Support NeoGAF

[Nobody_Important]

We will never reach "everyone having one dose", because of people who can't take it and people who don't consent to the trial.

I'm not falling for this bullshit. If the vaccine was 96% effective, there would be no restrictions at all. Period.

So you think they are lying?

 

[Rentahamster]

Specifically in regards to these two, it does appear that the COVID-19 spike protein by itself can do plenty of damage to the cells even without the presence of a virus.

*under certain conditions in a lab that aren't necessarily going to be the same as in a live human.

This is one of the key points in understanding studies and making sure that you are not misinterpreting results to reach a conclusion that is otherwise not warranted. Did you read that study? Do you understand these differences?

This is a good self-reflection test. Can you, right now, clearly identify the main differences and explain their significance? If you can't, then that means that you were under the assumption that the statement you made, "it does appear that the COVID-19 spike protein by itself can do plenty of damage to the cells even without the presence of the virus" necessarily would apply in the real world too.

Take this test, in good faith, and examine your assumptions.

Now, they do say that the COVID-19 spike protein behaves differently to the spike protein generated as a result of the vaccines, but I'm still trying to find clear information about that.

Well, of course it does. It's attached to a live virus. The vaccine spike protein is just the spike protein that's modified to reduce harm and mobility.

 

[12Goblins]

man..finally got around to listening to the josh rogin episode on JRE

#1640 - Josh Rogin - The Joe Rogan Experience

No idea why it took me this long to listen to it. shame on me

couldn't recommend this ep enough - truely wish all JRE guests had this level of quality, Integrity, and insightfulness. he's not looking to judge or point fingers at anyone, just using reasoning and journalistic skills to figure out what's going on objectively.
what a breath of fresh air. a MUST listen for anyone with any interest on this topic.

classic JRE of Joe sitting there and listening to a mesmerizing story and being unable to follow along at times LOL

 

[Rentahamster]

Griffon How you feeling, bro?

 

[pel1300]

We will never reach "everyone having one dose", because of people who can't take it and people who don't consent to the trial.

I'm not falling for this bullshit. If the vaccine was 96% effective, there would be no restrictions at all. Period.

That post was so passive aggressive. I'm convinced he is having cognitive dissonance. No reason to react with passive aggression or hostility otherwise to such a reasonable question.

 

[Griffon]

Griffon How you feeling, bro?

I tire easily and my chest is tight. From what I read, myocarditis is only treated by waiting it out and treating the symptoms if anything needs to be done. So... yeah, fun times ahead...
I don't quite know what to do, I could go back to the hospital and insist on getting examinations that target myocarditis in particular so that I can get a proper diagnosis. When I was there they didn't seem to know about the vaccine causing it, maybe next time they will.

 

[T8SC]

What happens when/if an "Echo" variant appears?

What happens when/if an "Foxtrot" variant appears?

What happens when/if an "Golf" variant appears?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

*under certain conditions in a lab that aren't necessarily going to be the same as in a live human.

This is one of the key points in understanding studies and making sure that you are not misinterpreting results to reach a conclusion that is otherwise not warranted. Did you read that study? Do you understand these differences?

This is a good self-reflection test. Can you, right now, clearly identify the main differences and explain their significance? If you can't, then that means that you were under the assumption that the statement you made, "it does appear that the COVID-19 spike protein by itself can do plenty of damage to the cells even without the presence of the virus" necessarily would apply in the real world too.

Take this test, in good faith, and examine your assumptions.

I could do without the condescension, Hambro.

The study was done using hamsters, and it was the researchers who did the study and the author of the Salk article that extrapolated the results to explain what is potentially happening in humans, not just my amateur speculation.

 

[Rentahamster]

I tire easily and my chest is tight.

Are you an active person normally? Is this preventing you from doing the things you normally do? Are you an introvert or an extrovert? How many people (friends/family/coworkers) are you in face to face contact with daily?

I could go back to the hospital and insist on getting examinations that target myocarditis in particular so that I can get a proper diagnosis.

You could try, if that'll put your mind at ease, or ask for a referral to a heart specialist. That might cost you though.

When I was there they didn't seem to know about the vaccine causing it, maybe next time they will.

That's probably because there isn't evidence that pins it down for sure. It's still under study.

