Shocking, young, fit and healthy people don't want Covid jab.

[tweedledee]

It has to be a personal choice folks!!!!!!....

[TIGHTCHOKE]

On 03/10/2021 at 15:43, clangerman said:

what common sense the clowns just emptied every garage in the country on nothing more than a rumour 

 

There you have it, herd immunity was the buzz word once.

 

Now it is HERD STUPIDITY!

[treetree]

On 02/10/2021 at 20:09, henry d said:

If we force people to stay at home do we become a totalitarian state?

If not what is the difference?

False dichotomy.

[Guest cookoff013]

Its all a joke, anti-vaxers have the best platform to spread bull. Thats the media. When mass population supports influencers over experts its a recipe for disaster. Such as shooting blanks after having vax. Im all for freedom of speech . but cant win over pure stupidity. 

Sooner or later things will change. 

What would happen if a new varient came out and is more damaging to the younger generation?

[JohnfromUK]

10 minutes ago, cookoff013 said:

Its all a joke, anti-vaxers have the best platform to spread bull. Thats the media. When mass population supports influencers over experts its a recipe for disaster. Such as shooting blanks after having vax. Im all for freedom of speech . but cant win over pure stupidity. 

Sooner or later things will change. 

What would happen if a new varient came out and is more damaging to the younger generation?

I understand what you are saying.  I am against making vaccination compulsory (with exceptions for working in some occupations where others would be put at risk possibly).  What I am not against is tearing (some) down false information about vaccines, covid etc., but where do you draw the line? 

• Covid is caused by 5G - blatantly false - tear down.
• Covid vaccines implant a microchip giving Bill Gates (!!) control - blatantly false - tear down.
• Covid vaccine makes you sterile - false - but harder to prove 100% - tear down? 
• Covid vaccine risks death/serious illness from blood clots.  - not in fact false - but very very unlikely and a much lower risk that real Covid - tear down?
• Covid is no risk to young and healthy.  Not true, but the risk is very very low. - tear down?

It is quite hard to draw a line.

[Guest cookoff013]

The line should rule out the complete bonkers antivax info. 

And the sponsorship of duff information by social media.

[Stonepark]

42 minutes ago, cookoff013 said:

Its all a joke, anti-vaxers have the best platform to spread bull. Thats the media. When mass population supports influencers over experts its a recipe for disaster. Such as shooting blanks after having vax. Im all for freedom of speech . but cant win over pure stupidity. 

Sooner or later things will change. 

What would happen if a new varient came out and is more damaging to the younger generation?

Experts likewise have been spouting nothing but bull either.... Covid19 survival rate is 99.85%, 

 

Remeber the bull spread that masks are required, well SCIENTIFIC studies show that masks make no significant difference to transmission and are a  placebo, the Jabs don't stop you getting the virus, don't stop you transmitting the virus and might attenuate the severity of the virus in those who are immuno compromised but that is it.

The supposedly Expert  reccommended jab required emergency use authorisation and NO alternative treatments so to make money they promoted the jabs, even though Covid19 was stopped in it's tracks in India by Ivermectin a safe, economical known pre-existing treatment regime, now Pfzer et al are all bringing out trreatments (basically reworked Ivermectin like substances so they can be patenented and sold at high cost).

There was no reason to jab anyone who did not have severe underlying conditions as only they were at risk.

The average age of people dying in the UK is 78, the average age of Covid19 deaths is 82, Covid19 is not a significant risk to anyone who is healthy and of working age.

Once we understood what was happening in China from the March 2020 data (and before Covid19 really got going worldwide) it was clear from the data that Covid19 was a particular risk to the elderly and those with underlying conditions and supressed immune systems but only ever as a secondary factor.

Heallthy youngsters (under 15) have a 1 in a Million chance of dying from Coivd19, but the Jabs have a 6 in a million chance of killing them, hence even the 'experts' could not reccommend giving them the jab but were over ruled politically, so much for Science!

Whilst there is a lot of bull spread on both sides, personal choice and freedom has to remain sacrosanct and that includes personal responsibility to have accepted a jab which may in the future kill you but we don't know because SCIENCE was ignored in that full testing was not carried out and instead of looking for a treatment from existing meds, we have jumped down the rabbit hole of MRNA technology which even the inventor does not reccommend how we have used it and he was the Expert who developed it.

