Vax doubt slobber continues.

[Dave-G]

Been sent this link - opinions invited but keep in mind the fairly regular doubt stories posted around tinternet sometimes cause me to think about there being no smoke without fire. 

https://theexpose.uk/2021/09/12/three-studies-find-the-covid-19-vaccines-do-not-work/

[Scully]

I haven’t looked at the link, but in which way do they not work? Isn’t it common knowledge that the vaccine won’t prevent anyone getting Covid? 

[walshie]

You get stories in favour of and stories against. As we aren't in the loop, who knows who to believe? It's all printed words.

[Fatcatsplat]

37 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

Been sent this link - opinions invited but keep in mind the fairly regular doubt stories posted around tinternet sometimes cause me to think about there being no smoke without fire. 

https://theexpose.uk/2021/09/12/three-studies-find-the-covid-19-vaccines-do-not-work/

It stops you dying - That's good enough for me

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, Fatcatsplat said:

It stops you dying - That's good enough for me

Mostly.

[islandgun]

13 minutes ago, oowee said:

Mostly.

Mostly, is also good enough for me 

[oowee]

54 minutes ago, islandgun said:

Mostly, is also good enough for me 

Me too. looking fwd to getting a booster.

[Docleo]

4 hours ago, Dave-G said:

Been sent this link - opinions invited but keep in mind the fairly regular doubt stories posted around tinternet sometimes cause me to think about there being no smoke without fire. 

https://theexpose.uk/2021/09/12/three-studies-find-the-covid-19-vaccines-do-not-work/

My opinion: it is fake (did not even bother to read it).

The facts:  it is not a peer reviewed publication (and not published in any acknowledged scientific journal). It looks like the author has never published a scientific paper and there are no evidences she really exists (or has all the scientific background she claims to have). 

 

 

 

[WalkedUp]

11 hours ago, Docleo said:

My opinion: it is fake (did not even bother to read it).

The facts:  it is not a peer reviewed publication (and not published in any acknowledged scientific journal). It looks like the author has never published a scientific paper and there are no evidences she really exists (or has all the scientific background she claims to have). 

 

 

 

+1 

[Mungler]

16 hours ago, Dave-G said:

Been sent this link - opinions invited but keep in mind the fairly regular doubt stories posted around tinternet sometimes cause me to think about there being no smoke without fire. 

https://theexpose.uk/2021/09/12/three-studies-find-the-covid-19-vaccines-do-not-work/

Dave, you’ve got to stop fishing round the internet and spinning your head with total nonsense.

Have a look at this:

https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/562923a1

I just googled the name of the doctor they keep quoting - Nina Pierpont, who as it happens is known to specialise in ‘wind turbine syndrome’, not virology or such like. 

[Dave-G]

4 hours ago, Mungler said:

Dave, you’ve got to stop fishing round the internet and spinning your head with total nonsense.

Have a look at this:

https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/562923a1

I just googled the name of the doctor they keep quoting - Nina Pierpont, who as it happens is known to specialise in ‘wind turbine syndrome’, not virology or such like. 

Lol, I don't go fishing - I get sent the stuff by a family member who genuinely feels protective towards me, knowing I'm somewhere on a certain spectrum. 

I rather think he is too.

Thank you for the very helpful link Mungler. 

[Rewulf]

17 hours ago, Docleo said:

My opinion: it is fake (did not even bother to read it).

The facts:  it is not a peer reviewed publication (and not published in any acknowledged scientific journal). It looks like the author has never published a scientific paper and there are no evidences she really exists (or has all the scientific background she claims to have). 

 

 

 

Whilst its quite funny that you feel comfortable declaring something to be fake, without even bothering to read it , and even declaring the person who wrote it a possible fraud  'who might not even exist' you might like to see some balance to the story.
 

https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/562923a1

[Vince Green]

There are hundreds of loonie anti vax websites churning out dangerous rubbish

[enfieldspares]

23 hours ago, Scully said:

I haven’t looked at the link, but in which way do they not work? Isn’t it common knowledge that the vaccine won’t prevent anyone getting Covid? 

That. 100%. A work colleague had BOTH doses some five or six months ago. She has just returned from having been quite poorly ill. With...covid!

[Docleo]

5 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Whilst its quite funny that you feel comfortable declaring something to be fake, without even bothering to read it , and even declaring the person who wrote it a possible fraud  'who might not even exist' you might like to see some balance to the story.
 

https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/562923a1

Thanks for the link Rewulf. 

The reason why I feel comfortable with my previous statements is that I spent the best part of my life studying pharmacology (I have a PhD in pharmacology) and how new medicines work (or do not). I published nearly 30 articles in peer reviewed scientific journals and read 1000s in my life. Believe me, when you have spent soo many years in the field, you don't need to read several pages of cow s....t to realise it is nonsense (reading few lines is more than enough) . 

