| mRNA research update 09:37 - Dec 4 with 7939 views | StokieBlue |
For those of you that might be interested, there has been some interesting advances in vaccination research using the mRNA method deployed in the C19 vaccinations.
Scientists have been able to create a "universal" flu vaccine which has worked in mice and basically gives protection against all strains of flu. This is a huge step because at the moment the flu vaccination only provides protection for 3 or 4 strains that researches think will be the most prevalent that year so there is a lot of guesswork involved and sometimes the vaccine covers variants that aren't circulating widely that year and misses some that are.
They are also looking to make the vaccine cover C19 which would mean universal protection from death for both flu and C19 in a single shot (well actually two shots like the C19 vaccines).
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/mrna-flu-vaccine-study-influenza-pandemic-univers
SB |  | | |  |
| mRNA research update on 10:17 - Dec 12 with 2099 views | Cafe_Newman |
| mRNA research update on 08:45 - Dec 12 by StokieBlue |
You're not just asking questions though:
"My questions are initially for the former reason but I am sceptical about the article saying that there could one day be a combined "all known flu and all known Covid variant" vaccine. I'm sceptical about this because it doesn't sit right with the knowledge I have gained about mRNA vaccines to date."
This is a scientific assertion that you've made and given it directly goes against what scientists are saying it could be seen as designed to sow doubt.
You've made a scientific assertion and it's on you to back it up.
SB |
A "scientific assertion" ? Well I think you're clutching at straws with that. An assertion is a statement that you strongly believe is true. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/assertion
I'm asking questions because I'm looking to have a greater understanding in this area that's why I said "it doesn't sit right with the knowledge I have gained about mRNA vaccines to date."
I haven't even stated anything scientific although I suspect that's what you want me to in order to accuse me of spreading dodgy information and get me silenced for being "dangerous".
Oh, who's HP by the way and where is your evidence to back up your belief that there's a HP vibe with my posts? |  | | |
| mRNA research update on 10:20 - Dec 12 with 2096 views | Cafe_Newman |
| mRNA research update on 06:47 - Dec 12 by BlueBadger |
I spent two years working at the critical care sharp end doing the pandemic. Don't you DARE start spouting this disnegnuous and dangerous crap in the general region of me. Misinformation that you're bleating about being 'censored' for(which you're not, it's still here days later) genuinely kills or leaves long term health problems for those who are taken in by the sociopathic c*** spreading it. [Post edited 13 Dec 2022 6:52]
|
Fire without smoke much?
"this disnegnuous (sic) and dangerous crap" - enlighten me, please. | | | |
| mRNA research update on 10:28 - Dec 12 with 2081 views | StokieBlue |
| mRNA research update on 10:17 - Dec 12 by Cafe_Newman |
A "scientific assertion" ? Well I think you're clutching at straws with that. An assertion is a statement that you strongly believe is true. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/assertion
I'm asking questions because I'm looking to have a greater understanding in this area that's why I said "it doesn't sit right with the knowledge I have gained about mRNA vaccines to date."
I haven't even stated anything scientific although I suspect that's what you want me to in order to accuse me of spreading dodgy information and get me silenced for being "dangerous".
Oh, who's HP by the way and where is your evidence to back up your belief that there's a HP vibe with my posts? |
That's an awful lot of words to avoid actually answering the question which has been put to you twice now.
Why doesn't it sit right with the knowledge you've gained so far? Why won't you outline why it doesn't sit right? You've made an assertion, please provide evidence to back it up as at the moment it just looks like a classic "muddying the waters" tactic.
HP was an anti-vaxxer on here who was banned. I've said you read a lot like him, not the you are him, hence the "vibe".
SB | | | |
| mRNA research update on 10:43 - Dec 12 with 2070 views | Cafe_Newman |
| mRNA research update on 10:28 - Dec 12 by StokieBlue |
That's an awful lot of words to avoid actually answering the question which has been put to you twice now.
