Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[CJJon]

https://www.logicalfallacies.org/

Sponsored

 

[CJJon]

What does the frequency of administration have to do with efficacy?
You eat food daily (presumably). Does that make it an ineffective means of survival?

Strawman fallacy is the name for what you’ve done there.

Not strawman, just simple bad reasoning. The vaccine needs a booster, therefore it doesn't work.

 

[sk47]

Sheesh. There is so much wrong with your ideas about how things are. This is really the issue here. You are severely misinformed.

No one said that the vaccine reprogrammed cells that then fight the virus. No one. It is what lay people thought about how this 'new' vaccine worked (never mind most don't know a whit about vaccines and how they work) and the misinformation stuck. FYI mRNA vaccines cause the cells to produce a particular protein of the virus that your body recognizes and then produces antibodies which then go on to fight the virus. It wasn't a secret or a big mystery that had yet to be solved. They just didn't figure this out.

Vaccinated people do not become super-human immune. No one ever claimed so, not once. Yes, infected vaccinated people can shed virus in some infections. Again, this isn't some smoking gun or something kept secret. The fact that you bring this up as a negative thing show bias and misunderstanding of the basics of immunology.

So, would you want blood products from people vaccinated under a EUA in time of global pandemic? How absurd you are.

You are correct, the vaccine itself does not kill the virus. Bleach probably would. Maybe if we could inject some UV light too...

Why is this one different...? Do you really have to ask that? How insensitive and crass. Should we all just say fuck it and do like they did during the middle ages? The hell with antibiotics 'cause most people survived back in the day without them. Bloodletting and leeches all around!

Anyway...

Hello; How insensitive and crass .

 

[CJJon]

Hello; You called it. I admire your restraint is not using name calling and putdowns when he has clearly made a bad conceptual blunder.
There are three, sometimes four who join in in near lockstep in this thread trying to dismiss any who question some of the ideas coming from authorities concerning the covid outbreak. At least one claims to be well educated in the medical field, yet when his partners make such mistaken comments I wonder why he does not step in to correct. Sometimes allows the false stuff to stand.

The immune systems is not like our digestive system that needs to be refueled on a regular basis. Not sure how many times I have written about the process and how many links I and others have posted explaining how the immune system works, but several for sure.
The immune system is always on and working in a person with a healthy immune system. When a new pathogen invades the immune system knows it is not part of our bodies and will attack the invader. Once known the system will recall the invader and be able to deal with it later.

An immune system reaction ought to be good for more than six months is my take. If the virus is mutated enough so as to appear new to the body that is a reason the immunity will not be good any more. If the mutation is indeed changed enough then a new formulation of a vaccine is needed to match the change in the virus.
That is what is done with the flu. The many strains of flu are always mutating so the vaccines are changed often. Thing is, according to one of my posted links, the covid mRNA shots are required to keep the same formula as the first shots. No change allowed by rule. So the "booster shots" will be identical to the first shot I took. No allowance for the mutated virus at all.

So the two shots I took last winter were supposed to start up an immune system reaction. That reaction is supposed to be just like the immune reaction gained from an actual infection. Yet the naturally immune are still good to go more than eight months after infection for many and the shot takers are getting a third shot after six months.
Also from my recent searching I find the booster will only add the number of antibodies in total for a time. That is supposed to be the big deal. The immune reaction is already up and running so it does not need a restart. I also posted a link about the conceptual differences among immunity medical folks.

You have not been paying attention then. Also, I am not the sheriff around here, nor do I hang on every word that is posted. Just the glaring mistakes and incorrect pronouncements that you and your ilk make. They are so pronounced they are hard to miss.

Again, your bias is glaring. Your ideas about how the immune system ought to function are flawed and too simplistic as are your ideas about the mRNA vaccine.

Just your statement "naturally immune are still good to go" tells us all we need to know. The numbers of antibodies can vary significantly on an individual basis. Indeed, most have lasting immunity, but there are such wide variances it is too hard to measure and/or predict. That is why vaccine is recommended for all.

As for boosters...well, that has been discussed. The benefit far outweighs any risk. Also, I am unconcerned with some altruistic act (stunt?) of eschewing the boosters because other countries need them. That is a red herring fallacy.

 

[CJJon]

What?? You don't think booster shots every 5 months is obviously a money grab??

Because we all know big pharma would never put profits over everything else. They are always the gold standard for ethics. No clue what essential oil have to do with anything. You can ask questions without being a alternative medicine pusher, shocking I know.

No.

