Anti-vaxxers

Dohnjoe

Howard Beale wrote: »

Calling them morons shows your unbelievable narcissism and unwillingness to accept alternative opinion.

Disinformation isn't an "alternative opinion" it's disinformation. Medical disinfo can be dangerous.

ancapailldorcha

Howard Beale wrote: »

You don't have to.

You assume ALL doctors on planet Earth are for a covid19 vaccine?
I don't believe you on that.

Here's some VERY high profile doctors completely against covid vaccines.

Dr Heiko Schöning
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya
Dr Anne McCloskey
Dr Phil Hammond
Dr Rashid Buttar etc etc

So just appeal to authority then and discard any expert who disagrees with you?

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Personally I couldn't care less if they choose not to take a vaccine. They're welcome to take on natural selection without any assistance from science.
However, in doing so, they are making a potentially dangerous choice for their kids based on ignorance or paranoia.
They are also making a choice that could impact on vulnerable who are medically unable to take a vaccine.

Ultimately, in my view, they are selfish morons.
I haven't accused you of being part of that group but you seem to be going out of your way to defend their actions..

We need them to for herd immunity though. If they don't then airlines, venue organisers, schools and so on should only be catering to people who have had the vaccine.

Agreed on the selfish morons bit. They can't even comprehend the need to protect themselves from the disease.

km991148

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I think we call all agree that the pharmaceutical conglomerates have our best interests at heart

And this exact sentiment is what many really believe and I think underpins the whole cancel culture style of thinking.

Are vaccines good? - of course.
Do pharmaceutical companies have other (potentially conflicting) interests than public health? Of course.

Solution: Better control/ fix issues in medical supply
Not "Cancel vaccines".

Same applies in politics, the BBC/RTE (Defund) etc - the extreme mentality these days is nuts.



EDIT - Just realised this thread was started years ago and discussion has been all over the place since this quoted post.. :pac:

Pinch Flat

Loving the logic of anti-vaxxers. Few lads I was in school I'm friends with on FB - all staunch anti vax/ anti science/plandemic / scamdemic /masks are killing you merchants.

Then you see photos or videos they've shared or commented on from the 90s. "Ah sure if love to be there out of my head now on a few tabs now". Sure, if taking tablets of dubious quality that have been smuggled through some ones digestive system is your thing sure knock your self out.

endacl

km991148 wrote: »

EDIT - Just realised this thread was started years ago and discussion has been all over the place since this quoted post.. :pac:

Doesn't matter. The thread kinda goes round in circles. Like what passes for antivax 'thinking'.

baaba maal

Howard Beale wrote: »

You don't have to.

You assume ALL doctors on planet Earth are for a covid19 vaccine?
I don't believe you on that.

Here's some VERY high profile doctors completely against covid vaccines.

Dr Heiko Schöning
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya
Dr Anne McCloskey
Dr Phil Hammond
Dr Rashid Buttar etc etc

Find me the quote where D. Jay Bhattacharya the VERY high profile doctor (i.e. a Great Barrington Declaration signatory) states he is completely against Covid vaccines.

I'm guessing you (like Dr. Bhattacharya) are libertarian by nature -fair play, we all arrive at our own world view.

However, proposing herd immunity is not the same as being against vaccines in principle.

You quote medical support By five people against vaccines for covid, but the vast and overwhelming majority of people who work at senior roles in epidimiology, virology etc. base their support for covid vaccines on facts also.

The herd immunity option proposed by the good doctor has not worked out in the open air experiment that was Sweden for the last six months. By the by, check out the American Institute for Economic Research, a Koch brothers-funded anti-science pro fossil fuel lobby group "thinktank".

PHG

@ Howard,

You really don't do your research. I googled Dr Phillip Hammond and he said he would take the vaccine once approved by MHRA

Howard Beale

baaba maal wrote: »

Find me the quote where D. Jay Bhattacharya the VERY high profile doctor (i.e. a Great Barrington Declaration signatory) states he is completely against Covid vaccines.

I'm guessing you (like Dr. Bhattacharya) are libertarian by nature -fair play, we all arrive at our own world view.

However, proposing herd immunity is not the same as being against vaccines in principle.

You quote medical support By five people against vaccines for covid, but the vast and overwhelming majority of people who work at senior roles in epidimiology, virology etc. base their support for covid vaccines on facts also.

The herd immunity option proposed by the good doctor has not worked out in the open air experiment that was Sweden for the last six months. By the by, check out the American Institute for Economic Research, a Koch brothers-funded anti-science pro fossil fuel lobby group "thinktank".

Well obviously more than 5 against vaccines but you know. Those for vaccines base their support on facts? Such as? There is little to no facts on a covid vaccine accept it may be 95% effective which is still far less than the immune system.

