Coronavirus vaccine news

bellenuit · 11 November 2021

wayneL said:
I am not anti-vaccination.

If you were not against the Covid vaccine, one would expect you to now and again post something that shows a positive side to it. Yet all we get are constant negative posts, usually based on unfounded rumours that are easily proven false. The most recent being a prime example. You may protest all you like about being labeled a covid anti-vaxxer, but we are not stupid and can see a fake a mile away. It is interesting that those vaccine related posts from others on ASF that you click like to are usually from the known anti-vaxxers here, and they also happen to be the people who reciprocate to your posts. It is also not without coincidence that much of your material is from known anti-vaccine sites, not those that may show some intelligent scepticism to the vaccines, but those directed at the most gullible brain dead followers where they can preach their made up garbage without fear of being questioned or taken to task.

Your hypocrisy is obvious. Live with it.

cynic · 12 November 2021

Incidentally, it may interest some here to know, that vaccine sceptics are a lot harder to find these days.

Courtesy of the CDC's redefinition, of the word "vaccine", many former sceptics, have been, "literally" transformed into daily self vaccinators,

moXJO · 12 November 2021

Anyone know much about the falsified data from one of pfizers subcontractors?

As in: was it not really a big deal...

cynic · 12 November 2021

moXJO said:
Anyone know much about the falsified data from one of pfizers subcontractors?

As in: was it not really a big deal...

Oh really!?

As if the vassals of the sanctified prophet(eer) would be capable of such a despicably sacrilegious act!!

rederob · 12 November 2021

wayneL said:
if I thought such a vaccination was both effective and safe, then get me in farking line, bro and stick that sh¹t in my arm.

You have a consistent theme of not believing in scientific evidence.

wayneL said:
However I have developed a hypothesis about the current crop of vaccines which will evolve around a number of points.

No, you have a number of "excuses" that justify your baseless beliefs, as you are not proposing another explanation for the effectiveness of vaccines (which is what an hypothesis is about).

wayneL said:
1/ they are being used under emergency approval or whatever the hell its called. In other words there is no long-term safety and efficacy data to support full FDA/TGA approval.

Your first excuse.

wayneL said:
2/ hey do not appear to operate like a normal vaccine. That do not seem to offer genuine immunity such as a tuberculosis or smallpox vaccine does. Therefore, I question whether these could be rightly termed as vaccines.

They work the same as jabs for the flu which don't guarantee immunity but reduce severe outcomes. So excuse #2 is just based on ignorance.

wayneL said:
3/ That there are an enormous number of adverse effects and injuries from these injections is incontrovertible, whether or not the Newsom rumour is true or false.

Very few are classified as serious, and given that we are well into the billions of total global vaccinations it is unlikely there is evidence that suggests otherwise. Thus excuse #3 reflects an inability to use or understand data.

wayneL said:
4/ The risk/benefit ratio does not appear to be adequately quantified. I believe that the current injections *may indeed be a good risk/benefit proposition for the elderly, morbidly obese, and those with comorbidities. however I do not believe the risk/benefit ratio adds up for normal healthy people of young and middle age.

Excuse #4 also based on ignorance as ATAGI has that role and has made some unpopular recommendations affecting take up earlier in the year. Here's an example from ATAGI that shows you just make up things:

wayneL said:
These can other factors are making me want to sit back and wait, either to be proven wrong or for a superior comma or indeed genuine vaccine to appear.

Good, I don't have to debunk further ignorance!

wayneL said:
Science operates, at least in the latter part of the scientific process, to attempt to disprove one's hypothesis. Therefore excuse farking me for putting up issues for discussion, debate and allowing myself to disproved or verified.

Science seeks explanations, but you seem to only have excuses.

wayneL said:
Anything else, as we have seen with the climate change debate and indeed this vaccine debate is nothing more than a cultish following of the "approved" narrative.

This is your clinching excuse as science is not a narrative. When people are unable to show their views are credible they disparage the basis of their ignorance.

rederob · 12 November 2021

cynic said:
Incidentally, it may interest some here to know, that vaccine sceptics are a lot harder to find these days.

Courtesy of the CDC's redefinition, of the word "vaccine", many former sceptics, have been, "literally" transformed into daily self vaccinators,

Saying something does not make it true. I suspect from your many posts that you don't know what you are talking about, and will indulge in utter nonsense to insist you have made a valid statement.

The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”
A simple reason is that immunity in science cannot be 100% so the immune response to many vaccines cannot guarantee you will never be infected. Accordingly, the CDC now states that vaccines provide "protection" as that is the role of an immune response.

cynic · 12 November 2021

rederob said:
Saying something does not make it true. I suspect from your many posts that you don't know what you are talking about, and will indulge in utter nonsense to insist you have made a valid statement.

The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”
A simple reason is that immunity in science cannot be 100% so the immune response to many vaccines cannot guarantee you will never be infected. Accordingly, the CDC now states that vaccines provide "protection" as that is the role of an immune response.

An even simpler reason is that a change needed to be made to encompass some newly designed products that would otherwise fail to satisfy the former "vaccine" definition!

Anyway, thankyou for taking the time to confirm this for me.

rederob · 12 November 2021

cynic said:
An even simpler reason is that a change needed to be made to encompass some newly designed products that would otherwise fail to satisfy the former "vaccine" definition!

Anyway, thankyou for taking the time to confirm this for me.

Totally false. You and @wayneL make up stuff on a regular basis without ever being able to show how it could be credible. It's like watching a sideshow of clowns.

