Anti-vaxers relying on discredited doctor's claims about COVID vaccines... again!

[johng]

1 minute ago, save the frogs said:

 

I'm at a loss to continue to debate.

I surrender.

 

 

"Up to you"   as they say in Thailand.

[save the frogs]

11 hours ago, johng said:

 

As we all should  be  especially after the "plandemic"  "Covidiocy"   mandated injection of an experimental untested concoction and the military grade syop to get everyone on board ...this is worthy of a huge amount of distrust.

 

Here, I'll mess with your head a bit.

This monk from Japan believes Covid was a "warning from Mother nature". 

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353939588_Spiritual_Prospective_of_Corona_Virus

 

[johng]

11 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

This monk from Japan believes Covid was a "warning from Mother nature".

 

Here I'll mess with your head a bit   the "Covid" came from a lab  funded by  Fauci and Co. they already had it and  the "vaccine"  patented before the "accidental" release    even better there were and are  effective medications to treat the "Covid"  and therefore the mandating of therapies was unethical and unlawful , the day that these criminals responsible see their day in court can't come soon enough.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

New York Times

 

May 1, 2024

 

"There remains no evidence that the Wuhan institute stored any virus that could have become the coronavirus and caused Covid, with or without scientific tinkering, researchers have said.

 

Scientists who specialize in tracing outbreaks have published analyses of early cases and viral genomes that they say point to the pandemic’s starting at an illegal wild-animal market in Wuhan. The presence of the coronavirus in samples from the market containing genetic material linked to raccoon dogs, they have said, is consistent with that scenario."

 

https://archive.ph/Ho5gO#selection-7035.0-7043.51

 

 

 

[rattlesnake]

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Sorry - not biting tonight…. This endless silliness is…. Well, just endless silliness !!! 

 

You see, @TallGuyJohninBKK, this is what I meant when I said (and I see you have wisely followed the advice):

 

Your best option is to do what the other sophists of this forum do in such cases, which is to drop out of the discussion entirely, wait for it to get buried, and start posting your talking points in another thread in a couple of days or so.

 

A competent sophist knows when to back off. "Not biting" here means avoiding finding oneself in the uncomfortable position of having to face very inconvenient facts… which only honest people are able to do.

[KhunLA]

To the title ... my 'opinion' is something different.

 

...  that something is like vaxers ... IMHO ...relying on discredited CDC, NIH, FDA WHO, and the corrupt politicians & fake news to spread their lies 

[rattlesnake]

2 hours ago, jayboy said:

 

 

Translation. Please don't confuse matters by introducing scientific rigour.

 

It's amusing that the craziest conspiracy nuts tend to brand those they disagree with as sheep.

 

A more accurate translation: the peer review process, while a good idea in theory, loses its validity when integrated in a system demonstrably based on conflicts of interest, influence peddling, coercion and threats.

 

One example of many, former Australian MP Dr. Kerryn Phelps, who was initially pro-vaccine but changed her stance after she and her partner were both seriously injured:

 

Dr Kerryn Phelps reveals ‘devastating’ Covid vaccine injury, says doctors have been ‘censored’

Dr Kerryn Phelps has broken her silence about a “devastating” Covid vaccine injury, slamming regulators for “censoring” public discussion with “threats” to doctors.

[…]

She revealed she had spoken with other doctors “who have themselves experienced a serious and persistent adverse event” but that “vaccine injury is a subject that few in the medical profession have wanted to talk about”.

“Regulators of the medical profession have censored public discussion about adverse events following immunisation, with threats to doctors not to make any public statements about anything that ‘might undermine the government’s vaccine rollout’ or risk suspension or loss of their registration,” she said.

 

https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/human-body/dr-kerryn-phelps-reveals-devastating-covid-vaccine-injury-says-doctors-have-been-censored/news-story/0c1fa02818c99a5ff65f5bf852a382cf

[richard_smith237]

17 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

20 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Sorry - not biting tonight…. This endless silliness is…. Well, just endless silliness !!! 

 

You see, @TallGuyJohninBKK, this is what I meant when I said (and I see you have wisely followed the advice):

 

Your best option is to do what the other sophists of this forum do in such cases, which is to drop out of the discussion entirely, wait for it to get buried, and start posting your talking points in another thread in a couple of days or so.

