D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

Impossible. I was told they were "experts."

---

The vast majority of those dying from COVID right now are elderly. The vast majority of the elderly are vaccinated. You don't have to be an "expert" in anything beyond 7th grade math (maybe earlier) to see that it is not only possible but inevitable that most of those dying from COVID would be vaccinated.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

Impossible. I was told they were "experts."

---

The vast majority of those dying from COVID right now are elderly. The vast majority of the elderly are vaccinated. You don't have to be an "expert" in anything beyond 7th grade math (maybe earlier) to see that it is not only possible but inevitable that most of those dying from COVID would be vaccinated.

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

Different issue. The efficacy of the flu vaccine is a driven by which flu virus is most prevalent - if "experts" guessed right then it will be fine but if not it won't be effective.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

All the other vaccines I listed are SO much more effective, that calling this Covid jab a vaccine is an insult to vaccines.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

All the other vaccines I listed are SO much more effective, that calling this Covid jab a vaccine is an insult to vaccines.

---

Whether something is a vaccine or not is not dependent on its efficacy against a particular variant of a virus. Words have meanings. One is no more correct in pretending that a vaccine isn't a vaccine than one is in pretending that a woman isn't a woman or a man isn't a man.

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

All the other vaccines I listed are SO much more effective, that calling this Covid jab a vaccine is an insult to vaccines.

---

Whether something is a vaccine or not is not dependent on its efficacy against a particular variant of a virus. Words have meanings. One is no more correct in pretending that a vaccine isn't a vaccine than one is in pretending that a woman isn't a woman or a man isn't a man.

---

A vaccine used to be a weakened or dead pathogen introduced to the body to trigger an immune response. Not sure who's pretending at this point.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

All the other vaccines I listed are SO much more effective, that calling this Covid jab a vaccine is an insult to vaccines.

---

Whether something is a vaccine or not is not dependent on its efficacy against a particular variant of a virus. Words have meanings. One is no more correct in pretending that a vaccine isn't a vaccine than one is in pretending that a woman isn't a woman or a man isn't a man.

---

A vaccine used to be a weakened or dead pathogen introduced to the body to trigger an immune response. Not sure who's pretending at this point.

---

A vaccine used to be a totally different pathogen introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen, thus the name "vaccine."

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

All the other vaccines I listed are SO much more effective, that calling this Covid jab a vaccine is an insult to vaccines.

---

Whether something is a vaccine or not is not dependent on its efficacy against a particular variant of a virus. Words have meanings. One is no more correct in pretending that a vaccine isn't a vaccine than one is in pretending that a woman isn't a woman or a man isn't a man.

---

A vaccine used to be a weakened or dead pathogen introduced to the body to trigger an immune response. Not sure who's pretending at this point.

---

A vaccine used to be a totally different pathogen introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen, thus the name "vaccine."

---

No, sir. The polio vaccine was made from a dead or attenuated polio virus. The flu shot is a dead or attenuated influenza virus. Whooping cough contained the pertussis bacteria. You don't get a vaccine for polio by injecting a separate, totally different pathogen into the body.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

All the other vaccines I listed are SO much more effective, that calling this Covid jab a vaccine is an insult to vaccines.

---

Whether something is a vaccine or not is not dependent on its efficacy against a particular variant of a virus. Words have meanings. One is no more correct in pretending that a vaccine isn't a vaccine than one is in pretending that a woman isn't a woman or a man isn't a man.

---

A vaccine used to be a weakened or dead pathogen introduced to the body to trigger an immune response. Not sure who's pretending at this point.

---

A vaccine used to be a totally different pathogen introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen, thus the name "vaccine."

---

No, sir. The polio vaccine was made from a dead or attenuated polio virus. The flu shot is a dead or attenuated influenza virus. Whooping cough contained the pertussis bacteria. You don't get a vaccine for polio by injecting a separate, totally different pathogen into the body.

---

Where do you think the name "vaccine" came from?

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

All the other vaccines I listed are SO much more effective, that calling this Covid jab a vaccine is an insult to vaccines.

---

Whether something is a vaccine or not is not dependent on its efficacy against a particular variant of a virus. Words have meanings. One is no more correct in pretending that a vaccine isn't a vaccine than one is in pretending that a woman isn't a woman or a man isn't a man.

---

A vaccine used to be a weakened or dead pathogen introduced to the body to trigger an immune response. Not sure who's pretending at this point.