By their own admission immune system is 99% effective against vaccines yet we need to spend billions on vaccines that are 90-95% effective and they admit they know little to nothing off the long term side effects? How could they? Even Lunatic Luke O Neill admits they haven't a clue of long term side effects.


So people will take a highly unique vaccine that's LESS effective than their immune system?

Forewarned is forewarned.

People can do as they please but when they start feeling funny and eventually feel those 'side effects' and end up like Christopher Reeve don't say you weren't warned about this RNA vaccine. As Radiohead sang 'You do it to yourself and that's what really hurts'.

Annasopra

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Of those I only am familiar with one: Anne McCloskey is also against the use of face masks.
I can only assume that despite being a GP, her personal beliefs do not include the use of scientific knowledge. :rolleyes:

This seems to be a list of Dolores Cahills colleagues

Debunked Dolores

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ucd-professor-asked-to-resign-from-eu-committee-over-covid-19-claims-1.4277698?mode=amp

https://collegetribune.ie/ucd-doctor-makes-numerous-false-claims-about-covid-19/


https://healthfeedback.org/computing-forever-interview-with-dolores-cahill-contains-numerous-inaccuracies-about-covid-19-and-vaccines/


https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-conspiracy-wuhan-immunity-lockdown-computing-forever-2020-5?r=US&IR=T


https://www.poynter.org/?ifcn_misinformation=dolores-cahill-in-computing-forever-interview-claims-that-taking-vitamins-c-and-d-as-well-as-zinc-boosts-the-immune-system-against-covid-19-that-hydroxychloroquine-has-been-proven-effective-against-c

http://collegetribune.ie/dolores-cahill-students-blast-head-of-medicine-with-15000-word-letter-after-failing-to-respond-to-complaints/

I wonder why all the Anti Vaxxers arent asking questions about her Big Pharma links or her money spent on a Castle

baaba maal

///

Howard Beale wrote: »

Well obviously more than 5 against vaccines but you know. Those for vaccines base their support on facts? Such as? There is little to no facts on a covid vaccine accept it may be 95% effective which is still far less than the immune system.

By their own admission immune system is 99% effective against vaccines yet we need to spend billions on vaccines that are 90-95% effective and they admit they know little to nothing off the long term side effects? How could they? Even Lunatic Luke O Neill admits they haven't a clue of long term side effects.


So people will take a highly unique vaccine that's LESS effective than their immune system?

Forewarned is forewarned.

People can do as they please but when they start feeling funny and eventually feel those 'side effects' and end up like Christopher Reeve don't say you weren't warned about this RNA vaccine. As Radiohead sang 'You do it to yourself and that's what really hurts'.

So, you go by the findings of five people who haven't actually argued against vaccines so therefore you don't know their reasoning, and weigh that as being more relevant than the entirety of the medical world? Forewarned my eye. You re simply looking for people to agree with your worldview and working back from there.

Christopher Reeve fell off a horse and much later had a heart attack after taking an antibiotic, so I'm not sure why you mentioned him?

CramCycle

Howard Beale wrote: »

Well obviously more than 5 against vaccines but you know. Those for vaccines base their support on facts? Such as? There is little to no facts on a covid vaccine accept it may be 95% effective which is still far less than the immune system.

What does this sentence mean? Some peoples immune systems don't react at all, others are compromised to the point it could kill them, some over react and many react but we have no idea for how long immunity is given for, so unless you want to simply kill off or accept the damage to those who won't have a good first run at infection, a vaccine may provide a safer and more moral solution

By their own admission immune system is 99% effective against vaccines yet we need to spend billions on vaccines that are 90-95% effective and they admit they know little to nothing off the long term side effects? How could they? Even Lunatic Luke O Neill admits they haven't a clue of long term side effects.

This sentence makes no sense, vaccines work with your immune system. That is how they work

So people will take a highly unique vaccine that's LESS effective than their immune system?

?!?!? I really hope you have some data that backs this up

People can do as they please but when they start feeling funny and eventually feel those 'side effects' and end up like Christopher Reeve don't say you weren't warned about this RNA vaccine. As Radiohead sang 'You do it to yourself and that's what really hurts'.

Christopher Reeve broke his neck in a horse riding accident, what do you think happened to him?

silliussoddius

The horse caught autism from a vaccine?

Igotadose

Howard Beale wrote: »

Well obviously more than 5 against vaccines but you know. Those for vaccines base their support on facts? Such as? There is little to no facts on a covid vaccine accept it may be 95% effective which is still far less than the immune system.

17 posts, uhuh. Not supposed to guess whose the rereg, but whatever.

1) Learn to spell.
2) You don't understand math or probability. "Such as?" Really?