 

A competent sophist knows when to back off. "Not biting" here means avoiding finding oneself in the uncomfortable position of having to face very inconvenient facts… which only honest people are able to do.

 

 

 

You've clutched at my lack of response as if it's some kind of rhetorical victory, and thats rather un-clever of you, I expect better (though not from the other clowns), that flawed grasp at relevance betrayed just how hollow and brittle your position really is.

 

You know perfectly well that I'm more than capable of dismantling your nonsense piece by piece. That I chose not to engage this time isn't some triumph for the cesspit of mediocrity that the brain-dead anti-vax theatre wallows in...

 

This time I simply sat out and didn't bite, choosing not to waste oxygen and participate in this mind-numbing carousel of anti-vax idiocy. Silence, in this case, wasn’t concession - it was boredom mixed in with a large dose of contempt.

 

You've mistaken disengagement for defeat, but in reality, my disengagement is simply a testament to how utterly tedious and beneath me this whole anti-vax exchange is becoming thread after mind-numbing thread.

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

On 5/6/2025 at 6:11 AM, Red Phoenix said:

Five recent papers show vaccine COVID vaccine harms outweigh any benefits

Don't worry. The FDA, CDC, and Congress are never going to apologize for their mistake. One of these papers has already been rejected by 6 journals without even reading the paper!

All show vaccine harms outweigh benefits.

Source: https://kirschsubstack.com/p/five-recent-papers-show-vaccine-covid

 

You think parroting a stack of papers counts as intellectual firepower. I'll take your five and raise you ten, because this sad little game you’re playing is laughably easy. You toss out studies like confetti, convinced that sheer volume somehow substitutes for substance, as if burying people in footnotes will mask your hollow argument.

 

Here's the reality: you don't understand what you're citing. You don’t present reasoned, concise information - you flood, you overwhelm, hoping no one notices you're just parroting whatever supports your fragile, prefab worldview. It’s not research; it’s regurgitation. Lazy, uneducated, and transparent.

 

All you’re doing is clumsily stitching together scraps you barely comprehend in a vain attempt to prop up your agenda - one that crumbles the moment it’s exposed to real scrutiny....

 

 

I'll do exactly the same below: 

 

1. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine

Journal: New England Journal of Medicine (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: This pivotal Phase III trial reported 95% efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with a favorable safety profile.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2036242

 

2. Effectiveness and Safety of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in Real-World Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal: New England Journal of Medicine  (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: Analysing 58 studies, this meta-analysis found that two doses of COVID-19 vaccines were over 85% effective in preventing infection, with severe adverse events being very rare.

https://idpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40249-021-00915-3

 

3. Safety of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Journal: Infectious Diseases of Poverty  (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: This review of 14 randomized controlled trials involving over 73,000 participants concluded that COVID-19 vaccines have acceptable safety profiles, with most adverse events being mild and transient.

https://idpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40249-021-00878-5

 

4. Evaluation of the Safety Profile of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Rapid Review

Journal: BMC Medicine (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: This rapid review highlighted that while some adverse events occur, they are generally mild and self-limiting, supporting the overall safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-021-02059-5

 

5. A Comprehensive Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines Journal: PubMed

Journal: PubMed (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: This analysis found that all vaccines studied had efficacy exceeding 70%, with mRNA vaccines reaching up to 94.29%, and that most adverse reactions were mild and tolerable.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34365034/

 

6. Comparative Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines in Phase III Trials: A Network Meta-Analysis

Journal: BMC Infectious Diseases (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: This network meta-analysis compared various vaccine platforms, confirming that mRNA vaccines had the highest efficacy and acceptable safety profiles across different populations.

https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-023-08754-3

 

7. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine

Journal: New England Journal of Medicine (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: Further analysis reaffirmed the vaccine's efficacy in preventing severe COVID-19 illness and alleviated concerns about potential vaccine-enhanced disease.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2036242

 

8. Moderna Study Shows Immune Response in Older Adults for a Combo Flu and COVID-19 Shot

Journal: Journal of the American Medical Association (Not formally peer-reviewed (or unclear)