COVID-19 Vaccination

COVID-19 vaccines protect against COVID-19. Get safety info and more.

www.cdc.gov

Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. As of June 9, 2021, VAERS has received 623 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among people ages 30 and younger who received COVID-19 vaccine. Most cases have been reported after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna), particularly in male adolescents and young adults. Through follow-up, including medical record reviews, CDC and FDA have confirmed 268 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis. CDC and its partners are investigating these reports to assess whether there is a relationship to COVID-19 vaccination.

268 cases of myocarditis so far. There were 309 million doses of the vaccine given to people in the USA so far. You do the math.

COVID-19 Vaccination

COVID-19 vaccines protect against COVID-19. Get safety info and more.

www.cdc.gov

 

[Rentahamster]

I could do without the condescension, Hambro.

The study was done using hamsters, and it was the researchers who did the study and the author of the Salk article that extrapolated the results to explain what is potentially happening in humans, not just my amateur speculation.

No condescension present, dude. I'm choosing the words I chose to be as clear and transparent as possible, for your benefit. Don't interpret them as a chide. Interpret them as a guide.

 

[QSD]

I could do without the condescension, Hambro.

The study was done using hamsters, and it was the researchers who did the study and the author of the Salk article that extrapolated the results to explain what is potentially happening in humans, not just my amateur speculation.

You would think he would be more alarmed by testing being done on his rodent brethren

 

[Rentahamster]

it was the researchers who did the study and the author of the Salk article that extrapolated the results to explain what is potentially happening in humans, not just my amateur speculation.

I know this as well, which is why I asked the question in the way that I did. You could also interpret that as meaning, "Are you sure you're reading the Salk article correctly and not reaching conclusions that the article did not necessarily confirm"?

 

[Rentahamster]

You would think he would be more alarmed by testing being done on his rodent brethren

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I know this as well, which is why I asked the question in the way that I did. You could also interpret that as meaning, "Are you sure you're reading the Salk article correctly and not reaching conclusions that the article did not necessarily confirm"?

Not really sure what you want. You wrote "The protein is dangerous, sure, when attached to the actual COVID19 virus. However, the spike protein on its own is not." I was responding to that point. There is reason to believe that actually the protein itself is potentially quite harmful. We're not going to inject pseudovirus into humans, so this is probably the best research we're going to get.

Also, the vaccines are considered safe largely because they were engineered to to produce only very small amounts of the spike protein and only in the area in which they were injected. The assumption is that they stay put and generate a minuscule level of spike proteins that is just enough to trigger an immune response but not do any damage.

 

[Rentahamster]

It depends on what you mean by long term. Philips (dutch electronics company) just today ordered a recall of a whole bunch of medical respirator devices because the rubber seals crumble at high temperatures, releasing particles and toxic gases that may cause cancer. These are medical devices that are supposed to be tested rigorously, but errors and unforeseen mishaps will still sneak through. You can recall respirators, but not vaccines.

The Dutch government (not otherwise known for its corruption) is currently involved in a long-term scandal involving the use of a carcinogenous paint that the army used for many years, whilst already knowing that it was unhealthy. The people involved in these decisions have long since gone and taken their six-figure salaries with them. Safety issues are covered up all the time. In my experience there is hardly ever any accountability for the powerful in situations like this.

People can only sue if they have enough money and even then the outcome is not certain. There is absolutely profit to be made in delivering an unsafe product. Most companies don't think long term because the responsible people are not incentivized to. They maximize profits in the short term and will have moved on when the blowback hits, if ever.

Being able to sue is not dictated on how much money one has, especially if it's a slam dunk pharma case. The injury lawyers would swarm like vultures over it.

Are you not satisfied by the phase 1 phase 2 and phase 3 trials that have been completed so far? And the fact that 309 million doses have been given out so far, and the only blip that draws attention so far are the 200 or so people with myocarditis?

It may well be possible that doctors hesitate to report if they get blowback from colleagues or are pressured by higher ups not to. The collection and subsequent analysis of the reported cases may well be done by one person or a small group. They may also be subjected to pressure to produce desirable conclusions, or otherwise compromised...

Ungrounded speculation.

So you have a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System but according to this guy it's intentionally set up to capture events that are NOT thought to be caused by vaccines? Read that again and tell me that doesn't sound like weaseling right out the gate.

It's set up to record everything so that any possible link can be investigated. That's why you record everything. Like the old saying goes, "shoot first and then let God sort 'em out".

Giving an example like a lightning strike here as an example is manipulative, it makes it seem absurd to collect these reports. Nobody is going to report a lightning strike as an adverse vaccine reaction.
In the end though, I have to trust that the doctors at the CDC review these in good faith and without an agenda. I don't.
4,434 death reports in a system that is optional... I wonder how many adverse events were recorded in total?

There is always an agenda at play, but if the agenda you're imagining is actually real, our day to day lives would be quite different don't you think? If our safety systems and FDA were really that unreliable, why has life expectancy in the USA going up?

 

[FunkMiller]

We will never reach "everyone having one dose", because of people who can't take it and people who don't consent to the trial.

I'm not falling for this bullshit. If the vaccine was 96% effective, there would be no restrictions at all. Period.

No one ever said we’d reach 100% coverage. And the vaccine is that effective for people that have had the vaccine.

But do enjoy your tin foil hat there, champ.

 

[Rentahamster]

Not really sure what you want. You wrote "The protein is dangerous, sure, when attached to the actual COVID19 virus. However, the spike protein on its own is not." I was responding to that point. There is reason to believe that actually the protein itself is potentially quite harmful. We're not going to inject pseudovirus into humans, so this is probably the best research we're going to get.

Also, the vaccines are considered safe largely because they were engineered to to produce only very small amounts of the spike protein and only in the area in which they were injected. The assumption is that they stay put and generate a minuscule level of spike proteins that is just enough to trigger an immune response but not do any damage.

I want what I asked. You are skeptical of the claim that the vaccine spike proteins are safe because of this article you cited. In order to properly evaluate the relevance of the conclusions of this article to the safety of the vaccines, we have to be sure we understand what this study is actually studying and what are the valid points of comparison and what are the invalid points of comparison as it pertains to extrapolating any characteristics of the vaccine's safety.

Is the structure of spike protein from the study the same as the spike protein from the vaccine? If not, how?
Is the concentration of the spike protein from the study the same as the concentration of the spike protein from the vaccine the same?
Is the behavior of the spike protein from the study the same as the behavior of the spike protein from the vaccine?
Is the type of cells that the study exposed to the spike protein the same as the cells that the vaccine spike protein would encounter?

 

[dorkimoe]

Second dose done Saturday. All good. Felt crummy but not near as bad as first dose

 

[Rentahamster]

@Zefah This might also help to elucidate my point.

"Water is safe" Do you have an issue with this general statement?

"Drinking purified water with no contaminants is safe" Do you have an issue with this general statement?

Are these statements true in all circumstances?

 

[Griffon]

Rentahamster Well, I'm on Neogaf, so yes I'm an introvert who works on the computer all day and I can't stand social activities. I'm not obese, not much fat even. No comorbidity whatsoever.

I haven't tried any specialist yet, the ones in my area have a pretty long waitlist, maybe I could just search farther but I wont be holding my breath on getting one fast.

 

[Rentahamster]

Rentahamster Well, I'm on Neogaf, so yes I'm an introvert who works on the computer all day and I can't stand social activities. I'm not obese, not much fat even. No comorbidity whatsoever.

I haven't tried any specialist yet, the ones in my area have a pretty long waitlist, maybe I could just search farther but I wont be holding my breath on getting one fast.

In that case, I would propose to you thusly: Nerd introverts who post on videogame forums like us are more prone to anxiety and overthinking things, yes? Thus, what is a more reliable pathway to truth - our emotions or math? What is more likely - that you're overly anxious about this due to media overexposure and that this could possibly be some other precondition OR that you would literally be that one in a million chance of actual myocarditis?

 

[QSD]

In that case, I would propose to you thusly: Nerd introverts who post on videogame forums like us are more prone to anxiety and overthinking things, yes? Thus, what is a more reliable pathway to truth - our emotions or math? What is more likely - that you're overly anxious about this due to media overexposure and that this could possibly be some other precondition OR that you would literally be that one in a million chance of actual myocarditis?

*Sings*

The chances of anything coming from SARS are a million to one he said
The chances of anything coming from SARS
Are a million to one
But still, it comes!

Griffon No, but really the hamster is right, in the case of the vague, could-be-anything symptoms you describe, the most likely culprit is anxiety/stress. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't get yourself checked out, but it's probably better for your well-being if you keep that as the null hypothesis, so to speak, and try to alleviate it.

 

[Griffon]

In that case, I would propose to you thusly: Nerd introverts who post on videogame forums like us are more prone to anxiety and overthinking things, yes? Thus, what is a more reliable pathway to truth - our emotions or math? What is more likely - that you're overly anxious about this due to media overexposure and that this could possibly be some other precondition OR that you would literally be that one in a million chance of actual myocarditis?

I started having heart symptoms before I was made aware of the potential myocarditis link to the vaccine. A bit more than a week ago now.

 

[Rentahamster]

I started having heart symptoms before I was made aware of the potential myocarditis link to the vaccine. A bit more than a week ago now.

IIRC you were already having anxiety and hesitation regarding the vaccine by then. The news of the potential myocarditis link didn't help that and could likely fuel confirmation bias.

At any rate, if it really bothers you, go get checked and ask them to specifically investigate any possible heart problems like myocarditis. Do you have a general physician? Make an appointment with him or her.

 

[llien]

Vaccines incredibly effective against new Indian variant :




Get. Your. Bloody. Vaccine. Please.

This contradicts figures from Canada and Finland (hospital cases)

PS
Oh fuck, hospitalizations... misleading.

 

[SF Kosmo]

NovaVax Phase III trial results are out. Although they're late out of the gate it's a very promising result: 100% efficacy against original strains and 93% against newer variants (collectively), and no major side effects beyond basic immune response.

Novavax Says Its COVID Vaccine Is Extremely Effective

In a large-scale study, Novavax said its vaccine was completely effective against the original coronavirus strain and also effective against some variants. It works differently than other vaccines.

www.npr.org

 

[Guileless]

surreal to watch the crowd back in stadiums for euro2020 and yet the indian strain is able to kill even those on double doses vaccine

Even blue cities like Chicago in the US are allowing completely full stadiums now. There's very little outdoor spread.

 

[QSD]

Being able to sue is not dictated on how much money one has, especially if it's a slam dunk pharma case. The injury lawyers would swarm like vultures over it.

Are you not satisfied by the phase 1 phase 2 and phase 3 trials that have been completed so far? And the fact that 309 million doses have been given out so far, and the only blip that draws attention so far are the 200 or so people with myocarditis?

That's what they say.

Ungrounded speculation.

I wouldn't call it completely unfounded seeing as even on this forum, if you express even a moderate skepticism towards the info we are being given, you are already breaking rank in some eyes, and you become "anti-vaxx", with all the (fringe/looney) connotations that has. In other words there is a significant amount of polarization around the issue. Do you believe this wouldn't affect medical professionals when they decide whether to report something as a adverse vaccine reaction?

It's set up to record everything so that any possible link can be investigated. That's why you record everything. Like the old saying goes, "shoot first and then let God sort 'em out".

But they only record what is reported, which leaves it up to the medical professional to determine salience. A more honest description in any case would be "A system to record events that might possibly be caused by the vaccine". But he doesn't want to say that.

There is always an agenda at play, but if the agenda you're imagining is actually real, our day to day lives would be quite different don't you think? If our safety systems and FDA were really that unreliable, why has life expectancy in the USA going up?

No, the current situation is exceptional. I'm not saying the FDA are/were always unreliable, but in this situation their objectivity could well get compromised by the intense pressure they are under.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

NovaVax Phase III trial results are out. Although they're late out of the gate it's a very promising result: 100% efficacy against original strains and 93% against newer variants (collectively), and no major side effects beyond basic immune response.

Novavax Says Its COVID Vaccine Is Extremely Effective

In a large-scale study, Novavax said its vaccine was completely effective against the original coronavirus strain and also effective against some variants. It works differently than other vaccines.

www.npr.org

Awesome news. Unfounded worries or not, I think there are a lot of people out there who would be more comfortable with Novavax given its more traditional technology.

 

[Birdo]

So you think they are lying?

No. I think of one them are lying.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

No. I think of one them are lying.

As far as I can tell, it's not "until everyone gets at least one dose," but "until everyone 18 or older is eligible to get at least one dose." Basically, they want to give every adult a chance to at least have some vaccine protection before universally lifting the remaining restrictions.

I don't agree with it personally (especially after the G7 shenanigans), but I don't think it's quite as sensational as was initially stated in this thread.

 

[Rentahamster]

Awesome news. Unfounded worries or not, I think there are a lot of people out there who would be more comfortable with Novavax given its more traditional technology.

How so? A lot of people are freaking out about the spike proteins derived from the mRNA vaccines. Novavax shoots you with spike proteins too. They just manufacture them outside your body first.

