Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

1224225227229230251

Comments

  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I believe what I find credible, not necessarily what I like. I generally find reading more helps me judge what is credible though. Each to their own.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But again. You guys have utterly failed to show that the vaccines are causing these things.


    And again every single person I know, self included who have had the vaccines have had no issues with them. So that proves they are safe.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But we've seen that you don't actually read the studies these grifters link. Nor do you do any kind of vetting or double checking of their claims.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    A reminder that tou have argued that naturalnews was a valid and trustworthy source.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    You're just peddling nonsense as usual. I have argued no such thing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    No. You did. You tried the same "but look at what they're linking" shite with them.

    And as always you made no comment that your fellow anti-vaxx fantatic used them as a source.

    If that's not the case you can simply just state now clearly and unambiguously naturalnews is an untrustworthy source.

    You won't though.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I did not argue that naturalnews was a valid and trustworthy source.

    This is just another example of your constant misrepresentation. It's tedious, and as you like to tell others, we've seen time and again that you make false claims such as these, so why should we take anything you post seriously.

    Of course, if I am wrong on this point, and you are posting in good faith, that will be simple enough to demonstrate - no doubt you'll be able to quote the post in which I argued naturalnews is a valid and trustworthy source.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol as predicted you ignore and dodge.

    Not arsed to go trawling back for something you will ignore and dodge.

    I've explained how you were defending them and I've told you how you can easily counter my point.


    Simply state that natural news is an invalid and untrustworthy source and I will withdraw my comment.

    Otherwise I'm done with this line and will not respond to any more of your badgering.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Otherwise I'm done with this line and will not respond to any more of your badgering.

    Badgering posters with fabricated claims. And then whinge that you're being badgered to substantiate your claims. Rinse and repeat.

    It fools nobody.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol and again you keep whinging my accusation is false yet you can't bring yourself to do the one thing that would easily show it's false.

    As you say it fools no one.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I've found the relevant exchange. Somebody posted a naturalnews link citing a letter that appeared in the BMJ and vaccine fanatics started handwaving about pure medical misinformation scaremongering.

    Most of the handwavers had not realised that the naturalnews article was quoting the BMJ because, like EyesClosed above, their biases ensured they didn't bother to read it. Fair enough, no problem to dismiss something at first glance, but how can you expect to be taken seriously in arguing content is misinformation if you don't know what the information is?!

    With that in mind in response I simply commented "Damn British Medical Journal up to their old tricks with pure medical misinformation scaremongering again."

    And you quoted this post about the British Medical Journal to say:

    Lol are you guys about to defend natural news as a legitimate source?

    Hilarious.

    And of course then you started off on the usual badgering nonsense:

    Do you believe that Natural News is a reliable or legitimate source? If you ignore the question we can take that as a yes.

    And I ignored the question. And predictably here we are with you making up lies that I "have argued that naturalnews was a valid and trustworthy source."

    I argued no such thing. I don't believe Natural News is a reliable source and have never claimed to do so.

    But you knew that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yea man. Ignoring all of the misinformation, out of context quoting, scaremongering etc that Natural News and it's ilk do to claim their article acceptable because it quotes one thing from the BMJ is defending them. Arguing that they might have a point is defending them.

    And of course when I asked if you were doing so. You refused to answer.

    You could have cleared that up by answering the question directly.


    And notice how you're still unable to bring yourself to simply state that Natural News is invalid and untrustworthy.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Did you even read my post?!

    I don't believe Natural News is a reliable source 



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yes I did. However you like to play wordgames.


    But ok I will take this at face value. You argee that Natural News is an invalid and unreliable source.

    As such I will withdraw my comment.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭EyesClosed


    You're misrepresentating me now. I never said that they didn't like to a real source, I said they will have misrepresentated it to suit their needs as we have seen here time and time again.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,181 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    That is how he operates every single time. Funny that he is even trying to accuse others of playing word games when it is exactly what he does.

    This was exposed many times in the thread by a lot of people yet it is always the same. Twist a little, add something imaginary and then press on attributing it to someone. Drown every response in you guys... dodging...etc... It brings nothing to debate it is just an attempt to distract from the topic. Best to not engage and ignore.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But yet this only seems to happen when you guys are caught out in something.

    Like for example claiming a study says the opposite of what it does because you didn't understand a word it used.


    It's weird cause pointing that out seemed to be pretty on topic yet you ignored all the points made against that.


    Seems to me that you guys just look for excuses to avoid and ignore and do anything except discuss your claims.


    Also bares pointing out that as far as I remember you were the fella posting from Natural News as if it were a reputable and reliable source.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yea this is the point that they keep dancing around.


    As we've seen they don't read half the links they post past the headlines or past the snippets tweeted out. They certainly don't look into the context or the source or even think about how the factoid fits into their worldview.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I am not misrepresenting you, I didn't claim you said they did not link to a real source, my point was that you weren't aware of the BMJ being the source because you didn't bother to read it.

    Hence the point that it's pretty weak to be handwaving about misinformation if you are not aware of what the information is in the first place.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    It brings nothing to debate it is just an attempt to distract from the topic.

