# What sources back up the anti-vaccine movement?



## The Catboy (Sep 13, 2021)

I would really appreciate knowing some of the sources that back up the anti-vaccine movement. The anti-vac movement has some pretty convicted individuals and I am wondering what are some sources that either they can provide or can be provided to back up the motivations to join this movement? What research has been done? Has this research been peer-reviewed, if not, why? What is some of evidence against vaccination?
Edit: I am going to reframe my question a little. This is about the anti-vaccine and those not willing to be vaccinated in general. What sources lead you to that conclusion and how verifiable are those sources? What medical research is used in the sources? Is it more than just anecdotal evidence?


----------



## osirisjem (Sep 13, 2021)

Tumbleweed ..........


----------



## Alexander1970 (Sep 13, 2021)

Anti Vaccine "People" have nothing really "in the Hands...."

The Problem is that they are "lumped" together with People who do not want to be vaccinated.
(Because of Fear,Misinformation,recovered,enough Antibodies
and other good Reasons to say no,they do not want it.)


----------



## osirisjem (Sep 13, 2021)

I have no problem with those that don't want to be vaccinated. 

As long as they realize, when the ventilators fill up, the unvaccinated are at the back of the line.

You are in or you are out.


----------



## assassinz (Sep 13, 2021)

https://www.tiktok.com/@john.stokes...r_device=pc&sender_web_id=7007429241881839110


----------



## HRudyPlayZ (Sep 13, 2021)

There's some reasons to not get vaccinated and there's some legitimate sources. Though, most "arguments" come from Facebook and other questionable sources.
That being said, the simple fact that Pfizer already had some legal actions against them, accusing them of money corruption back in 2018 is a big enough argument to not help those kinds of shitty groups. There's an unreasonable fear of vaccines as people think "it is too soon" and "it has a lot of side effects". That is of course, wrong, as it's been proved that most vaccines don't have an abnormal ratio of side effects. They're technically supposed to still be in the third test phase, but Europe gave them an early authorization due to the particular situation. I think vaccines should be open-source, and the big groups shouldn't be able to copyright them and decide their price. If those vaccines are really efficient (which has yet to be really determined), they should be free, with the researchers getting payed by governments or other states that benefit from their work. I also think there's no justification for making them mandatory just yet, as they have a chance to be useless, and just throw money at 4 companies.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 13, 2021)

assassinz said:


> https://www.tiktok.com/@john.stokes...r_device=pc&sender_web_id=7007429241881839110


How common is this problem and what are the sources? Vaccine side effects are a thing but they aren’t very common and tend to effect those with already preexisting conditions in most cases and very low rates in other cases.
https://health.ucdavis.edu/health-n...-the-rare-side-effects-of-the-vaccine/2021/09


----------



## assassinz (Sep 13, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> How common is this problem and what are the sources? Vaccine side effects are a thing but they aren’t very common and tend to effect those with already preexisting conditions in most cases and very low rates in other cases.
> https://health.ucdavis.edu/health-n...-the-rare-side-effects-of-the-vaccine/2021/09


All I know is that there can be a small percentage of the population that has severe or life threatening reactions to 
even the flu vaccine. The sad part is that you won't know if you're in that small percentage until you take the vaccine. This kid says he had no prior health issues.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 13, 2021)

assassinz said:


> All I know is that there can be a small percentage of the population that has severe or life threatening reactions to
> even the flu vaccine. The sad part is that you won't know if you're in that small percentage until you take the vaccine. This kid says he had no prior health issues.


The sad part is, there can be underlining issues that someone doesn’t know about. The small cases of heart conditions are extremely rare and currently there is research into why it happens. It is known that it seems to primarily effect teenage boys, so it could be either a health fact, biological factor, or something yet to be determined. That being said, none of them have been life threatening and have cleared up either on their own or little medical assistance. This is a small temporary issue that doesn’t even compare to the possible permanent heart damage caused by Covid.

I am going to reframe my question a little. This is about the anti-vaccine and those not willing to be vaccinated in general. What sources lead you to that conclusion and how verifiable are those sources? What medical research is used in the sources? Is it more than just anecdotal evidence?


----------



## assassinz (Sep 13, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I would really appreciate knowing some of the sources that back up the anti-vaccine movement. The anti-vac movement has some pretty convicted individuals and I am wondering what are some sources that either they can provide or can be provided to back up the motivations to join this movement? What research has been done? Has this research been peer-reviewed, if not, why? What is some of evidence against vaccination?


This woman is/was pro-vaccine but her and her daughter got screwed up after being vaxxed.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 13, 2021)

assassinz said:


> This woman is/was pro-vaccine but her and her daughter got screwed up after being vaxxed.



Side effects can happen, this is a known factor in medicine. These cases are extremely slim that it’s barely a fraction of the people who have been vaccinated without problems. What sources beyond a few noteworthy are there to back up the anti-vac movement?


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 13, 2021)

Sources of funding and categorisations of actions here are interesting, and ill served by the common "they is all morons" rhetoric, even if I would think they are all morons even if for different reasons. Whether you know it from Sun Tzu or Rage Against the Machine then "know your enemy" https://www.scienceofstrategy.org/main/content/know-enemy
Follow the money can also be a good one here, all sorts of things from that one if you follow it.

You usually get the 
Hippy mothers
Religious types with odd readings of religious texts, some of which might even have made sense if first thought of before disinfectant, germ theory and such like when the local witch was your best bet.
General distrust of authority.

Different flavours are more prevalent in different locales, and have different regional variations as well.
I am told hippy mothers tended to be the Australian problem a few years back, potentially solved by in turn saying "no shot, no school" which means the hippy mothers could not do wine at lunch as they would be home schooling instead.
Religious types actually in Europe is one of the big ones; the Netherlands tending to provide a nice case study here as they are lumped with what sort of became what those in the US will probably associate with the Mennonites (Menno Simons of Friesland, Friesland being a Dutch speaking part of the world for those not familiar with Dutch geography) and Amish. Not limited to that though; all sorts of beliefs pertaining to medicine exist (both other wackadoodle Christians, anti West which includes medicine Islam is a rabbit hole if you want that*, native belief structures and oriental efforts, plus history but more on that in a bit) and make life harder for those that at best note a placebo effect from those practices and would rather go with the chemicals, scans and such approach that... works.
Distrust of authority varies, and authorities give reasons to distrust them all the time.
My favourites probably being the causation-correlation in Africa wherein it has been noted various places are smart enough to note the arrival of those in fancy biohazard suits and all your mates dying of some horrible disease, best point your AK at them just like you do when other arseholes come to town to mess things up) but it is also not limited to that in any way, shape or form and mistrust of authority has different causes, historical (smallpox blankets is a meme at this point but still can inform, and also make things that might be more relevant when it comes to forced treatment a harder affair, if not outright impossible under basic human rights law**) and current, all over the place.

*interesting one there is people fleeing Pakistan for India (one of the leading pharmaceutical producers in the world) tending to bring diseases with them, people went out and were all "we don't care about you trying to cross, however you have this or you don't come in".

**even without the trouble of "see many historical events" then not an easy ethical debate either ("my body, my choice" and all that), also says nothing of the pragmatism concern of whatever powers you give your presently totally benevolent and competent government now (see also "utter fantasy") will be available when some/the other guys get back in (and they will, or at least will have to be assumed to have it happen one day even by a fluke). Something to consider when the presently pondered/threatened/contemplated "vaccine passports" are being discussed.

There are potential scientific reasonings behind things here; anything you put in you will have a side effect, however you don't need to be a medic to say passing sore arm is far preferable to insides pouring out of you*** (and then probably 15-20 days later the same for all/no small amount of your nearest and dearest), however part of the risk-reward equation does see people leap to extremes (there is a fractional risk of reaction and medical negligence, neither of which would happen if you sat at home instead and pondered why if everybody else has car insurance that you need it for you). People love them some extremes and gruesome stuff as well; see most medical advertising in the US, biologically driven as well -- checking behind the bush for a lion is tedious when I could be charging off after dinner but even if it is only one in 300 then if I have to go hunting every day then you are not going to make it more than a year or two... we are all the descendants of the ones that checked behind the bush with the handful of sociopaths not being concerned by that. More sociological things vis a vis group vs individualism (there are political concerns here, and not necessarily the ones people think -- left vs right has some interesting things to ponder but by and large does nothing for the whole picture as individualism and collectivism, to say nothing of its massive variation between cultures, has different notions within each of those).


***lack of first hand knowledge/witnessing of things has also reduced their scariness to some if only hearing about it in a book, or indeed taking the words that only heard about it in a book. Especially as most people that have seen things be a widespread affair are now very old  ( https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-history/developments-by-year - average age is about 70 and most things there cured by the early 1960s, if not earlier, so if you wanted to be say 13 to properly comprehend things you can do the rest of the maths, and that is even before grandma talking about how she lost 3 siblings being much like grandpa talking about losing 3 buddies in the war for the in one ear-out other stakes). 

Lack of scientific literacy (and scientists are generally awful moral touchstones, and even worse PR peeps as most are not even pretty) also goes both ways. Someone doing what the bespectacled person in the white coat says is probably going have a positive outcome even if they have no clue what actually just happened to them and would need months to properly understand it (if at all), if the same ignorance also means they are going to struggle when some bad science (poor method, funding conflicts, poor sampling... it really does not matter) comes along, even more so if "a lie spreads halfway around the world while the truth is strapping on its shoes (and then probably needs a lecture to explain why the lie is a lie)" has its underlying reasoning carry across.

Can also carry across to non vaccine stuff as well. Scary one from a few years back was it was noted many would be mothers were not getting pre natal vitamin k injections and often cited similar concerns. https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/2/e20173743 is for newborns but still interesting reading.

Papers then, not that papers mean much to many of these.
Adverse reactions and prevalence thereof.
The autism-MMR thing. Be it the original, or ponderings of mercury (thimerosal). You also get the Africa men in biohazard suits type related thing where autism gets diagnosed after infant vaccinations are concluded (mainly because those end about the time the first signs of autism tend to show up in early play and development).
There is a fair bit of guesswork involved in some things as well; your annual flu vaccine is usually whatever strain pops in Australia earlier in the year (winter being in the northern hemisphere's summer) being the most likely to go worldwide so spin up a batch of that (and made troubled this time around by there not really being a flu season what with "stay in your home, citizen", possibly further by what little flu there was meaning what minor immunity might have been had being absent/diminished now).
Efficacy of the vaccines at producing antibodies is one I have heard a few times. Both as a general effect of the vaccine in question (bad batch, improper testing... all fun), and interactions (see cancer suffers and efficacy of covid vaccines if you want a more recent one).
Lack of testing of some of the vaccines. Claims the FDA did not do this or that might well be true (or true to some extent -- proper testing does take years, and if a virus only appeared and was sequenced in the last year then you might have to go for a lesser "will probably still be OK" type nod than your most convicted choice, especially when the lesser nod will probably still be just fine/acceptable casualties and potentially save more than a few lives and a lot of funds treating things that mere numbers say will be the case), and they have certainly not shown themselves to be ever competent or incorruptible either (addyi probably being my favourite for them being bullied and cajoled), never mind the wider government (see most drug laws, censorship and more besides). There are also still quite a few questions about things given to various military types despite dubious testing before various wars.

Despite my bluster above I am also aware of the lack of embracing by medics and wider scientist followers. This has swept up a few that might have one of the few genuine reasons to avoid vaccinations; immunodeficiency, allergy (wheat and eggs are often key ingredients in bulk vaccine production, also two common allergies these days it seems) as it will then be the anti set that listens to them or does not treat them like pariahs (simplistic "no vaccinations = bad" mantra of many being then rather tricky when your crotch fruit can't handle a chicken ovulation without dying, and "would love to if we could" falling on deaf ears).
Even without my snark I am also aware that the many paragraphs I just wrote are far less meaningful than "my cousin says" on a silly picture on facebook for most people, or indeed the Australian thing of make it inconvenient to live otherwise.


----------



## assassinz (Sep 13, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Side effects can happen, this is known factor in medicine. These cases are extremely slim that it’s barely a fraction of the people who have been vaccinated without problems. What sources beyond a few noteworthy are there to back up the anti-vac movement?


The only sources would be whatever google has available when you search. There are possibl side effects with any medication. And everyone's body is different. I'd say anti-vaxxers don't want to find out if they are in that extremely slim fraction of people that will get fu**ed up by the vaccine side-effects.


----------



## JaapDaniels (Sep 13, 2021)

assassinz said:


> The only sources would be whatever google has available when you search. There are possibl side effects with any medication. And everyone's body is different. I'd say anti-vaxxers don't want to find out if they are in that extremely slim fraction of people that will get fu**ed up by the vaccine side-effects.


so they wanna be sure to get f*cked up by the virus itself, that makes sense.


----------



## gudenau (Sep 13, 2021)

From my experience it comes from one of:

Strange religious beliefs (I.E. me getting sick is god's will, I have no right to interfere or god will kill me if I get an "unholy" vaccination)
Distrust in science
Distrust in doctors
Distrust in the government (they don't seem to realize that keeping people from dying means more tax money)

Lack of education in the basics of how the immune system works
Poorly cited or fear mongering social media posts taken at face value

Actually not being able to get vaccinated because of a real medical issues
Just being a butt and pretending you can't get sick and being sick doesn't hurt other people


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 13, 2021)

*reads title*

...

*grabs popcorn*


EDIT: okay, okay...I'll contribute. For this, I'll be roughly 95% refering to a colleague whom we (the three others in the ICT department) tried to convince but failed. His line of thinking is very similar to others I've personally heard about, though (among which @alexander1970 , if I'm honest).

To them, it's just a matter of personal choice. And...that's really it.


The thing others (vaccinated people for the very large majority at this point) often miss is that there is no such thing as an universal truth. There really isn't a "right" or "wrong" answer to the question on whether you should or shouldn't get a vaccine. And I know that's a hard pill to swallow (believe me: to me this is an universal "you should" if there ever was one. But my belief on this is - again - not universal(1) ), but it's really this simple.

I think everyone should get the vaccine. Others don't think so. So...difference on opinion.

Where it usually goes wrong is the conviction of my side that the others will listen to things like "reason" (once again: not universal), statistics, ethics and so on. At the moment the opinions are set, these sorts of things will only make it worse. I don't think naysayers seek out conspiracy theorists because it makes them happy, but because they're pushed in that direction by those who don't respect their opinion.


(1): law, on the other hand, is a different matter. If I have my say, it'll be obligated vaccines for everyone aside those with underlying medical conditions. And I don't give a FUCK how many nazi comparisons others will make of that stance. I value the safety and sanity of our safety workers much higher than naysayers who'll seek medical treatment the second they'll get covid symptoms.


----------



## Deleted member 568468 (Sep 13, 2021)

gudenau said:


> Actually not being able to get vaccinated because of a real medical issues


Actually this isn't the reason. Most, if not all people I know who didn't get the jab for medical issues actually are very pro-vaxx and will say that if you don't have medical obstacles, go for it.


----------



## subcon959 (Sep 13, 2021)

Anecdotal evidence can be very powerful for people. Good luck convincing a mother about the low incidence of side effects if her child has a severe reaction and ends up in the hospital. The problem is that even if these cases are statistically insignificant they still happen to real people with real friends and family who may all be psychologically affected by it. I didn't think twice about getting my two shots but if it came to deciding for little children I wouldn't be so sure.


----------



## plasturion (Sep 13, 2021)

Maybe you could ask the ones who took the vaccine for swine flu. I wonder why they don't want to...
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/narcolepsy-fiasco-spurs-covid-vaccine-fears-in-sweden


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Sep 13, 2021)

assassinz said:


> The only sources would be whatever google has available when you search. There are possibl side effects with any medication. And everyone's body is different. I'd say anti-vaxxers don't want to find out if they are in that extremely slim fraction of people that will get fu**ed up by the vaccine side-effects.



Except if they went to the doctor for something else and were prescribed a pill they had never taken before, chances are extremely high they would have zero issue taking the pill whatsoever. Regardless of the troves of evidence of *possible* side effects from said medication. So why so skeptical of the vaccine when they would most likely take practically any other medications with no questions asked?

Imo the majority of the anti-vaxxers have purely political reasoning, because their medical claims don't hold up. They're unsubstantiated, hypocritical, and let's face it - the majority of anti-vaxxers ARE on the right and all share the same fake "medical" cowardice. I mean, look at the rare side effects from talking any medication in the world. Yet they will take all others, just not the vaccine. Aspirin can cause bleeding from the skull and anus & I bet one could probably find a video of someone that got really sick from taking aspirin...but I bet they don't have any issues taking aspirin nor are they saying "LOOK!!! THIS VIDEO!!! DO NOT TAKE ASPIRIN!!!!" The fear of side effects is a weak and cowardly reason to not be vaccinated.


----------



## BeniBel (Sep 13, 2021)

Edit as some idiot finds the fact my mother died hilarious.


----------



## Deleted member 568468 (Sep 13, 2021)

BeniBel said:


> My 77 year old mother battled cancer for over a year, when she finally beat it. Then, her doctor suggested her to take the vaccin. Two weeks later I was asked to pull the plug on her. So yeah, that's my reason not to get it.


Y'know you and your mother aren't clones? Just because your mother died weeks after taking the jab (was it even proven it was because of the vaccine? sometimes cancer can be a bitch even after you beat it) doesn't mean you're going to die either.


----------



## Kurt91 (Sep 14, 2021)

There's multiple reasons for me and my family.

As for me personally, I had a cancer-removal surgery a couple years ago. As a result of the surgery, I have a weaker immune system than normal and I was told specifically not to get the vaccine. I have a doctor's appointment tomorrow to get the formal medical exemption form filled out.

As for my family members, my sister technically has a government job as a receptionist in a government-run rehab clinic. She was forced to get the vaccine. Shortly after getting the first dose, she started having serious heart issues. As in, having to carry a heart monitor with her everywhere she went for several days. She had never had heart issues before, and they would have come up in the full-body medical scans she had gotten previously for an unrelated condition. (spine issue) On top of that, the typical worst-case side effects hit her and she was bedridden for a while. We had no idea any of this would have happened to her, and in hindsight, getting the vaccine in her case seems to one of the worst things she could have done.

My mother in particular already has heart issues. These are physical issues, not hereditary, so they have nothing to do with my sister's reaction to the vaccine. If my mother has the same or similar reaction to the vaccine as my sister did, chances are incredibly likely that she won't survive.

My grandmother used to work in the local hospital. She's close friends with a majority of the doctors and nurses who still work there. A large number of them are apparently saying that they would rather quit their jobs than be forced to take the vaccine. This makes my grandparents a bit suspicious. After all, everybody's saying listen to the experts, and a majority of the local experts do not want the vaccine.

So yeah, in my case it's a combination of directly told by a doctor (Regardless of what you think of the other reasoning I've posted, I have a damned good reason to listen to my own doctor directly), immediate anecdotal evidence courtesy of my sister, second-hand verification from my grandmother's former co-workers, as well as the addition of what could possibly happen to her in my mother's case.


----------



## Deleted member 568468 (Sep 14, 2021)

I feel like some of you confuse being anti-vaccine and not taking the vaccine because of medical reasons.


----------



## subcon959 (Sep 14, 2021)

tsao said:


> I feel like some of you confuse being anti-vaccine and not taking the vaccine because of medical reasons.


It's more often the case they get lumped together by pro-vaccine people. Even if it's not the point of this thread, it's still useful to be reminded why not everyone should be vaccinated.


----------



## Deleted member 568468 (Sep 14, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> It's more often the case they get lumped together by pro-vaccine people. Even if it's not the point of this thread, it's still useful to be reminded why not everyone should be vaccinated.


Again, if there is no medical obstacles, get the jab. Or if you decide to be an asshole and not get the jab simply because "i don't want to, bill gates 5g yada yada" then don't be surprised people don't want to be near you. ESPECIALLY if you're also anti-mask and anti-distance.

Some of us can't really afford getting Covid despite our young age.


----------



## XDel (Sep 14, 2021)

I'm just ignorant, reckless, and have no concern for the welfare of others. That's my source.


----------



## Deleted member 568468 (Sep 14, 2021)

XDel said:


> I'm just ignorant, reckless, and have no concern for the welfare of others. That's my source.


couldn't expect less from someone with such a profile picture


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Sep 14, 2021)

I think the majority of people claiming medical reasons are completely full of shit. Including the two stories I read on this page alone. BeniBels medial reason is completely unfounded speculation unless they have some actual evidence that it was the fault of the vaccine, and I don't believe a word of Kurts without some factual evidence either. I think you're all talking out of your asses. Prior cancer and a weak immune system are not valid reasons for not being vaccinated and I don't believe any doctor told anyone that.


----------



## subcon959 (Sep 14, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I think the majority of people claiming medical reasons are completely full of shit. Including the two stories I read on this page alone. BeniBels medial reason is completely unfounded speculation unless they have some actual evidence that it was the fault of the vaccine, and I don't believe a word of Kurts without some factual evidence either. I think you're all talking out of your asses. Prior cancer and a weak immune system are not valid reasons for not being vaccinated and I don't believe any doctor told anyone that.


Unless you're a medical professional I think talking out of your arse also applies to you.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Sep 14, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Unless you're a medical professional I think talking out of your arse also applies to you.



I'm sure by now you're aware of how burden of proof works. Medical claims are being made for reasons to not be vaccinated.. Proof or people are talking out of their ass. I don't need to be the medical professional here, I'm asking for proof from medical professionals.


----------



## subcon959 (Sep 14, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I'm sure by now you're aware of how burden of proof works. Medical claims are being made for reasons to not be vaccinated.. Proof or people are talking out of their ass. I don't need to be the medical professional here, I'm asking for proof from medical professionals.


Why do you feel entitled to any proof? Do you really think someone is going to give you confidential information about their medical history here?


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Sep 14, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Why do you feel entitled to any proof? Do you really think someone is going to give you confidential information about their medical history here?



Do you even know what this topic is about? People are looking for actual verifiable anti-vaxx medical/scientific sources. Not just some one rattling off possible fake information. I can write fake medical history about myself and my family also. I have zero idea what is actually true or not. We're looking for facts, not some random persons non verifiable story. I've had an incredibly weak immune system my entire life, I get sick easier than anyone I've ever known in my life, and both of my parents are cancer survivors. None of us had any reaction to the COVID vaccine. People are talking out of their ass.


----------



## subcon959 (Sep 14, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Do you even know what this topic is about? People are looking for actual verifiable anti-vaxx sources. Not just some one rattling off possible fake information. I can write fake medical history about myself and my family also. I have zero idea what is actually true or not. We're looking for facts, not some random persons non verifiable story.


Do you really think this is a serious thread? Do you really think there is actual scientific evidence out there that backs up the anti-vaccine movement?


----------



## elk1007 (Sep 14, 2021)

Did anyone read the original posters edit?
This is about anti-vaccine in general; specifically not just present COVID vax hesitance.
Please don't derail the thread by page 2 


Anyway, here's a totally serious anti-vax argument.


----------



## subcon959 (Sep 14, 2021)

The OP wants peer reviewed data which is obviously not out there. All evidence is going to be anecdotal at this point, and as I said somewhere else it is entirely human to react strongly to anecdotal evidence, so it's not surprising people jump on board.

The only official reason to not get vaccinated is if you have an allergy to the components of the vaccine. That's why they make you wait afterwards to make sure you don't have anaphylaxis. In some cases, there may be added risk due to autoimmune disease but even that will be something your doctor may voice concern over rather than an official contraindication.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 14, 2021)

Everyone in my home has gotten the vax shots, but some people were opposed to getting anything injected in their bodies that wasnt fully FDA approved and I don't think that's unreasonable. I guess the Pfizer concoction is approved now, and its a traditional vaccine. But the MRNA juices (Moderna, J&J) are still emergency authorization only, right?


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 14, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Everyone in my home has gotten the vax shots, but some people were opposed to getting anything injected in their bodies that wasnt fully FDA approved and I don't think that's unreasonable. I guess the Pfizer concoction is approved now, and its a traditional vaccine. But the MRNA juices (Moderna, J&J) are still emergency authorization only, right?


Pfizer is a mRNA vaccine. J&J is the more traditional one.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 14, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Pfizer is a mRNA vaccine. J&J is the more traditional one.



Ok thx had them mixed up. I got Moderna.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 14, 2021)

remember biden's vaxx target of like 70% of the US by independence day? you need to remember some of these "anti vaxxers" are just butt hurt Trump supporters,they'l still get their flu vaccine in the winter they just want to be defiant bitches (whom i don't care get sick and die from covid not getting any sympathy from me no one bit they all can become worm chow and the US would be a better place)


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 14, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> remember biden's vaxx target of like 70% of the US by independence day? you need to remember some of these "anti vaxxers" are just butt hurt Trump supporters,they'l still get their flu vaccine in the winter they just want to be defiant bitches (whom i don't care get sick and die from covid not getting any sympathy from me no one bit they all can become worm chow and the US would be a better place)




Theres quite a bit of "anti-vax" sentiment in black and Latino communities, too. Just check some stats on the demographic percentages of unvaccinated persons in major cities. (only 28% of black 18-44 yr olds in NYC, for example. Don't try to tell me they don't have the opportunity.) I personally think everyone should get the shots, but I'm not inclined to judge those resisting it particularly along political lines, because there's plenty of ignorance to go around.

"If Donald Trump tells us we should take it, I'm not taking it." -- Kamala Harris


----------



## djpannda (Sep 14, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> "If Donald Trump tells us we should take it, I'm not taking it." -- Kamala Harris


at least quote the Completely  statement as miss-quoting is a disservice to you..

"If the public-health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I'll be the first in line to take it — absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us we should take it, I'm not taking it."

Remember this was just right after Trump wanted to use the Power of the Sun and Injecting Disinfectant in people .. so yea.. People were not trusting anything Trump recommended


----------



## osirisjem (Sep 14, 2021)

assassinz said:


> This woman is/was pro-vaccine but her and her daughter got screwed up after being vaxxed.



That's a weak anecdote.

The same person could be harmed 100x worse by getting covid without the vaccine first.

People also get sick like that every day totally unrelated to vaccines.

Zero proof or relevance her issues are caused by the vaccine.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 15, 2021)

I do want to state that my questions are not directed at anyone with medical conditions preventing them from being vaccinated. I have an immune disorder (possibly Lupus, still trying to figure it out,) I understand the struggle and concern when it comes to vaccines. My questions are directed at those who are against vaccines in general. Anecdotal reports are not evidence. I am only looking for research that is backed and verifiable through the peer-reviewed process.


----------



## djpannda (Sep 15, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I do want to state that my questions are not directed at anyone with medical conditions preventing them from being vaccinated. I have an immune disorder (possibly Lupus, still trying to figure it out,) I understand the struggle and concern when it comes to vaccines. My questions are directed at those who are against vaccines in general. Anecdotal reports are not evidence. I am only looking for research that is backed and verifiable through the peer-reviewed process.


You mean Nikki Minaj cousin’s friend in Hati is not evidence?? what bout my barber’s  Neighbor’s sister’s dog walkers became Magento after the jab? That count?


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 15, 2021)

djpannda said:


> You mean Nikki Minaj cousin’s friend in Hati is not evidence?? what bout my barber’s  Neighbor’s sister’s dog walkers became Magento after the jab? That count?


If I can’t quote my alters, people can’t quote their dog walker of that one person


----------



## plasturion (Sep 16, 2021)

The biggest oportuninty may came from vaccine production technology. All vaccines needed tests with fetal cell lines taken from aborted babies. It's sound like satanic to me. This is damn really hard to accept.


----------



## djpannda (Sep 16, 2021)

plasturion said:


> The biggest oportuninty may came from vaccine production technology. All vaccines needed tests with fetal cell lines taken from aborted babies. It's sound like satanic to me. This is damn really hard to accept.


