WuFlu - Anti Vaxxers

Will you get the Vaccine?


  • Total voters
    163
I don't know why we're all being stampeded into taking a vaccine that most of us don't need if we're healthy. Trust in the Govt and medical authorities is zero due to the lies and exaggerations over the past year.

Some interesting factoids on the mRNA vaccines.

Clearly, we are in the nascent stages of understanding the complex field of epigenetics. The S1 SarsCov2 spike protein is highly homologous with HERV (human endogenous retrovirus) protein knowns as Syncytin-1. There is the potential for autoimmunity, as the Spike protein antibodies might attack Syncytin-1.

Whilst natural infections are benign and self-limiting for the vast majority of affected people, autoimmune diseases are mostly irreversible. This is even more terrifying with the mRNA treatment.

If the translation of SarsCov2 S1 spike protein persists there is potential to cause amplification of the expression of autoimmunity. As the SGT recipients’ cells are now producing the viral spike proteins, there is the potential for explosion of auto-immune diseases in coming years.


Well those are definitely all words.

Firstly any lack of trust in the medical authorities has been generated primarily by the same ratlickers who are screaming about how dangerous (they aren’t) these vaccines are - and to be honest the trust remains for the most part as can be demonstrated by the large take up so far of the vaccines. The outpourings of a small, very gobby minority do not speak for the majority.

The bogyman of autoimmune diseases is one that is frequently used by antivaxxers when peddling their nonsense - usually it is the form of trying to convince everyone that there is an explosion of autoimmune diseases and vaccines are the cause. Despite there being no evidence of this, and lots of evidence that it isn’t.

But lets look at the article. Firstly the title

With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, [it isn’t untested - mRNA technology is decades old and used in a number of therapeutics - and why is vaccine in quote marks? only the ratlickers are questioning this with no cause] and safety trials still ongoing, [nope, the primary findings of the Ph3 trials have been published and the vaccine is proven to be safe and efficacious] is it safe to take the shot? [yes] And does it even work?[yes - Ph3 trials and empirical data from Ph4 monitoring prove this] And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk [The IFR for a population like the UK is around 1.15%, source ICL, 29 Oct 2020].

I also note that the mRNA vaccine is only one of a number in use - why are they attempting to portray this as a bogeyman, but painting it as if every vaccine is using this technology?

Okay, lets look at some of the text.

“Both these injections are employing the same technology, synthetic gene therapy (SGT), which is being dispensed to the populace for the first time in human history.”

Okay so this is utter bullshit - gene therapy is one thing, mRNA vaccines are totally different. No alteration of the genes of the recipient takes place.

I am not going to get sidetracked by the PCR false positive fallacy - enough has been written on this crap already I think.

”It is also important to note, despite SarsCov2 virus and the syndrome labelled as Covid being used interchangeably, causation has not been proven as per Koch’s postulates.’“ well Koch’s postulates were disproven when he wrote them, plus they don’t work with vaccines. And causation has been proven - again, it is only in the febrile imagination of the ratlickers that this is not the case. The two titles are only used interchangeably by the non-medical commentators - SARS-CoV-2 is the virus and Covid-19 is the disease. Deliberate misinformation at least.

I won’t go into the IFR - see citation above.

“Dr David Martin, emphasized that this technology does not meet the definition of a traditional vaccine as per the manufacturers’ claims. The trials do not test for reduction in transmission. These therapies do not prevent infection, merely reduction in one or more symptoms.”
Well the trials were to establish the efficacy and they were pretty sure that they would reduce transmission - and all of this is crap. Other vaccines reduce symptoms in the infected and even non-sterilising vaccines can massively stop transmission (polio for example).

“Interestingly, Moderna describes its technology as the “software of life,” not a vaccine“ not they don’t. They use this as an analogy to explain how it works. Another blatant lie.

”Media outlets, politicians, and public health officials have blared the 95% efficacy for both formulations. To the casual observer, this would denote 95% reduction in hospitalizations or deaths. When in fact the 95% is calculated, based upon the “Primary Efficacy Endpoints.””

This is true - to an extent. The UK government was keen to point out the limitations in the data gathered in the trials - of course this was seized upon by the ratlickers. This has been overtaken by emperical data from the Ph4 monitoring that showed a 100% reduction in serious illness and death, plus a massive (67% IIRC) reduction in transmission.

I am not going to go on - this document is so flawed as to be worthless.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
Well those are definitely all words.



I am not going to go on - this document is so flawed as to be worthless.
If you can bear to (and I fully understand if not) please do so, as it's only by frequent and detailed refutation that keeps these clusterwnaks down to a dull whine.
 