 

On top of this, the latest Scientific Israeli study of 600,ooo plus people shows that natural immunity confers uop to 27 times more immunity to Covid19 than the jab... hint our immune systems recognise more than just the spike protein part of the virus as 15% of all common cold viruses are Coronavirus.

So an unjabbed, person who has had Covid and recovered, is less likely to aquire and spread the virus than a jabbed person, remind me who has the passports to identify them as 'contaminiated' .....?  Sounds like a play straight out of the Bovine TB playbook where after vaccination all cattle have to have a passport as without it you cannot tell they have been exposed to real TB or it's just the vaccine.

Edited October 9, 2021 by Stonepark

[Raja Clavata]

Good post Stonepark.

[timps]

 

Quote

Covid19 survival rate is 99.85%

This claim leaves out important context and while the claim contains an element of truth, it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression if presented correctly. The average for an entire country cannot be used to calculate an individual’s chance of dying from the virus.

In the US, for instance, Data from May showed nearly all U.S. deaths from the virus were among people who haven’t received the vaccine which does alter narrative if that was also taken out of context (e.g. Unvaccinated COVID death rate is 99%).

Quote

SCIENTIFIC studies show that masks make no significant difference to transmission 

While there is little empirical, population-level evidence on the effectiveness of face masks at preventing respiratory transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the evidence there is does suggest that the widespread use of face masks by the general public might aid in limiting the SARS-CoV-2 the only way we will find out was by using them.

Quote

the Jabs don't stop you getting the virus, don't stop you transmitting the virus 

This has been proved wrong in so many peer reviewed scientific studies that I’ll just leave that there.

Quote

Covid19 was stopped in it's tracks in India by Ivermectin

This is widely disputed in the scientific community, everyone who has looked at the studies either found widespread fraud (a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on COVID have serious errors or signs of potential fraud) and none have shown any proof of prevention and those trials that do look promising but not conclusive are for treatment, not for prevention, of disease.

Quote

Covid19 is not a significant risk to anyone who is healthy and of working age.

While it is more of a risk for the elderly of age and those with underlying health conditions  they are not the only ones at risk for severe disease.

Quote

Heallthy youngsters (under 15) have a 1 in a Million chance of dying from Coivd19, but the Jabs have a 6 in a million chance of killing them

I would love to know where you got these figures from.

Quote

We have jumped down the rabbit hole of MRNA technology which even the inventor does not reccommend how we have used it and he was the Expert who developed it.

The development of the mRNA vaccines is due to the work of hundreds of researchers, one of which is Robert Malone. However, because crucial hurdles to develop the mRNA vaccines were resolved by many researchers, Malone cannot be claimed the inventor of this vaccine technology only a co contributor. His other co contributors disagree with his stance, so make of that what you will.

Quote

On top of this, the latest Scientific Israeli study of 600,ooo plus people shows that natural immunity confers uop to 27 times more immunity to Covid19 than the jab…

This is not a yet a peer review study and as such should not be used as fact. As I posted earlier the recent University of Oxford study disagrees with it but like this one it isn’t peer reviewed, so we will have to wait to find out which one is correct in its conclusions as they are both claiming different things.

 

How best to tackle this virus is a work in progress and mistakes will be made, however, the scientific proof is that the vaccines have saved lives.

Is the total vaccination and booster jabs for the population including children, pregnant women the way forward?

I don’t know, but misinformation pretending to be scientific fact is definitely not the way forward and does not help the debate.   

[Rob85]

17 hours ago, timps said:

 

This claim leaves out important context and while the claim contains an element of truth, it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression if presented correctly. The average for an entire country cannot be used to calculate an individual’s chance of dying from the virus.

In the US, for instance, Data from May showed nearly all U.S. deaths from the virus were among people who haven’t received the vaccine which does alter narrative if that was also taken out of context (e.g. Unvaccinated COVID death rate is 99%).

While there is little empirical, population-level evidence on the effectiveness of face masks at preventing respiratory transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the evidence there is does suggest that the widespread use of face masks by the general public might aid in limiting the SARS-CoV-2 the only way we will find out was by using them.

This has been proved wrong in so many peer reviewed scientific studies that I’ll just leave that there.

This is widely disputed in the scientific community, everyone who has looked at the studies either found widespread fraud (a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on COVID have serious errors or signs of potential fraud) and none have shown any proof of prevention and those trials that do look promising but not conclusive are for treatment, not for prevention, of disease.

