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

[39TDS]

10 hours ago, timps said:

Where do I say a vaccine is a 100% effective?

Where do I say you did?

[timps]

19 minutes ago, 39TDS said:

Where do I say you did?

In the post I was replying too.  
 “As far as I can tell you are claiming this to be 100% true except the 40% of the time when it isn't.”

If I”m claiming my statement is true 100% of the time then I’d have to also be claiming the vaccine is 100% effective.

[Rewulf]

Timps , I dont have the time to continue with this, you claim one thing , then when challenged you say you mean something else, either you are being deliberately pedantic, or your method of conveying what you actually mean needs some work.

It is blatantly obvious to even the most disinterested parties , that the vaccines , any of them, do NOT stop you from being infected, transmitting, or suffering the symptoms of covid to some extent.
What that extent is , is very much open to debate, and the scientific community do not seem to have the inclination to find out.
The promised levels of protection seem to have drifted from, X% 'You wont catch it/die from it' to X% 'Wont be hospitalised with it'
Even though , studies have shown a pretty scary % of doubled jabbed people are dying from covid.

It seems to me you have some innate resistance to anyone who questions your , rather unshakeable stance, the rather churlish way you respond to any challenge does you no credit.

People are allowed to believe what they wish, and if their opinion differs to yours , it doesnt automatically make them stupid, or misinformed.
There are many inconsistencies in regard to the whole covid story, the origins , response, and figures in many aspects simply do not add up, to state this does not make one deranged.
If you cannot see the flaws in some aspects of the vaccine strategy, and the obvious benefits to pharma co... then I really am wasting my time.

 

[timps]

Rewulf, what exactly have you challenged me on ?

Every time I ask for clarification from you to understand what you are challenging me on you make things up and insert words into my post or take it completely out of context in relation to point I was responding to, I am still non the wiser what your challenge is. I have not changed my stance once once.

When I said vaccines protect from infection and transmission you said it was clearly false. So I posted proof that they do, you have yet to challenge that proof or offer any proof to the contrary however you are quite happy to say it is clearly false based on your beliefs alone.

I have never said you were stupid or misinformed however you quoted my posts and stated that they were “Clearly false”. You can believe what you wish without proof, however,  I am going to ask you to back up the statement I am wrong (how this debate started) which is something you never do.

 

As for being pedantic you started that with “many many” is not 100’s this was irrelevant to the point being made and also the fact you kept claiming I had said things I never typed. So yes I got sarcastic, quote me by all means but don’t make things up.

 

This debate was whether the vaccine offers protection from infection and transmission, I have never got into the political side of whether the vaccination program being used is the best strategy or not so I have  no idea why you keep bring it up on our posts.

There could be 10 studies posted on this thread, 9 state that the vaccine protects and 1 that doesn’t. You would discount the 9 and just accept the 1.

I have already stated that if the Israeli study that disproves my point is peer reviewed and stands scrutiny I will accept it. When I asked if you would accept the Oxford university one that backs my stance you never responded.

 

Your bias is unwavering to prove a big pharma conspiracy.

 

The scientific peer reviewed proof at the moment is that vaccines protect from infection and transmission, however they are not 100% effective at that, therefore as long as they are above the % threshold needed they will do their job to protect the wider community.

 

If new scientific peer reviewed proof comes to the conclusion that they no longer offer protection I will accept it.

You however will not accept any proof at all unless it confirms your belief in a conspiracy of some sorts.

At least I take the time to read your posted links or search out your quoted text and actually post a critique of them, you just say mine are wrong / false with no reasoning so hardly a debate.

 

Edited October 14, 2021 by timps

[Gordon R]

I am completely baffled by the stick that Timps is taking. He is one of the very few who cite statistics and links to back up what he says. 

I know Timps personally, I have said to him and I say it to others - I don't know where he gets the patience from. I could not tolerate the amount of rubbishing his posts get. 

Perhaps one or two should just take a step back.

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, timps said:

Every time I ask for clarification from you to understand what you are challenging me on you make things up and insert words into my post or take it completely out of context in relation to point I was responding to, I am still non the wiser what your challenge is. I have not changed my stance once once.

Really ? Give me an example where Ive done this .

1 hour ago, timps said:

When I said vaccines protect from infection and transmission you said it was clearly false. So I posted proof that they do, you have yet to challenge that proof or offer any proof to the contrary however you are quite happy to say it is clearly false based on your beliefs alone.

You didnt say that.
For the 3rd time 

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.

Its clear that either your response here is either a mistake on your part (not what you meant) or false.
Maybe you misunderstood the statement ?

1 hour ago, timps said:

As for being pedantic you started that with “many many” is not 100’s this was irrelevant to the point being made and also the fact you kept claiming I had said things I never typed. So yes I got sarcastic, quote me by all means but don’t make things up.

Oh dear , you said 100s , which you admitted was a figure plucked out the air, justified by the many many quote taken from an entirely different source , again , out of context.
You tried to discredit Malones contribution because you dont like what he has to say.
 

