vaccine now under 50 in Denmark, unless your GP deems you to be in need of it because you are at higher risk. No doubt you'll correct me if I am wrong.

10-10-2022 02:27PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119726053#Comment_119726053

More deliberate dishonesty and avoiding by yourself.

Dohnjoe explained exactly an example of how "experts" can be questionable. You avoided that post entirely and now you're trying to demand an answer to your question again.

sydthebeat · 10-10-2022 02:49PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119725841#Comment_119725841

ahem.....

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119155248#Comment_119155248

So ....

youre a liar???

Hoop66 · 10-10-2022 03:00PM

Oh yes. A prolific one.

hometruths · 10-10-2022 03:16PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119726204#Comment_119726204

I think the point here is gone over your head, I'll repost the first post I made on this:

This is my problem with the vaccines. When the vaccines were first rolled out the clear expectation was that the primary function was to prevent catching Covid.

When it became abundantly clear that this was not working as intended, but they were having good effect in preventing serious illness and death, very few vaccine proponents acknowledged this. It was spun as if the primary function all along was to reduce serious illness and death, and anybody who thought they were taking the vaccine to prevent them getting Covid just didn't understand how vaccines worked.

This is total and utter nonsense, and as far as I am concerned it undermines all subsequent claims about the vaccine efficacy and safety.

The vaccines were specifically approved to prevent infection, not to reduce the severity of symptoms of infections. The emergency use approval is still for the prevention of Covid-19.

The purpose of vaccination has subsequently pivoted to reducing the severity of the disease rather than preventing infection.

I have argued this numerous times, that it is abundantly clear the vaccines are not doing a very good job at preventing infections, and on each occasion somebody on here has argued they're doing a great job at preventing infections.

So good on the Danes for explicitly stating this fact, and for DohnJoe for acknowledging it.

It does still leave us with the odd situation that people are getting injected with a vaccine that is licensed in the EU under emergency use authorisation specifically for the purpose of preventing infection yet an EU country's guidance states that the intended purpose is not to prevent infection.

According to the Danes, it's literally not fit for purpose!!

Dohnjoe · 10-10-2022 05:17PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119726346#Comment_119726346

This is the "but we were told" argument explained a looong time ago in the thread.

According to you, "we were told" the vaccines would stop Covid infections. That we'd all be vaccinated and it wouldn't spread anymore. However the virus mutates, and that didn't happen.

Normal rational people can grasp this. You on the other hand have been unable to process it, let alone get over it. In your mind, the vaccines were "sold" as stopping Covid, and when that didn't happen, the "powers-that-be" all over the world pivoted on their word.

You feel like you were "betrayed" and this is your ensuing crusade to highlight it.

You even have an accompanying conspiracy to go with it, but are generally "smart" enough to keep details on that low and not mention it too much, because you know how whacky it is.

This thread has become your mini side-of-the-road protest and anti-vax tropes have become your placards

10-10-2022 05:29PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119726859#Comment_119726859

He seems to also fall back to this argument when he runs out of rope with the other anti-vaxxer claims like the notion that the vaccines are going to cause millions of deaths or that the vaccines are "negatively effective."

When it suits he's willing to support those claims. But when it gets too difficult for him to defend them, he can always just claim he's just asking questions and his real point is this particular nugget, then forget the last dozen or so pages happened.

And all of this is of course based on his interpretation of a single sentence in one particular document that completely ignores all context and other statements and all of the dozens of times this has been explained to him.

hometruths · 10-10-2022 06:12PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119726859#Comment_119726859

Yes we were told that the vaccines would prevent Covid infections. That is what they were designed to do, and that's what they were approved to do.

That is a fact.

Just because it turned out they did a pretty poor job of what they were designed to do doesn't change that fact.

They were not approved to reduce the transmission, nor have I ever claimed they were.

hometruths_real · 10-10-2022 07:25PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119723732#Comment_119723732

yes... and where does the doctor get their information from?

hometruths_real · 10-10-2022 07:29PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119723951#Comment_119723951

incorrect

10-10-2022 07:55PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119727458#Comment_119727458

...

hometruths_real · 10-10-2022 08:08PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119727555#Comment_119727555

incorrect also

Big Bag of Chips · 10-10-2022 10:56PM

@hometruths_real and @[Deleted User] if you haven't anything relevant to add don't bother posting.

Nobody is interested in your tiff.

Dohnjoe · 11-10-2022 12:08AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119726916#Comment_119726916

I know plenty of people who thought the vaccines might completely stop infection. When that didn't occur they understood it.

Not everyone did. Unfortunately some individuals are ultimately scared by the fact that we aren't in control of everything, so they comfort themselves with the notion that somehow we deliberately didn't control the virus, rather than accept that we were unable to.

11-10-2022 12:35AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119728540#Comment_119728540

With hometruths I suspect it's more of a cynical thing where he's trying to pretend to be an expert with secret knowledge.

He's smart enough to know that the extreme claims would only cause people to laugh at him, so only let's them come out when he thinks it's safe. But otherwise he is trying to play the part of the "reasonable conspiracy theorist" who's "only saying one thing and asking questions."

odyssey06 · 11-10-2022 08:21AM

I expect when the data from Florida is looked at they will find that the people who were vaccinated were higher risk than the people who did not get vaccinated to begin with.

The study presumes that the people in both groups were of equal risk. This is contrary to what we know and uptake of vaccines is higher in higher risk groups.

The study also fails to even consider if there was an increase year on year in actual cardiac related deaths.

The data really needs to be drilled into. It is way to premature to make any decisions or recommendations based on this data.

