Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

It will be interesting to see how long the Covidians hold on to their worthless totems both as a sign of ritual purity and magical protection.

---

Coviphiles are frantically re-writing history, burying their own absurd predictions, and inventing ridiculous arguments to attribute to their opponents. Your friend Canon is among the most active of the revisionists.

---

Sam, I don't know how we missed it at the time. Are you magnetized? Can you interface with 5G towers?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/09/sherri-tenpenny-magnetized-vaccine-ohio/
A doctor falsely told lawmakers vaccines magnetize people: 'They can put a key on their forehead. It sticks.'

Sherri Tenpenny, a Cleveland-based doctor, falsely told Ohio lawmakers that coronavirus vaccines could magnetize people during an Ohio House hearing on June 8. (The Ohio Channel)

June 9, 2021 at 7:18 a.m. EDT

Sherri Tenpenny, a Cleveland-based doctor invited as an expert witness Tuesday to a hearing in the Ohio House, had a grave warning for legislators about coronavirus vaccines.

The anti-vaccination advocate known for spreading unfounded claims falsely told legislators that the drugs could leave people "magnetized."

"I'm sure you've seen the pictures all over the Internet of people who have had these shots and now they're magnetized," Tenpenny said."They can put a key on their forehead. It sticks. They can put spoons and forks all over them and they can stick, because now we think that there's a metal piece to that."

Her baseless remarks which also suggested that vaccines "interface" with 5G cellular towers didn't elicit strong pushback from legislators, who were listening to testimony in favor of a bill that would prevent businesses or the government from requiring proof of vaccination.

Instead, some GOP representatives thanked Tenpenny for testifying in front of the Ohio House Health Committee, with one praising a podcast she hosts as "enlightening in terms of thinking."

"What an honor to have you here," said Rep. Jennifer L. Gross (R), a nurse who co-sponsored the bill and in a previous meeting compared businesses that require vaccinations to the Holocaust.

Tenpenny's testimony, which has since gone viral, came a day after the Ohio Department of Health hosted a news conference where doctors dispelled vaccine misinformation. As a significant number of Republicans continue to resist the vaccines, GOP lawmakers in Ohio have pushed back against Gov. Mike DeWine's campaign to increase the state's vaccination numbers through efforts including a $1 million lottery.

More than 41 percent of Ohioans are fully vaccinated, according to data compiled by The Washington Post. In the past week, the state's 7-day average vaccination rate has fallen 17 percent.

Tenpenny, an osteopathic doctor and the author of "Saying No to Vaccines," told The Post that she stands by her testimony, which included other false claims, including that more than 5,000 people had died in the United States as a result of the vaccines. (In fact, The Post's Fact Checker recently reported, no deaths in the United States have been proved to be a result of the coronavirus vaccines.)

"I do believe greatly that people should have a choice on what gets injected to their bodies because once you have injected it you can't uninject it," Tenpenny told The Post.

At the Tuesday meeting, Tenpenny also claimed the vaccines somehow connected to 5G, a next-generation technology that has been at the center of many coronavirus conspiracy theories.

"There's been people who have long suspected that there's been some sort of an interface, 'yet to be defined' interface, between what's being injected in these shots and all of the 5G towers," she said a claim roundly rejected by experts.

Although most lawmakers refrained from asking Tenpenny questions about her sources of information and credentials during her Tuesday testimony, some did attempt to push back.

"Of the five-and-a-half million Ohioans who have gotten the covid-19 vaccine shot through today or the last six months, how many do you believe have been killed by that shot?" asked Rep. Brian Stewart (R).

"So, I don't know," Tenpenny replied.

There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.

---

You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.

---

Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.

---

You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.

---

Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.

---

LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.

I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.

---

Exactly how was the definition changed?

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.

---

You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.

---

Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.

---

LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.

I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.

---

I suppose you haven't actually checked the CDC or Merriam-Webster.

