@humy said"We already knew and you are just insulting our intelligence."
Is that it? We already knew and you are just insulting our intelligence. You have no real point then; just your straw mans that convinces nobody here.
Nobody here ever said/implied that vaccines don't come with caveats, quite the opposite in fact; That doesn't in any way imply people should generally not be vaccinated nor that we should generally reject all vaccines as all bein ...[text shortened]... l medicine and then millions of people that could be easily saved by medicine would die as a result.
We? You don't speak for others.
Since you know give me a list of who cannot take the vaccine. That should be easy since you already know.
4 edits
@metal-brain saidWithout looking it up on the internet, why don't you show how much more clever you are than us by giving us a comprehensively complete list of all people who cannot take the vaccine? Answer; You can't and you aren't more clever than us.
Since you know give me a list of who cannot take the vaccine.
I don't claim to be able to give such a list, at least not without first looking it up. Your new straw man?
You make no point.
We? You don't speak for others.I speak for most others here that think you are wrong. Have you noticed how often your post gets more than one thumbs down and no thumbs up? How do you explain that? Its because most people here think you are wrong.
1 edit
@metal-brain saidThis is an overview of what has been done in the Covid-19 Research:
A vaccine is not necessary.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7501876/
The link you provided is listed under "pre-clinical studies". In fact the paper is referring to a really nicely done reaserch work and clearly states ist own scope quite correctly. It is far from being a Treatment.
In fact a vaccine is not necessary if you "just let the illness run ist Course". But then are in your opinion Hospitals necessary? People are dying anway, don't they?
@humy saidSo now you admit you don't know. That is what I thought.
Without looking it up on the internet, why don't you show how much more clever you are than us by giving us a comprehensively complete list of all people who cannot take the vaccine? Answer; You can't and you aren't more clever than us.
I don't claim to be able to give such a list, at least not without first looking it up. Your new straw man?
You make no point.
[quote] We? Yo ...[text shortened]... bs down and no thumbs up? How do you explain that? Its because most people here think you are wrong.
Allergies too.
11 edits
@metal-brain said"don't know" what, exactly? Unlike you, I readily assert that, just like all human beings on this planet including you, there are many things I don't know, and I never said/implied the contrary. Saying "I don't know" about something doesn't equate with saying "I know very little about anything" let alone "I'm stupid" but rather just means that and nothing more. There are also many things YOU "don't know".
So now you admit you don't know.
Why don't you just for once in your life be a man and admit there are many things you don't know that other people do and their are many people a lot smarter than you? I do; There are many people on this forum that are (obviously) a lot smarter than I and (obviously) know many things I don't and I never denied this fact. But you certainly aren't one of those smarter people but that's not what we have against you but rather your delusional arrogance of talking as if you are at least as smart and just as knowledgeable of any current subject matter currently being discussed as anyone here. You will never be respected by most people here on this forum until if or when just for once in your life you show just a bit of humility and at least show you acknowledge, just like I do, that there are people on this forum that know and/or understand many things you don't. Obviously nobody including I can be an expert on everything and you are no exception.
Pfizer and Moderna claim their COVID vaccines are “more than 90% effective,” but people should know that those claims are based on inadequate testing. “They just used PCR tests, not the gold standard for testing which requires following up those PCR test results with genetic sequencing.
@Duchess64
Just about any scientific development can be used for good OR bad, and I think the bad you implied would be atomic power, used to generate power but also of course the tens of thousands of atomic bombs around the world.
@ponderable said
This is an overview of what has been done in the Covid-19 Research:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7501876/
The link you provided is listed under "pre-clinical studies". In fact the paper is referring to a really nicely done reaserch work and clearly states ist own scope quite correctly. It is far from being a Treatment.
In fact a vaccine is not nec ...[text shortened]... n ist Course". But then are in your opinion Hospitals necessary? People are dying anway, don't they?
In fact a vaccine is not necessary if you "just let the illness run its Course". But then are in your opinion Hospitals necessary? People are dying anway, don't they?
It's a good question. What's the point of modern medicine if the strategy is just ignoring health crises?
