Select to expand quotekiterboy said..Chris 249 said..
Perhaps you shouldn't claim that you know what you're talking about and other people don't.
I never claimed I did know about the long-term effects of the vaccines.
That's why I would like to wait a bit longer to see the long term data.
You and others like you are the ones claiming to know so much about it, but the simple fact is, you don't and you can't.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to know how this experiment will affect you, it just hasn't been in use long enough.
So perhaps YOU should stop pretending to know so much, when it is clear that it is impossible for you to know anything about the results of this experiment.
I haven't pretended to know "so much" about the long-term effects. The only thing I said about the long-term effects was that there's been 200 years of experience that says that the side effects of vaccines come in the first two months. That is not claiming that I know "so much" about the long-term effects. However, 200 years of experience is a pretty good guide.
There's also the other side, which is that we don't know much about the long-term effects of getting Covid, but there seems to be plenty of evidence that it can be pretty bad and that it seems to affect 5-2% of those who were seriously sick. So surely that means we must balance the completely unproven long-term downsides of the vaccine against the completely proven downsides of getting Covid and its long-term downside.
We're balancing a possible danger against a known danger. There is zero proof of the possible danger, but there is proof of the known danger. Opting to take action against the known danger seems sensible to many of us.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
We're balancing a possible danger against a known danger. There is zero proof of the possible danger, but there is proof of the known danger. Opting to take action against the known danger seems sensible to many of us.
Please don't use your fancy-smancy 'logic' on this. It didn't work for the Spanish Inquisition and it won't work now! We found heaps of witches back then, so surely its a much better approach.
That is all.
Select to expand quotejaran68 said..
To Chris 249
I'd like to thank you for your courage to put a different voice and your willingness to shed some light to all this crap some people post on this forum
Cheers jaran
Get a room
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
I haven't pretended to know "so much" about the long-term effects. The only thing I said about the long-term effects was that there's been 200 years of experience that says that the side effects of vaccines come in the first two months. That is not claiming that I know "so much" about the long-term effects. However, 200 years of experience is a pretty good guide.
Apples and oranges. Still.
Can you please explain the 200 years of experience with these novel 'vaccines' that were only just made to combat SARS-Cov2?
Stop lumping these new treatments with proven vaccines, to do so is extremely ingenuous on your part.
The 200 years experience is valid for the vaccines that are tried tested and proven over the long term, some even for 200 years.
What is the experience with these NEW treatments?
Don't pretend that these new treatments are anything like that, they function n a completely different manner, sure they are trying to acheive the same ends, but in new, novel ways using different biological mechanisms.
And hence because they are so new, you have no idea of how they may affect people in the long term.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
We're balancing a possible danger against a known danger. There is zero proof of the possible danger, but there is proof of the known danger. Opting to take action against the known danger seems sensible to many of us.
There isn't zero proof.
How much do you enjoy lying your arse off?
From blood clots, to heart inflammation, to swollen glands giving the 'Pfizer boob-job' (great spin on that one BTW, really tapping into the vanity market there), to possible ADE...there is plenty of proof.
So much so, that research like this is being done:
'A drug candidate for treating adverse reactions caused by pathogenic antibodies inducible by COVID-19 virus and vaccines.'
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.13.452194v2
Given the long term, it's not unreasonable to expect to see more developments as these aren't your everyday off the shelf 'vaccines'.
If putting something into you that could mess you up long term, for short term peach of mind (which isn't really forthcoming is it?) is sensible to you, well you probably need to reassess your risk assessment strategies.
Chris249, you have to remember that some of the people you are trying to talk science with, 100% believe that all governments world wide have joined forcers to purposely create all this to cull humans. 
But when they ask the leaders of this nutbag conspiracy theorists from overseas why the gov's are culling us, they all answer, " We dont know why yet, but we have proof they are".
But the proof must be secret.......sshhhhhhhhh.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..We're balancing a possible danger against a known danger. There is zero proof of the possible danger, but there is proof of the known danger. Opting to take action against the known danger seems sensible to many of us.