Monsters.

The LAT editorial board: "As we’ve noted before, kids are now used to wearing masks and seldom complain." pic.twitter.com/3JtnMh40v8

— Tom Bevan (@TomBevanRCP) February 15, 2022

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.

---

You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.

---

Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.

---

LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.

I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.

---

Exactly how was the definition changed?

---

Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.

---

I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.

---

You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.

---

Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.

---

LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.

I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.

---

Exactly how was the definition changed?

---

Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.

---

I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.

---

He doesn't know. Must be getting 5G interference

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.

---

You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.

---

Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.

---

LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.

I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.

---

Exactly how was the definition changed?

---

Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.

---

I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.

---

Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.

---

One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."

The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."

INBOX: pic.twitter.com/ytvAKu4b0r

— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) February 15, 2022

Cobretti said:

---

INBOX: pic.twitter.com/ytvAKu4b0r

— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) February 15, 2022

---

The Super Bowl should mark the end of Covid. If 70k people can congregate without a mask, then it's over.

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.

---

You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.

---

Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.

---

LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.

I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.

---

Exactly how was the definition changed?

---

Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.

---

I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.

---

Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.

---

One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."

The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."

---

Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.

The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.

https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity

---

LOL

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.

---

You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.

---

Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.

---

LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.

I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.

---

Exactly how was the definition changed?

---

Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.

---

I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.

---

Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.

---

One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."

The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."

---

Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.

The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.

https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity

---

1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."

2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.

---

You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.

---

Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.

---

LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.

I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.

---

Exactly how was the definition changed?

---

Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.

---

I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.

---

Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.

---

One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."

The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."

---

Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.

The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.

https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity

---

1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."

2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.

---

And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?

The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.

---

Inexplicably changed? Not really. When you have people start to get worked up over the definition of vaccine and immunity and the like, you might need to explain it a little better.

And, no, not all vaccines provide long term immunity. It is not "the fact of the matter."

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.

---

You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.

---

Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.

---

LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.

I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.

---

Exactly how was the definition changed?

---

Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.

---

I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.

---

Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.

---

One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."

The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."

---

Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.

The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.

https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity

---

1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."

2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.

---

And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?

The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.

---

Inexplicably changed? Not really. When you have people start to get worked up over the definition of vaccine and immunity and the like, you might need to explain it a little better.

And, no, not all vaccines provide long term immunity. It is not "the fact of the matter."

---

List vaccines that don't provide long term immunity. Let's see.

---

Only one is required to show that "long term immunity" is not a necessary element of the definition of a vaccine.

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.

---

You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.

---

Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.

---

LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.

I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.

---

Exactly how was the definition changed?

---

Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.

---

I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.

---

Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.

---

One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."

The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."

---

Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.

The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.

https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity

---

1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."

2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.

---

And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?

The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.

---

Inexplicably changed? Not really. When you have people start to get worked up over the definition of vaccine and immunity and the like, you might need to explain it a little better.

And, no, not all vaccines provide long term immunity. It is not "the fact of the matter."

---

List vaccines that don't provide long term immunity. Let's see.

---

Only one is required to show that "long term immunity" is not a necessary element of the definition of a vaccine.

---

If you change the definition. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!

The left has been I. The business of changing definitions in the last few years to fix their failed arguments. See Racism. This is just another in the list.

---

No, there have been vaccines for decades that do not have long term immunity.

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.

---

You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.

---

Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.

---

LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.

I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.

---

Exactly how was the definition changed?

---

Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.

---

I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.

---

Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.

---

One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."

The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."

---

Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.

The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.

https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity

---

1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."

2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.

---

And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?

The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.

---

Inexplicably changed? Not really. When you have people start to get worked up over the definition of vaccine and immunity and the like, you might need to explain it a little better.

And, no, not all vaccines provide long term immunity. It is not "the fact of the matter."

---

List vaccines that don't provide long term immunity. Let's see.