If you can bear to (and I fully understand if not) please do so, as it's only by frequent and detailed refutation that keeps these clusterwnaks down to a dull whine.
If it gets quiet again in work I might - not sure my medical knowledge is up to the stuff on autoimmune, but that is usually totally crap with the antivaxxers anyway
 
Some interesting factoids on the mRNA vaccines.
Factoid, noun.
A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition.
 
Well those are definitely all words.

Firstly any lack of trust in the medical authorities has been generated primarily by the same ratlickers who are screaming about how dangerous (they aren’t) these vaccines are - and to be honest the trust remains for the most part as can be demonstrated by the large take up so far of the vaccines. The outpourings of a small, very gobby minority do not speak for the majority.

The bogyman of autoimmune diseases is one that is frequently used by antivaxxers when peddling their nonsense - usually it is the form of trying to convince everyone that there is an explosion of autoimmune diseases and vaccines are the cause. Despite there being no evidence of this, and lots of evidence that it isn’t.

But lets look at the article. Firstly the title

With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, [it isn’t untested - mRNA technology is decades old and used in a number of therapeutics - and why is vaccine in quote marks? only the ratlickers are questioning this with no cause] and safety trials still ongoing, [nope, the primary findings of the Ph3 trials have been published and the vaccine is proven to be safe and efficacious] is it safe to take the shot? [yes] And does it even work?[yes - Ph3 trials and empirical data from Ph4 monitoring prove this] And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk [The IFR for a population like the UK is around 1.15%, source ICL, 29 Oct 2020].

I also note that the mRNA vaccine is only one of a number in use - why are they attempting to portray this as a bogeyman, but painting it as if every vaccine is using this technology?

Okay, lets look at some of the text.

“Both these injections are employing the same technology, synthetic gene therapy (SGT), which is being dispensed to the populace for the first time in human history.”

Okay so this is utter bullshit - gene therapy is one thing, mRNA vaccines are totally different. No alteration of the genes of the recipient takes place.

I am not going to get sidetracked by the PCR false positive fallacy - enough has been written on this crap already I think.

”It is also important to note, despite SarsCov2 virus and the syndrome labelled as Covid being used interchangeably, causation has not been proven as per Koch’s postulates.’“ well Koch’s postulates were disproven when he wrote them, plus they don’t work with vaccines. And causation has been proven - again, it is only in the febrile imagination of the ratlickers that this is not the case. The two titles are only used interchangeably by the non-medical commentators - SARS-CoV-2 is the virus and Covid-19 is the disease. Deliberate misinformation at least.

I won’t go into the IFR - see citation above.

“Dr David Martin, emphasized that this technology does not meet the definition of a traditional vaccine as per the manufacturers’ claims. The trials do not test for reduction in transmission. These therapies do not prevent infection, merely reduction in one or more symptoms.”
Well the trials were to establish the efficacy and they were pretty sure that they would reduce transmission - and all of this is crap. Other vaccines reduce symptoms in the infected and even non-sterilising vaccines can massively stop transmission (polio for example).

“Interestingly, Moderna describes its technology as the “software of life,” not a vaccine“ not they don’t. They use this as an analogy to explain how it works. Another blatant lie.

”Media outlets, politicians, and public health officials have blared the 95% efficacy for both formulations. To the casual observer, this would denote 95% reduction in hospitalizations or deaths. When in fact the 95% is calculated, based upon the “Primary Efficacy Endpoints.””

This is true - to an extent. The UK government was keen to point out the limitations in the data gathered in the trials - of course this was seized upon by the ratlickers. This has been overtaken by emperical data from the Ph4 monitoring that showed a 100% reduction in serious illness and death, plus a massive (67% IIRC) reduction in transmission.

I am not going to go on - this document is so flawed as to be worthless.

The IFR is nowhere near 1.15%. I'm not surprised that doom number came from Imperial and shagger Ferguson.

Here's a WHO study from October 2020:

For people younger than 70 years old, the infection fatality rate of COVID-19 across 40 locations with available data ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% (median 0.05%); the corrected values were similar.


Also... and I suppose this is terminology...

These findings, announced by Moderna on Nov. 16 and by Pfizer and its partner BioNTech on Nov. 9 (with an update on Nov. 18), demonstrate that gene therapy is a viable strategy for developing vaccines to combat COVID-19. Both vaccine candidates use mRNA to program a person's cells to produce many copies of a fragment of the virus. The fragment then stimulates the immune system to attack if the real virus tries to invade the body.


Anyway now that the vulnerable have had all these wonderful vaccines and we're coming into Spring, why aren't we getting our freedoms back?
 
The IFR is nowhere near 1.15%. I'm not surprised that doom number came from Imperial and shagger Ferguson.

Here's a WHO study from October 2020:

For people younger than 70 years old, the infection fatality rate of COVID-19 across 40 locations with available data ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% (median 0.05%); the corrected values were similar.


