He was an NHS surgeon for 30 years and how you can say he has no specialist knowledge is incredible.

He's hardly on his own and as he says in the video, there are clauses in contracts that forbid working staff from speaking out against the policies of their employers. I really don't like it when this impression is given that there is widespread consensus on A or B when actually the truth on that is obscured.

You obviously haven't watched the video. I wouldn't even say that the guy is anti vaccine, the video is far more nuanced than that.

You're too up yourself Maple.

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Dec 2021 4.38pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Hmmm. Did you notice who created that poster?

I got bored after 15 seconds.

Natural immunity has been factually proven to be more effective than any vaccine and that poster deliberately obscured that fact.

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Dec 2021 4.42pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

He said natural immunity after catching Covid is WAY stronger than from vaccination. Not only is that untrue, it is also the case that responses are radically different to catching Covid but relatively predictable after vaccination. Many immune systems over-react dangerously whilst some don’t react enough when you catch Covid.

The ZOE COVID Study, last month, found that vaccines offer greater protection against COVID-19 than natural antibodies.

It found that an unvaccinated person with a previous COVID-19 infection has around 65 per cent protection against catching it again. But that two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine gave 71 per cent protection against infection, and two doses of the Pfizer vaccine gave 87 per cent protection.

This week, they’ve published further data. Between April and August 2021, they invited thousands of people who had logged a positive COVID-19 test to do an antibody test at home.

Of the 8,193 contributors who tested positive, 80.67 per cent had ‘anti-N’ antibodies. But that meant that one in five people didn’t have the antibodies, and could therefore be at greater risk of getting infected again.

Their conclusion is that while being infected with coronavirus can provide some level of antibody protection, it’s not guaranteed for everyone, and that the level of protection it gives is lower than the protection that the vaccines provide.

Some certainly watched that video. Some of those insults are coming from those who normally support you.

That someone is qualified in one discipline, which they are passionate about, doesn't make them an expert in others or qualified to make overall judgements.

It's not new that people expect others to play their part and not think just of themselves, whatever their personal reservations may be. This has been the case ever since people started to live in communities. The idea that this is a "newly developed" vaccine is, in any case, incorrect. It is soundly based on well understood and well tested science. It also has the benefit of a huge testing programme and extensive real use experience. That it saves lives, and not costs them, is beyond dispute.

Those with dodgy shoulders need the NHS functioning well as soon as possible. Vaccination for all will help that. So help yourself.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Actually it isn't.

Yours continues to be the 'argumentum ad hominem' fallacy...rather amusing considering your past words....to which you have added an argument from authority fallacy.

Basically you're so full of fallacy you might just need a fallacy enema.

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Dec 2021 7.09pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)