O/T Covid Vaccine mRNA

[great_fire]

As we have discussed, it is beyond doubt that the vaccines reduce transmission.

Nobody believes that anymore.

How come you only ever appear on this site to push the establishment position?

When the grooming gang scandal first came to light at first you said the BNP had made it up and then just keeping saying "Jimmy Savile" every five minutes.

Are you in the 77th Brigade?

[Eternal Optimist]

...it is beyond doubt that the vaccines reduce transmission.

It's the way you tell 'em...

[frogmiller]

Another failing politician from Australia wants an investigation

https://x.com/adhtvaus/status/1759778557331718532?s=42&t=V3MA7CRmlcvxGrPcIOixGQ

[frogmiller]

So here we have two failed popstars (although I would imagine that they made a bob or two out of ‘I’m too s3xy’ and probably still get the odd gig at the likes of Pontins) pushing a video from some unnamed gent who is railing against peer reviewed science (i.e. science that has been assessed by independent scientists and deemed to have the appearance of being sound).

What is the alternative to peer reviewed science? Made up crap that can be posted on Twitter? That certainly appears to be the go-to for anti-vaxers.

It’s the content of what they’re talking that interests me. They’re correct! Peer reviewed studies can only happen if everyone thinks the same. You clearly don’t think the same as me yet I’m happy to think about what’s being said and not who’s saying it.

[frogmiller]

Some Australian politicians are asking for an inquiry into the excess deaths.

Come va on now!

[frogmiller]

Kerr, you seem very dismissive and condescending about people in the videos as if you know and have done more than them.

For example and she hasn’t been in any of the videos posted but…
Glenda Jackson was a good politician and served her constituents well but your response to anything she said that didn’t follow your view would be that she was a failed actress.
Obviously my thoughts are taken from all the failed people you’ve mentioned on this thread.

Yet most of them are doctors, consultants, actors and politicians that have clearly been successful in passing exams and building a following on social media.

They haven’t failed in life they’ve just got opinions different to yours.

Your continued critique of X is you trying to discount anything said on there as nonsensical but yet everyone uses it, industry, music, films, governments, education and anyone that want to get a message across.

What people do with that message is up to them.

My main reason for being on Twitter was RUFC and during the Covid lock downs it was a great deal of fun. At that point of my life I was in favour of the vaccines but I was unaware of what they were as they were sold as an escape of the Covid.

My experiences and others around me have opened my mind.

[KerrAvon]

Nobody believes that anymore.

How come you only ever appear on this site to push the establishment position?

When the grooming gang scandal first came to light at first you said the BNP had made it up and then just keeping saying "Jimmy Savile" every five minutes.

Are you in the 77th Brigade?

Who appointed you to determine what nobody believes?

The authors of the research detailed below found that the Covid vaccines reduce transmission. Should we believe them or Right Said Fred?

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10073587/

[KerrAvon]

Another failing politician from Australia wants an investigation

https://x.com/adhtvaus/status/175977...lcvxGrPcIOixGQ

I don't know who the bloke is and so can't comment upon his failure or success as a politician.

There should be investigations into the excess death phenomenon that is affecting some countries. Sadly, antivaxxers are only likely to accept the answer that suits the agenda and the pre-conceived notions of those who put up that Tweet.

[KerrAvon]

It’s the content of what they’re talking that interests me. They’re correct! Peer reviewed studies can only happen if everyone thinks the same. You clearly don’t think the same as me yet I’m happy to think about what’s being said and not who’s saying it.

If that is what the bloke is saying (thanks for the explanation) he is completely wrong. Peer review looks at the method and interpretation of a study or experiment to determine whether its outcome appears valid. It’s quality control.

Put very simply, if science were not subject to peer review, papers that included, say, a critical arithmetical error, would risk going unchallenged.

I would respectfully suggest that the question you should be asking is why Right Said Fred should be pushing an attack upon the concept of peer review? Could it be that there is a lack of any peer reviewed science to support the conspiracy theories that they also push and that they prefer ‘science’ that has not been subject to any form of quality control? What they are doing is a variation of Michael Goves’ comment during the Brexit controversy that ‘Britain has had enough of experts’. What he meant was that he and others who were pushing Brexit were fed up of well qualified people publicly disputing the ‘benefits’ that they were promising.

[KerrAvon]

Kerr, you seem very dismissive and condescending about people in the videos as if you know and have done more than them.

For example and she hasn’t been in any of the videos posted but…
Glenda Jackson was a good politician and served her constituents well but your response to anything she said that didn’t follow your view would be that she was a failed actress.
Obviously my thoughts are taken from all the failed people you’ve mentioned on this thread.