Summary: A study involving 8,000 participants aged 50 and older found that a combination mRNA flu and COVID-19 vaccine induced strong immune responses, with side effects being mild and similar to those of existing vaccines.

https://apnews.com/article/flu-covid-combination-shot-moderna-vaccine-c627a5db5ad784335268ee6dbcb5e600

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm705152a1.htm

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34968370/

 

9. CDC Reports on COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Children Aged 5–11 Years

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)  (Not formally peer-reviewed (or unclear)

Summary: The CDC's monitoring indicated that side effects in children were common but mild, supporting the vaccine's safety in this age group.

https://time.com/6133317/covid-vaccine-kids-safe

 

10. Local Research Study Confirms COVID-19 Vaccine Safety

Source: Med Center Health  (Not formally peer-reviewed (or unclear)

Summary: A local study involving 4,825 patients reported that most individuals experienced no or only mild side effects, reinforcing the vaccine's safety profile.

https://www.wku.edu/mediarelations/2021/september/sept15/survey_dn.pdf

https://medcenterhealth.org/local-research-study-confirms-covid-19-vaccine-safety

 

 

 

 

On 5/6/2025 at 6:45 AM, rattlesnake said:

"Not peer-revieeeeewed!!!", bleat the sheep.

 

All mainstream media - bleat the anti-vax prophets - because obviously, thousands of doctors and scientists spent decades studying medicine just to lie to Facebook uncles with Wi-Fi and a grudge.

[rattlesnake]

32 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

 

You've clutched at my lack of response as if it's some kind of rhetorical victory, and thats rather un-clever of you, I expect better (though not from the other clowns), that flawed grasp at relevance betrayed just how hollow and brittle your position really is.

 

You know perfectly well that I'm more than capable of dismantling your nonsense piece by piece. That I chose not to engage this time isn't some triumph for the cesspit of mediocrity that the brain-dead anti-vax theatre wallows in...

 

This time I simply sat out and didn't bite, choosing not to waste oxygen and participate in this mind-numbing carousel of anti-vax idiocy. Silence, in this case, wasn’t concession - it was boredom mixed in with a large dose of contempt.

 

You've mistaken disengagement for defeat, but in reality, my disengagement is simply a testament to how utterly tedious and beneath me this whole anti-vax exchange is becoming thread after mind-numbing thread.

 

 

 

 

You expect better of me… Well, I certainly don't expect better of you. Your reaction was anticipated. Unlike you, I don't think in terms of 'victory' or 'defeat', however I can spot a sophist a mile away (which is why I told TallJohnInBkk that his only option here was to drop out).

 

There is no way you can address the substance of the issue – one of the world's top virologists and former head of the CDC saying Long Covid is in fact vaccine injury – without admitting that a large part of what you have said and defended thus far is based on an erroneous premise.

 

Given how far you've gone in your arrogant attitude towards the so-called "antivaxxers" (the two latest examples being yesterday's "Ill educated laymen suckered into believing social media rubbish because they suffer from authoritarian distrust" and today's "cesspit of mediocrity that the brain-dead anti-vax theatre wallows in"), it would take humility and honesty to acknowledge you were wrong and adjust your view, and I know you have neither, hence your dropping out of the debate, disguised as 'disengagement' and 'exasperation at the idiocy'.

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

You expect better of me… Well, I certainly don't expect better of you. Your reaction was anticipated. Unlike you, I don't think in terms of 'victory' or 'defeat', however I can spot a sophist a mile away (which is why I told TallJohnInBkk that his only option here was to drop out).

 

There is no way you can address the substance of the issue – one of the world's top virologists and former head of the CDC saying Long Covid is in fact vaccine injury – without admitting that a large part of what you have said and defended thus far is based on an erroneous premise.

 

Given how far you've gone in your arrogant attitude towards the so-called "antivaxxers" (the two latest examples being yesterday's "Ill educated laymen suckered into believing social media rubbish because they suffer from authoritarian distrust" and today's "cesspit of mediocrity that the brain-dead anti-vax theatre wallows in"), it would take humility and honesty to acknowledge you were wrong and adjust your view, and I know you have neither, hence your dropping out of the debate, disguised as 'disengagement' and 'exasperation at the idiocy'.

