Anti-Vaxx 101 Thread

[Seeker]

Dear Lurch, while we're at it, do you think the flu shot is worth it for younger people? Say, from 10-60 year range.

If not, then why the campaign? It's not often on the media as Covid is, but it's still ''widespread'', so as to say.

Although Lurch didn't respond, anyone is welcome to "enlighten" me, of course.

[Stoic]

Ben Shapiro interview with Malone.

Covid Vaccines Unsafe for All Age Groups.

Dr. Robert Malone, the scientist who pioneered the technology behind the mRNA COVID vaccines, told Ben Shapiro Friday he would no longer advise even most elderly patients to get the jab.

Speaking on Shapiro’s popular radio show and podcast, Malone, who was marginalized by the media for raising questions about the vaccines early in the pandemic, said young and healthy people generally don’t need the shots. But he added that new data is showing that adverse effects of the vaccines increase with age, seemingly obfuscating the argument that the shots benefit the elderly, even though they may be more at risk of dying from COVID.

“If you factor in the stratified risk of the vaccine products the stratified risk of the virus as it exists right now, and the availability of early treatment, you really can’t make a case based on the data for employing these products for anyone,” said Malone.

The 63-year-old physician and scientist said his early reservations about vaccinating children, a position also held by Shapiro, were based on data showing an elevated risk of myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart. Now, he believes the vaccine poses a danger to older people that outweighs any benefits it may convey.

“Originally, my position was that we should vaccinate the high-risk cohorts, including the elderly,” he said. “And over time, as the data have come out and the analysis has come out from respected individuals, I’ve had to shift that position.”

...

I notice he doesn't give any data (or point to any studies) regarding the risk from the vaccines, or the risk from covid-19. We're just supposed to take his word that the former is now higher than the latter, when it has been the opposite all along.

He really sounds like a guy trying to sell his book.

[NorrinRadd]

Ben Shapiro interview with Malone.

Covid Vaccines Unsafe for All Age Groups.

Dr. Robert Malone, the scientist who pioneered the technology behind the mRNA COVID vaccines, told Ben Shapiro Friday he would no longer advise even most elderly patients to get the jab.

Speaking on Shapiro’s popular radio show and podcast, Malone, who was marginalized by the media for raising questions about the vaccines early in the pandemic, said young and healthy people generally don’t need the shots. But he added that new data is showing that adverse effects of the vaccines increase with age, seemingly obfuscating the argument that the shots benefit the elderly, even though they may be more at risk of dying from COVID.

“If you factor in the stratified risk of the vaccine products the stratified risk of the virus as it exists right now, and the availability of early treatment, you really can’t make a case based on the data for employing these products for anyone,” said Malone.

The 63-year-old physician and scientist said his early reservations about vaccinating children, a position also held by Shapiro, were based on data showing an elevated risk of myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart. Now, he believes the vaccine poses a danger to older people that outweighs any benefits it may convey.

“Originally, my position was that we should vaccinate the high-risk cohorts, including the elderly,” he said. “And over time, as the data have come out and the analysis has come out from respected individuals, I’ve had to shift that position.”

...

[TheLurch]

-- I knew of at least one of Lurch's challenges, but got distracted and forgot about it. Lurch and all, I apologize for the carelessness. I'm noticing I also have a tendency to do flurries of posts when something shiny catches my attention. I'll try to be a bit more disciplined.

-- I can't see the charts Lurch posted, but I accept that Berenson is an inconsistent and unreliable source. I'll limit my posting of his stuff.

Apology accepted. The behavior had just left me a bit confused as to whether you were here to discuss things, or were just using T-web as a way to do one-way broadcasts of your latest interests.

[TheLurch]

Lurch, while I can understand your reluctance to devote more time to NorrinRadd's claims when he is unwilling to respond to yours, and I must confess that his past behavior of posting things that seem questionable and then not defending them makes me more skeptical of his claims to begin with, part of the reason I made sure to bring this here is because I was curious about your take on it. So if you are willing, I would be curious to see what you have to say about possible problems with the arguments in the link. I am especially wondering about its claims about increased disabilities around the time of the vaccinations beginning, as I do not think I have seen that argument before.

I think the arguments are pretty comical. We've had a massively infective and fairly lethal pandemic sweep the globe, and this guy's arguing that the excess mortality we're seeing in that period is due to something other than the pandemic. In fact, he's blaming it on something else that has actually been subject to clinical trials and shown not to cause lethality. It is truly pants-on-head stupid.

