Trust the Science: Vaccine(s) CONFIRMED 100% Effective in MULTIPLE studies

[J.L.C.]

Bye

Where do you see me suggesting anyone "trust the science"?


Lol at the stalking tho

[Guyfawkes1010]

I want to see more up to date studies. What I find odd is you don’t find anything recent anymore. Not on the vaxx not on the virus.

Like it all just dropped off. Very weird.

I don’t ’trust The science’ but I do rely on it to make informed decisions. And it was blatantly obvious no one knew what the science is/was on either the virus or vaxx initially but more data should be coming out but we don’t see it.

Clearly the vaxx isn’t killing everyone off. But I wouldn’t call it safe and effective either. At best a modest increased temporary protection at the risk of who knows what for a small subset of the population.


The virus still scares me more considering we still don’t understand it and have no real protection against it save our immune system, which the virus may attack and alter.

All because the kunt ass Chinese wanted to try and play at the big boy table and fuxcked it up as usual. And because our own govt was complicit in it to get around gain of function testing restrictions.

[J.L.C.]

You didn't specify that...

Here's your post again:



I provided not a single, but more than three instances of you "posting" said catchphrase.

According to your own stipulations, you should be leaving the forum.

Bye.

Just lol at the commitment to eradicating opposing views

[J.L.C.]

I want to see more up to date studies. What I find odd is you don’t find anything recent anymore. Not on the vaxx not on the virus.

Like it all just dropped off. Very weird.

I don’t ’trust The science’ but I do rely on it to make informed decisions. And it was blatantly obvious no one knew what the science is/was on either the virus or vaxx initially but more data should be coming out but we don’t see it.

Clearly the vaxx isn’t killing everyone off. But I wouldn’t call it safe and effective either. At best a modest increased temporary protection at the risk of who knows what for a small subset of the population.


The virus still scares me more considering we still don’t understand it and have no real protection against it save our immune system, which the virus may attack and alter.

All because the kunt ass Chinese wanted to try and play at the big boy table and fuxcked it up as usual. And because our own govt was complicit in it to get around gain of function testing restrictions.

A good approach is to subscribe to receive TOC's (table of contents) from relevant journals.

There is a ton of work happening. Governments and media want everyone to move on, but research continues well outside of the news cycle.

[6gorillion]

Has anyone seen JLC post in a non vaxx thread?

[J.L.C.]

Once again, the pseudointellectual plays dumb and pretend to miss the point of the post.

You are part of the reason why the medical community will have a really hard time getting the general public to trust them again.

I still think reading sources for oneself is a good idea

[J.L.C.]

Has anyone seen JLC post in a non vaxx thread?

Stalk better, mane

[SaviorSelfJT]

I don’t have a dog in this race and don’t personally really care one way or the other

But I distinctly do remember the vaccines being touted as a way of stopping the Covid pandemic entirely, implying a 100% effectiveness as with other vaccines. Then it came out that you can still catch Covid after the vaccine. Then it came out that the effectiveness against Covid dropped really sharply after getting the vaccine meaning you’d need to get multiple per year every year and even then you would still only be partially protected. The goalposts kept moving

[SillieBazzillie]

Didn't you say you were going to leave if someone posted a single instance of you posting "trust the science"?

Better get going.

Is your IRL life so sad that you need to stalk someone's posts and try to gaslight the rest of us?

You know exactly what he meant or you're too dumb to be worth talking to.

Which is it boyo?

[J.L.C.]

I think he posts in the Guitar megathread.

But he is from Toronto, so I think he probably doesn't find the main misc gay and/or Indian enough.

That's a an example of better stalking

[SillieBazzillie]

I don’t have a dog in this race and don’t personally really care one way or the other

But I distinctly do remember the vaccines being touted as a way of stopping the Covid pandemic entirely, implying a 100% effectiveness as with other vaccines. Then it came out that you can still catch Covid after the vaccine. Then it came out that the effectiveness against Covid dropped really sharply after getting the vaccine meaning you’d need to get multiple per year every year and even then you would still only be partially protected. The goalposts kept moving

I posted up a link directly from the CDC. Doesn't quote 100% anywhere, no vaccine is 100%. But against the OG strain, the MRNA jabs were effective enough to have stopped the virus in its tracks. The virus mutated and made the effectiveness of the jabs less so at getting and transmitting covid which somehow the science deniers ITT thread means all claims and studies are about the effects on OG covid are null and void.

