The term "antivax" isn't shaming. It's watering down a very specific term. Jenny McCarthy used data an "expert" intentionally falsified in order to claim vaccines caused her child "autism" which was misdiagnosed by other "experts". Meantime, based on actual data, and testing via real treatment, it was determined that Jenny McCarthy's child did not have "Autism" at all but instead a completely different, completely treatable condition. Yet when faced with the facts and the proof treatment worked, she yanked her child from treatment, called those other "experts" liars, and proceeded to launch the entire antivax movement, instilling a distrust in vaccines in tens of millions of people worldwide.

Anti-vaxxers take basic, proven vaccines such as your MMR shots, and claim they cause wild side effects that the data entirely refutes. They claim all vaccines are bad, for a wide variety of reasons. They are a very specific class of people who deny not just vaccines, but science and data. They're whackjobs. But hey, what more do you expect when the person who spawned the movement became famous getting naked?

What duff, and you, and sauci, are doing, is every bit as bad as what McCarthy did. You're being presented with data. Actual science. That science clearly states that natural immunity is superior to vaccine immunity. You're being questioned regarding lack of data regarding an experimental new type of drug. Rather than attempting to take even the slightest rational stance of, "Hey, we think the mRNA vax is safe, but can't know for sure, so we recommend it, but it's your choice." and "Hey, the standard vaccines such as J&J are fine, but you don't need them if you've already had the virus." instead you're taking it as a, "It's all or nothing, for the good of the population, blah blah blah. How is a vaccine to someone with natural resistance for "the good of the population"? Show the data that proves this. Show any historical science that would even indicate this. Were the select group of people who had natural immunity to Ebola forced to take Ebola treatments?

Stop denying data, stop denying science, all for the sake of boneheaded authoritarianism. Show some principles.

its funny to hear i deny data.

1. go quote me denying any of the data you've posted is valid. unless u want me to save u time and tell u i havent.

2. vaccines 88% effective against delta is data u denied has an impact on spread of covid.

really you've had a great week overall in PARD, a real banner performance all around. ur keystroke to posts that make is seem like you had a stroke ratio is astounding.

ahah coming back after several hours and look what we got.

1. When you defend people watering down the term "antivaxers" you're promoting science denial. Done.

2. That's not what the data say. I posted that data, recall? Vaccines are 88% effective in reducing symptoms of delta. That doesn't mean they prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Once again, when the CDC and WHO continue to claim that asymptomatic spread exists, reducing or eliminating symptoms doesn't matter, does it? Yes or no, answer the question.

Really you've been an idiot all week in PaRD. We all know you're here to argue and it doesn't really matter what the argument is, you'll just argue. You have no principles whatsoever and it's all about the argument.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Sep 10 2021 12:34pm

Im surprised you would say the bolded when a quick google search would confirm the opposite to be true. This puts into doubt your ability to do research bob 🤔. Im not even passionate about this stuff and can find this so easily.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
This guy is partially responsible for measles making a comeback. And yes he's a doctor.

Regarding 6-13 i believe this is the article you're referring to which still doesn't advocate against taking vaccine. If anything it says vaccines plus having gotten covid and survived provide the best defense against variants.
https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/people-who-have-already-had-covid-19-could-be-less-likely-catch-delta-vaccinated

I agree with you that the long term side effects are unknown because this thing js relatively new. The doctors i have spoken with on the topic have informed me that long term side effects dont happen out of the blue. There are indications of problems along the way before it manifests into something serious much later on and to date they seen no such indications with the covid vaccines that there are long term problems with the vaccine. This is part of the reason i decided to get vaccinated and encourage others to do the same instead of rolling the dice on their health with covid.

Bob you are free to look at the data at your own leisure and draw your own conclusions and you can even rant about how all the scientists are anti-science.

I'm just not going to believe you because i trust the medical scientists more than i trust strangers on the internet.

T-cell response to mRNA vaccines is higher than natural immunity (at least with the first dose).

https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2021/august/penn-study-details-robust-tcell-response-to-mrna-covid19-vaccines

straight from the CDC, you know, the people you've been citing all week?

since you're the data king, what is the spread metrics on asymptomatic vs symptomatic covid patients? feel free to be predictable and say "we dont know" to avoid a shameful admission.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 10 2021 12:41pm

This doesnt have to mean that the T-cell response induced by the vaccines lasts longer or confers a stronger immunity. Recent data out of Israel (linked below) looks at actual infections as opposed to a metric like T-cell response whose real life impact is hard to gauge.

The Israeli study shows covid-naive vaccinees (all with Pfizer) to have a 13 times higher risk of breakthrough infection than previously infected persons for which the infection took place in the same timeframe as the vaccinations; and a 6 times higher risk when compared with persons who were infected at any time between March 20 and February 21.

The study further explored the combination of previous infection plus a single dose of Pfizer and found it to significantly reduce the risk of breakthrough infection when compared to unvaccinated persons with previous infection.



So, tldr: natural immunity seems to be broader and more reliable than vaccine-induced immunity, but like the vaccines, the natural immunity does wane over time and the gold standard seems to be a combination of vaccination and infection.


https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Sep 10 2021 01:18pm

Literally from your own link:



Besides, the link I posted (and I even called this out in my comment when posting it) is that the best T-cell response (with regard to mRNA vaccines) appears to be previous infection + 1st dose of mRNA. So it seems like you're agreeing with me.

This post was edited by Surfpunk on Sep 10 2021 01:27pm

i personally hope ivermectin obsessed GOP voters host covid parties like our moms used to do with chickenpox so they can get natural immunity.