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

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Options
1152153155157158419

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 28,193 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    I've read 1 of his posts, not two or three just the 1. If you say he's a liar that's fine but I can't take your word as your also one.

    Twitter, no dude she was on the TV. You said she didn't say what she said, then you said her data was bullshit. You completley misrepresented reality.

    What has twitter got to do with anything, when you said you don't work for the Goverment, Do they work for you, Morning President Higgins. Twtter Bad, Buzz Bad. Elon Bad.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,193 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Oh and that "lady" she's a qulified Scientist, you asked for one.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol. More misrepresentation as per usual.

    And notice how you've dodged my question.

    I asked you where you saw that clip. I doubt very much that you are an avid fan of the Rachael Maddow Show and just happened to come across that clip whilst you were taking your nightly notes on the show.

    So where did you, you personally first see that clip.

    Be honest now.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yea man. Ladies can be scientists too.

    What's your point?



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,193 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    I don't remember, problay Fox they usually rip her one. It was headline news at the time. Everyone hearlding the great succes just like Luke did, CDC watered it down shorlty afterward.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 28,193 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    It sounded at but misogynistic, "that lady", much like the "you people" the other day when talking about Tony's dodgy deal.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    They were showing whole clips of the Rachel Maddow show on Fox News?

    And you're a watcher of Fox News? Do you not understand that's not exactly better than finding shite on twitter?

    Do you mean that lady who you're accusing of abusing her authority and lying on national TV because she's involved in a sinister global conspiracy?

    Or are you accusing her of being incompetent and not understanding field as well as you, an untrained rando who gets his info from twitter and Fox news?

    Seems much more bad manners to accuse a lady of such things than to refer to her as a lady.


    Also, not sure what post you're referring to, but despite your attempt to try and misrepresent it, I believe "you people" was referring to you conspiracy theorists.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,193 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Your not really tuned in to what's happening if you don't know who "you people" are. Luke was on Pat Kenny and YouTube with his comments, are they not approved sources of information either? Have you heard the term don't shoot the messanger, it doesn't matter where it was said, it's who said it is important.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol. Sorry no, I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be rambling now.


    And unfortunatly, it does matter where things are said. If you are getting your views and opinions from places like fox news and twitter cranks, which you are, then it means you are open to being influenced by the biases of those.

    I know you don't understand this as otherwise you wouldn't be getting your information from those sources.

    You wouldn't be so afraid of addressing points either.


    Also, you seem to have missed the other point I made. You accused me of being a sexist because I called a lady a lady.

    Could you confirm this is the same lady you're accusing of being involved in a conspiracy or too stupid for her job?

    Just wanna be clear about that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,193 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    You made a point of calling her "that lady" it was deliberately dismissive of her position and qualifications. Not so much a slur against women, more of one against scientists when you don't like what they say.

    I'm still waiting for you to show us the science, anytime your ready. The approved sources of information would be handy as well so I don't get caught out in wrong think.

    So far today the fake news consists of:

    Newstalk, Twitter, Fox News, MSNBC, any more?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Sorry. I made the point because I was being deliberately dismissive of her position and qualifications? You get that just from be referring to her as a lady?

    But you're only just accusing her of being involved in a global conspiracy or being too stupid to actually hold her position?

    Sorry mate, that doesn't make sense. That's massively hypocritical on your part.


    And again, you're misrepresenting my points.

    Twitter is not a news site. Conspiracy cranks on twitter are not a news source.

    Fox news isn't much better.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,193 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    lol, such nonsense, you were being dismissive of her, you junked her science earlier.

    Twisting the narrative to suit yourself again, the only one misrepresenting you is you.

    Show me the science?



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol. No man. I did no such thing. You're welcome to point out where. But you won't because that's another misrepresentation on your part.

    Personally, I believe she is highly qualified and is relying on solid, accurate research. I have no issues with her.

    You however believe that she's part of a global conspiracy or at least is not as good at her job as you are.

    Which is it?


    What's happened here is you thought that you could score a point by accusing me of sexism or some such. (Which I thought was something only woke libs did, but...) However, since you didn't think it through you kinda played yourself on that.

    It's really funny man.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,193 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    That's some about turn from the "that lady" comment.

    Her research was neither solid or accurate, it turned out to be completely false.

    There was a touch or sexism to your post whether you acknowledge it or not.

    Time for the daily verse I think, brought to you today by 1 Corinthians 3:18

    Stop deceiving yourselves. If you think you are wise by this world’s standards, you need to become a fool to be truly wise.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    No, there's been no turn around. You were just trying to falsely attribute a stance to me because you were desperate for a point to score and you thought you could accuse me of sexism. There was no touch of sexism. That was entirely in your own head mate.

    However, we can see that now you are actually dismissive of her, you are junking her science because you don't agree with her. This makes you a massive hypocrite on top of a liar and a serial misrepresenter.

    Pretty sure there's something in the bible about that... something about hypocrisy and baring false witness etc etc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,991 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Sorry, are you against vaccines in general or just the Covid vaccines

    If yes, why?



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,193 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    No I don't agree with her that the Vaccine stops you from getting sick or transmitting the virus, that was utter bullshit of the highest order. Yet you now say that was good data, solid and accurate were your words.

    The dogs in the street knew what you meant by the "that lady" comment, is there anyone else you need to vent about today, woke, libs seem to be another bug bears of you, at least you didn't start bible bashing, there's still hope you can be saved.

    Still waiting on your data, you've had plenty of time to find it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,193 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Who said I was against vaccines, the latest news on the Polio one is worrying though, they need a vaccine to fix the side effects from the vaccine, you couldn't make it up.

    Did I trust Trumps plan on covid vaccines, no not really to be honest but was open to getting one.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,991 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    So just to confirm you aren't against vaccines (nor the Covid vaccines). Okay.

    If you have very specific concern with a specific treatment, surely that's a topic for the health/medical forum not the conspiracy theories one.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,193 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    I'm against them for people who don't need them or when there's no evidence for any benifits which is the current situation. The push to vax 6mt up now is coming, hopefully sense will prevail and the madness stops, i'm not convinced many parents will take up the offer.

    I mentioned the polio one as it's another emergency one, things can go wrong when you cut corners, that's why I wasn't confident Trump made the correct call. Time will tell.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    I’m not anti-vax but….


    Here we go again.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But mate, that isn't what she said.

    And no, no one but yourself took my comment on that really roundabout trip you did.

    You're the only one who's dismissing her credentials and questioning her science. You're accusing her of crimes or being stupid.

    You still won't say which it is btw.


    And lol, you're the one who was quoting the bible.


    Are you going for a record of quickest time to prove you're a massive hypocrite? Or are you going for number of times you're proven to be a massive hypocrite?



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,991 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    The Covid vaccines reduce chance of death by around 90%. If you catch Covid unvaccinated you are much more likely to die from it. People of all ages can die from Covid (with risk increasing with age)

    How is that not a benefit?



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Well according to Buzzer and now Drunkmonkey, one possibility is that the vaccines will cause 50% of all people to die from cancer.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,193 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Omicron reduces the chance by 91% over delta and that's likely a long lasing immunity. Most 1-17yr olds have had it and 98.8%+ of adults have antibodies if our stats are anything like the UK and US.

    Benifit not clear for most people.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,193 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    It's up there with they'll all start turning into tasty marshmallows.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But the vaccines still have less risk of serious side effects than those of covid.

    It's also telling that you're just assuming that covid doesn't have any long term side effects that don't mysteriously crop up with no signs or indications beforehand like you guys are trying to claim about vaccines.

    How do you know for a fact that this isn't the case?

    Yup. All the conspiracy claims on this thread are pure nonsense. Yet you defend and entertain them.


    Also, look at that. Abandoning points again.

    How long will this new one last I wonder...



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,193 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    We just had a massive wave and reinfection rate seems to be holding steady. Nearly everyone has caught a variant from the vaccine or infection. It's time to pause, fine tune vaccines in case of some crazy mutant variant, make it safer for young men at the very least.

    I haven't been reading them to pass judgement.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    And this is based on your twitter doctorate? Your 15 minute youtube dissertation?

    Your opinion doesn't carry much weight man. Especially when you've shown yourself to not be particularly honest or rational over these last few pages.

    You claimed that the director of the CDC was lying on national TV, or was too dumb to understand why she was wrong. Why should we believe you over her? Or you over the huge number of doctors and medical organisations?


    If you haven't been reading the claims of the conspiracy theorists (which I don't believe btw) then you haven't been reading this thread. It begs the question why you're posting here in the first place when you're not interested in discussing conspiracy theories.

    (Imma guess it's cause you've been turfed out of the big boy discussions.)



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Seems distinctly like the anti vaxxers end up here when they get banned from elsewhere. Then that other poster n is reminding me of a guy who went off on abusive rants when he got called out.



Advertisement