D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

They do not, and that is why they are called "vaccines" instead of "variolacines" or something like that. There are also vaccines that are based on exotoxins produced by the pathogen, rather than the pathogen or a portion of the pathogen itself. The point is, vaccines are best defined by how they interact with the immune system to create an immune response, not whether they are part of a pathogen, the whole pathogen, a live pathogen, a weakened pathogen, a dead pathogen, an exotoxin produced by a pathogen or, as was the case with the original "vaccine," a different pathogen.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

They do not, and that is why they are called "vaccines" instead of "variolacines" or something like that. There are also vaccines that are based on exotoxins produced by the pathogen, rather than the pathogen or a portion of the pathogen itself. The point is, vaccines are best defined by how they interact with the immune system to create an immune response, not whether they are part of a pathogen, the whole pathogen, a live pathogen, a weakened pathogen, a dead pathogen, an exotoxin produced by a pathogen or, as was the case with the original "vaccine," a different pathogen.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

They do not, and that is why they are called "vaccines" instead of "variolacines" or something like that. There are also vaccines that are based on exotoxins produced by the pathogen, rather than the pathogen or a portion of the pathogen itself. The point is, vaccines are best defined by how they interact with the immune system to create an immune response, not whether they are part of a pathogen, the whole pathogen, a live pathogen, a weakened pathogen, a dead pathogen, an exotoxin produced by a pathogen or, as was the case with the original "vaccine," a different pathogen.

---

Wrong. That is still utilizing the genetic material of a pathogen to imprint immuno memory of that pathogen.

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Any y'all still dumb enough to keep getting "vaccine" boosters for covid?

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Any y'all still dumb enough to keep getting "vaccine" boosters for covid?

---

DC and Sam have arms that resemble Swiss cheese. And they wear masks alone in the car.

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Any y'all still dumb enough to keep getting "vaccine" boosters for covid?

---

DC and Sam have arms that resemble Swiss cheese. And they wear masks alone in the car.

---

Surprised you came back to this thread after making a total fool of yourself earlier.

---

No one is made a fool of by you being wrong repeatedly. Except yourself, DC.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Any y'all still dumb enough to keep getting "vaccine" boosters for covid?

---

DC and Sam have arms that resemble Swiss cheese. And they wear masks alone in the car.

---

Surprised you came back to this thread after making a total fool of yourself earlier.

---

No one is made a fool of by you being wrong repeatedly. Except yourself, DC.

---

Perhaps others reading exchange will learn something they did not know about what a vaccine is and why we call it a vaccine, but I have learned that it is usually counterproductive to argue with someone who battles successfully in dumbness competitions with sticks and boxes of rocks, so I will leave you to your ignorance.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Any y'all still dumb enough to keep getting "vaccine" boosters for covid?

---

DC and Sam have arms that resemble Swiss cheese. And they wear masks alone in the car.

---

Surprised you came back to this thread after making a total fool of yourself earlier.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

They do not, and that is why they are called "vaccines" instead of "variolacines" or something like that. There are also vaccines that are based on exotoxins produced by the pathogen, rather than the pathogen or a portion of the pathogen itself. The point is, vaccines are best defined by how they interact with the immune system to create an immune response, not whether they are part of a pathogen, the whole pathogen, a live pathogen, a weakened pathogen, a dead pathogen, an exotoxin produced by a pathogen or, as was the case with the original "vaccine," a different pathogen.

---

Wrong. That is still utilizing the genetic material of a pathogen to imprint immuno memory of that pathogen.

---

Not wrong. In the case of original vaccine, using one pathogen to provide protection against a different pathogen.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

They do not, and that is why they are called "vaccines" instead of "variolacines" or something like that. There are also vaccines that are based on exotoxins produced by the pathogen, rather than the pathogen or a portion of the pathogen itself. The point is, vaccines are best defined by how they interact with the immune system to create an immune response, not whether they are part of a pathogen, the whole pathogen, a live pathogen, a weakened pathogen, a dead pathogen, an exotoxin produced by a pathogen or, as was the case with the original "vaccine," a different pathogen.