While it is more of a risk for the elderly of age and those with underlying health conditions  they are not the only ones at risk for severe disease.

I would love to know where you got these figures from.

The development of the mRNA vaccines is due to the work of hundreds of researchers, one of which is Robert Malone. However, because crucial hurdles to develop the mRNA vaccines were resolved by many researchers, Malone cannot be claimed the inventor of this vaccine technology only a co contributor. His other co contributors disagree with his stance, so make of that what you will.

This is not a yet a peer review study and as such should not be used as fact. As I posted earlier the recent University of Oxford study disagrees with it but like this one it isn’t peer reviewed, so we will have to wait to find out which one is correct in its conclusions as they are both claiming different things.

 

How best to tackle this virus is a work in progress and mistakes will be made, however, the scientific proof is that the vaccines have saved lives.

Is the total vaccination and booster jabs for the population including children, pregnant women the way forward?

I don’t know, but misinformation pretending to be scientific fact is definitely not the way forward and does not help the debate.   

To further the point about covid survival figures you also have to ask "what kind of survival?" Look at the husband of Kate garraway, Mr Derek draper i thinks his name is, he has survived covid but the man is a complete mess. Basically he receives palliative care at home now.

I have a sports therapy client who comes to see me. Not even 40yrs old, a former international jockey as well as playing hockey. 100% fit and healthy. She had covid, she said it didn't affect her much at the time but my first meeting with her about a year after she had it and she was completely out of breath getting from her car and walking the 25 yards into my treatment room. 

The really high survival figures don't mean that is the number of people who recover and never suffer any long term issues.

[39TDS]

17 hours ago, timps said:

Quote

the Jabs don't stop you getting the virus, don't stop you transmitting the virus 

This has been proved wrong in so many peer reviewed scientific studies that I’ll just leave that there.

Do you really not know anybody that has been jabbed and then later caught covid?

I know enough people that have caught covid even though they have been double jabbed to be able to say your peer reviewed scientific studies are complete rubbish. That makes me suspect the rest of your argument.

[Scully]

I know several who have had the vaccine and then later caught Covid. 
I genuinely believe that at some point everyone of us is going to get it, but hopefully the vaccine will mean the vast vast majority will survive.

It seems rife in my hometown currently. 

[Rewulf]

18 hours ago, timps said:

This has been proved wrong in so many peer reviewed scientific studies that I’ll just leave that there.

This is clearly false, and I cant believe you are seriously trying to make the claim ?

 

18 hours ago, timps said:

This is widely disputed in the scientific community, everyone who has looked at the studies either found widespread fraud (a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on COVID have serious errors or signs of potential fraud) and none have shown any proof of prevention and those trials that do look promising but not conclusive are for treatment, not for prevention, of disease.

Again , clearly false , out of the 26 trials , 1 was found to have used plaguarised material , on the basis of this , the scientific consensus was to ignore all ivermectin trials.

The pharma community closed ranks on ivermectin use , in favour of vaccines  (quite predictably) yet actual use of it in countries that couldnt afford vaccines has shown it to be very successful , yet Western ideology is that it DEFINITELY doesnt work ??

Merck who invented ivermectin 40 years ago , and now cant make any money from its use , as the licence has run out, have now asked for emergency licences for its new anti viral https://www.merck.com/news/merck-and-ridgeback-announce-submission-of-emergency-use-authorization-application-to-the-u-s-fda-for-molnupiravir-an-investigational-oral-antiviral-medicine-for-the-treatment-of-mild-to-moderate-c/  a suspiciously ivermectin style treatment...

18 hours ago, timps said:

While it is more of a risk for the elderly of age and those with underlying health conditions  they are not the only ones at risk for severe disease.

The pope is also a catholic.
Do we lockdown and vaccinate the entire country every year when we have a flu outbreak ?
Ridiculous comment.

 

18 hours ago, timps said:

The development of the mRNA vaccines is due to the work of hundreds of researchers, one of which is Robert Malone. However, because crucial hurdles to develop the mRNA vaccines were resolved by many researchers, Malone cannot be claimed the inventor of this vaccine technology only a co contributor. His other co contributors disagree with his stance, so make of that what you will.