Book an appointment @ Specsavers.
openvaers.com/covid-data/ it has big red boxes for you to better see/understand the data.
And as for your known danger, it actually seems to eliminate cancer, heart attacks, car accidents, flu, etc... because in most countries it has supplanted those for a net 0 gain.
www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/australia-records-zero-flu-deaths-over-past-12-mon
It's nice to hear a scientific viewpoint, but it's important to simultaneously indulge CT nutters.
Science says "vaccinate against Covid" Simple!
So we vaccinated against Alpha.
The vaccinated caught Delta, not Alpha, and had significantly reduced symptoms.
The unvaccinated caught Delta, and had the same CT values as the vaccinated.
Yes, measuring Covid with CT values is probably akin to measuring health with BMI but it's what we've got for now.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..Chris 249 said..
We're balancing a possible danger against a known danger. There is zero proof of the possible danger, but there is proof of the known danger. Opting to take action against the known danger seems sensible to many of us.
There isn't zero proof.
How much do you enjoy lying your arse off?
From blood clots, to heart inflammation, to swollen glands giving the 'Pfizer boob-job' (great spin on that one BTW, really tapping into the vanity market there), to possible ADE...there is plenty of proof.
So much so, that research like this is being done:
'A drug candidate for treating adverse reactions caused by pathogenic antibodies inducible by COVID-19 virus and vaccines.'
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.13.452194v2
Given the long term, it's not unreasonable to expect to see more developments as these aren't your everyday off the shelf 'vaccines'.
If putting something into you that could mess you up long term, for short term peach of mind (which isn't really forthcoming is it?) is sensible to you, well you probably need to reassess your risk assessment strategies.
Don't be so damn dishonest. My discussion with you was about the "negative long term side effects". You have now switched the discussion from unknown long term side effects to known short term side effects. That's just weird when you are the one who complains about comparing apples and oranges.
Yes, I have put something into me that could mess me up in the long term. Over the past 24 hours, that's been wine, coffee, aspirin, the exhaust fumes from someone else's car, some UV radiation into my cells from going sailing, some water that just may have had some pollution, some chocolate, some butter, and some Pfizer. My risk assessment strategy is that I use reason to balance the possible effects of those things in the long term. I've looked into the short term side effects of Pfizer and decided they were so rare that it was worthwhile having a shot.
Have you somehow managed to avoid putting anything in your body that could "mess you up long term" this year? I assume you haven't actually been kiting after all, because you can get some illnesses from water and you can certainly get skin cancer from UV light.
Select to expand quotelotofwind said..
Chris249, you have to remember that some of the people you are trying to talk science with, 100% believe that all governments world wide have joined forcers to purposely create all this to cull humans.
But when they ask the leaders of this nutbag conspiracy theorists from overseas why the gov's are culling us, they all answer, " We dont know why yet, but we have proof they are".
But the proof must be secret.......sshhhhhhhhh.
How sad, you're now looking for your daddy approval from big boy Chris.
Strawman much?
Select to expand quoteFlySurfer said..Chris 249 said..We're balancing a possible danger against a known danger. There is zero proof of the possible danger, but there is proof of the known danger. Opting to take action against the known danger seems sensible to many of us.
Book an appointment @ Specsavers.
openvaers.com/covid-data/ it has big red boxes for you to better see/understand the data.
And as for your known danger, it actually seems to eliminate cancer, heart attacks, car accidents, flu, etc... because in most countries it has supplanted those for a net 0 gain.
www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/australia-records-zero-flu-deaths-over-past-12-mon
Book an appointment for a course in reading and comprehension. The discussion with Kiterboy was specifically referring to LONG TERM effects. That data refers to SHORT TERM effects, which I (like many others) were aware of and have taken into account.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..kiterboy said..Chris 249 said..
We're balancing a possible danger against a known danger. There is zero proof of the possible danger, but there is proof of the known danger. Opting to take action against the known danger seems sensible to many of us.
There isn't zero proof.
How much do you enjoy lying your arse off?
