Responses; The COVID-19 Vaccines Are Ineffective

It’s time for another response blog post. This comes as a response to someone who made a comment about the COVID-19 vaccine and its efficacy (or lack of) in my anti-segregation group relating to a Guardian article.

Hypocrisy Is Thy Name

Taking case numbers out of context is exactly what you did though: here is the article you shared, and as you can see right there in the screenshot you said “they showed that more vaccinated people have had covid 19 than unvaccinated people and that there were more deaths with the vaccine than without it”.

Well, that quote isn’t 100% correct or in the full context; ironic. What I wrote, you find on my Facebook page here or see right here; “Oops. They just clearly admitted people have died with the vaccine; so much for “safe and effective”, more like poison. But it doesn’t end there, they showed that more vaccinated people have had COVID-19 than the unvaccinated and that there are more deaths with the vaccine than without it. Wake up, the vaccine is hurting you and not preventing harm.” Now, I had to repost this because it seems like it was removed from my page or I forgot to post it there at the time.

Here’s the irony of this person’s comment, when the media take things out of context, it’s okay but when I allegedly do it, it’s not okay. Now, what I said was not out of context but a clear presentation of the facts as delivered by a media organisation that I despise. The point is if they agree with me, there’s probably something true there.

The point I was making is that too often there is an attempt to over nuance things and shift things. I just wanted to point out a fact. I never made any mention to my own research or any something people would find wacky. This is what I do all the time. I use mainstream sources to point out flaws in the COVID narrative. It’s a way to get away from the stumbling block of people who think more independent sources are inaccurate.

Simply point, I wasn’t looking for a long form discussion of the efficacy or lack of in terms of the COVID-19 vaccines. I just want people to think that the vaccine they took doesn’t stop transmission, hospitalisation or death. You can nuance it all you like but if people were thinking clearly then they would tolerate the open lies told to them.

Some people on my side of things wonder why the government tells the truth and people still believes the lies. Why? Because the government is so confident they’ve scared the populace enough and fed them lies about a vaccine that telling people have the vaccine, have the disease and then die that they don’t have to lie any more or at least to as large an extent.

I’ve memed this before as you’ll see below. But the point is, so many of us are saying that you can die with COVID-19 but not die from it. For people to bring that as an excuse for a bad vaccine is to vindicate us. And for people to deny that fact is to then prove our point again that the vaccine doesn’t help. In any case, the COVID Agenda has painted itself in a logical corner it can’t get out of and either way we win. Either button and the truth is allowed out.

What?! A Strawman

Here in the article it warns against people like you doing exactly what you did with the information from that very same article (1). What you said is like saying “Sober drivers make up more fatalities on Australian roads than drivers who are high on meth, therefore we should all drive high on meth”, and don’t say “am I seriously comparing those two” because yes I am as it is a good parallel to what you’re saying in this post pictured.

No, it’s not a “good parallel” because it’s not what I’m suggesting. This is classic strawman tactics to make up an argument I’m not making and beat it up. I’ve already stated my purpose in the above section.

By the way, larger numbers are not irrelevant even if they’re a lower proportion or there is a series outcome in the larger group in a lower proportion. At some point the larger number has some weight; at some point there are more bodies than bullets, to give an example. I mean, that’s the principle crux in the COVID Agenda for the past two years; ‘there will be large case numbers but only a small percentage of people will get very ill but because of the large numbers we then have to limit your life in XYZ way/s’.

Irony of Ironies

The article then goes onto explain proportions (2). In your most recent comment you said “over the last few months isn’t enough because of the testing bias, then proceeded, in that same comment, to share data from a 6 DAY period, that’s the definition of irony.

Let’s be ironic again, shall we? Let’s give some context as this person wants to have so much. The comment from which the following graph was a part of a reply to said, in part, “But over the last 3 months is a long enough time to determine that unvaxxed make up more % of deaths”. Again, this is my entire point, if one group of people can take things out of context, then so can I.

But in any case, I am not taking things out of context, I’m just fighting the debate in their quarters. Sure, I could provide long term data but it is much more beneficial to fight where the other person is fighting. It’s much better to demolish an argument with a related opposing argument than bring up another one.

Wait… What… Numbers Need Context?

The data from that same article that YOU SHARED and used to feed your case covers deaths and ICU cases from the 26th of November to the 1st of jan (a much bigger sample size than the 6 days you just shared) and clearly articulates that unvaccinated people had a much larger proportion of severe cases (91.1 out of 100,000) vs 3.55 out of 100,000 vaccinated. That’s over a 25 times more severe incident rate for unvaccinated people, a difference that great, also being from over a month sample size is pretty definitive proof of the vaccines effectiveness.

So, we’re continuing with the ‘rules for thee but not for me’ argument then? Anyway, in what sense is a month any different from 6 days? Well that depends on the context, which is key. If you’re talking about eating food or watching a particular YouTube channel (just a plug for my own), a month or 6 days makes a difference for one and not the other. The same applies here.