---

A vaccine used to be a totally different pathogen introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen, thus the name "vaccine."

---

No, sir. The polio vaccine was made from a dead or attenuated polio virus. The flu shot is a dead or attenuated influenza virus. Whooping cough contained the pertussis bacteria. You don't get a vaccine for polio by injecting a separate, totally different pathogen into the body.

---

Where do you think the name "vaccine" came from?

---

We are talking about what a vaccine has traditionally been. I told you. It does not matter what the etymology of the word is.

Even Washington had his men at Valley Forge stick pus from small pox into the healthy men to prevent them from getting small pox. He did not take some totally different pathogen, introduce it into his men, and hope for a cure for small pox.

Tell me, do you believe that worms spontaneously generate on meat or come from horse hair?

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

All the other vaccines I listed are SO much more effective, that calling this Covid jab a vaccine is an insult to vaccines.

---

Whether something is a vaccine or not is not dependent on its efficacy against a particular variant of a virus. Words have meanings. One is no more correct in pretending that a vaccine isn't a vaccine than one is in pretending that a woman isn't a woman or a man isn't a man.

---

A vaccine used to be a weakened or dead pathogen introduced to the body to trigger an immune response. Not sure who's pretending at this point.

---

A vaccine used to be a totally different pathogen introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen, thus the name "vaccine."

---

No, sir. The polio vaccine was made from a dead or attenuated polio virus. The flu shot is a dead or attenuated influenza virus. Whooping cough contained the pertussis bacteria. You don't get a vaccine for polio by injecting a separate, totally different pathogen into the body.

---

Where do you think the name "vaccine" came from?

---

We are talking about what a vaccine has traditionally been. I told you. It does not matter what the etymology of the word is.

Even Washington had his men at Valley Forge stick pus from small pox into the healthy men to prevent them from getting small pox. He did not take some totally different pathogen, introduce it into his men, and hope for a cure for small pox.

Tell me, do you believe that worms spontaneously generate on meat or come from horse hair?

---

It matters a whole lot where the word came from because where it came from demonstrates that term "vaccine" was used because it was a totally different pathogen was introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen. It shows that from the beginning a vaccine wasn't necessarily made from the pathogen it was designed to protect against. This is grade school level history.

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

All the other vaccines I listed are SO much more effective, that calling this Covid jab a vaccine is an insult to vaccines.

---

Whether something is a vaccine or not is not dependent on its efficacy against a particular variant of a virus. Words have meanings. One is no more correct in pretending that a vaccine isn't a vaccine than one is in pretending that a woman isn't a woman or a man isn't a man.

---

A vaccine used to be a weakened or dead pathogen introduced to the body to trigger an immune response. Not sure who's pretending at this point.

---

A vaccine used to be a totally different pathogen introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen, thus the name "vaccine."

---

No, sir. The polio vaccine was made from a dead or attenuated polio virus. The flu shot is a dead or attenuated influenza virus. Whooping cough contained the pertussis bacteria. You don't get a vaccine for polio by injecting a separate, totally different pathogen into the body.

---

Where do you think the name "vaccine" came from?

---

We are talking about what a vaccine has traditionally been. I told you. It does not matter what the etymology of the word is.

Even Washington had his men at Valley Forge stick pus from small pox into the healthy men to prevent them from getting small pox. He did not take some totally different pathogen, introduce it into his men, and hope for a cure for small pox.

Tell me, do you believe that worms spontaneously generate on meat or come from horse hair?

---

It matters a whole lot where the word came from because where it came from demonstrates that term "vaccine" was used because it was a totally different pathogen was introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen. It shows that from the beginning a vaccine wasn't necessarily made from the pathogen it was designed to protect against. This is grade school level history.

---

DC always wrong, never in doubt. Jonas Salk didn't do it the right way when he used a dead polio virus in his polio vaccine to stop polio. DC would have properly instructed him to use a different pathogen.

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

All the other vaccines I listed are SO much more effective, that calling this Covid jab a vaccine is an insult to vaccines.

---

Whether something is a vaccine or not is not dependent on its efficacy against a particular variant of a virus. Words have meanings. One is no more correct in pretending that a vaccine isn't a vaccine than one is in pretending that a woman isn't a woman or a man isn't a man.

---

A vaccine used to be a weakened or dead pathogen introduced to the body to trigger an immune response. Not sure who's pretending at this point.

---

A vaccine used to be a totally different pathogen introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen, thus the name "vaccine."