Why doesn't it sit right with the knowledge you've gained so far? Why won't you outline why it doesn't sit right? You've made an assertion, please provide evidence to back it up as at the moment it just looks like a classic "muddying the waters" tactic.
HP was an anti-vaxxer on here who was banned. I've said you read a lot like him, not the you are him, hence the "vibe".
SB |
What assertion have I made?
Edit: If I join in with the childish down arrows will you get uppity about it? [Post edited 12 Dec 2022 10:45]
| | | |
| mRNA research update on 11:06 - Dec 12 with 2026 views | Ryorry |
| mRNA research update on 06:47 - Dec 12 by BlueBadger |
I spent two years working at the critical care sharp end doing the pandemic. Don't you DARE start spouting this disnegnuous and dangerous crap in the general region of me. Misinformation that you're bleating about being 'censored' for(which you're not, it's still here days later) genuinely kills or leaves long term health problems for those who are taken in by the sociopathic c*** spreading it. [Post edited 13 Dec 2022 6:52]
|
I understand your anger & frustration Badger, but nevertheless, isn't it fair to say that a great deal of detailed information has emerged as a result of his questioning that assists us non-specialists to understand better how the latest vaccines work? |  |
| |
| mRNA research update on 11:11 - Dec 12 with 2028 views | StokieBlue |
| mRNA research update on 10:43 - Dec 12 by Cafe_Newman |
What assertion have I made?
Edit: If I join in with the childish down arrows will you get uppity about it? [Post edited 12 Dec 2022 10:45]
|
I've outlined it many times now, you've said that the research I've highlighted didn't sit with the you knew about mRNA vaccines. I've asked you to state why that is and then we could discuss that but you've more refused multiple times.
I've downvoted you because you've muddied the waters and then refused to engage. It's classic "just asking questions". You've tried to dress it up but at a fundamental level that is what you are doing.
SB | | | |
| mRNA research update on 12:01 - Dec 12 with 1966 views | Cafe_Newman |
| mRNA research update on 11:11 - Dec 12 by StokieBlue |
I've outlined it many times now, you've said that the research I've highlighted didn't sit with the you knew about mRNA vaccines. I've asked you to state why that is and then we could discuss that but you've more refused multiple times.
I've downvoted you because you've muddied the waters and then refused to engage. It's classic "just asking questions". You've tried to dress it up but at a fundamental level that is what you are doing.
SB |
I've not made any assertion, less still a scientific one.
You have no intention of discussing anything with me.
I have only questioned the possibility of producing an all-in-one all known flu strain with all known covid vaccine. I asked you some questions about it. You admitted you're not an expert and suggested I do further research. I will. Thank you. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| mRNA research update on 12:38 - Dec 12 with 1921 views | mylittletown |
| mRNA research update on 12:01 - Dec 12 by Cafe_Newman |
I've not made any assertion, less still a scientific one.
You have no intention of discussing anything with me.
I have only questioned the possibility of producing an all-in-one all known flu strain with all known covid vaccine. I asked you some questions about it. You admitted you're not an expert and suggested I do further research. I will. Thank you. |
Excellent. Go away and do some research. Or perhaps you could just ask an expert? |  | | |
| mRNA research update on 13:05 - Dec 12 with 1892 views | Cafe_Newman |
| mRNA research update on 12:38 - Dec 12 by mylittletown |
Excellent. Go away and do some research. Or perhaps you could just ask an expert? |
The problem is the non-experts here on this football forum seem hell-bent on trying to discuss what I have researched. That seems strange coming from non-experts. I'll take your advice, cheers. | | | |
| mRNA research update on 13:30 - Dec 12 with 1852 views | StokieBlue |
| mRNA research update on 12:01 - Dec 12 by Cafe_Newman |
I've not made any assertion, less still a scientific one.
You have no intention of discussing anything with me.
I have only questioned the possibility of producing an all-in-one all known flu strain with all known covid vaccine. I asked you some questions about it. You admitted you're not an expert and suggested I do further research. I will. Thank you. |
That's all rubbish though.
