Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215081#Comment_119215081

That they don’t have the data yet to provide reliable estimates. That does not mean ‘unreliable’.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215389#Comment_119215389

Yinno, I think I said almost the exact same thing to @hometruths some weeks ago - too soon to have data. Never saw a response but with all the white noise in this arc of the thread I could've missed it. Seems pretty obvious that at the time of approval, vaccinated people weren't ending up in the hospital yet after vaccination, i.e., the vaccine prevented it.

As for endless pedantry over one sentence or one term, that's a well known Holocaust denier technique, arguing about punctuation (Rassinier wrote a whole denier screed that turned out to be rooted in a misplaced semi-colon.)

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215199#Comment_119215199

Your comment reveals a lot of what interests me about the vaccines. The Emperor's New Clothes effect I mentioned earlier. For some reason people are totally unwilling or unable to discuss or acknowledge anything that they interpret as a negative comment on the vaccines.

In the opinion of most in this forum I am anti-vaxxer. Therefore anything I say is an attack vaccines. It does not matter whether or not what I say is true, it must contradicted at all costs because it is an attack on the vaccines.

That's how we end up with ridiculous discussions like the one in hand.

When I say "The estimates of VE against severe covid are unreliable because of limited data" I am instantly accused of twisting words so suit my antivax agenda despite the fact that verbatim quote from the approvers is "reliable efficacy estimates against severe COVID-19 and hospitalisation caused by COVID-19 could not be established could not be established due to the lack of a sufficient number of cases within the clinical studies."

The only reason that the meaning of this is in dispute is because people think this is an attack on the vaccines - not because it is untrue, but because I am saying it and I have an agenda.

But how is this an attack on the vaccines?

I have said I agree with the approval granted. I think the approvers approved the vaccines for prevention of Covid based on a favourable/risk benefit analysis of the best available data they had at the time.

The controversial thing that I have said, my attack on the vaccines, is to state that it is impossible to claim today that it was made clear to us from day 1 that the primary function of the vaccines was to reduce the severity of the Covid infections rather than to prevent Covid infections.

I am certain of this because it is crystal clear that from day 1 those who approved the vaccines for use considered that the available data indicated no reliable estimate of efficacy against severe Covid but the available data did indicate a very reliable estimate of efficacy in preventing Covid infections.

We have one posters arguing that I am wrong because their interpretation of the approval reports on severity is that "It does not mean that it is unreliable. It could be extremely reliable, but has not yet been determined" and another claiming it has in fact been determined thanks to the extremely comprehensive data. Another poster is agreeing with both of these positions simply because it is an attempt to contradict.

I don't know what you think, other than it has been explained to me. But I suspect you know as well as I do that the available data on severity was extremely limited and that's why the approvers said they could not determine anything on severity.

What I think is fascinating is why so many people will refuse to acknowledge it. And why others are tripping themselves up all over the place, making complete fools of themselves, to argue black is white.

I suspect it is because to many the debate is no longer about facts and logic - it's about what side you are on as KingMob repeatedly refers to.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215389#Comment_119215389

Fair enough, then the answer to what I asked is "Nothing has been determined yet"

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215412#Comment_119215412

Yinno, I think I said almost the exact same thing to @hometruths some weeks ago - too soon to have data. Never saw a response but with all the white noise in this arc of the thread I could've missed it. Seems pretty obvious that at the time of approval, vaccinated people weren't ending up in the hospital yet after vaccination, i.e., the vaccine prevented it.

I probably didn't response because I was busy replying to people who were arguing the complete the opposite.

For the record I totally agree. It's totally obvious that the data was limited and why it was limited. Even if it was not obvious the approval reports state why.

Anybody who argues efficacy against severity was proven on the strength of extremely comprehensive data is a fool.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215433#Comment_119215433

You are just being a shitebag because you don’t agree with vaccines. You haven’t proven anything unsafe about them, and neither has any of your fellow anti-vaxxers. You are just here to troll and release your anger at the stupid positions you have taken in life. It’s evident in your posts. If there is a vaccine safety issue then stop with your bullshit and call it out. You won’t though.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215471#Comment_119215471

Again you're just showing that you are unwilling to engage in logical and fact based discussion because it doesn't suit your narrative.

