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

Rushed Covid 19 vaccine

13567…12

Comments

  • #102
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,082 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    FutureTeashock wrote: »
    Straight from the Devil's lair:

    "It involves the direct introduction into appropriate tissues of a plasmid containing the DNA sequence encoding the antigen(s) against which an immune response is sought, and relies on the in situ production of the target antigen."

    https://www.who.int/biologicals/areas/vaccines/dna/en/

    The DNA is edited to fight the virus, thus altering the DNA.

    No it’s not. The vaccine isn’t inserted into the cell nucleus, it simply trains the DNA to fight the virus.

    If that DNA cell were to replicate it would only contain original DNA ergo unaltered.


  • #103
    FutureTeashock
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 439 ✭✭FutureTeashock


    Smee_Again wrote: »
    No it’s not. The vaccine isn’t inserted into the cell nucleus, it simply trains the DNA to fight the virus.

    If that DNA cell were to replicate it would only contain original DNA ergo unaltered.

    Go for it so. I'll be giving it the widest possible berth. :eek:


  • #104
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,082 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    FutureTeashock wrote: »
    Go for it so. I'll be giving it the widest possible berth. :eek:

    Fair enough. Non need to spread lies though.


  • #105
    FutureTeashock
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 439 ✭✭FutureTeashock


    Smee_Again wrote: »
    Fair enough. Non need to spread lies though.

    I'm still not convinced by your assertion that the DNA is totally unaltered, but it's your choice. Enjoy.


  • #106
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    Yeah but that is the very point that I was making that person's view is not representative of everyone that does not want to take a vaccine and their reasons or rational for not wanting to take a vaccine will not be the same as everyone else's but, we will all be thrown into the same crazy anti-vaxxer group because it will be the easier option rather than discussing the legitimate reasons of why people do not want to a take a vaccine.
    But what are "legitimate reasons"?

    Here in this thread and forum we've had people say that the virus itself is man made. Is that a legitimate concern?
    We've had people say that Bill Gates controls the WHO and vaccine production. Is that a legitimate concern?
    One poster here believes that the vaccines are part of a plot to inject people with microchips which are the mark of the beast as predicted in the bible. Is that a legitimate concern?

    I think you'd agree that none of those things are and that they are all pretty silly.

    So do you think the people espousing those conspiracy theory beliefs should be posting in this thread or in the "safe space for vaccine sceptics"?

    I've found people with fringe conspiratorial beliefs don't like to disagree publicly with others who hold conspiratorial beliefs counter to their own.
    I think this is because it highlights uncomfortable parallels.


  • #107
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    King Mob wrote: »
    One poster here believes that the vaccines are part of a plot to inject people with microchips which are the mark of the beast as predicted in the bible. Is that a legitimate concern?
    Sorry but this is yet anther falsehood^, a plain lie of misdirection in fact. Curiously from one poster, with 8,000 posts across 10yrs, all mostly in the CT, some sort of mission?

    Anyway, and so to clarify (again, as per previous page), and perhaps x50 times now. The only project of interest (medi-tech, related to covid), that Gates is directly involved with (inc funding thereof), is that of the 'Quantum Dot Tattoo' to act as a Digital Immunity Certification (DigitalID/HealthPassport).

    For the 51st time now, and as clear as possible, this is
    i) not a microchip ii) not injected.

    The links were supplied on the previous page, here they are again as clearly they were not read.

    Patent:
    https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2019018301A1/en
    Description:
    https://www.sciencealert.com/an-invisible-quantum-dot-tattoo-is-being-suggested-to-id-vaccinated-kids
    https://news.rice.edu/2019/12/18/quantum-dot-tattoos-hold-vaccination-record/
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/invisible-ink-could-reveal-whether-kids-have-been-vaccinated/

    Again this simple 'digital identifer' has no direct link to the bible, AFAIK.
    Again this simple 'identifer of the person' (in itself) is not the 'NOTB'. It (could/maybe) however be a prequel of such a concept: WO2020060606 at some future stage, but that really is years away.