You clearly attempted to sow doubt based on your research and then refused to provide any supporting argument when challenged.
Why are you scared of explaining to us how you reached your conclusion?
How can you say I don't want to debate with you when you refuse to engage?
It's very weird.
SB | | | |
| mRNA research update on 13:36 - Dec 12 with 1845 views | SpruceMoose |
| mRNA research update on 13:05 - Dec 12 by Cafe_Newman |
The problem is the non-experts here on this football forum seem hell-bent on trying to discuss what I have researched. That seems strange coming from non-experts. I'll take your advice, cheers. |
We're still doing this eh?
Too much JAQ-ing off going on for my taste. |  |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| mRNA research update on 14:03 - Dec 12 with 1791 views | Cafe_Newman |
| mRNA research update on 13:30 - Dec 12 by StokieBlue |
That's all rubbish though.
You clearly attempted to sow doubt based on your research and then refused to provide any supporting argument when challenged.
Why are you scared of explaining to us how you reached your conclusion?
How can you say I don't want to debate with you when you refuse to engage?
It's very weird.
SB |
Still at it?
You clearly attempted to sow doubt based on your research and then refused to provide any supporting argument when challenged.
I asked you a series of specific questions. You answered them in a general comment. Then I tried to match your answers with my questions for clarity. I even asked you to correct me if I had misunderstood what you had said. You didn't like the fact that I had "rearranged the answers". So I made every effort to be clear and unambiguous, and now you say I was trying to sow doubt. It's clear you're not interested in discussion at all. I think you should leave it there.
Why are you scared of explaining to us how you reached your conclusion?
When did I reach a conclusion? If I had reached a conclusion, I wouldn't have asked you any questions.
How can you say I don't want to debate with you when you refuse to engage?
Because you have misunderstood everything I have written and you're being aggressive. That's not a good starting point for debate.
It's very weird.
Yes. Your reaction from the start was weird. | | | |
| mRNA research update on 14:12 - Dec 12 with 1757 views | SpruceMoose |
| mRNA research update on 14:03 - Dec 12 by Cafe_Newman |
Still at it?
You clearly attempted to sow doubt based on your research and then refused to provide any supporting argument when challenged.
I asked you a series of specific questions. You answered them in a general comment. Then I tried to match your answers with my questions for clarity. I even asked you to correct me if I had misunderstood what you had said. You didn't like the fact that I had "rearranged the answers". So I made every effort to be clear and unambiguous, and now you say I was trying to sow doubt. It's clear you're not interested in discussion at all. I think you should leave it there.
Why are you scared of explaining to us how you reached your conclusion?
When did I reach a conclusion? If I had reached a conclusion, I wouldn't have asked you any questions.
How can you say I don't want to debate with you when you refuse to engage?
Because you have misunderstood everything I have written and you're being aggressive. That's not a good starting point for debate.
It's very weird.
Yes. Your reaction from the start was weird. |
You manage to somehow be both boring AND insulting. Amazing really. | |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| mRNA research update on 14:18 - Dec 12 with 1739 views | Cafe_Newman |
| mRNA research update on 14:12 - Dec 12 by SpruceMoose |
You manage to somehow be both boring AND insulting. Amazing really. |
Snap | | | |
| mRNA research update on 15:11 - Dec 12 with 1687 views | mylittletown |
| mRNA research update on 14:03 - Dec 12 by Cafe_Newman |
Still at it?
You clearly attempted to sow doubt based on your research and then refused to provide any supporting argument when challenged.
I asked you a series of specific questions. You answered them in a general comment. Then I tried to match your answers with my questions for clarity. I even asked you to correct me if I had misunderstood what you had said. You didn't like the fact that I had "rearranged the answers". So I made every effort to be clear and unambiguous, and now you say I was trying to sow doubt. It's clear you're not interested in discussion at all. I think you should leave it there.
Why are you scared of explaining to us how you reached your conclusion?
When did I reach a conclusion? If I had reached a conclusion, I wouldn't have asked you any questions.
