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
1…231232234236237…419

Comments

  • Options
    #6992
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119211795#Comment_119211795

    Nope, cause it's most likely the same thing as your claims about the Israeli paper where you got caught out in a lie.

    You didn't actually read any of the reports. You just copy and pasted them without thinking because you do the same thing as buzzer. There is no difference between you guys. You yourself can't even tell us what the difference is.


    And like with your many previous claims when we start digging into it and pointing out the issues, flaws and lies on your part, you'll start to run away. You'll start denying that you claimed what you claimed. You'll pretend to forget which article were talking about.

    It's not worth the effort in the same way it's not worth taking buzz buzz seriously.



  • Options
    #6993
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,678 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119213055#Comment_119213055

    Multiple separate trials all pointing to the same result, if you want to do the maths with the combined numbers across trials (where now there would be more than enough cases for high confidence) and measure the confidence interval go ahead, all I will say is that the result is proven and comprehensive ;) (which is why I pointed you at the other trials by the way, and that's just EMA, look up the US and UK trials as well, which is why the massive trials piece was important).

    The 95% efficacy held up within the same measured timeframes as the trials, the trials also measured symptomatic cases rather than asymptomatic as happens in the real world when close contacts get themselves tested.

    Your only way out now is to forego the trial conclusions, otherwise you have directly proven that your argument is false in front of everyone else in the forum, in absolute detail with all the numbers there to back it up.

    I wonder if I can get Markus to prove that space is real next?

    And with that, good night 😁



  • Options
    #6994
    Markus Antonius
    Registered Users Posts: 2,237 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    Yet another video of our Saviour Dr Fauci (who tingles the fannies of all the skeptics in this forum)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ICBBK-d-C0

    again squirming at the hands of Rand Paul on booster effectiveness and royalties received from vaccine manufacturers. But I guess Rand Paul is a crank and C-span is not CNN so the video is not a valid source and so should not be watched...



  • Options
    #6995
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119213558#Comment_119213558

    Marky, you believe that all space flight is fake.

    Why should we take you or what you have to say about vaccines seriously?


    I would ask the other conspiracy theorists what they think and why they would take you seriously, but they won't answer. They don't want to acknowledge your silly embarrassing credibility killing beliefs. They can't deal with the association and they're too cowardly to confront you directly.



  • Options
    #6996
    shillyshilly
    Registered Users Posts: 547 ✭✭✭shillyshilly


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119213558#Comment_119213558

    you need to NSFW content like this...

    oohhfff, you won't even get this type of quality content on Pornhub or Xhamster..

    Really gets my vaccinated loins going

    Post edited by shillyshilly on


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6997
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119213469#Comment_119213469

    Multiple separate trials all pointing to the same result

    Erm, no. Multiple separate regulators using the same trials all pointing to the same result - limited data on severity, no reliable conclusion.

    if you want to do the maths with the combined numbers across trials (where now there would be more than enough cases for high confidence) and measure the confidence interval go ahead, all I will say is that the result is proven and comprehensive ;) (which is why I pointed you at the other trials by the way, and that's just EMA, look up the US and UK trials as well, which is why the massive trials piece was important).

    If you had any clue what you were talking about you would realise that US and UK and EMA all used the same data from the same trials.

    The 95% efficacy held up within the same measured timeframes as the trials, the trials also measured symptomatic cases rather than asymptomatic as happens in the real world when close contacts get themselves tested.

    In your argument for severity data being improved on in the real world you cited a study that measured up to 2022. Why are you unwilling to consider the same timeframe to the 95% efficacy for protection?

    I'm saying that we got lucky that the unreliable estimates of protection against severity were improved on with real world data, and unlucky that the reliable estimates of prevention of Covid proved to be worse with real world data.

    I am not asking if you agree with the question of luck or not - simply do you agree that the real world data suggested efficacy of below 95% in the prevention of Covid?

    Your only way out now is to forego the trial conclusions,

    I still totally agree with the trial conclusions. The estimates of VE against severe covid are unreliable because of limited data.

    otherwise you have directly proven that your argument is false in front of everyone else in the forum, in absolute detail with all the numbers there to back it up.

    This is total nonsense. You haven't backed anything up other than my argument that some people, for whatever reason, are desperate to spin the trial results as proving vaccine efficacy against severe Covid and will clutch at whatever straws they can find to do so. Every increasingly ridiculous post on the subject just backs it up further.

    There isn't a single sane poster on this forum who believes your argument that the trials proved VE against severe Covid based on comprehensive data.



  • Options
    #6998
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214044#Comment_119214044

    You keep saying "Unreliable". But that's another example of a conspiracy theorist claiming something says something it doesn't.



  • Options
    #6999
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214454#Comment_119214454

    I keep saying unreliable because that's what the approval reports say multiple times, here's just one example:

    reliable efficacy estimates against severe COVID-19 and hospitalisation caused by COVID-19 could not be established

    Ok. It does not use the word unreliable. But it does say reliable efficacy estimates could not be established. Therefore the estimates they did establish are unreliable.



  • Options
    #7000
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214543#Comment_119214543

    Nope. That's you putting words in their mouths to change what they said.

    It's what you've been doing constantly.