 

[Nobody_Important]

No. I think of one them are lying.

One of them? Can you be more specific? Because I legitimately do not understand where you are coming from.


You make it sound like either the government is lying or the makers of the vaccine are. Both stances are absurd.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

You are skeptical of the claim that the vaccine spike proteins are safe because of this article you cited.

To be specific, I was replying to your claim that the spike proteins are not dangerous without the virus. It appears that they actually are. It also seems reasonable to assume the spike proteins produced as a result of the vaccine are potentially dangerous as well, but the vaccines have been engineered in a way to minimize any potential harm they could have. If they were completely harmless by nature, I don't see why the vaccine makers would have made so much effort to engineer them to ensure the spike proteins get generated only where they are injected and are only generated in very small quantities at that.

It sure seems like the vaccines should be safe if they are working as designed. It's all in the dose, right?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

How so? A lot of people are freaking out about the spike proteins derived from the mRNA vaccines. Novavax shoots you with spike proteins too. They just manufacture them outside your body first.

We'll see, but I think the whole idea of instructing your own cells to generate harmful spike proteins comes across as scary gene therapy to a lot of people out there. Not saying it's reasonable, but a more traditional delivery of a small dose of the original invader (or part of it) for your immune system to deal with "naturally" is probably a more comfortable and straightforward concept for people who are hesitant.

 

[SF Kosmo]

Awesome news. Unfounded worries or not, I think there are a lot of people out there who would be more comfortable with Novavax given its more traditional technology.

Yeah I hope it'll entice some fence riders, given the absence of side effects, a virus, or mRNA, which seem like the main complaints (other than crazy town 5G magnet stuff). And its also a lot cheaper to produce.

 

[Birdo]

I legitimately do not understand where you are coming from.

I don't need you to.

 

[Nobody_Important]

I don't need you to.

Then why bother posting if you are just going to hint conspiracy theories at yourself and not bother engaging with others?


Do you not have a better use of your time?

 

[Lanrutcon]

Roommate had a COVID scare last week. Unrelated scare this week as her boyfriend's work reports 5 cases. Mention it on a work call and everyone chimes in about the people they know with COVID and the fatalities/recoveries. Nephew living with my folks tested positive yesterday. My folks are currently awaiting their test results. It's everywhere over here.

 

[Rentahamster]

To be specific, I was replying to your claim that the spike proteins are not dangerous without the virus. It appears that they actually are.

Are you sure about that conclusion?

It also seems reasonable to assume the spike proteins produced as a result of the vaccine are potentially dangerous as well

Are you sure about that conclusion as well?

If they were completely harmless by nature, I don't see why the vaccine makers would have made so much effort to engineer them to ensure the spike proteins get generated only where they are injected and are only generated in very small quantities at that.

But they're not completely harmless by nature (because in nature, they're attached to a very harmful coronavirus), which is why the spike proteins are engineered to be structured differently, which affects how it interacts with your cells.

It sure seems like the vaccines should be safe if they are working as designed. It's all in the dose, right?

It should be safe in theory, and it's been proven safe in Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 trials. It's also seen over 300 million administered doses in the USA alone, with minimal side effects. It's safer than peanuts. And yes, dosage is important.

 

[Rentahamster]

@Zefah By the way, are you still working on the answers to those questions I asked you in the previous post, or would you like me to just cut to the chase?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

@Zefah By the way, are you still working on the answers to those questions I asked you in the previous post, or would you like me to just cut to the chase?

I mean, you're gonna do you in the end, but I think it would be great for the general atmosphere if you dropped this extremely grating and arrogant attitude. And no, I don't really have any plans to go back and read or respond further to previous posts you may have made in this thread, so do whatever you want.

Are you sure about that conclusion?

What makes you sure about your conclusion that the spike proteins are completely harmless as long as the virus is absent?

 

[SF Kosmo]

Roommate had a COVID scare last week. Unrelated scare this week as her boyfriend's work reports 5 cases. Mention it on a work call and everyone chimes in about the people they know with COVID and the fatalities/recoveries. Nephew living with my folks tested positive yesterday. My folks are currently awaiting their test results. It's everywhere over here.

Damn, where are you?

A friend's kid got sick and the doctor didn't even test her for Covid because the numbers are so low she said there was no way.

