Vaccine's - FAO the "Lurkers"

User avatar
JockCovidiot
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:20 am

Vaccine's - FAO the "Lurkers"

Post by JockCovidiot »

Any who frequent this site can clearly see two opposing camps at play on the forum.

1 - The ardent vaxx nazi's who take great pleasure from trolling those who for whatever their reason wish to discuss concern wrt the covid vaxx.

2- Those who are pro choice and are here to discuss the UNTHINKABLE ie to question the official narrative.

Maybe there is a 3rd ardent anti vaxx group but tbh anti vaxx should not be a slur... INFORMED CONSENT. Everyone should have an inalienable right to bodily sovereignty and to refuse medical intervention for any reason they deem fit.

If you are here lurking and unsure I would say to you what I would say to my own family/friends Make your own choice - FOR YOU! No one else It is not for you or me or anyone else to keep others safe by submitting to a vaxx that as much as it must really really really pain Thinksabout(nuffin) and his ilk only has Temporary Emergency Use Authorisation :lol:

If you want the vaxx - take the vaxx. If you dont - don't.

If you want to DISCUSS concerns your thoughts then do so and take no notice of the moronic trolls here and don't let them put you off.

TBH as thinksabout(nuffin) and his like become more abusive it just shows what horrible nasty pieces of work they are.

Stay Sceptical.

RichardTechnik
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:01 am

Re: Vaccine's - FAO the "Lurkers"

Post by RichardTechnik »

Well summarised Jock.

Frankly I feel sorry for the people who share the 'thinksaboutit' account and a few others. Just dweebs who have been wound up and instructed to oppose whatever truth is posted here.

Sad pieces of humanity they are. Realising they will ultimately lose.

I agree - stay sceptical - think for yourselves.

Speedstick
Posts: 566
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:27 pm

Re: Vaccine's - FAO the "Lurkers"

Post by Speedstick »

Great posts here from Jock and Richard, here here.
Less like Thinksaboutit more like (Stinks of Collaboration with It).

thinksaboutit
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Vaccine's - FAO the "Lurkers"

Post by thinksaboutit »

JockCovidiot wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 5:04 pm Any who frequent this site can clearly see two opposing camps at play on the forum.

1 - The ardent vaxx nazi's who take great pleasure from trolling those who for whatever their reason wish to discuss concern wrt the covid vaxx.

2- Those who are pro choice and are here to discuss the UNTHINKABLE ie to question the official narrative.

Maybe there is a 3rd ardent anti vaxx group but tbh anti vaxx should not be a slur... INFORMED CONSENT. Everyone should have an inalienable right to bodily sovereignty and to refuse medical intervention for any reason they deem fit.

If you are here lurking and unsure I would say to you what I would say to my own family/friends Make your own choice - FOR YOU! No one else It is not for you or me or anyone else to keep others safe by submitting to a vaxx that as much as it must really really really pain Thinksabout(nuffin) and his ilk only has Temporary Emergency Use Authorisation :lol:

If you want the vaxx - take the vaxx. If you dont - don't.

If you want to DISCUSS concerns your thoughts then do so and take no notice of the moronic trolls here and don't let them put you off.

TBH as thinksabout(nuffin) and his like become more abusive it just shows what horrible nasty pieces of work they are.

Stay Sceptical.
Which group do those, who choose to misrepresent adverse reaction data and discourage people from taking the vaccine?

Which group do those belong, who say there is no evidence of efficacy?

Which group do those belong, who say vaccines are genocide, or mass murder?

There are plenty of these people here.
What are the motives of such people?

Occamsrazor
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 7:14 pm

Re: Vaccine's - FAO the "Lurkers"

Post by Occamsrazor »

'Anti-vax' is one of the many examples of the propagandising of language that we are seeing.
I am categorically not 'anti-vax', having had many vaccinations myself in adulthood, including yellow fever and tetanus, and having vaccinated my child - most recently with the HPV vaccine.
However I haven't had a flu vaccine because I don't need one and I am certainly not going to have a Covid vaccine for the same reason. As the years go by, I will continue to revisit my decision. I would certainly consider the flu vaccine within the next 10 years as my last bout was awful, but Covid was utterly inconsequential to me and everyone I know so I won't be rushing to change my mind.
As said above, each to their own, and hopefully that is the message that lurkers get. All the rudeness and beligerance on here seems to come from a very small minority.