Do not know what religion you are but in most case the MRNA Tech is so Far removed from "stem cells" that many major religions have already stated its Moral acceptable to take. As MRNA uses* no Stem Cells* in direct testing ( but uses *Knowledge* from older testing).
The Vatican’s doctrinal office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), has determined that it is “morally acceptable” for Catholics to take these vaccines against the COVID-19 Virus. 
It would be like "refusing to wear a Polyester lined Jacket because it reminds you of a feather lined jacket"

The Church has also stated that J&J vaccine is "acceptable" if no MRNA is available as the Current Benefits would outweigh the history..
So Get the Vaccine, its Jesus Approved






P.S. you know know like 90% of modern Medical Knowledge has been done by experimenting with Dead Bodies right?.. From your Heart bypass, to artificial hips. ?


----------



## plasturion (Sep 16, 2021)

I don't care what vatican said. It's just damn wrong! It's like I can't believe there's some many psychos that don't care at all.


----------



## djpannda (Sep 16, 2021)

plasturion said:


> I don't care what vatican said. It's just damn wrong! It's like I can't believe there's some many psychos that don't care at all.


...like I said ... MRNA has no direct use of "stem cells" so what are you objecting?
*Do the Vaccines from Pfizer or Moderna Use Embryonic Stem Cells or Fetal Tissue? The Answer is No. *


----------



## ghjfdtg (Sep 16, 2021)

It's not as bad as you might think. These cells are reproduced cells. Not from recent abortions. The commonly used cells apparently date back decades and came from woman who actually wanted abortion. Since then they keep reproducing these same cells for tests and for vaccine production.


----------



## plasturion (Sep 16, 2021)

It's not so good as it sounds, all vaccine even mRna (Pfizer, Moderna) also used that cells in the lab phase of testing for comfirmation, Pfizer used line HEK-293. Sure it was in developed in 1972, but the lines are aging and new lines are still appearing, the last one developed in China in 2015. I don't want to support that method at any way, I have right for it, and I'll never accept it.


----------



## djpannda (Sep 16, 2021)

plasturion said:


> It's not so good as it sounds, all vaccine even mRna (Pfizer, Moderna) also used that cells in the lab phase of testing for comfirmation, Pfizer used line HEK-293. Sure it was in developed in 1972, but the lines are aging and new lines are still appearing, the last one developed in China in 2015. I don't want to support that method at any way, I have right for it, and I'll never accept it.


Then make sure you never accept most Medical treatments and medicine ..Otherwise people might think your a hypocrite..  accepting life saving treatment created by dead tissue and bodies. (which is everything!).. well that if your argument is not solely based on Political affiliations. 

*The Secret Lives of Cadavers*


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 16, 2021)

plasturion said:


> I don't care what vatican said. It's just damn wrong! It's like I can't believe there's some many psychos that don't care at all.


Like not caring that people are dying from covid.


----------



## Chary (Sep 16, 2021)

Since I work from home, and don't really leave the house--I've gone out shopping maybe a dozen or so times since COVID began, I went along with my anti-vax parents demands to not get the vaccine if only because I didn't want to cause drama with them.

At this point though, I decided that I'd like to be able to go outside those few times I do without fearing getting sick. I asked my mom to provide a single bit of science or proof that I shouldn't get the vaccine. One article from a non-sketchy site. She couldn't, neither could my dad.

...so I got the vaccine yesterday. Simple as that. I'm sure some people have legitimate sources (from their POV) and uneasiness about the vaccine, but I think, for the most part, many anti-vax people are against it because of fear of the unknown, or baseless speculation.


----------



## ghjfdtg (Sep 16, 2021)

I would have done it secretly in your situation if they still refused. Nothing to fear about the vaccines.


----------



## plasturion (Sep 16, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Then make sure you never accept most Medical treatments and medicine ..Otherwise people might think your a hypocrite..  accepting life saving treatment created by dead tissue and bodies. (which is everything!).. well that if your argument is not solely based on Political affiliations.


Not dead but living, cells are taken from kidney in agonal state.


----------



## djpannda (Sep 16, 2021)

Chary said:


> Since I work from home, and don't really leave the house--I've gone out shopping maybe a dozen or so times since COVID began, I went along with my anti-vax parents demands to not get the vaccine if only because I didn't want to cause drama with them.
> 
> At this point though, I decided that I'd like to be able to go outside those few times I do without fearing getting sick. I asked my mom to provide a single bit of science or proof that I shouldn't get the vaccine. One article from a non-sketchy site. She couldn't, neither could my dad.
> 
> ...so I got the vaccine yesterday. Simple as that. I'm sure some people have legitimate sources (from their POV) and uneasiness about the vaccine, but I think, for the most part, many anti-vax people are against it because of fear of the unknown, or baseless speculation.


Bless you!, Now I don't mind you as Chief Editor... lol JP

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



plasturion said:


> Not dead but living, cells are taken from kidney in agonal state.


cool Thanks for clearing that up... Dead babies OK! Lab produced Cell BAD... MORALS!


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 17, 2021)

I am saddened when I come back to this thread and no sources have been provided


----------



## plasturion (Sep 17, 2021)

djpannda said:
			
		

> cool Thanks for clearing that up... Dead babies OK! Lab produced Cell BAD... MORALS!


who said that is ok, It's not ok at all. that's the main reason, every abortion is bad, even if it can "save" thousand of lives(like there's no other way wich i don't believe, or they don't try to find it because of fuc*in up thinking like that), and noone have right to decide if anyone can born or not, doctors, mothers, noone. That's most disgusting bestiality in this sick world.


----------



## subcon959 (Sep 17, 2021)

plasturion said:


> who said that is ok, It's not ok at all. that's the main reason, every abortion is bad, even if it can "save" thousand of lives(like there's no other way wich i don't believe, or they don't try to find it because of fuc*in up thinking like that), and noone have right to decide if anyone can born or not, doctors, mothers, noone. That's most disgusting bestiality in this sick world.


.. oh lord give me strength.. luckily most of that is off topic so I'm not gonna get into it.


----------



## IncredulousP (Sep 22, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I am saddened when I come back to this thread and no sources have been provided


Here's my source: FREEDOM! U-S-A! 
U-S-A! Ain't no libral gonna try an stick ME with no needle. Else they gonna have to talk with Mr. Gun here.


----------



## GbaNober (Sep 30, 2021)

Because currently where still in live experiment process from vaccines.
Vaccine should examine and tested carefully (in long run probably 4+ years for better safety) before putting it on public
but big corp pharma wants to Ru$h their drugs on market.
disturbingly,some politicians abused their position to mandate it by using force,public pressure,obvious/indirect tactics that affect individuals way of living giving them no option but to take the shot but back to my point we should study how the new vaccine works because honestly we don't know the future Side effects of it.


----------



## Dakitten (Sep 30, 2021)

GbaNober said:


> Because currently where still in live experiment process from vaccines.
> Vaccine should examine and tested carefully (in long run probably 4+ years for better safety) before putting it on public
> but big corp pharma wants to Ru$h their drugs on market.
> disturbingly,some politicians abused their position to mandate it by using force,public pressure,obvious/indirect tactics that affect individuals way of living giving them no option but to take the shot but back to my point we should study how the new vaccine works because honestly we don't know the future Side effects of it.


Four years... to make a vaccine killing millions of people now... because long term side effects can't possibly be imagined by doctors who study chemical interactions for a living and can predict with fairly regular accuracy how things will progress, and cross-check with others using prediction models and review of like products... I'm sorry, is your tin foil hat on too tight, or was this the 5g mind control provoking a response out of ignorance? I figure you're somebody with a great level of distrust in the government and pharmaceutical companies, but presuming that a vaccine that is peer reviewed and utilized successfully world-wide is just a money making apparatus in the face of an actual pandemic that kills rich and poor alike might be a bridge too far.


----------



## GbaNober (Sep 30, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Four years... to make a vaccine killing millions of people now... because long term side effects can't possibly be imagined by doctors who study chemical interactions for a living and can predict with fairly regular accuracy how things will progress, and cross-check with others using prediction models and review of like products... I'm sorry, is your tin foil hat on too tight, or was this the 5g mind control provoking a response out of ignorance? I figure you're somebody with a great level of distrust in the government and pharmaceutical companies, but presuming that a vaccine that is peer reviewed and utilized successfully world-wide is just a money making apparatus in the face of an actual pandemic that kills rich and poor alike might be a bridge too far.


"a vaccine that is peer reviewed and utilized Successfully world-wide"
what peer reviewed? Israel with the highest rate of dosage and yet they're one of the world’s highest infection rates
isn't the process of experimenting the drugs still ongoing?


----------



## Xzi (Sep 30, 2021)

GbaNober said:


> what peer reviewed? Israel with the highest rate of dosage and yet they're one of the world’s highest infection rates


Infections among the vaccinated population are nearly irrelevant.  So long as they're asymptomatic or exhibit only mild symptoms, that goes to show the vaccines are doing their job.  It's instead hospitalization rates and death rates which hold the most importance.



GbaNober said:


> isn't the process of experimenting the drugs still ongoing?


No.  Clinical trials took place before the vaccines were authorized for public use.  Science never sleeps and never stops collecting data, of course, but you shouldn't mistake that for being perpetually stuck in the "beta" phase.


----------



## Deleted member 514389 (Sep 30, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Sources of funding and categorisations of actions here are interesting, and ill served by the common "they is all morons" rhetoric, even if I would think they are all morons even if for different reasons. Whether you know it from Sun Tzu or Rage Against the Machine then "know your enemy" https://www.scienceofstrategy.org/main/content/know-enemy
> Follow the money can also be a good one here, all sorts of things from that one if you follow it.
> 
> You usually get the
> ...


And we haven't touched "the long term" yet.

All that aside....

The biggest problem with science is and always was "money".
How many things / people can claim to be independant ?


----------



## Xzi (Sep 30, 2021)

notrea11y said:


> The biggest problem with science is and always was "money".
> How many things / people can claim to be independant ?


The economy is just people, no government or corporation on earth stands to benefit from a majority of their workforce dying off.  So even taking the profit motive into account, it makes zero sense to release an ineffective or dangerous vaccine to the public.


----------



## Dakitten (Sep 30, 2021)

notrea11y said:


> And we haven't touched "the long term" yet.
> 
> All that aside....
> 
> ...


The biggest problem with society is the concept of money, perhaps. Corporations and politicians have absolutely cut the masses to enrich the few. Individuals in their fields, however, span countries, ideals, and economics and have a body of their peers who routinely form an educated consensus with facts not obfuscated by politics. Budgets for medical safety nets might be easy to taint, but research findings are a different story... just ask Andrew Wakefield.



GbaNober said:


> "a vaccine that is peer reviewed and utilized Successfully world-wide"
> what peer reviewed? Israel with the highest rate of dosage and yet they're one of the world’s highest infection rates
> isn't the process of experimenting the drugs still ongoing?



The documentation on the safety and efficacy on Pfizer and its equivalents worldwide has been peer reviewed and studied at great length by professionals. Israel's issues are many, and their outbreak is tragic, but the scientific community is gathering the data of what is going on there in order to combat the outbreak elsewhere. It has also proven many of the positive aspects of the vaccine at present. There are experiments being done regarding booster shots and variations to improve efficacy and adjust the amount of active ingredients, but it isn't being done in some nefarious plan to disease the population.


----------



## TheCasketMan (Sep 30, 2021)

Reason is freedom.  Why do we have to put something in our bodies if the government tells us to.  I respect your decision if you decide to put 10 doses in your bodies, so I expect you to respect my choice not to.  If I die from covid, then that’s on me.


----------



## djpannda (Sep 30, 2021)

GbaNober said:


> Because currently where still in live experiment process from vaccines.
> Vaccine should examine and tested carefully (in long run probably 4+ years for better safety) before putting it on public
> but big corp pharma wants to Ru$h their drugs on market.
> disturbingly,some politicians abused their position to mandate it by using force,public pressure,obvious/indirect tactics that affect individuals way of living giving them no option but to take the shot but back to my point we should study how the new vaccine works because honestly we don't know the future Side effects of it





TheCasketMan said:


> Reason is freedom.  Why do we have to put something in our bodies if the government tells us to.  I respect your decision if you decide to put 10 doses in your bodies, so I expect you to respect my choice not to.  If I die from covid, then that’s on me.


Its amazing what people don't understand the Gravity of the situation. 4 million died in 2 year. YES. its a 97% survival rate. but the issue is MUTATION.  The more the  virus Travels the stronger it will become.. I know a lot of people don't believe in Human Evolution... But Bacteria and Viral mutations happen regular... We are literally just *one MUTATION away from the Reverse DEATH RATE of 97%!! You're willing to die for a sham of political reason ( thats your right) the issue is its A FUCKING VIRUS it SPREADS!!.. meaning your exposing others to it. and that Nullifies you right to unabashed "Freedom".  *


----------



## TheCasketMan (Sep 30, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Its amazing what people don't understand the Gravity of the situation. 4 million died in 2 year. YES. its a 97% survival rate. but the issue is MUTATION.  The more the  virus Travels the stronger it will become.. I know a lot of people don't believe in Human Evolution... But Bacteria and Viral mutations happen regular... We are literally just *one MUTATION away from the Reverse DEATH RATE of 97%!! You're willing to die for a sham of political reason ( thats your right) the issue is its A FUCKING VIRUS it SPREADS!!.. meaning your exposing others to it. and that Nullifies you right to unabashed "Freedom".  *


If you’re vaccinated, then aren’t you supposed to be protected from the virus or at least prevent severe hospitalization.  Yes the virus will spread regardless if of your vaccination status,  that’s the point of a virus.  Vaccinated people has been spreading it as much as unvaccinated.  If you are vaccinated and you feel unsafe next to an unvaccinated, then you should be questioning the efficiency of the vaccine itself.

Mutations are normal.  Even if everyone in the world is vaccinated, a new variant of coronavirus can emerge.  Remember it is the NOVEL coronavirus.  It supposedly originated from animals and then transferred to humans, so we could get a brand new corona type virus.  What’s next vaccinate all the animals in the world?


----------



## Tomato123 (Sep 30, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> The autism-MMR thing. Be it the original, or ponderings of mercury (thimerosal). You also get the Africa men in biohazard suits type related thing where autism gets diagnosed after infant vaccinations are concluded (mainly because those end about the time the first signs of autism tend to show up in early play and development).


The Autism argument with vaccines really pisses me off. I and many of my friends have Autism and can personally vouch that we haven't gotton it from vaccines or anything. It's not something you can just 'catch'. You are born with it and just because you have it, it usually doesn't even really mean anything bad. Many of us can function perfectly fine depending on the type. (In fact, I wouldn't be nearly as good as I am with technology and specifically computers if not for it.)


----------



## djpannda (Sep 30, 2021)

TheCasketMan said:


> If you’re vaccinated, then aren’t you supposed to be protected from the virus or at least prevent severe hospitalization.  Yes the virus will spread regardless if of your vaccination status,  that’s the point of a virus.  Vaccinated people has been spreading it as much as unvaccinated.  If you are vaccinated and you feel unsafe next to an unvaccinated, then you should be questioning the efficiency of the vaccine itself.
> 
> Mutations are normal.  Even if everyone in the world is vaccinated, a new variant of coronavirus can emerge.  Remember it is the NOVEL coronavirus.  It supposedly originated from animals and then transferred to humans, so we could get a brand new corona type virus.  What’s next vaccinate all the animals in the world?



Mutatuion are normal when its a happens once in a long time Frame. We have Covid19 mutation at least 5 different times in 2 years.. that is cause for alarm.  And QUESTION THE EFFICIENCY OF THE VACCINe? *ANY PERSON THAT Knows middle school math knows what 100%is * the Vaccine was around 95% effect with the normal strain. Delta is around 40-60% NONE OF THOSE NUMBER ARE 100%.... meaning YOU can still get it.. Don't be the type of person that  tries to sue the Condom company when you get Cymidia knowing the other person has it.. the box Clearly state 98% effect... and maybe don't fuck around with Cymidia in General ... You acting like Vaccination are NEW!! Being from the USA You got several vaccines already or..your not allowed to go to school.
edit .. and YES that the WHOLE POINT OF THE MEDICAL Scientist ...if theres a NEW Virus killing people. They create a Vaccine to stop it.... this is not new people .we have Eradicated Many different illness in the last 100years (POLIO)... but Because this one is attached to a political issue people wanna Cry Freedom?  Most of us choose the Freedom of not haveing loved ones and yourself dying for the selfness of a person


----------



## lokomelo (Sep 30, 2021)

I don't even know if the OP question makes sense at this point.

A famous actor died here in my Country after taking the two shots. The cause was covid, and this is expected in a place that had until now more than covid 21 million cases (on that huge universe, even rare cases do happen a lot). So, for uneducated people (that's majority here mind you) this is a valid source.

So my point is that anti-vaxxers do not need a source when they have examples. An example is an example, and people (specially the uneducated, but not only the uneducated) do not care if this happen 1 out 100 times, or 1 out 10 000 times, they just don't want to take the shots, and they will find arguments for that.


----------



## smf (Sep 30, 2021)

It's kinda tricky to do that as the cost of developing the vaccine is spread over the sales to all the governments, if it was only going to be born by one single government then it would cost them more money. If the vaccine was open source, why would you sign up to that? Bearing in mind we struggle to get governments to sign up to not killing us all with global warming...



HRudyPlayZ said:


> they should be free, with the researchers getting payed by governments or other states that benefit from their work.





lokomelo said:


> but not only the uneducated) do not care if this happen 1 out 100 times, or 1 out 10 000 times, they just don't want to take the shots, and they will find arguments for that.


Right, one child possibly died from receiving a covid injection, while 3 unvaccinated children die a day from covid & apparently it's therefore wrong to vaccinate children.



tsao said:


> Actually this isn't the reason. Most, if not all people I know who didn't get the jab for medical issues actually are very pro-vaxx and will say that if you don't have medical obstacles, go for it.


That might be annecdotally true, but only 56.2% of people have been vaccinated in America.

I doubt that the majority of the unvaccinated are pro vax & only haven't had the shot because of medical issues.



tsao said:


> Again, if there is no medical obstacles, get the jab. Or if you decide to be an asshole and not get the jab simply because "i don't want to, bill gates 5g yada yada" then don't be surprised people don't want to be near you. ESPECIALLY if you're also anti-mask and anti-distance.
> 
> Some of us can't really afford getting Covid despite our young age.


After my medication class today one of the people said they were sending out good vibrations to stop bill gates and anthony fauci to stop their program.


----------



## linuxares (Sep 30, 2021)

TheCasketMan said:


> Reason is freedom.  Why do we have to put something in our bodies if the government tells us to.  I respect your decision if you decide to put 10 doses in your bodies, so I expect you to respect my choice not to.  If I die from covid, then that’s on me.


The issue is that you're a factory for diseases while we that take the vaccine stops it.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 30, 2021)

assassinz said:


> The only sources would be whatever google has available when you search. There are possibl side effects with any medication. And everyone's body is different. I'd say anti-vaxxers don't want to find out if they are in that extremely slim fraction of people that will get fu**ed up by the vaccine side-effects.



I always found it curious that the same people that worry about the extremely slim chances of suffering from side effects also tout the "extremely slim" chances of dying from covid, but also ignore the large chances of long term covid effects (30+%).


----------



## GbaNober (Oct 1, 2021)

linuxares said:


> The issue is that you're a factory for diseases while we that take the vaccine stops it.


vaccinated and unvaccinated carry the same load of virus like delta


----------



## linuxares (Oct 1, 2021)

GbaNober said:


> vaccinated and unvaccinated carry the same load of virus like delta


Incorrect. You have to get sick to spread it. Vaccinated have a chance to fend it off.


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 1, 2021)

lokomelo said:


> I don't even know if the OP question makes sense at this point.
> 
> A famous actor died here in my Country after taking the two shots. The cause was covid, and this is expected in a place that had until now more than covid 21 million cases (on that huge universe, even rare cases do happen a lot). So, for uneducated people (that's majority here mind you) this is a valid source.
> 
> So my point is that anti-vaxxers do not need a source when they have examples. An example is an example, and people (specially the uneducated, but not only the uneducated) do not care if this happen 1 out 100 times, or 1 out 10 000 times, they just don't want to take the shots, and they will find arguments for that.


Yes, that is the majority of people here, the ignorant masses. Not men like you, men of vision, facts, and refinement! Why, just listening to you misunderstand what a source is truly lets shine the majesty of your intellect! Hail to thee, oh blessed sir who wades in the forums with us simple unwashed peons~

While we're here though, perhaps I can regale you with a tale about a young dog who licked a covid patient, and then they got better! I can't give you a link to any documentation to prove it, but I totes heard it and dog kisses are a potential cure! For the low low price of $x.xx, I can share with you what breed the dog was, in case that might matter for SCIENCE!


----------



## videogamefanatic (Oct 1, 2021)

linuxares said:


> Incorrect. You have to get sick to spread it. Vaccinated have a chance to fend it off.


THIIIIIS. It's the one major thing that tends to get missed in the current anti-vax rhetoric. The viral load is only similar for those that develop symptoms of covid. If you get a breakthrough case, but don't develop symptoms, congrats, you fought it off, the viral load was low, and you likely didn't spread it (or if you did, you didn't spread it nearly as much as symptomatic cases)


----------



## smf (Oct 1, 2021)

videogamefanatic said:


> THIIIIIS. It's the one major thing that tends to get missed in the current anti-vax rhetoric. The viral load is only similar for those that develop symptoms of covid. If you get a breakthrough case, but don't develop symptoms, congrats, you fought it off, the viral load was low, and you likely didn't spread it (or if you did, you didn't spread it nearly as much as symptomatic cases)


God created covid so that they could spread it.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 1, 2021)

The two most important sources for COVID19 vaccine hestiancy are a general mistrust towards the government and the average age of a population.

This explains high vaccination rates in e.g. China and Israel and low rates in e.g. Russia or many African countries.

E.g. I doubt Afghans are eager to get vaccinationed. And why should they? They are very young on average and have other problems. The average age of deaths in western countries are very similar to life expectancy. If an old person dies from a fall or the flu, we just consider it natural. Saying that "millions have died" from COVID19 is technically true but misleading. It is not comparable to war or starvation.

I have received two vaccinations btw.


----------



## RAHelllord (Oct 1, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The two most important sources for COVID19 vaccine hestiancy are a general mistrust towards the government and the average age of a population.
> 
> This explains high vaccination rates in e.g. China and Israel and low rates in e.g. Russia or many African countries.
> 
> ...


Only old people, infants, and average adults with severely compromised immune systems die from the flu, covid-19 has killed perfectly healthy adults as well as those other groups. On top of that, roughly 4.7 million people died from covid-19 in the past 2 years compared to an average of 500k to 1.2m from the flu in the same time frame (compared to averages from previous decades, of course).

Sure famines and war target other groups more directly but comparing the flu to covid-19 is just silly, particularly if you're trying to say that covid-19 is as little of a problem to adults as the common flu.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 1, 2021)

RAHelllord said:


> Only old people, infants, and average adults with severely compromised immune systems die from the flu, covid-19 has killed perfectly healthy adults as well as those other groups. On top of that, roughly 4.7 million people died from covid-19 in the past 2 years compared to an average of 500k to 1.2m from the flu in the same time frame (compared to averages from previous decades, of course).
> 
> Sure famines and war target other groups more directly but comparing the flu to covid-19 is just silly, particularly if you're trying to say that covid-19 is as little of a problem to adults as the common flu.


I have seen people on this board and on television making direct comparisons to war. I have not made a direct comparison to the flu. I said "a fall or the flu" as merely two examples. An 80-year old can die of many things, most of which we would call natural.
That said, your statement that the flu does not kill healthy average adults is not true. Look it up. The flu seasons have a large range of deaths each year but most people did not take notes of spikes. Reporting matters. It changes perception.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 1, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Reporting matters. It changes perception.


Hard data matters more.  The flu isn't even a tenth as deadly as COVID.  Not to mention we've had yearly flu vaccines available almost as far back as I can remember, specifically targeted at immuno-compromised and elderly individuals.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Hard data matters more.  The flu isn't even a tenth as deadly as COVID.  Not to mention we've had yearly flu vaccines available almost as far back as I can remember, specifically targeted at immuno-compromised and elderly individuals.


There is no hard data on this. It is difficult to attribute a death to the flu or COVID19.
Years ago the CDC estimated that the real number of flu deaths is 15 higher than reported.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124217724145913411
The flu numbers are probably underreported due to how normalized flu deaths are in our society, while COVID19 deaths were overreported, especially in the beginning.

New viruses tend to be more deadly in the beginning and mutate to lesser versions as time goes on and immunization increases (whether naturally or through vaccines).


----------



## Xzi (Oct 1, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> There is no hard data on this.


Yes there is lol, we have decades of flu data which averages to about a 0.01% mortality rate (on the highest end of estimates).  Meanwhile, even the most conservative estimates have COVID-19 at about a 1% mortality rate.  A hundred times more deadly.  Obviously mortality rates for both were higher before vaccines were available.

Up to 100 flu deaths a day (in the US) sounds scary, that is until you remember that COVID-19 was killing up to 3,000 people a day at its peak.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 2, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yes there is lol, we have decades of flu data which averages to about a 0.01% mortality rate (on the highest end of estimates).  Meanwhile, even the most conservative estimates have COVID-19 at about a 1% mortality rate.  A hundred times more deadly.  Obviously mortality rates for both were higher before vaccines were available.


I showed you that the CDC estimates the flu deaths could be 15 times higher than the official numbers. COVID19 kills about 1% of known cases. Unless you test whole cities like in China, you can only guess the actual numbers of cases. I remind you that blood donation samples suggest a signficiant number of Americans (millions if extrapolated) had COVID19 antibodies in December 2019 and January 2020 - long before the first known case.
I also think COVID19 is more deadly than the flu but we simply don´t have hard data. You can laugh about it all you want. Many mutations later the death rates could become comparable though.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 2, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I showed you that the CDC estimates the flu deaths could be 15 times higher than the official numbers.


Right, and the CDC actually has the flu at roughly a 0.001% mortality rate, which is why I was taking the more extreme estimates into account by instead assuming a 0.01% mortality rate.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> COVID19 kills about 1% of known cases.


Yes, but again, that's on the conservative side.  It's closer to a 3% mortality rate in some areas of the world/US.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Unless you test whole cities like in China, you can only guess the actual numbers of cases.


The same is true of the flu, infections for which are vastly under-reported because most people with healthy immune systems have only mild symptoms at worst.  Severe cases (those requiring hospitalization) of any given disease are usually plenty enough to base estimates on, and they're also really all that matter from a public health perspective.  Naturally, the fewer severe cases there are, the less the general public is gonna worry about it.


----------



## RAHelllord (Oct 2, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I showed you that the CDC estimates the flu deaths could be 15 times higher than the official numbers. COVID19 kills about 1% of known cases. Unless you test whole cities like in China, you can only guess the actual numbers of cases. I remind you that blood donation samples suggest a signficiant number of Americans (millions if extrapolated) had COVID19 antibodies in December 2019 and January 2020 - long before the first known case.
> I also think COVID19 is more deadly than the flu but we simply don´t have hard data. You can laugh about it all you want. Many mutations later the death rates could become comparable though.


Where did you hear that millions of people had antibodies to covid-19 before covid-19? The virus is called a novel virus specifically because it's a new virus unknown to most of the western worlds immune systems. 
Also the article you posted from wsj gives no indication that the actual death toll from the flu is 15 times higher than reported.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 2, 2021)

RAHelllord said:


> Where did you hear that millions of people had antibodies to covid-19 before covid-19?


Red cross blood donation samples of December 2019 and January 2020 in the US. In 0,5% to 1,5% (or so) of the samples, antibodies were found. Unless American blood doners are more likely to come from or travel to Wuhan, we can assume that there were millions of people with antibodies in the USA at that time. 
Or having antibodies can mean anything (which makes testing questionable).