So people will take a highly unique vaccine that's LESS effective than their immune system?

Highly unique is redundant. I smell the output of the US education system here. It's unique, or it isn't.

How about you actually present *some data* rather than the appeal to authority you've engaged in.

Forewarned is forewarned.

Huh? Did you mean 'forewarned is forearmed?" Here's one down your alley: "Stupid is, as stupid does." Run, Forrest! Run!

People can do as they please but when they start feeling funny and eventually feel those 'side effects' and end up like Christopher Reeve don't say you weren't warned about this RNA vaccine. As Radiohead sang 'You do it to yourself and that's what really hurts'.

It's an mRNA vaccine. Do you know what that is? Can you describe it? No linky poo here, write down how it works and why you think it'll affect us like Christopher Reeve (poor bugger fell off a horse ffs.)

paul71

PHG wrote: »

@ Howard,

You really don't do your research. I googled Dr Phillip Hammond and he said he would take the vaccine once approved by MHRA

Of course he did his research, 30 seconds on google.


Against 100s of billions of hours spent by millions of university educated medical professionals over the course of 300 years.

They are all wrong and he is right.

Howard Beale

Howard Beale wrote: »

Well obviously more than 5 against vaccines but you know. Those for vaccines base their support on facts? Such as? There is little to no facts on a covid vaccine accept it may be 95% effective which is still far less than the immune system.

By their own admission immune system is 99% effective against vaccines yet we need to spend billions on vaccines that are 90-95% effective and they admit they know little to nothing off the long term side effects? How could they? Even Lunatic Luke O Neill admits they haven't a clue of long term side effects.


So people will take a highly unique vaccine that's LESS effective than their immune system?

Forewarned is forewarned.

People can do as they please but when they start feeling funny and eventually feel those 'side effects' and end up like Christopher Reeve don't say you weren't warned about this RNA vaccine. As Radiohead sang 'You do it to yourself and that's what really hurts'.

Howard, do you think vaccines are a part of some of the conspiracies you've espoused since this morning?

Igotadose

Deleted User wrote: »

Howard, do you think vaccines are a part of some of the conspiracies you've espoused since this morning?

Nah, he's just "Mad as hell and not going to take it anymore." Probably will be throwing his mum's TV out the window sometime soon.

Sad thing is, he's got nothing to say that isn't simply wrong.

banie01

Rather than rehash the usual debunking steps.
I would point out that on more than one occasion since beginning posting on this thread.
Our latest Anti-vaxxer has confused "accept" with "except".
If basic English is beyond their ken, forgive me if I avoid basing any view on vaccines or their geopolitical impact...
Like a proverbial plague

Dohnjoe

baaba maal wrote: »

I was just over on the Gemtrails thread- yikes! Howard reckons it's the Zionists behind it all.

When they are just savvy enough not to say "ze Jews".

paul71

baaba maal wrote: »

I was just over on the Gemtrails thread- yikes! Howard reckons it's the Zionists behind it all.

Oh dear, I just saw those posts. It is telling that a couple of the usual pro-plaguers here just auto-thanked his posts.

Capt'n Midnight

Howard Beale wrote: »

People need to ask 3 questions on the covid19 vaccine.

1. What EXACTLY is in it and what are these substances?
What EXACTLY is in food ? Ingredients like flour have other ingredients.
And yes the ingredients in vaccines have been explained in great detail so your Google-Fu is weak.


2. What is the testing that has been done and what are the protocols for measuring these people?
Mr Google might help you there, stick to peer reviewed sites.

3. I should have a choice over these items being injected into me and if not why not?
What you do in private on your own is your business.
We are just coming out of a 6 week long level 5 lockdown.
Unmasked asymptomatic spreaders are a huge issue, so IMHO those who refuse to vaccinate should be held in quarantine (for their own protection) until the pandemic has been controlled.


Whatever happened to my body my choice?

Let's be very clear.

Once the number of preventable deaths per year goes beyond the number of active antivaxxers the moral question is not if but how to stop the anti-vax movement.


I'd distinguish between those who generate stories and those who propagate them without a vested financial agenda.

Howard Beale

paul71 wrote: »

Of course he did his research, 30 seconds on google.


Against 100s of billions of hours spent by millions of university educated medical professionals over the course of 300 years.

They are all wrong and he is right.

Not sure if you can read it really really seems to be a problem on this site people misinterpreting things and being incapable of reading plain simple English and getting it arseways.

I never mentioned research or even anyone being wrong on anything !. Again you did.

Apologies if you are very severely dyslexic but it's clear to me you can't read all too good.


I am simply stating many people want to have a clear CHOICE what they have injected into their body. It really is that simple.

