A Coronavirus Vaccine Won’t Work if People Don’t Take It


Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
24,254
Reaction score
7,793
Points
113
If interested, this guy breaks down the interview and goes over many of the lies and misinformation that Malone spreads in the video and has been for awhile now. Almost none of the things being pointed out here are new, I've read and seen many scientists with similar criticisms of what Malone is saying. I've never seen anything by this guy before, but he does a great job citing his sources. Something Malone doesn't usually do.

At a minimum, enjoy the mop.

I actually just finished the Rogan podcast with Malone today. His main rub is with giving the vax to kids. He cites plenty of sources for his data, btw. He is also part of a group of 16,000+ doctors and scientists who all agree on that. They likely are all just mad they aren’t getting more attention tho.
 


GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
29,588
Reaction score
6,881
Points
113
I actually just finished the Rogan podcast with Malone today. His main rub is with giving the vax to kids. He cites plenty of sources for his data, btw. He is also part of a group of 16,000+ doctors and scientists who all agree on that. They likely are all just mad they aren’t getting more attention tho.
Not sure I’d say that’s his main rub. It seems he has all kinds of things he doesn’t like. Yes, familiar with that declaration that claims 16,000+ Physicians and scientists have signed (even though anyone can make stuff up and sign it as it’s a public website). Even if every one is legit, 16,000 represents an extremely small percentage of physicians and scientists around the world.

There’s some interesting people that website highlights, that’s for sure. Not all are mad but there’s some pretty bad people that agree with that declaration.





 

KGF

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
22,520
Reaction score
4,293
Points
113
He was talking about including natural immunity included as a form of vaccination. If you listen to the entire clip, you’ll get the context that’s not given by the lying Aaron Rupar.

BTW, using statistics like “12x more likely”, which very likely are based on data since the beginning of the pandemic is unethical and completely dishonest, but I have no doubt that that’s Rupar‘s style.
 
Last edited:


cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,737
Reaction score
3,011
Points
113
If interested, this guy breaks down the interview and goes over many of the lies and misinformation that Malone spreads in the video and has been for awhile now. Almost none of the things being pointed out here are new, I've read and seen many scientists with similar criticisms of what Malone is saying. I've never seen anything by this guy before, but he does a great job citing his sources. Something Malone doesn't usually do.

At a minimum, enjoy the mop.

Excellent video thanks much for sharing.
 

KGF

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
22,520
Reaction score
4,293
Points
113
Unfortunately for those in the vax religious cult, recent data shows that they are both right.
I don’t believe this is known. The data did reflect the negative efficacy of the two vaccines, but confounding variables make this conclusion suspect.

I would seriously doubt that the conclusion could or would be that the vaccine doesn’t maintain some level of efficacy. The issue may be that some unvaccinated may have had Covid and therefore are naturally immune, and are being calculated in as “unvaccinated”. In other words, a flawed study design.

This is actually more evidence that we need to gather data on the unvaccinated and differentiate unvaccinated-naturally immune from unvaccinated-no immunity. Many would suggest that the second group is relatively low at this point.

Carlson and Berenson are jumping to conclusions though Berenson did make the point to Ingraham that we don’t really know, and giving him the benefit of the doubt, he hasn’t drawn the conclusions that Carlson appears to have jumped on based on the results of the study.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
24,254
Reaction score
7,793
Points
113
Not sure I’d say that’s his main rub.
Well, in the podcast he named it as one of the two “hills he would die on” (the other being freedom of speech), so…….

Again, I only brought him up for what he said about HCQ and Ivermectin in the earlier stages of COVID in this Country. Specifically how the Government essentially blocked them from the start. He named names, gave examples, and cited studies and usage in other Countries. You don’t agree with his stance on the vax so have already decided he just wants attention. I thought he made a good argument on the subject.
 





GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
29,588
Reaction score
6,881
Points
113
Well, in the podcast he named it as one of the two “hills he would die on” (the other being freedom of speech), so…….

Again, I only brought him up for what he said about HCQ and Ivermectin in the earlier stages of COVID in this Country. Specifically how the Government essentially blocked them from the start. He named names, gave examples, and cited studies and usage in other Countries. You don’t agree with his stance on the vax so have already decided he just wants attention. I thought he made a good argument on the subject.
To me it’s pretty obvious he’s just trying to get attention when the only reason most even listen to him in the first place is because of the lie he started. People are falling for it. No he didn’t invent the technology. He played a small part in in and hasn’t done anything with mRNA for decades. Yeah he had 9 patents related to the technology but he let that expire a long time ago.