    Spot on.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,154 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    The BMJ is not the source, unless the contents of the source actually match the claims made for it.

    At the moment, the source is not the BMJ.

    So where's the BMJ letter, and where are the responses to that letter?

    A letter to the BMJ is not the same as a proper study.

    And where is the actual study? Where was it published? Where was it reviewed?

    Does the content of the letter or study match the claims made for it by these dodgy sites?

    Because it has happened dozens of times on the thread that the claims made for a study aren't found in the study, and are in fact directly contradicted by the study.

    Only recently we had false claims made about mRNA vaccines for a study into non mRNA vaccines, and false claims made because someone misunderstood the word attenuate.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But the point you are ignoring and handwaving about is that Natural News constantly produce misinformation. They constantly misrepresent things and twist things to suit their anti-science agenda.

    You agree with this assessment since you've agreed that they aren't reliable or trustworthy.

    So, it doesn't matter what's actually in the article, because experience and common sense should tell people that whatever is in there is either lies, or it is twisted truth.


    You guys have been quoting articles from the BMJ etc non-stop, but it hasn't once stopped you from being wrong.

    One example being how Pat claiming that a study said the opposite of what it did simply because he didn't understand a word. Or your previous misadventure in misrepresentation.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    It's a common theme in here that anything that could conceivably question the safety and efficacy of the vaccines is unreliable, untrustworthy, invalid, illegitimate etc because of the source that is questioning it.

    Have any of the vaccine defenders seen anything that questions the safety and efficacy of the vaccines from a source they do consider reliable? Anything at all?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    No. You guys have not provided anything. You have only provided shite from crank sites like Natural News. Or information that you are blatantly misrepresenting and distorting. All the while you keep dodging and ignoring and avoiding all of the shady tactics, dishonesty and outright lies the sources you cling to use.


    If you lot had any reliable trustworthy sources, you wouldn't have to cling to shite from Natural News, Info Wars, Epoch times etc etc.

    If you had any reliable trustworthy sources, you wouldn't have to invent (and vaguely hint at) a conspiracy to explain why none of them support your claims.


    Likewise, don't you find is suspect that any information or evidence you are provided that contradicts your anti-vaxx agenda, you deem to be untrustworthy, corrupt, or you just somehow know better than the experts who provided it.

    Have you not seen anything at all that shakes your faith in the sources you use and cling to?

    Has the fact that you've been shown constantly to be wrong and misrepresenting cause you to wonder why you're doing that?

    Does the fact the only people who support you and back you up are the type of conspiracy theorists you get offended being compared to not make you wonder why?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,154 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    I reject the premise.

    The common theme is that the questions being raised here come from such sources, or misrepresentation by those sources of studies which don't support the conclusion the sources draw from them.

    Safety issues with the vaccines have been looked into by regulators, in response to safety signals e.g. AZ association with clots, Moderna with myocarditis in younger men.

    These have been looked into by regulators and they balance this data against the risk of covid and this is reflected in the official advice.

    It is not that the vaccines don't have side effects, what the pro-vaccine side says is that the side effect risk and severity are significantly outweighed by the risk and severity of covid.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths




  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    The question I am asking is not about the sources anti-vaxxers are citing that you don't trust. I am asking about the sources that you do trust.

    In all your extensive reading about vaccines from sources that you do consider to be reliable, trustworthy and valid, have you ever encountered anything that questioned the safety and efficacy of the vaccines?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yes. As Odyssey has points out, things like the blood clot issue and the slightly increased incidence of myocarditis where identified by actual experts.

    All studies that look into the safety and efficacy of the vaccines are inherently "questioning" those things.

    I have not seen anything from any reliable sources that support any of the vague and contradictory conspiracy theories you guys have been suggesting and define as "questioning."

    I have not seen anything that suggests risks or lack of efficacy that you guys believe.


    Any chance you'll be answering my questions to you?

    if not, then I see no reason to answer any more of yours.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Which questions are you worried about?

    Stuff like this?!

    Have you not seen anything at all that shakes your faith in the sources you use and cling to?

    Your clinging to the idea that I have quoted naturalnews etc, but this never happened.

    By all means take issue with actual sources I have cited and I'll answer whether or not my faith has been shaken in them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yup. Questions and points dodged. More misrepresentation.

    No thanks.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I'm not dodging the question, I am asking you which of the sources that I use and cling to do you consider unreliable and trustworthy.

    Until I know what sources you are talking about I cannot answer your question.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    No thanks man. Your badgering add nothing to the debate and I won't engage.

    I've answered your question directly, fully and concisely. Take it or leave it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,181 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    You notice? He would never say he was wrong. Not once, it may be some sort of narcissisms or something similar. One has to point it to him 20x and still he would try to deflect and generalize with "you guys" and such. Fact is he tried to belittle you claiming something which is not true and he already knows he messed up as he mentioned it in reply to my post saying

    "Also bares pointing out that as far as I remember you were the fella posting from Natural News as if it were a reputable and reliable source."

    yet he is incapable to say I was wrong Hometruths I confused you with someone else... Nope, he just keep piling on and no matter how many times you say he is mistaken he keep on adding more crap...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol Bizarre interpretation of what happened.