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 2, 2021)

RAHelllord said:


> The virus is called a novel virus specifically because it's a new virus



Not to nitpick but it's not a novel virus, it's a novel coronavirus. That little detail is actually a big deal in microbiology.


----------



## assassinz (Oct 3, 2021)

linuxares said:


> Incorrect. You have to get sick to spread it. Vaccinated have a chance to fend it off.


That means whomever is not sick with it cannot spread it. So why should an unvaxxed person who is not sick worry when there is a 2% chance of death and 98% survival rate?


----------



## assassinz (Oct 3, 2021)

omgcat said:


> I always found it curious that the same people that worry about the extremely slim chances of suffering from side effects also tout the "extremely slim" chances of dying from covid, but also ignore the large chances of long term covid effects (30+%).


The vaxx pushers are the ones who are focused on the extremely small chance of dying from covid. 
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

See the closed cases. Only 2% have died after getting covid. Why spread fear about the virus when only a small percentage have died? It's going to be okay. Be brave. Don't listen to the mainstream media hype. 

Active cases shows .5% as serious or critical.  Why are you focusing on that .5% ? Why so scared? Oh, because the media tells you to huh?


----------



## assassinz (Oct 3, 2021)

On the CDC's own website they site references to backup their claims. But when you click on some of their reference links you get this notice:


"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
 

Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website."

Check it out for yourselves. This is why many don't trust what the CDC and media are trying to shove down their throat.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2021)

assassinz said:


> Check it out for yourselves. This is why many don't trust what the CDC and media are trying to shove down their throat.
> https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html


Lol, because of a bog-standard disclaimer?  You also realize that the CDC isn't the only authority on medical science or microbiology on the planet, correct?  There is no justification for taking the advice of internet randos/Youtubers at face value instead.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 3, 2021)

assassinz said:


> The vaxx pushers are the ones who are focused on the extremely small chance of dying from covid.
> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
> 
> See the closed cases. Only 2% have died after getting covid. Why spread fear about the virus when only a small percentage have died? It's going to be okay. Be brave. Don't listen to the mainstream media hype.
> ...



we're not worrying about people dying, we're worried about the 30+% of people that have long term issues like loss of smell, extreme brain fog, kidney damage, blood vessel damage, amputated toes (more blood clot issues). stop seeing the world in black and white. just because you didn't die doesn't mean you're fine.


----------



## assassinz (Oct 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Lol, because of a bog-standard disclaimer?  You also realize that the CDC isn't the only authority on medical science or microbiology on the planet, correct?  There is no justification for taking the advice of internet randos/Youtubers at face value instead.


The point is that they are trying to make it seem like they have legit references to back up their claims, then at the same time say that their references may be unreliable via the disclaimer. So they just lost credibility with said resources. Thus they are not much better than taking a legit doctor on youtube at face value.


----------



## assassinz (Oct 3, 2021)

omgcat said:


> we're not worrying about people dying, we're worried about the 30+% of people that have long term issues like loss of smell, extreme brain fog, kidney damage, blood vessel damage, amputated toes (more blood clot issues). stop seeing the world in black and white. just because you didn't die doesn't mean you're fine.


So you're worried about those long term issues from covid, but not the long term issues of the vaccine.  You just pic and choose who you decide is more important huh?  There should be no prejudice or ridicule if someone wants to be vaccinated or not. Everyone has their reasons whether they are regarding health or otherwise.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 3, 2021)

assassinz said:


> So you're worried about those long term issues from covid, but not the long term issues of the vaccine.  You just pic and choose who you decide is more important huh?  There should be no prejudice or ridicule if someone wants to be vaccinated or not. Everyone has their reasons whether they are regarding health or otherwise.



what vaccines have had issues pop up after 2 months from administration? name one vaccine that has been a ticking time bomb.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2021)

assassinz said:


> The point is that they are trying to make it seem like they have legit references to back up their claims, then at the same time say that their references may be unreliable via the disclaimer. So they just lost credibility with said resources. Thus they are not much better than taking a legit doctor on youtube at face value.


It's simply an acknowledgement that websites can change their content at any time, and therefore the accuracy of their content can also vary at any given time.  The only content that they can give assurances for is their own.


----------



## RAHelllord (Oct 3, 2021)

assassinz said:


> The point is that they are trying to make it seem like they have legit references to back up their claims, then at the same time say that their references may be unreliable via the disclaimer. So they just lost credibility with said resources. Thus they are not much better than taking a legit doctor on youtube at face value.


Are you new to the internet? That is a standard legal disclaimer for links to third-party domains due to the fact that those domains could be sold or otherwise affected and thus have their information changed from what was there when the original article was written. This is literally common practice across every single country and most government entities for decades now.

Christ that this even needs to be spelled out.


----------



## assassinz (Oct 3, 2021)

omgcat said:


> what vaccines have had issues pop up after 2 months from administration? name one vaccine that has been a ticking time bomb.


In one of my previous posts I posted a video of a mother whose daughter is still suffering side effects of the pfizer vaccine after 6 months, at the time of the video, and still suffering. Funny that youtube removed the video now. You get censored for talking bad about the vaccine nowadays, and that's just another proof that they don't want people to see facts that people are getting damaged by the vaccine.


----------



## assassinz (Oct 3, 2021)

RAHelllord said:


> Are you new to the internet? That is a standard legal disclaimer for links to third-party domains due to the fact that those domains could be sold or otherwise affected and thus have their information changed from what was there when the original article was written. This is literally common practice across every single country and most government entities for decades now.
> 
> Christ that this even needs to be spelled out.


Then why are they even bothering to use references that aren't reliable, given that covid is so "serious"?

Here is one of their references and guess what it says on that site?
This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should _not_ be used to guide clinical practice.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.03.21258293v1

The CDC is making themselves look bad. I can't make this stuff up. Maybe you can think of a good non-answer.


----------



## RAHelllord (Oct 3, 2021)

assassinz said:


> Then why are they even bothering to use references that aren't reliable, given that covid is so "serious"?
> 
> Here is one of their references and guess what it says on that site?
> This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should _not_ be used to guide clinical practice.
> ...


You're making plenty of stuff up, but more serious is problem that you seemingly have little to no idea what the purpose of the CDC is and how protocols dictate an event is handled that is currently unfolding. Most people working at the CDC are infectious disease experts with decades of experience in the field, they also have access to a larger pool of outside experts in adjacent fields the staff may not be the foremost experts on the planet in. They all collaborate to collect, sort, quantify, and analyze available data to then create protocols and guidelines. This process takes a lot of time but with an ongoing crisis like a global pandemic time is a luxury that they don't have, thus they can, at times, rely on information that has yet to finish the peer review process. However, part of the people working at the CDC have experience with referees, and they're also in contact to other referees to exchange information. If the consensus is that a paper is likely okay they're going to use it to try and stay ahead of the crisis in question unfolding.

But I mean, sure, your youtube video from some random lady with no formal medical training whatsoever claiming her kid got sick from a vaccine in a way that basically nobody else gets sick from in that particular way is more trustworthy than an institute chockfull of doctors each with decades of experience in the field.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 5, 2021)

Anyone provide a link to any peer-reviewed research papers that back up the anti-vaccine movement’s fear of vaccines?


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 5, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> Anyone provide a link to any peer-reviewed research papers that back up the anti-vaccine movement’s fear of vaccines?


I have a link to a comic threads like this encouraged my spouse to create!


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 5, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> I have a link to a comic threads like this encouraged my spouse to create!


At least that’s something ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 6, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> Anyone provide a link to any peer-reviewed research papers that back up the anti-vaccine movement’s fear of vaccines?


Is there a peer reviewed study that you are more attractive than Roseanne Barr?
What a weird request is that?

There is data on reported side effects like with any medical treatment. Whether you fear it or not is up to you. There is no objective barrier that would justify the subjective lack of fear. 

In case you do not understand: 

There is data on car accidents. But there CANNOT be "peer-reviewed papers that back up the fear of participating in traffic".


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 6, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Is there a peer reviewed study that you are more attractive than Roseanne Barr?
> What a weird request is that?
> 
> There is data on reported side effects like with any medical treatment. Whether you fear it or not is up to you. There is no objective barrier that would justify the subjective lack of fear.
> ...


Read the OP because the entire point of this thread is a request for peer-reviewed papers to back up the anti-vaccine movement. This is a very simple request that shouldn’t be too difficult


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 6, 2021)

I want to understand why some people find Roseanne Barr more attractive than Catboy.

If you cannot provide me with peer-reviewed studies we can officially declare their view as incorrect, right? This is the assumption of this whole thread and I simply pointed out how flawed it is.

How many car crashes justify the fear (and refusal) of participating in traffic? There is no answer.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 6, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I want to understand why some people find Roseanne Barr more attractive than Catboy.
> 
> If you cannot provide me with peer-reviewed studies we can officially declare their view as incorrect, right? This is the assumption of this whole thread and I simply pointed out how flawed it is.
> 
> How many car crashes justify the fear (and refusal) of participating in traffic? There is no answer.


This is just a request because there are claims from the anti-vaccine movements is that there is research and that there is evidence against vaccines. I made this thread as a request for those sources and for the evidence since it apparently exists. It shouldn't be so difficult for people to provide the same resources that convinced them and it shouldn't be too much to ask for those sources to be peer-reviewed. This is literally how scientific research is conducted.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 6, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> Anyone provide a link to any peer-reviewed research papers that back up the anti-vaccine movement’s fear of vaccines?


If any such papers existed, you could use them to turn anti-vaxxers into pro-vaxxers.  At the end of the day, they're just contrarians, and it's that contrarianism which makes them feel special.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 6, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> This is just a request because there are claims from the anti-vaccine movements is that there is research and that there is evidence against vaccines. I made this thread as a request for those sources and for the evidence since it apparently exists. It shouldn't be so difficult for people to provide the same resources that convinced them and it shouldn't be too much to ask for those sources to be peer-reviewed. This is literally how scientific research is conducted.


I have yet to meet people who say "there is evidence against vaccines". What does that even mean? Is there evidence against cars?
You still don´t get it.


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 6, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I have yet to meet people who say "there is evidence against vaccines". What does that even mean? Is there evidence against cars?
> You still don´t get it.


I have been begging for an excuse to share this video for some time now, thanks!



I'm not sure if you really understand the issue in play, here. Vaccines are a public safety issue, and their being mandated would save lives and save many from crippling complications. The ratio might be up for debate, but it would be many times over, and include saving the lives of individuals who cannot take a vaccine due to issues beyond their control. Even if Catboy was Brad Pitt in fight club sexy and had the undergarment collection of their conquests to prove it, THEY aren't a threat to society. People who don't take the vaccine are, hence the call-out for something other than misinformation.


----------



## GbaNober (Oct 6, 2021)

You still get the virus and spread it even if you're vaccinated right?


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 6, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> I'm not sure if you really understand the issue in play, here. Vaccines are a public safety issue, and their being mandated would save lives and save many from crippling complications. The ratio might be up for debate, but it would be many times over, and include saving the lives of individuals who cannot take a vaccine due to issues beyond their control.


You are barking at the wrong tree. I am vaccinated and do not agree that is a purely personal choice. I would even allow supermarkets to discriminate (if it was up to me) based on vaccination status (and even sex and ethnicity, but that´s a different topic).

I will try it one last time:
*"Show me peer-reviewed evidence against the safeness of vaccines!" *is the same as asking
*"Show me peer-reviewed evidence against the safeness of cars!"*
There is no objective level (besides 0 side effects or car crashes) that would determine safe vaccines/cars.

Statically speaking it was safe in 2003 to go to war against Iraq as an American. But some Americans died and you cannot ask those who were reluctant (for safety reasons; let´s keep politics out if it) that they produce anything other than "anecdotal evidence" (see OP).

_"Even if Catboy was Brad Pitt in fight club sexy and had the undergarment collection of their conquests to prove it, THEY aren't a threat to society."_

Why would Catboy´s conquests be a thread to society? Just kidding but, man, the use of "they" makes statements difficult to read. The English language is already f*cked since there is no distinction between 2nd person singular and plural (and because most natives have no concept of object vs subject). Way to go. I could perhaps see why Norman Bates would be referred to as "they"... but that is off-topic.


----------



## RAHelllord (Oct 6, 2021)

GbaNober said:


> You still get the virus and spread it even if you're vaccinated right?


The virus can enter your body and will likely damage a bunch of cells, in the process multiplying and causing the person to be infectious to others. But, and that is the important part, fewer cells in general, the viral load will be lower, and the person will be infectious for a much shorter time compared to an unvaccinated person. This means both less risk of significant damage to the person that is infected plus a lower chance of spreading it further to other people.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I have yet to meet people who say "there is evidence against vaccines". What does that even mean? Is there evidence against cars?
> You still don´t get it.



Plenty of plague rats have cited youtube videos, facebook posts, and snake oil sellers of various kinds with the claim that vaccines cause more harm than good, and that not getting vaccinated is better all around. Meaning they've made claims that vaccines are actually causing more harm than good one way or another.
When The Catboy is saying "is there evidence against vaccines" they're banking on your ability to infer from the information presented that they're looking for evidence of the vaccines being harmful, those harmful effects creating fear in people, not that they're looking for evidence that vaccines don't exist as a concept.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 6, 2021)

RAHelllord said:


> When The Catboy is saying "is there evidence against vaccines" they're banking on your ability to infer from the information presented that they're looking for evidence of the vaccines being harmful, those harmful effects creating fear in people, not that they're looking for evidence that vaccines don't exist as a concept.


The evidence that vaccines can be harmful is readily available. It does not need peer-reviewed studies. In fact, you have to give a signature, that you are aware of them (prior to getting vaccinated). The producers as well as health institutions inform about the risks.
I wasn´t implying that Catboy questions the existence of vaccines. Please read my latest reply (2 min before yours was made) about why his request is illogical.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 6, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The evidence that vaccines can be harmful is readily available. It does not need peer-reviewed studies. In fact, you have to give a signature, that you are aware of them (prior to getting vaccinated). The producers as well as health institutions inform about the risks.
> I wasn´t implying that Catboy questions the existence of vaccines. Please read my latest reply (2 min before yours was made) about why his request is illogical.


There is evidence that vaccines do have the occasional to rare harmful side-effect and those papers are typically peer-reviewed. The peer-review process is an extremely important to separate random claims from actual research.
Back when the majority of the anti-vaccine movement was still claiming “vaccines cause autism,” many of them cited debunked “research” or research that couldn’t or won’t be verified through peer-review. This tread seems to have stopped and there are countless claims that you can find in places like the Covid 19 vaccine thread and on social that lack any sources to them. Asking these these claims to have a source and for that source to be a peer-reviewed paper is literally how science works. If the source hasn’t been verified, then it’s worth being concerned about the lack of verification.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 6, 2021)

You shouldn´t believe everything you read or hear online, on TV or in newspaper. That should be obvious. There are gullible people of all kinds. Doesn´t refute anything I stated. People who do not want to take the vaccine do not need studies to justify their view. It is a risk-reward calculation for themselves and society. You cannot prove them wrong just as you cannot prove that participating in traffic is safe.
Sadly, in most countries partisanship has taken control of most people. They are either against or for vaccination mendates based on their affiliation. The current position is by no means obvious. If Trump had opted for a "medical fasicm" approach the fight could be exactly the opposite of what it is today. Let´s not forget that the term "Liberals" comes from liberty and that right-wingers have not always been prononents of freedom. In the very early stages I still remember main stream media outlets making fun of people who wore masks in the streets (at least in Germany). It flipped 180°.


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 6, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The evidence that vaccines can be harmful is readily available. It does not need peer-reviewed studies. In fact, you have to give a signature, that you are aware of them (prior to getting vaccinated). The producers as well as health institutions inform about the risks.
> I wasn´t implying that Catboy questions the existence of vaccines. Please read my latest reply (2 min before yours was made) about why his request is illogical.



You're wasting your time, we already went through this near the beginning of the thread and it didn't make any difference. OP is obviously smart enough to understand exactly what they are doing, and will innocently insist that this is a sincere request when confronted about it. It's a waste of everyone's time posting here as no such peer review will ever exist.


----------



## appleburger (Oct 6, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> You shouldn´t believe everything you read or hear online, on TV or in newspaper. That should be obvious. There are gullible people of all kinds. Doesn´t refute anything I stated. People who do not want to take the vaccine do not need studies to justify their view. It is a risk-reward calculation for themselves and society. You cannot prove them wrong just as you cannot prove that participating in traffic is safe.
> Sadly, in most countries partisanship has taken control of most people. They are either against or for vaccination mendates based on their affiliation. The current position is by no means obvious. If Trump had opted for a "medical fasicm" approach the fight could be exactly the opposite of what it is today. Let´s not forget that the term "Liberals" comes from liberty and that right-wingers have not always been prononents of freedom. In the very early stages I still remember main stream media outlets making fun of people who wore masks in the streets (at least in Germany). It flipped 180°.


I don't think you're paying enough attention to what Catboy is saying.

"People who do not want to take the vaccine do not need studies to justify their view."

Sure, they can be "justified" in your view, but if they want to convince others that their reasoning is based on _reality_ then it's pretty important to use logic to do that.  The entire purpose of a study is to weed out human error when it comes to judgement.

You're claiming that judgments can be made without science, which I agree with - however, if you want to convince somebody else that your reasoning is actually sound, then you should do yourself the favor using a method that doesn't allow you to fallaciously reach that conclusion.

That's the entire purpose of science to begin with.  It's just a method for determining what's real (or, really, getting as close to that as we reasonably can).  

In addition to this, saying that nobody has "disproven" your point is a bad angle, imo.  If this was a courtroom, and pro-vaccine folks are the prosecutors, and anti-vax are the defense, then it's up to each side to bring their own evidence to the table.  Every individual reading this, then, is a judge.  It isn't the prosecution or defense's job to necessarily "disprove" the other side.  The goal is to provide evidence for your argument so that the judge(s) can make the most reasonable decision based on what's presented to them.  If you can manage to outright disprove the other side completely, then that's just a slam dunk.
If I claim I have invisible pixies in my back yard, then you simply cannot _prove_ me wrong, because it's not falsifiable.  But you can look at my lack of evidence and reasonably say that you aren't convinced until I come up with something to allow you to see what I see. 

The evidence backing up the efficacy of vaccinations is way, _way stronger _ than the anti-vax side in my eyes - in fact, the anti-vax side has history of fabricating information to push sales towards alternative "medications".  I think hbomberguy on youtube did a great job documenting this:  - he did his homework.

I'll throw you a bone, though.  Vaccines haven't been a "wonder cure", and they have been improved over time, with issues along the way.  Science is iterative, and we absolutely can fuck up.  But, it's not _nearly _ as bad of a dice roll as ignoring it.  When it comes to human judgement versus a method that uses logic and reason to find the best possible answer to these problems, I'm going with science every time.  No brainer for me.

So, why are you convinced that vaccines are potentially more risky than not receiving them?  Because I see a ton of evidence that shows the opposite.  COVID seems to be taking out way more people than vaccines are.


----------



## smf (Oct 6, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> People who do not want to take the vaccine do not need studies to justify their view.



Ironically most will believe any old rubbish that they themselves made up or read on facebook or twitter, but challenge it and you need a ten year study and even then will say something about bill gates...

I agree that everything has a risk, the general population are notoriously bad at assessing risks. Air travel hesitancy after 9/11 caused an extra 1,595 road deaths in the following year.  AFAIK there were no plane related deaths during that time.


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 6, 2021)

smf said:


> I agree that everything has a risk, the general population are notoriously bad at assessing risks. Air travel hesitancy after 9/11 caused an extra 1,595 road deaths in the following year.  AFAIK there were no plane related deaths during that time.



What about Flight 587? It was just a month or so after 9/11 I believe.


----------



## appleburger (Oct 6, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> You're wasting your time, we already went through this near the beginning of the thread and it didn't make any difference. OP is obviously smart enough to understand exactly what they are doing, and will innocently insist that this is a sincere request when confronted about it. It's a waste of everyone's time posting here as no such peer review will ever exist.


No peer reviewed paper for showing the efficacy of vaccinations?  I suppose this depends on the angle you attack from, but there's definitely a _lot _of research, documentation and peer reviewed studies on the topic, as far as I'm aware.

The video I posted above has a Google Doc Link showing 100+ sources, and while many of them are just news articles, there is plenty of research to sift through for those willing to spend time sorting through it all.  Most of the COVID related articles are towards the end of that document.


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 6, 2021)

appleburger said:


> No peer reviewed paper for showing the efficacy of vaccinations?



Er no, the topic is requesting the exact opposite.


----------



## appleburger (Oct 6, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Er no, the topic is requesting the exact opposite.


Well, the purpose of research is to answer the question at hand, in this case: "are vaccines effective/dangerous/etc" - and all of these either show that they are effective/not dangerous, or fallaciously find they are dangerous, but are then called out in subsequent reviews from peers.

OP is asking for sources that back up anti-vax, and I see plenty of counter examples, in addition to "examples" for anti-vax that are torn apart _very _easily.  For me, that makes the best answer to OP's question "No, there aren't any that do a good job of backing up the anti-vax movement".  

Would you agree?


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 6, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Would you agree?



I've been saying from the start that no such evidence (to support anti-vax) will exist, so to me it seems like the thread is more of a way to continuously call out anti-vaxers, which for some reason doesn't sit right with me (even though I'm not anti-vax in the slightest).


----------



## appleburger (Oct 6, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I've been saying from the start that no such evidence (to support anti-vax) will exist, so to me it seems like the thread is more of a way to continuously call out anti-vaxers, which for some reason doesn't sit right with me (even though I'm not anti-vax in the slightest).


I think we're in agreement, then.  Doesn't seem likely that the anti-vax position has a snowball's chance in hell of garnering any real evidence.

To be frank, I'm not calling out "anti-vaxers" as individuals, but I am attempting to lay out the evidence in a digestible way to show which position is the strongest, regardless of who believes what as a person.  People are going to "believe" all kinds of nonsense, but when somebody poses the question "is there evidence for this claim?" then I think it's completely fair game to lay out the cards.

There's a problem at hand - we don't _know _- that includes me.  It's difficult to truly know anything with certainty, obviously.  But we can still tackle the question and come up with the best possible answer with the information we have.  So I'm making an attempt to answer OPs question. 

Fighting people on what or why they believe is often futile, especially if it's unsolicited - but answering somebody's question on the current evidence supporting a position is something I think we can productively answer.


----------



## Dax_Fame (Oct 6, 2021)

I don't know if they have anything in their deck but I would reckon most considered 'anti-vax' are being roped in with those hesitant to get vaccinated.

I was hesitant myself. New vaccine tech is a scary thing. I was being patient and just staying out of everyone's way, as anyone who chooses not be vaccinated should...

But then family pressure pretty much forced me to get it and now I've been suffering with the heart inflammation thing..... And all those who pressured me have gotten the Delta variant BAD... So what was it all for? 

I did what I was told was right and all I got was a broken heart and a family full of very sick vaccinated folk.

My reasons for hesitation was I didn't believe it would work. Not the vaccine itself, but the whole mismanagement of the situation. I said I didn't want to get it because it would mutate by the time enough people got it and here we are.

Needless to say, I'm not getting any booster. This whole thing is stupid and no one can be trusted. The people in charge have a financial interest in pumping as many of these outdated vaccines into the arms of people for their big pharma friends. This is being used to divide people in an already very divided world. Conspiracy theory? Conspiracy fact. Draw a few lines for yourself and what you'll find will shock and aggravate you.

I don't care what anyone thinks about the vaccine or COVID in general. I support anyone's views on any of this crap. We're all in it together. Respect and care for each other.

*Steps down off soap box*


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 6, 2021)

appleburger said:


> I think we're in agreement, then.  Doesn't seem likely that the anti-vax position has a snowball's chance in hell of garnering any real evidence.
> 
> To be frank, I'm not calling out "anti-vaxers" as individuals, but I am attempting to lay out the evidence in a digestible way to show which position is the strongest, regardless of who believes what as a person.  People are going to "believe" all kinds of nonsense, but when somebody poses the question "is there evidence for this claim?" then I think it's completely fair game to lay out the cards.
> 
> ...


 If you look at the post following yours you will see what I've been going on about. To the average person, anecdotal evidence is degrees of magnitude more powerful than any peer review studies. So even though it might be your intention to dispute a movement, in actual fact all that is happening is that individuals are going to feel targeted and then nobody wins. There needs to be more compassion if we're going to change things, throwing cold hard numbers at people will achieve nothing, or even worse cause them to become more entrenched.


----------



## appleburger (Oct 6, 2021)

Dax_Fame said:


> I don't know if they have anything in their deck but I would reckon most considered 'anti-vax' are being roped in with those hesitant to get vaccinated.
> 
> I was hesitant myself. New vaccine tech is a scary thing. I was being patient and just staying out of everyone's way, as anyone who chooses not be vaccinated should...
> 
> ...


That's going to depend on who you talk to.  It's not reasonable to lump those who are hesitant in with those who fully claim vaccines cause autism, or something like that.  That would be a straw-man argument, and that's a waste of everyone's time.  I would hesitate to assume everyone in this thread is doing that.  But I'll go ahead and tell you I'm not going for the straw-man here.

Hesitancy is understandable, and I feel for those who've run into issues with either COVID or vaccinations.  And there are risks associated with the vaccines, some moreso for a very small number of people.  I think the issues with COVID outweigh any vaccine issues for 99% of the population.  The data is just way too damning for me to be convinced otherwise so far.

The big picture here is, which risk is bigger for you, me or anybody else?  Vaccine or no vaccine?  For me that choice was easy, but that's me.  My immediate family is at far greater risk from COVID that from vaccinations, so we all got vaccinated and I feel pretty secure that we made the best choice for us.

As to your point about mutations, the current vaccines _do_ still protect against the current mutation (first google result will be the CDC laying out the current understanding of the science behind that), so your colleagues that caught it are very likely to be in a better situation than if they weren't vaccinated, unless I'm missing something.

As to some of your other points I want to address:


This whole thing is stupid and no one can be trusted
Can you elaborate on that?  Why can't literally any one person be trusted on this?  And does that go for all vaccines, or the currently available COVID vaccines?  And is it the safety of the vaccine you don't trust, or is it the motives behind producing it?  Maybe the quality control?  I'm genuinely interested in what you mean

The people in charge have a financial interest in pumping as many of these outdated vaccines into the arms of people for their big pharma friends
There is certainly financial gain to be made, yes - and I personally find health being so profitable in the US a bit shady
What makes these vaccines "out-dated", and what do you think needs to be modified?  Vaccinations are a fairly well recognized mechanism by today's medical standards.  For example, I'd say brain surgery is far, far less understood, and I'd sure as hell be scared to take on the associated risks.
Can you name one person in charge who has "big pharma friends"?  Not sure who you're referring to here - could be a political figure or Mafia member for all I know (not throwing shade your way, just trying to understand your view more clearly)

I don't care what anyone thinks about the vaccine or COVID in general. I support anyone's views on any of this crap. We're all in it together. Respect and care for each other.
It's good to look at this from a view of respect, for sure, and I'm glad we can all talk about this without it becoming a flame war!


----------



## appleburger (Oct 6, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> If you look at the post following yours you will see what I've been going on about. To the average person, anecdotal evidence is degrees of magnitude more powerful than any peer review studies. So even though it might be your intention to dispute a movement, in actual fact all that is happening is that individuals are going to feel targeted and then nobody wins. There needs to be more compassion if we're going to change things, throwing cold hard numbers at people will achieve nothing, or even worse cause them to become more entrenched.


Yes, anecdotal evidence is extremely powerful for people, and yes you are correct that people will take any adversity as an attack on them personally.

However, that's not true for everyone.  Some people look into what they _don't _know rather than focusing on what they think they do know.  Some people are naturally curious and understand that they can't possibly do enough research on their own to form strong opinions on everything, and these people put themselves in a position where they have to admit they are always learning and even having their minds changed.