Just a low IQ take from science deniers.

Just remember science deniers, when your kid has cancer none of the treatments will be 100% effective. I guess you'll turn them down?

Big Pharma is bigly bigly evil boyos...until you need it to save you or our loved one's lives.

[SillieBazzillie]

Using the search function is now stalking?

Age : 56

I guess I can see how you'd think that.

Stalking then gaslighting.

Are you a teenage girl?

[J.L.C.]

I don’t have a dog in this race and don’t personally really care one way or the other

But I distinctly do remember the vaccines being touted as a way of stopping the Covid pandemic entirely, implying a 100% effectiveness as with other vaccines. Then it came out that you can still catch Covid after the vaccine. Then it came out that the effectiveness against Covid dropped really sharply after getting the vaccine meaning you’d need to get multiple per year every year and even then you would still only be partially protected. The goalposts kept moving

Thinking vaccines were a single golden ticket was a ridiculous position for anyone (or any body) to take.

[SaviorSelfJT]

I posted up a link directly from the CDC. Doesn't quote 100% anywhere, no vaccine is 100%. But against the OG strain, the MRNA jabs were effective enough to have stopped the virus in its tracks. The virus mutated and made the effectiveness of the jabs less so at getting and transmitting covid which somehow the science deniers ITT thread means all claims and studies are about the effects on OG covid are null and void.

Just a low IQ take from science deniers.

Just remember science deniers, when your kid has cancer none of the treatments will be 100% effective. I guess you'll turn them down?

Big Pharma is bigly bigly evil boyos...until you need it to save you or our loved one's lives.

I’m not saying what the studies quoted. I’m just saying that that is what me, as just a normal dude, interpreted from news headlines and campaigns about the pandemic

[J.L.C.]

Is your IRL life so sad that you need to stalk someone's posts and try to gaslight the rest of us?

You know exactly what he meant or you're too dumb to be worth talking to.

Which is it boyo?

The narrative is popular. Anyone who doesn't support the narrative is a target.

It's like a high school locker room

[selohalal]

great post

[J.L.C.]

I’m not saying what the studies quoted. I’m just saying that that is what me, as just a normal dude, interpreted from news headlines and campaigns about the pandemic

Yep.


Crazy how a public health matter became politicized and fuelled by click-desperate media.

[SillieBazzillie]

Why are you still here?

Gaslighting little girl...SMH

[selohalal]

Awesome articles
Nice thanks for the help man.
Thanks so much!

[SillieBazzillie]

And there we go, the pseudointellectual decides to use an ad hominem, because he's got nothing left.

Edit : You might want to look up gaslighting, I don't think you know what it means.

Nah, we all know what gaslighting is. You took what he said completely out of context in both his original posts and the subsequent posts you stalked like a chick.

Now you're trying to say he said something completely out of context.

Gaslighting chick. And sometimes when dealing with the likes of you, ad hominems are just fine.

You are acting like a teen chick.

[LizzieTish]

I don't know about any of you, but this is all the convincing I need right here (because I do what I'm told from watching TV like most Americans):

[SillieBazzillie]

If you can find even a single instance of me posting the ridiculous "trust the science" catchphrase, I'll leave the forum.

I can't imagine seeing journalists and politicians as authority figures. But, I get that some do/might/could

Quoted before edit

Edit:



Bye.



Bye.



Bye.

Taking things at face value is not "gaslighting".
Using the search function is not "stalking".
And calling people out for not keeping their word is not "acting like a teen chick".

Again, please look up what gaslighting means before you embarass yourself again.

Edit : Here, let me help in educated your pseudointellectual self:

"Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse where a person causes someone to question their sanity, memories, or perception of reality."

Gaslighter, his use of the pejorative word "ridiculous" clearly meant using the term "trust the science" as a way to bolster his argument.

Because you're a gaslighter though, you ignored that part and just looked for the exact phrase, taking it completely out of context because you're a gaslighter, stalking little girl.

"The "trust the science" crowd seem to generally have little to no experience with research"
"I honestly don't know what "trust the science" is supposed to mean."
"I honestly don't know what "trust the science" is supposed to mean."

