Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

How can anyone say they're wrong when there's no data? You certainly can't say they're right, now can you?

And the quote you give, is about perception of the messaging. Nothing about the vaccine safety. Do you agree? If not can you provide the data where they raise concerns about vaccine safety? Hint: you can't, because they don't. But, don't let me stop you.

No, it petered out because you started to ignore questions you couldn't answer honestly.

Like how you just avoided the questions I asked you.

Lol. That wasn't my argument man. Complete misrepresentation. Total dishonesty and hypocrisy.

You are claiming that the experts you disagree are giving a false explanation.

I point out that this leads to only two possibilities. Either you are suggesting that they are wrong, or you are suggesting they are deliberately lying.

I point out that in the first option, it must be that they are suggesting something so blatantly wrong that you, an untrained rando can tell it's wrong. This would mean that somehow, you with zero training and understanding, know more than experts.

This is clearly not possible or a plausible explanation.

Do you believe that these experts are simply wrong and you know more than them?

You've been asked this many times before, but you refuse to answer.

I think this is because you actually believe that they are deliberately lying as part of a conspiracy, but you don't want to admit as much as you still want to pretend not to be a conspiracy theorist.

It should say urgent warning to all people of all ages....who've taken an experimental gene therapy!

lol dude, I asked you a question. Answer it please.

I don't know if the experts in the BMJ article are credible. I didn't bother to read it because it's simply you trying to deflect to a new tangent to avoid the uncomfortable questions you are afraid of.

They probably are very credible, but you are most likely misrepresenting them and their position as you have done so in the past with other experts.

You forgot the rest of the article. Very slimy and dishonest altogether ;)

Women under 40 are increasingly dying of a sudden killer disease, a campaigner has warned.

Blood clots can occur in people of any age and strike those who are seemingly fit and healthy.

Data from Scotland show an unusual spike in the rates of deaths caused by blood clots in the past five years.

The information was requested by Gordon Mcpherson – a dad from Renfrewshire whose daughter died of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) at the age of 23.

There were a total of 73 deaths in under 40-year-old women between 2002 and 2006 where a blood clot was the underlying cause.

This rose to 81 in the five years leading up to the COVID pandemic, The Herald reported. 

This was despite a drop to 44 deaths between 2008 and 2012.

Although the numbers are small, they do not fit with the overall trend for women of all ages.

There were 684 deaths from blood clots in the female population in 2002, which almost halved to 361 in 2019.

The figure jumped up again in 2020, to 446, in relation to the Covid pandemic, as the coronavirus can cause blood clotting.

..

Word for word should've included the preceding sentence:

So, again, they're talking about policy not vaccines. Do you understand that now? The whole point of this paper - and it seems very legitimate - is that vaccination policy (mandates, passports, etc.) are not to be taken lightly and have unintended consequences. But, no data about vaccine safety. Nor any FUD about the vaccines themselves, just some gripes about the messaging.

You have backed yourself into a corner and denying that state doesn't change anything. Your entire "approved to specifically to reduce the severity of symptoms" spiel is completely from your utter inability to understand how the approval systems work.

For you to have any way to progress this argument you need to show that other vaccines don't have failures and need to show that the approval for all vaccines process is wrong (which it isn't, you just don't understand it).

Now, of course you won't back down, because you're stubborn, but you have brought yourself to the end of a path with no turns other than to keep shouting lies and hope that others don't notice that your arguments are a complete nonsense (which everybody realises, bar that lad who's posting facebook memes).

I have given you the ways to advance your argument further, which means you need to go and research (no spoonfeeding here) the approval systems for all other vaccines and show where the SARS-COV2 vaccine approval had a flaw.

With that, we can now go onto controlled and uncontrolled data.

Do you understand the difference between them and can you give an example so we know that you understand it? (I have provided examples already and the one example you provided implied you didn't understand as it wasn't a controlled situation).

You can kind of understand how they end up going down their path, the arguments can be systematically picked apart leaving their only option of being "right" being to redefine the reality around them (there's a few who do this on the politics threads as well, trying to redefine words to suit them). I don't think hometruths realises how close they are to that outcome ("the world is wrong"). they just haven't brought their argument to it's conclusion (the constant "I don't know" answers may be a cover for this or actual failure to understand and make progress on their own narrative).

Being stubborn and ignorant is a dangerous combination.