---

Wrong. That is still utilizing the genetic material of a pathogen to imprint immuno memory of that pathogen.

---

Not wrong. In the case of original vaccine, using one pathogen to provide protection against a different pathogen.

---

At this point I have no idea what you're referring to.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

They do not, and that is why they are called "vaccines" instead of "variolacines" or something like that. There are also vaccines that are based on exotoxins produced by the pathogen, rather than the pathogen or a portion of the pathogen itself. The point is, vaccines are best defined by how they interact with the immune system to create an immune response, not whether they are part of a pathogen, the whole pathogen, a live pathogen, a weakened pathogen, a dead pathogen, an exotoxin produced by a pathogen or, as was the case with the original "vaccine," a different pathogen.

---

Wrong. That is still utilizing the genetic material of a pathogen to imprint immuno memory of that pathogen.

---

Not wrong. In the case of original vaccine, using one pathogen to provide protection against a different pathogen.

---

At this point I have no idea what you're referring to.

---

I am referring to the original vaccine, from which we got the name "vaccine." Edward Jenner used one pathogen (vaccinia) to provide protection from a different pathogen (variola).

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

They do not, and that is why they are called "vaccines" instead of "variolacines" or something like that. There are also vaccines that are based on exotoxins produced by the pathogen, rather than the pathogen or a portion of the pathogen itself. The point is, vaccines are best defined by how they interact with the immune system to create an immune response, not whether they are part of a pathogen, the whole pathogen, a live pathogen, a weakened pathogen, a dead pathogen, an exotoxin produced by a pathogen or, as was the case with the original "vaccine," a different pathogen.

---

Wrong. That is still utilizing the genetic material of a pathogen to imprint immuno memory of that pathogen.

---

Not wrong. In the case of original vaccine, using one pathogen to provide protection against a different pathogen.

---

At this point I have no idea what you're referring to.

---

I am referring to the original vaccine, from which we got the name "vaccine." Edward Jenner used one pathogen (vaccinia) to provide protection from a different pathogen (variola).

---

Aside from the semantic nature of this, I think you need to dig a little deeper on the genetic commonality of the pox family. We know quite a bit more about disease pathology and the human immune system compared to the days of Jenner. The fact he stumbled upon a less lethal way beyond variolation to fight Small Pox doesn't change how vaccines work with our immune systems.

But I'm still on the fact the COVID mRNA vaccines aren't using pathogens, which vaccines have historically always had some pathogenic component in them.

---

“Coming out of the holidays, should parents expect schools to shut down?”

FAUCI: "I don't know, Margaret. I'm not sure.” pic.twitter.com/9e9bNG5FFo

— Jake Schneider (@jacobkschneider) November 27, 2022

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

They do not, and that is why they are called "vaccines" instead of "variolacines" or something like that. There are also vaccines that are based on exotoxins produced by the pathogen, rather than the pathogen or a portion of the pathogen itself. The point is, vaccines are best defined by how they interact with the immune system to create an immune response, not whether they are part of a pathogen, the whole pathogen, a live pathogen, a weakened pathogen, a dead pathogen, an exotoxin produced by a pathogen or, as was the case with the original "vaccine," a different pathogen.

---

Wrong. That is still utilizing the genetic material of a pathogen to imprint immuno memory of that pathogen.

---

Not wrong. In the case of original vaccine, using one pathogen to provide protection against a different pathogen.

---

At this point I have no idea what you're referring to.

---

I am referring to the original vaccine, from which we got the name "vaccine." Edward Jenner used one pathogen (vaccinia) to provide protection from a different pathogen (variola).

---

Aside from the semantic nature of this, I think you need to dig a little deeper on the genetic commonality of the pox family. We know quite a bit more about disease pathology and the human immune system compared to the days of Jenner. The fact he stumbled upon a less lethal way beyond variolation to fight Small Pox doesn't change how vaccines work with our immune systems.

But I'm still on the fact the COVID mRNA vaccines aren't using pathogens, which vaccines have historically always had some pathogenic component in them.