  • #108
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Jose Substantial Armada wrote: »
    Sorry but this is yet anther falsehood^, a plain lie of misdirection in fact. Curiously from one poster, with 8,000 posts across 10yrs, all mostly in the CT, some sort of mission?
    Lol. What mission would that be?

    Accusing me of such a thing isn't going to help counter the point I'm making.
    Jose Substantial Armada wrote: »
    For the 51st time now, and as clear as possible, this is
    i) not a microchip ii) not injected.
    The distinction is meaningless to most people.
    It not being a microchip doesn't make your theory less insane.
    Jose Substantial Armada wrote: »
    Again this simple 'digital identifer' has no direct link to the bible, AFAIK.
    Again this simple 'identifer of the person' (in itself) is not the 'NOTB'. It could however be a prequel of such a concept.
    Yup.
    Your belief is based on biblical prophesy about the end times.
    Thanks for confirming.

    So LessOutragePlz, is Jose Substantial Armadas position above illustrative of the beliefs of all those with concerns about the vaccine?
    Do you agree with him and his beliefs?
    Should he be promoting his conspiracy theory along with the valid concerns?


  • #109
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    King Mob wrote: »
    L
    It not being a microchip ...
    Yes: there is no microchip, and there is no injection of such a thing, in regards to the Quantum Dot Tattoo. Not sure this keeps getting claimed TBH.


  • #110
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Jose Substantial Armada wrote: »
    Yes: there is no microchip, and there is no injection of such a thing, in regards to the Quantum Dot Tattoo. Not sure this keeps getting claimed TBH.
    Cept for the other part of your conspiracy where you believe they are going to inject people with microchips.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114584311&postcount=162

    But again, you seem to be missing the point that your claims are bizarre and are part of the silly conspiracy theories that most people with concerns about the vaccine want to be distanced form.

    Your continued attempts to clarify your bizarre theories aren't making them more believable. They're just confirming how silly they are. ANd you are highlighting why legitimate concerns should be actively distanced from bizarre beliefs like yours.
    Because if they aren't distanced, believers like yourself are going to drown out any actual concerns with conspiratorial nonsense.

    What I'm trying to find out is why folks like LessOutragePlz who have more reasonable concerns aren't willing to tell folks like yourself to piss off and cop on.


  • #111
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Jose Substantial Armada wrote: »

    Anyway, and so to clarify (again, as per previous page), and perhaps x50 times now. The only project of interest (medi-tech, related to covid), that Gates is directly involved with (inc funding thereof), is that of the 'Quantum Dot Tattoo' to act as a Digital Immunity Certification (DigitalID/HealthPassport).

    For the 51st time now, and as clear as possible, this is
    i) not a microchip ii) not injected.

    The links were supplied on the previous page, here they are again as clearly they were not read.

    Patent:
    https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2019018301A1/en
    Description:
    https://www.sciencealert.com/an-invisible-quantum-dot-tattoo-is-being-suggested-to-id-vaccinated-kids
    https://news.rice.edu/2019/12/18/quantum-dot-tattoos-hold-vaccination-record/
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/invisible-ink-could-reveal-whether-kids-have-been-vaccinated/

    Again this simple 'digital identifer' has no direct link to the bible, AFAIK.
    Again this simple 'identifer of the person' (in itself) is not the 'NOTB'. It (could/maybe) however be a prequel of such a concept: WO2020060606 at some future stage, but that really is years away.

    These are simple questions

    Here is the example: let's say there is a Covid vaccine available right now, one of the ones funded by Bill Gates, I go to my GP tomorrow, and I get an injection of the new vaccine

    According to you, do I receive anything else? a "mark"?

    If yes, what is that "mark" and what is it's purpose?