---

No, sir. The polio vaccine was made from a dead or attenuated polio virus. The flu shot is a dead or attenuated influenza virus. Whooping cough contained the pertussis bacteria. You don't get a vaccine for polio by injecting a separate, totally different pathogen into the body.

---

Where do you think the name "vaccine" came from?

---

We are talking about what a vaccine has traditionally been. I told you. It does not matter what the etymology of the word is.

Even Washington had his men at Valley Forge stick pus from small pox into the healthy men to prevent them from getting small pox. He did not take some totally different pathogen, introduce it into his men, and hope for a cure for small pox.

Tell me, do you believe that worms spontaneously generate on meat or come from horse hair?

---

It matters a whole lot where the word came from because where it came from demonstrates that term "vaccine" was used because it was a totally different pathogen was introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen. It shows that from the beginning a vaccine wasn't necessarily made from the pathogen it was designed to protect against. This is grade school level history.

---

Jonas Salk didn't do it the right way when he used a dead polio virus in his polio vaccine to stop polio.

---

Canada2017 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

All the other vaccines I listed are SO much more effective, that calling this Covid jab a vaccine is an insult to vaccines.

---

Whether something is a vaccine or not is not dependent on its efficacy against a particular variant of a virus. Words have meanings. One is no more correct in pretending that a vaccine isn't a vaccine than one is in pretending that a woman isn't a woman or a man isn't a man.

---

A vaccine used to be a weakened or dead pathogen introduced to the body to trigger an immune response. Not sure who's pretending at this point.

---

A vaccine used to be a totally different pathogen introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen, thus the name "vaccine."

---

No, sir. The polio vaccine was made from a dead or attenuated polio virus. The flu shot is a dead or attenuated influenza virus. Whooping cough contained the pertussis bacteria. You don't get a vaccine for polio by injecting a separate, totally different pathogen into the body.

---

Where do you think the name "vaccine" came from?

---

We are talking about what a vaccine has traditionally been. I told you. It does not matter what the etymology of the word is.

Even Washington had his men at Valley Forge stick pus from small pox into the healthy men to prevent them from getting small pox. He did not take some totally different pathogen, introduce it into his men, and hope for a cure for small pox.

Tell me, do you believe that worms spontaneously generate on meat or come from horse hair?

---

It matters a whole lot where the word came from because where it came from demonstrates that term "vaccine" was used because it was a totally different pathogen was introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen. It shows that from the beginning a vaccine wasn't necessarily made from the pathogen it was designed to protect against. This is grade school level history.

---

Jonas Salk didn't do it the right way when he used a dead polio virus in his polio vaccine to stop polio.

---

Basically correct .

Jonas Salk's vaccine was inferior to that of Albert Sabin's live vaccine .

Jonas Salk got the lion's share of public adoration .....most elementary history books still read it that way.

But within the scientific community .........Albert Sabin was held in far higher esteem .

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

All the other vaccines I listed are SO much more effective, that calling this Covid jab a vaccine is an insult to vaccines.

---

Whether something is a vaccine or not is not dependent on its efficacy against a particular variant of a virus. Words have meanings. One is no more correct in pretending that a vaccine isn't a vaccine than one is in pretending that a woman isn't a woman or a man isn't a man.

---

A vaccine used to be a weakened or dead pathogen introduced to the body to trigger an immune response. Not sure who's pretending at this point.

---

A vaccine used to be a totally different pathogen introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen, thus the name "vaccine."

---

No, sir. The polio vaccine was made from a dead or attenuated polio virus. The flu shot is a dead or attenuated influenza virus. Whooping cough contained the pertussis bacteria. You don't get a vaccine for polio by injecting a separate, totally different pathogen into the body.

---

Where do you think the name "vaccine" came from?

---

We are talking about what a vaccine has traditionally been. I told you. It does not matter what the etymology of the word is.

Even Washington had his men at Valley Forge stick pus from small pox into the healthy men to prevent them from getting small pox. He did not take some totally different pathogen, introduce it into his men, and hope for a cure for small pox.

Tell me, do you believe that worms spontaneously generate on meat or come from horse hair?

---

It matters a whole lot where the word came from because where it came from demonstrates that term "vaccine" was used because it was a totally different pathogen was introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen. It shows that from the beginning a vaccine wasn't necessarily made from the pathogen it was designed to protect against. This is grade school level history.