---

The mRNA vaccines are using "some pathogenic component." They just get some cells in the body to produce it and to generate the desired immune response. It is the process of presenting some pathogenic component (or product) to the immune system to generate an immune response that makes something a vaccine. The fact that mRNA vaccines use some cells in the body itself to produce the "pathogenic component" doesn't change how vaccines work with our immune systems, which is what makes them vaccines in the first place.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

They do not, and that is why they are called "vaccines" instead of "variolacines" or something like that. There are also vaccines that are based on exotoxins produced by the pathogen, rather than the pathogen or a portion of the pathogen itself. The point is, vaccines are best defined by how they interact with the immune system to create an immune response, not whether they are part of a pathogen, the whole pathogen, a live pathogen, a weakened pathogen, a dead pathogen, an exotoxin produced by a pathogen or, as was the case with the original "vaccine," a different pathogen.

---

Wrong. That is still utilizing the genetic material of a pathogen to imprint immuno memory of that pathogen.

---

Not wrong. In the case of original vaccine, using one pathogen to provide protection against a different pathogen.

---

At this point I have no idea what you're referring to.

---

I am referring to the original vaccine, from which we got the name "vaccine." Edward Jenner used one pathogen (vaccinia) to provide protection from a different pathogen (variola).

---

Aside from the semantic nature of this, I think you need to dig a little deeper on the genetic commonality of the pox family. We know quite a bit more about disease pathology and the human immune system compared to the days of Jenner. The fact he stumbled upon a less lethal way beyond variolation to fight Small Pox doesn't change how vaccines work with our immune systems.

But I'm still on the fact the COVID mRNA vaccines aren't using pathogens, which vaccines have historically always had some pathogenic component in them.

---

The mRNA vaccines are using "some pathogenic component." They just get some cells in the body to produce it and to generate the desired immune response. It is the process of presenting some pathogenic component (or product) to the immune system to generate an immune response that makes something a vaccine. The fact that mRNA vaccines use some cells in the body itself to produce the "pathogenic component" doesn't change how vaccines work with our immune systems, which is what makes them vaccines in the first place.

---

You're hung up on semantics and not science. This was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past. The lack of actual pathogen limited T cell inscription and we're discovering its long term efficacy in an active human trial. It has operated more like a therapeutic vaccine (limiting disease severity vs limiting infection and spread).

---

Dr. Fauci says he can’t predict whether schools might need to shut down again after the holidays this year. This dude needs to be in prison. Worst taxpayer funded employee in American history. pic.twitter.com/3iHh5h7iqz

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) November 27, 2022

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

You're hung up on semantics and not science. This was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past. The lack of actual pathogen limited T cell inscription and we're discovering its long term efficacy in an active human trial. It has operated more like a therapeutic vaccine (limiting disease severity vs limiting infection and spread).

---

It was a completely novel approach in how the pathogenic material was presented to the immune system, but not a completely novel approach in using just a part of the disease-causing pathogen. Other vaccines that use just part of a pathogen (subunit vaccines) have been around for decades, so you are not correct when you say "[t]his was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past." Instead, it was a completely novel approach that did, in fact, operate like several other vaccines in the past.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

A lot of talk about bringing masks back to fight long covid going on in legacy media right now.

The vaccines were so effective we need to bring back masks. Make it make sense.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

You're hung up on semantics and not science. This was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past. The lack of actual pathogen limited T cell inscription and we're discovering its long term efficacy in an active human trial. It has operated more like a therapeutic vaccine (limiting disease severity vs limiting infection and spread).

---

It was a completely novel approach in how the pathogenic material was presented to the immune system, but not a completely novel approach in using just a part of the disease-causing pathogen. Other vaccines that use just part of a pathogen (subunit vaccines) have been around for decades, so you are not correct when you say "[t]his was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past." Instead, it was a completely novel approach that did, in fact, operate like several other vaccines in the past.

