Vaids

@metal-brain said
Doesn't change the fact you lied.

What did I lie about? I said the article misrepresents the data and this is true.

The Lancet report says that protection among the vaccinated is "better maintained" among the vaccinated, while only the "extremely vulnerable" such as "old" people were the ones who showed waning protection over time.

The article also says that the vaccinated are better protected against "severe infection" for both men and women.

Also mentioned: "The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months", except for that "vulnerable" group.

Your article deliberately leaves these figures out to focus on negative results. This is propaganda by omission and why your sources can't be trusted.

Just post the actual reports, not the articles that deliberately highlight just the parts that support their anti-vax propaganda.

@vivify said
What did I lie about? I said the article misrepresents the data and this is true.

The Lancet report says that protection among the vaccinated is "better maintained" among the vaccinated, while only the "extremely vulnerable" such as "old" people were the ones who showed waning protection over time.

The article also says that the vaccinated are better protected against ...[text shortened]... not the articles that deliberately highlight just the parts that support their anti-vax propaganda.

You claimed I made a false statement when I did nothing of the sort. That is what you lied about.

"I said the article misrepresents the data and this is true."

But you have not proven that, you merely say it. Once again, none of the things you are pointing out contradict anything I have said at all. You are digressing into irrelevancy. Just admit you are bound and determined to not believe it and you don't need a logical reason. You know it is true.

@metal-brain said
You claimed I made a false statement when I did nothing of the sort. That is what you lied about.

Okay: you're falsely representing the study by leaving out what I mentioned in my previous post. You're trying to make it seem that the vaccinated are more at risk over time than the unvaccinated; the study makes it clear that's not the case.

You (and the article) also deliberately left out that Lancet makes it clear the study is only "preliminary" and has *not* been peered reviewed.

Lying by omission is still lying.

But you have not proven that, you merely say it

I posted exact quotes from the Lancet report. You're wrong again.

@vivify said
Okay: you're falsely representing the study by leaving out what I mentioned in my previous post. You're trying to make it seem that the vaccinated are more at risk over time than the unvaccinated; the study makes it clear that's not the case.

You (and the article) also deliberately left out that Lancet makes it clear the study is only "preliminary" and has *not* been pee ...[text shortened]... en that, you merely say it[/b]

I posted exact quotes from the Lancet report. You're wrong again.

" you're falsely representing the study by leaving out what I mentioned in my previous post"

What you mentioned in your previous post is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with VAIDS which is what this thread is about, nor does it contradict it in any way. Stop digressing into irrelevancy and falsely claiming it proves anything.

@metal-brain said
What you mentioned in your previous post is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with VAIDS which is what this thread is about

I directly responded to what you posted in your OP and the link you provided.

@vivify said
I directly responded to what you posted in your OP and the link you provided.

It had nothing to do with VAIDS and you never proved anything I said wrong.
You are fake debating and lying about it.

@metal-brain said
It had nothing to do with VAIDS and you never proved anything I said wrong.
You are fake debating and lying about it.

Your OP is about the Lancet study, all of my posts have also been about that.

WTF are you talking about?

@metal-brain said
You are lying again. Prove it if you can.

It’s in the bloody link, you dope.

@vivify said
Your OP is about the Lancet study, all of my posts have also been about that.

WTF are you talking about?

Yeah, everything but VAIDS, the subject of this thread.
Stop fake debating.

How many gene vaccines jabs did you get?

@shavixmir said
It’s in the bloody link, you dope.

What is?
Are you going to beat around the bush and pretend you are debating too? This is about immune deficiency, not the effectiveness of vaccines. That has nothing to do with VAIDS.

@metal-brain said
What is?
Are you going to beat around the bush and pretend you are debating too? This is about immune deficiency, not the effectiveness of vaccines. That has nothing to do with VAIDS.

You posted an article which says something wrong about the article it links to.

This has been pointed out to you by various people.
You are wrong. Just accept it. And stop whining and showing us your broken ego.

@shavixmir said
You posted an article which says something wrong about the article it links to.

This has been pointed out to you by various people.
You are wrong. Just accept it. And stop whining and showing us your broken ego.

What was wrong about the article it links to? Please be specific and don't lie about it like viv did.

@metal-brain said
What was wrong about the article it links to? Please be specific and don't lie about it like viv did.

Oh really? That’s what you read?

Nothing wrong with the article your article linked to. Your article is what’s wrong.

@shavixmir said
Oh really? That’s what you read?

Nothing wrong with the article your article linked to. Your article is what’s wrong.

Is that why you cannot prove it?
You are worse than a liar. You are a liar and a cheerleader for other liars.

@metal-brain said
Is that why you cannot prove it?
You are worse than a liar. You are a liar and a cheerleader for other liars.

You’re a fukking retard.