Most charitably, there is no reason to post the Daily Mail article on the Nature Medicine article when one can just link to the Nature Medicine article directly. The Daily Mail article overly fearmongers about the actual science, and it throws in some unrelated scaremongering about giving safe and effective vaccines to children. Given the poster’s history, it’s plain that including the scaremongering that’s piggybacking along with the actual science was intended.
1 Like
You’re not wrong, but if we’re gonna ban people for doing that, the list is going to be very long.
And there is utility to linking to the source that is watered down and tries to simplify it for lay people. Plenty of people, even regs here, will have their eyes glaze over if they got a link to the Nature Medicine article. But they would read a NYT (or Daily Mail) article that comments on the study and purports to present the highlights.
Can anybody tell me if this timeline is correct?
- Churchill shares a link that says that the vax might not actually stop people from getting the rona
- Wookie bans Churchill for fearmongering & trolling & not understanding “basic germ theory” with Ikes cheering him on
- Vaxxed people get the rona
- Zero self-reflection or mea culpa from Wookie
2 Likes
It’s not. The germ theory discussion comes from people claiming that you could effectively spread covid without contracting it because initial studies showed a protection from infection not stopping spread completely. Turns out that’s still true.
The frustrating bit is that you feel like you have any reason to be so arrogant about coming at me and wookie when both of us have a combined decade plus more training in bio and science than you do.
Welcome to the forums!
Anyways, wrt Churchill’s talk about variants. You might remember that it was delta that was the first variant to significant lower the efficacy of the vaccine wrt infection. You might think that means Churchill was right when he talked about variants, but in truth delta is the fourth letter in the greek alphabet and Churchill was saying all sorts of stupid shit about previous variants too.
Carry on.
Thank you for the confirmation
Yes, exactly. The next two posts:
Me:
The annoying bit is that it’s always possible that something could change, but we have some great data that suggests the vaccines are holding up against variants spectacularly well at this point.
Wookie, giving the context what was being talked about:
And there has been zero evidence despite people looking for it that any strain can escape transmission but not infection. Everything shows that if you’re protected from infection, you’re protected from transmission as well.
lol AQ, lol churchill, lol at anyone stanning for Churchill. Pathetic honestly.
Again, and as ever, that post is referring to
No covid variant has ever spread effectively without people contracting it, just as one would expect from basic germ theory.
2 Likes
Just staggering dishonesty. From the very first vaccine acting on the very first strain, OG Wuhan, the vaccine was 90-95% effective. That means with absolute certainty that some people who were vaccinated got the rona! At no point has anyone here ever said that vaccinated people were perfectly protected from ever contracting it. And no, mutations were not necessary for vaccinated people to contract covid. There have always been vaccinated people contracting covid, just a lot less of them than unvaccinated people, and with much better health outcomes.
Agreed, your treatment of churchill was staggeringly dishonest. I’m glad you’ve come around.
4 Likes
Oh yeah let’s not forget the best churchill moment!
Looks like Churchill deleted the original post (because he’s so honest obviously), but it’s a screenshot of a YouTube page, completely uncited.
Churchill knows this is from some anti vax moron, refuses to say what it was!
Cause it’s Youtoobz and everyone likes to dunk on Churchill
I find it:
Hey @churchill I found out what YouTube you got this from. Y’all would be shocked as to why he wasn’t forthcoming with his source.
That screenshot looked really weird so I did some digging on this paper, and the video is here . The timestamp he took this screen shot from is at 8m09s. Could it be some other video? I don’t think so. Churchill is a sucker for any brit.
Look at his screenshot though, it’s a little weird right? It’s not a clear graphic on a screen. That’s because this guy holds up a paper to the camera, likely because this dumbass boomer is too dumb to do it electronically. This is the same video.
This guy is a truly reprehensible piece of shit @churchill, and you should be embarrassed that you’re getting any information from him. How you sat through the guy crying about getting his booster is beyond me.
You should check out John Campbell’s other videos, which are full of covid and vaccine misinformation. It’s a really great insight into you Churchill’s thoughts.
My favorite video is this one:
Where he shits on the BBC (used to be really good) and defends the use of Ivermectin. What the fuck are you doing Churchill? I’m sure there’s more heinous bullshit on his channel but fuck me if I can stand more than a minute of it.
Thanks for the trip down memory lane!
Campbell has leaned into antivax nonsense even harder since, but churchill was treated sooooo unfairly. Takes were right in the end! lol
Kelhus is a nut-low poster and should never have been allowed to post here in the first place. His posting history is sufficient reason. No need to argue whether one specific post is okay or or not.
11 Likes
I don’t think he’s agitated for any bans here, so he may be a good fit for other forums
1 Like
lol that the guy is bringing up the most clear and obvious example of abuse as a victory lap.
2 Likes
Also I’m perfectly fine bullying someone posting anti vax prop.
After I posted a screenshot image that summarised the NUMBERS and linked the scientific study in the same post - however, they only concentrated on the source of SCREENSHOT may have originated - as again they did not like the results of that study, which was sod all to do with Ivermectin, just CN obviously deflecting whilst linking one of his favourite youtubers.
the SCREENSHOT!
Recent findings from the US indicate that vaccine prevention effects have been significantly lower in Janssen vaccine recipients than in those who received other vaccines.
On Thursday, Barbara Cohn and other researchers with the Public Health Institute in the US published findings on the medical manuscript site medRxiv from an analysis of 620,000 discharged soldiers who had received different vaccines. The results showed a much larger drop in effectiveness for the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine than for the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines.
For those who received the one-shot Janssen dose, the prevention effect fell from 88% in March to just 3% five months later in August. Over the same period, effectiveness fell from 92% to 64% for those fully inoculated with the Moderna vaccine, and from 91% to 50% for those fully inoculated with the Pfizer vaccine.
I was hoping that we would re-ignite this argument today.
6 Likes
Yes churchill, and you went to an anti vaxxer to find that study, hid that you got it from them, and refused to cite the actual study after posting that image. The reason I knew about that study before you posted it was that it was all over anti vax twitter. Also, that study sucked iirc and was purely observational. I don’t remember if it ever got published or was just a preprint. I think it got published later after they fixed a big error.
Churchill edited this in, still can’t find a link lol