---

Jonas Salk didn't do it the right way when he used a dead polio virus in his polio vaccine to stop polio.

---

Basically correct .

Jonas Salk's vaccine was inferior to that of Albert Sabin's live vaccine .

Jonas Salk got the lion's share of public adoration .....most elementary history books still read it that way.

But within the scientific community .........Albert Sabin was held in far higher esteem .

---

Dead or attenuated, it was still a polio virus and not another pathogen.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

All the other vaccines I listed are SO much more effective, that calling this Covid jab a vaccine is an insult to vaccines.

---

Whether something is a vaccine or not is not dependent on its efficacy against a particular variant of a virus. Words have meanings. One is no more correct in pretending that a vaccine isn't a vaccine than one is in pretending that a woman isn't a woman or a man isn't a man.

---

A vaccine used to be a weakened or dead pathogen introduced to the body to trigger an immune response. Not sure who's pretending at this point.

---

A vaccine used to be a totally different pathogen introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen, thus the name "vaccine."

---

No, sir. The polio vaccine was made from a dead or attenuated polio virus. The flu shot is a dead or attenuated influenza virus. Whooping cough contained the pertussis bacteria. You don't get a vaccine for polio by injecting a separate, totally different pathogen into the body.

---

Where do you think the name "vaccine" came from?

---

We are talking about what a vaccine has traditionally been. I told you. It does not matter what the etymology of the word is.

Even Washington had his men at Valley Forge stick pus from small pox into the healthy men to prevent them from getting small pox. He did not take some totally different pathogen, introduce it into his men, and hope for a cure for small pox.

Tell me, do you believe that worms spontaneously generate on meat or come from horse hair?

---

It matters a whole lot where the word came from because where it came from demonstrates that term "vaccine" was used because it was a totally different pathogen was introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen. It shows that from the beginning a vaccine wasn't necessarily made from the pathogen it was designed to protect against. This is grade school level history.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

All the other vaccines I listed are SO much more effective, that calling this Covid jab a vaccine is an insult to vaccines.

---

Whether something is a vaccine or not is not dependent on its efficacy against a particular variant of a virus. Words have meanings. One is no more correct in pretending that a vaccine isn't a vaccine than one is in pretending that a woman isn't a woman or a man isn't a man.

---

A vaccine used to be a weakened or dead pathogen introduced to the body to trigger an immune response. Not sure who's pretending at this point.

---

A vaccine used to be a totally different pathogen introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen, thus the name "vaccine."

---

No, sir. The polio vaccine was made from a dead or attenuated polio virus. The flu shot is a dead or attenuated influenza virus. Whooping cough contained the pertussis bacteria. You don't get a vaccine for polio by injecting a separate, totally different pathogen into the body.

---

Where do you think the name "vaccine" came from?

---

We are talking about what a vaccine has traditionally been. I told you. It does not matter what the etymology of the word is.

Even Washington had his men at Valley Forge stick pus from small pox into the healthy men to prevent them from getting small pox. He did not take some totally different pathogen, introduce it into his men, and hope for a cure for small pox.

Tell me, do you believe that worms spontaneously generate on meat or come from horse hair?

---

It matters a whole lot where the word came from because where it came from demonstrates that term "vaccine" was used because it was a totally different pathogen was introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen. It shows that from the beginning a vaccine wasn't necessarily made from the pathogen it was designed to protect against. This is grade school level history.

---

I think you need a better understanding of what a pathogen is. The mRNA inserted into the body is not a pathogen. That's why it's so weak at dealing with variants.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

All the other vaccines I listed are SO much more effective, that calling this Covid jab a vaccine is an insult to vaccines.

---

Whether something is a vaccine or not is not dependent on its efficacy against a particular variant of a virus. Words have meanings. One is no more correct in pretending that a vaccine isn't a vaccine than one is in pretending that a woman isn't a woman or a man isn't a man.

---

A vaccine used to be a weakened or dead pathogen introduced to the body to trigger an immune response. Not sure who's pretending at this point.

---

A vaccine used to be a totally different pathogen introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen, thus the name "vaccine."

---

No, sir. The polio vaccine was made from a dead or attenuated polio virus. The flu shot is a dead or attenuated influenza virus. Whooping cough contained the pertussis bacteria. You don't get a vaccine for polio by injecting a separate, totally different pathogen into the body.

---

Where do you think the name "vaccine" came from?

---

We are talking about what a vaccine has traditionally been. I told you. It does not matter what the etymology of the word is.