Tiers4Fears
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:20 pm

Re: Vaccine's - FAO the "Lurkers"

Post by Tiers4Fears »

I think that's razor sharp logic from Occam'srazor I too have had all my vaccines and for my son. I came to this debate with zero pre conceived ideas on vaccines.

Sometimes the answer is in the question as they used to say at school
Would you take the experimental vaccine that has been given emergency approval?

1. No I don't fancy an experiment when there are serious unanswered questions about the long term safety and when there are widely reported adverse reactions - however small that risk is.
2. I don't see the emergency - not just because I'm in the 99.95% survival group (and that's without anti viral treatments that are gaining traction in parts of the world.) I just don't think all these people have died from Covid. That is the key fact that started me on this journey. Based on the world wide reported IFR of the disease it just wasn't possible. If we really had studied these deaths and the true cause, I believe we would be looking at a third of the number of deaths. There are many reports that suggest that too. And if we compared this with the likely number of people who were going to die in a particularly bad year from a respiratory virus such as flu, that's exactly what it would be.

So the only reason to get the jab is to go on holiday or protect other people. But the protecting other people is highly debated anyway due to variants and the uncertainty of the vaccine stopping transmission. Plus if you believe in the vaccine's protecting powers take it and you should be fine right?

And that's without mentioning the smoking guns of the lab leak theory and the suppression of Ivermectin and other drugs. (I just don't see the conflict of interest in American doctors advocating drugs they can make zero money out of - unless you just think they're all whack jobs, they're probably just trying to save lives.)

These are all arguments that have been made much more coherently and convincingly elsewhere, but sometimes it's cathartic to put your 2 cents in however little value it adds.

Very much case closed for me - but Like OR said I will be constantly evaluating the data.

jmc
Posts: 438
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:01 am

Re: Vaccine's - FAO the "Lurkers"

Post by jmc »

thinksaboutit wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 9:24 am Which group do those, who choose to misrepresent adverse reaction data and discourage people from taking the vaccine?

Which group do those belong, who say there is no evidence of efficacy?

Which group do those belong, who say vaccines are genocide, or mass murder?

There are plenty of these people here.
What are the motives of such people?
The adverse reaction stats are from officials sources. The under-count of these official monitoring systems is well documented in the published literature going back two decades. By those trying to improve them.

The US system has the only multi-decade datasets were we can do comparative risk analysis. Flu shot 150 M per annum, 30 to 50 deaths. SARs Cov2 vaccines 100M+, almost 5,000 deaths so far. Same methodology, same system.

For 70% of the population the PSI/PORT score risk is higher for Influenza than for SARs CoV2. And for the rest the main risk factor is a Hospital Acquired Infection.

The one country were we had a real time controlled experiment on immediate adverse reaction mortalities, care homes in Ireland, showed a doubling of mortality rates during the vaccination period. Those people were under strict lockdown and isolation.

Those were real deaths. Or actual old people. Five hundred of them. In one small country.

There are lots of dead people from adverse response. Lots of them. According to official statistics well over 20K by this stage and rising quickly.

What is your motivation for ignoring the official statistic ? Which undercount the actual numbers. Do you want all those mostly old people to die for no measurable health benefit?

As for efficacy the only numbers we have published so far are what is called Science By Press Release. There are no accurate efficacy numbers and it will be a long time before there are. 12 to 18 months.

Here is the simplified version of why those efficacy numbers mean nothing. Its mathematics. SARs Cov 2 has a low R0. Its not very infectious. This means that there has to be quite a few exposure events before the probability of getting infected goes above 50%. Add to that a low prevalence number. Maybe 3 people in 1000 thousand have an infection at any given time. Now add to that the serious reduction in the stranger interaction rate due to the severe lockdown disruption of close quarter exposure.

