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

[Burkey]

Logic;
If A+B=C then C-B=A

You two are just pushers of the jab, needed or not.

I am fine with my decision and I have explained it well. Yet you two twist it into a cats cradle.

Open your minds and see the folly of your arguments.

I’m not “pushing” the jab.
I‘m simply refuting the ideas you keep presenting as to why it’s not needed.
I don‘t honestly care if you get it or not.
Honestly, the world might be better off with less anti-vaxxers anyway.

Put it this way, if you anti-vax mob would stop spreading misinformation, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

EDIT:
For some clarity, I’m not actively cheering people to their deaths, but I’m also not terribly sympathetic to those who shun the vaccine and then die from Covid.

Sponsored

 

[GT Pony]

So if/when that immunity wanes, you’ll just go get infected again? How will you know that it’s waned? Once you become ill again?

Seems based on a previous comment of his, he believes the level of antibodies will tell him. But if he went and researched the information on using antibody levels as an indication of immunity strength, he would see there isn't really a solid correlation - there is more to immunity beside the level of antibodies. There's a reason the research of experts still recommend a booster for anyone who's already had Covid ... and it's not the conspiracy theory "money grab" reason.

 

[Burkey]

Seems based on a previous comment of his, he believes the level of antibodies will tell him. But if he went and researched the information on using antibody levels as an indication of immunity strength, he would see there isn't really a solid correlation - there is more to immunity beside the level of antibodies. There's a reason the research of experts still recommend a booster for anyone who's already had Covid ... and it's not the conspiracy theory "money grab" reason.

Soooo….you’re saying that professional researchers might have good reasons to give the advice that they do?
Sounds kinda weird.

 

[K4fxd]

But if he went and researched the information on using antibody levels as an indication of immunity strength, he would see there isn't really a solid correlation - there is more to immunity beside the level of antibodies.

PROVEN SCIENCE
Yes, normal immune response = When a pathogen is introduced the body creates many antibodies. When the pathogen is no longer present the antibodies wane because they are not presently needed. If or when the body runs into the pathogen again the antibodies ramp up.

When a "normal" vaccine is introduced the body creates many antibodies. When the pathogen is no longer present the antibodies wane because they are not presently needed. If or when the body runs into the pathogen again the antibodies ramp up.

So A = B in this case.

 

[CJJon]

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.

My crew? Bandwagon?

Science is my crew and truth my bandwagon. I'd correct my own mother if she made wild ass claims like you and your ilk.

Please point out the falsehoods and I will gladly address them.

 

[GT Pony]

PROVEN SCIENCE
Yes, normal immune response = When a pathogen is introduced the body creates many antibodies. When the pathogen is no longer present the antibodies wane because they are not presently needed. If or when the body runs into the pathogen again the antibodies ramp up.

When a "normal" vaccine is introduced the body creates many antibodies. When the pathogen is no longer present the antibodies wane because they are not presently needed. If or when the body runs into the pathogen again the antibodies ramp up.

So A = B in this case.

So A = getting immunity from Covid and B = getting immunity from getting vaccinated.

But your math is still a bit off since actually B > A becuse getting vaccinated is still a much less risky way than getting immunity from being infected by Covid. That's been solidly proven.

 

[CJJon]

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

Here is what you said:

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, I do not think it is a money grab. Your comments were vague and mostly in your head.

So you actually think they are just giving boosters even though we don't need it?

Be specific please - that way I won't read anything into your comments. I'm not good at subtle references by people who think they are clever.

What is it exactly that equates to a money grab? The mere fact that a company is making a profit? 'Cause that ain't it.

 

[GT Pony]

^^^ He's made it quite clear that he believes the booster is all a "money grab". Might even believe the whole vaccine is just a money grab and it's really not even needed because the natural immune system does such a great job with this virus.

 

[CJJon]

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”.

Disagree. The straw man involves a distortion of the other person's position by providing a substitute for it - The Straw Man. I think it is actually more a red herring. The red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversion.

In this instance he uses a bit of truth, that the vaccine requires a booster, to try and prove that the vaccine itself is then ineffective. A straw man would be more akin to saying that the vaccine booster program is just a money grab by big pharma so we shouldn't need a booster.

 

[CJJon]

Supposedly but it seems this jab is not a vaccine as we are being told it's effectiveness wanes after 6 months.

Recovered people without the jab are protected at 8 months and counting

Wow...you keep banging that drum...

 

[CJJon]

Yes, since I have had and recovered from covid.

Then go volunteer your immune self down at the Covid ward...

 

[CJJon]

Seems based on a previous comment of his, he believes the level of antibodies will tell him. But if he went and researched the information on using antibody levels as an indication of immunity strength, he would see there isn't really a solid correlation - there is more to immunity beside the level of antibodies. There's a reason the research of experts still recommend a booster for anyone who's already had Covid ... and it's not the conspiracy theory "money grab" reason.

Where I work we generally do not run them. They are not diagnostic so there isn't really a true medical need to do so. It just uses up money and resources. A money grab it you will.

 

[GT Pony]

Disagree. The straw man involves a distortion of the other person's position by providing a substitute for it - The Straw Man. I think it is actually more a red herring. The red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversion.

In this instance he uses a bit of truth, that the vaccine requires a booster, to try and prove that the vaccine itself is then ineffective. A straw man would be more akin to saying that the vaccine booster program is just a money grab by big pharma so we shouldn't need a booster.

Guess he's going for the hybrid red herring straw man ...

 

[K4fxd]

But your math is still a bit off since actually B > A becuse getting vaccinated is still a much less risky way than getting immunity from being infected by Covid. That's been solidly proven.

I agree, I do not trust this so called vaccine for reasons I have said repeatedly and you have distorted or twisted into nonsense.

Since I have had this "mild cold" I refuse to take this experimental drug.

This so called vaccine is too new and not long term tested to be mandated.

 

[Burkey]

Disagree. The straw man involves a distortion of the other person's position by providing a substitute for it - The Straw Man. I think it is actually more a red herring. The red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversion.

In this instance he uses a bit of truth, that the vaccine requires a booster, to try and prove that the vaccine itself is then ineffective. A straw man would be more akin to saying that the vaccine booster program is just a money grab by big pharma so we shouldn't need a booster.

Actually, you’re right. The strawman is typically as you say.
I can’t think of the proper term for what he’s doing here. Red herring is kinda close but not perfect.
It’s also pretty close to “begging the question”

Sponsored