The month of December (and parts of November) and a week in January is the same in terms of data. Why? We still have the same conditions; a similar level of vaccination, testing, attitudes and government approaches. So, it is fair, well another reason at least, why what I did was fine.

Let’s get at the number that this commentor refers to, “that unvaccinated people had a much larger proportion of severe cases (91.1 out of 100,000) vs 3.55 out of 100,000 vaccinated”. Those numbers, like I implied already, actually has some baseline issues without any sort of direct input from me. One of those issues, attitudes (and testing attitudes specifically) is what I’ll get into now.

The major overarching issue is that it’s entirely based around case numbers. If you’re not sure where I’m going with this, let me make this clear. The “100,000” people is only referring case numbers. So, if you’ve not had a test, then it doesn’t count.

Following on from that, who is getting tested and in what percentage? Most people getting testing are the COVID-19 vaccinated. These are the people who, generally speaking, are full-on in the COVID narrative and to get jabbed and then test for that disease does not phase them in the slightest. Then there are the unvaccinated from COVID-19, which to be clear if it wasn’t already, includes me. Do we get tested in high numbers? Nope. Why? Because we know that most tests are faulty and if they are accurate, a positive test isn’t indicative of a symptomatic person. So, the few that are tested are most likely in hospital (possibly for COVID-19 treatment) and tested as a matter of procedure. Which is a clear bias in the statistics.

To make it obvious, having lower case numbers in the unvaccinated skews the data. If you have 1 death in 10 cases it’s going to have a large percentage. But if the true case number is 20, that’s going be a very different percentage. That’s why it matters to actually look at this.

So why is it not fair to mostly test the sick of one group and the healthy of the other? Say I had two ice cubes and set each to melt next to a different heater to compare the temperatures. One ice cube melted faster than the other one and so that cube’s heater was hotter, right? Not necessarily. What if that faster melting cube wasn’t actually melting faster but that the cube was smaller and so that’s why it melted faster? You see, that it’s not a fair scientific test when there are multiple independent variables. Not to be condescending but this is basic science that we learnt at the beginning of high school.

So, having long term data is imperative because looking at all the data allows us to compare things when everyone wasn’t vaccinated. There is no testing bias because everyone was one group.

Come On, This Is Just A Lie

Also, the testing bias you keep mentioning is completely irrelevant here as we are talking about deaths and ICU cases (as we have said before), which have nothing to do with getting tested, AND, even if we were talking about raw case numbers, the concept of the testing bias you keep bringing up would only work AGAINST you: you are saying unvaccinated people are less likely to get tested because they don’t want to, well in that case that would mean there are more cases from unvaccinated in reality than what the data shows.

Wait what? Is this a joke? “Also, the testing bias you keep mentioning is completely irrelevant here as we are talking about deaths and ICU cases (as we have said before), which have nothing to do with getting tested”. This is actually a laugh. I was called out for using raw numbers but apparently that’s irrelevant now because apparently we are only looking at raw numbers that the commenter likes. Oh well, I guess I’m wrong… Oh wait… Those raw numbers I pointed out proved me right. Oopsies. That truly is an own goal.

Honestly, this person lauds over the statistics when it’s a percentage in their favour yet seems to have no idea where that number comes from. This is just intellectually lazy. And I’m not having a go at people who aren’t as intellectual as me but by above point stands. You can’t criticise me for using raw numbers and then claim that the numbers that support them are raw numbers and not percentages.

Let me explain it again for this person, clearly, the percentage of serious events is a percentage. I know it’s obvious to some but not to others. And that is what is a percentage of? As the article says, “Showing deaths and ICU admissions as a percentage of Covid cases”. I know it seems kind of dumb to point it out but it’s necessary, unfortunately.

It’s just so ridiculous to talk up a percentage and then say it’s based on nothing. This is just basic maths. So it’s a lie to suggest that “deaths and ICU cases [in proportion]… have nothing to do with getting tested”. Now if I don’t correct the quote, yes, testing has zero to do with deaths and ICU but remember that if we do that, I’m right because we use raw numbers. So this, comment has to refer to the proportions or this would be an even more uninformed statement.

Now, I really am struggling to follow this point about testing bias and how it apparently goes against me. First of all, I’m not talking about how many get COVID-19, it’s about what proportion of people in what group have serious health issues. So, yes, it does help me to say there is a bias but this person hasn’t gotten the whole idea of the proportion yet so I understand why they think this is a disconnected idea which proves them right. Secondly, it’s another own goal to infer that there are more cases of COVID-19 that go untested. All it does is prove the point that COVID-19 is not severe to most people and unworthy of intention.

Mass Formation Is Real

In your earlier comment you also said “scientists openly tell you the vaccines effectiveness wanes quickly … yes?… Because it does? … and that’s why boosters are required? You are proving the necessity of boosters yourself.

This is just the kind of in-the-clouds belief in the COVID-19 narrative. There’s no questioning of the failure of vaccines. Sure, maybe I am making the case for boosters but that’s not the main point (and to be clear I’m not saying to justify a booster). It’s a bit like saying I am in favour of fire stations because there are fires but missing the point that someone lit your house on fire. The difference here is, metaphorically, the fire stations aren’t putting out the fires with water but more fire.