How can you say I don't want to debate with you when you refuse to engage?
Because you have misunderstood everything I have written and you're being aggressive. That's not a good starting point for debate.
It's very weird.
Yes. Your reaction from the start was weird. |
Please go away and do your research. | | | |
| mRNA research update on 16:10 - Dec 12 with 1638 views | Cafe_Newman |
| mRNA research update on 15:11 - Dec 12 by mylittletown |
Please go away and do your research. |
Perhaps you could give me a direct link mylittlefriend. | | | |
| mRNA research update on 17:46 - Dec 12 with 1566 views | DanTheMan |
| mRNA research update on 16:10 - Dec 12 by Cafe_Newman |
Perhaps you could give me a direct link mylittlefriend. |
Genuine question, what answers specifically are you looking for still? |  |
| |
| mRNA research update on 21:02 - Dec 12 with 1485 views | PassionNotAnger |
| mRNA research update on 13:05 - Dec 12 by Cafe_Newman |
The problem is the non-experts here on this football forum seem hell-bent on trying to discuss what I have researched. That seems strange coming from non-experts. I'll take your advice, cheers. |
Thank you for continuing to reply and pose your questions on here because every single time you do, you reinforce how easy it is to try your hardest to be clever whilst simultaneously proving beyond any reasonable doubt that you are not.
I obviously can’t say on this board that your are just another stupid anti-vax conspiracy nut as that would break forum rules but at least I can think it. [Post edited 12 Dec 2022 21:05]
|  | | |
| mRNA research update on 21:34 - Dec 12 with 1430 views | BlueBadger |
| mRNA research update on 10:20 - Dec 12 by Cafe_Newman |
Fire without smoke much?
"this disnegnuous (sic) and dangerous crap" - enlighten me, please. |
This whole 'I'm just asking questions' bullshine.
And then whining because the facts don't fit the answer in your head and trying to twist them to fit in with the answer in your head. [Post edited 12 Dec 2022 21:38]
|  |
| |
| mRNA research update on 23:08 - Dec 12 with 1368 views | Swansea_Blue |
| mRNA research update on 13:05 - Dec 12 by Cafe_Newman |
The problem is the non-experts here on this football forum seem hell-bent on trying to discuss what I have researched. That seems strange coming from non-experts. I'll take your advice, cheers. |
It’s perfectly normal for researchers to disclose what they’re doing in a language accessible to non-experts. It’s often a condition of funding. If you’ve researched anything, there’s no reason to withhold what you’ve done or what the findings were (unless commercially sensitive).
So you’ve probably not researched anything, but rather looked up some stuff on the internet that you’re not equipped (even with the best intentions) to assess. That’s probably why you’re getting pushback on saying you’re sceptical. No reason at all why anyone shouldn’t be curious and want to know more of course, but are you really qualified to critique the state of the science? Maybe you are, in which case you should be able to say why you’re sceptical. |  |
| |
| mRNA research update on 23:10 - Dec 12 with 1362 views | jeera |
| mRNA research update on 23:08 - Dec 12 by Swansea_Blue |
It’s perfectly normal for researchers to disclose what they’re doing in a language accessible to non-experts. It’s often a condition of funding. If you’ve researched anything, there’s no reason to withhold what you’ve done or what the findings were (unless commercially sensitive).
So you’ve probably not researched anything, but rather looked up some stuff on the internet that you’re not equipped (even with the best intentions) to assess. That’s probably why you’re getting pushback on saying you’re sceptical. No reason at all why anyone shouldn’t be curious and want to know more of course, but are you really qualified to critique the state of the science? Maybe you are, in which case you should be able to say why you’re sceptical. |
It is daft to speak of knowledge on a subject but then repeatedly refuse to share it.