Again , clearly false, I suspect you got the 'hundreds' description from the recently altered Wiki page for Dr Malone ?
He was part of a small team who stumbled upon the idea.

FWIW Malone never claimed to be the sole inventor of MRNA, this is fake news used to discredit him , https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-03-23-me-572-story.html  because he has DARED to claim that MRNA vaccine use to treat covid is flawed.
He has been painted as a far right anti vaxxer for his trouble, a fate reserved for any medical professional who dared to suggest mass vaccination is not always the greatest thing.

 

18 hours ago, timps said:

How best to tackle this virus is a work in progress and mistakes will be made, however, the scientific proof is that the vaccines have saved lives.

Is the total vaccination and booster jabs for the population including children, pregnant women the way forward?

I don’t know, but misinformation pretending to be scientific fact is definitely not the way forward and does not help the debate.   

Interesting way of saying , 'We're not sure if we are doing this right , but we definitely are !'

And 'misinformation' ? Youve just posted a good deal yourself !
I suppose your way forward is the right one, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot antivaxxer and spreader of 'dangerous' fake news ?
It seems to me , that all you need to stay on the right side of science these days is to follow the money 😏
Anything else is heresy ?
 

[timps]

1 hour ago, 39TDS said:

Do you really not know anybody that has been jabbed and then later caught covid?

I know enough people that have caught covid even though they have been double jabbed to be able to say your peer reviewed scientific studies are complete rubbish. That makes me suspect the rest of your argument

I wrote about this in depth on many other posts. However as  repeatedly stated by every study the vaccine is not 100% effective.

The current COVID vaccines are not 100% sterilising (protection from infection) in how they work. 

If a vaccine is 95% effective in preventing death only a percentage of that will be by sterilising (protection from infection). Some vaccines are 100% sterilising in how they work, the COVID ones aren’t that type.

So for a COVID vaccine it is broken down like something like this.

95% protection from death - protection from disease

90% protection from serious illness - protection from disease with mild or moderate symptoms.

60% protection from infection - sterilising. 

 

(All the current vaccines are broken down like the above just the percentages vary depending on which one you look at and the COVID variant )

 

Hence if the percentage protected from infection meets the threshold for herd immunity, then you have herd immunity and the chances of an unprotected person catching the disease is  diminished greatly protecting them. 

Herd immunity is known to start at 60% sterilising protection for other diseases however it is not known what the percentages for Covid are yet. Therefore I’m never going to say it’s achievable until that figure is actually known. 

Also a percentage  of those that are vaccinated but not protected from infection still have the blueprint to fight COVID and instead of being infectious for 10 days with a bad cough they are infectious for a greatly reduced amount of time with mild symptoms (less or no coughing).

This statistically reduces the chance of transmission (r number) and ultimately lowers the % threshold needed for herd Immunity, so it does play a part in herd immunity via vaccines.

A vaccine does not have to be 100% effective to work and achieve herd immunity. 

I know someone who has tested positive twice and doesn’t have the vaccine. So do I now state catching & recovering from  COVID offers no protection?

However, no one I know that is double jabbed has caught it yet so make of that what you will.

Seeing as the scientific studies state a percentage will always test positive regardless of vaccination status renders your argument :

“I know enough people that have caught covid even though they have been double jabbed to be able to say your peer reviewed scientific studies are complete rubbish.”

Completely wrong.  

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, timps said:

The current COVID vaccines are not 100% sterilising (protection from infection) in how they work. 

If a vaccine is 95% effective in preventing death only a percentage of that will be by sterilising (protection from infection). Some vaccines are 100% sterilising in how they work, the COVID ones aren’t that type.

So for a COVID vaccine it is broken down like something like this.

95% protection from death - protection from disease

90% protection from serious illness - protection from disease with mild or moderate symptoms.

60% protection from infection - sterilising. 

This from the BMJ , renders ^this argument inaccurate 

'More vaccinated people are dying of the delta variant of covid than unvaccinated people, according to a recent report from Public Health England. The report shows that 489 of 742 people (65.9%) who died of the delta variant within 28 days of a positive covid test between 1 February 2021 and 2 August 2021, had received at least one dose of the vaccine. 54.1% (402 of 742) had received both doses. This seems like an alarming set of statistics, but with an imperfect vaccine and high vaccination coverage, it is exactly what we would expect.'

