Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

Get ready for

Ah yes, you say all that but... <insert link to random website or blog> ... these chaps here have said <Insert random fùckwittery> and as a layman they sound very convincing, it's not that I'm against vaccines you see, I'm just very "concerned".

But all you have to do to not be lumped in with your fellow conspiracy theorists is to state that you believe they are wrong.

It would be better yet if you actually challenged the false claims and lies coming from your buddies.

But you won't do either, because you often share the same extreme beliefs, or you're unwilling to contradict other theorists.

It's very bizarre that you keep pretending that there aren't conspiracy theorists on this thread you've claimed very false and extreme things.

It's also quite bizarre, or maybe it's just a conspiracy theory, that 3 of the posters that piled on me when I asked what I thought was a simple question, are also 3 of the main contributors to the thread about paid posters on the forum.

I thought Twitter was bad with presumptive, narrow-minded juveniles, but a brief return to Boards this morning suggests this place is worse.

And please don't bother replying. I'm getting my coat.....

Define anti-vax and what have I said that was anti-vax precisely?

Yes. We posted on that thread to highlight how the accusation that paid posters is silly and ridiculous.

Your question was answered and you were shown several places where the issue is being discussed, just without the silly conspiracy theories.

The scary thing is I only turned out to be what your pre-conceived idea of me was, not what I actually am. I'm not anti vax, no matter how often I say it, I'm not. My kids have all theirs so far. I'm double vaxed (i can prove it from my Covid cert or would be happy to quote my 2 AZ vaccine batch numbers) but I held off on the booster for health reasons (rightly or wrongly). I could say this a million times but King Mob has closed his mind, as have you it appears, and has chosen to believe something based on a hunch. Kinda ironic in a discussion that should hinge on evidence.

I'm front line emergency services, the hat I wear is not tin foil, but a protective one. I can prove that also. Happy to answer any questions that might go some way to prove this (not prepared to name myself here however).

So you're actually congratulating yourselves on your own biased and incorrect pre-conceived opinions of me.

Which as I say, is kinda scary in an adult.

So because I didn't immediatly believe what I'm told by some randomer on the internet, I'm closed minded?

As I've said, it's a common tactic for anti vaxxers to come in here, pretending that they're "just concerned" and "just want to discuss x or y". It's also a common tactic that they claim to have personally experienced the rare side effects of the vaccine.

You claiming this same stuff is not convincing.

So, you believe that the vaccines are safe and effective.

You agree that no doctors or medical organisations are lying about the vaccines or have ulterior motives.

You don't believe there is any conspiracy behind the vaccines or any conspiracy trying to supress debate.

If you agree with all of that, then you are not a conspiracy theorist.

If you don't agree with part of that, then you are subscribing to an anti vaxx conspiracy theory.

If you aren't a conspiracy theorist and aren't interested in them, why are you attempting to discuss vaccine safety here?

You have got to be joking. You didn't believe me immediately? I said it at least 3 times and you still wouldn't accept it.

I was satisfied to take an emergency vaccine on the basis of the circumstances at the time and the risk to me, and my extended personal & professional network. I suspected it would require annual if not more frequent boosters even though many who said that 12 months ago were called, guess what? Conspiracy theorists. The first vaccine was rushed, it served a purpose, but I believe a new one is needed to reduce transmission as well as illness. People either expected more of the vaccines or the literature was too new or inconclusive.

Once it became clear Covid was not as big a threat to kids I no longer viewed it as an emergency so my view now is I'd like longer term and more extensive data on the safety & efficacy of the vaccine, more along the timeline of how every other vaccine is tested. You can speed up many elements of a clinical trial but you simply can't speed up time.

I don't believe doctors are lying but I do believe there is a risk of pharma pushing something for monetary gain and spinning the narrative on the data a little. Perhaps it's not the best example, but a famous "celebrity" Trinity professor at one point proclaimed in a tweet that all 3 initial vaccines were 100% effective. Utter rubbish obviously.

Pharma in general has questionable ethics as I outlined previously so you'll forgive me for questioning this when it comes to my kids, who are 5 & 2.

Debate has clearly been suppressed. Twitter regularly hides certain replies to tweets that might simply question the way of things. Just questioning, not denying. Questioning. Oh wait, maybe it's their algorithm that's wrong. YouTube deletes videos it deems unacceptable. Why not leave them up & disprove them instead?