I don't think it's fair to assume that everyone falls in one camp or the other, though.  Clearly, you seem to understand that evidence can be a powerful tool for those who do want to learn.  How people want to use that information is up to them - we'll need to be patient and compassionate regardless, to your point.


----------



## smf (Oct 6, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> What about Flight 587? It was just a month or so after 9/11 I believe.


That was an international flight, I was comparing it to people driving within america rather than taking an internal flight.


----------



## smf (Oct 6, 2021)

appleburger said:


> It's not reasonable to lump those who are hesitant in with those who fully claim vaccines cause autism, or something like that.  That would be a straw-man argument, and that's a waste of everyone's time.  I would hesitate to assume everyone in this thread is doing that.  But I'll go ahead and tell you I'm not going for the straw-man here.


It's reasonable to lump anyone together who goes on the internet to talk about how they aren't getting vaccines

I agree they aren't all being vaccinated for the same reason, but they are contributing to the same problem (which is validating vaccine hesitancy).

If you have a rare specific reason why you aren't going to be vaccinated, then it's very unlikely you're going to go online to argue h your point. It's only the people who have a tenuous reason, who are trying to gain support to make themselves feel better.


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 6, 2021)

smf said:


> It's reasonable to lump anyone together who goes on the internet to talk about how they aren't getting vaccines
> 
> I agree they aren't all being vaccinated for the same reason, but they are contributing to the same problem (which is validating vaccine hesitancy).
> 
> If you have a rare specific reason why you aren't going to be vaccinated, then it's very unlikely you're going to go online to argue h your point. It's only the people who have a tenuous reason, who are trying to gain support to make themselves feel better.



I think you are being far too cynical if you're going to assume everyone who posts about vaccine hesitancy on a gaming forum is doing it for nefarious reasons.


----------



## smf (Oct 6, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> hat individuals are going to feel targeted and then nobody wins. There needs to be more compassion if we're going to change things, throwing cold hard numbers at people will achieve nothing, or even worse cause them to become more entrenched.


Possibly, however if you don't say anything then that legitimizes their view and can persuade others. Their view being entrenched or simply unchanged makes no difference either.

So we can just write off the entrenched ones and try to save who we can.


----------



## smf (Oct 6, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I think you are being far too cynical if you're going to assume everyone who posts about vaccine hesitancy on a gaming forum is doing it for nefarious reasons.


What other reason is there? If people wanted to sit at home thinking about how they weren't going to get a vaccine then that is fine, why bang on about it?


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 6, 2021)

smf said:


> What other reason is there? If people wanted to sit at home thinking about how they weren't going to get a vaccine then that is fine, why bang on about it?



To participate in the community? I mean, I don't really see how that could be hard to understand.

Anyway, our goal is the same. I want to see the rate climb above 67% (UK) and I don't think the way to do that is to go on the attack.


----------



## smf (Oct 6, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> To participate in the community? I mean, I don't really see how that could be hard to understand.


Is it really "participating in the community" if you are trying to convince people to not get vaccinated?


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 6, 2021)

smf said:


> Is it really "participating in the community" if you are trying to convince people to not get vaccinated?


Yes. I don't agree with it but it's just as valid as participating by promoting vaccination. Also, the way to combat that isn't insults or censorship, it's to provide even better arguments for vaccination so people can clearly see which option makes more sense.


----------



## appleburger (Oct 6, 2021)

smf said:


> Is it really "participating in the community" if you are trying to convince people to not get vaccinated?


I don't see anyone here trying to convince anyone to not get vaccinated.  I see mostly people saying that they fully respect others' views and want to respect them, voicing their own anecdotal reasons for feeling wary.

Being on the "wrong" side of the evidence can have dire consequences, yes, so I see your point.  But everyone has their own tolerance for what is or isn't convincing, and we can help people reach stronger positions by laying out the evidence.

If you push back by attacking their character, you're far, far less likely to be listened to.


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 6, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Yes. I don't agree with it but it's just as valid as participating by promoting vaccination. Also, the way to combat that isn't insults or censorship, it's to provide even better arguments for vaccination so people can clearly see which option makes more sense.


You mean like, by maybe, just as a thought here... Offering a thread for those with a different opinion to come together and put forward their arguments and sources so they can be addressed?


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 6, 2021)

Yeah, and everyone who has posted their story has been met with "but where's the peer reviewed sources?". I didn't read every page but I doubt there was any sincere attempt at discussion.

Edit: apart from @appleburger very recently


----------



## Dax_Fame (Oct 6, 2021)

appleburger said:


> That's going to depend on who you talk to.  It's not reasonable to lump those who are hesitant in with those who fully claim vaccines cause autism, or something like that.  That would be a straw-man argument, and that's a waste of everyone's time.  I would hesitate to assume everyone in this thread is doing that.  But I'll go ahead and tell you I'm not going for the straw-man here.
> 
> Hesitancy is understandable, and I feel for those who've run into issues with either COVID or vaccinations.  And there are risks associated with the vaccines, some moreso for a very small number of people.  I think the issues with COVID outweigh any vaccine issues for 99% of the population.  The data is just way too damning for me to be convinced otherwise so far.
> 
> ...


I didn't go into detail on purpose as I'm not interested in getting any further into this as it's too controversial but the FDA and CDC are tainted by those with financial interest. This doesn't prove anything but that's why I am not quick to trust them.

The "outdated" vaccine thing is referring to the push to get this current vaccine when in my personal experience with the vaccinated people in my personal network (not randos on social media I don't even have)  are getting really sick, one even hospitalized. Once again, proves nothing but it seems like they're trying to get rid of their current stock instead of actually developing something new. What's being blabbed on the news networks (who are funded by vaccine makers) just doesn't match up with what I've seen personally.

My decision was ultimately for my family and I'm just a little gutted things didn't work out the way we all hoped they would.

My apologies for not reading everything you've posted as it  all gets me pretty upset and I've worked hard to avoid this topic in conversation as much as possible.

This is my fragmented stream of thoughts and I apologize again for confusing anyone.

Please feel free to pm me if you or anyone would like to discuss further, I just can't do it here. 

You're all wonderful, really.


----------



## appleburger (Oct 6, 2021)

Dax_Fame said:


> I didn't go into detail on purpose as I'm not interested in getting any further into this as it's too controversial but the FDA and CDC are tainted by those with financial interest. This doesn't prove anything but that's why I am not quick to trust them.
> 
> The "outdated" vaccine thing is referring to the push to get this current vaccine when in my personal experience with the vaccinated people in my personal network (not randos on social media I don't even have)  are getting really sick, one even hospitalized. Once again, proves nothing but it seems like they're trying to get rid of their current stock instead of actually developing something new. What's being blabbed on the news networks (who are funded by vaccine makers) just doesn't match up with what I've seen personally.
> 
> ...


I'll PM you if you'd like, but I want to lay out some points here for other folks that come across your posts.


I didn't go into detail on purpose as I'm not interested in getting any further into this as it's too controversial but the FDA and CDC are tainted by those with financial interest
It's challenging for us to understand your viewpoint if we can't get a full picture of what's in your head.  If this is something you want to refrain from discussing, then I'd be wary of posting about it at all, unless you're prepared to explain how you reached that belief
This makes me ask myself, for instance: "Why does financial interest ruin the integrity of a vaccine?". "How do we determine that this has affected quality control?".

it seems like they're trying to get rid of their current stock instead of actually developing something new
I don't understand this.  The blueprint in the vaccines is sourced from a protein in the virus.  We also know it still provides antibodies that are effective against current mutations.  What would the "update" be?

What's being blabbed on the news networks (who are funded by vaccine makers) just doesn't match up with what I've seen personally.
How did you determine media outlets are receiving funding that will be pulled if they don't sing the good graces of vaccine manufacturers?  Is this all media outlets?  Would you expect a whistle blower in this scenario?  Has there been one?

This is my fragmented stream of thoughts and I apologize again for confusing anyone
You're free to say what you want here, and don't need to apologize.  However, if I were you, I'd ask myself how much I know about the vaccines, and how I'm determining the motives behind it.  Can I follow a bread crumb trail to actually determine these positions are reasonable?  How did I know that the vaccines made my friends so ill, even hospitalized?  _Could _it have been timing, or was it in fact the vaccine itself?  _How_ does the vaccine make people sick, if it does? Is that different from the way the body creates antibodies (which makes most people feel ill, this is immune response is what causes symptoms, often) Is there any way I can determine that vaccines can actually do this?

If you force yourself to follow the evidence, you may strengthen your current position/fears/opinions, or you may weaken it.  But you'll be more confident in your decision making either way.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 6, 2021)

appleburger said:


> I think hbomberguy on youtube did a great job documenting this:  - he did his homework.



Just wanted to check if somebody had already posted this video.
Even though it is almost 2 hours long, it is just a joy to watch, never gets boring.
That just proves hbomberguy is really talented at creating content on a well researched complex topic while making it an easy watch.


----------



## smf (Oct 6, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> You mean like, by maybe, just as a thought here... Offering a thread for those with a different opinion to come together and put forward their arguments and sources so they can be addressed?


This thread is about the sources to back up the anti vaccine movement.

It's not about opinion, or for offering pro vaccine sources.

Not trusting vaccines because of big pharma, the government, bill gates, etc is not a source.

I'll repeat the question.

_What sources lead you to that conclusion and how verifiable are those sources? What medical research is used in the sources? Is it more than just anecdotal evidence?_

Obviously this isn't for hesitancy caused by some kind of medical condition.

The vaccine has been tested, the official results is that it reduces the chance you'll die by 11 times & the number of deaths caused by the vaccine is far less and FWIW less than the number of food allergy related deaths each year (where is the food hesitancy movement?)

Any medical source underpinning the anti vax movement would have to show that this is wrong, or that there is something additional that has not been considered.


----------



## Dax_Fame (Oct 6, 2021)

appleburger said:


> I'll PM you if you'd like, but I want to lay out some points here for other folks that come across your posts.
> 
> 
> I didn't go into detail on purpose as I'm not interested in getting any further into this as it's too controversial but the FDA and CDC are tainted by those with financial interest
> ...


Following things along the way I did is how I came to the conclusions I have regarding everything is going on, which proves nothing.

My thoughts and opinions are just as susceptible to misinformation floating around and for this reason, I feel no one person's opinion (emphasis on my own) will be absolutely correct, especially mine being rooted in insanity and mild paranoia because my personal experiences.

I am a big advocate of doing the work of forming your own opinion and I think that's the most important thing to do with this or anything really. Always try to find the information that is right and good, which has been especially difficult with this thing.

Free and open discussion of everyone's (hopefully) well informed opinions, seeing where we line up and where we don't is how we can collectively shave of any nonsense we may have picked up along the way. Lightly challenging (like you did) the thoughts of others to provoke further conversation. 

The reasons for avoiding this particularly recently is I believe this topic is now being used to put people against each other. It has become political and I've always avoiding political discussion. I'm ducking low for a little longer and waiting for all of this dust to settle. 

The madness of the outside world is too great and I've turned to look inward. It's been a stressful few years for me. Straight off of a combat deployment, I almost died and then we headed right into this insane pandemic. The mental toll has been tremendous. For this reason especially I know my conclusions are not part of the cream at the top.

Thank you for taking the time to provoke discussion respectfully.


----------



## g00s3y (Oct 6, 2021)

The made up sources inside the heads of idiots.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 7, 2021)

appleburger said:


> You're claiming that judgments can be made without science


The existence of side effects for the COVID19 vaccines is a scientific fact. You have to acknowledge this fact with a signature before agreeing to get one.
The judgement whether you should take this risk is non-scientific. Science can tell you how bad air pollution is. It cannot tell you whether to do something about it. How difficult is this to understand?



appleburger said:


> So, why are you convinced that vaccines are potentially more risky than not receiving them?  Because I see a ton of evidence that shows the opposite.  COVID seems to be taking out way more people than vaccines are.


Your statements are not consistent with each other. The first sentence refers to an individual. The last refers to society.

Your wording is also interesting. Let´s break it down.
Am I convinced that vaccines are potentially more risky than not receiving them?
Yes, POTENTIALLY! So are you!
If somebody gets the vaccine and suffers from serious side effects, he or she could have been better of without the vaccine, especially if he or she had managed not to get infected.

Am I convinced that vaccines are  potentially  more risky than not receiving them?
No. That´s why I have been vaccinated twice. I don´t care either way. I am not afraid of the virus nor the vaccines. Once the (scientific!) numbers were out about the death rate and average age, I thought if I can´t handle it, I don´t deserve to live anyway. You have to take risks in life. Taking part in daily traffic is much more risky and we still do it. The only alternative is isolation - which I would do if I was old.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 7, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Once the (scientific!) numbers were out about the death rate and average age, I thought if I can´t handle it, I don´t deserve to live anyway.


With such a will to live I wonder how you're still around. I guess we live in a very forgiving era where people just survive without the will to fight adversity.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 7, 2021)

sarkwalvein said:


> With such a will to live I wonder how you're still around. I guess we live in a very forgiving era where people just survive without the will to fight adversity.


We live in a world that promotes parasitism and low expectations. Successful men used to have the most amout of children. Today drug addicts do. Thanks to the attack on patriarchy. I once made a splendid thread about it. The good news is, this system will always be defeated by a patriarchal society in the long term. In matriarchy female sexuality is not limited, therefore alienating a large part of the male population, i.e. it has a weak army and does not oppose foreign takeovers. Men from muslims countries will slowly take control of of the permissive Europa (which is what she subconsciously desires anyway).


----------



## appleburger (Oct 7, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The existence of side effects for the COVID19 vaccines is a scientific fact. You have to acknowledge this fact with a signature before agreeing to get one.
> The judgement whether you should take this risk is non-scientific. Science can tell you how bad air pollution is. It cannot tell you whether to do something about it. How difficult is this to understand?
> 
> 
> ...



Oof, this is a train wreck of a response.  Sorry to be rude, and I don't know if you're young or English isn't your first language, so my goal isn't to insult you, but I'll do my best to help out with the reading comprehension here (we could be talking about baking cakes and this would still stand - regardless of your take on vaccines/COVID).



> The existence of side effects for the COVID19 vaccines is a scientific fact. You have to acknowledge this fact with a signature before agreeing to get one.


Yeah, I know, and I already mentioned this in my other comments, which I'd recommend reading before responding to me.  You're arguing against nobody on this point.  

I also literally, and explicitly agreed with your point on the ability of making a decision without Science in the very quote you pulled from my post, lol (you copied the first half of the sentence and left out the part where I said we agreed on that, because it's obvious).  How on Earth did you miss that?



> Your statements are not consistent with each other. The first sentence refers to an individual. The last refers to society.


Homie, me saying COVID is taking out more people that vaccines is not referring to "society", it's referring to people.  You know... a collection of individuals, which is incredibly relevant.  People die when they jump off buildings, too.  Are you going to tell me that doesn't prevent you wanting to jump off a building?  Or would you figure if you don't survive the fall, you don't deserve to live?  (Sorry, couldn't help it)



> Am I convinced that vaccines are potentially more risky than not receiving them?
> Yes, POTENTIALLY! So are you!
> If somebody gets the vaccine and suffers from serious side effects, he or she could have been better of without the vaccine, especially if he or she had managed not to get infected


This is redundant - see above.  I already acknowledged this and you keep acting as if people are disagreeing with you on this point.  We aren't.  Read our posts!

And for some data, here's the current rate of serious side effects from the COVID vaccine:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/reactogenicity.html

If you don't want to read it, it's *0.4%*.

What's the rate of serious side effects from COVID?  Clearly more than *0.4%*

Also, the fact that you keep trying to instill this notion we think Science is some sort of autonomous entity that we think can make decisions on our behalf is asinine.  Nobody is saying that, and you're wasting your keyboard strokes telling me that "Science" can't tell you to not jump into traffic.  Uh.... yeah no kidding(?)

* I get that you can still decide to not get it regardless of the numbers, which is what I think you're _trying _to get at.  But that's a pretty non sequitur point to bring up in this discussion, and you're arguing against points that literally none of us are making.  Again - read our posts!


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 7, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Also, the fact that you keep trying to instill this notion we think Science is some sort of autonomous entity that we think can make decisions on our behalf is asinine.


It is even worse than that. You believe it has official representatives which is why you keep asking for peer-reviewed studies. The world has been a sphere before anyone agreed. Race exists and girls who think they are boys are still girls. The latter two obvious facts are disputed by current science (the very last one perhaps not yet, but we are getting there). Logic trumps peer-reviewed studies. That´s why I don´t jump off buildings.

English is indeed not my first language and I have read your posts.

Regarding the 0,4% number by the CDC about the likelihood of side effects from vaccination: You made a comparison with the likelihood of side effects from getting the virus. You are missing two things here. First, vaccination requires medical intervention. So you are comparing the risk of something which has not happened and does not necessarily need to happen (i.e. getting COVID19 or at least one of the current versions of it which most likely will be more harmful than later ones) with sth that has to happen if you enforce vaccination.
Second, the 0,4% number refers to 15-18 year olds who reported serious side effects. Since Pfizer uses mRNA technology, you are actually comparing apples to oranges. You do not know how the affected teenagers would have dealt with the virus. Probably easily, which is why many countries do not want to take the risk (and some even ban some vaccines for teenagers).


----------



## appleburger (Oct 7, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> It is even worse than that. You believe it has official representatives which is why you keep asking for peer-reviewed studies. The world has been a sphere before anyone agreed. Race exists and girls who think they are boys are still girls. The latter two obvious facts are disputed by current science (the very last one perhaps not yet, but we are getting there). Logic trumps peer-reviewed studies. That´s why I don´t jump off buildings.
> 
> English is indeed not my first language and I have read your posts.
> 
> ...



Never said that, and I have no idea where you’re pulling that from lol

The study also clearly says the age range is 18-55. 

You aren’t paying attention to what anyone is saying. You’re creating arguments out of thin air from points nobody is making.  Literally, nobody here  has said anything about peer reviewed papers having… “representatives”. 

You also failed to even properly read the title of the study’s tables, or multiple paragraphs where the age range is discussed. It’s in big, bold letters with a table showing all the data, for God sake. 

Im not going to continue this conversation with you, only because the communication barrier is too high. I can’t carry a conversation with somebody who can’t even comprehend what anybody is writing to them. 

At a minimum everyone else in this thread has possessed the ability to comprehend what we’re saying to each other, so I’ll happily respond to any other points. Gotta throw the towel in on this one, though. 

Maybe it’s the language barrier or something, but regardless of the reason we can’t get anywhere if you’re going to fail to  display a reasonable amount of reading comprehension. Sorry.


----------



## videogamefanatic (Oct 8, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Yeah, and everyone who has posted their story has been met with "but where's the peer reviewed sources?". I didn't read every page but I doubt there was any sincere attempt at discussion.
> 
> Edit: apart from @appleburger very recently


My post history dude. We've been talking about exactly this shit the whole time. When an antivax comes in here with "but the vaccine doesn't work because vaccinated people can spread", we point out the cherry picked wording, pointed out shorter infection time, pointed out how rare breakthrough cases are in comparison to unvaccinated cases. We point out how much lower the chance of side effects is compared to covid deaths (which DIRECTLY addresses one's concern about side effects).

They argue. We call out their bullshit and provide them with perspective. Most don't listen. There's nothing else we can do to help.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 8, 2021)

appleburger said:


> The study also clearly says the age range is 18-55.


Let me quote it for you:
Table 6. Systemic reactions in persons aged 12-15 years[...]:
[...]"who reported at least 1 serious adverse event were *0.4%* in the vaccine group"

Let me quote you:
"And for some data, here's the current rate of serious side effects from the COVID vaccine:
If you don't want to read it, it's *0.4%*."

You have no argument. I am fluent in the English language and have no difficulty understanding the weakness of your argument. Let me sum it up:
You: "Why not get the vaccine?"
Non-Vaccinated: "I do not want to."
You: "Do you have studies to back up your opinion?"
Non-Vaccinated: "I do not need to. I have read/heard about side effects."
You: "The (side) effects of getting the virus are worse."

I have explained that you are assuming the non-vaccinated will get the virus (which you cannot, since most of the world has not gotten it yet and probably will get a weaker variant of it in the future) and comparing apples to oranges (effects of the virus vs side effects of an mRNA vaccine; which differs for age groups, which is why teenagers are usually not required to get it).


----------



## smf (Oct 8, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Regarding the 0,4% number by the CDC about the likelihood of side effects from vaccination: You made a comparison with the likelihood of side effects from getting the virus. You are missing two things here. First, vaccination requires medical intervention. So you are comparing the risk of something which has not happened and does not necessarily need to happen (i.e. getting COVID19 or at least one of the current versions of it which most likely will be more harmful than later ones) with sth that has to happen if you enforce vaccination.


As covid is so transmissible, due to it's long incubation period and potential lack of symptoms (which makes it more scary than ebola), then you have no say in whether you're going to catch covid or not.

You're definitely going to catch covid-19 at some point, unless you live in the middle of nowhere and are self sufficient. You might have no symptoms and therefore not know you had it, but then again you might die.

A lot of anti vaxxers are also anti mask, anti social distancing etc. Covid 19 likes those people, they make it easy.

Deciding not to catch covid 19 isn't a source to back up the anti vaccine movement either, its wishful thinking. It will work for some, but fail for others.


----------



## smf (Oct 8, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I have explained that you are assuming the non-vaccinated will get the virus (which you cannot, since most of the world has not gotten it yet and probably will get a weaker variant of it in the future) and comparing apples to oranges (effects of the virus vs side effects of an mRNA vaccine; which differs for age groups, which is why teenagers are usually not required to get it).


You're comparing apples and oranges.

We closed down the world to prevent you catching it, but that is unsustainable & the world is now opening up.

You could argue that there is no reason to be vaccinated if we are in perpetual lockdown, however that is not what is going to happen.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 8, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> You're wasting your time, we already went through this near the beginning of the thread and it didn't make any difference. OP is obviously smart enough to understand exactly what they are doing, and will innocently insist that this is a sincere request when confronted about it. It's a waste of everyone's time posting here as no such peer review will ever exist.


My requests have always been sincere and I am always willing to accept information when given. This isn't some insincere act, I am simply asking for sources that are verified and reviewed. This shouldn't be seen as hostility when people claim they have sources and claim that they have evidence. Requesting evidence, sources, and verification is standard practice and isn't some weird form of flexing my intelligence.


UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Let me quote it for you:
> Table 6. Systemic reactions in persons aged 12-15 years[...]:
> [...]"who reported at least 1 serious adverse event were *0.4%* in the vaccine group"
> 
> ...


These kinds of arguments are the reason why I made this thread. I am asking for sources to back up your arguments, you should be able to provide them without making up some hypothetical coupled with claims without sources.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 8, 2021)

smf said:


> We closed down the world to prevent you catching it, but that is unsustainable & the world is now opening up.


I have been vaccinated twice and never asked for a shutdown. However, if you shutdown, you better do it like China. Otherwise it is rather pointless. More and more voices now say we have to live with the virus. You either aim to defeat the virus and take any necessary measures or you accept eventual defeat.

@The Catboy: Is the CDC okay as a source? It mentions side effects. Do you require a study to think for you and say "side effects is X, therefore take / do not take the vaccine"? Because that´s not science, that´s an opinion.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 8, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I have been vaccinated twice and never asked for a shutdown. However, if you shutdown, you better do it like China. Otherwise it is rather pointless. More and more voices now say we have to live with the virus. You either aim to defeat the virus and take any necessary measures or you accept eventual defeat.
> 
> @The Catboy: Is the CDC okay as a source? It mentions side effects. Do you require a study to think for you and say "side effects is X, therefore take / do not take the vaccine"? Because that´s not science, that´s an opinion.


The side effects are literally so small and only last for a few hours. Why would a few hours of discomfort be worse than a few weeks? It's accepted but the request needs to make sense without just being some weak argument. This is like comparing a small cut to a bullet wound by calling the side-effects justification to not getting vaccinated or being against vaccines. So you can but really consider questioning if that's truly an honest take?


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 8, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> My requests have always been sincere and I am always willing to accept information when given. This isn't some insincere act, I am simply asking for sources that are verified and reviewed. This shouldn't be seen as hostility when people claim they have sources and claim that they have evidence. Requesting evidence, sources, and verification is standard practice and isn't some weird form of flexing my intelligence.
> 
> These kinds of arguments are the reason why I made this thread. I am asking for sources to back up your arguments, you should be able to provide them without making up some hypothetical coupled with claims without sources.



Apologies if that wasn't your intention as it came across that way to me.



The Catboy said:


> The side effects are literally so small and only last for a few hours. Why would a few hours of discomfort be worse than a few weeks? It's accepted but the request needs to make sense without just being some weak argument. This is like comparing a small cut to a bullet wound by calling the side-effects justification to not getting vaccinated or being against vaccines. So you can but really consider questioning if that's truly an honest take?



I posted an advisory statement from the government appointed Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisations (UK) on the other thread regarding 12-15 year olds. They came to the conclusion that overall benefit was slightly greater than the risk of Covid itself (acknowledging it is a much less dangerous infection for children), but enough wasn't known about long term effects for them to advise a mandate (specifically regarding prolonged tissue damage to the heart). This obviously only applies to kids, but I'm not sure that it would be any different regarding the time required to obtain data for long term effects on adults. This is probably also why there was no mandate and it was just heavily recommended.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 8, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Apologies if that wasn't your intention as it came across that way to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I posted an advisory statement from the government appointed Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisations (UK) on the other thread regarding 12-15 year olds. They came to the conclusion that overall benefit was slightly greater than the risk of Covid itself (acknowledging it is a much less dangerous infection for children), but enough wasn't known about long term effects for them to advise a mandate (specifically regarding prolonged tissue damage to the heart). This obviously only applies to kids, but I'm not sure that it would be any different regarding the time required to obtain data for long term effects on adults. This is probably also why there was no mandate and it was just heavily recommended.


That’s fascinating and at least more than the strange arguments I’ve seen. I can see why that would leave people with concerns regarding their well-being for the Covid shot. But that’s only one shot and only one very specific issue and doesn’t quite answer the question. This topic still isn’t about the Covid vaccine, I am not saying those articles are unwelcome though. This is more about the larger movement against vaccines and those claiming to have sources against vaccines. I can see where concerns might come up from that article but that’s a very recent development, whereas this movement has been around for quite some time now.


----------



## appleburger (Oct 8, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> That’s fascinating and at least more than the strange arguments I’ve seen. I can see why that would leave people with concerns regarding their well-being for the Covid shot. But that’s only one shot and only one very specific issue and doesn’t quite answer the question. This topic still isn’t about the Covid vaccine, I am not saying those articles are unwelcome though. This is more about the larger movement against vaccines and those claiming to have sources against vaccines. I can see where concerns might come up from that article but that’s a very recent development, whereas this movement has been around for quite some time now.


If sources backing up anti-vax are what you're after, that hbomberguy video summarizes what evidence _is_ out there very well.  It's subsequently torn to pieces, because the "evidence" is terrible and fraught with deception, but it's the best summary of the movement's evidence I've come across so far.


----------



## djpannda (Oct 8, 2021)

appleburger said:


> If sources backing up anti-vax are what you're after, that hbomberguy video summarizes what evidence _is_ out there very well.  It's subsequently torn to pieces, because the "evidence" is terrible and fraught with deception, but it's the best summary of the movement's evidence I've come across so far.


so your saying .....there are no creditable anti-vac sources?


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 8, 2021)

appleburger said:


> If sources backing up anti-vax are what you're after, that hbomberguy video summarizes what evidence _is_ out there very well.  It's subsequently torn to pieces, because the "evidence" is terrible and fraught with deception, but it's the best summary of the movement's evidence I've come across so far.


A YouTube video isn’t a source. I am looking for actual research papers that have been verified and published on a reputable source. Claims of some conspiracy of information being destroyed really doesn’t hold up in the days of the internet.


