The Safety and Efficacy of Vaccines

[Saint Guinefort]

it means saying someone is correct just because of some authority they hold.

Oh my god, NO sweetie! NOT EVEN CLOSE!

An argumentum ad hominem is an argument in which the content of the argument is ignored and the person making the argument is IMPUGNED for some unrelated thing.

"Don't listen to that person's argument, they are a communist." that sort of thing.

You really are uneducated aren't you? That's sad.

 

[Scott]

Why do you believe that?

Insulting someone's beliefs is easy, supporting your own is what's hard.

I believe it wasn't a virus, yes, due to the lack of evidence that viruses exist. If you're interested in debating that subject, I've made thread for it here:
Settling the Biological Virus Debate | justplainpolitics.com

As to what causes smallpox outbreaks, I strongly suspect toxins, but that's as far as I'll go there. I found a video that gets into evidence that the definition of smallpox has always been ambiguous and has frequently been confused with measles and chicken pox, suggesting that smallpox was never eradicated, so much as reclassified as other diseases. It's here:

The smallpox, plague & lepracy hoax + a farewell to virology and contagion theory ft Dr Mark Bailey | Goyimtv.com

Name any article I've ever posted that doesn't agree with some point I'm making.

Based on the video linked to above, I no longer believe that smallpox has been eliminated at all, just reclassified.

I have never claimed that people haven't suffered from smallpox or that cows haven't suffered from cowpox. The issue is what is causing these diseases. As to alleged immunity to these alleged viruses, you'd need to show your evidence that these any virus exists before I'd be interested in continuing that discussion.

You are insane.

I write you a long post with various points and links. Your response is an ad hominem attack, full stop. Someone clearly isn't holding up their share of the discussion.

We have no framework for a discussion.

We do. The problem is that you seem to think you know better than a pathologist and an eminent doctor, even though I strongly suspect you are neither yourself. I asked why you believed this back in post #95, but rather than answer the question, or any of my other comments, your entire response was an ad hominem attack.

Viruses exist. Period, end of story. To believe otherwise is to be either remarkably stupid or completely insane. I chose the latter.

It seems you don't want a discussion, but rather an echo chamber wherein everyone agrees with you or you hit them with an ad hominem attack.

There is no point in discussion when a basic fact informing that discussion can’t be agreed upon.

Your problem is you think that if people don't agree with what you consider to be factual, the only thing you should do is hit them with an ad hominem attack. There are in fact 2 alternate courses you could employ:

1- try to persuade them that what you believe is factual is actually so.
2- Stop discussing the subject with the individual.

I've done both, depending on the subject and the individual I'm talking to. Ad hominem attacks don't help. In situations where that's all you've got, I think the lesson given to Thumper in Bambi applies: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all". Replace nice with constructive, and I think the point is made.

You didn’t answer my questions because you couldn’t.

The subject of this subthread is your ad hominem attack in post #113. There were no questions in that post, just your ad hominen attack. If you're referring to questions you've made in other posts, by all means bring them up again if you feel I haven't responded to them.

 

[Concart]

We do. The problem is that you seem to think you know better than a pathologist and an eminent doctor, even though I strongly suspect you are neither yourself. I asked why you believed this back in post #95, but rather than answer the question, or any of my other comments, your entire response was an ad hominem attack.



It seems you don't want a discussion, but rather an echo chamber wherein everyone agrees with you or you hit them with an ad hominem attack.



Your problem is you think that if people don't agree with what you consider to be factual, the only thing you should do is hit them with an ad hominem attack. There are in fact 2 alternate courses you could employ:

1- try to persuade them that what you believe is factual is actually so.
2- Stop discussing the subject with the individual.

I've done both, depending on the subject and the individual I'm talking to. Ad hominem attacks don't help. In situations where that's all you've got, I think the lesson given to Thumper in Bambi applies: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all". Replace nice with constructive, and I think the point is made.



The subject of this subthread is your ad hominem attack in post #113. There were no questions in that post, just your ad hominen attack. If you're referring to questions you've made in other posts, by all means bring them up again if you feel I haven't responded to them.

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

YOU think you know better than every single virologist in the last century. Too funny.

Attempting to persuade you that something is factual is a fools errand. A fact is true whether I persuade you to believe it or not. 2+2 =4 regardless of your irrational and ignorant belief that it equals 5. Calling you insane because you believe that is not an adhom. It's my opinion on why you completely deny math. It is what it is.

Now, here are my questions:

Why was the smallpox vaccine effective in preventing smallpox infections?
Why did milkmaids that had been exposed to cowpox become immune to smallpox.

Let's start there.

Then, if you wouldn't mind terribly, can you link to a peer reviewed journal article that suggests that smallpox was not caused by a virus? Or cowpox. Or ebola. Or Covid. Or polio. Or chicken pox. Or shingles.....