IFocus · 12 November 2021

wayneL said:
Read Bellanuit's posts, brownshirt.

Your continued aggression on the site calling posters brownshirt is akin to little boy school yard bully behaviour, really its a bad look at best but I don't see the point as it has no relevance.

cynic · 12 November 2021

rederob said:
Totally false. You and @wayneL make up stuff on a regular basis without ever being able to show how it could be credible. It's like watching a sideshow of clowns.

Just because someone happens to view things from a different perspective to yourself, doesn't entitle you to make such accusations.

But I do, again, thank you for confirming the truth of what I posted.

rederob · 12 November 2021

cynic said:
Just because someone happens to view things from a different perspective to yourself, doesn't entitle you to make such accusations.

But I do, again, thank you for confirming the truth of what I posted.

It's based on what the CDC said and did so it cannot be an "accusation".
You could at least try to find things out before making things up to suit yourself.
Then you console yourself by lying when you state that I confirm what you say when instead I stated the complete opposite.
How about some honesty if you cannot otherwise substantiate what you say.

cynic · 12 November 2021

rederob said:
It's based on what the CDC said and did so it cannot be an "accusation".
You could at least try to find things out before making things up to suit yourself.
Then you console yourself by lying when you state that I confirm what you say when instead I stated the complete opposite.
How about some honesty if you cannot otherwise substantiate what you say.

No! It was you (not the CDC) who levelled an accusation against myself and another!!

Humid · 12 November 2021

IFocus said:
Your continued aggression on the site calling posters brownshirt is akin to little boy school yard bully behaviour, really its a bad look at best but I don't see the point as it has no relevance.

It dawned on me a while back
classic small mans syndrome.....I read his posts in a jockey voice

rederob · 12 November 2021

cynic said:
No! It was you (not the CDC) who levelled an accusation against myself and another!!

You are proven incompetent.
I clearly based my comments on what the CDC said and did, so it was definitely not my perspective, as you claimed.
I realise you do not understand this, but lying about what I said is not a good look.
You propensity for nonsense is puerile.

cynic · 12 November 2021

rederob said:
You are proven incompetent.
I clearly based my comments on what the CDC said and did, so it was definitely not my perspective, as you claimed.
I realise you do not understand this, but lying about what I said is not a good look.
You propensity for nonsense is puerile.

And you've done it again!!

The CDC has not accused me of anything!

I am doubtful that they are even aware of my existence.

rederob · 12 November 2021

cynic said:
And you've done it again!!

The CDC has not accused me of anything!

I am doubtful that they are even aware of my existence.

You made successive statements which are false, based on what the CDC said and did.
The fact I pointed this out or @Joe Blow does not change your false comment.

Here's your first false claim claim:

cynic said:
Courtesy of the CDC's redefinition, of the word "vaccine", many former sceptics, have been, "literally" transformed into daily self vaccinators,

The CDC's new definition effected no such transformation.

Here's your next false claim:

cynic said:
An even simpler reason is that a change needed to be made to encompass some newly designed products that would otherwise fail to satisfy the former "vaccine" definition!

The new definition only changed to reflect that a vaccine will "stimulate the body’s immune response" and specifically removed the term "product" which you base your sense on.

After this you reverted to type and lied.
All you needed to do was show that your comments were credible. Instead you did what you do every time:

rederob said:
I suspect from your many posts that you don't know what you are talking about, and will indulge in utter nonsense to insist you have made a valid statement.

Unless you post on topic, I won't be responding.

cynic · 12 November 2021

rederob said:
You made successive statements which are false, based on what the CDC said and did.
The fact I pointed this out or @Joe Blow does not change your false comment.

Here's your first false claim claim:

The CDC's new definition effected no such transformation.

Here's your next false claim:

The new definition only changed to reflect that a vaccine will "stimulate the body’s immune response" and specifically removed the term "product" which you base your sense on.

After this you reverted to type and lied.
All you needed to do was show that your comments were credible. Instead you did what you do every time:

Unless you post on topic, I won't be responding.

Oh rederob, dependable as ever ! You never fail to disappoint!!

https://technofog.substack.com/p/cdc-emails-our-definition-of-vaccine?justPublished=true

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21527855/

You'll have to forgive my delay in replying, I was a little too busy, self administering my oral "vaccination" (as per CDC's redefinition) against numerous infectious diseases, including COVID19!!!

rederob · 12 November 2021

cynic said:
Oh rederob, dependable as ever ! You never fail to disappoint!!

https://technofog.substack.com/p/cdc-emails-our-definition-of-vaccine?justPublished=true

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21527855/

You'll have to forgive my delay in replying, I was a little too busy, self administering my oral "vaccination" (as per CDC's redefinition) against numerous infectious diseases, including COVID19!!!

Thank you.
Your link proves the points I made but none of yours.
Appreciated.

moXJO · 12 November 2021

Anyway...
Pfizer 3rd booster shots looking like they may only last 9-10 months. Yep Pfizer hit the jackpot.

IFocus · 12 November 2021

moXJO said:
Anyway...
Pfizer 3rd booster shots looking like they may only last 9-10 months. Yep Pfizer hit the jackpot.

I'd be surprised if they lasted that long.

Coronavirus vaccine news

bellenuit

cynic

moXJO

menace to society

cynic

rederob

rederob

cynic

rederob

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

cynic

rederob

cynic

Humid

rederob

cynic

rederob

cynic

rederob

moXJO

menace to society

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

Similar threads

Coronavirus vaccine news

menace to society

You are arguing with a Galah

menace to society

You are arguing with a Galah

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency