Debunking Vaccine Myths RE VAERS

a reply to: ScepticScot

Dude scroll up the last page.

originally posted by: InachMarbank
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dude scroll up the last page.

The only link I see from you is the withdrawn paper.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You compare vaccines to vaccines and viruses to viruses.

How do you do risk benefit analysis.

That's not what your fellow vaccine apologists do. They don't even understand what risk benefit analysis is. They try to compare the deaths caused by the vaccine and the virus so to conclude that the vaccine hasn't killed as many so it is safe to get injected.

Great logic.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: InachMarbank
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dude scroll up the last page.

The only link I see from you is the withdrawn paper.

You are not in the position to ask other to provide papers and links when you provide nothing yourself.


It's rather disingenuous for someone to argue that these products are non experimental, tested, and safe and effective. Given the evidence and the harms they have caused, including deaths, the conclusion is that these products are untested, experimental, and potentially hazardous, so not safe and effective.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You compare vaccines to vaccines and viruses to viruses.

How do you do risk benefit analysis.

That's not what your fellow vaccine apologists do. They don't even understand what risk benefit analysis is. They try to compare the deaths caused by the vaccine and the virus so to conclude that the vaccine hasn't killed as many so it is safe to get injected.

Great logic.

You claimed that you don't compare vaccines and the virus. How are risk benefit studies done?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: InachMarbank
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dude scroll up the last page.

The only link I see from you is the withdrawn paper.

You are not in the position to ask other to provide papers and links when you provide nothing yourself.


It's rather disingenuous for someone to argue that these products are non experimental, tested, and safe and effective. Given the evidence and the harms they have caused, including deaths, the conclusion is that these products are untested, experimental, and potentially hazardous, so not safe and effective.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

I provide far more evidence thsn you ever do.

In this case I an asking for the source of a specific claim.

a reply to: ScepticScot

This author's of this paper intend to resubmit it.

www.biorxiv.org...

And the results of this paper indicate their research was not unfounded.

www.pnas.org...

There is good reason to be concerned SARS COV2 can be a permanent infection due to its retroviral properties similar to HIV.

It seems like a false declaration of victory to claim the end of COVID 19 is upon us (or at best premature).

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Your arguments are in turmoil.

I suggest that you would do better to look at the vast amount of scientific evidence that refutes your beliefs, which are probably based in right wing ideology, as you watch them crumble around you.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You compare vaccines to vaccines and viruses to viruses.

How do you do risk benefit analysis.

That's not what your fellow vaccine apologists do. They don't even understand what risk benefit analysis is. They try to compare the deaths caused by the vaccine and the virus so to conclude that the vaccine hasn't killed as many so it is safe to get injected.

Great logic.

You claimed that you don't compare vaccines and the virus. How are risk benefit studies done?

Not the way your fellow vaccine apologists do.
As I said above:

That's not what your fellow vaccine apologists do. They don't even understand what risk benefit analysis is. They try to compare the deaths caused by the vaccine and the virus so to conclude that the vaccine hasn't killed as many so it is safe to get injected.

Great logic

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
a reply to: visitedbythem

Hmmm. I'll stick with the facts and figures provided thanks..

Although you have my deepest sympathies regarding the loss of your friends and family, anecdotes don't cut it in this sort of debate I am afraid..

You need to remove emotion from your arguments..

Again, apologies for you losses, but let's keep this scientific..

PA

Stop engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and stop defending the pharmaceuticals.

You need to stop the attempts to apologise in favour of pharma in all your posts. It doesn't work around here and these arguments have been repeatedly refuted again and again.

Lols.. Are you still here?

Have you got that sentence on copy and paste?

You need to stop peddling snake oil and crazy conspiracy theories with no evidence to back them up...

"It doesn't work around here"... Not sure what you mean by that... This is a space for debate and discussion... Whch is what I am doing...

So, I will say to you...

Stop engaging in crazy conspiracy theories and denialism of obvious reality, and stop defending the deranged conspiracy theorists and pseudo-scientific "doctors" that keep posting this crap...

You need to stop the attempts to post false information and doom porn in all your posts. It doesn't work around here and these ridiculous arguments have been repeatedly refuted again and again.

PA

Can you bypass your emotional nonsense and stick to the facts?

It appears that you cant handle the truth. At least please try.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Your arguments are in turmoil.

I suggest that you would do better to look at the vast amount of scientific evidence that refutes your beliefs, which are probably based in right wing ideology, as you watch them crumble around you.

It is your arguments that are in a turmoil. Not mine.

I read quite a lot. You do nothing and you didn't even know the difference between Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2 just like your fellow vaccine apologist earlier in this thread.

Right wing ideology? That's another strawman argument.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: InachMarbank
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dude scroll up the last page.

The only link I see from you is the withdrawn paper.

You are not in the position to ask other to provide papers and links when you provide nothing yourself.


It's rather disingenuous for someone to argue that these products are non experimental, tested, and safe and effective. Given the evidence and the harms they have caused, including deaths, the conclusion is that these products are untested, experimental, and potentially hazardous, so not safe and effective.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

I provide far more evidence thsn you ever do.

In this case I an asking for the source of a specific claim.

What evidence? You haven't created a single thread yet and all you do is to engage in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality.

And stop defending the Pharmaceuticals.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: InachMarbank
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dude scroll up the last page.

The only link I see from you is the withdrawn paper.

You are not in the position to ask other to provide papers and links when you provide nothing yourself.


It's rather disingenuous for someone to argue that these products are non experimental, tested, and safe and effective. Given the evidence and the harms they have caused, including deaths, the conclusion is that these products are untested, experimental, and potentially hazardous, so not safe and effective.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

I provide far more evidence thsn you ever do.

In this case I an asking for the source of a specific claim.

What evidence? You disapear for weeks then randomly jump in a thread and start asking for sources. We are on here all the time creating threads and content and posting sources studies references, links etc. Let's compare our profiles.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: InachMarbank
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dude scroll up the last page.

The only link I see from you is the withdrawn paper.

You are not in the position to ask other to provide papers and links when you provide nothing yourself.


It's rather disingenuous for someone to argue that these products are non experimental, tested, and safe and effective. Given the evidence and the harms they have caused, including deaths, the conclusion is that these products are untested, experimental, and potentially hazardous, so not safe and effective.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

I provide far more evidence thsn you ever do.

In this case I an asking for the source of a specific claim.

What evidence? You haven't created a single thread yet and all you do is to engage in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality.

And stop defending the Pharmaceuticals.

Pointing out you are wrong isn't 'vaccine apologetics'

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: InachMarbank
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dude scroll up the last page.

The only link I see from you is the withdrawn paper.

You are not in the position to ask other to provide papers and links when you provide nothing yourself.


It's rather disingenuous for someone to argue that these products are non experimental, tested, and safe and effective. Given the evidence and the harms they have caused, including deaths, the conclusion is that these products are untested, experimental, and potentially hazardous, so not safe and effective.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

I provide far more evidence thsn you ever do.

In this case I an asking for the source of a specific claim.

What evidence? You disapear for weeks then randomly jump in a thread and start asking for sources. We are on here all the time creating threads and content and posting sources studies references, links etc. Let's compare our profiles.

You made a claim.

Back it up.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You compare vaccines to vaccines and viruses to viruses.

How do you do risk benefit analysis.

That's not what your fellow vaccine apologists do. They don't even understand what risk benefit analysis is. They try to compare the deaths caused by the vaccine and the virus so to conclude that the vaccine hasn't killed as many so it is safe to get injected.

Great logic.

You claimed that you don't compare vaccines and the virus. How are risk benefit studies done?

Not the way your fellow vaccine apologists do.
As I said above:

That's not what your fellow vaccine apologists do. They don't even understand what risk benefit analysis is. They try to compare the deaths caused by the vaccine and the virus so to conclude that the vaccine hasn't killed as many so it is safe to get injected.

Great logic

You haven't answered the question (because you can't without contradicting your earlier statements)

Looks like big pharma wants to claim their vaccines have cemented their victory over COVID 19, when actually, they just made the problem worse.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: InachMarbank
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dude scroll up the last page.

The only link I see from you is the withdrawn paper.

You are not in the position to ask other to provide papers and links when you provide nothing yourself.


It's rather disingenuous for someone to argue that these products are non experimental, tested, and safe and effective. Given the evidence and the harms they have caused, including deaths, the conclusion is that these products are untested, experimental, and potentially hazardous, so not safe and effective.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

I provide far more evidence thsn you ever do.

In this case I an asking for the source of a specific claim.

What evidence? You haven't created a single thread yet and all you do is to engage in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality.

And stop defending the Pharmaceuticals.

Pointing out you are wrong isn't 'vaccine apologetics'

That's your own unsubstantiated opinion.

You have to support your fellow vaccine apologist who

cannot use the case fatality rates in the US or elsewhere in the world. Need the infection fatality rates. The fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in the US is not around 1% and the statistic provided that 1 in 103 who is infected dies is completely false. He needs to take into consideration those who are asymptomatic and those who have minor symptoms and never get tested, a large number of people as it seems.


The rate of adverse reactions from the vaccines is not the one stated in the OP as the estimation came from completely false considerations. The OP took the total number of reported adverse reactions in Florida and divided to the total number of shots given worldwide! That's extraordinary....
Magical I would say.

You don't seem to have pointed out the flaws of the arguments, analysis and statistics...

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: InachMarbank
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dude scroll up the last page.

The only link I see from you is the withdrawn paper.

You are not in the position to ask other to provide papers and links when you provide nothing yourself.


It's rather disingenuous for someone to argue that these products are non experimental, tested, and safe and effective. Given the evidence and the harms they have caused, including deaths, the conclusion is that these products are untested, experimental, and potentially hazardous, so not safe and effective.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

I provide far more evidence thsn you ever do.

In this case I an asking for the source of a specific claim.

What evidence? You disapear for weeks then randomly jump in a thread and start asking for sources. We are on here all the time creating threads and content and posting sources studies references, links etc. Let's compare our profiles.

You made a claim.

Back it up.

I will borrow and the paragraph by the fellow member and use it.

What evidence? You disapear for weeks then randomly jump in a thread and start asking for sources. We are on here all the time creating threads and content and posting sources studies references, links etc. Let's compare our profiles

You can take a look the threads we have all create when you are on sabbatical and creating nothing. Not a single thread.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: InachMarbank
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dude scroll up the last page.

The only link I see from you is the withdrawn paper.

You are not in the position to ask other to provide papers and links when you provide nothing yourself.


It's rather disingenuous for someone to argue that these products are non experimental, tested, and safe and effective. Given the evidence and the harms they have caused, including deaths, the conclusion is that these products are untested, experimental, and potentially hazardous, so not safe and effective.

In terms of the VAERS reports it's again disingenuous for someone to claim that there is nothing going on when there are many more adverse reactions registered than all adverse reactions of all other vaccines put together in the last 30 years or so.

I provide far more evidence thsn you ever do.

In this case I an asking for the source of a specific claim.

What evidence? You haven't created a single thread yet and all you do is to engage in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality.

And stop defending the Pharmaceuticals.

Pointing out you are wrong isn't 'vaccine apologetics'

That's your own unsubstantiated opinion.

You have to support your fellow vaccine apologist who

cannot use the case fatality rates in the US or elsewhere in the world. Need the infection fatality rates. The fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in the US is not around 1% and the statistic provided that 1 in 103 who is infected dies is completely false. He needs to take into consideration those who are asymptomatic and those who have minor symptoms and never get tested, a large number of people as it seems.


The rate of adverse reactions from the vaccines is not the one stated in the OP as the estimation came from completely false considerations. The OP took the total number of reported adverse reactions in Florida and divided to the total number of shots given worldwide! That's extraordinary....
Magical I would say.

You don't seem to have pointed out the flaws of the arguments, analysis and statistics...

You seem to have forgotten that I gave agreed with you on several threads that IFR is the superior measure.

I have also said repeatedly you can't use VAERs data to show deaths from vaccines. This applies regardless of point being made or opinion on vaccines.

Now how do you do risk benefit analysis without comparing outcomes of the vaccines and the virus?