---

Only one is required to show that "long term immunity" is not a necessary element of the definition of a vaccine.

---

If you change the definition. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!

The left has been I. The business of changing definitions in the last few years to fix their failed arguments. See Racism. This is just another in the list.

---

No, there have been vaccines for decades that do not have long term immunity.

---

Name them. Give us the list of vaccines that don't give immunity (as this one doesn't), either long term or short term.

---

This one does provide some immunity, but we were discussing the length of immunity. The flu shot comes to mind, which has to be redone every year and it's effectiveness varies widely. It's still a vaccine, and that is really the only example needed to demonstrate that the whole uproar among vaccine detractors about the definition of a vaccine is pretty pointless. If you would like another example, consider the cholera vaccine once a popular requirement for travel to any variety of countries. (Not sure if it still is). It lasted six months. They used to give it to people at some airports. The "fact of the matter" is that not all vaccines provide long term immunity, and this was the case long before any "changes" to the definition of a vaccine.

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.

---

You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.

---

Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.

---

LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.

I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.

---

Exactly how was the definition changed?

---

Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.

---

I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.

---

Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.

---

One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."

The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."

---

Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.

The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.

https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity

---

1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."

2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.

---

And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?

The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.

---

Inexplicably changed? Not really. When you have people start to get worked up over the definition of vaccine and immunity and the like, you might need to explain it a little better.

And, no, not all vaccines provide long term immunity. It is not "the fact of the matter."

---

List vaccines that don't provide long term immunity. Let's see.

---

Only one is required to show that "long term immunity" is not a necessary element of the definition of a vaccine.

---

If you change the definition. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!

The left has been I. The business of changing definitions in the last few years to fix their failed arguments. See Racism. This is just another in the list.

---

No, there have been vaccines for decades that do not have long term immunity.

---

Name them. Give us the list of vaccines that don't give immunity (as this one doesn't), either long term or short term.

---

This one does provide some immunity, but we were discussing the length of immunity. The flu shot comes to mind, which has to be redone every year and it's effectiveness varies widely. It's still a vaccine, and that is really the only example needed to demonstrate that the whole uproar among vaccine detractors about the definition of a vaccine is pretty pointless. If you would like another example, consider the cholera vaccine once a popular requirement for travel to any variety of countries. (Not sure if it still is). It lasted six months. They used to give it to people at some airports. The "fact of the matter" is that not all vaccines provide long term immunity, and this was the case long before any "changes" to the definition of a vaccine.

---

Hold on. How much immunity? Quantify it. You can't. And because you can't, it's not legitimate to say it provides immunity. It's a man made global warming argument.

I'll leave the rest of what you wrote until you effectively address this.

And still waiting on you to give us the list of vaccines that don't give immunity (as this one doesn't), either long term or short term.

---

I gave you two examples, which is one more than what is needed to demonstrate the point.

Quantify immunity to what?

DEPARTMENT OF LOGICAL FALLACIES
1) Makes policies for Alpha/Delta that turn out to be insufficient for Omicron (2 mnths) look retrospectively bad.
2) Pbms is NOT masks: Omicron is vastly more contagious than Delta.
3) Conflates doesn't work w/insufficient.https://t.co/VuIStd0PiA

— Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb) February 13, 2022

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.

---

You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.

---

Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.

---

LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.

I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.

---

Exactly how was the definition changed?

---

Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.

---

I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.

---

Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.

---

One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."

The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."

---

Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.

The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.

https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity

---

1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."

2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.

---

And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?

The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.

---

Inexplicably changed? Not really. When you have people start to get worked up over the definition of vaccine and immunity and the like, you might need to explain it a little better.

And, no, not all vaccines provide long term immunity. It is not "the fact of the matter."

---

List vaccines that don't provide long term immunity. Let's see.

---

Only one is required to show that "long term immunity" is not a necessary element of the definition of a vaccine.

---

If you change the definition. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!