I'll wait.

While your checking, here is a LONG list of peer reviewed articles about viruses. You know, the things that you don't believe exist. You crack me up, dude.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...n+viruses&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

 

[Mason Michaels]

Right wing Trump fascist should not get any vaccines, it's a vast conspiracy to wipe them out!

 

[Nordberg]

This is a tough one. Do I listen to Fauci, a world-famous epidemiologist, and the entire medical profession, or to some right-wing anti-vaxxer online? The anti-vaxxer sounds so certain that he figured out all the intricacies from his chair. The laboratory workers and medical pros are not that certain. That is what scientists are is never perfectly certain because almost nothing is 100 percent for sure. They actually said the vaccines were 90 percent effective. Want to know for sure, listen to your internet stars.

 

[Scott]

We do. The problem is that you seem to think you know better than a pathologist and an eminent doctor, even though I strongly suspect you are neither yourself. I asked why you believed this back in post #95, but rather than answer the question, or any of my other comments, your entire response was an ad hominem attack.

It seems you don't want a discussion, but rather an echo chamber wherein everyone agrees with you or you hit them with an ad hominem attack.

Your problem is you think that if people don't agree with what you consider to be factual, the only thing you should do is hit them with an ad hominem attack. There are in fact 2 alternate courses you could employ:

1- try to persuade them that what you believe is factual is actually so.
2- Stop discussing the subject with the individual.

I've done both, depending on the subject and the individual I'm talking to. Ad hominem attacks don't help. In situations where that's all you've got, I think the lesson given to Thumper in Bambi applies: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all". Replace nice with constructive, and I think the point is made.

The subject of this subthread is your ad hominem attack in post #113. There were no questions in that post, just your ad hominen attack. If you're referring to questions you've made in other posts, by all means bring them up again if you feel I haven't responded to them.

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

YOU think you know better than every single virologist in the last century.

You like making this about me, but the fact is there are books and documentaries pointing out the immense damage that vaccines have done and continue to do, as evidence in the various links in the opening post of this thread. Even an immunologist came to see some of the difficiencies in vaccines:

Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD | https://www.tetyanaobukhanych.com/

Attempting to persuade you that something is factual is a fools errand.

If you think trying to persuade me of factual things is a fool's errand, perhaps it's best that you simply stop responding to my posts then?

A fact is true whether I persuade you to believe it or not.

Sure. The same applies to you though. Has it never occurred to you that you might in fact be wrong on things?

2+2 =4 regardless of your irrational and ignorant belief that it equals 5. Calling you insane because you believe that is not an adhom. It's my opinion on why you completely deny math. It is what it is.

Making far fetched analogies to try to justify your ad hominem attack doesn't help your case.

Now, here are my questions:

Why was the smallpox vaccine effective in preventing smallpox infections?

That question is based on an assumption, that smallpox vaccines were actually effective in preventing smallpox infections. Do you have any evidence for that hidden assertion?

Why did milkmaids that had been exposed to cowpox become immune to smallpox.

First prove that these alleged milkmaids became immune to smallpox.

Then, if you wouldn't mind terribly, can you link to a peer reviewed journal article that suggests that smallpox was not caused by a virus? Or cowpox. Or ebola. Or Covid. Or polio. Or chicken pox. Or shingles.....

Your faith in peer reviewed journals is misplaced. Some articles that would help rectify that:

How Bias Is Ruining Scientific Research | The American Spectator

Peer Review Bias: What Is It, and What Causes It? | Lex Academic Blog

Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review | https://www.sciencedirect.com/

Regular articles are not subject to the biased gate keeping of peer reviewed journals, and anyone can review those.

While your checking, here is a LONG list of peer reviewed articles about viruses. You know, the things that you don't believe exist. You crack me up, dude.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...n+viruses&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

If you really want to focus on viruses, this isn't the thread for it. I made a thread for that subject here:
Settling the Biological Virus Debate | justplainpolitics.com

 

[Concart]

You like making this about me, but the fact is there are books and documentaries pointing out the immense damage that vaccines have done and continue to do, as evidence in the various links in the opening post of this thread. Even an immunologist came to see some of the difficiencies in vaccines:

Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD | https://www.tetyanaobukhanych.com/




If you think trying to persuade me of factual things is a fool's errand, perhaps it's best that you simply stop responding to my posts then?



Sure. The same applies to you though. Has it never occurred to you that you might in fact be wrong on things?



Making far fetched analogies to try to justify your ad hominem attack doesn't help your case.



That question is based on an assumption, that smallpox vaccines were actually effective in preventing smallpox infections. Do you have any evidence for that hidden assertion?



First prove that these alleged milkmaids became immune to smallpox.