As I've said before, I'm just here to challenge the very peculiar misinformation that some posters here cling to.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215583#Comment_119215583

It has been explained to you. You choose not to accept the explanations as it would take your trolling to an end.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215701#Comment_119215701

That old chestnut works both ways.

I have explained it to you. You choose not to accept it because you would have to concede I am right.

It could be extremely reliable, but has not yet been determined.

Which means the estimate they have currently is not reliable. Of course if they had more data to work with it is possible they could have come up with an estimated they judged to be reliable. That is the whole point.

It could be extremely reliable, but has not yet been determined, because of the limitations of the then available data. The 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.

So any efficacy estimates of VE against severe covid that were calculated are unreliable because of limited data.

Or to put it another way - if extremely reliable has not yet been determined, what level of reliability has been determined?

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215813#Comment_119215813

No it doesn’t work both ways. You are here to troll. You are deliberately choosing to read the paper as saying ‘unreliable’ when it can’t be taken to mean it at all, in no dimension where logic applies. You walked yourself into a corner with your arguments, and the only way out of either do the norm and have a dramatic exit, or to accept that your interpretation is wrong as it would not stand up in court as being the understanding of a reasonable person.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215813#Comment_119215813

As you've now posted the conclusions from multiple approvals (at least EMA, include UK and USA if you want more precise measurements), go and do the meta-analysis of the severity data and calculate the new confidence interval from there.

That data proves they worked for severe disease.

But you will run away from it screaming.

Because you've been proved wrong in intricate detail.

And now can only troll.

Is there a more pathetic poster on boards? To have invested so much and proven themselves wrong by their own misunderstandings multiple times?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215838#Comment_119215838

It does work both ways. I have explained it to you and as you were unable to accept/argue my explanation you responded with "You're just being a total shitebag"

The only difference when I say I have explained it to you I am prepared to repost the explanation in case you would like to respond intelligently:

It could be extremely reliable, but has not yet been determined.

Which means the estimate they have currently is not reliable. Of course if they had more data to work with it is possible they could have come up with an estimated they judged to be reliable. That is the whole point.

It could be extremely reliable, but has not yet been determined, because of the limitations of the then available data. The 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.

So any efficacy estimates of VE against severe covid that were calculated are unreliable because of limited data.

Or to put it another way - if extremely reliable has not yet been determined, what level of reliability has been determined?

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215855#Comment_119215855

I commend the patience you have shown. It leaves gullible people who read this thread in no doubt that @hometruths doesn’t have a clue.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215868#Comment_119215868

I know you are willing to repost your nonsense. You have spent half your posts here quoting yourself. It doesn’t make you clever or right.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215855#Comment_119215855

Eh?! Why is there a need for new calculations to prove the vaccines worked for severe disease at approval?!

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215583#Comment_119215583

And yet, you keep pretending that the conspiracy theorists on your side aren't posting misinformation. You won't comment on it. You won't acknowledge it.

None of you want to directly contradict each other or actually discuss your individual conspiracy theories.

Yet when it suits you, you keep pretending that you all support each other.

You've no interest in tackling misinformation. You've no interest in what's true.

You just want to bad mouth vaccines with a veneer of credibility, but you've been banned from the actual covid and medical forums because your bullshit is obvious and transparent.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119216002#Comment_119216002

I haven't been banned from any forums.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215095#Comment_119215095

The usual excuse is that boards is somehow in on the conspiracy.

Hometruths can't claim this as he's still pretending not to be a conspiracy theorist. So he simply ignores the question of why he's posting here.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119216017#Comment_119216017

Sure man.

Why are you posting here though?

Why did you reregister as a new account?

Why won't you comment on any of your buddies' misinformation?

We all know the answers. We all know why you won't provide those answers.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119216045#Comment_119216045

I changed my username, I did not reregister a new account. All my posting history from the old username is available to see under this username. I changed my username for reasons totally unrelated to my posting history on this forum. The reason I didn't just register a new account when I wanted a new user name was precisely because I wanted to keep my posting history.

We've covered before why I don't feel the need to comment on every last piece of misinformation I see here, and I see plenty. And I have answered your questions on specific claims - you asked me did I think the warnings on the Pfizer annual reports were evidence that they were telling investors something different to the public or something along those lines. I told you I agree with you and I didn't believe it was anything sinister.