----------



## appleburger (Oct 8, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> A YouTube video isn’t a source. I am looking for actual research papers that have been verified and published on a reputable source. Claims of some conspiracy of information being destroyed really doesn’t hold up in the days of the internet.


Totally agree.  I'm saying the video is largely _about _peer reviewed sources.  It attempts to cover the best possible argument the anti-vax stance has and then scrutinize them in detail.

The sources are all in a google doc in the video description - there's over 100 of them.  Some are articles, others are papers, some of which are peer reviewed.


----------



## appleburger (Oct 8, 2021)

djpannda said:


> so your saying .....there are no creditable anti-vac sources?


I don't know if there are, but I've looked for them and haven't found any.

The study from the early 90's was "credible" until peers realized the evidence was mostly just worries from parents, and not a properly controlled, unbiased study.

To it's credit, it does list the limitations of the study (like all who seek credibility do), but the doctor behind the paper was very unethical in how he proceeded to inform the public using his extremely weak findings.  

Funny enough, even though this sprouted the anti-vax movement, the doc behind this study still advocated for vaccines - he was only warning against one in particular.

It's pretty fascinating, I think.


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 8, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> That’s fascinating and at least more than the strange arguments I’ve seen. I can see why that would leave people with concerns regarding their well-being for the Covid shot. But that’s only one shot and only one very specific issue and doesn’t quite answer the question. This topic still isn’t about the Covid vaccine, I am not saying those articles are unwelcome though. This is more about the larger movement against vaccines and those claiming to have sources against vaccines. I can see where concerns might come up from that article but that’s a very recent development, whereas this movement has been around for quite some time now.



Ahh, I guess I misinterpreted the title to mean Covid vaccines rather than the general anti-vax group. It seems to me that there shouldn't be much of a debate in that case as there is a wealth of data spanning decades. I don't believe there's ever been a link established between any vaccine and autism, which seems to be the primary issue put forward in this country.


----------



## appleburger (Oct 8, 2021)

@The Catboy if you want some more peer reviewed papers that discuss serious side effects posted, I did find a couple referenced in this article, here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nm1209



> But there are real safety problems associated with vaccines, such as paralysis after oral polio vaccine83 and disseminated infections after Bacille Calmette-Guérin84


Googling around for those two studies it quotes, I can't access the full articles for free, but maybe I'm just missing a link or not looking hard enough (I'm just lightly googling while working, so don't take my word for it that they're hard to find)

If you're interested in any serious side effects from the COVID vaccines in particular, AFAIK all the current studies show no serious side effects for just about everyone that's received them, when you compare them to other vaccines, especially.  The fact that there are so many counter-examples should really force one to consider that examples aren't likely to become available until a "gotcha" moment comes along, or something.

I'm sure somebody with some stronger research skills than me here can distill this a little better. 

This doesn't support "anti vax", really at all (which is a little vague and could imply different takes depending on who you talk to, I think), but if we're discussing vaccine side effect studies in general, then maybe this gets you somewhere?


----------



## appleburger (Oct 8, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Ahh, I guess I misinterpreted the title to mean Covid vaccines rather than the general anti-vax group. It seems to me that there shouldn't be much of a debate in that case as there is a wealth of data spanning decades. I don't believe there's ever been a link established between any vaccine and autism, which seems to be the primary issue put forward in this country.


Yeah, the autism study is the highlight of the hbomberguy video and there's a tonnnnnn of info out there tearing that study apart, in general.

If we divide up the conversation into any serious side effects from _past_ vaccines, then there is literature on that.  Not for COVID vaccines, though - they're among the least risky we've developed - somebody correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 8, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Yeah, the autism study is the highlight of the hbomberguy video and there's a tonnnnnn of info out there tearing that study apart, in general.
> 
> If we divide up the conversation into any serious side effects from _past_ vaccines, then there is literature on that.  Not for COVID vaccines, though - they're among the least risky we've developed - somebody correct me if I'm wrong.



Other than the usual allergy to components and risk of anaphylactic shock, there doesn't appear to be anything particularly serious discovered yet. But, I do think these things take time and we won't know for sure until several years later. My only real concern is the myocarditis in young males being something that could cause long term tissue damage, which again would need to be studied over a long time to reach a conclusion. For now, it seems acute rather than chronic and should be treatable so each parent needs to make their own decision if the risk is worth it.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 8, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Totally agree.  I'm saying the video is largely _about _peer reviewed sources.  It attempts to cover the best possible argument the anti-vax stance has and then scrutinize them in detail.
> 
> The sources are all in a google doc in the video description - there's over 100 of them.  Some are articles, others are papers, some of which are peer reviewed.


The issue with that is the YouTube video is trying to control a narrative. There are side effects to vaccines that people should be aware of and concerned about, the same for all medications. But that’s where we start getting into cherry picking. People looking at the small fraction of possible side effects and saying “See! Vaccines scary because you might get mildly sick for a few hours!” That might happen but it’s a few hours of discomfort vs a few weeks of suffering with possible long-term side effects, such as lung damage with Covid. I am trying to avoid cherry picking and ask, what is the evidence anti-vaxxors are referring to and has that evidence been verified and isn’t just cherry picking for a narrative?
As for the autism debate, that’s completely debunked by countless papers. Equally, it’s also a super shitty movement that basically is “I would rather have a dead child than one with autism.”


----------



## plasturion (Oct 8, 2021)

https://theexpose.uk/2021/09/26/two...19-vaccines-weve-never-seen-anything-like-it/


----------



## appleburger (Oct 8, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> The issue with that is the YouTube video is trying to control a narrative. There are side effects to vaccines that people should be aware of and concerned about, the same for all medications. But that’s where we start getting into cherry picking. People looking at the small fraction of possible side effects and saying “See! Vaccines scary because you might get mildly sick for a few hours!” That might happen but it’s a few hours of discomfort vs a few weeks of suffering with possible long-term side effects, such as lung damage with Covid. I am trying to avoid cherry picking and ask, what is the evidence anti-vaxxors are referring to and has that evidence been verified and isn’t just cherry picking for a narrative?
> As for the autism debate, that’s completely debunked by countless papers. Equally, it’s also a super shitty movement that basically is “I would rather have a dead child than one with autism.”


That's a good point, but the sources in the description contain the articles in question if you want to bypass the youtuber's take on it.  Better than me pasting 20+ links here


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 8, 2021)

plasturion said:


> https://theexpose.uk/2021/09/26/two...19-vaccines-weve-never-seen-anything-like-it/


These are unconfirmed claims and are effectively anecdotal. There’s also no peer-reviews, so it’s unverified and based on speculation of cause of death. 


appleburger said:


> That's a good point, but the sources in the description contain the articles in question if you want to bypass the youtuber's take on it.  Better than me pasting 20+ links here


I am going to be real with you, a common technique that I’ve seen is information overload. Taking a fuck ton of vaguely similar articles or articles that sound vaguely like the point they are going to make and using those. There’s also a lot of cases where people take the unverified or recently submitted studies and use those as “evidence.” So consider me skeptical when approaching this but I will take a look when I am more free. I am currently renovating a duplex right now so my time is limited


----------



## plasturion (Oct 8, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> These are unconfirmed claims and are effectively anecdotal. There’s also no peer-reviews, so it’s unverified and based on speculation of cause of death.


These are world-renowned pathologists who have been involved in determining causes of death for many years. In fact, this is not hard evidence that has been confirmed in other scientific circles, but if there are legitimate concerns, they need to be explained with appropriate counter-arguments, not swept under the rug "because so" by other supposed pseudo-authorities.
Here's another one:
https://riotimesonline.com/brazil-n...7M0soVznooA-1633724474-0-gqNtZGzNApCjcnBszQel


----------



## appleburger (Oct 8, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> These are unconfirmed claims and are effectively anecdotal. There’s also no peer-reviews, so it’s unverified and based on speculation of cause of death.
> 
> I am going to be real with you, a common technique that I’ve seen is information overload. Taking a fuck ton of vaguely similar articles or articles that sound vaguely like the point they are going to make and using those. There’s also a lot of cases where people take the unverified or recently submitted studies and use those as “evidence.” So consider me skeptical when approaching this but I will take a look when I am more free. I am currently renovating a duplex right now so my time is limited



That’s fair - perhaps just going over the famous paper yourself would be an interesting enough read. It’s surprising how “bad” a study can be just because of faulty conclusions from reasonable testing. The sample size is also pretty small, which is common, but it’s overall shockingly whacky, imo. 

Those other two papers I mentioned don’t have any video associated with them, I just googled until I came across them, but they are referencing completely different vaccines that are no longer in use. 

All three of those are peer reviewed, so that’s the best I have for now. Maybe if I go down the rabbit hole again I can return to this thread with a more cogent post to lay out what I find.


----------



## WG481 (Oct 8, 2021)

Let's look at some things.

For some of you, you simply cannot get the vaccine as your immune system differs from the average. However, if you support people who can get it, and are cleared for it in a medical sense not getting the vaccine, that's dumb.

There are currently *0 sources supporting anti-vaccination. Rather, there is misinformation campaigning.*

As a person who has been vaccinated for time and all eternity, *I have never had an issue with vaccines, being pumped with 'em every year*. While some people may be allergic to an ingredient, that doesn't mean you should push for anti-vaccination.

Currently, vaccines are not a cure. Rather, they are an immune booster. They increase your immune system defense against the virus, giving you an easier recovery time, minimized chance of death, and the ability to travel abroad. (Perks)



Shut up. Please.

There is a whole lot of science backing vaccinations.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 8, 2021)

plasturion said:


> These are world-renowned pathologists who have been involved in determining causes of death for many years. In fact, this is not hard evidence that has been confirmed in other scientific circles, but if there are legitimate concerns, they need to be explained with appropriate counter-arguments, not swept under the rug "because so" by other supposed pseudo-authorities.
> Here's another one:
> https://riotimesonline.com/brazil-n...7M0soVznooA-1633724474-0-gqNtZGzNApCjcnBszQel


This is an argument from authority and even the articles posted don’t actually provide evidence these deaths were linked to the vaccine. There’s also no inclusion of medical history, which is always relevant when talking about the death possibly linked to medical treatment. Again, the information isn’t confirmed or verified and an argument of authority isn’t a source. Simply put, this still anecdotal and does not meet the request from the OP, which is asking for verified and peer-reviewed papers. If this does get peer-reviewed and proven right, then it’s worth being concerned about. It could also just be worth remembering that vaccine side-effects are documented and all medical practices have their risks, but in all cases, are still an extremely small fraction compared to what they are treating.


----------



## WG481 (Oct 9, 2021)

plasturion said:


> These are world-renowned pathologists who have been involved in determining causes of death for many years. In fact, this is not hard evidence that has been confirmed in other scientific circles, but if there are legitimate concerns, they need to be explained with appropriate counter-arguments, not swept under the rug "because so" by other supposed pseudo-authorities.
> Here's another one:
> https://riotimesonline.com/brazil-n...7M0soVznooA-1633724474-0-gqNtZGzNApCjcnBszQel


"Prof. Dr. Werner Bergholz is a former professor of electrical engineering with a focus on quality and risk management at the Jakobs University in Bremen. Before his appointment, Prof. Bergholz worked for 17 years in chip production management at Siemens."
...Did you read the article? Like, let's be serious here, the dude isn't a world renowned pathologist, he's a Siemens employee. Not even in bioengineering. Heck, for all we should care, those tiny pieces of metal,* if they exist,* could actually be naturally occurring. *Did you know we consume and use iron and copper in our bodies* *(yet not enough to become magnetized)? *

This is why blood is red. When red blood cells carry oxygen, the iron in them oxidizes and turns them red (also proof why blood is not blue, since it has always been exposed to oxygen.)

I also see no references, no links to factual information. On wikis I've searched this website for, the article is a stub, with no information on how or why it exists. It is also, in some cases, deprecated or unused as a reference. Frankly, it's all a bunch of malarkey.


----------



## plasturion (Oct 9, 2021)

WG481 said:


> "Prof. Dr. Werner Bergholz is a former professor of electrical engineering with a focus on quality and risk management at the Jakobs University in Bremen. Before his appointment, Prof. Bergholz worked for 17 years in chip production management at Siemens."
> ...Did you read the article? Like, let's be serious here, the dude isn't a world renowned pathologist, he's a Siemens employee. Not even in bioengineering. Heck, for all we should care, those tiny pieces of metal,* if they exist,* could actually be naturally occurring. *Did you know we consume and use iron and copper in our bodies* *(yet not enough to become magnetized)? *


Yes this gentleman is a specialist in another field, but the other two are pathologists. Please watch the entire conference first and see what size these particles are and what shape they represent (starting at 1:27).  Also, there are dozens of other doctors involved in evaluating this study. Also, please note the number of lymphocytes in the lung tissue. Medicine to date knows of no such case. It is possible that this is strongly associated with overproduction of the virus spike protein in tissues where it should not be.

If we are already talking about the correct reaction of the scientific community, then the manufacturers of vaccines should be transparent and say what these contaminants are. If it turns out that these contaminations are disorderly, they should explain them to the public and not use censorship, like youtube did. 

If I go to the store and there is a batch of eggs with salmonella in them, let's say I will eat one and get sick. I report it to the health authorities... the batch is recalled. That's how it should work. Now I have the impression that I live in a time when I am forced to eat the rest despite everything, without any explanations. This so called fascism. Now, unfortunately, one narrative is imposed, if anyone is against it they are eliminated from public debate. Unless this changes, there is no point in trusting these ambiguous genetic preparations.

Considering that the technology used is from aborted fetuses, anyone who supports this should be prosecuted. This is how it should be in a civilized community.


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 9, 2021)

plasturion said:


> Considering that the technology used is from aborted fetuses, anyone who supports this should be prosecuted. This is how it should be in a civilized community.



I mean, even the Vatican gave the OK to the vaccines, so unless you consider yourself on a higher plane than the Pope himself I wouldn't worry about it.

Also, the cells grown today are pretty far down the line from the originals which are around 50 years old by now. It's not like they are hanging around women about to get abortions with little baggies.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 9, 2021)

plasturion said:


> Considering that the technology used is from aborted fetuses, anyone who supports this should be prosecuted. This is how it should be in a civilized community.


Abortion is not illegal in the US. Using fetal stem cells in scientific research isn't illegal. These things shouldn't be illegal.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 9, 2021)

I am against stem cell research without being religious. Offspring should "feed" on their parents, not the other way around. It is like a tiger eating tiger babies.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 9, 2021)

plasturion said:


> Yes this gentleman is a specialist in another field, but the other two are pathologists. Please watch the entire conference first and see what size these particles are and what shape they represent (starting at 1:27).  Also, there are dozens of other doctors involved in evaluating this study. Also, please note the number of lymphocytes in the lung tissue. Medicine to date knows of no such case. It is possible that this is strongly associated with overproduction of the virus spike protein in tissues where it should not be.* I am not watching the conference because I actually read through the paper. The paper does not confirm that any of the death are directly connected to the Covid vaccine. The papers are mostly speculation on the cause of death and a request for further examinations. Taking these at face value without accepting that they need further research is just working oneself up.*
> 
> If we are already talking about the correct reaction of the scientific community, then the manufacturers of vaccines should be transparent and say what these contaminants are. If it turns out that these contaminations are disorderly, they should explain them to the public and not use censorship, like youtube did.
> *Do you have any evidance to show that they haven't been transparent? As well, any proof that they are linked to Youtube's decision to remove unproven conspiracy videos? *
> ...


Do you have any proof that these vaccines contain aborted fetuses?


UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I am against stem cell research without being religious. Offspring should "feed" on their parents, not the other way around. It is like a tiger eating tiger babies.


Cool, why is this relevant to this thread or the requests being made?


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 9, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> Cool, why is this relevant to this thread or the requests being made?


It could be relevant since fetal cells were used to demonstrate how mRNA works. It could be a moral reason to deny mRNA vaccination. Just as some people might refuse to buy products that are related to child labor.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 9, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> It could be relevant since fetal cells were used to demonstrate how mRNA works. It could be a moral reason to deny mRNA vaccination. Just as some people might refuse to buy products that are related to child labor.


Stem cells are used in the vast majority of medical research. That being said, I won’t entertain personal conjecture because it seems the only relevant reason for bringing this up is just as some dumb means of changing the subject. These still aren’t sources backing up the anti-vac movement.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 9, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> These still aren’t sources backing up the anti-vac movement.


There cannot by definition. I already explained it many times.
I could open a thread in which I demand sources "backing up the vaccination movement".
If somebody was stupid enough to post links I could say "yeah, but 99% of people survive and the average age of death is similar to life expectancy". "Are there really no sources"? "WOOOW THERE ARE NO SOURCES"

You act like a clown.

That said I am not in the anti-vac camp. I just find both camps ridiculous.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 9, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> There cannot by definition. I already explained it many times.
> I could open a thread in which I demand sources "backing up the vaccination movement".
> If somebody was stupid enough to post links I could say "yeah, but 99% of people survive and the average age of death is similar to life expectancy". "Are there really no sources"? "WOOOW THERE ARE NO SOURCES"
> 
> ...


Personal opinions are not peer-reviewed sources and not on topic for this thread. I really don’t care what your thoughts on me or my thread is. You are welcome to reply but don’t expect your opinion to be treated as anything other than an opinion


----------



## smf (Oct 9, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I posted an advisory statement from the government appointed Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisations (UK) on the other thread regarding 12-15 year olds. They came to the conclusion that overall benefit was slightly greater than the risk of Covid itself (acknowledging it is a much less dangerous infection for children), but enough wasn't known about long term effects for them to advise a mandate (specifically regarding prolonged tissue damage to the heart). This obviously only applies to kids, but I'm not sure that it would be any different regarding the time required to obtain data for long term effects on adults. This is probably also why there was no mandate and it was just heavily recommended.


Long term effects of what?

There is less data for vaccine than for children, due to them starting trials on adults first.
Because there are less bad outcomes for children for covid infections, then there isn't much data there either.

It might be ok but you don't want to be a government that kills a load of children.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 9, 2021)

Caring about cells more than actual people.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 9, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> There cannot by definition. I already explained it many times.
> I could open a thread in which I demand sources "backing up the vaccination movement".
> If somebody was stupid enough to post links I could say "yeah, but 99% of people survive and the average age of death is similar to life expectancy". "Are there really no sources"? "WOOOW THERE ARE NO SOURCES"
> 
> ...


There are reputable sources backing up the "vaccination movement," as you put it. The same cannot be said for the anti-vax movement.


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 9, 2021)

smf said:


> Long term effects of what?



Myocarditis. It's easier if I just repost it here https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...children-aged-12-to-15-years-3-september-2021

This is the relevant part:



> There is increasingly robust evidence of an association between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis. This is a very rare adverse event. Available data from the US and Canada indicate the reporting rate of myocarditis is higher following a second dose of mRNA vaccine, compared with the first dose. No association with prior SARS-CoV2 infection and myocarditis following vaccination has been identified.
> 
> The available data indicate that the clinical manifestations of myocarditis following vaccination are typically self-limiting and resolves within a short time. However, the clinical picture is atypical and the medium to long-term (months to years) prognosis, including the possibility of persistence of tissue damage resulting from inflammation, is currently uncertain as sufficient follow-up time has not yet occurred.



So basically, if the child has co-morbidity then vaccination is highly recommended, but in healthy children it's a bit less clear cut if it's worth the risk. Obviously this will change once more data is available.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 9, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Myocarditis. It's easier if I just repost it here https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...children-aged-12-to-15-years-3-september-2021
> 
> This is the relevant part:
> 
> ...


The data is clear that vaccination is worth the risk in lower age groups. The issue is whether or not boosters are worth the risk.


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 9, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The data is clear that vaccination is worth the risk in lower age groups. The issue is whether or not boosters are worth the risk.


Rather than argue, I'm going to ask a personal question which you are free to not answer. Do you have a son aged between 12-15?


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 9, 2021)

I am starting to feel that there are no sources, just cherry-picking and fair mongering


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Oct 9, 2021)

Facebook and hive mind echo chambered stupidity


----------



## SG854 (Oct 9, 2021)

God backs the Anti-Vax movement since he created covid. You guys are messing with God's plan and his corona virus creation.


----------



## mightymuffy (Oct 9, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> Do you have any proof that these vaccines contain aborted fetuses?


....Do you have any proof they don't? (I'm double vaxxed by the way) And if you so-called do, was this told to you by a family member or similar who actually made it, or simply 'someone reputable' *snigger*

I take it you're the OP of this latest clusterfuck.... lemme guess, when the Activision/Blizzard harassment topic was 'hot' you were one of the ones screaming "I'm going to boycott Activision products coz I think it's a good idea, and I'm a good person - if you don't boycott them with me that makes you a bad person!" Yes? No? Well you sound like one of them here...

Once again, what the flying fukk is wrong with us all these days?! Ooh look at me, I've done my part, I'm anti-vaxxed, I'm just freakin awesome, I'm gonna call everyone who isn't double vaxxed yet a trash human [since I've nothing better to do]. Some on here even going as far as (cause of death or not) slagging a member off who recently lost a loved one because he hinted it might have had something to do with the vaccine?! No 'sorry for your loss' or anything, just 'hah you're wrong, must've died of cancer not the vaccine, you moron!' ....Jesus Fukkin Christ....


----------



## HollowGrams (Oct 9, 2021)

Flu vaccine 78+ years old and we still have the flu.  Cannabis can't be fully legalized cause it needs more testing.  Yet....


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 9, 2021)

mightymuffy said:


> ....Do you have any proof they don't? (I'm double vaxxed by the way)
> Garbage, literal garbage


Please don’t shift the burden of proof onto me. The request was proof of aborted fetus’ in vaccines, that shouldn’t be too much to ask for.


----------



## mightymuffy (Oct 9, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> Please don’t shift the burden of proof onto me. The request was proof of aborted fetus’ in vaccines, that shouldn’t be too much to ask for.


 - K then, let's rephrase it.... Let's pretend whoever the geezer was that said it was right (and come on, I don't believe it for a second either!) - and there really is aborted fetus stuff in the vaccines... where in hell is he gonna GET proof of this? Is Bill Gates himself gonna strut up on stage and say "Hey y'all, he's right, there ARE bits of dead babies in the vaccine!"
Ssooo yeah, think about it for a second, that kind of IS too much to ask for... rather like your original question, voiced many times before you created the topic, on here, all over the internet, yadda yadda... you've been double vaxxed, 'well done', you're now ~80% less likely to catch a virus you're only ~30% likely to develop symptoms for, and ~99% likely to survive even if you do develop symptoms. Be proud of yourself perhaps, but for God's sake respect the decision of those who choose not to be jabbed! Unless they're shoving it down our throats, which isn't happening on this forum, so....


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 9, 2021)

mightymuffy said:


> - K then, let's rephrase it.... Let's pretend whoever the geezer was that said it was right (and come on, I don't believe it for a second either!) - and there really is aborted fetus stuff in the vaccines... where in hell is he gonna GET proof of this? Is Bill Gates himself gonna strut up on stage and say "Hey y'all, he's right, there ARE bits of dead babies in the vaccine!"
> Ssooo yeah, think about it for a second, that kind of IS too much to ask for...


I’m not entertaining any hypothetical. The claim was vaccines were created with aborted fetuses, I would like to see actual proof to that claim. If there is no proof, then it’s conspiracy garbage until proven otherwise


----------



## DonCaballero (Oct 9, 2021)




----------



## appleburger (Oct 9, 2021)

@The Catboy The closest you're going to get to a peer reviewed paper that "backs up" anti vaxers, and by that I only mean the paper that most of them will try and use to back up their argument, is going to be Andrew Wakefield's.  It's been redacted for obvious reasons, but it's worth a read if you're genuinely curious in what info the other side is at least _attempting _to offer as evidence.

Also worth pointing out that these studies are not intended to "back up" anything, anyway.  That's going to depend on what your tolerance for credible evidence is.  

Other papers are for out dated vaccines.  A fool could cite those to back up claims on newer ones, too, you know?

Someone could use this particular paper to back up either "pro-vax" or "anti-vax", depending on one's reading comprehension skills and just generally how competent they are at referencing data to back up a point.

As you've clearly already seen in this thread, people can look at clearly strong data driven points and completely misinterpret what's going on (and even completely screw up people's points on here that are explicitly written out).

So, I strongly recommend just going through that paper as a starting point if you want to see what's going on with the other side of the argument.  Assuming you're not an idiot, it'll be pretty clear why there are no other papers anti-vaxers are willing to quote (that are peer reviewed and published by a well recognized institution, at least)


----------



## smf (Oct 9, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> but in healthy children it's a bit less clear cut if it's worth the risk. Obviously this will change once more data is available.


Right, there aren't enough healthy children that have been vaccinated, to really work out what risk (if any) they have of myocarditis.

The people who get myocarditis might have gone on to get it if they'd been infected with covid19, or for some other reason

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...d-pericarditis-following-covid-19-vaccination

It may even have been present before the vaccine.


----------



## smf (Oct 9, 2021)

mightymuffy said:


> ....Do you have any proof they don't?


Do you have any proof you don't eat aborted foetus?

If it were created with aborted foetus and it was a huge secret, then some random is unlikely to even know it unless they had some proof, which there doesn't seem to be any. It seems to be a misunderstanding (like all good conspiracy theories)

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/y...covid-19-vaccines-contain-aborted-fetal-cells


----------



## smf (Oct 9, 2021)

plasturion said:


> These are world-renowned pathologists who have been involved in determining causes of death for many years.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

They could be world renowned pathologists who are also tin foil hat wearers & have had their judgement skewed.

I agree that it's something that needs an unbiased investigation.


----------



## smf (Oct 9, 2021)

SG854 said:


> God backs the Anti-Vax movement since he created covid. You guys are messing with God's plan and his corona virus creation.


It's Noah's ark 2.0, only the good will get vaxxed and the rest swept away.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The data is clear that vaccination is worth the risk in lower age groups. The issue is whether or not boosters are worth the risk.


"Is worth the risk" is an opinion.
Imagine you could save thousands of lives by shooting down a plane with a hundred (or less) innocent passengers. Whether it is "worth it" is not a question of science. After 9/11 some courts ruled that you cannot act in this way to balance out lives. There is no right answer.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 10, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> "Is worth the risk" is an opinion.
> Imagine you could save thousands of lives by shooting down a plane with a hundred (or less) innocent passengers. Whether it is "worth it" is not a question of science. After 9/11 some courts ruled that you cannot act in this way to balance out lives. There is no right answer.


Cool story, not a source.
This thread shouldn’t be such a shit show with the apparent “evidence” that anti-vaxxors claim to have. I am literally just asking for some sources that are verified, that’s it. No cherry picking or mental gymnastics.


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 10, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> There cannot by definition. I already explained it many times.
> I could open a thread in which I demand sources "backing up the vaccination movement".
> If somebody was stupid enough to post links I could say "yeah, but 99% of people survive and the average age of death is similar to life expectancy". "Are there really no sources"? "WOOOW THERE ARE NO SOURCES"
> 
> ...


Congratulations, that wins you isolation from either side and some crotch-burn from grinding that fence like a baus. You do you.


UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> "Is worth the risk" is an opinion.
> Imagine you could save thousands of lives by shooting down a plane with a hundred (or less) innocent passengers. Whether it is "worth it" is not a question of science. After 9/11 some courts ruled that you cannot act in this way to balance out lives. There is no right answer.