From blood clots, to heart inflammation, to swollen glands giving the 'Pfizer boob-job' (great spin on that one BTW, really tapping into the vanity market there), to possible ADE...there is plenty of proof.
So much so, that research like this is being done:
'A drug candidate for treating adverse reactions caused by pathogenic antibodies inducible by COVID-19 virus and vaccines.'
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.13.452194v2
Given the long term, it's not unreasonable to expect to see more developments as these aren't your everyday off the shelf 'vaccines'.
If putting something into you that could mess you up long term, for short term peach of mind (which isn't really forthcoming is it?) is sensible to you, well you probably need to reassess your risk assessment strategies.
Don't be so damn dishonest. My discussion with you was about the "negative long term side effects". You have now switched the discussion from unknown long term side effects to known short term side effects. That's just weird when you are the one who complains about comparing apples and oranges.
Yes, I have put something into me that could mess me up in the long term. Over the past 24 hours, that's been wine, coffee, aspirin, the exhaust fumes from someone else's car, some UV radiation into my cells from going sailing, some water that just may have had some pollution, some chocolate, some butter, and some Pfizer. My risk assessment strategy is that I use reason to balance the possible effects of those things in the long term. I've looked into the short term side effects of Pfizer and decided they were so rare that it was worthwhile having a shot.
Have you somehow managed to avoid putting anything in your body that could "mess you up long term" this year? I assume you haven't actually been kiting after all, because you can get some illnesses from water and you can certainly get skin cancer from UV light.
pffft. Try again.
My whole stance on this from the beginning was the unknown effects that could mess you up long term, and how NOBODY knows what they could be.
If refuting your statement of there being no evidence for potential long term damage (which is in itself something impossible to have in the short term FFS), by pointing out the negative effects that have been realised so far, doesn't lend any possibility for consideration for you, then you are the dishonest one.
You and your new son, lotofhotwind should form a company - Adhominem Strawman & False Equivalency LTD.
The existence of occasional short-term side effects (which I've never denied) does not constitute the proof of long term side effects that I said we haven't seen.
Yes, it is impossible to have long term proof in the short term. I know that, and never denied it, and I specifically referred to "possible" dangers in the long term. That reference to "possible" dangers shows that any inference that I have ignored the possibility would be just dishonest. Nor did I ever deny that MRNA vaccines are novel. So are plenty of other medical techniques that people use, to their benefit.
Short term effects do not mean there are similar or related long term effects. It's well known that many vaccines have a small possibility of short term side effects like anaphylaxis. That's why the 15 minute wait that you didn't know about is standard practise after a shot. It's an example of the fact that the existence of a side effect in the short term does not mean that the side effect persists into the long term.
None of that gets away from the fact that some of us prefer to reduce a known current risk, even if there is some possibility of unknown long term risk. And some of us are prepared to take certain long-term risks, just as you appear to take the long-term risk of skin cancer when you go kiting.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..
Why does the rate of vaccination short term take up mean anything in regards to long term adverse effects looking more and more unlikely? Long term is more than 3-6 months.
Kitekid, you posted a few weeks ago that no one knows the long term effects and that long term is more than 3-6 months ??
We were well past your definition of long term then, and even more so now, so we know the long term effects for this period you stated so I dont see why no one knows the 3-6 month long term effects.
edit.......I cant believe I replied to kitekid
sorry, forgive me but beer made me do a stupid thing
Im guessing he will reply with calling me an idiot or something.
Select to expand quotelotofwind said..kiterboy said..
Why does the rate of vaccination short term take up mean anything in regards to long term adverse effects looking more and more unlikely? Long term is more than 3-6 months.
Kitekid, you posted a few weeks ago that no one knows the long term effects and that long term is more than 3-6 months ??
We were well past your definition of long term then, and even more so now, so we know the long term effects for this period you stated so I dont see why no one knows the 3-6 month long term effects.
edit.......I cant believe I replied to kitekid sorry, forgive me but beer made me do a stupid thing
Well you are an idiot.
My pointing out of 3-6 months is because a lot of you dumb-arses were pretty much defining that as long term.
Try again.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..