To me, it brings to mind this now heavily memed sketch.

[NorrinRadd]

That's perfectly fine. However, at this point, one must legitimately ask--are you ever going to respond to any of Lurch's points, which seem quite valid? For example, you completely ignored this post of his that was in response to a video you posted several days ago in this topic:
Admittedly, this one is not directly addressing the video in the post, but it is in reference to what seems to be an issue: You continually ignoring counterpoints.

Here was the history of you in this topic. You first entered it https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...50#post1419950 in which you posted a bunch of links to Alex Berenson. Lurch gave a response to one of them at https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...78#post1420178, saying out his entire argument was the result of him misreading a chart,. This appeared to be an absolutely lethal rebuttal to that argument of Berenson and additionally cast considerable doubt on everything else he had to say (as all of your links were from him) if he was going to goof up that badly.

You neither acknowledged this as an error nor tried to give any counterargument about how Lurch was wrong in his criticism. Instead you gave no reply at all. This by itself would have perhaps been okay had it been the end of your contributions to the topic, but then you posted this a few days later as if the original post had never been responded to:

To which Lurch gave another response:

Again you gave no response at all to what appears to be a fairly strong rebuttal on his part, despite his note that you didn't respond to the first one. Then later on, you posted a new video, to which Lurch replied with the first quote I noted from him (him challenging you again on the chart issue). Despite this additional challenge, you gave no reply to him. I actually held off on this present post for a few days because I wanted to make sure you'd have time to make a reply to Lurch's post--but that hasn't happened.

Have you simply missed his responses? One of Lurch's posts was just above mine, and I know you saw mine because you replied to it. Further, Theologyweb does give you a notice in the upper-right hand corner when someone has quoted your posts. This failure to respond to what seem to be very legitimate problems with the things you've linked to makes it much harder to take them seriously.

In reverse order:

-- I honestly was not fully aware what the little numbers at the upper right of Tweb indicated. But that's clearly a minor point in this.

-- I knew of at least one of Lurch's challenges, but got distracted and forgot about it. Lurch and all, I apologize for the carelessness. I'm noticing I also have a tendency to do flurries of posts when something shiny catches my attention. I'll try to be a bit more disciplined.

-- I can't see the charts Lurch posted, but I accept that Berenson is an inconsistent and unreliable source. I'll limit my posting of his stuff.

Now, I'd like to address Lurch here, in returning to the post that I did copy into this thread

Lurch, while I can understand your reluctance to devote more time to NorrinRadd's claims when he is unwilling to respond to yours, and I must confess that his past behavior of posting things that seem questionable and then not defending them makes me more skeptical of his claims to begin with, part of the reason I made sure to bring this here is because I was curious about your take on it. So if you are willing, I would be curious to see what you have to say about possible problems with the arguments in the link. I am especially wondering about its claims about increased disabilities around the time of the vaccinations beginning, as I do not think I have seen that argument before.

[Terraceth]

Thanks. I "found" this thread when somebody else posted and bumped it back into view. I was going to copy that post here.

That's perfectly fine. However, at this point, one must legitimately ask--are you ever going to respond to any of Lurch's points, which seem quite valid? For example, you completely ignored this post of his that was in response to a video you posted several days ago in this topic:

Still not going to comment about how one of your primary sources can't even read a graph?

Admittedly, this one is not directly addressing the video in the post, but it is in reference to what seems to be an issue: You continually ignoring counterpoints.

Here was the history of you in this topic. You first entered it https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...50#post1419950 in which you posted a bunch of links to Alex Berenson. Lurch gave a response to one of them at https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...78#post1420178, saying out his entire argument was the result of him misreading a chart,. This appeared to be an absolutely lethal rebuttal to that argument of Berenson and additionally cast considerable doubt on everything else he had to say (as all of your links were from him) if he was going to goof up that badly.

You neither acknowledged this as an error nor tried to give any counterargument about how Lurch was wrong in his criticism. Instead you gave no reply at all. This by itself would have perhaps been okay had it been the end of your contributions to the topic, but then you posted this a few days later as if the original post had never been responded to:

Dr. Campbell -- Viral transmission not tested in Pfizer trials

To which Lurch gave another response:

First, I'm going to note that you're not even bothering to respond to the fact that one of the sources you're promoting can't even seem to read and/or understand the text under a graph.