As for the author, there are no traces of her as a scientist (you might want to have a look to pubmed, an official database of all the scientific literature), thus my doubt on her identity/background. 

It is concerning how people tend to believe to anything found on the internet. 

 

 

 

[Rewulf]

3 hours ago, Docleo said:

It is concerning how people tend to believe to anything found on the internet.

It's not about what people believe on the Internet, or the papers, or TV. 

People have been believing all kinds of rubbish for thousands of years, and probably will for thousands more. 

It's the thought process where one claims to know what's fake before they've even read/seen it!? 

It doesn't matter how intelligent you are, or what doctorates you have, or even how many peer reviewed studies you've read, to make a judgement call without even reading it, or as you admitted, read 'a few lines'? 

Have you never read a study and decided you don't agree with all its findings? 

[Docleo]

8 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Have you never read a study and decided you don't agree with all its findings? 

If a study is scientifically correct, there is no need to agree or disagree. This is the beauty of science, it is not an opinion (and is not "democratic"). 

The article we are discussing about is not a study.

People should stop spreading nonsense pretending to be expert. 

 

 

[hod]

37 minutes ago, Docleo said:

If a study is scientifically correct, there is no need to agree or disagree. This is the beauty of science, it is not an opinion (and is not "democratic"). 

The article we are discussing about is not a study.

People should stop spreading nonsense pretending to be expert. 

 

 

Crux of the matter. Science adjusts its views based on evidence. 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Docleo said:

If a study is scientifically correct, there is no need to agree or disagree.

I can see the problem now.
If enough of you decide its correct , there is no reason to question it.

Sounds a bit like religion.

1 hour ago, Docleo said:

This is the beauty of science, it is not an opinion (and is not "democratic"). 

Really ?
Again , sounds like blind unwavering 'faith' .

 

43 minutes ago, hod said:

crux of the matter. Science adjusts its views based on evidence. 

Thats a more sensible approach, but Docleo disagrees, if enough scientists agree on something , there is no further need to question the findings ?

This rigid thinking is endemic within the science community, and poorly serves society in general.

Many scientific theories , that were taken as fact , have been disproven over the past century, then disproven again , each time the 'facts' have been altered, and everyone has given themselves a pat on the back at a job well done.

I couldnt care less about the 'findings' of Ms Pierpont, whether they are peer reviewed or not, the thing that concerns me is the inability to think outside of the rigid system of 'accepted' scientific 'facts' .

[Docleo]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

I can see the problem now.
If enough of you decide its correct , there is no reason to question it.

Sounds a bit like religion.

Really ?
Again , sounds like blind unwavering 'faith' .

 

Thats a more sensible approach, but Docleo disagrees, if enough scientists agree on something , there is no further need to question the findings ?

This rigid thinking is endemic within the science community, and poorly serves society in general.

Many scientific theories , that were taken as fact , have been disproven over the past century, then disproven again , each time the 'facts' have been altered, and everyone has given themselves a pat on the back at a job well done.

I couldnt care less about the 'findings' of Ms Pierpont, whether they are peer reviewed or not, the thing that concerns me is the inability to think outside of the rigid system of 'accepted' scientific 'facts' 

Not sure what you want to prove with your "attack" ? That you have a lot of time to spend on the Internet pretending to be an expert on all the aspect of knowledge? 

Good for you. 

The OP asked for an opinion and I gave mine.   

 

 

[timps]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

This rigid thinking is endemic within the science community, and poorly serves society in general.

Many scientific theories , that were taken as fact , have been disproven over the past century, then disproven again , each time the 'facts' have been altered, and everyone has given themselves a pat on the back at a job well done.

I couldnt care less about the 'findings' of Ms Pierpont, whether they are peer reviewed or not, the thing that concerns me is the inability to think outside of the rigid system of 'accepted' scientific 'facts' .

Ridged thinking is only endemic in the scientific community unless proven otherwise.

Speaking as someone who works in the scientific community we cannot get stuck in debate after debate with unproven disagreements from fringe thinkers, we need to move on otherwise every scientific debate would start with is the earth flat and never move on.You have to accept certain facts unless proved to the contrary otherwise science would stagnate in the past.

Ms Pierpont hasn’t conducted any studies, hasn’t done any tests, clinical or otherwise,hasn’t proved any theory’s. All she has done has quoted other people’s work, mostly out of context, to try prove her own narrative in nothing more than a newspaper editorial.

 

If she had come forward with case studies / tests of her own then more in the scientific communities would giver her the time of day or at least review it.

As she hasn’t we are waiting for the people who actually carried out the case studies to comment further and non have so far said COVID vaccines are ineffective.

[Rewulf]

46 minutes ago, Docleo said:

Not sure what you want to prove with your "attack" ? That you have a lot of time to spend on the Internet pretending to be an expert on all the aspect of knowledge? 

Im not 'pretending to be an expert' on anything , and if you get so butt hurt because someone questions your opinion, your life must be ... interesting...