Do you think they designed the vaccine with built in limitations so they could sell more boosters? Absurd.

 

[sk47]

You have not been paying attention then. Also, I am not the sheriff around here, nor do I hang on every word that is posted. Just the glaring mistakes and incorrect pronouncements that you and your ilk make. They are so pronounced they are hard to miss.

Again, your bias is glaring. Your ideas about how the immune system ought to function are flawed and too simplistic as are your ideas about the mRNA vaccine.

Just your statement "naturally immune are still good to go" tells us all we need to know. The numbers of antibodies can vary significantly on an individual basis. Indeed, most have lasting immunity, but there are such wide variances it is too hard to measure and/or predict. That is why vaccine is recommended for all.

As for boosters...well, that has been discussed. The benefit far outweighs any risk. Also, I am unconcerned with some altruistic act (stunt?) of eschewing the boosters because other countries need them. That is a red herring fallacy.

Hello; Again, your bias is glaring.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; Again, your bias is glaring.

More passive aggression. I guess that is all you really have since you can't seem to refute what I actually say in my posts.

I know, I know, you are just parroting what I have posted. I get it. Doesn't make your passive aggression go away though.

 

[rick81721]

I am scheduled for my booster Thursday...as is my octogenarian mother.

I'm not 65 yet so ineligible at this time. But will get one when it is.

 

[sk47]

Just your statement "naturally immune are still good to go" tells us all we need to know. The numbers of antibodies can vary significantly on an individual basis. Indeed, most have lasting immunity, but there are such wide variances it is too hard to measure and/or predict. That is why vaccine is recommended for all.

Hello; Well before I, the anti-vaxxer according to some, took the shots I paid to have an antibody test. $25 at a pharmacy. The test was negative so being in a high risk group i took the risk and had the shots. That is one way folks can know if they have antibodies. If the test had been positive I would have skipped the shots.
Another way is if the person got sick and had the test for active covid at the time. If the test was positive and they were sick that would be a good sign they have natural immunity. Thinking being yo do not recover from the illness on your own unless the immune system kicks in and does it's job.

For people who have a bad immune system there is a good chance they are aware of the condition. Folks with a weak or compromised immune system tend to have problems and very likely know they have a weak system. So, yes such people are at bigger risk from an infection and not just from covid.

For those who had asymptomatic infections things stand out. First is they will not know they had it without a test of some sort. They will be walking around figuring they never had the virus and will not know they have immunity. If your notion proves correct then they may have a weak immune reaction from a mild case so will not be as protected.
Thing is with all the testing which went on back before the shots a lot of such asymptomatic cases are know and on record some where. The answer as to how much protection comes naturally from a mild case ought to be simple to check. Do a few blood tests to see if they have antibodies from the actual infection.

 

[sk47]

Hello; Just your statement "Also, I am not the sheriff around here, nor do I hang on every word that is posted. Just the glaring mistakes and incorrect pronouncements that you and your ilk make." tells us all we need to know. Again, your bias is glaring.

You let falsehoods stand when it is your crew and only attack those not on the bandwagon with you.

Interesting.

 

[GT Pony]

I know, I know, you are just parroting what I have posted. I get it. Doesn't make your passive aggression go away though.

This came to mind ...

 

[GT Pony]

I believe the covid vaccine is experimental and was rushed through testing.
In the short term it seems to be fairly safe, some have had bad reactions but most are fine.
Real world studies prove it is helping with reducing symptoms in people who get infected. Time will tell if mRNA jabs are real vaccines.

Yes, this vaccine was produced and rolled out in record time - around the entire world, not just the USA - driven by how much and fast the Covid virus spread around the world and the impact it has on people. Finding a vaccine in record time was absolutely the right thing to do. Can you imagine where the world might be right now if there was no vaccine(s) at all? You cried about lock downs, etc ... with no vaccine at all we could be in lock down and a crashed economy that would make your head explode.

The mRNA vaccination knowledge wasn't new before Jan 2020. Read this article, it explaines some of these things.

https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/long-view-covid-vaccine-safety-and-efficacy

If you would do some research and stop listening to sources of misinformation you might find more truth than falsehoods. Believe it or not, this vaccine is one of the most effective and safest vaccines around. Even if it needs a booster shot - that doesn't mean it's a bad vaccine. For some reason you latch on to the fact that it takes 2 shots and maybe a booster for some as it not being a "real vaccine". We've already went over that, and it makes you look uniformed about what a vaccine is and how it works in the most general sense.

