Official Covid Vaccine thread

2600 bro wrote:

Sub-9 guy wrote:

Yep, great piece. 100% truth there. Right on cue too with the troll's predictable response:

"They’re told by disingenuous studies that they have higher IQs. They’re told by the mainstream media that they’re morally infallible. They saved Grandma. They did their part. They wore the mask, took the vax, and are of humanity’s highest order.

They are the stewards of our planet, the stalwarts of the righteous and powerful.

Everyone else - especially those outspoken against the jabs - gutter trash. They’re misled, inbred, and in some cases, truly evil, despicable people. They’re subhuman, in fact, better locked up and removed from society than allowed to spread their unvaccinated filth.

Those who think they are morally and intellectually superior because they got jabbed will likely never change. These types will champion continued mRNA boosters no matter what. These are the types who will thank the godly vaccine even as their own children are hospitalized for “long COVID” post-vaccination.

They come in all shapes and sizes. In some cases, they’re ‘experts’ themselves, specializing in ‘the science’ and knowing better than the rest of us. In many cases, however, they’re simply everyday people who fashion themselves smarter and better because that’s what the television tells them.

Sadly, it’s that simple. Sadly, if these people continue to practice as they preach, they’ll be taking their hubris to an early grave."

A guys rambling post with a bunch of ads is great?
Maybe for boring, low IQ, “feelings based” anti vaxxers.
I can’t even get through it. No data, just trite moralizing.

Wonder why? Maybe because the data doesn’t exist? (Yet…. Just wait 2,5,10,20!!! Years… I promise)

Funny to imagine the kind of losers that read this stuff and just nod along 🤣😂 but hey everyone needs a religion.

Harambe wrote:

Sub-9 guy wrote:

Nothing you've written in the past 3.75 years is compelling or persuasive, not for the generally young and fit denizens on this board. You simply don't understand that, and you keep on keeping on with diarreah of the mouth so that you "high IQers" can continue your circle jerk.

Observational data is a thing. Most of us can discern that there were many vaccine injuries and that people who refused the vaccine with a low risk profile were no worse for the wear. You are a fool and a self-loving fool at that. Rodgers and Djokovic are much smarter. It's painfully obvious. That low brow sub stack perfectly captured the essence of who you are.

I understand the arguments reliant on numbers and quantitative measurements are not persuasive to you. That’s because you struggle to understand them (see the Swedish study).
Observational (you mean anecdotal) data is certainly a “thing.” It’s the lowest quality of evidence and mostly serves to prop up confirmation bias. You’re a sterling example.
Excellent work, as usual, praising two athletes playing at their worst post COVID. Now that is what I call “compelling and persuasive”

Sub-9 guy wrote:

Harambe wrote:

I understand the arguments reliant on numbers and quantitative measurements are not persuasive to you. That’s because you struggle to understand them (see the Swedish study).
Observational (you mean anecdotal) data is certainly a “thing.” It’s the lowest quality of evidence and mostly serves to prop up confirmation bias. You’re a sterling example.
Excellent work, as usual, praising two athletes playing at their worst post COVID. Now that is what I call “compelling and persuasive”

But, yet, here you are, unable to resist the urge to argue with a low brow. By the way, just because it matters so much to you, I took the Stanford-Binet IQ test in grade school in order to qualify for mentally gifted minders and I crushed it. But, MGM was really friggin boring, full of stiffs like you. The most contemptible and least humble people of all are the ones carrying on about their IQs, but it's clearly so very important to you.

Some of us didn't fall prey to a few studies early in the pandemic that supported the establishment narrative because we were discerning and skeptical and open minded. Because of this, we didn't fall prey to the herd mentality that is now haunting so many of your peers, peers who relied on extremely incomplete and imperfect data. Data that isn't nearly as credible as you would make it out to be.

Djokovic is old my friend. It is what it is. I don't know why he bothers you so, just because he's unvaccinated. It shouldn't bother you that much. Many of us are unvaccinated and grateful for it. You shouldn't despise that so much. That you do should compel you to do some introspection. And, again, nothing in your 3.75 years of wasting time here has been compelling or provocative for people who can think. No thing.

