Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Anti-Vaxx 101 Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post

    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.
    Last edited by Seeker; 11-26-2022, 07:10 AM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

      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:
      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post

      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:
      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
      Dr. Campbell -- Viral transmission not tested in Pfizer trials


      To which Lurch gave another response:
      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
      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
      Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
      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.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
        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.
        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

        Beige Federalist.

        Nationalist Christian.

        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

        Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

        Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

        Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

        Justice for Matthew Perna!

        Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
          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.
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
            -- 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.
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #66
              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.”

              ...


              Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

              Beige Federalist.

              Nationalist Christian.

              "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

              Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

              Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

              Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

              Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

              Justice for Matthew Perna!

              Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Seeker View Post

                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                    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.

                    That, and I think he is upset he didn't get credit or a cut of the profit for him having come up with the idea for the vaccine. Sour Grapes. And he seems like a ego nut who is relishing in the notoriety he gets from the conspiracy groups now. If he can't get his portion of fame from the science community he will take it wherever he can.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Seeker View Post

                      Although Lurch didn't respond, anyone is welcome to "enlighten" me, of course.
                      Sorry, haven't really looked into the flu shot. I started getting them after a combination of things: hitting 50 and having a really unpleasant infection a few years back. But that's anecdote, and I haven't really looked into the data behind the current recommendations.
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post


                        That, and I think he is upset he didn't get credit or a cut of the profit for him having come up with the idea for the vaccine. Sour Grapes. And he seems like a ego nut who is relishing in the notoriety he gets from the conspiracy groups now. If he can't get his portion of fame from the science community he will take it wherever he can.
                        He didn't even come up with the idea for a vaccine. He was one of a number of people who did work on the development of mRNAs for gene expression in eukaryotic cells. He's just leveraging that background role to try to give things he believes personally scientific credibility they don't deserve.

                        Your ego nut explanation is a not-unreasonable guess as to why he wants that credibility.

                        In any case, lots of studies showing the risk of problematic myocarditis is much higher with severe COVID infections.
                        Myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection vs. COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis: "These findings support the continued use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines among all eligible persons per CDC and WHO recommendations."

                        Risk of Myocarditis After Sequential Doses of COVID-19 Vaccine and SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Age and Sex: "Overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination and remains modest after sequential doses including a booster dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine."

                        The myocarditis risk is highest in young men, but tends to be brief and resolve with no need for treatment. If someone's medical history indicates they are at high risk from myocarditis, they should look into getting a non-mRNA vaccine, such as the ones from J&J or Novavax.
                        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post


                          That, and I think he is upset he didn't get credit or a cut of the profit for him having come up with the idea for the vaccine. Sour Grapes. And he seems like a ego nut who is relishing in the notoriety he gets from the conspiracy groups now. If he can't get his portion of fame from the science community he will take it wherever he can.
                          I do try to bear that possibility in mind.

                          There's also the fact (assuming he's not straight-up lying) that he got almost fatally sick shortly after receiving one of the shots. That would be highly motivating.
                          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                          Beige Federalist.

                          Nationalist Christian.

                          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                          Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

                          Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                          Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                          Justice for Matthew Perna!

                          Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                          Comment


                          • #73

                            Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                            You can tell him he's right. Because before the CDC ridiculously changed the definition of the word "vaccine" in 2021, it meant, and still does mean:

                            a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and [bold] provide immunity[/bold] against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.


                            The CDC, like so many left-leaning persons these days, (see "birthing person", for example) changed the definition of the bolded words to "provide protection" after they saw that the shot didn’t prevent people from getting the disease.

                            These anti-covid shots should not be called vaccines. And instead of changing the definition of the word, the CDC should have apologized and started calling it something other than "vaccine".

                            No vaccine in existence fits your stupid misunderstanding of immunity.If you understood how the immune system works (you don't) and understood how vaccines work (you don't), you'd know that. Like Stoic said, the definition was reworded because ignorant and arrogant people like you started braying about how this "isn't a real vaccine" based on your complete ignorance of how vaccines actually work.

                            And you have no excuse for being this ignorant in the first place because the flu vaccine never provided anywhere near 100% immunity either. Something does not have to provide absolute immunity to be a vaccine. There is no such thing as a vaccine that provides absolute immunity because vaccines don't fight viruses, they prime the adaptive branch of the immune system to fight a specific pathogen. If your immune system is weak you will get less (or no) protection. Depending on the virus pathology your adaptive immune system may not get much of a chance to fight them until they spread to areas where the virus is accessible. If the virus is lethal enough no amount of immune response will save you. Etc.

                            Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                            What if we "only" put a trace of strychnine in glasses of water and gave them to 100 people, but "only" half of them felt any effect?
                            What if the same spike protein was reproduced endlessly, and not fixed in its initial state (like it is in the vaccine) so that it can fuse with cell membranes? This is why scientifically illiterate ignoramuses shouldn't comment on the topic. You have no idea what you're talking about but are simultaneously extremely confident in your gross ignorance.

                            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              When your knowledge of molecular biology is below high school level and you just gotta inform everyone of it:

                              Originally posted by mossrose View Post

                              Just out of curiosity, do you know what mRNA does down the road to a very small child?
                              "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                              There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post


                                That, and I think he is upset he didn't get credit or a cut of the profit for him having come up with the idea for the vaccine. Sour Grapes. And he seems like a ego nut who is relishing in the notoriety he gets from the conspiracy groups now. If he can't get his portion of fame from the science community he will take it wherever he can.
                                Audience capture also happens with p much every social media personality. The more they cater to the audience, the better feedback they get, which encourages them to cater more and more to the audience, with no real regard for facts or truth. IE: I know a guy who filmed himself inside the capitol saying he & others broke into the capitol on January 6. He got higher and higher off his "predictions" to the point where he thought Trump was sending him psychic messages only he and the chosen ones could receive. Started off getting into JFK conspiracies, then qanon. When Trump lost the election he lost his marbles completely.
                                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, 01-28-2023, 10:53 AM
                                0 responses
                                5 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by tabibito, 01-18-2023, 09:26 AM
                                17 responses
                                69 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by rogue06, 01-13-2023, 11:27 AM
                                11 responses
                                67 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 01-09-2023, 12:13 PM
                                2 responses
                                15 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 01-06-2023, 10:19 AM
                                0 responses
                                18 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X