So with those kind of initial conditions the minimum sample size needed to produce any kind of statistically reliable efficacy numbers in a short time period (< 6 months) is of the order of 100K. Because you are trying to accurately gauge the effect on what is a very rare event. The published numbers so fare are based on much smaller samples. So small as to make the probable infection exposure events count so low as to be of low accuracy.

Now what makes the published efficacy numbers so far even more suspect is the test used. They do not use antigen/ antibody tests. Which actually test for the presence of current infection or past infection. They use a proxy test, RT/PCR, which given the low prevalence is not a clinically valid test in this scenario. The lower sensitivity of antigen/ antibody tests can be validly adjusted for. The RT/PCR as an invalid test cannot be reliable used in this situation.

So what is your motivation for denying what is very basic mathematics? Is it simply that you dont have the intellectual wherewithal to understand what is being discussed so dismiss it out of hand. As beyond your comprehension.

I'll agree that the rhetorical hyperbole of "genocide" is a bit extreme but based on the numbers of dead old people, and the utter disregard shown for them in most countries last year, a compelling cases (at least legally) could be made for a charge of Geronticide / Sinicide against a whole bunch of governments. In these cases you dont have to show deliberate intent, just the result of actions taken. Or not taken.

I get the distinct impression that you still have a naive belief in "authority". That you have still to realize that the world you grew up in, your formative years, is long gone. Sure there were lots of idiots in positions of power back then. But there were also a lot of competent dedicated people who got things done and made things work. But those kind of people are long gone. Either retired or dead.

What we have now is the classic Third Generation Syndrome. Most of the people in positions of power or authority are the grandchildren (or more) of the people who actually built our modern society. Or else those who conform totally to the system in order to build a career. The people who built our modern infrastructure rose on merit. Their children had a leg up in the game but still had to show some merit to flourish. But the current generation, mostly hereditary one way or another. Advancement having tittle to do with merit or abaility but all to do with playing the system.

And everything goes along swimmingly until the first huge crisis, when real ability and merit are needed to navigate the raging storm. Then the utter nullity of those at the top of the governing class is shown in all its grotesque glory.

The reason why this current catastrophe did not happen back in the 1980's or 1950's is because back then there were more than enough people in all walks of life with real ability to make responsible, sane and pragmatic decisions for the county. Which they did. Many times.

So why do you still have such faith in "authority" when they have so spectacularly failed on so many levels in the last year? The problem is not so much the government itself but the hollowing out of real ability and merit from the top levels pretty much all parts of modern society. The Britain of 50 or 70 years ago would have responded very differently, much better, because the people in charge back then actually knew what they were doing. Most of the time at least.

The system has failed and failed badly. Maybe it is time you acknowledged that.

Nobody
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:05 pm

Re: Vaccine's - FAO the "Lurkers"

Post by Nobody »

"The people who built our modern infrastructure rose on merit. Their children had a leg up in the game but still had to show some merit to flourish."