  • Options
    #7001
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214592#Comment_119214592

    I have not put words in their mouth, I've quoted verbatim - reliable efficacy estimates against severe COVID-19 and hospitalisation caused by COVID-19 could not be established



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7002
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,193 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214592#Comment_119214592

    Christ on a bike, your car is either reliable or unrelaible, give it a rest with the whataboutery it's tedious and making you look like a complete shilly pharma muppet.



  • Options
    #7003
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,996 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    Page 252, vaccines still safe and effective. No conspiracies. Most of the globe vaccinated.



  • Options
    #7004
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214629#Comment_119214629

    But you didn't say that. You used the word "unreliable".

    You said: "The estimates of VE against severe covid are unreliable because of limited data." Which is not what they said.

    Hence, you put words in their mouths.

    This is just an illustrative example of the contortions you have to do to cling to this silly nonpoint you have.

    The only folks you're convincing are folks like Markus and Buzzer.

    And even then I'm not sure.



  • Options
    #7005
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214666#Comment_119214666

    Lol. Again with the childish accusations.


    So what again is the difference between your arguments and Buzzers?

    Do you agree with Hometruths even though he's declared that your claim that the vaccine never worked is false?



  • Options
    #7006
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    “reliable efficacy estimates against severe COVID-19 and hospitalisation caused by COVID-19 could not be established”


    It does not mean that it is unreliable. It could be extremely reliable, but has not yet been determined.



  • Options
    #7007
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214670#Comment_119214670

    But you didn't say that. You used the word "unreliable".

    You said: "The estimates of VE against severe covid are unreliable because of limited data." Which is not what they said.

    Hence, you put words in their mouths.

    So the approvers say "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."

    And I say that means "The estimates of VE against severe covid are unreliable because of limited data"

    Your response to me is that I am twisting what they said by putting words in their mouth because I am a conspiracy theorist.

    What then do you make of astrofools statement the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials?

    Is that also putting words into their mouth, another example of a conspiracy theorist claiming something says something it doesn't?



  • Options
    #7008
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,193 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214676#Comment_119214676

    More whataboutery, I never claimed they didn't work is that what you asked Hometruths to comment on, a decietful misrepresentation if you did, I said they didn't work as advertised, it does not prevent transmission and infection and yes we were told it would even though you say we weren't.

    The booster is a fools folly and may be causing more harm than good as I pointed to yesterday with the study of triple jabbed health professionals. Your it's safe claim is looking more like a conspiracy every day.



  • Options
    #7009
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214728#Comment_119214728

    But Hometruths doesn't believe that either though.



  • Options
    #7010
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214724#Comment_119214724

    I think that Fighting Tao explained it very clearly:

    It does not mean that it is unreliable. It could be extremely reliable, but has not yet been determined.

    Any comment on any of the lies and bullshit coming from your side at all? Any comment on buzzers claims? Any comment on Drunkmonkey claiming the vaccines didn't work?

    Any comment on Marky's comments given he's a flat earther and all?



  • Options
    #7011
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,678 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214454#Comment_119214454

    If only there was some scientific way to run the same test multiple times to prove it's conclusion...

    I don't think hometruths understands that bit, as in, it's not wilful ignorance it's just ignorance.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7012
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    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.



  • Options
    #7013
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214767#Comment_119214767

    I think that Fighting Tao explained it very clearly:

    It does not mean that it is unreliable. It could be extremely reliable, but has not yet been determined.

    That's just more clutching at straws.



  • Options
    #7014
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215035#Comment_119215035

    You have read it, but you take completely the wrong understanding. It does not mean it is unreliable. To say it does mean it is unreliable is making up something to suit your narrative.



  • Options
    #7015
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215046#Comment_119215046

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

    Ok, let's see if I can get to the right understanding. I agree with the above statement you posted.

    So if it has not yet been determined, what has been determined?



  • Options
    #7016
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,996 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119214728#Comment_119214728

    We have flu jabs every year.

    You are on a public discussion forum basically claiming you know better than medical science. Keep in mind you are a poster who mindlessly swallowed a made-up blog from a crank about a singer's condition being linked to "evil vaccines", why on earth would anyone take your personal opinion on this seriously over that of professionals?



  • Options
    #7017
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,996 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    The fact that this "discussion" is taking place on the conspiracy forum tells passer-bys all they need to know



  • Options
    #7018
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,984 ✭✭✭hometruths


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

    Indeed.

    So the approvers say "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."

    And I say that means "The estimates of VE against severe covid are unreliable because of limited data"

    In any other forum posters would not try and argue that I am twisting words to suit a narrative.



  • Options
    #7019
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,996 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215122#Comment_119215122

    You are an anti-vaxxer. This is "your way" of attacking vaccines (being pedantic to the extreme and arguing over semantics). Most anti-vaxxers favour this forum because often they are thread-banned elsewhere and the modding here is very lax.



  • Options
    #7020
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,678 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


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

    I'm pretty sure they was threadbanned from the COVID forum in previous guises (or warned not to continue posting disinformation).

    They have jumped wholeheartedly into accepting the approval data though because they wrongly thought it supported their argument, which is funny.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7021
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,996 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119208417#Comment_119208417

    That poster has over 400 posts in this thread, was previously known as "Schmittel"



Advertisement