None of my buddies as you put it comment much on my posts, yet that doesn't seem to worry you so much.

You often reply to my posts, totally ignoring whatever I posted and instead asking me to comment on something I have no interest in. And then if I don't comment on the other thing, you insinuate that this somehow is evidence that what I am posting, which you ignored, is untrue.

It's very odd behaviour, and you'd be banned for it in most other forums.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119216149#Comment_119216149

Cool. What was your previous username?

And yes, I asked you repeatedly to comment on specific false claims. You gave vague non committal answers for some, you specifically said you agreed with others.

And lol, the fact you have to go that far back for the only claim you believe is false is pretty funny...

And yes, I've pointed out repeated how other conspiracy theorists also ignore your conspiracy theories. It seems to be a very common characteristic of conspiracy theorists.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119216174#Comment_119216174

DohnJoe and others have already mentioned my previous username, there is nothing to hide.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119216560#Comment_119216560

You tried to hide your anti-vax agenda, repackage it as if you are just "confused" and need explanations.

At least the crazy anti-vaxxers are open about this stuff.

Dohnjoe

Guys I just don't understand vaccines/911/space travel, can someone explain this stuff to me

Hundreds of pages later: Guys I just don't understa..

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119216587#Comment_119216587

I’m not confused about the fact that no reliable conclusions could be reached on severity from the limited available in the trials.

I am a bit confused by some of astrofools explanations as to how this was in fact proven by extremely comprehensive data, but I doubt I’m the only one.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119216620#Comment_119216620

Looking back the last 70 pages of your posts…yes you are the only one.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119216620#Comment_119216620

BS.

You came in here with questions about vaccines under your previous username, coming to a conspiracy theory forum for info on vaccines, pretty strange, first red flag

Anyway, I explained some stuff to you. You didn't seem to understand the basics of it, so I explained it as best I could. You still weren't getting it, you were being actively pedantic, to an extreme, another red flag

Other posters stepped in and gave explanations. Again, you had this bizarre issue with all of these. Another red flag.

You are now back again, on the same forum, making the same arguments and bizarre contrarian points under a different name. Another set of posters are explaining things to you, and amazingly, you don't get those either.

Anyone can see there are two possibilities as to what is going on here:

You are incredibly stupid (to be even asking about medical science on a conspiracy theory forum is as bad as it gets)

OR

You have an agenda

Again, none of these replies are for your benefit, only for others who might not be familiar with these techniques.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119216665#Comment_119216665

Fine, as you say those many people who lurk are likely to form their own opinions as what is correct.

Thats largely why I challenge the deflection and misinformation here about the vaccines effect on severe covid.

not for the benefit of you and the other regulars in here, but for the benefit of those who might not be familiar with your techniques.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119216725#Comment_119216725

You are against vaccines, for pedantic personal reasons, but you are "smart" enough to know you can't just openly act like Buzzer here and go on with the silly anti-vax memes and all that.

Instead you use a different approach. Your spiel is to find particular studies, etc that you "don't get", then keep baiting others into providing explanations that you will never accept. As evidenced and demonstrated by your hundreds of posts here

Normally that kind of crank approach get thread-banned on forums, but you have discovered a forum where you can get away with it, this forum, the conspiracy theory forum.

As long as you don't insult anyone, or break the rules, you can keep this game going forever. As mentioned the 9/11 guys have kept it rolling for years.

The vaccines are safe and effective, most of the population is vaccinated. You've chosen to protest that, by playing this game, for god knows how long, on a conspiracy theory forum of all places. It's pretty hilarious when you think about it.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215893#Comment_119215893

Eh?!

I think 0 people will be surprised you didn't understand this.

Why is there a need for new calculations

The calculations would have been carried out at approval time as part of meta-analysis of data from all the trials

to prove the vaccines worked for severe disease at approval?!

Because now the confidence interval can be re-calculated using all the data you have posted and brought into your argument, efficacy across multiple authorities for multiple vaccines solving your issue of not enough cases. That is what I lead you towards (though you weren't anywhere near smart enough to see it).

Eh?!

This will undoubtedly be your next reply as well😁