Catsnmeters
Gold Member
- Sep 19, 2022
- 13,427
- 5,191
- 208
I do want to see what went wrong with the true vaccine.Aw c'mon, you know you really want to. The hate is real!
Don't you?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I do want to see what went wrong with the true vaccine.Aw c'mon, you know you really want to. The hate is real!
Experimental drug and we were the experimentModerna Scientists Warn mRNA Vaccines Carry Toxicity Risks
Certain techniques should be used to reduce the risks, scientists say.www.theepochtimes.com
Mainstream science mulls 'global moratorium' on COVID vaccines as cancers rise, boosters flub
Publisher of Nature and Scientific American platforms COVID vaccine skeptics. CDC drafted alert about post-vaccination heart inflammation early in rollout but feared looking "alarmist," emails suggest.justthenews.com
“Calling for governments to enact a "global moratorium" on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could have been a death sentence for a scientist's career not long ago. Now it opens the door to a prestigious science publisher.
The Springer Nature medical journal Cureus, sibling to Nature and Scientific American, published a peer-reviewed paper by high-profile mRNA vaccine critics last month, showing the growing mainstream openness to data and arguments once nitpicked if not ignored by publishers and suppressed by academia and Big Tech.
The feds have struggled to keep interest high in each new formulation of the COVID vaccines, with fewer than 12% of minors, 22% of adults and just 41% of those 65 and up taking the 2023-2024 vaccines, according to the latest weekly National Immunization Survey.”
ONLY 22% of adults are getting the latest jab? Why? Why did the COVID VAX CULT stop getting the vax?
Its safe and effective, RIGHT?
You have changed 85 words in last 4 years. There was a running tally thread that censors scrubbed awayNot sure about your leftist conspiracy but thanks for admitting I was right.
That isn't the real definition but feel free to use a definition that claims vaccines are 100 percent effective when none are.I'll follow the real definition, the one that's been in practice since the day they were invented.
They are only vaccines because they gutted the old definition. Under the older definition, which was more scientifically rigorous, your covid "vaccines" are not vaccines.
Why do you think it's more accurate now?
The old definition does.I never said vaccines have to be 100 % effective in order to be called vaccines. My point is that covid "vaccines" do not offer protection against Covid and instead merely manage symptoms, which disqualifies it from a true vaccine.
No vaccine gives 100 percent immunity.By definition, they aren't. A real vaccine gives immunity against disease. These mRNA injections don't prevent disease.
What 85 words did I change?You have changed 85 words in last 4 years. There was a running tally thread that censors scrubbed away
The old definition didn't say a vaccine had to be 100 % effective in order to be a vaccine.Under the old definition, no vaccine is a vaccine.
Because it reflects the fact that no vaccine provides 100 percent immunity.
The old definition does.
No vaccine is 100 percent effective.
He didn't say a vaccine needs to be 100% effective. He said it has to give immunity against disease. However, he didn't say this immunity needs to be 100%.No vaccine gives 100 percent immunity.
That is why the definition changed.
“the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”The old definition didn't say a vaccine had to be 100 % effective in order to be a vaccine.
If you claim it did, you need to prove it.
The old definition used the word immunity.He didn't say a vaccine needs to be 100% effective. He said it has to give immunity against disease. However, he didn't say this immunity needs to be 100%.
Experimental drug and we were the experiment
It was correct.The old definition used the word immunity.
That is not accurate.
The old definition didn't say a vaccine had to be 100 % effective in order to be a vaccine.
If you claim it did, you need to prove it.
Go find where the censors sent it to. It was in Current Events for three week and a roving non participant modsor moved itWhat 85 words did I change?
Worse-forced into itNOT even compensated for being a guinea pig.
Tried to sell that compulsory meant optionalThey literally changed the definition of VACCINE so they could use the Emergency Act and profit billions for Pharma.
Tried to sell that compulsory meant optional
It's not my new definition.It was correct.
Immunity does not mean 100 %.
Your new definition doesn't work because saying that something provides "protection" against a disease is too loosely defined. It is so broad that it can be applied to all kinds of things. For example, Neo Citran relieves some symptoms of covid, therefore, according to your new definition, Neo citran is a covid vaccine.