We all might learn something new for a start, which could be helpful. |  |
| |
| mRNA research update on 06:23 - Dec 13 with 1271 views | Cafe_Newman |
| mRNA research update on 23:08 - Dec 12 by Swansea_Blue |
It’s perfectly normal for researchers to disclose what they’re doing in a language accessible to non-experts. It’s often a condition of funding. If you’ve researched anything, there’s no reason to withhold what you’ve done or what the findings were (unless commercially sensitive).
So you’ve probably not researched anything, but rather looked up some stuff on the internet that you’re not equipped (even with the best intentions) to assess. That’s probably why you’re getting pushback on saying you’re sceptical. No reason at all why anyone shouldn’t be curious and want to know more of course, but are you really qualified to critique the state of the science? Maybe you are, in which case you should be able to say why you’re sceptical. |
Thanks for your reasonable reply, I understand your doubts about why I've not divulged anything that I've read about mRNA vaccines so far in this thread.
Probably the main reason for not doing so was the words "Just asking questions" or more childishly expressed as "JAQing off". I suspected from the start that I would be accused of "spreading dangerous information under the guise of Just Asking Questions", so I made a point of not providing any information in order to see who was reading my posts.
But it didn't matter, I was accused of spreading dangerous information anyway. When I asked what information I was spreading, no one enlightened me at all. So my suspicions were well founded and the chance to have a fair debate looked unlikely. I'm happy to engage in a debate but I'm not prepared to face ad hominem attacks, complains about the regularity or speed of my replies nor accusations of spreading misinformation or being anti-vax, because that simply isn't true.
I've been honest about my intentions, and one of those is that I want to avoid the sort of acrimonious debates I seen played out here in the past, which invariably end up in name calling, posts being reported and those holding the majority view wanting the minority (in this case, me) banned.
I put my hand up and admit that my first few exchanges in this thread were a bit "basic", but I did that in the hope I'd get a measured and non-confrontational response. Stokie's initial reply was a bit barbed but he quickly edited it and as a result got the exchanges flowing - things were going reasonably well until SpruceMoose and Badger predictably started to accuse me of spreading misinformation even though other posters (like yourself) have noted that I've not given any information concerning my scepticism at all.
I've not been contributing on this site for long but I have been a "lurker" since around late 2021/early 2022 - I honestly can't remember. It's generally a fun place to be and being a non-confrontational type, I'd sooner say nothing more about this topic than get into a fight with a whole bunch of vitriolic people. That said, I'm not the idiot some people have already decided I am and I'm happy to share the research I've read. I don't expect for one second to change anybody's beliefs or opinions about anything and although I'm open to hearing others' opinions, the reaction I've seen from the majority of posters to this thread gives me very little hope that this will be anything other than a "get him banned, he's a dangerous anti-vaxer" thread. That would be a shame, because I am vaccinated for C-19 as I stated in one of my very earliest posts on this forum many months ago. I've nothing to hide. There's no agendas here. I'm not in the employ of any agency, domestic or foreign.
So, if people are prepared to play nicely, I'm game. However I do have some rules of my own because as a single dad with a full-time job, I simply don't have the time to spend hours being harassed for not answering multiple questions from multiple people every single day. I don't "live here" like many people seem to.
I want the debate to stay on the topic of mRNA vaccines and not become a pro/anti vaccination thread, nor am I swayed much by Badger's emotional experiences at [REDACTED] hospital and because of that "all vaccinations are good all of the time and anyone who doesn't go along with that view is selfish and dangerous, because people have died". I'll try and post at least one comment a day but I will bale out as soon as it gets ugly. FWIW, I find routine down-voting by multiple people a form of bullying, so that will cause me to leave the debate too.
Am I being precious? Probably, but I've got better things to do with my life than walk into a fight here with people who appear to be wanting to settle some sort of vendetta with previous posters.
Fair enough?
Edited for politeness. [Post edited 13 Dec 2022 6:38]
| | | |
| mRNA research update on 07:55 - Dec 13 with 1219 views | Cafe_Newman |
| mRNA research update on 23:10 - Dec 12 by jeera |
It is daft to speak of knowledge on a subject but then repeatedly refuse to share it.
