The Infectious Nature of Misinformaton

[Someone Else]

3 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

again you are missing the point, science never has a definite answer, what we know today about COVID will be put upside down in the next 10 years, that's close to 99% sure

 

we don't know the long term effects of vaccination, period, where you like it or not.

 

Even the labs know that and will tell you so. Is there a long term risk, yes there is. That's undeniable fact, vaccinated or not. And you can bet that "big pharma" has put that long term effect provision in their contracts when they sold their doses to the EU and the US.

 

What specific long term risks are you proposing, and what would be the mechanism behind such risks?

 

 

2 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

they are not vague, they are definitive, you know "sh*t" today, and like everyone else, you will need to wait for science new research for the next 10 years to get some clue. Be patient ????

The question was:  "why don't you edify us with some specifics (eg, data) to support your various vague and questionable claims?"  

 

You did not provide any specifics or data to demonstrate your claims are "definite".

[GrandPapillon]

6 minutes ago, Someone Else said:

 

What specific long term risks are you proposing, and what would be the mechanism behind such risks?

 

 

The question was:  "why don't you edify us with some specifics (eg, data) to support your various vague and questionable claims?"  

 

You did not provide any specifics or data to demonstrate your claims are "definite".

Do I have to explain to you how 2+2=4 ? ????

 

if you are interested in science or research, you would understand what I am saying

 

but you don't seem interested in science or research and think an immediate and definite answer is all there is,

 

what else can I add? you will have to wait, and maybe revisit this thread in 5 years or 10 years and see how right I was ????

 

science is a work in progress, and what is definitive is that there is not one immediate answer for anything in science, everything is being questioned on a regular basis.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

again you are missing the point, science never has a definite answer, what we know today about COVID will be put upside down in the next 10 years, that's close to 99% sure

 

we don't know the long term effects of vaccination, period, whether you like it or not.

 

Even the labs know that and will tell you so. Is there a long term risk, yes there is. That's undeniable fact, vaccinated or not. And you can bet that "big pharma" has put that long term effect provision in their contracts when they sold their doses to the EU and the US.

“Is there a long term risk, yes there is. That's undeniable fact, “

 

OK describe this ‘undeniable fact’, quantify it, give us the data?

 

Risk has three components: outcome, consequences of outcome and probability of outcome.

 

You assert the risk is an ‘undeniable fact’.

 

What’s the outcome?

What are the consequences of the outcome?

What is the probability of the outcome?

 

Dreaming up an outcome without any basis in fact is not an answer.

[GrandPapillon]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

“Is there a long term risk, yes there is. That's undeniable fact, “

 

OK describe this ‘undeniable fact’, quantify it, give us the data?

 

Risk has three components: outcome, consequences of outcome and probability of outcome.

 

You assert the risk is an ‘undeniable fact’.

 

What’s the outcome?

What are the consequences of the outcome?

What is the probability of the outcome?

 

Dreaming up an outcome without any basis in fact is not an answer.

Dreaming an outcome? what about dreaming of no outcome or no risk? see the problem? no, then I can't help you ????

 

the undefinable fact is there is a small probability of long term effects, that we will find out eventually. Not sure why it is it so hard to understand, any intellectually honest doctor or "biological scientist" would say the same thing.

[Someone Else]

2 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

Do I have to explain to you how 2+2=4 ? ????

 

if you are interested in science or research, you would understand what I am saying

 

but you don't seem interested in science or research and think an immediate and definite answer is all there is,

 

what else can I add? you will have to wait, and maybe revisit this thread in 5 years or 10 years and see how right I was ????

 

science is a work in progress, and what is definitive is that there is not one immediate answer for anything in science, everything is being questioned on a regular basis.

 

Oh I'm quite interested in and familiar with scientific research.

 

That's why I'm asking you to provide some specifics for your claims about potential for long term risks, for example identifying a potential long term adverse event given your understanding of how the vaccines work, and explaining how, mechanistically, they would develop.  