---

Wrong. It skipped the pathogen part and used the body to mimic a specific antigen to generate an immune response. The problem is that the antigen was so specific (simple protein), unnatural (didn't act like the COVID protein because of the need for stability in replication), and absent a broader DNA profile of the pathogen that our T and B cell defenses struggled with even the simplest mutations and variants.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

You're hung up on semantics and not science. This was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past. The lack of actual pathogen limited T cell inscription and we're discovering its long term efficacy in an active human trial. It has operated more like a therapeutic vaccine (limiting disease severity vs limiting infection and spread).

---

It was a completely novel approach in how the pathogenic material was presented to the immune system, but not a completely novel approach in using just a part of the disease-causing pathogen. Other vaccines that use just part of a pathogen (subunit vaccines) have been around for decades, so you are not correct when you say "[t]his was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past." Instead, it was a completely novel approach that did, in fact, operate like several other vaccines in the past.

---

Wrong. It skipped the pathogen part and used the body to mimic a specific antigen to generate an immune response. The problem is that the antigen was so specific (simple protein), unnatural (didn't act like the COVID protein because of the need for stability in replication), and absent a broader DNA profile of the pathogen that our T and B cell defenses struggled with even the simplest mutations and variants.

---

It is the "using the body" part that was novel. The hepatitis B vaccine does the same kind of thing except that it uses yeast instead of the body's own cells to create the surface protein for the body to recognize. For whatever reason, the Hepatitis B vaccine does not struggle to maintain its efficacy despite not having the "broader DNA profile of the pathogen." This would indicate that a vaccine does not always require the "broader DNA profile of the pathogen" to work well. Given that, one would suspect that the nature of the viruses rather than the nature of the vaccines is what accounts for the differences between the relative effectiveness of the those two vaccines.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

You're hung up on semantics and not science. This was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past. The lack of actual pathogen limited T cell inscription and we're discovering its long term efficacy in an active human trial. It has operated more like a therapeutic vaccine (limiting disease severity vs limiting infection and spread).

---

It was a completely novel approach in how the pathogenic material was presented to the immune system, but not a completely novel approach in using just a part of the disease-causing pathogen. Other vaccines that use just part of a pathogen (subunit vaccines) have been around for decades, so you are not correct when you say "[t]his was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past." Instead, it was a completely novel approach that did, in fact, operate like several other vaccines in the past.

---

Wrong. It skipped the pathogen part and used the body to mimic a specific antigen to generate an immune response. The problem is that the antigen was so specific (simple protein), unnatural (didn't act like the COVID protein because of the need for stability in replication), and absent a broader DNA profile of the pathogen that our T and B cell defenses struggled with even the simplest mutations and variants.

---

It is the "using the body" part that was novel. The hepatitis B vaccine does the same kind of thing except that it uses yeast instead of the body's own cells to create the surface protein for the body to recognize. For whatever reason, the Hepatitis B vaccine does not struggle to maintain its efficacy despite not having the "broader DNA profile of the pathogen." This would indicate that a vaccine does not always require the "broader DNA profile of the pathogen" to work well. Given that, one would suspect that the nature of the viruses rather than the nature of the vaccines is what accounts for the differences between the relative effectiveness of the those two vaccines.

---

Using the actual Hep B protein gene provides the full DNA profile. The yeast is simply the production catalyst/environment like chicken eggs for flu vaccine. The COVID vaccine isolated the spike protein RNA only not the full RNA pathogen profile. That part is also the novel part of this vaccine. (Edited above. Should have said RNA not DNA for COVID)

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

They do not, and that is why they are called "vaccines" instead of "variolacines" or something like that. There are also vaccines that are based on exotoxins produced by the pathogen, rather than the pathogen or a portion of the pathogen itself. The point is, vaccines are best defined by how they interact with the immune system to create an immune response, not whether they are part of a pathogen, the whole pathogen, a live pathogen, a weakened pathogen, a dead pathogen, an exotoxin produced by a pathogen or, as was the case with the original "vaccine," a different pathogen.

---

Wrong. That is still utilizing the genetic material of a pathogen to imprint immuno memory of that pathogen.

---

Not wrong. In the case of original vaccine, using one pathogen to provide protection against a different pathogen.

---

At this point I have no idea what you're referring to.

