Thanks anti-vaxxers

[billpuntonsghost]

..but the idea anti vaxxers are the same people who refused the Covid vaccine is a false presupposition . There’s your problem, trying to equate anti vaxxers with people who refused the Covid vaccine. If you state to me anti vaxxers are not every person who refused the Covid vaccine,I would agree with you. Tried and tested vaccines with ten and even more years of careful research – and results of any serious side -effects analysed,should be taken no doubt. Those that haven’t and have serious side -effects shouldn’t.

[billpuntonsghost]

[Siderite]

I have not said the two are always the same people. Yawn.

[Iron Age]

Humour me.

Can someone tell me what tests were NOT done on the COVID vaccine.
And it’s no use saying that the evidence is out there.

It seems to me that some of the most vociferous opponents to vaccination are fundementalist of one creed or the other.

[billpuntonsghost]

Tests on new virus vaccines can take a minimum of 10 years or even longer to be allowed and deemed safe. This was not the case with the Covid vaccines,they were an emergency vaccine,with not the same level of scrutiny . Even now the large adverse reactions to this emergency drug are not being investigated,the evidence is out there ,but the media remain silent.

[Siderite]

I wonder why drug companies fast tracked through bureaucratic stages during a pandemic and didn’t just wait for a decade while the virus was killing vulnerable people. They hardly made it a secret as to why it was a quick turnover.

[Iron Age]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

Tests on new virus vaccines can take a minimum of 10 years or even longer to be allowed and deemed safe. This was not the case with the Covid vaccines,they were an emergency vaccine,with not the same level of scrutiny . Even now the large adverse reactions to this emergency drug are not being investigated,the evidence is out there ,but the media remain silent.

Not really correct, the only reason for the often misquoted 10 years is that the tests are peer reviewed, there is no time limit to peer reviewing it’s just trying to get the reviewers to pull their collective fingers out, a slow process usually, documents left on desks for ages.
As with COVID, backsides were kicked, result, speed.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Heath, Iron-awe, Siderite

[billpuntonsghost]

“As with COVID,backsides were kicked,result,speed.
Oh dear,if that is how the system works😂
Nothing replaces time and controlled analysis that requires years of study for it to be given approval ( that’s how it use to be!)
The truth is this rushed through “emergency drug” didn’t have 100% security- how could it?? The consequences are being seen around the world.

[Siderite]

There were no steps missed in the trials compared with other vaccines. Waiting in a backflow isn’t vital time.

“The truth is this rushed through “emergency drug” didn’t have 100% security- how could it?? The consequences are being seen around the world.”

Maybe in fantasy land, but not in reality.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe

[Northumbiron]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

Tests on new virus vaccines can take a minimum of 10 years or even longer to be allowed and deemed safe. This was not the case with the Covid vaccines,they were an emergency vaccine,with not the same level of scrutiny . Even now the large adverse reactions to this emergency drug are not being investigated,the evidence is out there ,but the media remain silent.

Bullshit! Vaccines for SARS related epidemics had been under development since 2004/5.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Heath, Siderite

[Siderite]

Also mRNA vaccines had been a growing field of research for years and were close to becoming a thing anyway, regardless of the covid pandemic. They weren’t starting from scratch in March 2020. They just prioritised the covid vaccine, so stages ran faster than usual (less delay time and queueing) from then on, using research findings which had already been yielded nlny mRNA research in recent years prior to then.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Heath, Northumbiron

[Northumbiron]

BTW The OP is was not about Covid, it was about the growing number of anti-vaxxers.

Something I was experiencing both as a parent and a schoolteacher in the 1990s. 25 years before Covid.

[64]

I love it when they say “do your own research” then present a well edited video by someone else

[billpuntonsghost]

[Siderite]

I suppose any hope of discussion over the measles vaccine issue is now forlorn, now bpg has turned it into his paranoid conspiracy cinema club for covid.

[Deereyme66]

‘Not another one?!?!’

[Northumbiron]

Poor old Alcazar. He’s missing all the fun!

[Siderite]

Studies indicate that COVID-19 vaccination doesn’t increase risk of death, despite misleading video on Europe excess death by John Campbell

[billpuntonsghost]

“…these published studies”( show vaccinated people aren’t more likely to die than unvaccinated people)Could you put them on here to validate the claim?

[Siderite]

They’re linked in the article, so I don’t see the point. Anyone interested can access through that. I am also sceptical of your ability to scrutinise studies without bias, given you have gravitated to correlation = causation fallacies already, without thought for the before mentioned strained healthcare and indeed increased likelihood of comorbidities from having covid.

[billpuntonsghost]

“They’re linked in the article”,so I don’t see the point?
Come on rub my face in it, put the evidence on here, show the rest of here that your sources are sound.

[Siderite]

If you cannot be bothered to read the article, where the link is, why should I bother? You’re clearly not interested in actually understanding if you aren’t bothering to read this, never mind another.

[TheJuryeffsOut]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

“They’re linked in the article”,so I don’t see the point?
Come on rub my face in it, put the evidence on here, show the rest of here that your sources are sound.

Here’s some of it from the article –

REFERENCES

1 – Xie et al. (2022) Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19. Nature Medicine.
2 – Yuk et al. (2023) Association of COVID-19 with short- and long-term risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality: a prospective cohort in UK Biobank. Cardiovascular Research.
3 – Raisi-Estabragh et al. (2022) Cardiovascular disease and mortality sequelae of COVID-19 in the UK Biobank. Heart.
4 – Xu et al. (2021) COVID-19 Vaccination and Non–COVID-19 Mortality Risk — Seven Integrated Health Care Organizations, United States, December 14, 2020–July 31, 2021. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
5 – Bilinski et al. (2023) COVID-19 and Excess All-Cause Mortality in the US and 20 Comparison Countries, June 2021-March 2022. JAMA Network.
6 – Tu et al. (2023) SARS-CoV-2 Infection, Hospitalization, and Death in Vaccinated and Infected Individuals by Age Groups in Indiana, 2021‒2022. American Journal of Public Health.

And some YouTube which you obviously rely on –

[Iron-awe]

That’s some fine I say fine I say dam fine YouTube posting there boy. 🐔

1 user thanked author for this post.

TheJuryeffsOut

[billpuntonsghost]

The ad- hom attacks are laughable.
These references , do you understand any of them?
John Campbell goes through scientific papers,with analysis , not veering from given facts.
Your counter evidence has no substance- unless you can enlighten me further?
“Waiting for another cartoon”, to show your intelligence.

[Iron Age]

Is it peer reviewed?
If not it’s just a matter of opinion.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Siderite

[billpuntonsghost]

I also wonder if any have (posting on here)studied these findings. I very much doubt it. I’ll start with you,Siderite,which paper did you find the most compelling?

[Siderite]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

The ad- hom attacks are laughable.
These references , do you understand any of them?
John Campbell goes through scientific papers,with analysis , not veering from given facts.
Your counter evidence has no substance- unless you can enlighten me further?
“Waiting for another cartoon”, to show your intelligence.

I take it you haven’t read them then. Actual analysis of where excess deaths come from, bad. One guy spoonfeeding his interpretation, making correlation = causation fallacies with vaccine intake and excess deaths, good. In opposite world.

[Siderite]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

I also wonder if any have (posting on here)studied these findings. I very much doubt it. I’ll start with you,Siderite,which paper did you find the most compelling?

I take it you haven’t read them and are just pontificating. It’s not my job to read articles and summarise sources for you, especially since you couldn’t be bothered to read past a few sentences.

[Siderite]

Also, please learn what an ad hominem is.

[Author]

Posts