Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

I was listening to Knowledge Fight today, and in it they talked about how Alex Jones was raising this same point and using the same study to make his own conspiracy claims. They succinctly rounded up some key issues with this "study". Namely how it's not actually peer reviewed or published in any paper and it doesn't seem to have any authors.

I then found this article on Science Based Medicine where it gives a good break down of the paper and the other key issues with it as well as a summary of reasons to suspect the motivations behind it.

Some highlights:

Wait what's this? Pfizer admit in the European parliament that they never even tested if their "vaccine" would stop the spread of the disease before releasing it? But I thought I was going to save Granny? Surely they didn't lie to us? But but...if they never even tested for its efficacy in stopping transmission how could they claim it was effective? And ...gulp... does that mean they were lying too about its safety? Oh noes....who could have thought they'd be so deceptive? These were the world'd best scientists! I trusted The Science! I don't feel too good Mr Stark...

I personally wouldn't put too much stock in this narrative seeing that it's coming from Tucker Carlson. His show is constantly deceptive.

Seems to be that it's using the same word games that have been played throughout this thread where if the vaccine isn't 100% effective then it's useless.

The vaccines have been effective in reducing infection, transmission and especially severe disease. All studies posted in this thread have confirmed this. Likewise we've yet to see any evidence of secret safety issues. Just vague insinuations and claims that have been shown to be false.

"Its a nothingburger, it was known at the time, to anyone who looked at the data". Riiiiiigghhhtttt. I'm sure there were people who pointed that out at the time but weirdly enough, I don't remember them being invited on Primetime? Or CNN?

Shame how so many people got the wrong end of the stick because I don't remember "we didn't test for transmission" being a message that was plastered all over the media for 2 years?

I do remember "Stop the spread, get the jab", "Protect you and your vulnerable loved ones by getting your Covid 19 vaccine" or my favourite "No jab, no job".

Strange how Pfizer didn't correct every single media outlet in the Western World when they were spreading these messages. Or every government when they were needlessly shutting the unjabbed out of society, given that as you say this was known at the time? Or every major celebrity, or authority figures like Joe Biden, Rachel Wallensky, et al when they claimed that you wouldn't get covid if you got these jabs.

But they really should have said it to their CEO Albert Bourla who claimed it was variously 100%, 95% and 80% effective. Bad day at the office there

Pfizers communication department really dropped the ball on that one. But, hey, things were crazy, you can't get every minor detail out I guess.

If billions of people somehow got needlessly jabbed under false pretences creating billions for Pfizer and thousands of vaccine injured or killed, well...what do you expect? It was a pandemic, the situation was fluid. These misunderstandings happen

it's a blog piece

Steve Kirsch is an anti-vax campaigner

Naomi Wolf is suspended from Twitter for her anti-scientific nonsense

James Thorpe is a gynocologist who calls vaccines "poison" and is quite possibly mad

Very strange for him to post this from those people while still trying to assert he isn't an anti-vaxxer.

Is it because he isn't being forthright about his beliefs, or is it that he didn't look into the claims or the people behind them again?

Nah this is bull. I just asked my entire workforce what they remember back then about what was said.

After answering I told them that the trials didn't test for stopping the spread. Angry the lot of them. 9 of them if you want specifics.

So no, this is wilfully changing the actual reality of why people got jabbed. you greatly misunderstand the persuasion of "Protect those around you" that got those over the line to get vaccinated.

I expect there to be genuine fury of this, and rightly so. No point ironically in trying to gaslight those that feel aggrieved at this. It is their reality and it is their reason they got the vaccine (not everyone but a massive shade)

Remember those 21 year olds who got jabbed just to get the passport to get into a club? Mental. Madness. I would honestly go on a whim and suggest the majority of those people got it to get the cert - not to protect themselves.

Before we continue discourse, I am being genuine and legit. Just a person who is angry at this.

I don't want to get caught up in the exact wording I need to use but hear me when I say this:

MANY of us got vaccinated who were on the fence because we were told it would "protect others around us". This was patently misleading considering there was no actual evidence it would from Pfizer.

I've actually read this and sat on it a few hours.

What sticks out for me is this "...When the vaccines first became available, public health messaging was clear - we don't know whether they stop transmission, & people should continue keeping preventative measures"

That's not the reality I remember and what many of us remember. Genuinely here, we didn't all share some made up dream.

Perhaps it is some weird shared memory distortion but I whole heartedly remember being told endlessly "Get the vaccine - Protect others around you"

My younger 21 year old brother literally took it to go to the pub legally for the first time. Did not want the jab, and at that stage it was already becoming clearer that the vaccine on the Delta variant was not exactly doing a great job of stopping the spread.

Yes the vaccine may very well protect him etc etc - but his decision to get him over the line was based on a false assumption.

anyway, I'm annoyed and don't know what to think probably, who knows. Draining

Based on known immunology principles, if the vaccine was protecting in the studies against infection, that was a clear sign it triggered an immune response, which should mean neutralizing antibodies generated.

They didn't know for sure - when they first became available. But it was a reasonable assumption.

By the time the vaccine were being rolled out beyond the most vulnerable groups, they had real world data to go on showing how the vaccine prevented infection and transmission. The evidence is cited on the twitter BBC link.

By getting the vaccine, even against delta variant, your brother did the #1 thing he could do to reduce his chances of getting infected and transmitting the virus onto someone else. There is nothing to be annoyed about except the people peddling this revisionist twitter gotcha and falsely making people second guess their decisions.

Thanks for the response. Will take it on board and get some sleep I think. Apologies to those if I came across as barking.