    No links or technical mumbo-jumbo, explain it like you'd explain to a child. Keep it simple.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    King Mob wrote: »
    But what are "legitimate reasons"?

    The fact that it is a rushed vaccine in comparison to every other vaccine that has ever been produced.

    It being rushed through the process makes it inherently riskier because it will not spend the same amount of time in development as every other previous vaccine that has been produced.

    I would argue that this is a legitimate reason for not wanting to take a vaccine but obviously people are free to disagree with that and challenge my viewpoint.

    Also I don't claim to speak for anyone else only myself and anyone else's theories on the vaccine are their own and not mine so as I've said previously lumping us all into the same anti-vaxxer group is a cop out and an easy way to avoid a discussion about the legitimate reasons as to why a person wouldn't want to take a vaccine.


  • #113
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    The fact that it is a rushed vaccine in comparison to every other vaccine that has ever been produced.

    It being rushed through the process makes it inherently riskier because it will not spend the same amount of time in development as every other previous vaccine that has been produced.

    I would argue that this is a legitimate reason for not wanting to take a vaccine but obviously people are free to disagree with that and challenge my viewpoint.
    Sure that's not an unreasonable viewpoint.
    But as we've seen on the thread, a lot of people who share your position on vaccines are doing so for unreasonable viewpoints.
    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    Also I don't claim to speak for anyone else only myself and anyone else's theories on the vaccine are their own and not mine so as I've said previously lumping us all into the same anti-vaxxer group is a cop out and an easy way to avoid a discussion about the legitimate reasons as to why a person wouldn't want to take a vaccine.
    But I'm not lumping you in with anyone.
    I'm saying your reasonable position is going to be drowned out you and you don't seem very willing to address people with silly claims.

    So far we have had two conspiracy theorist who agree with your position. But they also express other beliefs I think you class as ridiculous.

    Do you find those beliefs ridiculous or do you believe they are as legitimate as yours?
    I ask cause you haven't directly stated this.
    Do you want them to be bringing up their ridiculous beliefs in a discussion about the serious concerns about the vaccine.

    I think your current position of "live and let live" and not addressing is going to lead to conspiracy theorists like them lumping you in with their side and result in your concerns being drowned out by claims of Bill Gates trying to implant everyone with the mark of the beast.

    I think that if you were seriously worried about your beliefs, you should be doing more to dispell the ridiculous nonsensical concerns.


  • #114
    Dionaibh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭Dionaibh


    King Mob wrote: »
    Sure that's not an unreasonable viewpoint.
    But as we've seen on the thread, a lot of people who share your position on vaccines are doing so for unreasonable viewpoints.

    But I'm not lumping you in with anyone.
    I'm saying your reasonable position is going to be drowned out you and you don't seem very willing to address people with silly claims.

    So far we have had two conspiracy theorist who agree with your position. But they also express other beliefs I think you class as ridiculous.

    Do you find those beliefs ridiculous or do you believe they are as legitimate as yours?
    I ask cause you haven't directly stated this.
    Do you want them to be bringing up their ridiculous beliefs in a discussion about the serious concerns about the vaccine.

    I think your current position of "live and let live" and not addressing is going to lead to conspiracy theorists like them lumping you in with their side and result in your concerns being drowned out by claims of Bill Gates trying to implant everyone with the mark of the beast.

    I think that if you were seriously worried about your beliefs, you should be doing more to dispell the ridiculous nonsensical concerns.

    I take it I'm on of those conspiracy theorists. If I'm not, then I apologise, but I'll just outline a few concerns I have and why I don't think they should be dismissed as conspiracy theories:

    1. 'Lockstep' in 'Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development' (https://www.nommeraadio.ee/meedia/pdf/RRS/Rockefeller%20Foundation.pdf) describes a world that's practically identical to the one we inhabit now.

    2. Event 201 was a simulation of a coronavirus and, while the pandemic simulated differs in a few minor ways, it's eerily similar to the present pandemic.

