Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

It's called the Vaccine Damage project. Impartial much? Who are "Phinance Technologies" and why have they taken this stance?

"Vaccines" is in quotes, which is a red flag as to what we're in store for.

I scanned through the website for how they actually can attribute excess deaths or deaths to vaccination and drew a blank.

Care to explain?

This appear to have lumped any increases in excess deaths (or work absences) that occurred post rollout of vaccination to vaccines. This is a position without merit or foundation. No attempt to assess impact of covid, long covid, lifestyle changes, displaced mortality, heatwaves, longer waiting lists, impact on screenings, capacity issues etc etc

So this appears to be a con job, nothing more, nothing less.

Probably aware they are pulling a con job, they fall back to weasel words like "or at least an estimated upper limit for the vaccine damage." You could drive a bus through that.

Where's their equivalent assessment of the impact of actual covid? Or do they think it's a "scamdemic"? Strange to be interested in vaccine damage and yet have so little to say about the damage from covid itself. And by strange, a red flag this is an anti vax propaganda front.

One of which is Edward Dowd, who, by a remarkable coincidence, is selling a book indirectly claiming that vaccines are behind deaths and that "adult sudden death syndrome" didn't exist before 2021 and is part of some conspiracy.

He, of course, lights up like a Christmas tree when it comes to fact checks

Funny how no media or government official said anyone died from covid as they chose their words carefully but you can confirm from reading a random page that 1000 died from covid.

No it isn't. You might think that but you're miles away from supporting it with evidence.

They made no such claim. You are unable to point to any actual direct evidence of such a claim made by them.

Implicitly, by recommending a gap between infection and vaccination that shows an understanding of natural immunity.

Even if they did express a preference for vaccination over natural immunity that does not show that they denied natural immunity existed. Merely that one was superior \ more reliable. Also, to acquire natural immunity you have to run the risks attendant with infection.

So nope, you are the one making a statement of fact - rather than your interpretation of their actions - and your claim is without foundation.

Data coming out now is backing the so called conspiracy theory that Vitamin D prevented people getting seriously ill form Covid, the worst effected people where those in doors in nursing homes, no sunlight= low Vitamin D.

I for years have take Vitamins and supplements, one of them would be Vitamin D, got Covid and it was a head cold and I'm unvaxxed, many friends, family and work colleagues who where vaxxed got it and where sick as dogs, all to a man/woman did not take Vitamin D and where not outdoors people., several of them have got Covid a second time and have been equally as sick as first time, as for me once and done.

There is no talking to them, the usual "thank God I was vaxxed, imagine how bad it would have been without", despite the mountain of evidence regarding this fallacy, anyway I wish the vaxxed and unvaxxed all the best.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, its a duck, get that Vitamin D into you.

Did you read IN FULL the link you posted:

The role of vitamin D in disease prevention is a popular area of research, but clear answers about the benefit of taking amounts beyond the RDA are not conclusive. Although observational studies see a strong connection with lower rates of certain diseases in populations that live in sunnier climates or have higher serum levels of vitamin D, clinical trials that give people vitamin D supplements to affect a particular disease are still inconclusive... More research is needed before we can definitively say that vitamin D protects against the flu and other acute respiratory infections. 

So you have misrepresented the article contents, by cherry picking one sentence out of its full context.

And to state that "taking Vitamin D will be beneficial" as a statement of fact is a medical misinformation.

If someone said taking vitamin D will be beneficial versus Covid (which is an infection) then they were spreading medical misinformation about Vitamin D wrt Covid. And it would be utterly disingenuous to suggest in the context of their posts during the Covid pandemic that infection did not refer directly or indirectly Covid.

And if they weren't referring to Covid, well, this is the Covid thread, so I am not going to discuss it further than that.

And I highly doubt people who said that I think Vitamin D could be of benefit, without reference to it being an alternative to vaccines or taking precautions etc etc were 'cancelled'. It was looked into by NPHET, it was discussed in the Dail.

Or indeed the Harvard article was not cancelled and it says...

More research is needed before we can definitively say that vitamin D protects against the flu and other acute respiratory infections. Even if vitamin D has some benefit, don’t skip your flu shot. And when it comes to limiting risk of COVID-19, it is important to practice careful social distancing and hand washing.

Conspiracy theorists and right-wing subversives in fact-twisting shocker.