Further evidence that he doesn’t like his gran.

[ ] An extremely controversial post that called for a burner account.

All three of his bullet points are facts, though. (Last one is kinda "fuzzy".) Not sure how that qualifies as "controversial", but he was indeed a burner account. lol

I'm beginning to suspect that you're not the real Dick Tracy and that you haven't spent 6 years on 2+2. What else have you been lying about?

Comparing apples and oranges I see? WTF does the 95% effective number have to do with "99.9%" survival rates?

Surely you do realize that the 95% effective number doesn't mean that 5% who took the vaccine died lol

Take the ****ing vaccine you selfish ****s.

I don't think this assertion was made at any point.

Anyone trying to spread fear about the safety of an RNA vaccine is a complete and utter moron. We literally have live attenuated vaccines already available for public use and we have a guy spouting utter tripe on the internet about an antigenic one under the guise of "knowledge". The fact that he tells people to go beyond google when he very clearly has not even gone to that extent himself is so strange.

Charlie has some sort of weird inferiority complex about people with an education. He seems to take a contrarian stance out of spite rather than logic/facts. He just wants attention and quite simply doesn't know what he is talking about.

Edit: Also I don't get this immune system vs vaccine comparison as if they are somehow mutually exclusive things. A vaccine literally primes your immune system for a strong secondary response to a previously recognised antigen with previously made IgG. If someone has COVID you don't give them a vaccine to treat them, its too late. Its not an antiviral. When you're vaccinated successfully you don't get the infection as you fight it off immediately. If you have an immune system you do get the infection and then fight it off with IgM and then IgG later.

He definitely made that assertion. It's one sentence, comparing "99.9% survival rate" to "95% vaccine effective". It's a direct comparison between vaccine effectiveness and "immune system effectiveness". If that assertion wasn't made then what was the point of the sentence/"number 3" in his post at all?

What assertion IS made in this sentence according to you? "these covid vaccines are supposedly 95% effective, while your immune system is 99.9% effective"

Vaccines don’t just stop people dying, they stop people having long term health problems.
It’s 99.9% survival rate, not 99.9% unaffected by rate. Massive difference that gets conveniently forgotten by the ‘truthers’

But we're from UK. Charlie is tired of experts. We like anon FB posts for confirmation bias. Get with the times mate. Happening for 4 years now.

Who's to say they don't need the vaccine? Besides, having a high number of people taking any vaccine despite being in a low-risk set is what moves a population toward the threshold for herd immunity.

Now...

Where are we on Charlie's bid for the No. 1 Christmas tune? It remains the thread title, and because of this, I finally popped in here to see what that's all about. But instead of getting Bill Nighy from Love Actually, I get Jude Law from Contagion.

LOL. Suggesting a fatality rate of 0.1% when it's over 30 times that isn't "kinda fuzzy".

And, this:

If you studied up more on pharmaceuticals and all their side effects you'd probably take a minute before writing that. It doesn't matter what type of drugs we are talking about there are always side effects and this drug went thru very little testing compared to most drugs.


From what I remember you're a good poker player and I like your videos iirc, doesn't sound like you study much science tho bud. Being a beta tester for a new drug is never a good idea and being a beta tester for anything that will effect you're body just seems really dumb. Studying science and history for years tells me to let millions of people take it first and see what happens. Then if it's all good... it's an acceptable risk.



edit: From the information that I've learned recently (and it could be wrong), the vaccine went thru such small sample sizes that it would be like if I played 10k hands of 400nl, won at 10bb/100 and said I'm good enough to make mid stakes videos for a training site.

Tbh, I assumed he was trolling.

1. So what? Pieces of nucleic acid have been given to hundreds of thousands of people for other disease indications without serious adverse events. Both biologically and chemically they're not like the small organic molecule drugs that can sometimes have unanticipated and nasty off-target biological effects.

2. On this we agree. But do the risk/reward analysis: a highly effective preventive that's been safe for 3 months or longer in tens of thousands of people, or contracting COVID-19? The only group for whom that ratio might be unfavorable would be for those with autoimmune disorders, whose response to vaccine-based activation of their immune systems might be unpredictable.

3. Your immune system might be highly effective on its own, but you've got to be infected with the virus to activate it for near-certain protection against this particular virus. And even then human immunity isn't perfect, as evidenced by the thankfully rare number of instances of people being infected with COVID twice.

Look, I totally get that some people will be reluctant or unwilling to be vaccinated against COVID, especially given the short-term nature of our experience with the vaccines. But I expect their numbers to dramatically decline over time next year as everyone sees those around them getting protection from COVID, and the long-term experiences with the vaccines continue to show benign safety profiles. And as a 66 year old currently protected through vaccination against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, tuberculosis, smallpox, influenza, bacterial pneumonia, and tetanus, I'm very favorably inclined to get protection from COVID ASAP.

There is a beautiful irony in the logic of Covid deniers like Charlie and a few of his disciples here. Covid exposure is both benign enough to forget masks, social distancing etc, yet WAY too dangerous to get a strand of its mRNA to immunise yourself against. Pick one. So hilarious to read some of these.

Average cost for FDA approval in the US - $19 million.

Average development cost for new drug which is subsequently approved - $2 to $3 billion.

The rapidity of development shouldn't impact on the decision making process here, the money is being spent.

Further there are longer-term effects forecast for Covid-19 due to it being a blood disorder. Blood clots are a severe symptom.

Get one in the brain or heart and it's GG. Get it in the lungs and it's ventilator time.

As it stands right now up to 40% of people are saying they will not be availing of a vaccine.

Yeah this is the big one. The blood vessel damage from Covid-19 could flare up in people at any point in the future.

That's if we can even verify the underlying cause on a brain embolism in 2030.

Time taken to decode the human genome first time around - 10 years.

Cost - $3 billion.

They worked on this vaccine for nearly a decade. The coronavirus causing COVID is in the same family as related coronaviruses causing SARS and MERS. The development of the COVID vaccines occurred so quickly in large part because prior work on SARS and MERS, such as by the Vaccine Research Center in Dr. Fauci's branch of the NIH, discovered the spike protein was the achilles heel of the virus family, and customized a way to use molecular genetics to engineer it for human production of antibodies that would neutralize it and prevent the virus from replicating.

Because of the prior years of work, it only took Moderna two days to design their RNA vaccine, once the gene sequence of the virus causing COVID was made public on January 11.

+100

This makes it sound like an RNA vaccine is when they give you the Really Nasty Autism vaccine or something.

As namsigr11 was saying above, there are priors in place here from parallel vaccine development/studies that make this comparison less straightforward.

I'll risk the sore arm.

Sick burn. Someone living in a house that doesn't feel the need to buy new **** to replace fully functional things already there.

You got him good.

Many many many of the world's best scientists say take the vaccine.

ForgotmyPW and Charlie Carrel say don't.

I will take the vaccine.