    3. The UN organised a virtual concert in August during which a choir sang a song that contained the lyrics 'a new world order behind closed doors'. Posters have interpreted this to mean that people are indoors during the pandemic and that therefore it is a new world. I don't think that's what was meant. If that's what they meant then why not 'a new world behind closed doors'?

    4. The WEF will host an event in Davos next year called 'The Great Reset'. The plan is to reset the planet.

    5. While dismissed by several posters, Bill Gates and his wife smiling after saying that the next pandemic would get people's attention is worrying, in my opinion.

    6. Doctors, epidemiologists and scientists have been censored all over the world for going against the accepted orthodoxy. Very worrying, in my opinion.

    7. The possibility of not being able to take part in society unless vaccinated chimes with the biblical 'Mark of the Beast'. One could dismiss it as a coincidence, but it's not unreasonable to suggest that it is the 'Mark of the Beast' come to pass.

    To dismiss all of the above as the rantings of a conspiracy loon is wrong, in my opinion.


  • #115
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dionaibh wrote: »

    To dismiss all of the above as the rantings of a conspiracy loon is wrong, in my opinion.
    Yes. I believe that is all of the type of stuff LessOutragePlz has said he doesn't want his reasonable concerns to be lumped in with.

    Thank you for outlining them.

    LessOutragePlz, do you want your beliefs lumped in with the above claims?
    Do you believe the above claims are worth considering and holding on equal terms to your concerns?
    Dionaibh seems to believe so.


  • #116
    Dionaibh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭Dionaibh


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes. I believe that is all of the type of stuff LessOutragePlz has said he doesn't want his reasonable concerns to be lumped in with.

    Thank you for outlining them.

    LessOutragePlz, do you want your beliefs lumped in with the above claims?
    Do you believe the above claims are worth considering and holding on equal terms to your concerns?
    Dionaibh seems to believe so.

    I believe that what I mentioned cannot be dismissed out of hand. We're supposed to accept that 'a new world order behind closed doors' actually means 'a new world at home'? Why 'a new world order' and not 'a new world'?

    Lockstep predicts it a tee, save for numbers of deaths and a different virus, but that doesn't matter either?

    And resetting the planet is nothing to worry about either?


  • #117
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    I believe that what I mentioned cannot be dismissed out of hand.
    Unfortunately these silly conspiracy notions can be. THis has been shown in the threads about those topics.
    But they are not the issue being discussed right now.

    The issue is that some people have reasonable, grounded concerns about the vaccines being rushed.
    Your concerns however are vague and a bit ridiculous.

    I'm pointing out that silly conspiracy claims like yours are drowning out the reasonable ones.
    You are demonstrating this very effectively.
    So again, thanks.


  • #118
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes. I believe that is all of the type of stuff LessOutragePlz has said he doesn't want his reasonable concerns to be lumped in with.

    Thank you for outlining them.

    LessOutragePlz, do you want your beliefs lumped in with the above claims?
    Do you believe the above claims are worth considering and holding on equal terms to your concerns?
    Dionaibh seems to believe so.

    I really don't see why someone with reasonable concerns has to distance themselves from the crazies. He has outlined his reasonable concerns. He hasn't mentioned anything of this new world order mark of the beast nonsense. Why is that not enough for you?


  • #119
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I really don't see why someone with reasonable concerns has to distance themselves from the crazies. He has outlined his reasonable concerns. He hasn't mentioned anything of this new world order mark of the beast nonsense. Why is that not enough for you?
    Why not tell the "crazies" that they are crazy?
    Because again, if the "live and let live" thing is held, the silly conspiracy theories are going to drown out the reasonable concerns.
    Those conspiracy theorists are going to claim the support of those people with reasonable concerns.

    And yes, they haven't mentioned anything of the crazy beliefs so far mentioned. But at the same time, they haven't denied them either.