Even Washington had his men at Valley Forge stick pus from small pox into the healthy men to prevent them from getting small pox. He did not take some totally different pathogen, introduce it into his men, and hope for a cure for small pox.

Tell me, do you believe that worms spontaneously generate on meat or come from horse hair?

---

It matters a whole lot where the word came from because where it came from demonstrates that term "vaccine" was used because it was a totally different pathogen was introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen. It shows that from the beginning a vaccine wasn't necessarily made from the pathogen it was designed to protect against. This is grade school level history.

---

I think you need a better understanding of what a pathogen is. The mRNA inserted into the body is not a pathogen. That's why it's so weak at dealing with variants.

---

I did not say that the mRNA vaccine was the pathogen itself, so what makes you think I need a better understanding of what a pathogen is? Nothing in the paragraph of mine you quote is talking about mRNA vaccines.

Why is the flu vaccine so weak at dealing with variants? It is not because the flu vaccine doesn't use a pathogen.

The immune response to the mRNA vaccines results from a protein that the vaccine causes cells to produce. The protein mimics part of the virus that causes COVID-19 making it easier for the immune system to recognize and neutralize the virus itself.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

All the other vaccines I listed are SO much more effective, that calling this Covid jab a vaccine is an insult to vaccines.

---

Whether something is a vaccine or not is not dependent on its efficacy against a particular variant of a virus. Words have meanings. One is no more correct in pretending that a vaccine isn't a vaccine than one is in pretending that a woman isn't a woman or a man isn't a man.

---

A vaccine used to be a weakened or dead pathogen introduced to the body to trigger an immune response. Not sure who's pretending at this point.

---

A vaccine used to be a totally different pathogen introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen, thus the name "vaccine."

---

No, sir. The polio vaccine was made from a dead or attenuated polio virus. The flu shot is a dead or attenuated influenza virus. Whooping cough contained the pertussis bacteria. You don't get a vaccine for polio by injecting a separate, totally different pathogen into the body.

---

Where do you think the name "vaccine" came from?

---

We are talking about what a vaccine has traditionally been. I told you. It does not matter what the etymology of the word is.

Even Washington had his men at Valley Forge stick pus from small pox into the healthy men to prevent them from getting small pox. He did not take some totally different pathogen, introduce it into his men, and hope for a cure for small pox.

Tell me, do you believe that worms spontaneously generate on meat or come from horse hair?

---

It matters a whole lot where the word came from because where it came from demonstrates that term "vaccine" was used because it was a totally different pathogen was introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen. It shows that from the beginning a vaccine wasn't necessarily made from the pathogen it was designed to protect against. This is grade school level history.

---

I think you need a better understanding of what a pathogen is. The mRNA inserted into the body is not a pathogen. That's why it's so weak at dealing with variants.

---

I did not say that the mRNA vaccine was the pathogen itself, so what makes you think I need a better understanding of what a pathogen is? Nothing in the paragraph of mine you quote is talking about mRNA vaccines.

Why is the flu vaccine so weak at dealing with variants? It is not because the flu vaccine doesn't use a pathogen.

The immune response to the mRNA vaccines results from a protein that the vaccine causes cells to produce. The protein mimics part of the virus that causes COVID-19 making it easier for the immune system to recognize and neutralize the virus itself.

---

You defined vaccine as the introduction of a pathogen to create an immune response. But immune responses from pathogens is much more complicated than a simple protein identifier for a virus that has so many more DNA components. Influenza is also a much more genetically complicated virus than COVID. That's the primary difficulty in dealing with variants of influenza.

But let's also understand that flu vaccine efficacy is measured by the protection from
infection and spread. At this stage it is uncertain if any meaningful infection prevention occurs and certainly very little if any spread prevention. The latest studies measuring the effectiveness of new Omicron variant boosters look statistically nil as to net impact, it would be nice to be at 50-60%.

The nature of coronaviruses and this novel approach to a "vaccine" is bearing out the human trial. We've moved to an endemic more than a vaccinated advantage for all segments of the population except the elderly. Unfortunately, flu still kills the elderly and the young.

The protein approach was like giving the body an incomplete wanted poster with no real detail unlike a full pathogen that the T cell system could fully log, I understand the risk concern. We didn't know enough about COVID to take the chance of inserting a complete virus, even a dumbed down one.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

All the other vaccines I listed are SO much more effective, that calling this Covid jab a vaccine is an insult to vaccines.