We all might learn something new for a start, which could be helpful. |
My reasons for doing that are explained in my previous post.
If people cut out the "JAQing", "anti-vax" and ad hominem nonsense, we can try to have a reasonable exchange of thoughts. | | | |
| mRNA research update on 09:11 - Dec 13 with 1178 views | StokieBlue |
| mRNA research update on 06:23 - Dec 13 by Cafe_Newman |
Thanks for your reasonable reply, I understand your doubts about why I've not divulged anything that I've read about mRNA vaccines so far in this thread.
Probably the main reason for not doing so was the words "Just asking questions" or more childishly expressed as "JAQing off". I suspected from the start that I would be accused of "spreading dangerous information under the guise of Just Asking Questions", so I made a point of not providing any information in order to see who was reading my posts.
But it didn't matter, I was accused of spreading dangerous information anyway. When I asked what information I was spreading, no one enlightened me at all. So my suspicions were well founded and the chance to have a fair debate looked unlikely. I'm happy to engage in a debate but I'm not prepared to face ad hominem attacks, complains about the regularity or speed of my replies nor accusations of spreading misinformation or being anti-vax, because that simply isn't true.
I've been honest about my intentions, and one of those is that I want to avoid the sort of acrimonious debates I seen played out here in the past, which invariably end up in name calling, posts being reported and those holding the majority view wanting the minority (in this case, me) banned.
I put my hand up and admit that my first few exchanges in this thread were a bit "basic", but I did that in the hope I'd get a measured and non-confrontational response. Stokie's initial reply was a bit barbed but he quickly edited it and as a result got the exchanges flowing - things were going reasonably well until SpruceMoose and Badger predictably started to accuse me of spreading misinformation even though other posters (like yourself) have noted that I've not given any information concerning my scepticism at all.
I've not been contributing on this site for long but I have been a "lurker" since around late 2021/early 2022 - I honestly can't remember. It's generally a fun place to be and being a non-confrontational type, I'd sooner say nothing more about this topic than get into a fight with a whole bunch of vitriolic people. That said, I'm not the idiot some people have already decided I am and I'm happy to share the research I've read. I don't expect for one second to change anybody's beliefs or opinions about anything and although I'm open to hearing others' opinions, the reaction I've seen from the majority of posters to this thread gives me very little hope that this will be anything other than a "get him banned, he's a dangerous anti-vaxer" thread. That would be a shame, because I am vaccinated for C-19 as I stated in one of my very earliest posts on this forum many months ago. I've nothing to hide. There's no agendas here. I'm not in the employ of any agency, domestic or foreign.
So, if people are prepared to play nicely, I'm game. However I do have some rules of my own because as a single dad with a full-time job, I simply don't have the time to spend hours being harassed for not answering multiple questions from multiple people every single day. I don't "live here" like many people seem to.
I want the debate to stay on the topic of mRNA vaccines and not become a pro/anti vaccination thread, nor am I swayed much by Badger's emotional experiences at [REDACTED] hospital and because of that "all vaccinations are good all of the time and anyone who doesn't go along with that view is selfish and dangerous, because people have died". I'll try and post at least one comment a day but I will bale out as soon as it gets ugly. FWIW, I find routine down-voting by multiple people a form of bullying, so that will cause me to leave the debate too.
Am I being precious? Probably, but I've got better things to do with my life than walk into a fight here with people who appear to be wanting to settle some sort of vendetta with previous posters.
Fair enough?
Edited for politeness. [Post edited 13 Dec 2022 6:38]
|
I think that's all pretty disingenuous.
You made a clear statement that you didn't think the article sat correctly with your own research on mRNA vaccines and then repeatedly refused to explain why when asked.
None of the posts you are complaining about would have happened if you had not refused to present your case when requested. Asking how your own research differs to that of the scientists in the referenced article is a perfectly fair question to ask and it annoyed people that you refused (and still refuse) to answer.
Perhaps look inwards rather than lashing out at everyone else.
SB | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