    And again, I'm not lumping them in with anyone. I understand that their concerns aren't based on the silly stuff acculumator's and Dionaibh's are.
    I've been very clear on that.


  • #120
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    King Mob wrote: »
    Why not tell the "crazies" that they are crazy?
    Because again, if the "live and let live" thing is held, the silly conspiracy theories are going to drown out the reasonable concerns.
    Those conspiracy theorists are going to claim the support of those people with reasonable concerns.

    And yes, they haven't mentioned anything of the crazy beliefs so far mentioned. But at the same time, they haven't denied them either.

    And again, I'm not lumping them in with anyone. I understand that their concerns aren't based on the silly stuff acculumator's and Dionaibh's are.
    I've been very clear on that.

    I don't agree about challenging conspiracy theories. I think that legitimizes them. I think if the conspiracy theories were ignored they'd die out. But people argue about them and the conspiracy theory holder gets more emotionally invested in them and believes them even more.

    I also see it as a common debating tactic. Someone disagrees with you but is reasonable so make them distance themselves from a more extreme element on their side Thereby lumping them in with the extreme element.

    I totally get lessoutrages ignoring of this tactic. I wouldn't dignify it with a response either.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I don't agree about challenging conspiracy theories. I think that legitimizes them. I think if the conspiracy theories were ignored they'd die out. But people argue about them and the conspiracy theory holder gets more emotionally invested in them and believes them even more.
    But history hasn't born that out as we can see from the persistence of pretty much every other conspiracy theory.
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I also see it as a common debating tactic. Someone disagrees with you but is reasonable so make them distance themselves from a more extreme element on their side Thereby lumping them in with the extreme element.

    I totally get lessoutrages ignoring of this tactic. I wouldn't dignify it with a response either.
    But I don't disagree with him. I've said several times that his concerns are reasonable. I've said several times that it's clear his concerns are separate from the wacky ones being proposed.

    My point again is that the wacky theories are going to drown out the reasonable concerns.
    Ignoring them, hoping they'll go away and getting huffy when people point at them isn't going to stop that.


  • #122
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    King Mob wrote: »
    But history hasn't born that out as we can see from the persistence of pretty much every other conspiracy theory.

    That would.imply that the only tactic to date has been ignoring them. Lots of these persistent CTs have been extensively challenged. So challenging them doesn't do much either.

    But I don't disagree with him. I've said several times that his concerns are reasonable. I've said several times that it's clear his concerns are separate from the wacky ones being proposed.

    My point again is that the wacky theories are going to drown out the reasonable concerns.
    Ignoring them, hoping they'll go away and getting huffy when people point at them isn't going to stop that.

    Then why do you need him to disavow the crazies. It's not fair to ask people to preface their opinions with "I'm not one of the crazies but....". That just makes them sound like a crazy.

    And the particular CTs posed on this thread have been TOO whacky to ever gain any traction. Mark-of-the-beast-new-world-order is like ten million levels above my-child-got-autism.


  • #123
    FutureTeashock
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 439 ✭✭FutureTeashock


    King Mob wrote: »
    But history hasn't born that out as we can see from the persistence of pretty much every other conspiracy theory.


    But I don't disagree with him. I've said several times that his concerns are reasonable. I've said several times that it's clear his concerns are separate from the wacky ones being proposed.

    My point again is that the wacky theories are going to drown out the reasonable concerns.
    Ignoring them, hoping they'll go away and getting huffy when people point at them isn't going to stop that.

    You need to accept that a large % of people won't be taking the vaccine and there's nothing you can do about it.

    The reason each individual rejects the vaccine is irrelevant, it's their personal choice.


  • #124
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    That would.imply that the only tactic to date has been ignoring them. Lots of these persistent CTs have been extensively challenged. So challenging them doesn't do much either.

    Then why do you need him to disavow the crazies. It's not fair to ask people to preface their opinions with "I'm not one of the crazies but....". That just makes them sound like a crazy.