It’s obvious to most people.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
10,520
Reaction score
5,027
Points
113
If interested, this guy breaks down the interview and goes over many of the lies and misinformation that Malone spreads in the video and has been for awhile now. Almost none of the things being pointed out here are new, I've read and seen many scientists with similar criticisms of what Malone is saying. I've never seen anything by this guy before, but he does a great job citing his sources. Something Malone doesn't usually do.

At a minimum, enjoy the mop.


While some of the things he says about Malone are true, this guy clearly has his own biases and is spreading information that is not necesarily true as well. That starts around 7 minutes in, where he is talking about COVID like it is still March 2020.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
24,254
Reaction score
7,793
Points
113
To me it’s pretty obvious he’s just trying to get attention when the only reason most even listen to him in the first place is because of the lie he started. People are falling for it. No he didn’t invent the technology. He played a small part in in and hasn’t done anything with mRNA for decades. Yeah he had 9 patents related to the technology but he let that expire a long time ago.

It’s obvious to most people.
Obvious or convenient? To throw out everything he says because saying he “invented” the technology is a stretch seems pretty convenient. You talk like he has spent his time since then betting horses at the OTB. He is still in the field and doing research. I thought he made a good case on the podcast in regards to therapeutics. I’m guessing you haven’t even listened because your mind is made up.
 



BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
16,114
Reaction score
2,531
Points
113
To me it’s pretty obvious he’s just trying to get attention when the only reason most even listen to him in the first place is because of the lie he started. People are falling for it. No he didn’t invent the technology. He played a small part in in and hasn’t done anything with mRNA for decades. Yeah he had 9 patents related to the technology but he let that expire a long time ago.

It’s obvious to most people.
And about Hcq and ivermectin?
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
29,588
Reaction score
6,881
Points
113
While some of the things he says about Malone are true, this guy clearly has his own biases and is spreading information that is not necesarily true as well. That starts around 7 minutes in, where he is talking about COVID like it is still March 2020.
I agree. I didn’t like everything he said. But thought he did a good job pointing out some of the main criticisms of what Malone is saying.
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
29,588
Reaction score
6,881
Points
113
Obvious or convenient? To throw out everything he says because saying he “invented” the technology is a stretch seems pretty convenient. You talk like he has spent his time since then betting horses at the OTB. He is still in the field and doing research. I thought he made a good case on the podcast in regards to therapeutics. I’m guessing you haven’t even listened because your mind is made up.
Whatever, if you can’t see how blatantly lying about something like that doesn’t put into question his credibility, I don’t know what would. If there were others in his field agreeing with him then that might be different. But they’re not. That’s why he’s having to lie about being the inventor.

I’m still trying to figure out why the overwhelming majority of scientists and doctors would want people to die by purposely ignoring certain treatments but not others.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
10,520
Reaction score
5,027
Points
113
Whatever, if you can’t see how blatantly lying about something like that doesn’t put into question his credibility, I don’t know what would. If there were others in his field agreeing with him then that might be different. But they’re not. That’s why he’s having to lie about being the inventor.

I’m still trying to figure out why the overwhelming majority of scientists and doctors would want people to die by purposely ignoring certain treatments but not others.

It's not a blatant lie though. Did he invent this vaccine? No. Was he the first to attempt the technology that is the basis of this vaccine? Yes. Was that technology then further expanded and developed by other scientists, which led to this vaccine without his involvement? Yes. It still gives him some credibility.

As for your second point, big pharma has a long track record of manipulating research promoting new drugs to doctors that have turned out to kill millions of people, all in the name of making money.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
24,254
Reaction score
7,793
Points
113
It's not a blatant lie though. Did he invent this vaccine? No. Was he the first to attempt the technology that is the basis of this vaccine? Yes. Was that technology then further expanded and developed by other scientists, which led to this vaccine without his involvement? Yes. It still gives him some credibility.

As for your second point, big pharma has a long track record of manipulating research promoting new drugs to doctors that have turned out to kill millions of people, all in the name of making money.
+1 to your first paragraph. @GophersInIowa is acting like he is some guy off the street who knows nothing about mRNA. The dude hold 9-patents, but that isn't good enough - He doesn't like what he has to say therefore he must just want attention. I'll assume he dismisses Fauci then too.

On your second - look no further than Pfizer. Pfizer has a track record of doing that. They have lost some of the biggest law-suits in the industry. Again, @GophersInIowa is acting like there is no data supporting the use of anything other than the vaccine. I'm pro-vaccine, but still don't feel the need to accept and defend everything the narrative tells me to. Critical thinking is necessary sometimes.
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
29,588
Reaction score
6,881
Points
113
It's not a blatant lie though. Did he invent this vaccine? No. Was he the first to attempt the technology that is the basis of this vaccine? Yes. Was that technology then further expanded and developed by other scientists, which led to this vaccine without his involvement? Yes. It still gives him some credibility.