1 hour ago, timps said:

This debate was whether the vaccine offers protection from infection and transmission, I have never got into the political side of whether the vaccination program being used is the best strategy or not so I have  no idea why you keep bring it up on our posts.

I dont, no idea where youre going with that one ?

1 hour ago, timps said:

There could be 10 studies posted on this thread, 9 state that the vaccine protects and 1 that doesn’t. You would discount the 9 and just accept the 1.

No evidence to support that conclusion.

1 hour ago, timps said:

I have already stated that if the Israeli study that disproves my point is peer reviewed and stands scrutiny I will accept it. When I asked if you would accept the Oxford university one that backs my stance you never responded.

Im fine with the Oxford study , you never mentioned the results though ??

1 hour ago, timps said:

Your bias is unwavering to prove a big pharma conspiracy.

Where did I mention a big pharma conspiracy ?
Pharma co has done very well out of covid , and will continue to do so , does that mean theres a conspiracy ?

1 hour ago, timps said:

You however will not accept any proof at all unless it confirms your belief in a conspiracy of some sorts.

Ooops conspiracy again !
Question the narrative , and flat earth here we come ....

1 hour ago, timps said:

At least I take the time to read your posted links or search out your quoted text and actually post a critique of them, you just say mine are wrong / false with no reasoning so hardly a debate.

Ill leave you a parting gift Timps , a bit of research for you.
Remember when you said this about 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.'

Try and find those 26 trials.
Ill help you.

 

 

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

I am completely baffled by the stick that Timps is taking. He is one of the very few who cite statistics and links to back up what he says. 

Gordon , Im sure Timps is a great guy, and I really dont believe he has taken any stick here, hes handed plenty out, when people have challenged his claims.
He has his opinion. But he seems to be amongst that class of people who truly believe any opinion (on covid) apart from their own is some kind of dangerous heresy ?
Impossible to debate with , as they dont believe people like myself are worthy of debate.

Im happy to step back, and he can have the last word if he likes.

[Gordon R]

Quote

Gordon , Im sure Timps is a great guy, and I really dont believe he has taken any stick here,

Don't wish to fall out with anyone, but your quote is only half right.

1. He is a great guy.

2. He has taken a lot of stick.

[Rewulf]

12 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Don't wish to fall out with anyone, but your quote is only half right.

1. He is a great guy.

2. He has taken a lot of stick.

Fair enough, my apologies to Timps, and I will post no more in this thread.

[timps]

Quote

Really ? Give me an example where Ive done this .

By posting “YOU were the one obsessed with making Malone sound like a boastful quack,” “you dismissed him as unimportant “ “Does he claim to be the sole inventor”

Where have I ever said he was the sole inventor, boastful quack or unimportant,  I was in fact responding to a post that said “which even the inventor does not reccommend how we have used it and he was the Expert who developed it”  I was only stating that there was other co contributors  involved with different opinions. You have translated this into a personal attack on him that never existed.

Quote

 

You didnt say that.
For the 3rd time 

 

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.

 

Again what do you think I mean by this??

Why is it false???

You keep on posting what was written and not explaining your point, that is still not explaining it no matter how many times you post it.

Let’s break it down:

The Jabs don’t stop you getting the virus …… This has been proved wrong in so many peer reviewed scientific studies ….. This means I was saying they do stop you getting the virus therefore protect.

The Jabs don't stop you transmitting the virus…… This has been proved wrong in so many peer reviewed scientific studies….. This means I was saying they do stop you transmitting the virus therefore protect.

I’ll just leave that there….. This means I was saying I’m not going to the trouble of posting links

So how is the above any different from “When I said vaccines protect from infection and transmission”

I clearly don’t know what your point is?

Quote

Oh dear , you said 100s , which you admitted was a figure plucked out the air, justified by the many many quote taken from an entirely different source , again , out of context.
You tried to discredit Malones contribution because you dont like what he has to say.

And you accuse me of being pedantic so how does 100’s instead of many many change the context of my post ?? What different source? I used one source not wikipedia.

I didn’t try to discredit him in a personal attack, I said “his other co contributors disagree with his stance, so make of that what you will”. Am I not allowed to say that? Is it a personal attack? Are you trying to discredit his other co contributors because you don’t like what they have to say?

Quote

No evidence to support that conclusion.

I’ve posted several links to papers proving my point and you have dismissed them with no proof.

Quote

Im fine with the Oxford study , you never mentioned the results though ??

 

Yes I did…

"People who are vaccinated against Covid-19 are less likely to spread the virus even if they become infected, a new study finds, adding to a growing body of evidence that vaccines can reduce transmission of the delta variant.

British scientists at the University of Oxford examined national records of nearly 150,000 contacts that were traced from roughly 100,000 initial cases. The samples included people who were fully or partially vaccinated with either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the AstraZeneca vaccines, as well as people who were unvaccinated.” …

“It’s the highest quality study we have so far on the question of infectiousness of vaccinated people infected with delta,” said Dr. Aaron Richterman, an infectious disease physician at the University of Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the research.”