    And the particular CTs posed on this thread have been TOO whacky to ever gain any traction. Mark-of-the-beast-new-world-order is like ten million levels above my-child-got-autism.
    But why not directly address the conspiracy theorists posting their wacky theories on this thread to take it elsewhere?
    Why not when creating the "safe space for sceptics of the vaccine" specifically exclude the wacky stuff?


  • #125
    FutureTeashock
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 439 ✭✭FutureTeashock


    King Mob wrote: »
    But why not directly address the conspiracy theorists posting their wacky theories on this thread to take it elsewhere?
    Why not when creating the "safe space for sceptics of the vaccine" specifically exclude the wacky stuff?

    I'm the architect of this thread and I'm 100% unequivocally in favour of freedom of opinion and expression.

    Create your own limited thread if this offends you.


  • #126
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    FutureTeashock wrote: »
    The reason each individual rejects the vaccine is irrelevant, it's their personal choice.
    But it is relevant.
    One person might be doing so because of legitimate concerns.
    Other people might be doing it because they believe it's the mark of the beast.

    Are you saying there's no difference there?
    Are both reasons valid?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    FutureTeashock wrote: »
    I'm the architect of this thread and I'm 100% unequivocally in favour of freedom of opinion and expression.

    Create your own limited thread if this offends you.
    Then as I said, any legitimate concerns are going to be drowned out by the wacky theories.


  • #128
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    King Mob wrote: »
    But why not directly address the conspiracy theorists posting their wacky theories on this thread to take it elsewhere?
    Why not when creating the "safe space for sceptics of the vaccine" specifically exclude the wacky stuff?

    It's in the CT forum. What more do you want?


  • #129
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    King Mob wrote: »
    But it is relevant.
    One person might be doing so because of legitimate concerns.
    Other people might be doing it because they believe it's the mark of the beast.

    Are you saying there's no difference there?
    Are both reasons valid?

    There's definitely a difference but the ones with valid concerns do not have to deal with the crazies. They are not their responsibility.


  • #130
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes. I believe that is all of the type of stuff LessOutragePlz has said he doesn't want his reasonable concerns to be lumped in with.

    Thank you for outlining them.

    LessOutragePlz, do you want your beliefs lumped in with the above claims?
    Do you believe the above claims are worth considering and holding on equal terms to your concerns?
    Dionaibh seems to believe so.

    No I wouldn't want my beliefs to be lumped in with those claims as I don't believe those claims so I don't see any reason for them to be included with mine.

    I believe those claims can be discussed and debated but I think there's a lot less evidence if any to support those claims but if evidence was produced to support those claims I'd change my opinion on them

    People are entitled to believe that my claims about the vaccine and their claims "belong" together but at the end of the day that's their opinion and they're entitled to their opinion so I'm not going to try silence them or berate them for having a different opinion to mine.


  • #131
    FutureTeashock
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 439 ✭✭FutureTeashock


    King Mob wrote: »
    But it is relevant.
    One person might be doing so because of legitimate concerns.
    Other people might be doing it because they believe it's the mark of the beast.

    Are you saying there's no difference there?
    Are both reasons valid?

    Absolutely, because vaccine extremists are calling on those who forego the jab to be banned from entering shops and travelling. That essentially is the mark of the beast.

    English: "17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

    Nothing crazy at all about that view.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    FutureTeashock wrote: »

    Nothing crazy at all about that view.
    And case and point.

    Like I said. Reasonable concerns are going to be drowned out by the crazy theories like biblical prophesies.

    And when the majority of people refusing the vaccine are doing so for silly, unscientific reasons, it will be a bit to late to moan about people being lumped together with conspiracy theorists.


  • #133
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    I don't agree about challenging conspiracy theories. I think that legitimizes them. I think if the conspiracy theories were ignored they'd die out. But people argue about them and the conspiracy theory holder gets more emotionally invested in them and believes them even more.