---

Whether something is a vaccine or not is not dependent on its efficacy against a particular variant of a virus. Words have meanings. One is no more correct in pretending that a vaccine isn't a vaccine than one is in pretending that a woman isn't a woman or a man isn't a man.

---

A vaccine used to be a weakened or dead pathogen introduced to the body to trigger an immune response. Not sure who's pretending at this point.

---

A vaccine used to be a totally different pathogen introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen, thus the name "vaccine."

---

No, sir. The polio vaccine was made from a dead or attenuated polio virus. The flu shot is a dead or attenuated influenza virus. Whooping cough contained the pertussis bacteria. You don't get a vaccine for polio by injecting a separate, totally different pathogen into the body.

---

Where do you think the name "vaccine" came from?

---

We are talking about what a vaccine has traditionally been. I told you. It does not matter what the etymology of the word is.

Even Washington had his men at Valley Forge stick pus from small pox into the healthy men to prevent them from getting small pox. He did not take some totally different pathogen, introduce it into his men, and hope for a cure for small pox.

Tell me, do you believe that worms spontaneously generate on meat or come from horse hair?

---

It matters a whole lot where the word came from because where it came from demonstrates that term "vaccine" was used because it was a totally different pathogen was introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen. It shows that from the beginning a vaccine wasn't necessarily made from the pathogen it was designed to protect against. This is grade school level history.

---

I think you need a better understanding of what a pathogen is. The mRNA inserted into the body is not a pathogen. That's why it's so weak at dealing with variants.

---

I did not say that the mRNA vaccine was the pathogen itself, so what makes you think I need a better understanding of what a pathogen is? Nothing in the paragraph of mine you quote is talking about mRNA vaccines.

Why is the flu vaccine so weak at dealing with variants? It is not because the flu vaccine doesn't use a pathogen.

The immune response to the mRNA vaccines results from a protein that the vaccine causes cells to produce. The protein mimics part of the virus that causes COVID-19 making it easier for the immune system to recognize and neutralize the virus itself.

---

You defined vaccine as the introduction of a pathogen to create an immune response. But immune responses from pathogens is much more complicated than a simple protein identifier for a virus that has so many more DNA components. Influenza is also a much more genetically complicated virus than COVID. That's the primary difficulty in dealing with variants of influenza.

But let's also understand that flu vaccine efficacy is measured by the protection from
infection and spread. At this stage it is uncertain if any meaningful infection prevention occurs and certainly very little if any spread prevention. The latest studies measuring the effectiveness of new Omicron variant boosters look statistically nil as to net impact, it would be nice to be at 50-60%.

The nature of coronaviruses and this novel approach to a "vaccine" is bearing out the human trial. We've moved to an endemic more than a vaccinated advantage for all segments of the population except the elderly. Unfortunately, flu still kills the elderly and the young.

The protein approach was like giving the body an incomplete wanted poster with no real detail unlike a full pathogen that the T cell system could fully log, I understand the risk concern. We didn't know enough about COVID to take the chance of inserting a complete virus, even a dumbed down one.

---

We can get back to your paragraph above soon, but how about you answer the question:

Does a vaccine have to use the specific pathogen it hopes to protect against to be properly called a vaccine?

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

AZ_Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://t.co/ffiLumboNh

The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy.

Now, the latest US data shows that nearly 60% of COVID deaths are from the vaccinated/boosted.

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) November 23, 2022

---

In fairness, it is false to say "The FDA promised 90+% vaccine efficacy." The FDA promised to approve vaccines with 50 percent efficacy against infection or serious illness.

---

In fairness, not everyone is as smart and educated as you.

What you say might be technically true while still completely false with regards to the general narrative at the time that the uneducated public was hearing.

You're an apologist for fine print.

---

I do believe, however, it would be correct to say the FDA approved vaccines which promised 90% efficacy or greater.

---

Against the initial variants, the initial vaccines (some of them, anyway) did demonstrate 90 percent efficiency.

---

That's hilarious and false.

Around 90%of the vaccinated didn't die from Covid, but that is also true for the unvaccinated.
The same percentage of people got Covid regardless of vaccine status.
The vaccines do very little to benefit anyone. Maybe... MAYBE they lower the need for hospitalized a little... maybe.

Most importantly, these are NOT vaccines.
How many people with the polio vaccine got polio? Measles? Mumps? Rubella?
These are NOT vaccines.