Yes, I am vaccinated and so are my kids.
The vaccines I have taken were properly tested and all short term and long term possible side effects are known.

Explained in the first answer.

In vaccines like Tetanus , yes at 10 year intervals.

If a vaccine needs a booster at 6 months after already having one at 1 month, it is not very effective.

Explained in the first answer above. Again, you try to equate every vaccine as being equal and lock-on to a vaccine like tetanus as how every vaccine should behave like in your mind. Not even close to a simple connect the dot puzzle.

The booster is not given to people who just had a shot 1 month ago. Are you exaggerating or just misinformed again?

That is a non answer designed to imply I'm an idiot.
The question is valid.
Why is this virus so different from every other virus that recovering from it will not protect you from getting it again?

When was the last time there was a virus on Earth that killed 5-7 million people in 18 months? And probably also made millions of people sick enough to have long lasting and maybe ever lasting health conditions (ie, long haulers)? It's not a question of that "most" people can over come and recover from it with natural immunity - but as seen, millions of people were already unable to do it that way.

It's a fact that it's killing millions of people regardless of what "percentage" of the population is dying. If viral "disease xyz" was doing the same thing as Covid do you think there might be a reason to come up with a way to stop it, like a vaccination? People always touting it's a low percentage of deaths are trying to downplay the pandemic as "trivial". You and sk47 come across strong on that one. Like said before, during the peaks it was killing about 3000 people a day in the USA ... the same amount of people who died on 9/11. If a 9/11 event was happening every day for a few months would you be "OK" with that number of deaths because it's a very small percentage of the total US population.

If it in fact is so different, it won't matter if you do get jabbed because that won't work either. Since having the disease causes a response from your immune system. The same response that a vaccine causes.

The vaccine makes an immunity system response so it can be stronger and better to react ... it doesn't really have the capability to kill people like actually getting the real virus can - far from it. That's the whole premise of a vaccine ever since virology was discovered.

The rest of your post is just delusional ramblings and does not deserve a response.

More like you know it's pretty much on point.

 

[OnThree]

No.

Do you think they designed the vaccine with built in limitations so they could sell more boosters? Absurd.

Where did I say that? Go reread my comment and try again. Absurd, that you comment constantly in this thread yet can't seem to comprehend basic sentences

 

[GT Pony]

There are three, sometimes four who join in in near lockstep in this thread trying to dismiss any who question some of the ideas coming from authorities concerning the covid outbreak.

Specifically what "ideas coming from authorities" ... and exactly what "authorities" are you referring to?

The immune system is always on and working in a person with a healthy immune system. When a new pathogen invades the immune system knows it is not part of our bodies and will attack the invader. Once known the system will recall the invader and be able to deal with it later.

Hard to deal with said invader if you died from the invader because your immune system couldn't handle it by itself. That's what the vaccine is suppose to prevent.

So the two shots I took last winter were supposed to start up an immune system reaction. That reaction is supposed to be just like the immune reaction gained from an actual infection. Yet the naturally immune are still good to go more than eight months after infection for many and the shot takers are getting a third shot after six months.

And the experts - even in the beloved Israel studies - recommend a booster for people who have already had Covid. Why do you think they say that? The natural immune sysrtem isn't bullet proof in all cases.

Also from my recent searching I find the booster will only add the number of antibodies in total for a time. That is supposed to be the big deal. The immune reaction is already up and running so it does not need a restart. I also posted a link about the conceptual differences among immunity medical folks.

If you read some of the links given in this thread, there is more than just the level of antibodies that strengthens an immune system ... regardless if it was from the actual virus or a vaccine that pinged the immune system. One reason the Moderna vaccine has held its efficiency with time better than Pfizer is because the dosage was stronger to begin with, which triggered a stronger immune system response.

 

[Burkey]

Not strawman, just simple bad reasoning. The vaccine needs a booster, therefore it doesn't work.

I’m sticking with strawman

He’s defining effectiveness as how frequently it must be administered (setting up the strawman) then saying that things that need to be administered regularly aren’t effective (Kicking the strawman over).

Efficacy is measured by how well something serves its purpose. In this case, preventing disease.
How frequently it needs to be taken to prevent that disease isn’t the measure of how effective it is.

Some medications work really well when you take them 3-4 times daily.
Not so much if you don’t.

He thinks my food analogy was poor because he’s used to living in a universe where he thinks vaccines “should” only need to be taken every decade or so, except for the ones that need to be taken annually, which by his own yardstick, must be “ineffective”.

Sponsored