Cherry Picking, Who’s Doing It?

It seems you pick and choose when to trust the word of scientists and medical professionals, i.e. when it ‘supports’ your case, as you don’t trust anything else they say (cherry picking).

What? Cherry picking? That’s ironic. Anyway, this is the whole ‘missing the forest for the trees’ issue. To give another example, it’s like killing your mother and then complaining there is no food for dinner. Sure, to point that out, I may be pointing out that you should eat but hello, you just killed your mother!

So, no I’m not “trust[ing] the word of scientists and medical professionals” to suggest that the vaccine has failed and they say boosters are needed. To continue with the murder example, it’s like the murderer claiming that demons in their head tell them to murder again. What it shows is that even in the illogical worldview or headspace in the murder example, the truth is revealed. And like I said before, I use the mainstream facts to point out the errors of the COVID agenda. It doesn’t mean that I have to believe any of it to share it. It’s like me directly telling the person this is addressed to that they cherry pick with me because they use parts of my argument to use for their own against me. It makes no sense.

Wait… I’m Right?

Yes, you’re right, the vaccine isn’t as effective and doesn’t last anywhere near as long before boosters are required compared to other more developed ones however the data in the article that again, YOU SHARED, clearly shows that it is still effective at saving lives. {Name removed of another person in the group} you also can’t seem to grasp the concept that different vaccines have different booster frequencies depending on how fast the relevant antibodies decline in quantity).

Once again, this is proof that mass formation psychosis or hypnosis is in action; watch this video as a great explanation of the concept. You are telling me the facts, commenter and you’re still not doing anything about it.

Again, just because I shared something, it doesn’t mean that I agree with the conclusions. And no the article did not prove that the vaccine was saving lives and I showed it with raw data and with statistical analysis. But just as a question, how many deaths are okay? Just tell me many deaths with a disease of people with a vaccine that is of that disease means the vaccine is no longer effective? Just think logically for a moment and not in the COVID bubble. You can’t get any worse than death in terms of disease. To show me deaths and say the vaccine is working makes no sense.

Now, yes, some vaccines require boosters. All of them, except for COVID-19, are after years and not weeks or months. So, to suggest that having a booster for several vaccines is enough to ignore a booster for one vaccine, is not a good argument. Like I said, there is a difference between years and months. Also, all of the boosters, except for COVID-19, actually do something to do with the disease. They stop infection; these vaccines do not. They stop transmission; these vaccines do not. They stop series illness and death; these vaccines do not (remember this measure is with COVID because finding from is very difficult). Also, you don’t have to accept bad vaccines. Natural immunity does not wane as fast as the vaccines in terms of COVID-19. So, to talk about antibodies highlights the vaccines’ ineffectiveness.

Conclusion-ish

Conclusion: you took data from an article out of context (cherry picking) in the exact way that article said was being done.

Hmm… No, that was you.

More Conclusion

And the information to show the effectiveness of the vaccine is clearly in that same article you shared.

No, it wasn’t. I explained that.

Continuing Conclusion

How can you have any credibility with your constant spouting of ironic and hypocritical statements such as the multiple aforementioned, this is the reason you won’t ever change the minds of rational people, not because of ‘mass formation psychosis’.

That is called projection; that is claiming the characteristics of the author are the characteristics of the target. I could and have turned this person’s words around and showed their projection. I am not the ironic one saying ignoring context is wrong and then doing that. I’m not the hypocritical one saying that one is a rational person and then ignoring facts on the page such as proportions.

Throwing away phrases that I use, like mass formation psychosis, as buzz phrases, doesn’t mean anything if you don’t show it in action. Otherwise, it’s just another strawman set up because I use a phrase you don’t like. Oh and it’s the height of irony to imply that the writer is a “rational person” because that is what a person who is experiencing mass formation psychosis would say.

It’s begging the question to say that one is a “rational person” and not experiencing mass formation psychosis because affirming a statement like that instantly means you agree with the supposition that these people are rational and therefore cannot experience such psychosis. It would be more reasonable to say something like this, ‘The reason why you can’t convince of XYZ is because of your constant spouting of ironic and hypocritical statements and because not mass formation psychosis’ because then you can debate those issues and if the people are actually rational or not. Otherwise, like I said, if you only focus on the slander part then you are agreeing with the supposition that certain people are rational and if you do that, then there is no point debating anything else because the people are assumed to be rational and thus, as it is defined by the person, anything else is irrational and dismissed out of hand.

In any case, this is just a bit of slander at the end because nothing of substance in this comment proved me in any way wrong. I don’t need a kicker at the end because I let the facts do the talking and not my big mouth. I don’t say something and not back it up but that’s exactly what this last section is and it also occurs in other parts of the comment.

Real Conclusion

Thank you for reading until the end. I know it’s been a longer piece but we have to debunk this pseudo intellectualism by people trapped in a lie. I guess it answers why people don’t argue with me often because they know that their arguments are weak and when they’re said, they’re easily debunked.