Sub-9 guy wrote:

Harambe wrote:

I understand the arguments reliant on numbers and quantitative measurements are not persuasive to you. That’s because you struggle to understand them (see the Swedish study).
Observational (you mean anecdotal) data is certainly a “thing.” It’s the lowest quality of evidence and mostly serves to prop up confirmation bias. You’re a sterling example.
Excellent work, as usual, praising two athletes playing at their worst post COVID. Now that is what I call “compelling and persuasive”

But, yet, here you are, unable to resist the urge to argue with a low brow. By the way, just because it matters so much to you, I took the Stanford-Binet IQ test in grade school in order to qualify for mentally gifted minders and I crushed it. But, MGM was really friggin boring, full of stiffs like you. The most contemptible and least humble people of all are the ones carrying on about their IQs, but it's clearly so very important to you.

Some of us didn't fall prey to a few studies early in the pandemic that supported the establishment narrative because we were discerning and skeptical and open minded. Because of this, we didn't fall prey to the herd mentality that is now haunting so many of your peers, peers who relied on extremely incomplete and imperfect data. Data that isn't nearly as credible as you would make it out to be.

Djokovic is old my friend. It is what it is. I don't know why he bothers you so, just because he's unvaccinated. It shouldn't bother you that much. Many of us are unvaccinated and grateful for it. You shouldn't despise that so much. That you do should compel you to do some introspection. And, again, nothing in your 3.75 years of wasting time here has been compelling or provocative for people who can think. No thing.

Sub-9 guy wrote:

Harambe wrote:

I understand the arguments reliant on numbers and quantitative measurements are not persuasive to you. That’s because you struggle to understand them (see the Swedish study).
Observational (you mean anecdotal) data is certainly a “thing.” It’s the lowest quality of evidence and mostly serves to prop up confirmation bias. You’re a sterling example.
Excellent work, as usual, praising two athletes playing at their worst post COVID. Now that is what I call “compelling and persuasive”

But, yet, here you are, unable to resist the urge to argue with a low brow. By the way, just because it matters so much to you, I took the Stanford-Binet IQ test in grade school in order to qualify for mentally gifted minders and I crushed it. But, MGM was really friggin boring, full of stiffs like you. The most contemptible and least humble people of all are the ones carrying on about their IQs, but it's clearly so very important to you.

Some of us didn't fall prey to a few studies early in the pandemic that supported the establishment narrative because we were discerning and skeptical and open minded. Because of this, we didn't fall prey to the herd mentality that is now haunting so many of your peers, peers who relied on extremely incomplete and imperfect data. Data that isn't nearly as credible as you would make it out to be.

Djokovic is old my friend. It is what it is. I don't know why he bothers you so, just because he's unvaccinated. It shouldn't bother you that much. Many of us are unvaccinated and grateful for it. You shouldn't despise that so much. That you do should compel you to do some introspection. And, again, nothing in your 3.75 years of wasting time here has been compelling or provocative for people who can think. No thing.

Harambe wrote:

Sub-9 guy wrote:

But, yet, here you are, unable to resist the urge to argue with a low brow. By the way, just because it matters so much to you, I took the Stanford-Binet IQ test in grade school in order to qualify for mentally gifted minders and I crushed it. But, MGM was really friggin boring, full of stiffs like you. The most contemptible and least humble people of all are the ones carrying on about their IQs, but it's clearly so very important to you.

Some of us didn't fall prey to a few studies early in the pandemic that supported the establishment narrative because we were discerning and skeptical and open minded. Because of this, we didn't fall prey to the herd mentality that is now haunting so many of your peers, peers who relied on extremely incomplete and imperfect data. Data that isn't nearly as credible as you would make it out to be.

Djokovic is old my friend. It is what it is. I don't know why he bothers you so, just because he's unvaccinated. It shouldn't bother you that much. Many of us are unvaccinated and grateful for it. You shouldn't despise that so much. That you do should compel you to do some introspection. And, again, nothing in your 3.75 years of wasting time here has been compelling or provocative for people who can think. No thing.

If Chokervic is your bro I suggest you take some time to console him after another epic post-COVID choke job. Don’t waste time arguing with me.

The fact of the matter is that antivaxxers have poor quantitative reasoning. I don’t like this. You certainly don’t like it. But, it’s a fact. We don’t need to debate it. And honestly, when you try to do so it kinda only proves my point (I.e. there’s a reason you felt like the outsider around gifted students)