---

I am referring to the original vaccine, from which we got the name "vaccine." Edward Jenner used one pathogen (vaccinia) to provide protection from a different pathogen (variola).

---

Aside from the semantic nature of this, I think you need to dig a little deeper on the genetic commonality of the pox family. We know quite a bit more about disease pathology and the human immune system compared to the days of Jenner. The fact he stumbled upon a less lethal way beyond variolation to fight Small Pox doesn't change how vaccines work with our immune systems.

But I'm still on the fact the COVID mRNA vaccines aren't using pathogens, which vaccines have historically always had some pathogenic component in them.

---

The mRNA vaccines are using "some pathogenic component." They just get some cells in the body to produce it and to generate the desired immune response. It is the process of presenting some pathogenic component (or product) to the immune system to generate an immune response that makes something a vaccine. The fact that mRNA vaccines use some cells in the body itself to produce the "pathogenic component" doesn't change how vaccines work with our immune systems, which is what makes them vaccines in the first place.

---

You're hung up on semantics and not science. This was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past. The lack of actual pathogen limited T cell inscription and we're discovering its long term efficacy in an active human trial. It has operated more like a therapeutic vaccine (limiting disease severity vs limiting infection and spread).

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

You're hung up on semantics and not science. This was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past. The lack of actual pathogen limited T cell inscription and we're discovering its long term efficacy in an active human trial. It has operated more like a therapeutic vaccine (limiting disease severity vs limiting infection and spread).

---

It was a completely novel approach in how the pathogenic material was presented to the immune system, but not a completely novel approach in using just a part of the disease-causing pathogen. Other vaccines that use just part of a pathogen (subunit vaccines) have been around for decades, so you are not correct when you say "[t]his was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past." Instead, it was a completely novel approach that did, in fact, operate like several other vaccines in the past.

---

Wrong. It skipped the pathogen part and used the body to mimic a specific antigen to generate an immune response. The problem is that the antigen was so specific (simple protein), unnatural (didn't act like the COVID protein because of the need for stability in replication), and absent a broader DNA profile of the pathogen that our T and B cell defenses struggled with even the simplest mutations and variants.

---

It is the "using the body" part that was novel. The hepatitis B vaccine does the same kind of thing except that it uses yeast instead of the body's own cells to create the surface protein for the body to recognize. For whatever reason, the Hepatitis B vaccine does not struggle to maintain its efficacy despite not having the "broader DNA profile of the pathogen." This would indicate that a vaccine does not always require the "broader DNA profile of the pathogen" to work well. Given that, one would suspect that the nature of the viruses rather than the nature of the vaccines is what accounts for the differences between the relative effectiveness of the those two vaccines.

---

Using the actual Hep B protein gene provides the full DNA profile. The yeast is simply the production catalyst/environment like chicken eggs for flu vaccine. The COVID vaccine isolated the spike protein RNA only not the full RNA pathogen profile. That part is also the novel part of this vaccine. (Edited above. Should have said RNA not DNA for COVID)

---

According to everything I have read, The Hep B vaccine does not contain hepatitis viral DNA. Nor does the NOVOVAX COVID vaccine contain COVID-19 DNA. Nor do protein-based flu vaccines contain the full DNA pathogen profile of influenza. Given those facts, this does not appear to be a novel part of the mRNA Covid vaccines.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

They do not, and that is why they are called "vaccines" instead of "variolacines" or something like that. There are also vaccines that are based on exotoxins produced by the pathogen, rather than the pathogen or a portion of the pathogen itself. The point is, vaccines are best defined by how they interact with the immune system to create an immune response, not whether they are part of a pathogen, the whole pathogen, a live pathogen, a weakened pathogen, a dead pathogen, an exotoxin produced by a pathogen or, as was the case with the original "vaccine," a different pathogen.

---

Wrong. That is still utilizing the genetic material of a pathogen to imprint immuno memory of that pathogen.

---

Not wrong. In the case of original vaccine, using one pathogen to provide protection against a different pathogen.

---

At this point I have no idea what you're referring to.