The left has been I. The business of changing definitions in the last few years to fix their failed arguments. See Racism. This is just another in the list.

---

No, there have been vaccines for decades that do not have long term immunity.

---

Name them. Give us the list of vaccines that don't give immunity (as this one doesn't), either long term or short term.

---

This one does provide some immunity, but we were discussing the length of immunity. The flu shot comes to mind, which has to be redone every year and it's effectiveness varies widely. It's still a vaccine, and that is really the only example needed to demonstrate that the whole uproar among vaccine detractors about the definition of a vaccine is pretty pointless. If you would like another example, consider the cholera vaccine once a popular requirement for travel to any variety of countries. (Not sure if it still is). It lasted six months. They used to give it to people at some airports. The "fact of the matter" is that not all vaccines provide long term immunity, and this was the case long before any "changes" to the definition of a vaccine.

---

Hold on. How much immunity? Quantify it. You can't. And because you can't, it's not legitimate to say it provides immunity. It's a man made global warming argument.

I'll leave the rest of what you wrote until you effectively address this.

And still waiting on you to give us the list of vaccines that don't give immunity (as this one doesn't), either long term or short term.

---

I gave you two examples, which is one more than what is needed to demonstrate the point.

Quantify immunity to what?

---

Quantify immunity to the disease the so called vaccine provides immunity to. It appears to be zero with Covid.

Why did the definition of vaccine change?

---

1. It does not appear to be zero with COVID.

2. What a vaccine is didn't actually change. A vaccine is still something given to generate an immune response so that when an organism encounters a particular pathogen it is able to respond more effectively to that pathogen.

And I have provided sufficient proof that a vaccine does not need to provide long term immunity to meet the definition of a vaccine. You should simply concede that you were mistaken, but you are probably psychologically unable to do so.

jupiter said:

---

DEPARTMENT OF LOGICAL FALLACIES
1) Makes policies for Alpha/Delta that turn out to be insufficient for Omicron (2 mnths) look retrospectively bad.
2) Pbms is NOT masks: Omicron is vastly more contagious than Delta.
3) Conflates doesn't work w/insufficient.https://t.co/VuIStd0PiA

— Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb) February 13, 2022

---

Taleb is lost, What a terrible argument when mask mandates didn't work on Alpha or Delta either. He's still clinging to the idea of zero COVID. That's as whacked out of an idea as COVID being a hoax.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.

---

You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.

---

Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.

---

LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.

I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.

---

Exactly how was the definition changed?

---

Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.

---

I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.

---

Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.

---

One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."

The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."

---

Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.

The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.

https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity

---

1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."

2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.

---

And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?

The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.

---

Inexplicably changed? Not really. When you have people start to get worked up over the definition of vaccine and immunity and the like, you might need to explain it a little better.

And, no, not all vaccines provide long term immunity. It is not "the fact of the matter."

---

List vaccines that don't provide long term immunity. Let's see.

---

Only one is required to show that "long term immunity" is not a necessary element of the definition of a vaccine.

---

If you change the definition. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!

The left has been I. The business of changing definitions in the last few years to fix their failed arguments. See Racism. This is just another in the list.

---

No, there have been vaccines for decades that do not have long term immunity.

---

Name them. Give us the list of vaccines that don't give immunity (as this one doesn't), either long term or short term.

---

This one does provide some immunity, but we were discussing the length of immunity. The flu shot comes to mind, which has to be redone every year and it's effectiveness varies widely. It's still a vaccine, and that is really the only example needed to demonstrate that the whole uproar among vaccine detractors about the definition of a vaccine is pretty pointless. If you would like another example, consider the cholera vaccine once a popular requirement for travel to any variety of countries. (Not sure if it still is). It lasted six months. They used to give it to people at some airports. The "fact of the matter" is that not all vaccines provide long term immunity, and this was the case long before any "changes" to the definition of a vaccine.

---