Your faith in peer reviewed journals is misplaced. Some articles that would help rectify that:

How Bias Is Ruining Scientific Research | The American Spectator

Peer Review Bias: What Is It, and What Causes It? | Lex Academic Blog

Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review | https://www.sciencedirect.com/

Regular articles are not subject to the biased gate keeping of peer reviewed journals, and anyone can review those.



If you really want to focus on viruses, this isn't the thread for it. I made a thread for that subject here:
Settling the Biological Virus Debate | justplainpolitics.com

Not the thread? Tough shit pal.

Let's start with 'my faith' in peer reviewed journal articles which is based on the FACT that scientific and medical findings are PUBLIISHED IN THOSE JOURNJALS. I should have faith, instead on 'The American Spectator'?

ROTFLMFAO!!!

Efficacy of the smallpox vaccine:

https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/vaccin...vaccine has been,exposed to the variola virus.

"Historically, the vaccine has been effective in preventing smallpox infection in 95% of those vaccinated. In addition, the vaccine was proven to prevent or substantially lessen infection when given within a few days after a person was exposed to the variola virus."

So, should I trust the Centers for Disease control, or random dumb fuck on the internet? Oh, decisions, decisions.

Smallpox immunity from cowpox:

https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/224/Supplement_4/S379/6378097

"Edward Jenner, the country doctor from Berkeley, Gloucester, England, is recognized as the father of smallpox vaccination. Jenner’s 1796 observations, that cowpox protected against smallpox when scratched into the skin of recipients, were written up in detail and presented to the Royal Society of England in 1798 and promoted widely in letters [3]. Yet Jenner was not the first to make these observations."

Your argument appears to boil down to this: 'Let's ignore the medical and scientific communities and listen to the quacks'.

You'll have to forgive me if I take a pass on your ignorance and insanity. Because you actually appear to be both. A science denier who listens to quack conspiracy theories and ignores scientific and medical evidence.

Now, if you can find a peer reviewed journal article supporting anything you've said, post it. Otherwise, stop wasting everyone's time with your complete and utter bullshit.

 

[Scott]

Not the thread? Tough shit pal.

Well, if that's going to be your attitude, I think I'll stop right here.

 

[Concart]

Well, if that's going to be your attitude, I think I'll stop right here.

Suit yourself. You don't control the content. You were more than willing to engage my points and then tell ME to stop posting. Like I said, tough shit. Your arguments have been eviscerated. So stopping is a smart move on your part. It will only get worse.

 

[Concart]

Oh my god, NO sweetie! NOT EVEN CLOSE!

An argumentum ad hominem is an argument in which the content of the argument is ignored and the person making the argument is IMPUGNED for some unrelated thing.

"Don't listen to that person's argument, they are a communist." that sort of thing.

You really are uneducated aren't you? That's sad.

Wow. He confused his arguments. Maybe ITN can give him lessons.

 

[Scott]

Not the thread? Tough shit pal.

Well, if that's going to be your attitude, I think I'll stop right here.

Suit yourself. You don't control the content.

I control what I respond to. You clearly have little respect for me as an ideological opponent. If you're not even willing to discuss a subject in a thread I made specifically for that subject, I think it's time to stop responding to you on said subject.

You were more than willing to engage my points and then tell ME to stop posting.

No, not to stop posting, just to post that subject in the other thread. At times, I've done the work for others by simply responding to their posts in the thread made for the task. Due to your general disrespect though, I decided it would be best to just stop my response on that subject with you entirely.

 

[Concart]

I control what I respond to. You clearly have little respect for me as an ideological opponent. If you're not even willing to discuss a subject in a thread I made specifically for that subject, I think it's time to stop responding to you on said subject.



No, not to stop posting, just to post that subject in the other thread. At times, I've done the work for others by simply responding to their posts in the thread made for the task. Due to your general disrespect though, I decided it would be best to just stop my response on that subject with you entirely.

You first. I don't have very little respect for you as an ideological opponent. I have ZERO respect for you. You are sloppy and lazy with your research. You reject the very information that the scientific and medical communities have vetted and verified. You believe in conspiracy theories, and your sources are simply confirmation bias for your beliefs, which have been rejected wholly and without prejudice by the medical community. You are a laughing stock, but the problem is that you have a forum. and that makes you and those who believe as you do very dangerous. You've already killed hundreds of thousands, and I will do everything I can to destroy your credibility.

Any other questions?

 

[Scott]

You first. I don't have very little respect for you as an ideological opponent. I have ZERO respect for you.

Well, that makes it even less likely that I'll put any effort into porting your comments on the subject at hand to the thread where it belongs.

 

[Hawkeye10]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1644358357346549761

 

[Hawkeye10]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1644378545945292800