Another thing you say is that this would have been better dealt with in the 50s and 60s because the people in institutional positions were of higher quality.
I don't think, in the UK, anyone rises on merit, our education system has been historically too corrupt by the class interests it serves and this pandemic makes only too apparent the real nature of these problems. I agree that this would have been dealt with different, better, in the 50s, 60s, or 70s, when national institutions had some commitment to the nation and the people within their borders. I think this pandemic emerges precisely from the cross-generational reproduction strategies of the people you allude to as having risen via merit: they segregated and, in order to ensure the transmission of their privileges, they instituted clearly discernible differences that rendered people legible as a condition of the transmission of resources that required institutional transmission on top of domestic sources.
The problem is these people enjoyed a lot of social power via their control of what are essentially private institutions. Look at Clinton and Blair, for example, both used the same strategies, very similar types. An older generation, like Harold Wilson, had no real direct relationship to their class but they had a less attenuated relation to the condition of the poor than later generations, the distances became pronounced in that generation who went through universities in the sixties and seventies who are the real source of many of the problems in the UK. They appropriated resources under the guise of public functions that they simply did not perform and they were adept at using public institutions to generate the appearance of a need for themselves and this has only continued. You see with this pandemic the way in which the whole institutional apparatus of the civil sphere has been used to generate representations of a problem that can only be adequately referred to via the same representational instruments which presume a particular institutional condition so that if you share their position then you will share their capacity and be capable of participating in the debate, this is why you have seen such censorship across the public sphere. This is all characteristic of the bureaucratic vision which has been so much a part of this problem and why this vision inscribes itself in particular grand, system-level, solutions, rather than human-scale, piecemeal, practical solutions that might have been more effective. The whole apparatus has a need to represent reality which then becomes profoundly anti-democratic and inhumane. There is an overly technocratic and theoreticist vision at work in all this that has obliterated people's rights and, for me, all these issues concern the social grounds of the institutions producing the representation of the problem. In the 50s, 60s, 70s, there would have been national institutions seeking national answers and that would have meant adapting to the potential threat via something informed by national interests so that a major consideration might have been not to make oneself enthral to international corporate interests but all this has gone out of the window as a global elite have commandeered international apparatus to position themselves via abstractions like 'public health' and then produce representations of problems that push solutions they are invested in. It's all, like everything else, class politics under a particular veil, the same as global warming. Use the symbolic power of science to generate representations, problematics, that are infused with your own interests, then offer solutions that benefit you. Development economics is the same con. What this pandemic shows is the change in attitude of the global elite, the shadow state, above the national state apparatuses, to the western working class. Now, they are clearly being perceived as essentially the same as the developing world used to be, probably because production can now be internationally mobilised and the elite feel economically secure in being able to ensure the exorbitant revenue they require to extort from the world's population. But, whatever else you think, their solutions to this pandemic, show scant regard for human rights or the well being of people. There has been continuous threat. Many of the fictions used to cow people into submission exist expressly to create fear and mistrust and to endorse toxicity in order to erode any social bases of civility that might found a counter-culture. It is impossible to take seriously the humanity of the people making decisions and the management of this show historic shifts between the relationships between the ordinary people and their state institutions.

Illimitible
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:06 am

Re: Vaccine's - FAO the "Lurkers"

Post by Illimitible »

It’s very simple, and I’m surprised you can’t see it.

He NEEDS to believe in “authority” otherwise the world would be a scary place where he had to assess his own risks make his own decisions and take his own chances.

But he can’t do that.

So he hides behind blind belief.

So when the people in here challenge that, we’re not only challenging his ego investment, but also his security.

All these people are scared because they’ve been “educated” to do as they’re told, and “believe”

jmc wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 1:11 pm
thinksaboutit wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 9:24 am Which group do those, who choose to misrepresent adverse reaction data and discourage people from taking the vaccine?

Which group do those belong, who say there is no evidence of efficacy?

Which group do those belong, who say vaccines are genocide, or mass murder?

There are plenty of these people here.
What are the motives of such people?
The adverse reaction stats are from officials sources. The under-count of these official monitoring systems is well documented in the published literature going back two decades. By those trying to improve them.

The US system has the only multi-decade datasets were we can do comparative risk analysis. Flu shot 150 M per annum, 30 to 50 deaths. SARs Cov2 vaccines 100M+, almost 5,000 deaths so far. Same methodology, same system.

For 70% of the population the PSI/PORT score risk is higher for Influenza than for SARs CoV2. And for the rest the main risk factor is a Hospital Acquired Infection.

The one country were we had a real time controlled experiment on immediate adverse reaction mortalities, care homes in Ireland, showed a doubling of mortality rates during the vaccination period. Those people were under strict lockdown and isolation.

Those were real deaths. Or actual old people. Five hundred of them. In one small country.

There are lots of dead people from adverse response. Lots of them. According to official statistics well over 20K by this stage and rising quickly.

What is your motivation for ignoring the official statistic ? Which undercount the actual numbers. Do you want all those mostly old people to die for no measurable health benefit?

As for efficacy the only numbers we have published so far are what is called Science By Press Release. There are no accurate efficacy numbers and it will be a long time before there are. 12 to 18 months.