Correction: You cannot morally conclude one action is superior to the other. By the maths, there is a tragic but clear superior outcome. If you want to proclaim that "THINK OF THE CHiLdReN! Even if only one in ten thousand dies, that could be YOUR baby!" is a scientific point of view, you're doing it wrong, comrade.



mightymuffy said:


> ....Do you have any proof they don't? (I'm double vaxxed by the way) And if you so-called do, was this told to you by a family member or similar who actually made it, or simply 'someone reputable' *snigger*
> 
> I take it you're the OP of this latest clusterfuck.... lemme guess, when the Activision/Blizzard harassment topic was 'hot' you were one of the ones screaming "I'm going to boycott Activision products coz I think it's a good idea, and I'm a good person - if you don't boycott them with me that makes you a bad person!" Yes? No? Well you sound like one of them here...
> 
> Once again, what the flying fukk is wrong with us all these days?! Ooh look at me, I've done my part, I'm anti-vaxxed, I'm just freakin awesome, I'm gonna call everyone who isn't double vaxxed yet a trash human [since I've nothing better to do]. Some on here even going as far as (cause of death or not) slagging a member off who recently lost a loved one because he hinted it might have had something to do with the vaccine?! No 'sorry for your loss' or anything, just 'hah you're wrong, must've died of cancer not the vaccine, you moron!' ....Jesus Fukkin Christ....


I dunno what dumpster you crawled out of with your edgelord ego, but please keep your projection to yourself. I can't say I've seen anybody mention losing a family member and getting flamed in this thread, so I've got to assume it happened elsewhere, and that is that and this is this.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 10, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> "Is worth the risk" is an opinion.
> Imagine you could save thousands of lives by shooting down a plane with a hundred (or less) innocent passengers. Whether it is "worth it" is not a question of science. After 9/11 some courts ruled that you cannot act in this way to balance out lives. There is no right answer.


What I meant was the negative consequences associated with COVID-19, regardless of age and comorbidities, are significantly more likely than any of the significant risks associated with the vaccine. This isn't a matter of opinion.

Booster shots for most young people may not be worth any risk if there aren't significant consequences associated with young people not getting a third shot.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> What I meant was the negative consequences associated with COVID-19, regardless of age and comorbidities, are significantly more likely than any of the significant risks associated with the vaccine. This isn't a matter of opinion.


-How much more likely it is depends on the age group; which is why we don´t give the vaccine to young children
-You are assuming that a person gets COVID19; it is not a given; future variants might be more difficult to dodge but they will probably be less dangerous

So whether somebody has to take it, remains an opinion. If I had a company to run I would fire those who do not take it. That´s also an opinion and should not be outlawed.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 10, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> -How much more likely it is depends on the age group; which is why we don´t give the vaccine to young children
> -You are assuming that a person gets COVID19; it is not a given; future variants might be more difficult to dodge but they will probably be less dangerous
> 
> So whether somebody has to take it, remains an opinion. If I had a company to run I would fire those who do not take it. That´s also an opinion and should not be outlawed.


Yes, younger people are less at risk if they contract COVID-19, but regardless of the age group, the disease is riskier than the vaccine.

I am not assuming a person gets COVID-19. The risk of getting COVID-19, and also suffering severe effects from COVID-19, far outweigh any significant risks associated with the vaccine, regardless of age group.


----------



## smf (Oct 10, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> "Is worth the risk" is an opinion.
> Imagine you could save thousands of lives by shooting down a plane with a hundred (or less) innocent passengers. Whether it is "worth it" is not a question of science. After 9/11 some courts ruled that you cannot act in this way to balance out lives. There is no right answer.


There is a right answer, you go in with best intentions.

Courts all around the world accept that it is valid to balance out lives that way.

If you are driving above the speed limit to go to the shops then you will be punished because it's dangerous.

If you are driving above the speed limit because you have someone in your car that needs life saving medical attention, then you will not be punished.

 The problem with shooting down the planes on 911 is that instead of a plane full of dead people and dead people in a small area, you have a plane full of dead people and fire and debris raining down on a large area. If they could have vaporized the plane in mid air (and the ability to react fast enough to what was happening), then they would have done it. It's not a particularly relevant analogy anyway.


----------



## smf (Oct 10, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> -You are assuming that a person gets COVID19; it is not a given; future variants might be more difficult to dodge but they will probably be less dangerous


You are assuming that people won't get covid19, I think that is naive when considering how transmissible it is.

You are assuming future variants will be less dangerous. But it depends on how you define dangerous.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/corona...ious-disease-doctor-explains/?sh=6005e40f734e

It's better for covid19 if it doesn't kill the host or give them too many symptoms as it can spread further, which is really bad for the people who can't survive the infection.

For covid19 to really become less dangerous, it would have to make the majority of people sick so they can't spread it. Evolutionary wise that would be a step backwards (the variant that spreads fastest wins), so I don't think that will happen. The new variants we've seen so far have been more transmissible and kill more people.


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 10, 2021)

smf said:


> The new variants we've seen so far have been more transmissible and kill more people.


Do they have data on this? The way it usually works with viruses is that mutations become more transmissible and less dangerous. It wouldn't be beneficial for the virus to kill every host.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 10, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Do they have data on this? The way it usually works with viruses is that mutations become more transmissible and less dangerous. It wouldn't be beneficial for the virus to kill every host.


A few things:

1. This could be an issue of wording. If a disease becomes more infectious, it could reasonably be described as more deadly, since it's infecting more people and killing more people, even if the virus itself isn't more deadly.

2. The delta variant appears to cause more serious symptoms and appears to be more deadly (in unvaccinated patients) than previous forms of the virus.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html

3. While you're mostly right that diseases tend to mutate to become more contagious, since that's the selective pressure acting on it, that doesn't mean it can't or won't become more deadly. All that matters is that it doesn't become deadly enough that it reduces the amount of people the host will infect while alive. Considering a COVID host is only infectious for 10 days or so after becoming sick, there's nothing preventing it, evolutionarily, from becoming more deadly as long as it kills around the 10 day mark or later. Considering our quarantine measures and the obviousness of severe symptoms leading to quarantine, it's reasonable to say severely sick patients already aren't infecting a lot of people by the time they are showing symptoms, so it makes no difference to the virus's ability to spread whether or not the patient dies at that point. For example, HIV is a very infectious and successful virus despite having almost always killed its host within a couple of years. It was successful because that was ample time for the host to spread the virus, particularly before there were any outward signs of the disease.


----------



## smf (Oct 11, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Do they have data on this? The way it usually works with viruses is that mutations become more transmissible and less dangerous. It wouldn't be beneficial for the virus to kill every host.


Yes they do.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/ar...her-risk-of-icu-admission-than-original-virus

_In the Delta cases, there was a 108% increase in the risk of hospitalization, a 235% increased risk of ICU admission, and a 133% higher risk of death, compared with the original variant.

Alpha, Beta, and Gamma variants have a mutation that increasesTrusted Source transmission, while Delta has a mutation that increases its ability to replicate._


Usually you aren't infectious until symptoms appear with a respiratory virus and that limits the spread, dying doesn't have much of an effect.

So if each person can infect 100 people before they know they are sick and then 1% of people die months later, then that wouldn't affect the virus too badly as you've already served your purpose.

As long as it can maintain that stealth level of infection, the mortality rate could potentially climb to 100%. Hopefully high mortality and stealth are mutually exclusive, but we've never had a virus quite like this & so we can't say whether it could mutate like that.

Don't forget that covid19 isn't making decisions about what is beneficial long term, the virus that infects you when you have low immunity and uses you to infect others is the winner. If that means everyone is dead in six months then it just means it will be the end of all variants of covid19 that don't manage to jump species.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 11, 2021)

Those trying to throw shade at the Covid vaccines, do you all have sources outside of the same unproven and unverified sources?


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 11, 2021)

Considering all the misinformation going around, I feel like this is relevant enough to post.


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 11, 2021)

smf said:


> Don't forget that covid19 isn't making decisions about what is beneficial long term


That gave me a chill thinking about sentient viruses.


----------



## smf (Oct 11, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Considering all the misinformation going around, I feel like this is relevant enough to post.



All these crazy anti vaxxers are giving the crazy anti vaxxers a bad name.


----------



## Super.Nova (Oct 21, 2021)

I personally work in a COVID/vaccination center and I wish I couldn't get the vaccine.
My argument is that COVID vaccines would cause the same symptoms of the disease itself and that includes the more deadly among them like strokes, lung fibrosis and DVTs. The only really viable way to steer clear is to follow the proper procedures not to get the disease itself.
I got COVID twice so far while working as an ER Physician and I'm thankful to God I never got the nasty symptoms while I already ran autopsies of dead people much younger than me that died due to COVID symptoms.

The only true method so far to eradicate COVID is to stop its spread and curfews were the best chance. People got freaked out running towards stores to stock up and increased it's spread all the more. Then came the morons wearing a damn face mask incorrectly and not isolating when sick and threw more gas on this shit fire enough for the virus to evolve instead of fading away into eradication. Taking a very preliminary vaccine that was rushed due to the shit show getting shittier and cause an unspecified and unpredictable amount of harm is not the best scientific approach.


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 21, 2021)

Super.Nova said:


> I personally work in a COVID/vaccination center and I wish I couldn't get the vaccine.
> My argument is that COVID vaccines would cause the same symptoms of the disease itself and that includes the more deadly among them like strokes, lung fibrosis and DVTs. The only really viable way to steer clear is to follow the proper procedures not to get the disease itself.
> I got COVID twice so far while working as an ER Physician and I'm thankful to God I never got the nasty symptoms while I already ran autopsies of dead people much younger than me that died due to COVID symptoms.
> 
> The only true method so far to eradicate COVID is to stop its spread and curfews were the best chance. People got freaked out running towards stores to stock up and increased it's spread all the more. Then came the morons wearing a damn face mask incorrectly and not isolating when sick and threw more gas on this shit fire enough for the virus to evolve instead of fading away into eradication. Taking a very preliminary vaccine that was rushed due to the shit show getting shittier and cause an unspecified and unpredictable amount of harm is not the best scientific approach.


I respect folks who've entered the medical profession, as a former nurse and all, but your statements make me weep for those potentially under your care. 

Very thankful Covid has not damaged you in any serious ways, but the vaccine does NOT give you similar damage to the virus. The number of folks who've gotten the virus and had side effects at all is quite small, but to insinuate that it in any way causes similar symptoms is just completely dishonest and possibly even dangerous. For a physician to proclaim such should potentially be career ending, save for having some incredible data to back up their statements.

I pray you're simply a liar.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 22, 2021)

Super.Nova said:


> I personally work in a COVID/vaccination center and I wish I couldn't get the vaccine.
> My argument is that COVID vaccines would cause the same symptoms of the disease itself and that includes the more deadly among them like strokes, lung fibrosis and DVTs. The only really viable way to steer clear is to follow the proper procedures not to get the disease itself.
> I got COVID twice so far while working as an ER Physician and I'm thankful to God I never got the nasty symptoms while I already ran autopsies of dead people much younger than me that died due to COVID symptoms.
> 
> The only true method so far to eradicate COVID is to stop its spread and curfews were the best chance. People got freaked out running towards stores to stock up and increased it's spread all the more. Then came the morons wearing a damn face mask incorrectly and not isolating when sick and threw more gas on this shit fire enough for the virus to evolve instead of fading away into eradication. Taking a very preliminary vaccine that was rushed due to the shit show getting shittier and cause an unspecified and unpredictable amount of harm is not the best scientific approach.


The best way to reduce the spread of COVID-19 is to get vaccinated. The vaccine has been demonstrated to be safe and effective. I recommend looking at the actual science.

You complain about morons not wearing their masks properly, but the real issue is morons refusing to get vaccinated for no good reason.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Oct 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The best way to reduce the spread of COVID-19 is to get vaccinated. The vaccine has been demonstrated to be safe and effective. I recommend looking at the actual science.


Unfortunately,this is not 100% correct,the actual latest Delta Mutation AY 4.2 shows unfortunately the Opposite.
Vaccinated People are the same Spreaders at the Moment.....


----------



## Valwinz (Oct 22, 2021)

there is not anti-vaccine anything what i seen is Anti mandate  very different


----------



## Lacius (Oct 22, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> Unfortunately,this is not 100% correct,the actual latest Delta Mutation AY 4.2 shows unfortunately the Opposite.
> Vaccinated People are the same Spreaders at the Moment.....


There is no evidence that AY.4.2 impacts the effectiveness of the vaccines.

Even with the normal delta variant, vaccinated people are less likely to contract (and then spread) the disease. It's only when there's a breakthrough infection that vaccinated hosts are spreading the disease at about the same rate those who are unvaccinated.

By far, the #1 way to combat this disease is to vaccinate as many people as possible. Nothing else comes close.


----------



## Super.Nova (Oct 22, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> I respect folks who've entered the medical profession, as a former nurse and all, but your statements make me weep for those potentially under your care.
> 
> Very thankful Covid has not damaged you in any serious ways, but the vaccine does NOT give you similar damage to the virus. The number of folks who've gotten the virus and had side effects at all is quite small, but to insinuate that it in any way causes similar symptoms is just completely dishonest and possibly even dangerous. For a physician to proclaim such should potentially be career ending, save for having some incredible data to back up their statements.
> 
> I pray you're simply a liar.


I at least don't know where you base your claims the vaccine wouldn't cause similar effects, but I speak from personal experience and observation seen over a large sample of patients (average of 50K patients). I don't know if vaccines you have access to cause similar symptoms or not but the ones we have (Pfizer with the least percentage of adverse effects, followed by Moderna and Astra Zeneca as the highest) have a wide variety of symptoms and side effects which are identical to a real COVID infection.
Based on my personal observations and the collective points of view with my peers and colleagues, I'd recommend distancing over our locally available COVID vaccinations and their rushed claims of minimal risks any time of the day.
It indeed is career ending to disregard all conclusion and blindly recommend this vaccine fully knowing it never came close to the proper extended trials to prove its safety and cause harm to my patients. I'm not fully disregarding pros of this vaccination but I'd recommend avoiding the disease altogether rather than risk any amount of health.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 22, 2021)

Super.Nova said:


> I at least don't know where you base your claims the vaccine wouldn't cause similar effects, but I speak from personal experience and observation seen over a large sample of patients (average of 50K patients). I don't know if vaccines you have access to cause similar symptoms or not but the ones we have (Pfizer with the least percentage of adverse effects, followed by Moderna and Astra Zeneca as the highest) have a wide variety of symptoms and side effects which are identical to a real COVID infection.
> Based on my personal observations and the collective points of view with my peers and colleagues, I'd recommend distancing over our locally available COVID vaccinations and their rushed claims of minimal risks any time of the day.
> It indeed is career ending to disregard all conclusion and blindly recommend this vaccine fully knowing it never came close to the proper extended trials to prove its safety and cause harm to my patients.


Side effects are a sign that the vaccine is working. Those side effects are the immune system's response to what the body thinks is a real threat. That's the  point.

The benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the risk of side effects.


----------



## WG481 (Oct 22, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Rather than argue, I'm going to ask a personal question which you are free to not answer. Do you have a son aged between 12-15?


Hi, person between 12-15 here. What did you need?



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> -How much more likely it is depends on the age group; which is why we don´t give the vaccine to young children
> -You are assuming that a person gets COVID19; it is not a given; future variants might be more difficult to dodge but they will probably be less dangerous
> 
> So whether somebody has to take it, remains an opinion. If I had a company to run I would fire those who do not take it. That´s also an opinion and should not be outlawed.


Vaccination mandating is already common in schools (or at least the ones I've been too), which baffles me that businesses don't already force-vaccinate.

I swear most anti-vax kids are homeschooled. That way, their parents can force-feed them propaganda. I've been homeschooled through a program, and I noticed an influx in the amount of students who I knew were anti-vax and anti-mask. This is gonna sound major conspiracy theorist, but North Korea also feeds their schoolchildren propaganda. [Reference: _The Girl With Seven Names _by Hyeon-seo Lee] That way, they can have an opinion that isn't tainted by anything else, since nobody gets to leave, and nobody forms an opinion otherwise. (Except for Kim Jong-Un's half-brother, who he killed).



subcon959 said:


> Do they have data on this? The way it usually works with viruses is that mutations become more transmissible and less dangerous. It wouldn't be beneficial for the virus to kill every host.


Yes.



KingVamp said:


> Considering all the misinformation going around, I feel like this is relevant enough to post.



What an idiot.


----------



## Super.Nova (Oct 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Side effects are a sign that the vaccine is working. Those side effects are the immune system's response to what the body thinks is a real threat. That's the  point.
> 
> The benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the risk of side effects.


Agree, but as I said before, symptoms include more dangerous side effects like strokes, pulmonary embolisms, DVTs and severe allergic reactions. And that's precisely why I still prefer safety precautions towards contracting the disease rather than vaccination at the time being.
I'm not in any way an anti-vaxer but this particular vaccine didn't go into enough testing to warrant my complete trust like other vaccines.

COVID virus itself wouldn't survive much on its own (with approximate half life of 3 hours on regular conditions). Had people decreased its spread by isolation and following precautions, this entire ordeal could potentially have ended long ago instead of allowing it to stick this long and mutate. Stopping the disease is the main goal and not only alleviating its symptoms.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 22, 2021)

Super.Nova said:


> I at least don't know where you base your claims the vaccine wouldn't cause similar effects, but I speak from personal experience and observation seen over a large sample of patients (average of 50K patients). I don't know if vaccines you have access to cause similar symptoms or not but the ones we have (Pfizer with the least percentage of adverse effects, followed by Moderna and Astra Zeneca as the highest) have a wide variety of symptoms and side effects which are identical to a real COVID infection.
> Based on my personal observations and the collective points of view with my peers and colleagues, I'd recommend distancing over our locally available COVID vaccinations and their rushed claims of minimal risks any time of the day.
> It indeed is career ending to disregard all conclusion and blindly recommend this vaccine fully knowing it never came close to the proper extended trials to prove its safety and cause harm to my patients. I'm not fully disregarding pros of this vaccination but I'd recommend avoiding the disease altogether rather than risk any amount of health.


The covid vaccine causing temporary illness and other temporary issues are known side effects and are known to last 8 to 24 hours. Even the most complicated side effects have been documented and found to clear up with 24 hours to maybe a few days. This is still nothing compared to the possible long-term side effects caused by Covid.
Your argument is comparing a few hours of discomfort to a possible lifetime of having lungs problems, these aren't the same.

I do want to stress that this thread isn't just limited to the Covid vaccine and is about the greater movement of those against vaccines or not wanting to be vaccinated in general. I want to understand what evidence they used to come to their conclusions and if that evidence is backed by peer review.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 22, 2021)

Super.Nova said:


> Agree, but as I said before, symptoms include more dangerous side effects like strokes, pulmonary embolisms, DVTs and severe allergic reactions. And that's precisely why I still prefer safety precautions towards contracting the disease rather than vaccination at the time being.
> I'm not in any way an anti-vaxer but this particular vaccine didn't go into enough testing to warrant my complete trust like other vaccines.
> 
> COVID virus itself wouldn't survive much on its own (with approximate half life of 3 hours on regular conditions). Had people decreased its spread by isolation and following precautions, this entire ordeal could potentially have ended long ago instead of allowing it to stick this long and mutate. Stopping the disease is the main goal and not only alleviating its symptoms.


The vaccines went through rigorous safety testing, and at least Pfizer has gotten full FDA approval (not just EUA). The data is abundantly clear with all three of the vaccines in the United States are as safe as any other vaccine. To suggest we have any reason to think they're unsafe is as dangerous as it is stupid.

Any reputable epidemiologist will tell you that vaccines are the most important tool we have to combat the spread of disease: even more important than physical distancing and other similar mitigation strategies.

The goal is also to prevent serious illness and death among those who get infected. 1,873 Americans died of COVID-19 yesterday, and statistically, about 1,723 (~92%) of them were unvaccinated. Anything short of saying "the vaccines are safe and effective, and anyone who can get them should get them" is moronic.


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Any reputable epidemiologist will tell you that vaccines are the most important tool we have to combat the spread of disease: even more important than physical distancing and other similar mitigation strategies.



Well, that is blatantly false since there are breakthrough infections with the delta variant, and it is literally impossible to transmit the virus unless you are in the same vicinity as someone else. The problem got as bad as it is due to those who refused to follow lockdown properly (including damn politicians).


----------



## Lacius (Oct 22, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Well, that is blatantly false since there are breakthrough infections with the delta variant, and it is literally impossible to transmit the virus unless you are in the same vicinity as someone else. The problem got as bad as it is due to those who refused to follow lockdown properly (including damn politicians).


The fact that breakthrough infections are possible and that those suffering from breakthrough infections can spread the virus is irrelevant to anything I've said. Vaccines are the #1 way to fight a pandemic, and they're more effective than lockdowns and other mitigation strategies.

Next, you're going to tell us abstinence-only education works. Go talk to an epidemiologist, and you'll stop yourself from looking foolish before it happens next time.


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 22, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The fact that breakthrough infections are possible and that those suffering from breakthrough infections can spread the virus is irrelevant to anything I've said. Vaccines are the #1 way to fight a pandemic, and they're more effective than lockdowns and other mitigation strategies.
> 
> Next, you're going to tell us abstinence-only education works. Go talk to an epidemiologist, and you'll stop yourself from looking foolish before it happens next time.



The only person who has consistently looked foolish in these discussions is you with your Sith-like absolute approach to everything. It would be easy to come to the conclusion that your political affiliation is more important to you than the actual outcome of this pandemic. Go back and look at how often you used the term 100% to describe things that are far from it. It's impossible to have a nuanced discussion with someone like you which is why I've often just let it go as I will this time too.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 22, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> The only person who has consistently looked foolish in these discussions is you with your Sith-like absolute approach to everything. It would be easy to come to the conclusion that your political affiliation is more important to you than the actual outcome of this pandemic. Go back and look at how often you used the term 100% to describe things that are far from it. It's impossible to have a nuanced discussion with someone like you which is why I've often just let it go as I will this time too.


Sometimes, things are black and white. Two plus two equals four, the Earth orbits around the Sun, and vaccines are the most effective tool we have against the pandemic. Last time I checked, we still live in a world of facts where some things are correct, and some things are not correct. Acknowledging this isn't "Sith-like," lol. But please, continue to post deflections instead of talking about the facts.

I didn't bring up politics, and I don't consider the pandemic to be a political issue; it's a scientific one. If you want to talk to someone who values political ideology over the facts of the pandemic, I suggest speaking with one of the roughly 1,700 people dying in the United States per day because they were unvaccinated.


----------



## LinkmstrYT (Oct 22, 2021)

Super.Nova said:


> Agree, but as I said before, symptoms include more dangerous side effects like strokes, pulmonary embolisms, DVTs and severe allergic reactions. And that's precisely why I still prefer safety precautions towards contracting the disease rather than vaccination at the time being.
> I'm not in any way an anti-vaxer but this particular vaccine didn't go into enough testing to warrant my complete trust like other vaccines.
> 
> COVID virus itself wouldn't survive much on its own (with approximate half life of 3 hours on regular conditions). Had people decreased its spread by isolation and following precautions, this entire ordeal could potentially have ended long ago instead of allowing it to stick this long and mutate. Stopping the disease is the main goal and not only alleviating its symptoms.


Safety precautions can only go so far when so many people aren't willing to do it. Why else is the virus still spreading so fast? We've had mandates with isolating cities and such, but that barely helped and would come back hard with more infections once lifted.

All vaccines have to go through a certain amount of testing before they become as commonly used. Even the flu vaccine had to go through years upon years of work to get to where it is today and we have the data to show that it provided a good amount of protection even in the early days of it. We also have to take into account the technological advancements we've had over the decades which also helped advance medical research even further by providing more references and data on other viruses and such to combat and identify COVID-19 as quick as possible. If the vaccines haven't been released at the time and took another year or two or so, we'd definitely would have had lots more deaths in not only regular people, but also even within the medical profession with doctors and nurses. Which would mean even more lack of staff to help work in hospitals and that's already a huge a problem as many of them are filled to the brim with COVID-19 unvaccinated patients.

Those symptoms you mentioned are extremely rare cases especially when you take a look at the millions of vaccinated people that have already taken the vaccines. The same can be said of any vaccine and they, too, can cause dangerous side-effects depending on the person. It's understandable that there are folks that won't fare well with the vaccine's side-effects due to how different everyone's bodies are.

Besides, we've already seen how very effective the COVID-19 vaccines are against the virus. Most, if not all, vaccinated people who got sick from COVID-19 showed huge improvements in recovery compared to the unvaccinated. Of course, it's not 100% effective, but honestly, no vaccine is. It's there to improve the chances of surviving and not suffering from the worst illnesses that can come from it.

Yes, yes, if people followed the whole isolation and precautions, then perhaps we'd be out of it faster, but as we all can see, no one likes to be "ordered" or "mandated" to do things. Which is why this is all getting out of hand and so many people are still going out and going to places with other people whether it be a party or some other crowded area thereby getting infected and even spreading it out further in the process.

The vaccine is literally the best thing, at this very moment, to better survive and slow down the spread as much as possible. As long as folks keep preaching their "freedumbs" and such, it won't end any time soon and may last for years longer.


----------



## djpannda (Oct 22, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> The only person who has consistently looked foolish in these discussions is you with your Sith-like absolute approach to everything.


.... so your agruement is that Mass murdering randoms, Child abuse and sexual assault is..." OK"  in some grey cases?


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 23, 2021)

You guys are oddly militant about this. I noticed no one responded when I brought up the leaked DoD document about Project Salus where 5.6M medicare beneficiaries were studied. Remember when it was normal to be suspicious of the Pharm industry instead of other people? Maybe none of you had serious heart problems due to having known problematic drugs being pushed onto you like Vioxx. 

Anyway, the pdf of that study is available to download and view. It's pretty clear from reading it that the problem isn't unvaccinated people but the waning efficacy of the vaccines themselves. It's okay though because Merck is here to save the day with a $700 pill to help when being vaccinated isn't enough.


----------



## djpannda (Oct 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> You guys are oddly militant about this. I noticed no one responded when I brought up the leaked DoD document about Project Salus where 5.6M medicare beneficiaries were studied. Remember when it was normal to be suspicious of the Pharm industry instead of other people? Maybe none of you had serious heart problems due to having known problematic drugs being pushed onto you like Vioxx.
> 
> Anyway, the pdf of that study is available to download and view. It's pretty clear from reading it that the problem isn't unvaccinated people but the waning efficacy of the vaccines themselves. It's okay though because Merck is here to save the day with a $700 pill to help when being vaccinated isn't enough.


Really?? because most research is showing “ hospitalization rates were 17 times higher in unvaccinated persons compared with vaccinated persons” soo.. yea pants are on fire?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> You guys are oddly militant about this. I noticed no one responded when I brought up the leaked DoD document about Project Salus where 5.6M medicare beneficiaries were studied. Remember when it was normal to be suspicious of the Pharm industry instead of other people? Maybe none of you had serious heart problems due to having known problematic drugs being pushed onto you like Vioxx.
> 
> Anyway, the pdf of that study is available to download and view. It's pretty clear from reading it that the problem isn't unvaccinated people but the waning efficacy of the vaccines themselves. It's okay though because Merck is here to save the day with a $700 pill to help when being vaccinated isn't enough.


If I'm militant about anything, it's about the importance of science. Unfortunately, we have users here, like you and others,  who don't care about science and push unsubstantiated nonsense.

We know that vaccine efficacy against infections wanes over time, which is why booster shots have just been approved in the United States. However, even today, an unvaccinated person is 6 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19, 10 times more likely to be hospitalized due to COVID-19, and 11 times more likely to die from COVID-19. Every reputable epidemiologist agrees that the main problem is so many people are unvaccinated, both when the problem pertains to transmission and mortality. Even if we take the conservative estimate, 92% of COVID-19 deaths are unvaccinated. This is publicly available information from the CDC.

The Merck pill isn't a substitute for getting vaccinated, and it isn't an excuse to not get vaccinated. As you mentioned, it's far more expensive than the vaccine, and it's also only about 50% effective.

Edit: In case I wasn't clear, I'm glad the pill exists, and it should be utilized. The vaccine just saves many times more lives, and it wouldn't be needed nearly as much if people would just get vaccinated.