 

[Rentahamster]

I mean, you're gonna do you in the end, but I think it would be great for the general atmosphere if you dropped this extremely grating and arrogant attitude. And no, I don't really have any plans to go back and read or respond further to previous posts you may have made in this thread, so do whatever you want.

You really have to believe me when I tell you that I'm not approaching this with condescension or arrogance. I haven't once insulted you or your intelligence. I haven't once resorted to passive aggressive language. If you can quote me where I did, I'll take it back, but I really don't see how you're interpreting it that way.

What makes you sure about your conclusion that the spike proteins are completely harmless as long as the virus is absent?

That's missing the point somewhat. I haven't stated any conclusions because my conclusions, as anyone else's, should mirror the conclusions of the paper. I'm pointing out to you that the conclusions you're coming to aren't necessarily supported by the paper itself and that you're extrapolating too far than is justified.

 

[Chaplain]

"Professor Susan Michie, a behavioural psychologist who sits on the all-important Sage committee, made headlines last week by appearing to suggest that social distancing and wearing facemasks should remain in place “forever”. The Professor of Health Psychology has been an outspoken advocate of strict lockdown measures, both serving on Sage’s Scientific Pandemic Insights group on Behaviour (SPI-B) and advising the World Health Organisation on Covid-19. She spoke to UnHerd about whether lockdown will ever be lifted, why people are no longer obeying the restrictions, and she addresses criticism of her Communist politics." (Jun 14, 2021)

 

[QSD]

You really have to believe me when I tell you that I'm not approaching this with condescension or arrogance. I haven't once insulted you or your intelligence. I haven't once resorted to passive aggressive language. If you can quote me where I did, I'll take it back, but I really don't see how you're interpreting it that way.


That's missing the point somewhat. I haven't stated any conclusions because my conclusions, as anyone else's, should mirror the conclusions of the paper. I'm pointing out to you that the conclusions you're coming to aren't necessarily supported by the paper itself and that you're extrapolating too far than is justified.

To a certain extent I can see @Zefah 's point, you are being somewhat condescending in your answers. I think he knows what conclusions the paper supports. He's free to extrapolate to whatever degree he likes; the paper does not preclude his assertions. I don't think you generally need to 'justify' speculating about something, you merely need to acknowledge that you're doing it.

You write with a lot of certainty e.g. "the vaccine is as safe as peanuts"
But be mindful that really the best you can say is "if the information I have is correct and complete, the vaccine is as safe as peanuts, so far"

Also, do you have any idea how dangerous peanuts actually are? Because I can tell you the US government has been covering up peanut insurrections since 1910.

 

[DeepBreath87]

You really have to believe me when I tell you that I'm not approaching this with condescension or arrogance. I haven't once insulted you or your intelligence. I haven't once resorted to passive aggressive language. If you can quote me where I did, I'll take it back, but I really don't see how you're interpreting it that way.


That's missing the point somewhat. I haven't stated any conclusions because my conclusions, as anyone else's, should mirror the conclusions of the paper. I'm pointing out to you that the conclusions you're coming to aren't necessarily supported by the paper itself and that you're extrapolating too far than is justified.

I’m going to be as delicate as I can and just say that if you don’t realize that going on for 3 or four posts beating around the bush without getting to the point is fucking annoying. All this “are you sure?” And quizzing people when you clearly have your own thoughts comes across at best arrogant by accident. That’s at best. At worst you’re being a dick on purpose. Get to the point. With some brevity. I’m not saying your don’t know what you’re talking about. Maybe you do. But just get on with it. Jesus. You’ve been going back and forth with him all day hinting about something you think he should be seeing and never actually saying what it is in plain terms.

*under certain conditions in a lab that aren't necessarily going to be the same as in a live human.

This is one of the key points in understanding studies and making sure that you are not misinterpreting results to reach a conclusion that is otherwise not warranted. Did you read that study? Do you understand these differences?

This is a good self-reflection test. Can you, right now, clearly identify the main differences and explain their significance? If you can't, then that means that you were under the assumption that the statement you made, "it does appear that the COVID-19 spike protein by itself can do plenty of damage to the cells even without the presence of the virus" necessarily would apply in the real world too.

This is a prime example. If you don’t realize how this portion of your post comes across (ie completely arrogant) than maybe it’s you who need some “self reflection”.

 

[Rentahamster]

To a certain extent I can see [COLOR=#f4ff81] Z [/COLOR] Zefah 's point, you are being somewhat condescending in your answers.

In what way? Can you point out the most egregious part for me?