Well you are an idiot.
My pointing out of 3-6 months is because a lot of you dumb-arses were pretty much defining that as long term.
Try again.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
The existence of occasional short-term side effects (which I've never denied) does not constitute the proof of long term side effects that I said we haven't seen.
Yes, it is impossible to have long term proof in the short term. I know that, and never denied it, and I specifically referred to "possible" dangers in the long term. That reference to "possible" dangers shows that any inference that I have ignored the possibility would be just dishonest. Nor did I ever deny that MRNA vaccines are novel. So are plenty of other medical techniques that people use, to their benefit.
Short term effects do not mean there are similar or related long term effects. It's well known that many vaccines have a small possibility of short term side effects like anaphylaxis. That's why the 15 minute wait that you didn't know about is standard practise after a shot. It's an example of the fact that the existence of a side effect in the short term does not mean that the side effect persists into the long term.
None of that gets away from the fact that some of us prefer to reduce a known current risk, even if there is some possibility of unknown long term risk. And some of us are prepared to take certain long-term risks, just as you appear to take the long-term risk of skin cancer when you go kiting.
So we're in agreeance then.
You like so many others are so **** scared, that you've taken an experimental treatment to sooth your minds short term, and your fear has seriously clouded your judgement of the long term risks of taking something so new that no-one can possibly know what the outcome of it would be.
How does it feel to live your life in fear that you are willing to grasp at any straw?
It must feel pretty good to have emotionally stunted people like lotofhotwind project their daddy issues onto you.
Select to expand quotelotofwind said..
.... sorry, forgive me but beer made me do a stupid thing
... maybe it is one of the long term effects of beer consumption ??
We just don't know.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..
My whole stance on this from the beginning was the unknown effects that could mess you up long term, and how NOBODY knows what they could be.
Well said. Now you can stop talking about them.
I will happily continue this long term beer study for the...ummmm.....good of the community.
I will know the long term effects in 3 to 6 months.
Select to expand quotelotofwind said..kiterboy said..
Why does the rate of vaccination short term take up mean anything in regards to long term adverse effects looking more and more unlikely? Long term is more than 3-6 months.
Kitekid, you posted a few weeks ago that no one knows the long term effects and that long term is more than 3-6 months ??
We were well past your definition of long term then, and even more so now, so we know the long term effects for this period you stated so I dont see why no one knows the 3-6 month long term effects.
edit.......I cant believe I replied to kitekid sorry, forgive me but beer made me do a stupid thing
Im guessing he will reply with calling me an idiot or something.
What is wrong with this forum/the world, that you are the more intelligent one participating in a conversation... I mean.... ahhh.... its a little different to your usual comments.
I know, Im a bit scared too.
OH NO, I havent grown up have I ? I do have hair where I didnt have hair before.
Next I will be correcting peoples spelling mistakes.
Select to expand quotelotofwind said..
I know, Im a bit scared too.
OH NO, I havent grown up have I ? I do have hair where I didnt have hair before.
Next I will be correcting peoples spelling mistakes.
Long-term Covid side-effect?
Maybe its just the people Im talking to make me look more intelligent, its just an illusion,
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
What is wrong with this forum/the world, that you are the more intelligent one participating in a conversation... I mean.... ahhh.... its a little different to your usual comments.
Nah, just one of those statistical quirks. An accident by chance.
Hell, even the other day Macro said something, that once translated, seemed to be relatively sane.
mmm, two of the universe's statistically most unlikely events both occurring at similar times. Must be something in the water.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..FormulaNova said..
What is wrong with this forum/the world, that you are the more intelligent one participating in a conversation... I mean.... ahhh.... its a little different to your usual comments.
Nah, just one of those statistical quirks. An accident by chance.
Hell, even the other day Macro said something, that once translated, seemed to be relatively sane.
mmm, two of the universe's statistically most unlikely events both occurring at similar times. Must be something in the water.
Clearly that's very unlikely. therefore its quite obvious, even a child could see it, that we are living in the matrix. Flat earth? Round earth? Doesn't matter, its just a change of the code.