----------



## LinkmstrYT (Oct 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If I'm militant about anything, it's about the importance of science. Unfortunately, we have users here, like you and others,  who don't care about science and push unsubstantiated nonsense.
> 
> We know that vaccine efficacy against infections wanes over time, which is why booster shots have just been approved in the United States. However, even today, an unvaccinated person is 6 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19, 10 times more likely to be hospitalized due to COVID-19, and 11 times more likely to die from COVID-19. Every reputable epidemiologist agrees that the main problem is so many people are unvaccinated, both when the problem pertains to transmission and mortality. Even if we take the conservative estimate, 92% of COVID-19 deaths are unvaccinated. This is publicly available information from the CDC.
> 
> ...


It's funny how lots of these folks don't realize the irony of basically agreeing that the vaccine does work as intended if they're pushing the whole "waning efficacy of the vaccines".

Like you said, vaccines efficacy wanes over time for practically many vaccines. Why else do people have to take yearly flu shots and the like? Just seems really dumb to highlight this one specific point when it's been the case for ages with many vaccines. Booster shots being a thing too.

While it's nice the pill exists and such and I do agree that it should be used if it can help other people. However, as you mentioned, it's far more expensive to get than the vaccine shots and the vaccine shots are more readily available to get in so many places. And *for free* in many places, too! It's a hell of a much better opportunity and chance than to get sick and die from COVID-19 along with the expensive af hospital bills left for surviving family members and having to go over to GoFundMe and beg to others to give them money to pay for the bills and funerals in the US.


----------



## subcon959 (Oct 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If I'm militant about anything, it's about the importance of science. Unfortunately, we have users here, like you and others,  who don't care about science and push unsubstantiated nonsense.



That's hilarious. Yeah, there are many doctors out there that dont care about science, like the ones prescribing ivermectin right? It doesn't matter that it may well have saved lives in some cases because that's not the important part of all this.

Btw, I'm about to get my booster but i guess it's more convenient to lump me in with "those people" eh. It would be impossible to have conflicting views about something.. but then I'm not a Sith.. or autistic. This is off topic but I remember when people used to come here asking for specific help about a particular custom firmware and while others would try to help, you would invariably turn up with your "Get Luma" post. At least you're consistent.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> That's hilarious. Yeah, there are many doctors out there that dont care about science, like the ones prescribing ivermectin right? It doesn't matter that it may well have saved lives in some cases because that's not the important part of all this.


Any doctor who prescribed ivermectin to treat COVID-19 is anti-science and should have their license to practice medicine revoked, yeah.



subcon959 said:


> Btw, I'm about to get my booster but i guess it's more convenient to lump me in with "those people" eh.


You're peddling anti-science bullshit, so I'm going to (rightfully) lump you in with the anti-science crowd. You getting the booster doesn't change my position, and it doesn't make my position inconsistent.



subcon959 said:


> It would be impossible to have conflicting views about something..


It isn't impossible to have conflicting views about something. A person could have Belief A that's true and justified, and they could have Belief B that's untrue and unjustified. Holding Belief B is still a problem, and if it's unjustified or irrational, then that person is behaving irrationally. I'm not sure what your point is.



subcon959 said:


> but then I'm not a Sith.. or autistic.


Neither am I, so I'm guessing this is another one of those waste-of-time deflections I mentioned earlier.



subcon959 said:


> This is off topic but I remember when people used to come here asking for specific help about a particular custom firmware and while others would try to help, you would invariably turn up with your "Get Luma" post. At least you're consistent.


I'll address this even though is an off-topic deflection (while trying not to let your incessant focus on me inflate my already inflated ego): If someone were to have a problem with an outdated CFW, I'm going to include the obvious advice of updating to a better CFW. Depending on the problem, I may offer advice on how to solve the problem while on the ancient CFW as well as recommend the newer CFW. Depending on the problem, I might only recommend the new CFW.

These are the right things to do. Aside from an obviously desperate attempt at a personal attack that failed, your point is lost on me, and it's grossly off topic. Instead of talking about me, maybe we can talk about the scientific facts behind COVID-19. I don't think I've talked about you once. The person who is on the right side of an argument typically doesn't have to resort to changing the topic of conversation to be about the person they're arguing with.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Any doctor who prescribed ivermectin to treat COVID-19 is anti-science and should have their license to practice medicine revoked, yeah.


I am sceptical about the effectiveness of ivermectin. However, a vaccine is useless once you already have COVID19. If a patient is desperate enough and willing to take the risks of side effects (which seem to be mild), why not prescribe it? A doctor serves the patient and the patient cannot prescribe medication by himself or herself.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 23, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I am sceptical about the effectiveness of ivermectin. However, a vaccine is useless once you already have COVID19.


Yes, a vaccine is useless while the patient actively has COVID-19. It should be noted, however, that the patient should get vaccinated after recovering from COVID-19 if they haven't already been vaccinated.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> If a patient is desperate enough and willing to take the risks of side effects (which seem to be mild), why not prescribe it? A doctor serves the patient and the patient cannot prescribe medication by himself or herself.


Because a doctor takes an oath to do no harm, and ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment has been demonstrated to be a.) Harmful, and b.) Useless as a COVID-19 treatment. Any doctor who prescribes it is incompetent and reckless.


----------



## videogamefanatic (Oct 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Yes, a vaccine is useless while the patient actively has COVID-19. It should be noted, however, that the patient should get vaccinated after recovering from COVID-19 if they haven't already been vaccinated.
> 
> 
> Because a doctor takes an oath to do no harm, and ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment has been demonstrated to be a.) Harmful, and b.) Useless as a COVID-19 treatment. Any doctor who prescribes it is incompetent and reckless.


Of note, every variation of the Hippocratic Oath includes both a "do no harm" clause and a "prevention is always preferable to cure" clause. Prevention, when possible, is always cheaper and more effective than treatment.

You know what's cheaper than treating covid? Preventing it and its complications. With a vaccine.


----------



## smf (Oct 23, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I am sceptical about the effectiveness of ivermectin. However, a vaccine is useless once you already have COVID19. If a patient is desperate enough and willing to take the risks of side effects (which seem to be mild), why not prescribe it? A doctor serves the patient and the patient cannot prescribe medication by himself or herself.



A doctor may be serving their own interests & not the patients, they are human after all.

Prescribing something just because "it can't hurt" is a bit random.

BTW The only paper that supported treating covid 19 with ivermectin, was withdrawn as it was very obviously fraudulent.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 23, 2021)

I am talking about the autonomy of the patient. Many of us live in countries in which patients can decide to get the genitals cut off if they so desire. A patient should be able to get ivermectine, even if the effect is only a placebo effect.


----------



## urherenow (Oct 23, 2021)

HRudyPlayZ said:


> There's some reasons to not get vaccinated and there's some legitimate sources. Though, most "arguments" come from Facebook and other questionable sources.
> That being said, the simple fact that Pfizer already had some legal actions against them, accusing them of money corruption back in 2018 is a big enough argument to not help those kinds of shitty groups. There's an unreasonable fear of vaccines as people think "it is too soon" and "it has a lot of side effects". That is of course, wrong, as it's been proved that most vaccines don't have an abnormal ratio of side effects. They're technically supposed to still be in the third test phase, but Europe gave them an early authorization due to the particular situation. I think vaccines should be open-source, and the big groups shouldn't be able to copyright them and decide their price. If those vaccines are really efficient (which has yet to be really determined), they should be free, with the researchers getting payed by governments or other states that benefit from their work. I also think there's no justification for making them mandatory just yet, as they have a chance to be useless, and just throw money at 4 companies.


Not entirely true. I Forgot the name, but I was watching a doctor speak (in a YouTube video) about wanting to make it a standard practice to aspirate (sp?) the syringe before application to ensure that they weren't accidentally getting some of it directly into the blood stream. Although not a common occurrence, it is possible to do. Lab studies with mice showed that the vaccines injected into the blood stream wreaked havoc to heart tissue, among other things. In this instance, the side-effects can be severe.
CDC and others won't listen to this dude, but it really sounds like (my personal opinion) some of the post-vaccination deaths were a result of this very thing.

Oh, goody, My GoogleFoo didn't fail me. Watch this and tell me if you think this dude is a crackpot. He isn't anti-vax (nor am I), but he's saying there is a safer way. Boggles my mind why the powers that be won't listen. If it doesn't hurt, and has even the slightest chance of saving a life, then why the hell not?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 23, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I am talking about the autonomy of the patient. Many of us live in countries in which patients can decide to get the genitals cut off if they so desire. A patient should be able to get ivermectine, even if the effect is only a placebo effect.


Patients don't have a right to whatever medicine they want, since many medications would be harmful to the patient and/or society at large if they were freely available. That's why prescriptions exist.

For example, a patient doesn't have unrestricted access to antibiotics when suffering from the flu. Not only would it not do anything and be a waste of resources (since the flu is caused by a virus, not a bacterium), but there can be objective harm to the patient from overusing antibiotics (killing good bacteria, increasing the odds of Clostridioides difficile, etc.), and there can be objective harm to society (increasing the rate at which antibiotic-resistant bacteria develops, etc.).


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 23, 2021)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I am talking about the autonomy of the patient. Many of us live in countries in which patients can decide to get the genitals cut off if they so desire. A patient should be able to get ivermectine, even if the effect is only a placebo effect.


As a trans person, I am gonna tell you that this isn’t a right that we have. In fact, it’s a serious challenge that requires years of medical interventions, psychology evaluations, fighting with insurance, and countless other hoops that are required to possible get any surgeries done and covered. There’s obviously people who can pay their way past the insurance hoops but they can’t pay their way past the medical requirements (unless they are really wealthy.) Trans healthcare is just as regulated (if not more,) as all other forms of medical care. And just like vaccines, trans health related surgeries have been found to the most effective ways of helping trans people, just like preventive vaccines have been proven to be the most effective means of preventing the spread of disease. Ivermectine has not been proven to be preventive nor proven to be an effective means of treating Covid. The process of proving this has had to go through the same medical hoops as every other practice. A person wanting to take ivermectine is not doing so in their own best interest nor are they treating their illness, unless that illness is round worms, then it is in their best interest. Patients should have autonomy, but when it’s wasting time, resources, and not effective, the doctors should not invest into listening to them and treat them in the appropriate ways.


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 23, 2021)

smf said:


> A doctor may be serving their own interests & not the patients, they are human after all.
> 
> Prescribing something just because "it can't hurt" is a bit random.
> 
> BTW The only paper that supported treating covid 19 with ivermectin, was withdrawn as it was very obviously fraudulent.


To be fair, the oath isn't a binding law and many doctors have, in fact, lined their own pockets by prescribing something because they believed it "Couldn't hurt" but still make them some profit... but it doesn't even matter in this particular thread since the vaccine has been tried out all over the world by bushels of docs who all report on the results of the global effort, and if you want to discuss the probability of a conspiracy, counting on every single doctor to betray said oath gets astronomical rather quickly!


----------



## djpannda (Oct 23, 2021)

Americans Vaccinated Against Coronavirus Have Lower Mortality Rates — Even From Non-Covid Causes​… hey look.. chances are they have lower mortality not because of the vaccine itself but most likely because people who got the vaccine where people that didn’t believe in stupid Conspiracy theories And do took ACTUAL CARE OF THEMSELVES.


----------



## smf (Oct 23, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> To be fair, the oath isn't a binding law and many doctors have, in fact, lined their own pockets by prescribing something because they believed it "Couldn't hurt" but still make them some profit... but it doesn't even matter in this particular thread since the vaccine has been tried out all over the world by bushels of docs who all report on the results of the global effort, and if you want to discuss the probability of a conspiracy, counting on every single doctor to betray said oath gets astronomical rather quickly!



I was arguing that doctors prescribing ivermectin, because "it can't hurt" was not necessarily a great idea.

I've been vaccinated, waiting for my booster (I think I qualify next month).


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Oct 23, 2021)

I guess they just don't want it........
I mean some people are allergic and Nicki Minaj said her cousin had testicle problems or something (don't know if it's true or not)
but I guess people have their own reasons


----------



## Lacius (Oct 23, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> I guess they just don't want it........
> I mean so people are allergic and Nicki Minaj said her cousin had testicle problems or something (don't know if it's true or not)
> but I guess people have their own reasons


Sometimes there are legitimate health reasons why a person can't be vaccinated. That makes it all the more important for everybody else around them to get vaccinated.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Oct 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Sometimes there are legitimate health reasons why a person can't be vaccinated. That makes it all the more important for everybody else around them to get vaccinated.


Yeah I got both shots a few months ago
Nothing major happened
I felt really tired, my arm hurt, and I had a headache but it was just a day
Some people think the government install microchips inside people but uh, I still hate government, so I doubt it's true and how can they fit it in a shot?


----------



## djpannda (Oct 23, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> I guess they just don't want it........
> I mean some people are allergic and Nicki Minaj said her cousin had testicle problems or something (don't know if it's true or not)
> but I guess people have their own reasons


The problem is people “reasons” are the rumors they heard . Its because of misinformation.. as the percentage of people that are allergic is Minuscule and the Trinidad government comfirmed that never happen to anyone..HELL. her Cousin doesn’t even have friends ! So  People’s 90% “reasons” aren’t reasons


----------



## Lacius (Oct 23, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Yeah I got both shots a few months ago
> Nothing major happened
> I felt really tired, my arm hurt, and I had a headache but it was just a day
> Some people think the government install microchips inside people but uh, I still hate government, so I doubt it's true and how can they fit it in a shot?


Microchips in the COVID-19 vaccines are a baseless conspiracy theory, and the technology for what they're claiming doesn't exist.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Oct 23, 2021)

djpannda said:


> The problem is people “reasons” are the rumors they heard . Its because of misinformation.. as the percentage of people that are allergic is Minuscule and the Trinidad government comfirmed that never happen to anyone..HELL. her Cousin doesn’t even have friends ! So  People’s 90% “reasons” aren’t reasons


I don't really pay much attention to anti vaxxers unless I really have nothing else to do


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Oct 23, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Microchips in the COVID-19 vaccines are a baseless conspiracy theory, and the technology for what they're claiming doesn't exist.


I think a Sci Fi movie had it or something which is how the rumor started


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Oct 23, 2021)

never mind I was completely wrong about the sci fi movie its even more baseless


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 23, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> and how can they fit it in a shot?


nanomachines, son


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Oct 23, 2021)

Joe88 said:


> nanomachines, son


So I've been brainwashed?
Damn, not again...


----------



## smf (Oct 23, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> I guess they just don't want it........
> I mean some people are allergic and Nicki Minaj said her cousin had testicle problems or something (don't know if it's true or not)
> but I guess people have their own reasons



It was an unnamed friend of Nicki Minaj's cousin, who lives in a country that uses an entirely different vaccine. So even if he did exist then it's irrelevant anyway.

Do you own research, if you can't prove that Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend exists & that the vaccine caused his testicles to swell then ignore it.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Oct 24, 2021)

smf said:


> It was an unnamed friend of Nicki Minaj's cousin, who lives in a country that uses an entirely different vaccine. So even if he did exist then it's irrelevant anyway.
> 
> Do you own research, if you can't prove that Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend exists & that the vaccine caused his testicles to swell then ignore it.


But why would you just reveals someone's name like that?
Pretty rude if you ask me
Forcing media attention on someone


----------



## YukidaruPunch (Oct 24, 2021)

Fake ones.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 24, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> I guess they just don't want it........
> I mean some people are allergic and Nicki Minaj said her cousin had testicle problems or something (don't know if it's true or not)
> but I guess people have their own reasons


The thing is, this thread isn’t about people who have medical reasons to not get vaccinated. I understand their reasons because their reasons are a choice. I am asking for sources to people who continue to be against vaccines in general.

I am stress that this this thread isn’t just limited to the Covid vaccines, it’s about addressing a larger concern about people being against vaccines.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Oct 24, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> The thing is, this thread isn’t about people who have medical reasons to not get vaccinated. I understand their reasons because their reasons are a choice. I am asking for sources to people who continue to be against vaccines in general.
> 
> I am stress that this this thread isn’t just limited to the Covid vaccines, it’s about addressing a larger concern about people being against vaccines.


I just wanna get this shit over with you know.
This was only supposed to be like 3 weeks and it’s been almost 2 years
If the antivaxxers got vaccinated we could finally live the way we should


----------



## Lacius (Oct 24, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> I just wanna get this shit over with you know.
> This was only supposed to be like 3 weeks and it’s been almost 2 years
> If the antivaxxers got vaccinated we could finally live the way we should


Nobody but the Big Lie-bowski was saying it would be over in three weeks. That was a fantasy.

Your right that the willfully unvaccinated are 100% to blame right now.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 24, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> I just wanna get this shit over with you know.
> This was only supposed to be like 3 weeks and it’s been almost 2 years
> If the antivaxxers got vaccinated we could finally live the way we should


That’s a mood right there and definitely one I agree with


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Oct 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Nobody but the Big Lie-bowski was saying it would be over in three weeks. That was a fantasy.
> 
> Your right that the willfully unvaccinated are 100% to blame right now.


Imagine if it actually supernaturally was 3 weeks....


----------



## smf (Oct 24, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> But why would you just reveals someone's name like that?
> Pretty rude if you ask me
> Forcing media attention on someone



It would have been pretty rude of her to mention him at all, if she/her cousin/her cousins friend wasn't actually lying.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Oct 24, 2021)

smf said:


> It would have been pretty rude of her to mention him at all, if she/her cousin/her cousins friend wasn't actually lying.


Well not really since they are a*nonymous*


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 26, 2021)

So far, I don’t think the anti-vac or whatever crowd really understand how science works nor how evidence works. The request of this thread is literally just asking for peer-reviewed papers, that’s part of how science works. If there’s apparently evidence to back up a movement, then that evidence should be verified and should be able to be replicated. This thread isn’t a debate about the Covid vaccine, it’s not a debate in general, it’s about about personal opinions, it’s not about someone on YouTube, and so on. This thread is just asking for the evidence people used to come to the conclusion that vaccines were anything other than a necessary means of preventing the spread of viruses. The only requirement is that the paper was peer reviewed. This shouldn’t be a difficult request and I shouldn’t be met with so much hostility or other guff for this request.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 26, 2021)

It's not even about personal opinion. It's about providing evidence to back what you are saying. If there is no evidence for anti vax then why would you even form your thoughts in the first place?


----------



## appleburger (Oct 26, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> So far, I don’t think the anti-vac or whatever crowd really understand how science works nor how evidence works. The request of this thread is literally just asking for peer-reviewed papers, that’s part of how science works. If there’s apparently evidence to back up a movement, then that evidence should be verified and should be able to be replicated. This thread isn’t a debate about the Covid vaccine, it’s not a debate in general, it’s about about personal opinions, it’s not about someone on YouTube, and so on. This thread is just asking for the evidence people used to come to the conclusion that vaccines were anything other than a necessary means of preventing the spread of viruses. The only requirement is that the paper was peer reviewed. This shouldn’t be a difficult request and I shouldn’t be met with so much hostility or other guff for this request.


To be fair, you have been given some peer reviewed papers and then told us that you're very busy with a home remodel.

There are papers anti-vaxxers use for their arguments.  I posted some links that refer so some here earlier in the thread.  They are either no longer relevant, or related the MMR autism fiasco which has been thoroughly turned into one of the most obviously diabolical fuck ups ever conceived in the scientific community.

But, to your point, yes - people trying to argue against vaccines in this thread are clearly struggling with your request, lol

I also find it ironic that as somebody who appreciates Science and finds anti-vax arguments obviously flawed/ignorant, I'm one of the few if only people that have put any effort to actually providing peer reviewed papers in this thread that an anti-vaxxer would even try to provide to support their side.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 26, 2021)

appleburger said:


> To be fair, you have been given some peer reviewed papers and then told us that you're very busy with a home remodel.
> 
> There are papers anti-vaxxers use for their arguments.  I posted some links that refer so some here earlier in the thread.  They are either no longer relevant, or related the MMR autism fiasco which has been thoroughly turned into one of the most obviously diabolical fuck ups ever conceived in the scientific community.
> 
> ...


Oh, I actually did look at those links
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1wNJ3tj3X2HZ0PTnUGnlrjpFsQu6tYKYTS7JvhFG2TMk/mobilebasic
I am going to be honest and say that I am not sure what you are getting at since all of them seem to say vaccines aren’t harmful, don’t cause autism, and so on. There’s also random LGBT+ stuff in there, which I am guessing is part of the video, so that’s interesting. Unless I missed something, they don’t seem to be anti-vaccines 
I am confused, are assuming that I am against vaccines or skeptical of vaccines?


----------



## appleburger (Oct 26, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> Oh, I actually did look at those links
> https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1wNJ3tj3X2HZ0PTnUGnlrjpFsQu6tYKYTS7JvhFG2TMk/mobilebasic
> I am going to be honest and say that I am not sure what you are getting at since all of them seem to say vaccines aren’t harmful, don’t cause autism, and so on. There’s also random LGBT+ stuff in there, which I am guessing is part of the video, so that’s interesting. Unless I missed something, they don’t seem to be anti-vaccines
> I am confused, are assuming that I am against vaccines or skeptical of vaccines?


Andrew Wakefield's paper is definitely the most popular one from that link that anti-vaxxers attempt use from those sources if you read anti-vaxx posts around the internet.  There are plenty of cases of anti-vaxx folks citing papers that also clearly lay out that vaccines are your safest option 99% of the time, which is frankly hilarious (somebody earlier in this thread did that with a source I posted, in fact.  I guess some think the summary at the end of a study is only related to the last table of the study and ignores the rest, which doesn't make sense, but I won't waste time with that level of ignorance).

As for the LGBT+ stuff, I think that's just very briefly touched upon in the video and he pulled that as a source when talking about another youtuber who tends to cover LGBT+ stuff, so there is some fluff there when it comes to sources.

My point is that, when it comes to using sources on the anti-vaxx side, this is the golden resource.  It's the best option they have, to my knowledge, and I've gone down this rabbit hole, mostly for fun - akin to looking into flat earth folks' posts online.

And reading through the Wakefield paper, it's so, so, so incredibly clear that it's a terrible paper, and no wonder that it was redacted after other scientists peer reviewed it, called out lies, etc.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 26, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Andrew Wakefield's paper is definitely the most popular one from that link that anti-vaxxers attempt use from those sources if you read anti-vaxx posts around the internet.  There are plenty of cases of anti-vaxx folks citing papers that also clearly lay out that vaccines are your safest option 99% of the time, which is frankly hilarious (somebody earlier in this thread did that with a source I posted, in fact.  I guess some think the summary at the end of a study is only related to the last table of the study and ignores the rest, which doesn't make sense, but I won't waste time with that level of ignorance).
> 
> As for the LGBT+ stuff, I think that's just very briefly touched upon in the video and he pulled that as a source when talking about another youtuber who tends to cover LGBT+ stuff, so there is some fluff there when it comes to sources.
> 
> ...


I am going to be honest with you, I am very confused




I don’t venture around anti-vac circles, do they really pass around sources that straight up debunk them just for the vague possibility that it might validate their claims?


----------



## appleburger (Oct 26, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> I am going to be honest with you, I am very confused
> View attachment 281755
> I don’t venture around anti-vac circles, do they really pass around sources that straight up debunk them just for the vague possibility that it might validate their claims?


If you're interested in what they're up to in terms of evidence, I'd recommend checking those circles out.

And the attempt is to use a paper as evidence to back up their claims - but yes, I've personally seen both flat earth and anti-vaxx comments try to prove their point with a paper that actually shows evidence against their point.  If somebody was actually reading these papers with a semi-decent reading comprehension, they wouldn't likely be taking these incredibly flawed takes to begin with.  Ya know? 

To be fair, that's not everyone.  There are plenty of folks that also peddle "well you can't trust papers and science 'cause money is being put in pockets, etc." stuff, but that's a whole other issue we don't have to get into with this thread.  

Asking for scientific research from anybody coming from a position that's inherently anti-science is certainly a very daunting task, though, so it's to be expected.  I do see plenty of folks come around after some discussion, so there IS hope.  Just have to walk people through how to think in a logical way rather than a reactionary way that just reinforces what they already assumed to begin with.

Not easy to get everyone on board with the Scientific method and why it works so well, unfortunately.


----------



## weatMod (Oct 26, 2021)

JaapDaniels said:


> so they wanna be sure to get f*cked up by the virus itself, that makes sense.


the vaccines have no efficacy
almost 80% of COVID hospitalizations are fully vaccinated
source : Australian government

also UK government  had a similar report
and P town mass there was  an outbreak ,  80% of those infected were fully vaccinated
and 4 out the 5 that had to be hospitalized were fully vaccinated and on had one shot of either  Phizer or Moderna
all 3 sources  show that in real life not in some  big pharma funded study that  at best the the vaccines has a 20% efficacy ,  anything less than 51% efficacy  amounts to a coin flip and is therefore 0% efficacy
20% actually shows you  are greater risk  of being hospitalized if you got  fully vaccinated
could be due to  evolving  mutations or it could be  that the vaccine  is causing ADE reactions

Also I had COVID and I had a ADR from Ciprofloxacin in 2015
 COVID was not fun ,  I had 103/104 temp for a month straight,  mostly gastrointestinal symptoms
but it went away  and I am fine now

 the ADR I had from Cirpo was the  worst experience of my life and I have permanent nerve damage and tinnitus
I rather take take my chances with  the virus  any day
until you have had a  a neurological ADR you have no idea how horrific it can be and nobody will help you
I  went to the ER probably close  100 times ,different hospitals ,    
non e helped, some threated to arrest me for no reason 
if you get fucked up by these big pharma poison you are on your own
I spent thousands to supplements and other naturopathic remedies 
took years for most of the problems to go away and I still have the tinnitus and some neuropathy


----------



## djpannda (Oct 26, 2021)

weatMod said:


> source : Australian government


man... that great source....when I clicked the link to the Australian Government saying vaccines don't work I was amazing ... or wait that never happened .. because you know ...because non of the anti vaxxer garbage is true


GET VACCINATED NOT FOR YOURSELF BUT FOR Those who cannot - SOURCE: Djpannda



oh yea
 my other source ..actually Medical Science that was not orginalliated by youtube..
unvaccinated are 6 times more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than vaccinated​


----------



## appleburger (Oct 26, 2021)

weatMod said:


> the vaccines have no efficacy
> almost 80% of COVID hospitalizations are fully vaccinated
> source : Australian government
> 
> ...



375 people hospitalized in the country, dude.  375.  How many people live in Australia, again?  Also, do we determine the efficacy of a vaccine by whether or not you can still catch the virus and be hospitalized?

Answer: No!  And this is easily - and I mean _easily_ shown through some googling on the basics of vaccination.

I don't mean to be rude, but you guys need to at least bother to learn how a vaccine works before you try and act like we have the wool pulled over our eyes.  Bare minimum.


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 26, 2021)

weatMod said:


> the vaccines have no efficacy
> almost 80% of COVID hospitalizations are fully vaccinated
> source : Australian government
> 
> ...



Video doesn't really source anything interesting aside from where the video came from, just points out a sad event in Australia which doesn't actually prove the point you think it does (that the people in the hospital were thankfully mostly vaccinated, and that breakthroughs do happen and you can't base your population numbers on hospital admissions over a period oftime). Honestly, your story kind of tells a whole different tale, and it is sad but it seems like after not getting the answers and treatment you wanted, you got taken for a ride by anybody who offered something different. My sympathies, but a compelling argument this does not make, and this qualifies as a failure to provide what the OP asked for.