I think he knows what conclusions the paper supports. He's free to extrapolate to whatever degree he likes; the paper does not preclude his assertions. I don't think you generally need to 'justify' speculating about something, you merely need to acknowledge that you're doing it.

He's free to extrapolate to whatever degree he likes, sure. However, I'm pointing out where it's going too far and he's making an error in comparison. If he's making the claim that according to this paper the "COVID19 spike protein by itself can do plenty of damage to the cells even without the presence of a virus" and saying this within the context of questioning the safety of the vaccines, then it that should be a reasonable conclusion to draw from that paper he cited. It is not. If he's making an error, I'm supposed to point it out, am I not?

You write with a lot of certainty e.g. "the vaccine is as safe as peanuts"
But be mindful that really the best you can say is "if the information I have is correct and complete, the vaccine is as safe as peanuts, so far"

More people get an allergic reaction from nuts than from this vaccine. The extra language you stated is not specifically stated, but it is understood from conventional language mores.

Also, do you have any idea how dangerous peanuts actually are? Because I can tell you the US government has been covering up peanut insurrections since 1910.

 

[Rentahamster]

I’m going to be as delicate as I can and just say that if you don’t realize that going on for 3 or four posts beating around the bush without getting to the point is fucking annoying. All this “are you sure?” And quizzing people when you clearly have your own thoughts comes across at best arrogant by accident. That’s at best. At worst you’re being a dick on purpose. Get to the point. With some brevity.

Look at my previous posts. They were very detailed and while some were concise, others were not due to the sheer information density. All the relevant information was already conveyed in this post, among others:

Covid 19 Thread: [no bitching about masks of Fauci edition]

it's worth mentioning, both Bret and Eric Weinstein are cranks. Bret has been pushing completely unfounded claims about vaccine safety. They trade on irrelevant credentials and spin conspiracy theories to audiences who have been fooled by surface level truthiness. And if you listen to e.g...

www.neogaf.com

There's no "beating around the bush".

I use multiple techniques to get my point across, so if one doesn't work then I have to try a different approach. The questions I laid out to Zefah have a point - to isolate the key differences between the spike protein of the study and the spike protein of the vaccine, and the methods of the study and the activation pathway of the vaccine, and how they are different too. Once the specific areas of confusions are clarified, then it will be a lot easier to key in on the answer.

If I give an answer and someone doesn't understand it, what good is it to them if I just repeat the answer in the same way?

This is a prime example. If you don’t realize how this portion of your post comes across (ie completely arrogant) than maybe it’s you who need some “self reflection”.

Again, point out any insults or belittling language. These are key markers to objectively indicate if I'm being an asshole or not. I don't see any. Do you? I'm going over, step by step, the way to understand how these systems work. Without calling anyone dumb. Without shaming anyone for thinking a certain way.

Are you so used to toxic Twitter arguments as the norm that you can't see someone trying to explain things in good faith? Maybe, just maybe, I'm not actually one of those people who are trying to cancel others on the internet and am actually trying to have a normal conversation. Not every disagreement has to be a personal attack. As no one has given me any clear examples of hostile or insulting behavior, I can only just ask you to try to stop being so sensitive.

 

[QSD]

In what way? Can you point out the most egregious part for me?

I think DeepBreath87 just gave an excellent example.

He's free to extrapolate to whatever degree he likes, sure. However, I'm pointing out where it's going too far and he's making an error in comparison. If he's making the claim that according to this paper the "COVID19 spike protein by itself can do plenty of damage to the cells even without the presence of a virus" and saying this within the context of questioning the safety of the vaccines, then it that should be a reasonable conclusion to draw from that paper he cited. It is not. If he's making an error, I'm supposed to point it out, am I not?

If he's free to extrapolate to whatever degree he likes, he can't "go too far". He can go too far for your liking but that's a different thing. The problem here is that there are qualifiers missing in your propositions. e.g. you constantly assume that you know the truth and your interlocutor doesn't. That comes across as condescending and arrogant.

More people get an allergic reaction from nuts than from this vaccine. The extra language you stated is not specifically stated, but it is understood from conventional language mores.

It isn't, you need those qualifiers from time to time. You can't just blanket assume that the sources you cite are always telling the truth and not withholding, lacking or distorting information, unless you've verified each and every one of them personally. The core issue here is trust. Just because other people are not as trusting or optimistic as you are doesn't mean their perspective is not valid.