Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

But there is no such thing as extreme pro vaxxers.

Not believing lies and conspiracy theories doesn't make you extreme.

However repeating stuff from Twitter and extremist sites like natural news is very extreme.

Lol.

Where did I argue that?

OK. So I didn't make those arguments.

So by your definition I'm not an extreme pro vaxxers.

Unless of course you're going to argue that lenght of time is the only factor, at which surely that would apply to yourself.

And yes I have seen those arguments. As always you misrepresent.

Weird though that seem to be struck blind when your fellow antivaxxers do stuff you don't want to acknowledge.

OK. So then you are not saying I'm an extreme pro vaxxers.

Only the guys who were making those arguments were.

In that case where in the study did it ask people of they subscribed to those particular arguments as their basis for who is and isn't an "EPV"?

Or alternatively what did they use to determine who is an "EPV"?

Also again you are very hypocritically ascribing arguments to me that I never made.

I'm also curious who you consider an extreme anti vaxxer but I fear this would be too direct a question for you to answer and would go against your rule of never directly challenging other anti-vaxxers.

But how can that study indicate such a thing when it doesn't say anything about "extreme pro vaxxers".

You claimed:

The study says nothing about "extreme pro vaxxers" (cause they don't exist.)

The study does not identify any beliefs that could be considered "extreme".

Nor does it identify if people who held "extreme beliefs" before have lessened their beliefs.

And of course the study looks at beliefs about vaccines in general, not covid vaccines.

How would you respond to the 4 questions in the survey asked as part of the study?

Again I believe that you found this study on twitter or some other social media feed. That's the only reason you thought it was noteworthy.

But that's not what you claimed in your original post about that supposedly noteworthy study.

As I explained in my previous post, it has nothing at all to do with "Extreme pro vaxxers" because no such thing exists and cannot be used to make any conclusions about a group of people who do not exist.

You avoided all of those points as per usual.

You found this article on twitter.

You thought that you could disguise your dumping by vaguely tying it to one of my comments.

And once again, it's you misrepresenting things and over stating things to suit your extreme anti-vaxxer agenda.

Oh, and of course the paper does not say at all that the decline in vaccine confidence is due to "revisionism around the covid vaccines' spurious efficacy".

The study in fact says:

The article didn't show covid vaccines caused a rise in vaccine hestitancy.

You've reworded your claim now when your original misrepresentation was challenged.

Your original wording implies it was the vaccines themselves - I am pointing out it can just as easily be argued it was the "extreme" anti-vaxx campaign of lies and misinformation about the vaccines that was responsible.

Yea, he's gone from claiming that the study showed that there would be less "EPVs", then to claim that there was an increase in vaccine hesitancy because of his bugbear. Now he's trying to dodge again.

He painted himself into a corner, probably because he didn't actually read the study, and now comes the word games to try and save face.