---

I am referring to the original vaccine, from which we got the name "vaccine." Edward Jenner used one pathogen (vaccinia) to provide protection from a different pathogen (variola).

---

Aside from the semantic nature of this, I think you need to dig a little deeper on the genetic commonality of the pox family. We know quite a bit more about disease pathology and the human immune system compared to the days of Jenner. The fact he stumbled upon a less lethal way beyond variolation to fight Small Pox doesn't change how vaccines work with our immune systems.

But I'm still on the fact the COVID mRNA vaccines aren't using pathogens, which vaccines have historically always had some pathogenic component in them.

---

The mRNA vaccines are using "some pathogenic component." They just get some cells in the body to produce it and to generate the desired immune response. It is the process of presenting some pathogenic component (or product) to the immune system to generate an immune response that makes something a vaccine. The fact that mRNA vaccines use some cells in the body itself to produce the "pathogenic component" doesn't change how vaccines work with our immune systems, which is what makes them vaccines in the first place.

---

You're hung up on semantics and not science. This was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past. The lack of actual pathogen limited T cell inscription and we're discovering its long term efficacy in an active human trial. It has operated more like a therapeutic vaccine (limiting disease severity vs limiting infection and spread).

---

Every argument is a semantic argument when you're losing, yet it seemed important enough when you started it.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

You're hung up on semantics and not science. This was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past. The lack of actual pathogen limited T cell inscription and we're discovering its long term efficacy in an active human trial. It has operated more like a therapeutic vaccine (limiting disease severity vs limiting infection and spread).

---

It was a completely novel approach in how the pathogenic material was presented to the immune system, but not a completely novel approach in using just a part of the disease-causing pathogen. Other vaccines that use just part of a pathogen (subunit vaccines) have been around for decades, so you are not correct when you say "[t]his was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past." Instead, it was a completely novel approach that did, in fact, operate like several other vaccines in the past.

---

Wrong. It skipped the pathogen part and used the body to mimic a specific antigen to generate an immune response. The problem is that the antigen was so specific (simple protein), unnatural (didn't act like the COVID protein because of the need for stability in replication), and absent a broader DNA profile of the pathogen that our T and B cell defenses struggled with even the simplest mutations and variants.

---

It is the "using the body" part that was novel. The hepatitis B vaccine does the same kind of thing except that it uses yeast instead of the body's own cells to create the surface protein for the body to recognize. For whatever reason, the Hepatitis B vaccine does not struggle to maintain its efficacy despite not having the "broader DNA profile of the pathogen." This would indicate that a vaccine does not always require the "broader DNA profile of the pathogen" to work well. Given that, one would suspect that the nature of the viruses rather than the nature of the vaccines is what accounts for the differences between the relative effectiveness of the those two vaccines.

---

Using the actual Hep B protein gene provides the full DNA profile. The yeast is simply the production catalyst/environment like chicken eggs for flu vaccine. The COVID vaccine isolated the spike protein RNA only not the full RNA pathogen profile. That part is also the novel part of this vaccine. (Edited above. Should have said RNA not DNA for COVID)

---

According to everything I have read, The Hep B vaccine does not contain hepatitis viral DNA. Nor does the NOVOVAX COVID vaccine contain COVID-19 DNA. Nor do protein-based flu vaccines contain the full DNA pathogen profile of influenza. Given those facts, this does not appear to be a novel part of the mRNA Covid vaccines.

---

It's in there. Never the full profile as that would be the equivalent of infection, but I used the term "broader" profile. They use several methods such as recombinant tech to present it, while weakening viral components that make it dangerous. And it's RNA in the case of diseases like Flu. COVID is an RNA virus, ala reason for my edit.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

They do not, and that is why they are called "vaccines" instead of "variolacines" or something like that. There are also vaccines that are based on exotoxins produced by the pathogen, rather than the pathogen or a portion of the pathogen itself. The point is, vaccines are best defined by how they interact with the immune system to create an immune response, not whether they are part of a pathogen, the whole pathogen, a live pathogen, a weakened pathogen, a dead pathogen, an exotoxin produced by a pathogen or, as was the case with the original "vaccine," a different pathogen.