    Unfortunately conspiracy theorists and woo merchants have learnt to disguise themselves as "skeptics", the main anti-vax thread on AH was full of the "I'm just concerned about.. " types. All too often we've seen that the BiG pHaRmA = EviL stuff is not far behind.

    Look at this thread, it was moved to conspiracy theorists, even the mods can see through it at this stage. If there are posters with reasonable concerns/questions, that's fine, but that's what the experts and professionals are for.


  • #134
    FutureTeashock
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 439 ✭✭FutureTeashock


    King Mob wrote: »
    And case and point.

    Like I said. Reasonable concerns are going to be drowned out by the crazy theories like biblical prophesies.

    And when the majority of people refusing the vaccine are doing so for silly, unscientific reasons, it will be a bit to late to moan about people being lumped together with conspiracy theorists.

    Many people will reject the vaccine for multitudinous reasons, so your point is rubbish.

    For me it's an all you can eat buffet of reasons why I'm not taking the vaccine.:o


  • #135
    Dionaibh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭Dionaibh


    FutureTeashock wrote: »
    Absolutely, because vaccine extremists are calling on those who forego the jab to be banned from entering shops and travelling. That essentially is the mark of the beast.

    English: "17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

    Nothing crazy at all about that view.

    Exactly. But notice the argument, or claim, is never addressed. It's just dismissed as 'conspiracy rubbish' even though, as you say, not being able to enter shops or travel is essentially the Mark of the Beast.

    I fear that the issue may be more to do with the Mark of the Beast being a biblical prophecy. There exists a tremendous hatred for Christianity in the West, particularly in Ireland.


  • #136
    Dionaibh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭Dionaibh


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Unfortunately conspiracy theorists and woo merchants have learnt to disguise themselves as "skeptics", the main anti-vax thread on AH was full of the "I'm just concerned about.. " types. All too often we've seen that the BiG pHaRmA = EviL stuff is not far behind.

    Look at this thread, it was moved to conspiracy theorists, even the mods can see through it at this stage. If there are posters with reasonable concerns/questions, that's fine, but that's what the experts and professionals are for.

    Why is it unreasonable to believe that 'a new world order behind closed doors' does in fact mean 'a new world order behind closed doors'? Unreasonable to be concerned about the planet being reset? Unreasonable to be concerned about doctors and scientists being censored?


  • #137
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    King Mob wrote: »
    And case and point.

    Like I said. Reasonable concerns are going to be drowned out by the crazy theories like biblical prophesies.

    And when the majority of people refusing the vaccine are doing so for silly, unscientific reasons, it will be a bit to late to moan about people being lumped together with conspiracy theorists.

    There is no way that a significant number of people who don't get the vaccine will be doing so because of the mark of the beast.


  • #138
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    Why is it unreasonable to believe that 'a new world order behind closed doors' does in fact mean 'a new world order behind closed doors'? Unreasonable to be concerned about the planet being reset? Unreasonable to be concerned about doctors and scientists being censored?

    Yes, it's unreasonable. (No offense) It shows that person has a low grip on reality and poor critical thinking skills.


  • #139
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    There is no way that a significant number of people who don't get the vaccine will be doing so because of the mark of the beast.
    Well I didn't just mean specifically because of the mark of the beast.
    There are many silly and ridiculous reasons that have been presented.
    A large amount of people believe that the virus is artificial.

    Specifically, for the mark of the beast, we have at least 3 people who seem to give it some weight, including the author of the thread.


  • #140
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    FutureTeashock wrote: »
    Many people will reject the vaccine for multitudinous reasons, so your point is rubbish.
    Yes. And a large portion of them will be silly unscientific reasons.


  • #141
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well I didn't just mean specifically because of the mark of the beast.
    There are many silly and ridiculous reasons that have been presented.
    A large amount of people believe that the virus is artificial.