 

Or you could explain what did FDA miss, for example, in their full approval of Comirnaty?  Why specifically should this vaccine not have been approved? 

 

"maybe revisit this thread in 5 years or 10 years and see how right I was"

About what?  You haven't identified any concrete risks yet, so not sure how you could be right about something you haven't stated.

 

[Boarn]

This is not anti vax, it's anti coercion. Mandating a vaccine for one to be able to go about their lives in a normal way is where I have a problem.

 

The vaccine should be fully optional and no hinderances should be placed on those that choose against it.

 

I personally have no issue with the vaccine, however what made me think twice before getting it was the principal of the matter. Don't force me to get it and threaten me with not being able to do certain things, allow me to make up my own mind.

 

I did make up my own mind in this case but it was very hard to get it in a way which made me feel I was not submitting to government tyranny. 

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

Dreaming an outcome? what about dreaming of no outcome or no risk? see the problem? no, then I can't help you ????

 

the undefinable fact is there is a small probability of long term effects, that we will find out eventually. Not sure why it is it so hard to understand, any intellectually honest doctor or "biological scientist" would say the same thing.

You’ve stated the risk is an undeniable fact.

 

Small probability? How small?

Long term effects? what long term effects?

 

This is worse than misinterpretation, it’s baseless Chicken Little nonsense.

[GrandPapillon]

11 minutes ago, Someone Else said:

Oh I'm quite interested in and familiar with scientific research.

 

That's why I'm asking you to provide some specifics for your claims about potential for long term risks, for example identifying a potential long term adverse event given your understanding of how the vaccines work, and explaining how, mechanistically, they would develop.  

 

Or you could explain what did FDA miss, for example, in their full approval of Comirnaty?  Why specifically should this vaccine not have been approved? 

 

"maybe revisit this thread in 5 years or 10 years and see how right I was"

About what?  You haven't identified any concrete risks yet, so not sure how you could be right about something you haven't stated.

 

not sure if you have a reading comprehension problem here ????

 

NOBODY knows the long term effects of vaccination at this point, THEREFORE, you or anyone else can make the silly claim that there is NO long term effect of the COVID vaccination, and there is some "significant probability" that there will be long term effects, like any vaccine.

 

You simply choose to be scared and "refuse" science pillar foundation that there is no definite answer in science, no matter the topics

 

Since you can't read the future, and I can't either, how can you claim there is no risk? you can't, period. Thank you ????

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Boarn said:

This is not anti vax, it's anti coercion. Mandating a vaccine for one to be able to go about their lives in a normal way is where I have a problem.

 

The vaccine should be fully optional and no hinderances should be placed on those that choose against it.

 

I personally have no issue with the vaccine, however what made me think twice before getting it was the principal of the matter. Don't force me to get it and threaten me with not being able to do certain things, allow me to make up my own mind.

 

I did make up my own mind in this case but it was very hard to get it in a way which made me feel I was not submitting to government tyranny. 

The subject of discussion is not the mandating of vaccines.

 

I believe there is a thread on the growing number of ‘give me freedom or give me death’ cadavers piling up.

[GrandPapillon]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You’ve stated the risk is an undeniable fact.

 

Small probability? How small?

Long term effects? what long term effects?

 

This is worse than misinterpretation, it’s baseless Chicken Little nonsense.

Are you saying there is absolutely no risk? even Pfizer is not making that claim, and they know better ????

 

a small significant probability can be anywhere from 5% to 10% of the vaccinated population being affected with long term effects.

 

What is you guys with your cognitive disconnect ????

 

trolling obviously ????

 

[ozimoron]

Just now, GrandPapillon said:

Are you saying there is absolutely no risk? even Pfizer is not making that claim, and they know better ????

Why do you feel the need to spread toxic garbage about the vaccine in an obvious attempt to deter others from getting it? Why not just decide not to get vaccinated and leave it at that? Do you have some religious or political conviction and compulsion to wander the world proselytizing about coronavirus vaccines? Are you just trolling people who naturally feel compelled to dispute your lies?

[Boarn]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The subject of discussion is not the mandating of vaccines.