---

Wrong. That is still utilizing the genetic material of a pathogen to imprint immuno memory of that pathogen.

---

Not wrong. In the case of original vaccine, using one pathogen to provide protection against a different pathogen.

---

At this point I have no idea what you're referring to.

---

I am referring to the original vaccine, from which we got the name "vaccine." Edward Jenner used one pathogen (vaccinia) to provide protection from a different pathogen (variola).

---

Aside from the semantic nature of this, I think you need to dig a little deeper on the genetic commonality of the pox family. We know quite a bit more about disease pathology and the human immune system compared to the days of Jenner. The fact he stumbled upon a less lethal way beyond variolation to fight Small Pox doesn't change how vaccines work with our immune systems.

But I'm still on the fact the COVID mRNA vaccines aren't using pathogens, which vaccines have historically always had some pathogenic component in them.

---

The mRNA vaccines are using "some pathogenic component." They just get some cells in the body to produce it and to generate the desired immune response. It is the process of presenting some pathogenic component (or product) to the immune system to generate an immune response that makes something a vaccine. The fact that mRNA vaccines use some cells in the body itself to produce the "pathogenic component" doesn't change how vaccines work with our immune systems, which is what makes them vaccines in the first place.

---

You're hung up on semantics and not science. This was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past. The lack of actual pathogen limited T cell inscription and we're discovering its long term efficacy in an active human trial. It has operated more like a therapeutic vaccine (limiting disease severity vs limiting infection and spread).

---

Every argument is a semantic argument when you're losing, yet it seemed important enough when you started it.

---

Still on here adding no value I see.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

A lot of talk about bringing masks back to fight long covid going on in legacy media right now.

The vaccines were so effective we need to bring back masks. Make it make sense.

---

How is anything going to make sense if you won't accept simple math? Not to pick on you, but your latest retweet is a perfect example of the blind leading the blind on this thread. The fact that a majority of deaths may be among vaccinated people means nothing by itself. If you vaccinated every person with a drug that was 99.9 percent effective, 100 percent of Covid victims would be vaccinated. This is basic stuff, not something that people with college degrees should even be arguing about. We should argue about things like lockdown policy and vaccine mandates, of course, but all in the context of a shared reality. There's little time for productive debate if we can't agree that 2+2=4.

Serious question. It's been almost three years -- is there some point where you start to work out the basics? Or do you just keep reacting to random social media accounts that appear to confirm you biases?

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

You're hung up on semantics and not science. This was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past. The lack of actual pathogen limited T cell inscription and we're discovering its long term efficacy in an active human trial. It has operated more like a therapeutic vaccine (limiting disease severity vs limiting infection and spread).

---

It was a completely novel approach in how the pathogenic material was presented to the immune system, but not a completely novel approach in using just a part of the disease-causing pathogen. Other vaccines that use just part of a pathogen (subunit vaccines) have been around for decades, so you are not correct when you say "[t]his was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past." Instead, it was a completely novel approach that did, in fact, operate like several other vaccines in the past.

---

Wrong. It skipped the pathogen part and used the body to mimic a specific antigen to generate an immune response. The problem is that the antigen was so specific (simple protein), unnatural (didn't act like the COVID protein because of the need for stability in replication), and absent a broader DNA profile of the pathogen that our T and B cell defenses struggled with even the simplest mutations and variants.

---

It is the "using the body" part that was novel. The hepatitis B vaccine does the same kind of thing except that it uses yeast instead of the body's own cells to create the surface protein for the body to recognize. For whatever reason, the Hepatitis B vaccine does not struggle to maintain its efficacy despite not having the "broader DNA profile of the pathogen." This would indicate that a vaccine does not always require the "broader DNA profile of the pathogen" to work well. Given that, one would suspect that the nature of the viruses rather than the nature of the vaccines is what accounts for the differences between the relative effectiveness of the those two vaccines.