20 hours ago, timps said:

Quote

Covid19 is not a significant risk to anyone who is healthy and of working age.

While it is more of a risk for the elderly of age and those with underlying health conditions  they are not the only ones at risk for severe disease.

And this argument is rendered inaccurate by this , also from the BMJ

'The risk of dying from covid doubles roughly every seven years older a patient is. The 35-year difference between a 45-year-old and a 80-year-old means the risk of death between the two patients has doubled five times—equivalently it has increased by a factor of 32. An unvaccinated 70-year-old might be 32 times more likely to die of covid than an unvaccinated 35-year-old. This dramatic variation of the risk profile with age means that even excellent vaccines don’t reduce the risk of death for older people to below the risk for some younger demographics.'

[timps]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

This is clearly false, and I cant believe you are seriously trying to make the claim ?

It clearly isn’t and I’m not making the claim,I could post 100’s more. But feel free to contact the authors and tell them they are wrong.

https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-confirms-protection-against-severe-disease-hospitalisation-and-death-in-the-primary-analysis-of-phase-iii-trials.html

“First indication of reduction in disease transmission of up to 67%”

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1013553/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_34.pdf

“With the Pfizer-BioNTech, estimates of effectiveness against

infection range from around 55 to 70%, with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine they range

from around 60 to 70% (5, 13, 14, 15). With 2 of 2 doses of either vaccine effectiveness

against infection is estimated at around 65 to 90%”

 

Quote

Again , clearly false , out of the 26 trials , 1 was found to have used plaguarised material , on the basis of this

 

Again it’s clearly not, one quick search of Google and fact checking sites will prove that, but in every thread whatever I post, whatever evidence, you just ignore and stick to one source or some unproven conspiracy theory so I’ve kind of given up on that now.

 

Quote

Ridiculous comment

 

Why is it a ridiculous comment are you saying we should only vaccinate retired people(my dad still works in his 80’s) and people of ill health. That was the context of my comment in its original post.

Quote

 

Again , clearly false, I suspect you got the 'hundreds' description from the recently altered Wiki page for Dr Malone ?

He was part of a small team who stumbled upon the idea.

FWIW Malone never claimed to be the sole inventor of MRNA, this is fake news used to discredit him

 

 

Why is my comment false ?

Nope never use Wikipedia however I did quote people that  work in the field and were part of it, biochemist Katalin Karikó said “many many scientists” contributed, I just changed that to 100’s but “many many”  isn’t  a ‘small team’ would you like to quote who said small team?

I also never said Robert Malone was the sole inventor the person I was responding to did hence my response.
However Robert Malone  does claim to be the inventor on his personal LinkedIn profile “Inventor of mRNA vaccines and DNA vaccines”  and  It’s in his Twitter bio. “I literally invented mRNA technology when I was 28,” so maybe tell him personally to stop calming to be the inventor rather than me who’s just quoting him.

 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/rwmalonemd

 

 

Quote

And 'misinformation' ? Youve just posted a good deal yourself !

 

Really? I can back what I say with multiple independent sources can you say the same? I’ve never called anyone an idiot but stating things are fact when that are disproven or out of context is something I will always do.
 

Anyway I’ve just invented the cure I have no proof, tests or research

 

but with your logic you cannot say I am wrong…

[Rewulf]

20 hours ago, timps said:

Quote

the Jabs don't stop you getting the virus, don't stop you transmitting the virus 

This has been proved wrong in so many peer reviewed scientific studies that I’ll just leave that there.

You claimed this 

  Then you supply data that backs up my claim that you were wrong ?

8 minutes ago, timps said:

With the Pfizer-BioNTech, estimates of effectiveness against

infection range from around 55 to 70%, with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine they range

from around 60 to 70% (5, 13, 14, 15). With 2 of 2 doses of either vaccine effectiveness

against infection is estimated at around 65 to 90%”

5 minutes ago, timps said:

“First indication of reduction in disease transmission of up to 67%”

8 minutes ago, timps said:

I just changed that to 100’s but “many many”  isn’t  a ‘small team’

So you just made it up ?
If you had actually read the link I posted , it told you who worked on it , the team had 8 members.

10 minutes ago, timps said:

However Robert Malone  does claim to be the inventor on his personal LinkedIn profile “Inventor of mRNA vaccines and DNA vaccines”  and  It’s in his Twitter bio. “I literally invented mRNA technology when I was 28,” so maybe tell him personally to stop calming to be the inventor rather than me who’s just quoting him.