You want to be forced to be vaccinated against your will be my guest.

ohnonotgmail

Howard Beale wrote: »

Not sure if you can read it really really seems to be a problem on this site people misinterpreting things and being incapable of reading plain simple English and getting it arseways.

I never mentioned research or even anyone being wrong on anything !. Again you did.

Apologies if you are very severely dyslexic but it's clear to me you can't read all too good.


I am simply stating many people want to have a clear CHOICE what they have injected into their body. It really is that simple.

You want to be forced to be vaccinated against your will be my guest.

and that choice needs to be made using good information not somebody who has watched a few YT videos or read some quotes taken out of context.

CramCycle

Apologies if you are very severely dyslexic but it's clear to me you can't read all too good.
I am simply stating many people want to have a clear CHOICE what they have injected into their body. It really is that simple.

You implied Christopher Reeves injuries were due to vaccines rather than a severe injury from falling from a horse, so I wouldn't start casting aspersions on people and their ability to read.

You want to be forced to be vaccinated against your will be my guest.

No one is being forced, I certainly wouldn't force it on anyone but if you choose not to get it, you should accept for the safety of others that you may have to be a bit more restrictive in your movements until infection rates are almost non existent

Howard Beale

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Let's be very clear.

Once the number of preventable deaths per year goes beyond the number of active antivaxxers the moral question is not if but how to stop the anti-vax movement.


I'd distinguish between those who generate stories and those who propagate them without a vested financial agenda.

You want everyone force vaccinated against their will? I haven't a clue what a 'anti vax movement' even is you internet hermits and your immature buzwords these days.

Stalin and Mussolini had nothing on you lad if you want everyone forced against their will to do something.

It's incredible people take a adversarial position from someone simply stating


People do want a choice over vaccines. Nothing more nothing less. It's your body and no government or company has a right to force something into it.


It blows my mind really really blows my mind people WANT to be forced vaccinated and not even concern themselves for one single second whats actually in it. Something that is permanently injected into your body forever. Astonishing how people can be so naive and ignorant and childlike in their innocence of the government. Like everything done ever is always for our benefit. Amazing!

And all this shyte about oh are you a medical expert and all this usual guff.

Well why would one need to be to want to KNOW what's going into THEIR bodies?

Does one have to be a chef to appreciate food or a musician to like music? Course not but suddenly someone needs to be a 'medical expert' in matters concerning their OWN body?
Gimme a break!


Away you go lad take the vaccine and all the boosters that come along with it but don't be cribbing when ill fortune awaits your health for indeed you will have done it to yourself and all that indemnity the vaccine makers have makes sure you won't get a single cent.

Of course they all indemnified themselves against prosecution because it's so safe eh?



Funnily enough in a thread on 'anti vaxxers' whatever the hell that is.

Not one person can tell me why

a)They don't care what the hell is injected into them like to such an extent they get angry with people for asking and


b) why would all the pharmaceutical companies make sure to indemnify themselves against prosecution if they thought it was so very safe? They would be no need to.

Dohnjoe

Howard Beale wrote: »

You want everyone force vaccinated against their will?

I'm still trying to figure out how you extrapolated that from the post you replied to..

CramCycle

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I'm still trying to figure out how you extrapolated that from the post you replied to..

Its weird right, I don't recall anyone saying people will or should be forced. No public health professional in their right mind would even suggest it as it simply won't happen for a variety of reasons.

endacl

Howard Beale wrote: »

You want everyone force vaccinated against their will?

Only when they come up with a vaccine for stupid.

Grant Stevens

CramCycle wrote: »

You implied Christopher Reeves injuries were due to vaccines rather than a severe injury from falling from a horse, so I wouldn't start casting aspersions on people and their ability to read.


No one is being forced, I certainly wouldn't force it on anyone but if you choose not to get it, you should accept for the safety of others that you may have to be a bit more restrictive in your movements until infection rates are almost non existent

"safety of others"... Interesting. Since they're vaccinated then surely they've nothing to worry about?

ancapailldorcha

Grant Stevens wrote: »

"safety of others"... Interesting. Since they're vaccinated then surely they've nothing to worry about?

Viruses, espeically RNA-based ones like SARS-CoV-2 mutate. The whole point is to deny them the breeding ground to do so by vaccinating.

Seth Brundle

Howard Beale wrote: »

I am simply stating many people want to have a clear CHOICE what they have injected into their body. It really is that simple.

People do have a clear choice.
However, when some people allow their choice to be swayed by selfish pre-tend experts who have next-to-no scientific knowledge then that is a cause for concern, especially when their misinformed choice affects their children or other vulnerable people.

Howard Beale wrote: »

You want to be forced to be vaccinated against your will be my guest.

Who exactly has been or will be forced to take a vaccine?