The moving targets is amazing.
"If you get the vaccine, you won't get infected."
"You might get infected, but you won't transmit the disease."
You might get it and still transmit, but you won't get a severe case requiring hospital."
"You might go to the hospital, but you won't die."
"Some people might die, but it dramatically lowers the chances of severe cases & death."
"Ok, maybe it just lowers the chances by a little."

So we went from impossible to get our transmit Covid, to maybe it slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe.

Yeah, that's some kind of "vaccine". Can you name another vaccine with an equally horrible track record? I can't think of one. Even the annual flu vaccine are more effective than this nonsense.

---

"These are not vaccines."

The flu vaccine efficacy varies widely year to year, but you still call it a vaccine because that is what it is and it doesn't have the political insanity attached to it that the COVID vaccines have.

Nowhere did data ever indicate that it would be "impossible" to get (or transmit) COVID if vaccinated.
Where is your data for "slightly lowers the chance of a severe case... maybe."

---

All the other vaccines I listed are SO much more effective, that calling this Covid jab a vaccine is an insult to vaccines.

---

Whether something is a vaccine or not is not dependent on its efficacy against a particular variant of a virus. Words have meanings. One is no more correct in pretending that a vaccine isn't a vaccine than one is in pretending that a woman isn't a woman or a man isn't a man.

---

A vaccine used to be a weakened or dead pathogen introduced to the body to trigger an immune response. Not sure who's pretending at this point.

---

A vaccine used to be a totally different pathogen introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen, thus the name "vaccine."

---

No, sir. The polio vaccine was made from a dead or attenuated polio virus. The flu shot is a dead or attenuated influenza virus. Whooping cough contained the pertussis bacteria. You don't get a vaccine for polio by injecting a separate, totally different pathogen into the body.

---

Where do you think the name "vaccine" came from?

---

We are talking about what a vaccine has traditionally been. I told you. It does not matter what the etymology of the word is.

Even Washington had his men at Valley Forge stick pus from small pox into the healthy men to prevent them from getting small pox. He did not take some totally different pathogen, introduce it into his men, and hope for a cure for small pox.

Tell me, do you believe that worms spontaneously generate on meat or come from horse hair?

---

It matters a whole lot where the word came from because where it came from demonstrates that term "vaccine" was used because it was a totally different pathogen was introduced to the body in the hope that it would prevent illness from a separate pathogen. It shows that from the beginning a vaccine wasn't necessarily made from the pathogen it was designed to protect against. This is grade school level history.

---

I think you need a better understanding of what a pathogen is. The mRNA inserted into the body is not a pathogen. That's why it's so weak at dealing with variants.

---

I did not say that the mRNA vaccine was the pathogen itself, so what makes you think I need a better understanding of what a pathogen is? Nothing in the paragraph of mine you quote is talking about mRNA vaccines.

Why is the flu vaccine so weak at dealing with variants? It is not because the flu vaccine doesn't use a pathogen.

The immune response to the mRNA vaccines results from a protein that the vaccine causes cells to produce. The protein mimics part of the virus that causes COVID-19 making it easier for the immune system to recognize and neutralize the virus itself.

---

You defined vaccine as the introduction of a pathogen to create an immune response. But immune responses from pathogens is much more complicated than a simple protein identifier for a virus that has so many more DNA components. Influenza is also a much more genetically complicated virus than COVID. That's the primary difficulty in dealing with variants of influenza.

But let's also understand that flu vaccine efficacy is measured by the protection from
infection and spread. At this stage it is uncertain if any meaningful infection prevention occurs and certainly very little if any spread prevention. The latest studies measuring the effectiveness of new Omicron variant boosters look statistically nil as to net impact, it would be nice to be at 50-60%.

The nature of coronaviruses and this novel approach to a "vaccine" is bearing out the human trial. We've moved to an endemic more than a vaccinated advantage for all segments of the population except the elderly. Unfortunately, flu still kills the elderly and the young.

The protein approach was like giving the body an incomplete wanted poster with no real detail unlike a full pathogen that the T cell system could fully log, I understand the risk concern. We didn't know enough about COVID to take the chance of inserting a complete virus, even a dumbed down one.

---

We can get back to your paragraph above soon, but how about you answer the question:

Does a vaccine have to use the specific pathogen it hopes to protect against to be properly called a vaccine?

---

Yes, at least some version or portion of it. Not sure how else the body would know what to defend against.

---