 

 

No... its genuine 'disengagement' and 'exasperation at the idiocy'... 

 

... I've presented 'counter-argument' after 'counter-argument' in the past in these threads to to debate against the voice of the 'ill educated laymen who suffer from authoritarian distrust and repeatedly pedaling fringe social-media half-truths and nonsense they buy into because they are are trying to encourage others to wallow in their same brain-dead anti-vax cesspit of mediocrity....

 

 

There comes a point where I realise I’m just feeding the festering cesspit of ignorance, and entertaining it feels like watching my sanity turn to ash - perhaps you'd call it arrogance, but I call it a simple refusal to engage further with the mind-numbing inanity of this conversation, at least until you present something scientifically and medically substantial enough to warrant an intellectual response.

 

It’s the same attitude I reserve for the absurdity of ‘flat-earth’ threads - where the level of intellectual dishonesty is so staggering, it’s impossible to give the arguments any respect. At least with this subject, there’s occasionally something worth critiquing, but not in this thread. Here, the flaws are so glaring that even engaging feels like a waste of oxygen.

 

 

[xylophone]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You think parroting a stack of papers counts as intellectual firepower. I'll take your five and raise you ten, because this sad little game you’re playing is laughably easy. You toss out studies like confetti, convinced that sheer volume somehow substitutes for substance, as if burying people in footnotes will mask your hollow argument.

 

Here's the reality: you don't understand what you're citing. You don’t present reasoned, concise information - you flood, you overwhelm, hoping no one notices you're just parroting whatever supports your fragile, prefab worldview. It’s not research; it’s regurgitation. Lazy, uneducated, and transparent.

 

All you’re doing is clumsily stitching together scraps you barely comprehend in a vain attempt to prop up your agenda - one that crumbles the moment it’s exposed to real scrutiny....

 

 

I'll do exactly the same below: 

 

1. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine

Journal: New England Journal of Medicine (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: This pivotal Phase III trial reported 95% efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with a favorable safety profile.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2036242

 

2. Effectiveness and Safety of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in Real-World Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal: New England Journal of Medicine  (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: Analysing 58 studies, this meta-analysis found that two doses of COVID-19 vaccines were over 85% effective in preventing infection, with severe adverse events being very rare.

https://idpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40249-021-00915-3

 

3. Safety of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Journal: Infectious Diseases of Poverty  (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: This review of 14 randomized controlled trials involving over 73,000 participants concluded that COVID-19 vaccines have acceptable safety profiles, with most adverse events being mild and transient.

https://idpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40249-021-00878-5

 

4. Evaluation of the Safety Profile of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Rapid Review

Journal: BMC Medicine (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: This rapid review highlighted that while some adverse events occur, they are generally mild and self-limiting, supporting the overall safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-021-02059-5

 

5. A Comprehensive Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines Journal: PubMed

Journal: PubMed (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: This analysis found that all vaccines studied had efficacy exceeding 70%, with mRNA vaccines reaching up to 94.29%, and that most adverse reactions were mild and tolerable.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34365034/

 

6. Comparative Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines in Phase III Trials: A Network Meta-Analysis

Journal: BMC Infectious Diseases (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: This network meta-analysis compared various vaccine platforms, confirming that mRNA vaccines had the highest efficacy and acceptable safety profiles across different populations.

https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-023-08754-3

 

7. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine

Journal: New England Journal of Medicine (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: Further analysis reaffirmed the vaccine's efficacy in preventing severe COVID-19 illness and alleviated concerns about potential vaccine-enhanced disease.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2036242

 

8. Moderna Study Shows Immune Response in Older Adults for a Combo Flu and COVID-19 Shot

Journal: Journal of the American Medical Association (Not formally peer-reviewed (or unclear)

Summary: A study involving 8,000 participants aged 50 and older found that a combination mRNA flu and COVID-19 vaccine induced strong immune responses, with side effects being mild and similar to those of existing vaccines.

https://apnews.com/article/flu-covid-combination-shot-moderna-vaccine-c627a5db5ad784335268ee6dbcb5e600