Yet most of them are doctors, consultants, actors and politicians that have clearly been successful in passing exams and building a following on social media.

They haven’t failed in life they’ve just got opinions different to yours.

Your continued critique of X is you trying to discount anything said on there as nonsensical but yet everyone uses it, industry, music, films, governments, education and anyone that want to get a message across.

What people do with that message is up to them.

My main reason for being on Twitter was RUFC and during the Covid lock downs it was a great deal of fun. At that point of my life I was in favour of the vaccines but I was unaware of what they were as they were sold as an escape of the Covid.

My experiences and others around me have opened my mind.

Glenda Jackson was an excellent actress and could never be described as having failed. I’m sure that I have read that she considered herself to have failed in politics, but I believe her to be wrong on that.

My first degree was in a biological science and after graduating I worked in a scientific role - evaluating scientific evidence - for several years before switching into my current profession in which I evaluate evidence, both scientific and other types, on every working day.

My views upon Glenda Jackson are based upon information - evidence - that I have seen in relation to her. If she had expressed a view upon a scientific or legal matter, I would have evaluated it based upon the knowledge that I already held and any additional research that would be required to give an evaluation that I was confident of. Part of that research would have touched upon Jackson’s qualifications and experience to speak on the scientific subject in question and also the views of other who are qualified to do so.

I won’t take science lessons from Right Said Fred. I would respectfully suggest that no sensible person should. If building a following on social media is something that means that a person’s views somehow have increased credibility and validity then society is truly doomed

[frogmiller]

Ma Green on this senate meeting tells of stories of peer review studies being ignored.

https://x.com/fivetimesaugust/status/1758518403269284186?s=42&t=V3MA7CRmlcvxGrPcIOixGQ

[frogmiller]

I’ll do some checking on the uk government sight to check this.

https://x.com/bambkb/status/1759934691577102800?s=42&t=V3MA7CRmlcvxGrPcIOixGQ

[frogmiller]

I’ll do some checking on the uk government sight to check this.

https://x.com/bambkb/status/17599346...lcvxGrPcIOixGQ

There are tender notices

https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2022/W28/778764704

[frogmiller]

I’ll do some checking on the uk government sight to check this.

https://x.com/bambkb/status/17599346...lcvxGrPcIOixGQ

The Brisbane Times are running a story on it

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/brisbane-doctor-details-how-he-came-to-be-sacked-by-major-hospital-20220817-p5baiw.html

[KerrAvon]

Ma Green on this senate meeting tells of stories of peer review studies being ignored.

https://x.com/fivetimesaugust/status...lcvxGrPcIOixGQ

Where does she say that peer reviewed studies have been ignored? I’ve listened to the clip three times (my ears are bleeding) and there is no mention of it. Can you point me to the correct time.

As I mentioned in post 449, a favourite tactic of antivaxxers is to place data out of context. That is what Marjorie Taylor-Greene does here. She has taken VAERS data and is presenting it as demonstrating adverse reactions to vaccination when it shows no such thing.

VAERS (like the UK yellow card system) allows for possible adverse reactions to be reported but that by itself it does not prove a causative link. Instead, the reporting is monitored to detect ‘signals’ in which a particular event is reported at a frequency that is greater than one would expect to see in the population at large. Such signals can be investigated as was quickly done for myocarditis after Pfizer and blood clotting after AZ, both of which resulted in a change of the manner in which they were deployed in the UK.

With the huge numbers of vaccinations given in the US it was and is inevitable that possible adverse events would be recorded.

Ms Taylor - Greene omits to mention that. For example, she makes mention of miscarriages being recorded on VAERS without any attempt to place that in the context of it being an unfortunate occurrence that women can miscarry irrespective of their vaccination status. Do you think that is sensible or honest, Frog?

The psychology of conspiracy theorism is quite interesting and as I have detected no signs that you have tried the two books that I recommended on conspiracy theories, I will share an idea with you.

Human beings have evolved to look for patterns. For our hominid ancestors living on the plains of Africa, it would make sense to look for and react to patterns of light in undergrowth that had the appearance of eyes, because it might indicate the presence of a hungry ambush predator (but might also be simply the way the light was falling on the leaves). That tendency to look for patterns persists, which is why conspiracy theorists often claim to have ‘joined the dots’.

The trick is to consider the possibility that the dots are a random pattern.

P.s. I hope that my mention of evolution hasn’t triggered you. I’m aware that many antivaxxers also dispute that theory. Marjorie Taylor-Greene doesn't:

https://www.axios.com/2021/06/11/marjorie-taylor-greene-disputes-evolution