The authors of the report recommend further studies before drawing any conclusions due to the study's limitations. So it looks like Ladapo has jumped the gun on this this for his own reasons.

hometruths · 11-10-2022 03:50PM

Another study showing negative vaccine effectiveness:

Vaccine effectiveness of 3 doses of mRNA-1273 and relative vaccine effectiveness of 3 versus 2 doses of mRNA-1273 against infection with SARS-CoV-2 variants by time since vaccination.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.30.22280573v1.full

11-10-2022 04:01PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119730763#Comment_119730763

What do you mean "Another"?

The last one you posted didn't show that. You emailed the author and they explained this to you and you've been spending the last two weeks trying to pretend that didn't happen. People don't have as short of a memory as you seem to believe.

And again, it appears that you're trying to pull the same tactic of just posting a graph you are taking out of context without actually pointing out where in the study it says anything about "negative effectiveness."

That study does not say the vaccines are negatively effective.

Also, on the top of the link you posted is this very prominent warning:

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

Which leads me to believe that you didn't actually read it.

You will of course ignore this, pretend that you can't see these points and you will spam the same image again and again without actually addressing any of the points.

You will convince no one.

hometruths · 11-10-2022 05:32PM

Here we go again.

The VE of 3 doses after 150 days against the BA.2 variant is -24.9%. That is negative effectiveness. That's what the study found. And that is what Figure 2 shows.

And yes I am aware it is a preprint. But I am not using this study to guide clinical practice.

11-10-2022 10:38PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119731142#Comment_119731142

Yes. Here we go again. Your doing the same tactic with this study as you did with the last.

What you are still ignoring is that you were wrong about the previous study also.

You emailed the author of the study and they explained to you why the study didn't actually show negative effectiveness.

You refuse to acknowledge this. You refuse to explain how this time it's different.

You can't so you will dodge and ignore cause for some reason you believe that this is a good tactic for you.

I believe now you will once again selectively pretend I'm on ignore so you don't have to address these points.

hometruths · 11-10-2022 11:03PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732429#Comment_119732429

I have never said I placed you on ignore, I simply choose to ignore most of your posts for the good of the thread.

So you and others said the last study I quoted did not find negative effectiveness because it did not explicitly say so in the study.

This time it is different because the study explicitly states a finding of negative effectiveness.

But are you prepared to acknowledge this study does show negative effectiveness?

Or are you claiming that VE of -24.9% is not negative?

11-10-2022 11:12PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732523#Comment_119732523

You ignored my points because you can't address them. You ignored the points because you ended up disproving your own claim. You will do so again once addressing my points become too difficult for you.

First could you acknowledge that the author of the previous study explained to you why the study didn't actually show negative effectiveness in their reply to you?

Very hypocritical of you to demand I acknowledge something after you spent weeks hiding from this fact.

hometruths · 11-10-2022 11:31PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732552#Comment_119732552

First could you acknowledge that the author of the previous study explained to you why the study didn't actually show negative effectiveness in their reply to you?

No he didn't explain that at all. As I posted at the time, I asked him specifically re the negative effectiveness after 18 weeks:

Those arguing against it are citing the seemingly apparent negative effectiveness after 18 weeks in graph B, Figure 1.

I wondered why no comment is made on the finding of negative effectiveness in your text? It seems odd not to address it and wondered if you clarify why not?

And far from explaining "why the study didn't actually show negative effectiveness" his reply made no mention of negative effectiveness, preferring to focus on severe disease:

Figure 1B indeed shows a decline over time of vaccine effectiveness against omicron infection in children. The data were sparse after 5 months, so there’s great uncertainty with the estimates after 5 months. It’s likely that high risk children were vaccinated first, which would cause underestimation of vaccine effectiveness at the end.

Figure 1E shows that vaccination confers greater protection against hospitalization than against infection, and as stated in the text, no children who were vaccinated died whereas 7 unvaccinated children died.

Thus, our work showed that vaccination was effective, especially against severe outcomes, although its effect against infection waned over time

His explanation merely said the effectiveness waned over time, and data after 5 months was uncertain. And as I pointed out in the thread at the time 5 months is almost 22 weeks. Yet the graph indicated negative effectiveness at 18 weeks.

You latched on to his reoly as a total and thorough explanation of why the study did not indicate negative effectiveness. I chose not to address this for the good of thread, and not to get into yet another pointless and endless argument along the lines of insufficient data is in fact entirely comprehensive, or mandatory vaccinations are not coercive.

And as long as you and others were arguing that you could not claim a study indicated negative effectiveness if the study did not explicitly state it, it was pointless to derail the thread discussing that point.

I was confident another study would pop up sooner or later that did explicitly state a finding of negative effectiveness.

And here we are. So given the authors do explicitly state a finding of negative VE, how are you planning to back up your claim that this study does not say the vaccines are negatively effective?

11-10-2022 11:46PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732619#Comment_119732619

Lol he does explain it to you:

Figure 1B indeed shows a decline over time of vaccine effectiveness against omicron infection in children. The data were sparse after 5 months, so there’s great uncertainty with the estimates after 5 months. It’s likely that high risk children were vaccinated first, which would cause underestimation of vaccine effectiveness at the end.

Do you believe he's incorrect or lying when he says this?

Did you give him any follow up emails asking him to clarify and address the negative effectiveness directly?

Why do you believe that he did not confirm the appearance of negative effectiveness?

Also really funny that you're trying to argue that he didn't address it because he didn't specifically say the phrase.

And no man, you ignored points because you couldn't address them. No one is stupid enough to believe otherwise.

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Comments