Does he claim to be the sole inventor , no.

Let the man big himself up , you would.

But because he has become persona non grata, like many scientists who have questioned the covid response, he cant lay claim to anything I suppose ?

[Rewulf]

Dr. Malone has close to 100 peer-reviewed publications and published abstracts and has over 11,477 citations of his peer reviewed publications, as verified by Google Scholar. His google scholar ranking is “outstanding” for impact factors. He has been an invited speaker at over 50 conferences, has chaired numerous conferences and he has sat on or served as chairperson on numerous NIAID and DoD study sections.

[timps]

Seriously I am lost with your ramblings, how am I backing up your claim that jabs DON’T stop you getting the virus or transmitting the virus with my evidence that they DO stop you from getting the virus and transmitting it??

Is effectiveness against infection raging between at 65% to 95% stoping people getting infected with the virus or not?

No vaccine is 100% effective EVERYONE agrees on that and herd immunity starts at 60% protection so could well achieve it depending what percentage is needed for the COVID variants.

 

I have seriously no idea what your hang up with Robert Malone is, you are again taking my post out of context I was replying to the comment.

“even the inventor does not recommend how we use it and he was the expert that developed it”

I was saying the development of the mRNA vaccines is due to the work of 100’s of RESEARCHERS that disagree with him. The people quoted in the article you posted have their own researchers and teams and there is more than 8 names in the article you posted so I guess you made it up as well then?  There are more than 8 researchers working on this as stated on recorded its “many many” not 8.

However many it is they still disagree with him be it 7 or 100’s so your point is?

Regarding your BMJ blog you posted .They are both from a blog by by one lecturer, an opinion piece not a scientific peer reviewed study but nice try.

To render something inaccurate needs a lot more than this. I can show you loads like this for either side of the argument hence why we go for the peer review studies.

The fact there are posters commenting on the end of the blog pointing out the Issues with it and her conclusions means it cannot in anyway seen as rendering any argument inaccurate.

I’m bowing out of this now as it just isn’t worth debating with you but no hard feelings Big hugs xx

 

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, timps said:

Seriously I am lost with your ramblings, how am I backing up your claim that jabs DON’T stop you getting the virus or transmitting the virus with my evidence that they DO stop you from getting the virus and transmitting it??

Is effectiveness against infection raging between at 65% to 95% stoping people getting infected with the virus or not?

No vaccine is 100% effective EVERYONE agrees on that and herd immunity starts at 60% protection so could well achieve it depending what percentage is needed for the COVID variants.

Ok , Read. Back. What .You. Said.

Then try reading what I put, you are the one rambling and contradicting yourself !

4 minutes ago, timps said:

I have seriously no idea what your hang up with Robert Malone is, you are again taking my post out of context I was replying to the comment.

“even the inventor does not recommend how we use it and he was the expert that developed it”

I was saying the development of the mRNA vaccines is due to the work of 100’s of RESEARCHERS that disagree with him. The people quoted in the article you posted have their own researchers and teams and there is more than 8 names in the article you posted so I guess you made it up as well then?  There are more than 8 researchers working on this as stated on recorded its “many many” not 8.

However many it is they still disagree with him be it 7 or 100’s so your point is?

The point is this 

Other collaborators with Wolff and Felgner on the research were Robert W. Malone of Vical and Phillip Williams, Wang Chong, Gyula Acsadi and Agnes Jani in Wisconsin.

There were 7 not 8 principle researchers, if you really want to include every single lab tech and junior researcher along every step of the way , then you might get to your 100s figure.
But the fact remains, YOU were the one obsessed with making Malone sound like a boastful quack, because he dared to make his voice known.

1 hour ago, timps said:

Regarding your BMJ blog you posted .They are both from a blog by by one lecturer, an opinion piece not a scientific peer reviewed study but nice try.

Again , you dont agree with it because it doesnt correspond with your confirmation bias, so its 'fake news' ?

[timps]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Ok , Read. Back. What .You. Said.

Then try reading what I put, you are the one rambling and contradicting yourself

Well seeing as we are no longer debating and just kind of in a childish argument I’ll play.