    I didn't mess up. I explained why I believed that Hometruths was defending the Natural News link you posted. None of which was due to me misremembering anything.

    I only rescinded my statement that be believed that Natural News was a reliable and valid source when he finally stated (still a bit indirectly) that it wasn't. Something that I note you don't at all comment on.


    And this is all hilariously hypocritical given the last link you tried to dump.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I think he knew full well I never argued that naturalnews was a valid and trustworthy source. Doesn't stop him from claiming that though.

    You got it right on page 1 of this thread when you called him out for "this childish tactic you seems to employ time and again saying that someone else said something when you know it is just your own interpretation of what was written all the while you claim people said that."

    It's amazing he's still at it nearly 400 pages later and believes anybody takes him seriously.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,487 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Seriously before you start accusing others and claiming that they will never say they are wrong even though it is pointed out 20 times you really should look in the mirror. You made a claim about me in this thread that was disproved rather easily. You repeated your lie many times yet you never said “I’m sorry, I was wrong”.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol. I dunno man. I'm getting plenty of thanks from folks.

    You're only getting support from a dude who link dumps from a source you agree is invalid and untrustworthy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,137 ✭✭✭323


    OK, England alone, as they've been keeping some of the best statistics in the world. Highly jabbed as was Ireland.

    30,000 Excess Deaths Involving Heart Disease in England, according to the British Heart Foundation

    Thats an average of over 230 additional deaths a week above expected heart disease death rates. Just a coincidence, nothing to do with the COVID injectables I'm sure.

    https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/news-from-the-bhf/news-archive/2022/november/extreme-heart-care-disruption-linked-to-excess-deaths-involving-heart-disease

    “Follow the trend lines, not the headlines,”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭EyesClosed


    Could it be that a virus which has known to effect cardiovascular systems happened to around the same time?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,181 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    Funny you mention this because you are in the same bed as it seems. Your likes are from roughly 3-4 people always the same one's, your own personal echo chamber. Could be friends, colleagues or your alter ego who knows...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol nope. Sorry man. Don't know any of them outsite the site. Nor are they alternate accounts.

    They're just other people who seem to take me somewhat seriously.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cool.

    What evidence do you have beyond your personal untrained assumptions of coincidence that these are being caused by the vaccine?


    And again we have an anti-vaxxer who seems reluctant to use the V word for fear of summoning them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat


    No matter what topic you have in the world you will have the extreme on both sides. You will have the extreme fanatical pro vaxxers who believe the pharma companies have saved us and the anti drug persons who believe the opposite. They are both of the same ilk however extremists that are better off ignored.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat


    https://www.oxfam.org/fr/node/18366

    If only they would donate some of their profits..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Still no such thing as extreme pro vaxxers and that's not what anyone is arguing.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Oddly enough the extreme pro vaxxers are getting fewer thanks to the covid vaccines.

    Confidence in vaccines has declined “significantly” since the start of the pandemic, according to a new study. Researchers from the University of Portsmouth carried out two anonymous surveys in the winters of 2019 and 2022 to gauge people’s attitudes to vaccinations and to look at what factors cause hesitancy and refusal.

    After questioning more than 1,000 adults, they found that the post-pandemic group was considerably less confident in vaccines than in the pre-pandemic group. The paper, published in the medical journal Vaccine, showed a fall in confidence of nearly one in four participants since 2020, regardless of their age, gender, religious belief, education or ethnicity.

    Hardly surprising really.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Weird how despite your own protests you've no issue with snowcat misattributing arguments to people.

    Another example of the hypocrisy of extreme anti vaxxers.


    There's no such thing as "extreme pro vaxxers".


    I also suspect that this article is another Twitter find.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    There's no such thing as "extreme pro vaxxers".

    In your opinion.

    To others it is abundantly clear that there are those who are extremely pro the vaccine, just as there are those who are extremely anti the vaccine.

    Most are neither, which is why the findings of the study are noteworthy. In my opinion.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But you guys can't actually demonstrate what an "extreme pro vaxxer" actually is without relying on misrepresenting peoples arguments like snowcat just did and you had no issue with.


    You only believe that this study is noteworthy because it's something g else you've found on Twitter.

    Also as always you are misrepresenting what a study says as the study does not have anything to do with "extreme pro vaxxers."

    And this quote:

    Dr Alessandro Siani, associate head of the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Portsmouth, said: “While vaccine hesitancy is not a new phenomenon, Covid-19 vaccines have been met with particular hostility despite the overwhelming scientific evidence of their safety and effectiveness.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Anyone know how I can go about getting a second booster at 20?

    I called around a couple of pharmacies local to me and was politely told to get bent because I've no pre-existing conditions. Got the first booster in January.

    Cheers

    --------------------------------------------------------

    @IE.TP1J6 please don't take any medical advice from a Forum titled "Conspiracy Theories".

    Post edited by Big Bag of Chips on


  • Advertisement
Advertisement