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm705152a1.htm

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34968370/

 

9. CDC Reports on COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Children Aged 5–11 Years

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)  (Not formally peer-reviewed (or unclear)

Summary: The CDC's monitoring indicated that side effects in children were common but mild, supporting the vaccine's safety in this age group.

https://time.com/6133317/covid-vaccine-kids-safe

 

10. Local Research Study Confirms COVID-19 Vaccine Safety

Source: Med Center Health  (Not formally peer-reviewed (or unclear)

Summary: A local study involving 4,825 patients reported that most individuals experienced no or only mild side effects, reinforcing the vaccine's safety profile.

https://www.wku.edu/mediarelations/2021/september/sept15/survey_dn.pdf

https://medcenterhealth.org/local-research-study-confirms-covid-19-vaccine-safety

 

 

 

 

 

All mainstream media - bleat the anti-vax prophets - because obviously, thousands of doctors and scientists spent decades studying medicine just to lie to Facebook uncles with Wi-Fi and a grudge.

Well Done @richard_smith237 and as for your last para I have previously stated that these Anti-vax nutters don't seem to understand that to believe their "conspiracy theories" it would mean that many tens of thousands of Scientists, professors, universities, researchers and anyone else involved in this field of medicine are lying, and I won't buy into this crap.

[xylophone]

19 hours ago, KhunLA said:

To the title ... my 'opinion' is something different.

 

...  that something is like vaxers ... IMHO ...relying on discredited CDC, NIH, FDA WHO, and the corrupt politicians & fake news to spread their lies 

Still very relevant now................

https://i.imgflip.com/5d5fny.jpg

[xylophone]

Related to this thread is the "movement" to discredit Dr Fauci

 

'Misinformation': Claims of charges against Fauci debunked

 

“Boom!!! Global hunt launched: New Zealand charges Fauci with 107,357 counts of negligible homicide,” an April 21 Facebook post from a New Zealand-based user said.

 

The post added that 14 nations “have issued international arrest warrants” for Fauci, including Brazil, South Africa, Italy, Hungary and the Philippines.

 

“He’s now viewed as the mastermind of medical tyranny. His fingerprints are on lockdowns, forced injections, censorship, and mass psychological warfare. Now, he’s facing the fire.”

 

A keyword search found the claim appears to have originated from an article published on April 6 on the website AMG-News, which has previously promoted misinformation.

However, the article does not cite any sources from New Zealand or from the other countries mentioned in the social media posts.

 

There would appear to be no end the stupidity of these anti-vax nut jobs

[rattlesnake]

5 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Related to this thread is the "movement" to discredit Dr Fauci

 

'Misinformation': Claims of charges against Fauci debunked

 

“Boom!!! Global hunt launched: New Zealand charges Fauci with 107,357 counts of negligible homicide,” an April 21 Facebook post from a New Zealand-based user said.

 

The post added that 14 nations “have issued international arrest warrants” for Fauci, including Brazil, South Africa, Italy, Hungary and the Philippines.

 

“He’s now viewed as the mastermind of medical tyranny. His fingerprints are on lockdowns, forced injections, censorship, and mass psychological warfare. Now, he’s facing the fire.”

 

A keyword search found the claim appears to have originated from an article published on April 6 on the website AMG-News, which has previously promoted misinformation.

However, the article does not cite any sources from New Zealand or from the other countries mentioned in the social media posts.

 

There would appear to be no end the stupidity of these anti-vax nut jobs

 

The age-old technique of focusing on a ridiculous claim in order to discredit an otherwise valid cause…

 

Here is the reality:

 

The White House's "The true origins of Covid" publication shows that the current administration knows Fauci was involved in several questionable processes, such as gain of function among others, and of course this should be accounted for and lead to prosecution, if the systemic corruption can be overcome.

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/lab-leak-true-origins-of-covid-19/

[johng]

53 minutes ago, xylophone said:

1. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine

Journal: New England Journal of Medicine (Peer Reviewed)

Summary: This pivotal Phase III trial reported 95% efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with a favorable safety profile.

 

And then a few (moments) years later.    "moving at the speed of science"