Ah I see, you miss understood what was written then tried to be clever, I did leave it there on that particular post, the whole point, so you were wrong, I never said I’d leave it there on the entire  thread you just assumed.
Then  you quoted the whole sentence but only wanted to mention the bit in bold as some kind of childish dig. I wasn’t talking to you on that post sweetie so I assumed you were meaning the whole sentence since you quoted it hence the reply, maybe next time make it clear you are just having a personal dig, I do find them quite funny petal.

 

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

The point is this 

Other collaborators with Wolff and Felgner on the research were Robert W. Malone of Vical and Phillip Williams, Wang Chong, Gyula Acsadi and Agnes Jani in Wisconsin.

There were 7 not 8 principle researchers, if you really want to include every single lab tech and junior researcher along every step of the way , then you might get to your 100s figure.
But the fact remains, YOU were the one obsessed with making Malone sound like a boastful quack, because he dared to make his voice known.

All I said was “The development of the mRNA vaccines is due to the work of hundreds of researchers, one of which is Robert Malone.”

So what part of that is clearly false as you first claimed??

Where in my original post did I say  PRINCIPAL  researchers?

Where did I say he was a boastful quack ?

Where did I say he was the sole inventor?

You have multiple times but I didn’t.

My point was others involved in its invention disagree with him, yours was LA Times is the sole arbiter of how many people worked on it and it’s  7.

So again what is your point?

 

But I guess you missed in the article  “Some familiar names in San Diego science and business have played a role in Vical. Among them:” which mentions more than the 7 you quoted. And “Researchers spent several months longer trying to find flaws in their methods or their conclusions.” Or do these people not count? Unfortunately they did in my reply and in the scientific community.

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Again , you dont agree with it because it doesnt correspond with your confirmation bias, so its 'fake news' ?

No I didn’t say I didn’t agree with it I said it wasn’t peer reviewed so cannot trump work that already is. You really do have a hard time comprehending that don’t you. Some people that are peer reviewing it in the comments section of her blog disagree with her so what’s your opinion on them?

No point in answering as you only look at work that proves your views you never accept views that might go against it you are so biased it is untrue. You have decided she is right and no one can disagree as they are biased even though they make valid provable points.

I’ve already stated that I will accept the Israeli research if it stands peer review and discount the Oxford one if it doesn’t so I’m hardly biased, I’m just looking for proper research, just not from the LA Times on the number 7.

I await your comment about the  “I thought you were bowing out” but that was about the vaccination debate not this little game we are playing now. 

 Much love x

 

 

Edited October 13, 2021 by timps

[Rewulf]

48 minutes ago, timps said:

Well seeing as we are no longer debating and just kind of in a childish argument I’ll play.

Ah I see, you miss understood what was written then tried to be clever, I did leave it there on that particular post, the whole point, so you were wrong, I never said I’d leave it there on the entire  thread you just assumed.
Then  you quoted the whole sentence but only wanted to mention the bit in bold as some kind of childish dig. I wasn’t talking to you on that post sweetie so I assumed you were meaning the whole sentence since you quoted it hence the reply, maybe next time make it clear you are just having a personal dig, I do find them quite funny petal.

Are you actually referring to me as childish ?

Did you , or did you not say when someone mentioned 'the Jabs don't stop you getting the virus, don't stop you transmitting the virus '

'This has been proved wrong in so many peer reviewed scientific studies that I’ll just leave that there.'

 So , what does that mean ? Does it not mean what it says , have I got it wrong ?
THATS why I said read it back.

54 minutes ago, timps said:

All I said was “The development of the mRNA vaccines is due to the work of hundreds of researchers, one of which is Robert Malone.”

But it wasnt , youve already admitted to making up the 100s of researchers comment , because someone said many, many .
If you want to refute it , research it and come back with the actual figure, otherwise ....

 

56 minutes ago, timps said:

So again what is your point?

MY point is , he is a much respected scientist who was a PRINCIPAL researcher into MRNA , you dismissed him as unimportant , most likely because he doesnt support the narrative that  YOU prefer.

 

58 minutes ago, timps said:

But I guess you missed in the article  “Some familiar names in San Diego science and business have played a role in Vical. Among them:” which mentions more than the 7 you quoted. And “Researchers spent several months longer trying to find flaws in their methods or their conclusions.” Or do these people not count? Unfortunately they did in my reply and in the scientific community.

Youre clutching at straws matey.