In any case, no, the clinical trials of the vaccines did not focus on transmission; it focused on mortality and severe health consequences, because those are easy to measure objectively, and were the consequences that we most wanted to avoid. Transmission depends on exposure of other people, which is extremely difficult to measure objectively, hard to track, extremely expensive given all the PCR tests that had to be done, and relies on the assumption that the vaccinated individual was the only source of exposure for other people. So no, it wasn't tracked, the Pharma companies didn't claim they were in the documents they submitted to regulators, and the regulators discussed this openly in public hearings.

So why are you treating it like a revelation?

Again you gave no response at all to what appears to be a fairly strong rebuttal on his part, despite his note that you didn't respond to the first one. Then later on, you posted a new video, to which Lurch replied with the first quote I noted from him (him challenging you again on the chart issue). Despite this additional challenge, you gave no reply to him. I actually held off on this present post for a few days because I wanted to make sure you'd have time to make a reply to Lurch's post--but that hasn't happened.

Have you simply missed his responses? One of Lurch's posts was just above mine, and I know you saw mine because you replied to it. Further, Theologyweb does give you a notice in the upper-right hand corner when someone has quoted your posts. This failure to respond to what seem to be very legitimate problems with the things you've linked to makes it much harder to take them seriously.

Now, I'd like to address Lurch here, in returning to the post that I did copy into this thread

Can't find the Official Anti-Vax Thread, or whatever it's called, so dropping this here.

It's via Rob Malone, but it's from Phinance Technologies, talking about their research and analysis of excess deaths and disabilities correlating with widespread mRNA jabbing. "The Dilemma of the Vaccinated."

Lurch, while I can understand your reluctance to devote more time to NorrinRadd's claims when he is unwilling to respond to yours, and I must confess that his past behavior of posting things that seem questionable and then not defending them makes me more skeptical of his claims to begin with, part of the reason I made sure to bring this here is because I was curious about your take on it. So if you are willing, I would be curious to see what you have to say about possible problems with the arguments in the link. I am especially wondering about its claims about increased disabilities around the time of the vaccinations beginning, as I do not think I have seen that argument before.

[Seeker]

They recommend waiting 3 months since an infection before getting a booster, and I'm still in that period, but looking forward to when I can get the bivalent version. Data on it look pretty good from what I've read.

Dear Lurch, while we're at it, do you think the flu shot is worth it for younger people? Say, from 10-60 year range.

If not, then why the campaign? It's not often on the media as Covid is, but it's still ''widespread'', so as to say.

[NorrinRadd]

NorrinRadd posted this in another topic a few days ago (see https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...52#post1429952), but as his message noted it was apparently supposed to go here, so I'll just post it here:
Admittedly, it seems he did find this topic afterwards... but as that wasn't posted here, I figured I might as well do it for him (not sure if replies should go here or in the original topic--I guess they could be put in both).

Thanks. I "found" this thread when somebody else posted and bumped it back into view. I was going to copy that post here.

[Terraceth]

NorrinRadd posted this in another topic a few days ago (see https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...52#post1429952), but as his message noted it was apparently supposed to go here, so I'll just post it here:

Can't find the Official Anti-Vax Thread, or whatever it's called, so dropping this here.

It's via Rob Malone, but it's from Phinance Technologies, talking about their research and analysis of excess deaths and disabilities correlating with widespread mRNA jabbing. "The Dilemma of the Vaccinated."

Admittedly, it seems he did find this topic afterwards... but as that wasn't posted here, I figured I might as well do it for him (not sure if replies should go here or in the original topic--I guess they could be put in both).

[TheLurch]

Portion of debate in UK Parliment.]

Still not going to comment about how one of your primary sources can't even read a graph?

[NorrinRadd]

Portion of debate in UK Parliment.

[TheLurch]

Not that anyone *cares* or anything like that, but I took my third Covid shot a few days ago, and the fourth is scheduled for March or April 2023, I think.

I was quite "late" In getting my third shot, though.

They recommend waiting 3 months since an infection before getting a booster, and I'm still in that period, but looking forward to when I can get the bivalent version. Data on it look pretty good from what I've read.

[Seeker]

Not that anyone *cares* or anything like that, but I took my third Covid shot a few days ago, and the fourth is scheduled for March or April 2023, I think.

I was quite "late" In getting my third shot, though.

[TheLurch]

The bivalent vaccine in that clinical study (original and omicron BA.1) is not the bivalent vaccine that was authorized (original and BA.4/BA.5).

Ah, thanks for clarifying.