In each post of JLC's that you stalked, he was using the phrase "trust the science" as a pejorative.

Gaslighter.

Shame on you.

[J.L.C.]

Big font

Gotta shut down the questioning

[SillieBazzillie]

Since you seem to be unable to actually read the post that you are replying to, here it is in bigger font:

Taking things at face value is not "gaslighting".
Using the search function is not "stalking".
And calling people out for not keeping their word is not "acting like a teen chick".

Again, please look up what gaslighting means before you embarrass yourself again.

Edit : Here, let me help in educating your pseudointellectual self:

"Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse where a person causes someone to question their sanity, memories, or perception of reality."

You're welcome.

Gaslighting is trying to make us think that JLC really did advocate "trust the science" when he clearly did not.

You attempted to prove it by being a stalker little girl and saying simply because he said those words he failed his own test. You ignored the pejorative "ridiculous" adjective right before the "trust the science" in both his original statement and you ignored the fact that he was being pejorative to the term in each example you posted.

You sir have been caught and exposed as a gaslighting little bish.

Imagine using your IRL time to stalk and try to gaslight...

Do better boyo.

[J.L.C.]

Please tell me that at least you, unlike our friend Sillie, know what the term "gaslighting" means.

And then kindly follow the stipulations you put forth and leave the forum.

Or take the L, and admit you didn't mean what you posted.

I was careful in my specification/stipulation.

I get that anything manipulated/leveraged to dissuade questioning is considered honest (ignoring words doesn't make them disappear), but you provided the posts.

Hilarious that this thread has become about me, rather than the whole point that OP doesn't read past headlines

[SillieBazzillie]

Please tell me that at least you, unlike our friend Sillie, know what the term "gaslighting" means.

And then kindly follow the stipulations you put forth and leave the forum.

Or take the L, and admit you didn't mean what you posted.

Still gaslighting I see.

Let's see how far down the gaslighting hole you're willing to go.

What do you believe JLC meant? If you find any instance of his using the term he'll leave? Or if you find any instance of his supporting the term he'd leave.

[Stizzel]

If you can find even a single instance of me posting the ridiculous "trust the science" catchphrase, I'll leave the forum.

I can't imagine seeing journalists and politicians as authority figures. But, I get that some do/might/could

Well, you may live in a very strange bubble that prevents you from understanding why normies view bureaucrats and 'trusted sources' in media as authority figures, but the fact remains that no one in the scientific community is willing to bite the hand that feeds grant money.

Hopefully in the future we will have ardent truth tellers using the scientific method to dispel bureaucratic myths and lies, but thats not the world we currently inhabit

[SillieBazzillie]

Aside from the fact that what you posted is not in fact gaslighting, please provide the source for this claim.



His own terms were for one to provide "If you can find even a single instance of me posting the ridiculous "trust the science" catchphrase, I'll leave the forum."

I found several instances of him quite literally posting that exact catchphrase - not my fault he posted those posts.



Again, I don't think you understand what "gaslighting" is - even after I was so kind as to literally post the meaning of the term.



Zero self awareness.

Intent matters boyo to logical people and not gaslighters.

You, me, everyone understood his intent via the term "ridiculous" Yet you continue to gaslight by trying to hold him those exact words...

Oh wait, maybe you're so dumb you don't understand what his intention was? That would take a little bit of brains to figure out.

[SillieBazzillie]

Interesting.

Let's see that again (even though it has been edited at least once since it has been posted)



"If you can find a single instance of me posting the ridiculous "trust the science" catchphrase, I'll leave the forum."

If there is a single instance of the catchphrase contained in a post of yours that's not in a quote from someone else, it meets the criteria you specified.

Nope boyo. That's gaslighting. Intent matters to folks with a brain.

[J.L.C.]

Well, you may live in a very strange bubble that prevents you from understanding why normies view bureaucrats and 'trusted sources' in media as authority figures, but the fact remains that no one in the scientific community is willing to bite the hand that feeds grant money.

Hopefully in the future we will have ardent truth tellers using the scientific method to dispel bureaucratic myths and lies, but thats not the world we currently inhabit

I think if you look, or ask, you'll find significant discrepancy between what the scientific community reports and what politicians and journalists report.

This thread is indicative of that power. Most apparently don't read past headlines

I suggested subscribing to TOC's