Leo
Well-known member
@mixed_biscuits back in fighting form, good to see you again. I had covid a few weeks ago but very mild symptoms, would you entertain the possibility that perhaps the vaccine protected me for being more adversely affected?
You want a vaccine to give you better general health?
LIFT!
PROTEIN!
no fap (although we’re undecided on this part)!
If a little drug injected into your shoulder is enough to put you out you would not have been strong enough to live through 'ardcore. Aren't you guys supposed to believe in eugenics?
Ten grams in yoghurt. We know the drill, boss.no alcohol, no pub. hashish, but only in the middle of warfare.
@mixed_biscuits back in fighting form, good to see you again. I had covid a few weeks ago but very mild symptoms, would you entertain the possibility that perhaps the vaccine protected me for being more adversely affected?
Exactly, there's no such evidence even though it would be trivial to do, lots of people would be reassured and the jabbers would present it as a slamdunk against general scepticism.Absolutely no way in hell am I getting involved in one of your trademark """arguments""", in which literally impossible standards of proof are demanded for every claim, irrelevant objections constantly brought up and the goalposts constantly moved, until your opponent eventually says "Well fuck this for a game of soldiers", at which point you declare that you've "won."
Hahahaha, OK. Every doctor, every epidemiologist, every virologist, every government health official, every member of the WHO, you name it - wrong.Exactly, there's no such evidence even though it would be trivial to do, lots of people would be reassured and the jabbers would present it as a slamdunk against general scepticism.
All you have to do is show us the study for vaccine load vs general health not whether it reduces the chance of illness from the target pathogen, capisce?Hahahaha, OK. Every doctor, every epidemiologist, every virologist, every government health official, every member of the WHO, you name it - wrong.
You and some right-wing contrarians on Substack - right.
This is definitely a plausible scenario.
I don't think you understand the distinction.Reams and reams and reams of evidence has been posted in this thread, and the previous thread, and in every case you've done exactly what I've described above. So what's the point in even engaging?
Distinction between what? Stupidity and dishonesty, maybe?I don't think you understand the distinction.
When they talk about vax being good they refer to vax efficacy against the target, not vax load vs general health.Distinction between what? Stupidity and dishonesty, maybe?
I accept that most vaccinations would reduce the chance of ill health from the target nasty but what I think is tellingly absent is evidence that the pros outweigh the cons for those of us (almost everyone) who has had a raft of these things, given that the chance of side effects may be greater than that of ever encountering the nasties for which the jabs are intended.
That's just it. He'll find, or rather invent, some fault in a hundred rigorous, large-scale studies showing results he doesn't want to hear, but the slightest shade of doubt in the other direction becomes a cast-iron certainty.Ok, but you rationale is completely speculative: "...given the CHANCE of side effects MAY be greater..."
It's not speculative as if you never get exposed to the target pathogen then it seems there's only downside; it's as if you paid for an insurance policy that it turns out you didn't need.Ok, but you rationale is completely speculative: "...given the CHANCE of side effects MAY be greater..."