Also... and I suppose this is terminology...

These findings, announced by Moderna on Nov. 16 and by Pfizer and its partner BioNTech on Nov. 9 (with an update on Nov. 18), demonstrate that gene therapy is a viable strategy for developing vaccines to combat COVID-19. Both vaccine candidates use mRNA to program a person's cells to produce many copies of a fragment of the virus. The fragment then stimulates the immune system to attack if the real virus tries to invade the body.


Anyway now that the vulnerable have had all these wonderful vaccines and we're coming into Spring, why aren't we getting our freedoms back?
It is really helpful if you remove a large chunk of the most vulnerable from a study regarding the fatality of a disease. If you include those who are over 70 (those most effected by Covid) then as shown in the Imperial study the IFR increases - it even states this repeatedly in the WHO study you cited. It would be a bit like removing every under 12 from a study into the infection rate of whooping cough. Quite a few of those who remember THAT rifle and have a fond memory for hairy shirts and puttees on here would leave you with a nasty limp if you were to ignore their chances of death from this. Others ignoring such a large demographic might compare it to eugenics.

You might also note that the models that ‘shagger’ produced have been bourne out by the emperical data recorded in the pandemic in the UK - and also remember there is a BIG difference between the ‘worst case’ and reasonable worst case, and most likely outcome. Think carefully what the media used to generate banner headlines. There has been ALOT of propaganda written about his previous epidemiological work, some of it blatantly false. It is also normal by the ratlickers to dismiss anything that the WHO produce as being fake, apparently they are in the pockets of the Chinese or something - so quite surprised that you went to them for a study on the matter.

And show how ANY genes are edited by a mRNA vaccine. It just doesn’t happen and anyone saying otherwise is a liar, or wrong - and yes, the use of the words ‘gene therapy’ is a misnomer in the article you shared. In this Link the author explains, with good primary links why you are wrong.

We will all be back to normal when we have achieved herd immunity (and before you go down THAT particular road, no disease in history has ever achieved ‘natural’ herd immunity) - the phased return to normality that the government are trying will hopefully capture any increase in infection rates and allow them to change their plans. You stamping your
 

GDog

Old-Salt
It's because you, personally, can't be trusted to make the correct decision. You are demonstrating over and over again that you don't understand the risk to other people and are determined to put your selfish interests first.

And here
PS you are both pathetic cowards
Thanks for that.

Good to see that HMG have now decided to change their tune on the relative safety of OAZ for younger cohorts.

Didn't take long did it?
 
Interesting quote by medic type on BBC this morning when asked about blood clots...his reply was "you have more chance of getting DVT on a long haul flight, than you have of getting clots from the AZ vaccine" !
 
And here

Thanks for that.

Good to see that HMG have now decided to change their tune on the relative safety of OAZ for younger cohorts.

Didn't take long did it?
Because perhaps rather than having a knee jerk reaction they tried waiting for some sort of science to support what they were saying?

In this case the change in policy is probably due to pressure so that if they didn’t change things it would damage confidence in the general vaccine policy.

All medical agencies that I have looked at (EMA and MHRA) have said that there is no known causal link found - see my reply above your last. And he numbers remain to be a total of (checks notes...) 44 cases of CVST out of 9.2 million people who have received the AZ vaccine in the EEA.

See graphic for a bit of a comparison.
 

Attachments

  • 802912B3-7485-416D-80CF-82F35F0BD27B.jpeg
    802912B3-7485-416D-80CF-82F35F0BD27B.jpeg
    60.5 KB · Views: 12
Interesting quote by medic type on BBC this morning when asked about blood clots...his reply was "you have more chance of getting DVT on a long haul flight, than you have of getting clots from the AZ vaccine" !
Relative risk is lost on a lot of people. When Fukishima let loose and lots of people flew out of Japan they would have received a bigger dose of rads on the plane ride than if they had stayed in the area around the reactor.

At the moment if you go to Cornwall on holiday you will get more radiation than if you went on one of those tours around Chernobyl - excepting the plane ride though...
 
And he numbers remain to be a total of (checks notes...) 44 cases of CVST out of 9.2 million people who have received the AZ vaccine in the EEA.

See graphic for a bit of a comparison.

Good points.

As halfwits are not very good at assessing comparative risk you could set that number of cases of CVST against the number of road traffic fatalities.

The average annual number of road fatalities across Europe is 51 per million.

Your chance of croaking in a RTA is roughly 11 times greater than from the vaccine.

Will that stop the worried well and antivax tinfoilers driving?


(Yeah. I know the numbers are not directly comparable over time etc but a factor of 11 smooths out a lot of inconsistency).
 

Latest Threads

Top