As for your second point, big pharma has a long track record of manipulating research promoting new drugs to doctors that have turned out to kill millions of people, all in the name of making money.
No he was not the first. People were already doing research on mRNA technology. He took what was done already and helped solve one problem, along with several other co-authors. There was still many years of research and many problems that needed to be solved. What he and the other authors were able to do was important. No one is saying it wasn’t. But at a minimum, it’s an extreme exaggeration.

And last I checked, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are produced by big pharma. So why wouldn’t they want to push their product as much as possible?
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
24,254
Reaction score
7,793
Points
113
And last I checked, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are produced by big pharma. So why wouldn’t they want to push their product as much as possible?
Both are generic and available dirt cheap.
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
29,588
Reaction score
6,881
Points
113
+1 to your first paragraph. @GophersInIowa is acting like he is some guy off the street who knows nothing about mRNA. The dude hold 9-patents, but that isn't good enough - He doesn't like what he has to say therefore he must just want attention. I'll assume he dismisses Fauci then too.

On your second - look no further than Pfizer. Pfizer has a track record of doing that. They have lost some of the biggest law-suits in the industry. Again, @GophersInIowa is acting like there is no data supporting the use of anything other than the vaccine. I'm pro-vaccine, but still don't feel the need to accept and defend everything the narrative tells me to. Critical thinking is necessary sometimes.
Not saying that at all. But a guy’s credibility should be looked at when he’s saying things definitely than his peers.

And I’ve never said there isn’t any data supporting the use. There is. But there’s just more data showing they don’t work. There’s lots of different treatments/drugs being used everyday so it’s hardly only the vaccine. But the vaccine is the only one of these that’s a preventative (taken before infection).

I think you hit on something at the end. This isn’t really about if they work or not. It’s about not going along with the narrative. Carry on.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
10,520
Reaction score
5,027
Points
113
No he was not the first. People were already doing research on mRNA technology. He took what was done already and helped solve one problem, along with several other co-authors. There was still many years of research and many problems that needed to be solved. What he and the other authors were able to do was important. No one is saying it wasn’t. But at a minimum, it’s an extreme exaggeration.

And last I checked, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are produced by big pharma. So why wouldn’t they want to push their product as much as possible?

Yes they were doing research prior, since the 60s. Malone's contribution was the first time anyone had used fatty droplets to ease mRNA’s passage into a living organism. Still seems like someone not to just write off because he disagrees.

Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are extremely cheap. Big pharma also has a long history of slightly changing drugs that were used previously, and releasing them as 'new drugs' and charging significantly more. That's not to say big pharma is all bad, they create plenty of life saving drugs as well. But they care about their bottom line above anything else.

Not saying that at all. But a guy’s credibility should be looked at when he’s saying things definitely than his peers.

This anti-Science thought process is the #1 problem with the COVID group think narrative today. It's not just limited to COVID either unfortunately...
 



Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
13,957
Reaction score
6,163
Points
113
Big pharma also has a long history of slightly changing drugs that were used previously, and releasing them as 'new drugs' and charging significantly more. That's not to say big pharma is all bad, they create plenty of life saving drugs as well. But they care about their bottom line above anything else.

We need Socialism!!!!!
🤣🤣🤣🤣
 


Gold Vision

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
617
Points
113
He was talking about including natural immunity included as a form of vaccination. If you listen to the entire clip, you’ll get the context that’s not given by the lying Aaron Rupar.

BTW, using statistics like “12x more likely”, which very likely are based on data since the beginning of the pandemic is unethical and completely dishonest, but I have no doubt that that’s Rupar‘s style.
Nope. Those are real statistics. Shown by nearly every state and agency that produces those numbers. It’s really undisputed fact.
 



KGF

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
22,520
Reaction score
4,293
Points
113
Nope. Those are real statistics. Shown by nearly every state and agency that produces those numbers. It’s really undisputed fact.
I didn’t say that weren’t real. But when you are attempting to portray hospitalizations or deaths since vaccines became fully available, you should use statistics since people had the opportunity to get vaccinated.

Many unvaccinated people were hospitalized before vaccines were available. The 12x comment gives the impression that that is data is since the vaccines became available. It’s like running a 100 meter race, then letting competitors start after the 1st runner hits the half way mark, and then saying that he ran 2x as fast. It skews the multiple. Unvaccinated may be more likely to be hospitalized, but not by 12x IF he is using all hospitalizations since the beginning of the pandemic instead of the current hospitalization rate of vaccinated vs unvaccinated. I don’t trust Rupar not to distort the statistics.
 




Top Bottom