In Ireland we regularly got ISAG members whose policy was admirable but ultimately impossible. And very obviously so. Many of their predictions have been widely wrong. But they still enjoy the ear of the media. Whereas those who simply question, I repeat question (not deny) the narrative are excluded from the debate.

I clearly made the mistake of joining the first chronological vaccine debate thread I saw, due to a recent post, which puzzled me being under the heading conspiracy theories. Not intent on reading 78 pages on my phone, I saw a couple of pages that appeared to have some balanced debate and wondered why that debate wasn't under a mainstream heading.

I've wasted most of my day on this because 3 posters piled on, like a tag team, unwilling to believe who I was and making major errors of inference. The same 3 who seem to embarrassingly & pathetically high 5 each other on other threads, specifically the paid posters thread.

What I hoped would be a constructive debate has just been largely nonsense where I've been called a liar in everything but name & people replying have made incorrect and wild assumptions, largely because they were too obtuse, immature & closed minded.

This is probably littered with typos as I'm using my phone but at this stage I couldn't be ar**d arguing with you anymore, for the reasons in the last but one paragraph.

You didn't define anti vax and are making the classic mistake of conflating anti vax with someone who is pro proven science. As I said, I'd like a little more evidence over a longer period of time. Unless I missed others, all you posted was one piece on modelling which was interesting. But that's all it was, one article about vaccine modelling.

So me making loose reference to the long list of fines for Pharma for misleading science is an anti vax stance? How exactly? Pharma has form in this.

It also has form in promoting medications for gain, oxycodone for example. They don't just produce vaccines you know.

It's also still within my lifetime that the company known as GSK today conducted unethical clinical trials on kids in mother & baby homes.

With all this I simply said I needed more convincing that my kids needed this vaccine.

But evidently that makes me anti-vax.

The vaccines in Europe were never approved under emergency approval, the FDA in the USA has since fully approved the Pfizer vaccine.

There has never been an issue with vaccines identified weeks, let alone months or a year and a half post vaccination, the vaccine itself goes through the body quite quickly (matter of days) so there is very little to study.

The vaccines themselves work very well through multiple variants, the waning against transmission effects is down to the human immune system clearing antibodies over time (antibodies for SARS-COV2 are important to reduce the latency to attacking the virus) but B and T-Cell immunity remains strong which matters for severe disease. Future vaccines may go the nasal delivery route which is usually better for transmission but less good for severe disease, there is vaccines being developed that target multiple parts of the virus but no established efficacy yet (Sinovac/pharm which went this route has much lower efficacy than others and China is now pivoting to mRNA), Valneva are targeting this as well, but no results yet.

That's the scientific consensus and why virologists/immunologists are encouraging people to get vaccinated and then get back to normality.

The issue is that once you go beyond that consensus you're into pseudo-science territory, that's where Ivermectin shills like Malone will come in, or theorists posit that the vaccines are there for other purposes, control or money usually, where vaccines are not a money maker for big pharma compared to treatments and most vaccines have come from smaller companies rather than the big boys anyway, but hey, don't stop the narrative.

And again, another post and no properly debating of the risk/reward figures posted that should be the beginning and end of the debate (where other data can be brought in to add to the debate).

I'm doubtful any of the above would change your mindset or get you thinking, that's an issue for you to tackle rather than shouting at others constantly for not debating with you on topics that have little evidence or don't make any scientific sense.

You followed the playbook to a tee, and still are. As all conspiracy theorists, when wrong you won’t admit it and get into a huff instead. It would have been refreshing if you were honest from the start rather than a bad faith poster.

The proven science is pro vaccine with massive amounts of data and evidence. The risk/reward of a vaccine vs the virus is at least 250:1 in favor of the vaccine (young males, much much more for all the other groups), if you want to debate, you need to bring real evidence that changes that figure, not innuendo, that's how debate works.

Lol. Lazy insults as usual.

How are people supposed to debate you guys were you feel it's acceptable to lie and dodge questions you don't like?

Sorry man, if you think that poster is posting in good faith you are either extremely naive, or once again you are lying.

Nothing to contribute besides these cute little swipes?

Seems it's all you guys have left.