 

59 minutes ago, timps said:

No I didn’t say I didn’t agree with it I said it wasn’t peer reviewed so cannot trump work that already is. You really do have a hard time comprehending that don’t you. Some people that are peer reviewing it in the comments section of her blog disagree with her so what’s your opinion on them?

Let me ask you this , does nothing count if its not peer reviewed ?
What if its not peer reviewed because many who would favourably view it, dont speak out in fear of being ostracized by the community like Dr Malone and many others have been.
Is this the way it works now , years of academic research and good work , cancelled because they make an unfavourable comment that may hit pharma co profits ??

59 minutes ago, timps said:

I await your comment about the  “I thought you were bowing out” but that was about the vaccination debate not this little game we are playing now. 

 Much love x

Saying nothing about it, Im glad you stayed, but youre really not doing yourself any favours with the immature sarcasm.
I am dealing with a medical professional am I not ?

[timps]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Did you , or did you not say when someone mentioned 'the Jabs don't stop you getting the virus, don't stop you transmitting the virus '

'This has been proved wrong in so many peer reviewed scientific studies that I’ll just leave that there.'

 So , what does that mean ? Does it not mean what it says , have I got it wrong ?
THATS why I said read it back.

What do you think it means?

Scientific studies show that the vaccine stops the transmission and stops you getting the virus… I am really struggling what your point is on this.

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

But it wasnt , youve already admitted to making up the 100s of researchers comment , because someone said many, many .
If you want to refute it , research it and come back with the actual figure, otherwise ....

What evidence or research have you ever produce?
can you prove it wasn’t in the 100’s?

you saying “many many” can’t mean a 100?

You have already admitted that if you count every researcher it could get to the hundreds in your last post so now it’s not? make your mind up.

As you don’t know how many worked on it you can’t say it wasn’t in the 100’s, you have no idea, it certainly wasn’t 7. But it doesn’t detract from my point if it’s 50  99 or even 7 more disagree with him than agree.

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

MY point is , he is a much respected scientist who was a PRINCIPAL researcher into MRNA , you dismissed him as unimportant , most likely because he doesnt support the narrative that  YOU prefer.

Where did I dismiss him as unimportant?

You are putting words in my text AGAIN  and making things up. I said  “His other co contributors disagree with his stance, so make of that what you will.”

So are you dismissing these other PRINCIPAL researchers into MRNA ?

All I’m saying is they disagree with him so don’t take his word as gospel and seeing as you admit he’s not the sole inventor maybe they have a point?

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Youre clutching at straws matey.

How so?
You state the article claims there were only 7 that worked on it when it clearly shows there were more. If you want to correct me on 100’s then be prepared to be corrected on 7 which your article actually proves was incorrect.

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Let me ask you this , does nothing count if its not peer reviewed ?
What if its not peer reviewed because many who would favourably view it, dont speak out in fear of being ostracized by the community like Dr Malone and many others have been.
Is this the way it works now , years of academic research and good work , cancelled because they make an unfavourable comment that may hit pharma co profits ??

What is your obsession with pharma profits?

Do you think everything is a conspiracy?

If your research is sound it will withstand peer review, if someone can poke holes in it then maybe it’s not up to scratch, it’s not hard to understand.

Or are you stating we should accept all papers regardless of inaccuracies ?

So will you accept the Oxford university paper that says vaccination prevents infection and transmission now we are just accepting stuff without reviewing it?

I won’t even though it suits my narrative but as you feel things shouldn’t be peer reviewed then surely you must accept it or is it only the ones that suit your narrative that get that treatment ?

 

Edited October 13, 2021 by timps

[39TDS]

3 hours ago, timps said:

What do you think it means?

Scientific studies show that the vaccine stops the transmission and stops you getting the virus… I am really struggling what your point is on this.

As far as I can tell you are claiming this to be 100% true except the 40% of the time when it isn't.

[timps]

37 minutes ago, 39TDS said:

As far as I can tell you are claiming this to be 100% true except the 40% of the time when it isn't.

Where do I say a vaccine is a 100% effective? Another one who makes things up and claims I said it, I keep saying the vaccine is NOT 100% effective  🙄.
 

40% 🤔 how does 65 %to 90% protection from infection equate to 40% and 60% isn’t zero protection as you actually claimed but hey ho why let facts get in the way of a good sound bite. 

Edited October 13, 2021 by timps