Covid-19 vaccine

[Lacius]

So you honestly read it to be in agreement that it is a moral imperative?




The sourced "dispute" concedes that the spike protein is the cause but that the antibodies produced overrides them.

I didn't read it as an argument that flu shots had a moral imperative, but it is what he literally said, whether or not it was sarcastic.

 

[RocaBOT]

The sourced "dispute" concedes that the spike protein is the cause but that the antibodies produced overrides them.

Not sure what you mean by that tbh, but if you mean the antibodies are "more dangerous" then no, you're completely misinterpreting whatever's been shown in there.

 

[Halbour]

Im not getting it. IDK Why. Its just not for me.

 

[tabzer]

I didn't read it as an argument that flu shots had a moral imperative, but it is what he literally said, whether or not it was sarcastic.

You aren't responding to what I actually said.

 

[Lacius]

Im not getting it. IDK Why. Its just not fo

The vaccines have been demonstrated to be safe and effective. If you can get the vaccine, you should do so as soon as possible. Your risks of serious illness are thousands to millions of times worse without the vaccine than with it. There is also a moral imperative to get vaccinated, since your odds of spreading the disease are relatively higher if you don't get it. Consult your doctor if you have concerns.

 

[tabzer]

Not sure what you mean by that tbh, but if you mean the antibodies are "more dangerous" then no, you're completely misinterpreting whatever's been shown in there.

No, the antibodies are relegated to being the actual solution (wherever they came from). The source says that the spike proteins do cause blood clots, but the antibodies nullify their effect.

 

[RocaBOT]

1. The vaccines are not an "experimental liquid" with "God knows what" in them. We know they're safe and effective, and we know what's in them.

Adding to that, we've known what's in them for years, be it for more "classical" vaccines or for mRNA vaccines (which have existed for at least 15 years in use for our pets in particular, and contain even less things than classical ones), so there's indeed definitely nothing "unknown" about their contents, nor their "long term" side effects which have been well known for the past few decades, at the very least.

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

No, the antibodies are relegated to being the actual solution (wherever they came from). The source says that the spike proteins do cause blood clots, but the antibodies nullify their effect.

Ok so I'm glad I asked. But then, you know which one produces more antibodies, and thus a stronger response and solution?
Spoiler: it's being vaccinated against the damn thing

 

[Lacius]

You aren't responding to what I actually said.

I have no idea what it is you're arguing right now, so if you have a point, make it.

I was responding to a post that, paraphrased, said, "Oh, so you think there's a moral imperative to get the flu vaccine too? Hm?" And I responded, "Yes."

 

[tabzer]

Adding to that, we've known what's in them for years, be it for more "classical" vaccines or for mRNA vaccines (which have existed for at least 15 years in use for our pets in particular, and contain even less things than classical ones), so there's indeed definitely nothing "unknown" about their contents, nor their "long term" side effects which have been well known for the past few decades, at the very least.

You cannot know the long term effects (decades) of a solution that is younger than decades.

 

[RocaBOT]

You cannot know the long term effects (decades) of a solution that is younger than decades.

You can: it's the same solution than the ones that have been used in other mRNA vaccines, used for pets as general vaccination against some illnesses for over 15 years, and a few clinical studies in humans beforehand as well. Only what they make the body produce changes, based on a different organisation of one of the components, and what they produce we know very well: they only make the body produce antibodies.
Get your goddamned facts straights, tabzer, please.

At this point it's like saying "I'm not eating this chocolate because the brand I don't know and it has not been on the shelves for 10 years so I don't know the long-term side effects because it's organised and packaged differently than the one I'm used to". It's at best useless, at worst (when making unfounded claims about it) dangerous because people will listen far easier to the fear you instill in them than to actual facts. And people far worse than you know and use that, they have been doing so for years. And thanks to people like that, we're seeing surges of illnesses that had been almost eradicated, because of people not getting their frigging vacccines as preventative measure, like it's meant to be.

 

[The Catboy]

You cannot know the long term effects (decades) of a solution that is younger than decades.

Provide a source to this very specific claim. Is there any evidence to back up this concern?

 

[tabzer]

15 years,

15 years is not decades unless you are rounding up to the nearest decade. Your phrasing simply doesn't make sense to me. If you are saying that we have evidence of their facts for at least 15 years, then I wouldn't have said anything about that.

 

[RocaBOT]

15 years is not decades unless you are rounding up to the nearest decade. Your phrasing simply doesn't make sense to me. If you are saying that we have evidence of their facts for at least 15 years, then I wouldn't have said anything about that.

It's strictly more than one decade, hence it is decades, don't play dumb.

 

[tabzer]

Provide a source to this very specific claim. Is there any evidence to back up this concern?

Claims that one can know the future requires the burden of proof. Nice try backwards person.

It's strictly more than one decade, hence it is decades, don't play dumb.

I never heard 15 years being referred to as "decades" before. Totally serious. Plurality usually implies 2 or more.

 

[RocaBOT]

Claims that one can know the future requires the burden of proof. Nice try backwards person.

You're the one who has been claiming to know that the future is grim as you foretell, yet you've been unable to produce any source on that or on any of your unfounded concerns.

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

I never heard 15 years being referred to as "decades" before. Totally serious.

Hence you'd rather battle the form than the actual fact being told. Gotcha, now I know you're just being styupid and unable to challenge your unfounded beliefs, see you never I guess, not worth my time arguing with someone like you.

 

[tabzer]

You're the one who has been claiming to know that the future is grim as you foretell, yet you've been unable to produce any source on that or on any of your unfounded concerns.

I claim that I don't know the future. I don't claim it's grim. I'm generally facetious about it.

My concerns are generally with those who claim to know the future.

styupid

 

[RocaBOT]

Yeah y and u are touching keys on the keyboard, what about it?
I usually fix those typos, I'm going to leave this one just because seeing you challenge the form and not the facts is way too funny

 

[tabzer]

Yeah y and u are touching keys on the keyboard, what about it?

It chose the ironic of times to toyuch keyus.

Fact is people still don't agree with medicine and vaccinations that are 70+ years old. How is missing herd immunity a betrayed expectation at the current time?

 

[Lacius]

@tabzer Everything you need to know about the cardiologist (not epidemiologist) who has been spewing anti-vax nonsense can be found here:
https://healthfeedback.org/claimrev...nated-contrary-to-claims-by-peter-mccullough/

With regard to the most recent conversation about him taking place, there is no evidence that the mRNA vaccines cause blood clotting issues, and the suggestion that they do comes from a misunderstanding of a study that even the authors say doesn't demonstrate anything this cardiologist is suggesting.

Tabzer, when you metaphorically wade into a pool of doctors and scientists, and you swim past one after another until you find one who is making the same debunked pseudoscientific claims about vaccines that you're making, that's called cherry-picking, which is a logical fallacy. It's also a fallacious argument from authority if your reason for saying a person's debunked claims are correct is because he's a medical authority. The broad medical community, as well as the actual epidemiologists and vaccine experts, have already demonstrated that the vaccines are safe and effective.

 

[RocaBOT]

Fact is people still don't agree with medicine and vaccinations that are 70+ years old. How is missing herd immunity a betrayed expectation at the current time?

Herd immunity achieved through vaccination has always been stronger and faster than that achieved through no control at all, it's been so for decades, it's been documented for many illnesses both far more dangerous than COVID and far less so too. Believing otherwise despite the facts is ignorant at best, misleading and stupid and dangerous at worst.