----------



## weatMod (Oct 26, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Video doesn't really source anything interesting aside from where the video came from, just points out a sad event in Australia which doesn't actually prove the point you think it does (that the people in the hospital were thankfully mostly vaccinated, and that breakthroughs do happen and you can't base your population numbers on hospital admissions over a period oftime). Honestly, your story kind of tells a whole different tale, and it is sad but it seems like after not getting the answers and treatment you wanted, you got taken for a ride by anybody who offered something different. My sympathies, but a compelling argument this does not make, and this qualifies as a failure to provide what the OP asked for.


ridiculous
I just gave you 3 separate real world examples  from 3 different countries
 with nearly identical data
almost 80% of  COVID hospitalization at  one time are fully vaccinated

if you don't think that is proof of a 20% efficacy than there is no hope for you

I can; find the link to the UK video  about daily cases and nearly 80% of hospitalizations  being fully vaccinated right now

but someone above questioned the source of the video
so here it is from    9 news Australia , 78% of  hospitalizations are fully vaccinated

meaning out of every 100 people who are hospitalized for COVID  80 have been fully vaccinated, meaning 20% efficacy at best


----------



## weatMod (Oct 26, 2021)

djpannda said:


> man... that great source....when I clicked the link to the Australian Government saying vaccines don't work I was amazing ... or wait that never happened .. because you know ...because non of the anti vaxxer garbage is true
> 
> 
> GET VACCINATED NOT FOR YOURSELF BUT FOR Those who cannot - SOURCE: Djpannda
> ...


"it never happened"

 yes it did
 here is the source  from
9news Australia official YouTube channel


next you will tell me that   the 9 news is lying make  deep fake videos of  Australian government officials and broadcasting them


----------



## appleburger (Oct 26, 2021)

weatMod said:


> ridiculous
> I just gave you 3 separate real world examples  from 3 different countries
> with nearly identical data
> almost 80% of  COVID hospitalization at  one time are fully vaccinated
> ...



Might want to re-think what vaccine efficacy actually means bro


----------



## djpannda (Oct 26, 2021)

weatMod said:


> "it never happened"
> 
> yes it did
> here is the source  from
> ...



wait.. your stating a country that has a population of 25+ million and only hospitalize of about 450 daily COIVD case because almost 80% of the pop is vaccinated. Your stating  that fact as proof that Vaccines don't work.. lol I don't know if your trolling or don't know* how MATHS work*.. but 
thats 0.00018% chances of hospitalization due to COVID because of the VACCINE  

LA County (*that is one county in 1 state* ) has 610 hospitalize yesterday...
one COUNTY has more Hospitalize then the complete COUNTRY of Australia


----------



## appleburger (Oct 26, 2021)

@The Catboy Another example of somebody using a source that goes against their own point for you to view above lmao


----------



## weatMod (Oct 26, 2021)

djpannda said:


> wait.. your stating a country that has a population of 25+ million and only hospitalize of about 450 daily COIVD case because almost 80% of the pop is vaccinated. Your stating  that fact as proof that Vaccines don't work.. lol I don't know if your trolling or don't know* how MATHS work*.. but
> thats 0.00018% chances of hospitalization due to COVID because of the VACCINE
> 
> LA County (*that is one county in 1 state* ) has 610 hospitalize yesterday...
> one COUNTY has more Hospitalize then the complete COUNTRY of Australia


I don't think you understand how statistics work 

and you will also cite to me muh medical studies as proofs the vax is efficacious

like  studies are conducted on  100% of the population and not a small group

out of 100 people who had to hospitalized 80% of those 100 people  were fully vaccinated
 b,b,b,ut muh  pandemic of the unvaccinated


----------



## djpannda (Oct 26, 2021)

weatMod said:


> I don't think you understand how statistics work
> 
> and you will also cite to me muh medical studies as proofs the vax is efficacious
> 
> ...


soo your stating you don't know who Vaccination and Virus work...

seeing that the Vaccination are not 100%! breakthrough chase will happen, the point of the vaccine is to slow and starve off the virus.. there is a point statically that Vaccinated will be infected as the population become completely vaccinated because of simple math  but those number are minuscule as Australia hospitalization rate proves it.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 26, 2021)

weatMod said:


> the vaccines have no efficacy
> almost 80% of COVID hospitalizations are fully vaccinated
> source : Australian government
> 
> ...





weatMod said:


> "it never happened"
> 
> yes it did
> here is the source  from
> ...



Can you provide these sources outside of YouTube videos?


----------



## weatMod (Oct 26, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> Can you provide these sources outside of YouTube videos?


it's news 9 Australia official YouTube channel
 but they probably have the video listed on their  official Australia news 9 website as well you could try there


----------



## Plazorn (Oct 26, 2021)

@The Catboy you are not the only one, no one in my town wants to get the shot, let alone wear facemasks, (With the exception of me).


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 26, 2021)

weatMod said:


> it's news 9 Australia official YouTube channel
> but they probably have the video listed on their  official Australia news 9 website as well you could try there


Wow~ look at that peer-reviewed paper~ You should be able to provide the research they are referencing. I am also pretty sure you are deliberately misquoting the research.


Plazorn said:


> @The Catboy you are not the only one, no one in my town wants to get the shot, let alone wear facemasks, (With the exception of me).


???
I am confused, are you saying that you are also asking for sources? I am actually super pro-mask and literally bought tons of masks that match my outfits. I also got my shots and will be getting additional boosters because my immune system is bad but not bad enough to prevent me from getting vaccinated.


----------



## Plazorn (Oct 26, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> Wow~ look at that peer-reviewed paper~ You should be able to provide the research they are referencing. I am also pretty sure you are deliberately misquoting the research.
> 
> ???
> I am confused, are you saying that you are also asking for sources? I am actually super pro-mask and literally bought tons of masks that match my outfits. I also got my shots and will be getting additional boosters because my immune system is bad but not bad enough to prevent me from getting vaccinated.


what I am trying to say is that I am one of the only ones in my community that does what the cdc says, and yes, I am looking for sources.


----------



## weatMod (Oct 26, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> Wow~ look at that peer-reviewed paper~ You should be able to provide the research they are referencing. I am also pretty sure you are deliberately misquoting the research.
> 
> ???
> I am confused, are you saying that you are also asking for sources? I am actually super pro-mask and literally bought tons of masks that match my outfits. I also got my shots and will be getting additional boosters because my immune system is bad but not bad enough to prevent me from getting vaccinated.


"Wow~ look at that peer-reviewed paper~ You should be able to provide the research they are referencing. I am also pretty sure you are deliberately misquoting the research."

what?
there is no peer reviewd paper, there is no "research" involved
 he is simply stating  the facts and telling  how many hospitalization they had and how many  were vaccinated
it's just  a daily   briefing on how may people are in hospital and he states details about the hospitalizations
like how many are on ventilators and how many  received vaccination and how many shots they received 
there is nothing to misquote you can  watch it for yourself


----------



## djpannda (Oct 26, 2021)

weatMod said:


> "Wow~ look at that peer-reviewed paper~ You should be able to provide the research they are referencing. I am also pretty sure you are deliberately misquoting the research."
> 
> what?
> there is no peer reviewd paper, there is no "research" involved
> ...


But he’s talking bout a country that is heavily vaccinated with a minuscule hospitalization rate..


----------



## Lacius (Oct 26, 2021)

weatMod said:


> "Wow~ look at that peer-reviewed paper~ You should be able to provide the research they are referencing. I am also pretty sure you are deliberately misquoting the research."
> 
> what?
> there is no peer reviewd paper, there is no "research" involved
> ...


Approximately 92% of COVID-19 deaths are unvaccinated according to the CDC. That number may vary based on the vaccination rate in a given area.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status


----------



## weatMod (Oct 26, 2021)

djpannda said:


> But he’s talking bout a country that is heavily vaccinated with a minuscule hospitalization rate..


but the claim is that the vaccination prevents hospitalizations
so is that is the  case then why is it not 80% unvaccinated in  and 20% fully vaccinated instead of the other way around
it doesn't matter the size of the population  or how may are vaccinated
it's not relevant to the hospitalization  ratio

you can say well that is just one place at one time

but similar  numbers  are being reported as in the P-town MA outbreak
80% of the people who got it were fully vaccinated ,  you can argue that the vaccine is not being claimed to prevent infection but then look  at the  hospitalizations in that outbreak ,  4 out of 5  fully vaccinated , one with one shot
 similar daily  hospitalization reports out of the UK
they are claiming "pandemic of the unvaccinatd" and that the vaccines prevent hospitalization  yet  80% of hospitalizations in 3 separate instances  from 3 different parts of the globe at 3 different times  and the reports are  not showing facts that support those claims , they are showing quite the opposite


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 26, 2021)

weatMod said:


> but the claim is that the vaccination prevents hospitalizations
> so is that is the  case then why is it not 80% unvaccinated in  and 20% fully vaccinated instead of the other way around
> it doesn't matter the size of the population  or how may are vaccinated
> it's not relevant to the hospitalization  ratio
> ...


The answer is actually shockingly simple. As of late October, over 74% of Australians have received at least one dose of the vaccine versus 26% that have received none - the vaccinated cohort grossly outnumbers the unvaccinated cohort. The unvaccinated don’t show up in the hospital because they’re few and far between at this point. The vaccine was never going to prevent infection, and claiming that it will was the biggest mistake of many governments worldwide. What it *actually* does is training your body to better combat the infection, leading to milder symptoms and better outcomes. It’s not a force field, you can still catch the disease even if you receive two jabs. The point is that you’re unlikely to die from COVID because your immune system is capable of combating the infection better. That does not mean you won’t end up in a hospital if your immune system isn’t particularly good to begin with. To drive this point home, between the 16th of June and 18th of October there were 479 Covid deaths recorded in South Wales, out of which only 61 were fully vaccinated, and even those deaths had underlying conditions that worsened their state besides COVID. The unvaccinated or those only vaccinated once overwhelmingly outnumber the fully vaccinated in terms of the number of deaths. I hate giving The Guardian traffic, but oh well - these were the top results for the query.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ule-tracking-chart-percentage-new-cases-today

https://www.theguardian.com/society...ated-what-is-behind-the-australian-statistics


----------



## weatMod (Oct 26, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The answer is actually shockingly simple. As of late October, over 74% of Australians have received at least one dose of the vaccine versus 26% that have received none - the vaccinated cohort grossly outnumbers the unvaccinated cohort. The unvaccinated don’t show up in the hospital because they’re few and far between at this point. The vaccine was never going to prevent infection, and claiming that it will was the biggest mistake of many governments worldwide. What it *actually* does is training your body to better combat the infection, leading to milder symptoms and better outcomes. It’s not a force field, you can still catch the disease even if you receive two jabs. The point is that you’re unlikely to die from COVID because your immune system is capable of combating the infection better. That does not mean you won’t end up in a hospital if your immune system isn’t particularly good to begin with. To drive this point home, between the 16th of June and 18th of October there were 479 Covid deaths recorded in South Wales, out of which only 61 were fully vaccinated, and even those deaths had underlying conditions that worsened their state besides COVID. The unvaccinated or those only vaccinated once overwhelmingly outnumber the fully vaccinated in terms of the number of deaths. I hate giving The Guardian traffic, but oh well - these were the top results for the query.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ule-tracking-chart-percentage-new-cases-today
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/society...ated-what-is-behind-the-australian-statistics


yes  you could argue that but also you need to factor in herd immunity from people who may have already had it  or had it and were asyptomatic and that case  works in Australia but what about P-town
we are talking about one outbreak and 4 out of 5 were hospitalized
plus  I think that outbreak happened close to the beginning of the vaccine rollout 
and not as many in MA were/are vaccinated as in Australia 
and the numbers were similar,  similar 20% figure , 4 out of 5

Anyways I am not going to take it  ,  the decision was pretty much already made for me anyways because I already had it and both my parents had it
natural immunity supersedes the vaccine anyways
from studies which I don't put much faith in  and from personal anecdotal evidence

My dad is in his 70's ,  got  COVID in march 2019 ,  works at a major international airport ,does not not take ANY precautions no mask no sanitizer  no hand washing and he has not got reinfected, if he has not got reinfected nobody is  going to get reinfected  
there is no way he would not have been reinfected by now if natural immunity waned anywhere near as fast as the vaccines
he got it at the beginning and does NOTHING
amazingly I was infected by my mom and not him though who does take precautions but did something stupid and let her guard down


----------



## Dakitten (Oct 27, 2021)

weatMod said:


> ridiculous
> I just gave you 3 separate real world examples  from 3 different countries
> with nearly identical data
> almost 80% of  COVID hospitalization at  one time are fully vaccinated
> ...



You actually really didn't, and you seem to not be able to understand what people here are trying to tell you. Your viewpoint is factually wrong. Incorrect. You goofed. The video doesn't tell the tale you thought it did. Your "other examples" were just stories without anything to back it up, and even if they do exist (not denying that they couldn't) you are misinterpreting the data. I'm genuinely sorry you've put yourself into this embarrassing corner, but I'd advise you to have a good think about what everyone's trying to explain and reply afterward if you still have an issue.


weatMod said:


> yes  you could argue that but also you need to factor in herd immunity from people who may have already had it  or had it and were asyptomatic and that case  works in Australia but what about P-town
> we are talking about one outbreak and 4 out of 5 were hospitalized
> plus  I think that outbreak happened close to the beginning of the vaccine rollout
> and not as many in MA were/are vaccinated as in Australia
> ...


Or you could reply again, and show that you're more interested in anecdotal evidence and being a public health risk with your family... You got any source for your claim that being infected means you can't get reinfected and infect others, or did that just come from your gut intuition?


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 27, 2021)

weatMod said:


> yes  you could argue that but also you need to factor in herd immunity from people who may have already had it  or had it and were asyptomatic and that case  works in Australia but what about P-town
> we are talking about one outbreak and 4 out of 5 were hospitalized
> plus  I think that outbreak happened close to the beginning of the vaccine rollout
> and not as many in MA were/are vaccinated as in Australia
> ...


I am not reading any of that and this thread isn't just about the covid vaccine. The request for this thread has been just to get peer-reviewed papers that back up the anti-vaccine movement. That being said, you made a claim that I've been asking for a source of


weatMod said:


> almost 80% of COVID hospitalizations are fully vaccinated
> source : Australian government


What is the source that isn't just "Australian government?" And do those sources actually back up your claims?


----------



## weatMod (Oct 27, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> You actually really didn't, and you seem to not be able to understand what people here are trying to tell you. Your viewpoint is factually wrong. Incorrect. You goofed. The video doesn't tell the tale you thought it did. Your "other examples" were just stories without anything to back it up, and even if they do exist (not denying that they couldn't) you are misinterpreting the data. I'm genuinely sorry you've put yourself into this embarrassing corner, but I'd advise you to have a good think about what everyone's trying to explain and reply afterward if you still have an issue.
> 
> Or you could reply again, and show that you're more interested in anecdotal evidence and being a public health risk with your family... You got any source for your claim that being infected means you can't get reinfected and infect others, or did that just come from your gut intuition?


"You got any source for your claim that being infected means you can't get reinfected and infect others, or did that just come from your gut intuition?"


https://www.timesofisrael.com/study...s-longer-lasting-delta-defense-than-vaccines/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9

"and infect others"

also you know that the vaccine does nothing to prevent transmission right, source: CDC


----------



## LinkmstrYT (Oct 27, 2021)

weatMod said:


> "You got any source for your claim that being infected means you can't get reinfected and infect others, or did that just come from your gut intuition?"
> 
> 
> https://www.timesofisrael.com/study...s-longer-lasting-delta-defense-than-vaccines/
> ...


Natural immunity is great and all, but to get natural immunity, they have to survive against the virus first. And we know how that goes for unvaccinated folks as the number of deaths continues to skyrocket while deaths of vaccinated folks move at a snail's pace. And there are folks that have tried herd immunity tactics and ultimately failed miserably.

And even with those that have natural immunity, it's still not 100% preventable and can still transmit the virus onto others. Cases have already been shown that even those that survive and have natural immunity can get infected again. And the CDC still recommends getting the vaccine even after recovering from it. The more layers of protection available, the better the chances of survival and less infection. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html

You seem to be jumping through logical hoops and skipping stuff by the CDC. The vaccines do have an effect to prevent transmission as much as possible. It's not 100%, sure, but it helps by actively killing the virus in your body so that less of the virus can be spread from your body and onto others, giving people around you better chances of not being infected as much and not get too sick. That's one of the big points of why vaccines are important. It's to not only protect you and have you survive, but it's to also help slow down the spread of the virus as much as possible and by extension, less odds of new variants of the virus to appear. Even with the new variants like Delta, the vaccines still have a decent amount of protection against them, so they'll still help give people better chances of survival and not getting the worst of the illnesses. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-risks.html

The vaccines are there to help EVERYONE, but the more stubborn unvaccinated people are, the longer for this whole pandemic to continue and more deaths to continue rising.

You're part of the problem when you try to dissuade others like this.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 27, 2021)

It’s not even a this or that kind of situation - you don’t “pick” what kind of immunity you have. If you’re vaccinated and you still catch COVID, your odds are higher, your symptoms will be milder and you will develop natural immunity. The vaccine doesn’t counteract that, it’s going to happen regardless of what you do.


----------



## plasturion (Oct 27, 2021)

There was a pact between 110 coutries and pharma corcerns like pfizer giving them too much credit to protect their interests despite any later researches and pandemic charts. That was just too big financial deal, but it may lead to something more suspicious, include some hidden goals of freemasons of agenda 2030 and global new order. Well if we know now that nwo is not a theory but a fact, so we can expect from them the worst. 0,1% trust for health care is the max i can give, but that's only my opinion.  Sweden and UK have also very high amount and rate of infections and deaths despite they are most vaccinated countries, but that will never be concerned to stop this proceder or not, toxic vacinces have to be sold.


----------



## AncientBoi (Oct 27, 2021)

[runs around and Vaccinates Everybody. even if they didn't want it] I Want Out Of This Pandemic, NOW!


----------



## JaapDaniels (Oct 27, 2021)

weatMod said:


> the vaccines have no efficacy
> almost 80% of COVID hospitalizations are fully vaccinated
> source : Australian government
> 
> ...



the countrry you use as a source has not that many cases to really use this data as data that is general usable, get your data from the patients in the netherlands, usa, germany, china... you've got a far better scope on what really counts if you're talking about great numbers. no i don't just trust the gov for info, i like various data to compare.
not just our nos (wich is goverment paid, but also RTL news wich is corporate paid, then there is trouw wich is paid by churges, my wife working as a helping in care (don't know the english for it, she helps in recovery care), a friend of her working as a nurse...) isreal is one exceptional country telling us that that they have a real large number of vaccinated people and i doubt they're lying getting back to the hospital.
wierd thing is around here it's really obove 70% unvaccinated that get in to the hospital while this is still less then 31 percent of the people here.so the balance is really heavy towards those unvaccinated.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 27, 2021)

AncientBoi said:


> [runs around and Vaccinates Everybody. even if they didn't want it] I Want Out Of This Pandemic, NOW!


If only.



weatMod said:


> yes  you could argue that but also you need to factor in herd immunity from people who may have already had it  or had it and were asyptomatic and that case  works in Australia but what about P-town
> we are talking about one outbreak and 4 out of 5 were hospitalized
> plus  I think that outbreak happened close to the beginning of the vaccine rollout
> and not as many in MA were/are vaccinated as in Australia
> ...


As others have pointed out, natural immunity isn't an excuse for not getting vaccinated. The data isn't clear about how effective natural immunity is, natural immunity can vary due to all the different variables involved (in contrast, vaccinated immunity is more controlled and understood), natural immunity wanes just like vaccinated immunity, and you get a bigger immunity boost if you have natural immunity and then get the vaccine. In fact, a lot of the data anti-vaxxers are throwing around in support of natural immunity is data showing the large boost in immunity after natural immunity AND vaccination, not just natural immunity by itself. We've already known for a long time that getting vaccinated after recovering from COVID-19 likely resulted in a more robust resistance to the disease than those who just got vaccinated without ever having the disease.

As others also mentioned, natural immunity is not something people should rely on, since getting the disease itself comes with significantly higher risks than what you would get with the vaccine.

TLDR: It is highly recommended that even those who have had COVID-19 get vaccinated.


----------



## AncientBoi (Oct 27, 2021)

@Lacius  uh, would you so kindly mask up again? LoL. just mentioning.


----------



## LinkmstrYT (Oct 27, 2021)

plasturion said:


> There was a pact between 110 coutries and pharma corcerns like pfizer giving them too much credit to protect their interests despite any later researches and pandemic charts. That was just too big financial deal, but it may lead to something more suspicious, include some hidden goals of freemasons of agenda 2030 and global new order. Well if we know now that nwo is not a theory but a fact, so we can expect from them the worst. 0,1% trust for health care is the max i can give, but that's only my opinion.  Sweden and UK have also very high amount and rate of infections and deaths despite they are most vaccinated countries, but that will never be concerned to stop this proceder or not, toxic vacinces have to be sold.


Sounds like a hell of a conspiracy theory there if you believe something like NWO. Since when did that become a "fact"? lmao

Just because Sweden and UK being the "most vaccinated countries" doesn't mean that everyone is vaccinated at those places. There's still millions there that are unvaccinated, so of course the infection rate is still high in those places. In fact, billions of people are still unvaccinated around the world, it's no wonder there are still folks being infected left and right since not everyone can get the vaccine (because of no availability near them) or chooses to not get one and potentially endangers others around them that are also unvaccinated.

Again, while vaccinated people can still get infected, they have much better chances of survival and mild illnesses compared to those unvaccinated. So while you can gloat about the whole "high infection rates", how about a showcase of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated in surviving COVID-19 along with damages after recovery like damaged lungs and organ failures which is already shown more on the unvaccinated than those vaccinated.


----------



## plasturion (Oct 28, 2021)

LinkmstrYT said:


> Sounds like a hell of a conspiracy theory there if you believe something like NWO. Since when did that become a "fact"? lmao




Since it was announced by prime minister in my parlamaint:

In fact "NWO" was declared officialy only once, now we have here "_Polish Order_", but that's the same meaning.
Last 10 years we heard all the time about "_The Sustainable Development" _in media and now the "_Polish Order_"_.
_
Why? because of goals of this agenda:





Never heard of it? all countries have the same, how to achieve it if not to have same global politics and deep country?
Of course it looks nice at first look, I don't mind if all the goals have positive aspects, but anyway people are people and this looks like area of propaganda sponsorships, just fishy way to earn easy money.

Of course you have your opinion about vacines, but i just can't agree. All these countries contracted vaccines for next 3 years from few monoplists who don't want to take liability for thier product without any quality standards. And it will be selling as long the people won't comply. As for me this procedure has nothing with medicine.

Personaly if this vaccine would cure every disease, and make me rich and immortal and super stuffed, or make anyone else I would never agree. No in this unclear way, no because I am not indifferent to abortion which is needed to produce it, which make all these goals above just sadly funny. Science ends when it meets with ethical borders.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 29, 2021)

plasturion said:


> Since it was announced by prime minister in my parlamaint:
> 
> In fact "NWO" was declared officialy only once, now we have here "_Polish Order_", but that's the same meaning.
> Last 10 years we heard all the time about "_The Sustainable Development" _in media and now the "_Polish Order_"_.
> ...



This isn’t a matter of opinions, it’s either you have a source or you don’t. So far, I am just going to say that those against vaccines have no sources, only opinions and distractions from their lack of sources. The entire point of this thread is just a request for verified sources and nothing else. So far, I’ve not seen that.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 29, 2021)

To those squawking about natural immunity, a recently released CDC study shows vaccinations are better.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...r-immunity-infection-cdc-study-finds-rcna4133


----------



## djpannda (Oct 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> To those squawking about natural immunity, a recently released CDC study shows vaccinations are better.
> 
> https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...r-immunity-infection-cdc-study-finds-rcna4133


...I will only believe it if a Youtuber with less then 10,000 subs tell me its true


----------



## ChibiMofo (Oct 29, 2021)

Since this thread has gone on a lot longer than it should have, let me definitively answer the OP's question:
None.

Only Traitor Trump supporters and other extremely low-IQ folks disagree. And when that is the case... you have your answer.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 1, 2021)

ChibiMofo said:


> Since this thread has gone on a lot longer than it should have, let me definitively answer the OP's question:
> None.
> 
> Only Traitor Trump supporters and other extremely low-IQ folks disagree. And when that is the case... you have your answer.


I am aware there aren't any sources but at this point, I am interested in seeing what sources are posted and challenging them as to why the sources aren't peer-reviewed.


----------



## djpannda (Nov 1, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> I am aware there aren't any sources but at this point, I am interested in seeing what sources are posted and challenging them as to why the sources aren't peer-reviewed.


I don't see how one can challenge facebook post of my Racist Aunt Linda and my Drunk Conspiracy nut uncle BOB?


----------



## SG854 (Dec 3, 2021)

@The Catboy has anyone provided evidence yet?


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 3, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> I am aware there aren't any sources but at this point, I am interested in seeing what sources are posted and challenging them as to why the sources aren't peer-reviewed.


The problem with your approach, and this thread, is the undefined scope of your question. Literally nobody, not even medical professionals, disagrees that vaccine injuries do exist, and that vaccines do have possible side effects - those figures are often in the same studies that prove efficacy of the vaccines. What do you actually consider as “proof” here, and what’s your threshold, because you haven’t specified that? I also don’t understand why you’re so aggressive with other people’s personal healthcare decisions - none of this is anyone’s business. Not only that - the expectation of peer reviewed studies regarding side effects of vaccines that were rolled out a year ago is odd. You’re asking for proof that may or may not exist yet, at least with cohorts of any relevance. That’s not to say that the vaccines used against COVID are any different or more dangerous than traditional ones (arguably they’re actually safer, but we’d go off into the weeds on that one), but I’m perfectly fine with accepting that there are some unknown quantities at play here, considering how massive this roll-out is. Given current statistics they appear to be exceedingly safe, but are they safe for everyone? No. Will some people suffer from side effects? Yes. I feel that being honest about the issue is better than doing the “haha, you’re stupid” routine. You’re putting on a scientist gown when you’re not a scientist yourself by any stretch of the imagination - it seems like posturing to me.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 3, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The problem with your approach, and this thread, is the undefined scope of your question. Literally nobody, not even medical professionals, disagrees that vaccine injuries do exist, and that vaccines do have possible side effects - those figures are often in the same studies that prove efficacy of the vaccines. What do you actually consider as “proof” here, and what’s your threshold, because you haven’t specified that. I also don’t understand why you’re so aggressive with other people’s personal healthcare decisions - none of this is anyone’s business. Not only that - the expectation of peer reviewed studies regarding side effects of vaccines that were rolled out a year ago - you’re asking for proof that may or may not exist yet with cohorts of any relevance. That’s not to say that the vaccines used against COVID are any different or more dangerous than traditional ones (arguably they’re actually safer, but we’d go off into the weeds on that one), but I’m perfectly fine with accepting that there are some unknown quantities at play here, given how massive this roll-out is. Given current statistics they appear to be exceedingly safe, but are they safe for everyone? No. Will some people suffer from side effects? Yes. I feel that being honest about the issue is better than doing the “haha, you’re stupid” routine. You’re putting on a scientist gown when you’re not a scientist yourself by any stretch of the imagination - it seems like posturing to me.


The question for this thread has always been just to provide evidence to back up the movement and request that it be verified evidence. At some point it eventually lost track of that request and honestly, I think it just became me being an asshole towards anti-vaxxors. In all honesty, this thread lost it’s purpose and should have been locked long before that point


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 4, 2021)

So 17 pages just to get the answer that the sources that back up the anti-vaccine movement are the same ones that back up vaccine effectiveness? lol.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 4, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> So 17 pages just to get the answer that the sources that back up the anti-vaccine movement are the same ones that back up vaccine effectiveness? lol.


There are no credible sources that back up the "anti-vaccine movement."


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 4, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> The question for this thread has always been just to provide evidence to back up the movement and request that it be verified evidence. At some point it eventually lost track of that request and honestly, I think it just became me being an asshole towards anti-vaxxors. In all honesty, *this thread lost it’s purpose and should have been locked long before that point*


I figured as much, because it sure doesn’t look like it’s going the way you’d expect it to, judging by the name.

Wish granted. If you change your mind, you can always ask to have it re-opened.


----------