---

Using the actual Hep B protein gene provides the full DNA profile. The yeast is simply the production catalyst/environment like chicken eggs for flu vaccine. The COVID vaccine isolated the spike protein RNA only not the full RNA pathogen profile. That part is also the novel part of this vaccine. (Edited above. Should have said RNA not DNA for COVID)

---

According to everything I have read, The Hep B vaccine does not contain hepatitis viral DNA. Nor does the NOVOVAX COVID vaccine contain COVID-19 DNA. Nor do protein-based flu vaccines contain the full DNA pathogen profile of influenza. Given those facts, this does not appear to be a novel part of the mRNA Covid vaccines.

---

It's in there. Never the full profile as that would be the equivalent of infection, but I used the term "broader" profile. They use several methods such as recombinant tech to present it, while weakening viral components that make it dangerous. And it's RNA in the case of diseases like Flu. COVID is an RNA virus, ala reason for my edit.

---

https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/types-of-vaccine

"Virus Like Particles

Virus-like particles (VLPs) are molecules that closely resemble viruses, but are non-infectious because they contain no viral genetic material. They can be naturally occurring or synthesized through the individual expression of viral structural proteins, which can then self-assemble into the virus-like structure. In some cases, the antigens in a VLP vaccine are the viral structural proteins themselves. Alternatively, the VLPs can be manufactured to present antigens from another pathogen on the surface, or even multiple pathogens at once. As each VLP has multiple copies of an antigen on its surface it is more effective at stimulating an immune response that a single copy. In some cases, the structural proteins of the VLP can act as adjuvants, helping to strengthen the immune response to the primary target antigen.
A handful of VLP-based vaccines are currently used worldwide:
Hepatitis B vaccine
HPV vaccine"

Where are you finding something different?

---

Quote:

---

Structural classification of VLPs

VLPs are formed by spontaneous interaction between one or more viral structural capsid proteins to form the final structure. VLPs are structurally and visually similar to live viruses but lack either a complete virus genome or lack the entire virus genome. The variety of structures adopted by different VLPs makes them structurally and functionally attractive.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

A lot of talk about bringing masks back to fight long covid going on in legacy media right now.

The vaccines were so effective we need to bring back masks. Make it make sense.

---

How is anything going to make sense if you won't accept simple math? Not to pick on you, but your latest retweet is a perfect example of the blind leading the blind on this thread. The fact that a majority of deaths may be among vaccinated people means nothing by itself. If you vaccinated every person with a drug that was 99.9 percent effective, 100 percent of Covid victims would be vaccinated. This is basic stuff, not something that people with college degrees should even be arguing about. We should argue about things like lockdown policy and vaccine mandates, of course, but all in the context of a shared reality. There's little time for productive debate if we can't agree that 2+2=4.

Serious question. It's been almost three years -- is there some point where you start to work out the basics? Or do you just keep reacting to random social media accounts that appear to confirm you biases?

---

I'm talking about masks....

Its been three years of lies about the effectiveness of these vaccines and three years of masking.

I was right about them never coming off. It doesn't take much to realize western elites want to control the west just like China controls it's people.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

A lot of talk about bringing masks back to fight long covid going on in legacy media right now.

The vaccines were so effective we need to bring back masks. Make it make sense.

---

How is anything going to make sense if you won't accept simple math? Not to pick on you, but your latest retweet is a perfect example of the blind leading the blind on this thread. The fact that a majority of deaths may be among vaccinated people means nothing by itself. If you vaccinated every person with a drug that was 99.9 percent effective, 100 percent of Covid victims would be vaccinated. This is basic stuff, not something that people with college degrees should even be arguing about. We should argue about things like lockdown policy and vaccine mandates, of course, but all in the context of a shared reality. There's little time for productive debate if we can't agree that 2+2=4.

Serious question. It's been almost three years -- is there some point where you start to work out the basics? Or do you just keep reacting to random social media accounts that appear to confirm you biases?

---

I'm talking about masks....

Its been three years of lies about the effectiveness of these vaccines and three years of masking.

I was right about them never coming off. It doesn't take much to realize western elites want to control the west just like China controls it's people.

---

Based on my personal observations, you were wrong about masks "never coming off."

---