Or is it because you dont believe Im qualified to question your assumption, that anything put forward that isnt peer reviewed, should automatically be put into fake news category ?

24 minutes ago, timps said:

Speaking as someone who works in the scientific community we cannot get stuck in debate after debate with unproven disagreements from fringe thinkers, we need to move on otherwise every scientific debate would start with is the earth flat and never move on.You have to accept certain facts unless proved to the contrary otherwise science would stagnate in the past.

I was wondering when flat earth would rear its head 

25 minutes ago, timps said:

Ms Pierpont hasn’t conducted any studies, hasn’t done any tests, clinical or otherwise,hasn’t proved any theory’s. All she has done has quoted other people’s work, mostly out of context, to try prove her own narrative in nothing more than a newspaper editorial.

I cant disagree with any of that, and no , you shouldnt have to read and digest everything put forward, you would spend your entire life doing so if you did.
But trashing everything that doesnt follow the 'approved ' way of thinking is like I said , like blindly following a religion.

Science is often wrong, then it gets swept under the carpet, and quietly forgotton about, but at some point in time , that science, and the scientific community who boldly stated their reputations that it was FACT , were wrong.
Can we not at least agree that, some fringe scientists, who dont follow the usual path, push forward new thinking , theories and practices, are sometimes not the misguided weirdos that we are lead to believe ?

 

35 minutes ago, timps said:

If she had come forward with case studies / tests of her own then more in the scientific communities would giver her the time of day or at least review it.

As she hasn’t we are waiting for the people who actually carried out the case studies to comment further and non have so far said COVID vaccines are ineffective.

Context.
Ineffective , totally , partially , slightly ?

No sane person is going to say they are totally ineffective , that is clear.
Its accepted that they are slightly ineffective, that too is clear.

Are they less effective than we were lead to believe , that is the real question , and the main point of the piece.
 

[timps]

51 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Can we not at least agree that, some fringe scientists, who dont follow the usual path, push forward new thinking , theories and practices, are sometimes not the misguided weirdos that we are lead to believe ?

I agree a fringe thinker with proof and I stress the word proof are to be encouraged. Most of the worlds greatest scientists were considered heretics at one point in history. However people who will say anything or bend the facts to jump on a platform or bandwagon are a different matter.

51 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Context.
Ineffective , totally , partially , slightly ?

No sane person is going to say they are totally ineffective , that is clear.
Its accepted that they are slightly ineffective, that too is clear.

Are they less effective than we were lead to believe , that is the real question , and the main point of the piece

No the main point of the piece was to say :-

“Which leads the Doctor of Medicine to conclude that natural immunity is much more protective than vaccination because all severities of Covid-19 illness produce healthy levels of natural immunity.”

Which is utter rubbish and is saying they are totally ineffective as it’s better not to be vaccinate not that they are less effective.

 

Out of Context is quite simple :- take the figures of the studies out of all context.

It’s like me looking at a case study in Sweden.

In this study 500 people were tested,

80% tested positive,

Of this 80% positive 100% were Swedish nationals.

 

In conclusion COVID only effects Swedish people

 

The figures are right but the context is rubbish.

I could use the same study and  because 100%  of all those that tested negative were also Swedish then COVID does not effect Swedish people depending on my narrative.

She might be a fringe thinker but her proof to back up her thinking is ******** so I’ll  ignore her.

Edited September 15, 2021 by timps

[Rewulf]

46 minutes ago, timps said:

I agree a fringe thinker with proof and I stress the word proof are to be encouraged. Most of the worlds greatest scientists were considered heretics at one point in history. However people who will say anything or bend the facts to jump on a platform or bandwagon are a different matter.

That could work if there were some kind of benefit to her claims ?
To be clear , I dont agree with what she is saying, surely natural immunity from contact, AND vaccination , are beneficial in combatting the disease ?
But its the seemingly fanatical condemnation when anyone suggests a different approach.

We are getting to the point where discrimination will occur on those who do not wish to be vaxxed, which is pretty worrying.
Its as if the frenzy of covid wiping out humanity has taken hold , where anything and everything is possible when it comes to combatting it, which is unprecedented.
Would you advocate someone losing their literal freedom if they refuse the jab ?

So how does this quote..

55 minutes ago, timps said:

“Which leads the Doctor of Medicine to conclude that natural immunity is much more protective than vaccination because all severities of Covid-19 illness produce healthy levels of natural immunity.”

Translate into this (in your opinion)

 

55 minutes ago, timps said:

Which is utter rubbish and is saying they are totally ineffective as it’s better not to be vaccinate not that they are less effective.

Where does she say . 'Do not get vaccinated'  ?

[Vince Green]

23 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

That. 100%. A work colleague had BOTH doses some five or six months ago. She has just returned from having been quite poorly ill. With...covid!

Yes but at least she returned. 

its a bit like wearing a seat belt in a car. You can still die in a crash but your chances of survival are greatly improved by wearing one