    Specifically, for the mark of the beast, we have at least 3 people who seem to give it some weight, including the author of the thread.

    Yeah but we're in the CT forum. It's not reresentative.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Dionaibh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭Dionaibh


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Yes, it's unreasonable. (No offense) It shows that person has a low grip on reality and poor critical thinking skills.

    None taken :)

    But I don't know what else 'a new world order behind closed doors' could mean. If they meant 'a new world behind closed doors'. i.e. staying at home, then surely that's what they would've said.

    And WEF has said they want to reset every aspect of human behaviour. I find that alarming.

    But just to get back the vaccine, as I said previously, I would be willing to take the Russian vaccine as I believe it to be safe based on what I've read about it.


  • #143
    FutureTeashock
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 439 ✭✭FutureTeashock


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes. And a large portion of them will be silly unscientific reasons.

    They don't need a scientific reason to reject the vaccine. In fact they don't need any reason at all. It's their choice! Why is it so hard for you to grasp that?:confused:


  • #144
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,219 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Guys,
    It succeded me, via an insider, to get this Russian vaccine against COVID-19. And for people who are scared that it is not tested and sæfe, i can tēll yöū i triəd itski and thëræ is hardly efectoski secundarioski и меня зовут Лопес Обрадор, и я коррумпирован и лжец и почему я даю чистые прямые награды.


  • #145
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Yeah but we're in the CT forum. It's not reresentative.
    It was started elsewhere.
    By someone who believes the mark of the beast angle is reasonable.

    It's pretty representative I think.


  • #146
    FutureTeashock
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 439 ✭✭FutureTeashock


    King Mob wrote: »
    It was started elsewhere.
    By someone who believes the mark of the beast angle is reasonable.

    It's pretty representative I think.

    Don't put words in my mouth! My reasons are stated in the first post.

    I meant I can see why people are citing the mark of the beast.

    Those people, unlike me, are obviously religious.


  • #147
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    There is no way that a significant number of people who don't get the vaccine will be doing so because of the mark of the beast.

    Measles is making a comeback because this exact problem exists. There are a multitude of reasons why people refuse vaccines, many of these "reasons" are related to vaccine-denial disinfo, and increasingly many are linked to this new wave of "vaccine skepticism", aka the art of casting doubt of vaccine effectiveness

    It's all underscored by a lack of understanding by lay-people, some of whom falsely believe they know as much or more than the consensus of medical science. Often these people display the same traits of not trusting authority (experts, researchers, regulators, etc) and instead turning to internet "info" on the subject. Likewise, they are often easily manipulated by isolated cases, or isolated "experts", rather than anything systematic.


  • #148
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    FutureTeashock wrote: »
    They don't need a scientific reason to reject the vaccine. In fact they don't need any reason at all. It's their choice! Why is it so hard for you to grasp that?:confused:
    But shouldn't that choice be based on good information and clear thinking?

    What if the reason they don't want to get the vaccine isn't true (like the idea that it's a giant world government plot as predicted in the bible.)?
    I guess we're not allowed to point that out or explain why it isn't true cause it will interfere with their choice?


  • #149
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    And WEF has said they want to reset every aspect of human behaviour. I find that alarming.

    I'll admit that I've only browsed the WEF site in relation to the great reset.

    Just wondering if there a link to their plan to reset every aspect of human behaviour?


  • #150
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    FutureTeashock wrote: »
    Don't put words in my mouth! My reasons are stated in the first post.

    I meant I can see why people are citing the mark of the beast.

    Those people, unlike me, are obviously religious.
    But you said it was a valid reason for rejecting the vaccine. :confused:

    Do you not believe the bible predicted these vaccines?
    Are the people who do believe that wrong?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    storker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,688 ✭✭✭storker


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    His predictions have a habit of coming true, and he has extraordinary influence on global health.

    Maybe he's a prophet.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement