Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

buzzerxx

"There is a strong emphasis in totalitarian propaganda on the 'scientific' nature of its

assertions. Science in the instance of totalitarian propaganda is obviously

only a surrogate for power. Science has become an idol"

--Hannah Arendt, 1951

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119209825#Comment_119209825

Lol.

You haven't read any of Hannah Arendt beyond this one quote that you read on a tweet.

Just name dropping famous smart people doesn't make your point better Buzzer. It just makes you look more and more brainless.

Especially when you've run away from EVERY argument made against you.

drunkmonkey

Canada health authorities claiming a 3rd jab prevents against infection and transmission will be updating what it means to be vaccinated.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8919947/covid-canada-update-fully-vaccinated-definition/

Seems a lot of poster here disagree it prevents against transmission and infection to any great degree they even say it was never meant to, does that make King Mob & Co conspiracy theorists now as they're not believing the science?

I wonder if Trudeau ever heard of Waterford.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119209910#Comment_119209910

We've really jumped the shark here. Drunkmonkey is claiming vaccines work !!!!

drunkmonkey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119209970#Comment_119209970

I am? I'm disputing it prevents against transmission and infection, does that make me a good guy now.

https://mobile.twitter.com/GusBjornstrand/status/1537157683115003905

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119209910#Comment_119209910

Lol. It's funny cause you're doing the same thing as buzzer.

You didn't read that article.

drunkmonkey

I did "two doses are not enough now to protect against infection and transmission"

They were never enough!!!

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119210067#Comment_119210067

That's a lie. But ok.

You didn't read the article though. You just stole the link from a tweet like you did with the Israeli study you lied about.

It's the same thing buzzer does,

Why should we take you any more seriously?

At least buzzer doesn't waste time and effort on the transparent charade you're engaging in.

drunkmonkey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119210104#Comment_119210104

It's not a lie, interesting to see Sky News quote someone saying "original antigenic sin". That was one of the original conspiracy theories and still is to my knowledge.

"There are some interesting changes with those two because they have increased antibody-evasive properties."

The Imperial study published this week was carried out on 700 London health workers from March 2020 onwards.

Although they all had three vaccine doses, their Omicron reinfection rates differed.

That is because, they say, people's protection against new COVID variants depends on their specific vaccination and infection history - a concept called immune imprinting or 'original antigenic sin'.

Dr Peter English, former Public Health England consultant in communicable disease control, says: "There was a big concern in the beginning with vaccines and original antigenic sin.

"It's whereby if you are infected with an earlier variant and produce an immune response to it, when you're infected with a new variant, your body essentially produces the original immune response, which is the wrong one, because it doesn't realise it's a new variant, which needs a different immune response.

"We're beginning to see signs that this is the case with these new Omicron sub-variants.

"So we might have been unduly hopeful it wouldn't be.""

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-is-the-uk-on-the-brink-of-a-new-coronavirus-wave-and-should-we-be-worried-12634228

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119210153#Comment_119210153

Ok. If you say so man. It's not a lie like you didn't lie about the Israeli paper. No point in arguing with you.

But why should we take you any more seriously than Buzzer when you're doing the same thing as him.

You're both just parroting shite from twitter like good little puppets.

drunkmonkey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119210167#Comment_119210167

No I didn't, asked you which one specifically you wanted, still waiting.

OAS is what Vanden Bossche was warning would happen from the start and now we're seeing the conspiracy theory appear in MSM, I assume you believe he's a conspiracy theorist and OAS can't happen, have I you wrong on those two points?

buzzerxx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119210167#Comment_119210167

You and your little band of Shysters are the real Parroters of shite on all the conspiracy discussions.

Do you really believe there are no psychopaths at all in this world involved in conspiracies or are you paid to defend them?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119210212#Comment_119210212

Yes, And you're playing dumb because you don't want to admit that you didn't actually read the study past what was in the tweet. That's fine. We've already established this.

But the point now is that you are just doing what buzzer is doing. Parroting crap you find on twitter.

Everyone understands that Buzzer is a joke and should be ignored.

Why are you different?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119210248#Comment_119210248

But buzzer, you're literially copy and pasting stuff from twitter without actually reading or understanding it.

You run away every time you're challenged because you're not able to address any points by yourself.

Even other conspiracy theorists pretend you don't exist.

Why is that you think?

And again, no man, we're not paid to post here. That's just something you're making up because you're in a pissy mood and want to pretend to be important.

drunkmonkey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119210252#Comment_119210252

Your lying, are you going to claim I don't read Sky News either, I did not find that article from today on Twitter. I glanced at the headlines and read the article little did I think they'd mention a study that backs up the Original conspiracy theory. These mRNA vaccines will cause Original Antigenic Sin.

Did you notice there was no control group in the study, lolz, I wonder why.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119210316#Comment_119210316

I don't believe you.

You did find that article on twitter or facebook or parler or whatever your social media of choice is.

It doesn't matter.

It's the same thing that Buzzer does. Why do you believe it's different?

buzzerxx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119209875#Comment_119209875

Is there ANY Conspiracy theory you support? ANY ,or are you a Troll?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119210405#Comment_119210405

I'll answer any question you like when you stop just copy pasting from twitter and dodging when you're confronted.

So lets start simple.

Why do you think your fellow conspiracy theorists ignore you and don't at all seem to want to agree with you?

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119210248#Comment_119210248

https://youtu.be/pPHjJnFqs-s?t=367

There's plenty of psychopaths in the world. Not Groucho Marx, though.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119209062#Comment_119209062

The results were repeated across multiple trials on multiple countries, all showing the effect on severity and not just for Pfizer, but Moderna and Astrazeneca as well, so that's at least 9 trials showing effects against severe disease that was measured during trials. I would call that proven, scientists would call that proven, the real world data that came from Israel then showed the effect was even greater than the trial results showed, the hospitalisation figures of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated proved this all through the rollout and for the different various, there was not just an abundance of data from the trials but an abundance of data throughout showing the vaccines work, and as you have now built your argument on the EMA approval data (which is there for multiple vaccines), you can't deny that anymore.

You will try of course, but you have trapped yourself even further with the only escape route being to deny the EMA data you have built upon.

It will be interesting to see where you spin to next as I have fully proven my statement in detail a baby could understand (most CT'rs mark the EMA data as falsified because it blows their argument apart, the secondary endpont remark lulled you into a false sense of security).

buzzerxx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119210663#Comment_119210663

I don't know why.

Is there ANY Conspiracy theory you support? ANY ,or are you a Troll?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119211096#Comment_119211096

The results were repeated across multiple trials on multiple countries, all showing the effect on severity and not just for Pfizer, but Moderna and Astrazeneca as well, so that's at least 9 trials showing effects against severe disease that was measured during trials. I would call that proven, scientists would call that proven

Measured does not equate to proven. You call it proven. The scientists call it imprecise.

However, a precise estimate of its protective effect is presently lacking.

Why do you think you know better than the experts?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119211123#Comment_119211123

No. There is nothing I would consider a conspiracy theory that I believe is true.

Conspiracies happen, but those aren't the ones that are being discussed here.

Does it not bother you that they don't support your claims? Does it not throw up a red flag for you that your claims are considered to be so ridiculous that not even other conspiracy theorists will believe them?

drunkmonkey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119210353#Comment_119210353

Well I'm not telling lies it was one of the top story's on Sky News this morning, it's not something I went looking for or taken from Twitter.

Your engaging in complete whataboutism guessing where the article came from rather than discussing it's contents, Sky News article points to the biggest fear some scientists had with these Vaccines, you've nothing to say on the Original Antigenic Sin conspiracy turning into a reality bar I must have seen it on Twitter so it's lies even though it's sitting on the front page of sky news right now.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119211437#Comment_119211437

Ok. So because you got this claim from Sky News rather than twitter, that's the difference between you and buzzer?

drunkmonkey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119211452#Comment_119211452

More whataboutism, nothing to say on the study and the qualified commentary on it. Thought so.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119211190#Comment_119211190

You do know the difference between proven efficacy and knowing the precise efficacy? None of the precise estimates were available post trials, however, the vaccines were proven to work.

They turned out to work better than the trial estimates for severe disease, which I've been saying from the start.

