The POLITICS of the vaccine…now Moderna scientists warn that mRNA vaccines carry toxicity risks

[Catsnmeters]

I didn't say you came up with it. But you do support it, don't you?

Support may be to strong if a word. Unlike you, I am pretty indifferent regarding the subtle changes.

I would say I acknowledge it's change and acknowledge their authority to do so.

If something you support has been proven to be bogus, then the only thing left for you to do is to admit you are wrong, and then stop giving it your support.

You said yourself that immunity doesn't mean it provides 100 percent effectiveness so what do you think is the difference is between protection and immunity?

Then you should eschew the new definition, which I have shown you to be faulty.

Your opinion is not proof of a faulty definition.

 

[Catsnmeters]

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.

The new definition of vaccine...

“a preparation or immunotherapy that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against noninfectious substances, agents, or diseases”

Does Neo Citran work by stimulating a body's immune response against noninfectious substances, agents, or diseases?

I think the answer is no, so your example is faulty.

 

[MayorQuimby]

The new definition of vaccine...

“a preparation or immunotherapy that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against noninfectious substances, agents, or diseases”

Does Neo Citran work by stimulating a body's immune response against noninfectious substances, agents, or diseases?

I think the answer is no, so your example is faulty.

My example might not be perfect, however it's just an example. My argument still stands. Saying that anything that gives protection against a disease is automatically vaccine is a very poor definition, because it can be applied to a lot of things that under a more rigorous definition would not be called vaccines.

I will try and give another example. I am sure you have heard of flu shots. They fit your definition in the sense that they are a preparation or immunotherapy that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against noninfectious substances, agents, or diseases. Yet, the flu shots aren't called flu vaccines, and it's because despite the protection they give us, they don't provide true immunity. Hence they are not true vaccines. And incidentally, this is also why they are called flu shots, not flu vaccines. By the same argument, your covid shots are mere shots, not true vaccines.

 

[MayorQuimby]

Support may be to strong if a word. Unlike you, I am pretty indifferent regarding the subtle changes.

Maybe you should simply admit that you fell for their sleazy attempt at changing the definition instead of making it sound like I am some kind of zealot.

I would say I acknowledge it's change and acknowledge their authority to do so.

I think you do more than just acknowledge. You were pretty gung-ho to convince everyone that your covid shots are true vaccines.

Also, why do you acknowledge their authority? I just showed you the new definition is faulty. You should be demanding them to change it back.

You said yourself that immunity doesn't mean it provides 100 percent effectiveness so what do you think is the difference is between protection and immunity?

This is a fair question. And it requires more than just laypersons like us to arrive on a conclusion. But one thing I do know is that the changing of the old definition is agenda-driven. It has nothing to do with science. So when you say that the new definition is more accurate, it is actually political. Such a change does not involve updating the definition to reflect improvements in scientific knowledge like you claim it does.

Your opinion is not proof of a faulty definition.

I am sorry but not surprised to hear that you cannot tell opinion and logic apart.

 

[Catsnmeters]

My example might not be perfect, however it's just an example. My argument still stands. Saying that anything that gives protection against a disease is automatically vaccine is a very poor definition, because it can be applied to a lot of things that under a more rigorous definition would not be called vaccines.

We do have a mutual disconnect here.

The definition of vaccine does not include "protection", the definition of vaccination does.

I will try and give another example. I am sure you have heard of flu shots. They fit your definition in the sense that they are a preparation or immunotherapy that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against noninfectious substances, agents, or diseases. Yet, the flu shots aren't called flu vaccines, and it's because despite the protection they give us, they don't provide true immunity. Hence they are not true vaccines. And incidentally, this is also why they are called flu shots, not flu vaccines. By the same argument, your covid shots are mere shots, not true vaccines.

"Influenza (flu) vaccines (often called “flu shots”) are vaccines that protect against the four influenza viruses that research indicates will be most common during the upcoming season. Most flu vaccines are “flu shots” given with a needle, usually in the arm, but there also is a nasal spray flu vaccine"

Seasonal Flu Vaccines | CDC

Flu shot info including recommended groups, effectiveness and flu-like symptoms - CDC

www.cdc.gov

 

[MayorQuimby]

We do have a mutual disconnect here.

The definition of vaccine does not include "protection", the definition of vaccination does.

So what is your definition of vaccine? If the word "protection" is not a part of the definition then any preparation or immunotherapy that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against noninfectious substances, agents, or diseases will be a vaccine even if it doesn't offer protection to a disease.

"Influenza (flu) vaccines (often called “flu shots”) are vaccines that protect against the four influenza viruses that research indicates will be most common during the upcoming season. Most flu vaccines are “flu shots” given with a needle, usually in the arm, but there also is a nasal spray flu vaccine"

Seasonal Flu Vaccines | CDC

Flu shot info including recommended groups, effectiveness and flu-like symptoms - CDC

www.cdc.gov

I do not believe anything the CDC says. Do you have an authority that is more reliable?