@humy saidI’m trying to get into your dispute, but here is the answer as it stands.
Without looking it up on the internet, why don't you show us a comprehensively complete list of all people who cannot take the vaccine?
According to the SPC (Specifics of Product Characteristics) under sections
4.1 Therapeutic indications –
Active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus, in individuals 16 years of age and older.
4.4 Special warnings and precautions for use
Anaphylaxis
Any person with a history of immediate-onset anaphylaxis to a vaccine, medicine or food should not receive the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. A second dose of the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be given to those who have experienced anaphylaxis to the first dose of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2.
Section 4.6 last entry is also worth considering
“Fertility - It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility”
Hope that this helps.
@medullah saidThe fertility risk is likely to be theoretical. They trials on these vaccines have been conducted quickly and there's no evidence because it requires at least five years of follow up for problems such as long term harms connected with fertility to emerge. There's not a tremendous point in vaccinating people who are under 65, except for attempting to produce "herd immunity". People over 65 are unlikely to be concerned about risks to their fertility. I think it's likely that the allergy warning applies to vaccines as a class and isn't specific to the Pfizer vaccine. Also this is the Pfizer vaccine and not the Oxford/Astra Zeneca vaccine, which we'd need to see a separate note for. It's quite likely it would say the same thing.
I’m trying to get into your dispute, but here is the answer as it stands.
According to the SPC (Specifics of Product Characteristics) under sections
4.1 Therapeutic indications –
Active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus, in individuals 16 years of age and older.
4.4 Special warnings and precautions for use
Anaphylaxis
Any person w ...[text shortened]... unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility”
Hope that this helps.
1 edit
** Sorry typo **
Not "I'm trying " but "I'm not trying "
According to professor John Bell (SAGE) it is expected that a sizable percentage of the UK population are expected to be rendered sterile - I can't comment on if he is right or not as I don't know enough about the mechanism of the vaccine.
He doesn't appear to be saying that it is theoretical, but I'll throw it out there for anyone interested.
@medullah saidHaving watched that video several times, I think its the virus's ability to replicate that he's talking about, not the capacity of its human hosts.
** Sorry typo **
Not "I'm trying " but "I'm not trying "
According to professor John Bell (SAGE) it is expected that a sizable percentage of the UK population are expected to be rendered sterile - I can't comment on if he is right or not as I don't know enough about the mechanism of the vaccine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmJLv0sDA_M
He doesn't appear to be saying that it is theoretical, but I'll throw it out there for anyone interested.
@deepthought saidThere is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity. I'm not even sure they should call it a vaccine. It does not prevent people from getting the SARS2 virus.
The fertility risk is likely to be theoretical. They trials on these vaccines have been conducted quickly and there's no evidence because it requires at least five years of follow up for problems such as long term harms connected with fertility to emerge. There's not a tremendous point in vaccinating people who are under 65, except for attempting to produce "herd immuni ...[text shortened]... vaccine, which we'd need to see a separate note for. It's quite likely it would say the same thing.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/herd-immunity-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-independent-sage-member-professor-gabriel-scally-121531109.html
Fauci suggested that because the vaccine would render people asymptomatic they may not be contagious, but the whole reason for lockdowns was based on the assumption that asymptomatic people are contagious.
This contradiction is troubling and people are starting to notice. They either don't know what they are talking about or Fauci is deliberately lying again.
Automated tech is likely to decrease demand for labor. That means we will have a lot of useless eaters to feed. It has been suggested that most people will simply not be needed in the future. Something to think about.
@metal-brain saidWhich one? Whichever one you are referring to here, you are wrong and just moronically denying the evidence with your usual anti-vax BS;
There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity.
For the Pfizer vaccine;
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03166-8
"...Scientists welcome the first compelling evidence that a vaccine can prevent COVID-19. ..."
For the Oxford vaccine;
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-20-new-study-reveals-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-produces-strong-immune-response
"...New study reveals Oxford coronavirus vaccine produces strong immune response ...
The results of the Phase I/II trial published today in the scientific journal, The Lancet, indicate no early safety concerns and induces strong immune responses in both parts of the immune system.
..."