Have you finished obsessing over my statement yet? (funnily enough I had meant it as a throwaway comment and was more focusing on how quickly the positive effects were seen into the rollout with the approvals being more about the 95% efficacy, you've done your level best at proving the statement entirely though and thoroughly disproven your own position 🤣, do you want to look through the approval data for other vaccines and other authorities now?).

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119212345#Comment_119212345

You do know the difference between proven efficacy and knowing the precise efficacy? None of the precise estimates were available post trials, however, the vaccines were proven to work.

Yes they can be considered proven to work in the trials for the prevention against Covid. Because they met certain thresholds. And thus the approvers had confidence in stating the estimated efficacy. In other words the total opposite of protection against severe covid.

Have you finished obsessing over my statement yet? (funnily enough I had meant it as a throwaway comment and was more focusing on how quickly the positive effects were seen into the rollout with the approvals being more about the 95% efficacy, 

Throwaway comment?! Total horseshit. You came up with this phrase as part of your weird attempt to get me to say why did I think the approvers would lie. I say weird because I never said the approvers lied. I said I agreed with them.

Your statement was a direct reply to me when I answered your question: Which means you are back to either calling the scientists/approvers liars or backing down, again, which is it? I posted:

If the scientists/approvers or yourself or whoever else is currently saying the vaccines were approved to reduce the severity of symptomatic disease rather than to prevent symptomatic disease then yes I am calling them liars.

I am confident in doing this because the regulatory approval reports published at time of approval showed there was insufficient data to conclusively state the vaccines would be effective at preventing severity, no matter how much they might have hoped or expected that would be the case.

Do you disagree?

You replied:

I disagree that the approvers were liars, the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials that were then repeated with real world data. 

And you've been clutching at straws ever since.

do you want to look through the approval data for other vaccines and other authorities now?

I've already posted the EMA comments on severity for the other vaccines. I'll repost to remind you:

Moderna

From the experience with other vaccines it is expected that prevention of severe COVID-19 will be achieved by preventing COVID-19 overall.

The case-driven readout and high VE translates into limited case numbers at present and resulting limited precision for estimating VE in several substrata including elderly, people with comorbidities and efficacy against severe COVID-19.

AstraZeneca

Although encouraging trends were observed, reliable efficacy estimates against severe COVID-19 and hospitalisation caused by COVID-19 could not be established due to the lack of a sufficient number of cases within the clinical studies. From the experience with other vaccines it is expected that prevention of severe COVID-19 will be achieved by preventing COVID-19 overall.

Janssen

Whether efficacy is higher against severe cases vs. against mild/moderate symptomatic cases is not confirmed yet, but there is a trend it that direction. 

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119212688#Comment_119212688

Good to see you're still obsessing, yet you have now posted 3 more instances where the vaccines worked against severe disease according to the approvers (now that I pointed you in that direction of course ;)

the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials that were then repeated with real world data. 

the data on severity was extremely comprehensive -> across trials for various different vaccines with reams of data available

proven in massive trials -> Some of the largest ever trials (you can look up if they were the largest by number, I think they might be but could be wrong), shown to be effective against severe disease in each one of them

that were then repeated with real world data. -> Real world data was better than predicted from the trials

Q.E.D.

Anything else fantastic about vaccines that you want to help me prove?

buzzer is going to be pissed that you proved him wrong so extensively (though he doesn't believe in the EMA data like you do).

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119212972#Comment_119212972

the data on severity was extremely comprehensive -> across trials for various different vaccines with reams of data available

All the reports said the data on severity was limited. To say it was comprehensive is to directly contradict the reports.

proven in massive trials -> Some of the largest ever trials (you can look up if they were the largest by number, I think they might be but could be wrong), shown to be effective against severe disease in each one of them

the effects were not proven because the data was limited. To say it was not proven is to directly contradict the reports.

that were then repeated with real world data. -> Real world data was better than predicted from the trials

Yes, I agree that the real world efficacy appears to be better than the unreliable estimates from the trials.

Whilst real word data for severity was improved on, would you agree with the view that the real world data from what the approvers considered to be reliable estimates in the trial - 95% efficacy at preventing Covid - turned out to be worse than predicted from the trials?