 

I believe there is a thread on the growing number of ‘give me freedom or give me death’ cadavers piling up.

I was merely arguing that it by mandating vaccines and prohibiting those unvaccinated from living a normal life, you are bound to get more misinformation coming out as the mandates are perceived in different ways by different people.

[Someone Else]

Just now, GrandPapillon said:

not sure if you have reading comprehension here ????

 

NOBODY knows the long term effects of vaccination at this point, THEREFORE, you or anyone else can make the silly claim that there is NO long term effect of the COVID vaccination, and there is some "significant probability" that there will be long term effects, like any every vaccine.

 

You simply choose to be scared and "refuse" science pillar foundation that there is no definite answer in science.

 

Since you can't read the future, and I can't either, how can you claim there is no risk? you can't period. Thank you ????

" you or anyone else can make the silly claim that there is NO long term effect of the COVID vaccination"

 

I never made this claim.

 

"and there is some "significant probability" that there will be long term effects, like any every vaccine"

 

Every vaccine has long term adverse effects?  Please provide data to support this claim.

 

"You simply choose to be scared and "refuse" science pillar foundation"

 

I'm scared?  Please explain, sounds like a personal attack to me.  

 

"how can you claim there is no risk?"

 

Again I never made such a claim, don't put words in my mouth.  You are the one making the claims, so I am asking you for at least theoretical support.

 

I asked you for the mechanism of some potential long term effects concerning covid vaccines you envision, when historically there would be no such concern with an agent that gets metabolized quickly and is not chronically administered.  Do you think FDA would not have considered this when bestowing full approval?  What did they get wrong? 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

Are you saying there is absolutely no risk? even Pfizer is not making that claim, and they know better ????

 

a small significant probability can be anywhere from 5% to 10% of the vaccinated population being affected with long term effects.

 

What is you guys with your cognitive disconnect ????

 

trolling obviously ????

 

Ad hominem noted.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, Boarn said:

I was merely arguing that it by mandating vaccines and prohibiting those unvaccinated from living a normal life, you are bound to get more misinformation coming out as the mandates are perceived in different ways by different people.

I doubt anyone spreading misinformation on this forum and very few spreading misinformation in wider social media are subject to mandates vaccination.

[Someone Else]

10 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

Are you saying there is absolutely no risk? even Pfizer is not making that claim, and they know better ????

 

a small significant probability can be anywhere from 5% to 10% of the vaccinated population being affected with long term effects.

 

What is you guys with your cognitive disconnect ????

 

trolling obviously ????

 

Please explain how you manage to calculate that 5-10% of the vaccinated will experience long term effects, even though you are unable to articulate what those effects might be. 

[GrandPapillon]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Ad hominem noted.

intellectual dishonesty noted ????

 

nobody can seriously be considering your arguments to be valid, when they are being so binary, definitely not a friend of science ????

[ozimoron]

There seems to be a flood of anti vaxxer zealots poising this board. It's like there's been a call to arms of some sort. What's that about? They need to be banned.

[GrandPapillon]

Just now, Someone Else said:

Please explain how you manage to calculate that 5-10% of the vaccinated will experience long term effects, even though you are unable to articulate what those effects might be. 

how can I articulate something that it is still being worked on? so you make silly claims that there is no "long term" effects, I call BS on this, and your defense is "name the long term effects" ? are you serious? ????

 

that's trolling 101 dude ????

 

[GrandPapillon]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

There seems to be a flood of anti vaxxer zealots poising this board. It's like there's been a call to arms of some sort. What's that about? They need to be banned.

QED on the binary thinking ????

[Boarn]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I doubt anyone spreading misinformation on this forum and very few spreading misinformation in wider social media are subject to mandates vaccination.

How do you define mandate? To me mandate means disallowing one to live a normal life without vaccination, or different requirements for people vaccinated or not. Mandate in this instance does not mean forcing vaccination.

 

By putting being vaccinated as a pre requisite to the enjoyment of certain things, it's not a hard push to assume many will think there must be some ulterior motive at hand. 