Further, the thing you quoted actually has the word "protect". But you were just saying that protection is not part of the definition for vaccine. I think you are contradicting yourself big time,

 

[Catsnmeters]

So what is your definition of vaccine? If the word "protection" is not a part of the definition then any preparation or immunotherapy that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against noninfectious substances, agents, or diseases will be a vaccine even if it doesn't offer protection to a disease.

I was using this as a source.

“Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.”

The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.””

The Meaning of Vaccine Is the Same as It Was in 1796, Regardless of Online Conspiracy Theories

History of Vaccines is an educational resource by the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, one of the oldest professional medical organizations in the US.

historyofvaccines.org

I do not believe anything the CDC says. Do you have an authority that is more reliable?

Further, the thing you quoted actually has the word "protect". But you were just saying that protection is not part of the definition for vaccine. I think you are contradicting yourself big time,

It isn't. See above.

 

[MayorQuimby]

I was using this as a source.

“Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.”

The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.””

The Meaning of Vaccine Is the Same as It Was in 1796, Regardless of Online Conspiracy Theories

History of Vaccines is an educational resource by the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, one of the oldest professional medical organizations in the US.

historyofvaccines.org

It isn't. See above.

The CDC's new definition essentially means that any preparation that does something to stimulate the body's immune response is a vaccine, regardless of whether it actually protects the recipient from a disease.

You see, this is the reason why I don't trust anything the CDC says.

 

[skye]

There is a reason it was called "Poison Jab" since day one.

 

[skye]

Experimental drug and we were the experiment

That's exactly right! ^^^

 

[jknowgood]

The Trump vaccine keeps on a hitting.

Trump needs to be held accountable.

Did you get the vaccine?

 

[jknowgood]

I didn't say anything about charges. Are you confused?

If his vaccine is killing people he should be subpeanad so we can figure where he went wrong.

Was it throwing socialist money at big pharma?

Was it ignoring Fauci's advice on EUAs?

Was it bullying his own agencies to fast track his vaccine because he had an election to win?

All three?

No, at the time everyone was demanding a vaccine, and Trump pulled the legal battles for it to be produced in record time. The vaccine was produced in record time by the pharmaceutical companies. Trump either way was doomed. So everyone gets what they deserves, I didn't get one shot, so I'm good.

 

[sparky]

First Covid vaccine side-effect claims land in German courts

Vaccine-maker BioNTech faced Monday its first legal claim in its home country of Germany over adverse effects allegedly suffered by some users of its Covid vaccines, more than two years after one of…

www.france24.com

Pfizer, Moderna Sued Over MRNA Tech In COVID Vaccines - Law360

Biotech company Promosome LLC on Tuesday sued Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna in California federal court, alleging the trio's COVID-19 vaccines infringe a patent related to messenger RNA technology that helps teach the body's immune system to recognize and attack disease-causing viruses.

www.law360.com

Johnson & Johnson – Products, Recalls, Lawsuits & Scandals

Health care giant Johnson & Johnson has been named in more than 100,000 lawsuits, including claims against talcum powder and metal-on-metal hips.

www.drugwatch.com

~S~

 

[MayorQuimby]

I didn't get one shot, so I'm good.

Same here. No jabs and proud of it.

 

[Catsnmeters]

The CDC's new definition essentially means that any preparation that does something to stimulate the body's immune response is a vaccine, regardless of whether it actually protects the recipient from a disease.

How does that really differ from the old definition?

You see, this is the reason why I don't trust anything the CDC says.

You yourself said that "immunity" did not mean a vaccination was 100 percent effective...and I was surprised to see you were correct.

Given that info, what do you think the distinction is bt "protected" and "immunity"?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Did you get the vaccine?

Yes.

I also got one booster. Got COVID two times but it wasn't that bad either time.

I don't plan to get another booster at this time and I never get flu shots.

I got the shingles vaccine and I also got the anthrax series...was 5 or 6 shots if I remember right, since I was active duty military at the time it was required.

 

[Catsnmeters]

No, at the time everyone was demanding a vaccine, and Trump pulled the legal battles for it to be produced in record time.

Yes. He did well on that point. He did however tweet at one point that his agencies were slow walking the vaccine because he had an election to win... paraphrasing.

The vaccine was produced in record time by the pharmaceutical companies.

Yes and the millions of socialist money Trump threw at them helped.

Trump either way was doomed. So everyone gets what they deserves, I didn't get one shot, so I'm good.

I disagree. Trump would have had the election in the bag if he would been even moderately competent with COVID...in my humble opinion.

His lies, mixed messages and politicizing of the vaccine/virus contributed to his downfall.

 

[MayorQuimby]

How does that really differ from the old definition?


You yourself said that "immunity" did not mean a vaccination was 100 percent effective...and I was surprised to see you were correct.

Given that info, what do you think the distinction is bt "protected" and "immunity"?

Well it's like I said, it's a fair question. I don't have an answer to that because I am not a scientist. However one thing I do know is that the CDC's new definition for vaccine is painfully inadequate. It doesn't require a preparation to offer protection against a disease, which just goes completely against our perception of what a vaccine should be.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Do you think that it was a coincidence that this comes out around the time of the interest in the Supreme Court case and the 'Special' biased ringer Counsel on Bribem Classified docs? LOLOL Really?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Maybe the shot made Biden senile.