Quote

Where did I mention a big pharma conspiracy ?
Pharma co has done very well out of covid , and will continue to do so , does that mean theres a conspiracy ?

Well if there is no Conspiracy then what was your problem with peer review?

Quote

Ill leave you a parting gift Timps , a bit of research for you.
Remember when you said this about ivermectin ?

I have no intention of watching  Dr. John Campbell off youtube however I didn’t think you liked peer reviewing of the papers like those that the BBC relied on?

Quote

He has his opinion. But he seems to be amongst that class of people who truly believe any opinion (on covid) apart from their own is some kind of dangerous heresy ?
Impossible to debate with , as they dont believe people like myself are worthy of debate.

 

Not at all but you have to have some proof, debate requires that otherwise why should I believe you? Just saying stuff without it is pointless and not debate, you must have something otherwise why do you believe what you believe?   

I'm quite happy to debate but at the moment it is me saying vaccines protect offering proof and links and you saying they don't but not posting any proof or source, I would not class as a debate.  

 

 

[enfieldspares]

5 hours ago, Rewulf said:

It is blatantly obvious to even the most disinterested parties , that the vaccines , any of them, do NOT stop you from being infected, transmitting, or suffering the symptoms of covid to some extent.

The promised levels of protection seem to have drifted from, X% 'You wont catch it/die from it' to X% 'Wont be hospitalised with it'
 

This. It is indeed the 21st Century version of 1940s "pots and pans for Spitfires".

Which in case it needs explaining was a Government campaign to have people hand in perfectly good aluminium pots and pans so that they could be melted down and made into Spitfires.

Except of course that pot and pan aluminium is about as alike to "aircraft grade" aluminium as was the "steel" in the many many cast iron metal railings (also surrendered in 1940) to the Reynolds 531 manganese steel alloy that WAS used in Spitfires.

Astra-Zeneca (which made me very ill such that I was told to dial 999 and have an ambulance come to take me to a coronary dependency unit and hospitalised with a severe reaction to it) is Johnson's "pots and pans for Spitfires".

I had covid three months prior to Johnson's A-Z miracle vaccine that hospitalised me and had one day of flu and nine days of boredom isolating at home with it. And have double jabbed work colleagues who then, yes, had covid.

In fact REWULF it is now no more "You won't catch coved" past "You won't be hospitalised with it" to "You won't die from it if you do".

Which is pretty much...not dying from it...where near 100% of the unvaccinated population who did catch covid were back in 2021.

In other words catching it and not dying from it! I don't hold truck with the invermectin "camp" but I know that A-Z isn't now anything like what was being claimed for it as doing X, Y and Z in "stopping covid it its tracks" with "your foot on its neck" and all that Johnson spaff and blather some six months ago.

Edited October 14, 2021 by enfieldspares

[Saltings]

 mrs and i  double jabbed    oldest son and oldest daughter got the jab straight away double jabbed    second oldest daughter watching face ake junk  no jabs crook      youngest son had his first jab  two days before positive test   as wanted a holiday two jabs needed  he gave it to my younger daughter and mrs  they work from home   see no one      as he did pub football pub  festivals  etc despite our concerns   you've been jabbed attitude   your ok          its been tough on him playing x box and ordering Deliveroo for himself  and ****k everyone else  his mommy's little boy    he still feels crook a month after    does the jab work or not        i had chemo years ago immune  system shot to shiite        however  i have stayed away from just about every crowded event and the   2     i went to   outdoors  didn't loiter      in the last 18 months         and within the household has been difficult for me   im  the one  in the attic cold               as everyone coughs their guts up  not good however  cant hear  mrs  snoring     

[12gauge82]

While I'm not having a dig at anyone on this thread. My personal take on all this is information, even when not peer reviewed could, or could not be correct in some instances. 

I looked at the evidence for myself l and came to the logical conclusion coronavirus probably escaped from a lab long before it was thought as a sensible possibility. The media rubbished it and classed anyone who merely mentioned it a conspiracy looney. Not so far out now though is it. 

We were told in the beginning don't wear a mask, the science says it will do nothing to help and may make infection more likely. Then we were all ordered to wear one. 

Certain treatments were rubbished in the beginning and now there being advocated. 

When the first links with blood clots and astra zen was mentioned people were rubbished, some time later its not being given to under 40yo.

My point with all this is, while I certainly listen to scientific advice, it is a brand new virus and I also use a bit of my own common sense, as it has been shown over and over,scientists don't know everything. 

[Saltings]

got it crook for a couple of days  horizontal and rough as hell       double jabbed   out of 5 on the house i didnt loose taste or smell   others did     had hong cong flue in the seventies   now that was something to write home about       had about another couple of flues since       until covid       given copd  after chemo immune shot    a mouse sneeze im crook      mrs and i faired better than kids       by about a day    other cant smell and smoked bacon makes them yack       i like smoked bacon 😁  puts them off grub      a curry of any kind they dont taste      i see weight loss    fit in a dress            oops        hell no not me   i have a brick outhouse  to maintain