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

QED on the binary thinking ????

There's truth and lies. They are not equal and they are not just differences of opinion.

[GrandPapillon]

8 minutes ago, Someone Else said:

"how can you claim there is no risk?"

 

Again I never made such a claim, don't put words in my mouth.  You are the one making the claims, so I am asking you for at least theoretical support.

 

 

ok I will bite your obvious trolling, I guess they need the traffic in this tread ????

 

of course you made that claim the minute you "attacked" me when I told you there is possibly "long term effects" of vaccination. Your "dishonest" defense was "name them" ????

 

like many vaccines before, see the Hepatitis vaccine in the 90s (google it), there was some serious long term effects for some who got vaccinated.

 

And like with any vaccine, it's normal, and to be expected.

[Someone Else]

Just now, GrandPapillon said:

how can I articulate something that it is still being worked on? so you make silly claims that there is no "long term" effects, I call BS on this, and your defense is "name the long term effects" ? are you serious? ????

 

that's trolling 101 dude ????

 

" so you make silly claims that there is no "long term" effects"

For the third time, I did not make that claim.  

 

I am asking you to articulate your claim with some biologically plausible examples of long term effects, especially when agents such as these would not be expected to have such effects.  You must be able to identify what the potential effects are to quantify them like you have (5-10%).   

 

You claim that all vaccines have long term adverse effects, waiting for you to support that statement as well.

[GrandPapillon]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

There's truth and lies. They are not equal and they are not just differences of opinion.

spoken like a true Sith lord ????

[Someone Else]

16 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

ok I will bite your obvious trolling, I guess they need the traffic in this tread ????

 

of course you made that claim the minute you "attacked" me when I told you there is possibly "long term effects" of vaccination. Your "dishonest" defense was "name them" ????

 

like many vaccines before, see the Hepatitis vaccine in the 90s (google it), there was some serious long term effects for some who got vaccinated.

 

And like with any vaccine, it's normal, and to be expected.

 

For the forth time, I did not state there were no long term effects.  Why do you keep lying?

 

Which hepatitis vaccine are you referring to?  There are several.

 

Still waiting for these answers:

 

I am asking you to articulate your claim with some biologically plausible examples of long term effects, especially when agents such as these would not be expected to have such effects.  You must be able to identify what the potential effects are to quantify them like you have (5-10%).   

 

You claim that all vaccines have long term adverse effects, waiting for you to support that statement as well.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Boarn said:

How do you define mandate? To me mandate means disallowing one to live a normal life without vaccination, or different requirements for people vaccinated or not. Mandate in this instance does not mean forcing vaccination.

 

By putting being vaccinated as a pre requisite to the enjoyment of certain things, it's not a hard push to assume many will think there must be some ulterior motive at hand. 

IT was you who brought the off topic subject of mandates up... remember?!

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, GrandPapillon said:

not sure if you have a reading comprehension problem here ????

 

NOBODY knows the long term effects of vaccination at this point, THEREFORE, you or anyone else can make the silly claim that there is NO long term effect of the COVID vaccination, and there is some "significant probability" that there will be long term effects, like any vaccine.

 

You simply choose to be scared and "refuse" science pillar foundation that there is no definite answer in science, no matter the topics

 

Since you can't read the future, and I can't either, how can you claim there is no risk? you can't, period. Thank you ????

Erm, it’s you that is arguing about future events of which there isn’t the slightest evidence of those events occurring.

 

No definition, no scale, no data, no research, no preliminary investigation nor scientific basis beyond ‘something might happen’.

 

Worse than misinformation absolutely no information.

[Boarn]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

IT was you who brought the off topic subject of mandates up... remember?!

Yes exactly, the title of the topic is 'The Infectious Nature of Misinformation'. Misinformation bounds when there is a perceived threat to personal freedom, when one is forced to become vaccinated to do certain things you can't expect everyone to take it lying down.

[ozimoron]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Worse than misinformation absolutely no information.

Pure politics and conspiracy theories.