Here is the simplified version of why those efficacy numbers mean nothing. Its mathematics. SARs Cov 2 has a low R0. Its not very infectious. This means that there has to be quite a few exposure events before the probability of getting infected goes above 50%. Add to that a low prevalence number. Maybe 3 people in 1000 thousand have an infection at any given time. Now add to that the serious reduction in the stranger interaction rate due to the severe lockdown disruption of close quarter exposure.

So with those kind of initial conditions the minimum sample size needed to produce any kind of statistically reliable efficacy numbers in a short time period (< 6 months) is of the order of 100K. Because you are trying to accurately gauge the effect on what is a very rare event. The published numbers so fare are based on much smaller samples. So small as to make the probable infection exposure events count so low as to be of low accuracy.

Now what makes the published efficacy numbers so far even more suspect is the test used. They do not use antigen/ antibody tests. Which actually test for the presence of current infection or past infection. They use a proxy test, RT/PCR, which given the low prevalence is not a clinically valid test in this scenario. The lower sensitivity of antigen/ antibody tests can be validly adjusted for. The RT/PCR as an invalid test cannot be reliable used in this situation.

So what is your motivation for denying what is very basic mathematics? Is it simply that you dont have the intellectual wherewithal to understand what is being discussed so dismiss it out of hand. As beyond your comprehension.

I'll agree that the rhetorical hyperbole of "genocide" is a bit extreme but based on the numbers of dead old people, and the utter disregard shown for them in most countries last year, a compelling cases (at least legally) could be made for a charge of Geronticide / Sinicide against a whole bunch of governments. In these cases you dont have to show deliberate intent, just the result of actions taken. Or not taken.

I get the distinct impression that you still have a naive belief in "authority". That you have still to realize that the world you grew up in, your formative years, is long gone. Sure there were lots of idiots in positions of power back then. But there were also a lot of competent dedicated people who got things done and made things work. But those kind of people are long gone. Either retired or dead.

What we have now is the classic Third Generation Syndrome. Most of the people in positions of power or authority are the grandchildren (or more) of the people who actually built our modern society. Or else those who conform totally to the system in order to build a career. The people who built our modern infrastructure rose on merit. Their children had a leg up in the game but still had to show some merit to flourish. But the current generation, mostly hereditary one way or another. Advancement having tittle to do with merit or abaility but all to do with playing the system.

And everything goes along swimmingly until the first huge crisis, when real ability and merit are needed to navigate the raging storm. Then the utter nullity of those at the top of the governing class is shown in all its grotesque glory.

The reason why this current catastrophe did not happen back in the 1980's or 1950's is because back then there were more than enough people in all walks of life with real ability to make responsible, sane and pragmatic decisions for the county. Which they did. Many times.

So why do you still have such faith in "authority" when they have so spectacularly failed on so many levels in the last year? The problem is not so much the government itself but the hollowing out of real ability and merit from the top levels pretty much all parts of modern society. The Britain of 50 or 70 years ago would have responded very differently, much better, because the people in charge back then actually knew what they were doing. Most of the time at least.

The system has failed and failed badly. Maybe it is time you acknowledged that.

Speedstick
Posts: 566
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:27 pm

Re: Vaccine's - FAO the "Lurkers"

Post by Speedstick »

What motivates people anti the vaccination programme?
Those anti the vaccination programme are true empaths, acutely aware of the very real damage 'Big Pharmas Master Plan' is and will be to our children and humanity in general.
I gain nothing from my stance, other than the ridicule of its evil promoters and cheerleaders, all I truly and genuinely want is for my granddaughter to grow up in a world where she is allowed to express her personality with freedom and choice, and not be subject to repeated guesswork of mad scientists promoting unnecessary vaccination programmes, which benefit nobody but the owners and shareholders of those big pharma programmes, whilst be allowed to do immeasurable harm to healthy people, as has already been witnessed by the excess deaths attributable to this Covid vaccination.
In short, what motivates me is veracity and integrity, with doing and saying what is right and just.

Post Reply