A look at the new scientific data causing the end of mask mandates https://t.co/jq4VEvmbAy
— Sunny McSunnyface (@sunnyright) February 15, 2022
A look at the new scientific data causing the end of mask mandates https://t.co/jq4VEvmbAy
— Sunny McSunnyface (@sunnyright) February 15, 2022
Sam, I don't know how we missed it at the time. Are you magnetized? Can you interface with 5G towers?Sam Lowry said:Coviphiles are frantically re-writing history, burying their own absurd predictions, and inventing ridiculous arguments to attribute to their opponents. Your friend Canon is among the most active of the revisionists.Harrison Bergeron said:
It will be interesting to see how long the Covidians hold on to their worthless totems both as a sign of ritual purity and magical protection.
Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
I suppose you haven't actually checked the CDC or Merriam-Webster.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
The LAT editorial board: "As we’ve noted before, kids are now used to wearing masks and seldom complain." pic.twitter.com/3JtnMh40v8
— Tom Bevan (@TomBevanRCP) February 15, 2022
I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
D. C. Bear said:I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
He doesn't know. Must be getting 5G interferenceD. C. Bear said:I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.
INBOX: pic.twitter.com/ytvAKu4b0r
— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) February 15, 2022
Cobretti said:INBOX: pic.twitter.com/ytvAKu4b0r
— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) February 15, 2022
D. C. Bear said:One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.
The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."
LOLCanon said:D. C. Bear said:One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.
The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."
Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.
The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity
1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.
The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."
Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.
The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity
D. C. Bear said:1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.
The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."
Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.
The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity
2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.
Canon said:D. C. Bear said:1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.
The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."
Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.
The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity
2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.
And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?
The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.
D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.
The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."
Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.
The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity
2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.
And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?
The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.
Inexplicably changed? Not really. When you have people start to get worked up over the definition of vaccine and immunity and the like, you might need to explain it a little better.
And, no, not all vaccines provide long term immunity. It is not "the fact of the matter."
Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.
The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."
Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.
The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity
2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.
And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?
The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.
Inexplicably changed? Not really. When you have people start to get worked up over the definition of vaccine and immunity and the like, you might need to explain it a little better.
And, no, not all vaccines provide long term immunity. It is not "the fact of the matter."
List vaccines that don't provide long term immunity. Let's see.
D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.
The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."
Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.
The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity
2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.
And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?
The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.
Inexplicably changed? Not really. When you have people start to get worked up over the definition of vaccine and immunity and the like, you might need to explain it a little better.
And, no, not all vaccines provide long term immunity. It is not "the fact of the matter."
List vaccines that don't provide long term immunity. Let's see.
Only one is required to show that "long term immunity" is not a necessary element of the definition of a vaccine.
Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.
The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."
Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.
The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity
2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.
And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?
The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.
Inexplicably changed? Not really. When you have people start to get worked up over the definition of vaccine and immunity and the like, you might need to explain it a little better.
And, no, not all vaccines provide long term immunity. It is not "the fact of the matter."
List vaccines that don't provide long term immunity. Let's see.
Only one is required to show that "long term immunity" is not a necessary element of the definition of a vaccine.
If you change the definition. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
The left has been I. The business of changing definitions in the last few years to fix their failed arguments. See Racism. This is just another in the list.
D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.
The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."
Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.
The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity
2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.
And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?
The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.
Inexplicably changed? Not really. When you have people start to get worked up over the definition of vaccine and immunity and the like, you might need to explain it a little better.
And, no, not all vaccines provide long term immunity. It is not "the fact of the matter."
List vaccines that don't provide long term immunity. Let's see.
Only one is required to show that "long term immunity" is not a necessary element of the definition of a vaccine.
If you change the definition. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
The left has been I. The business of changing definitions in the last few years to fix their failed arguments. See Racism. This is just another in the list.
No, there have been vaccines for decades that do not have long term immunity.
Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.
The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."
Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.
The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity
2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.
And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?
The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.
Inexplicably changed? Not really. When you have people start to get worked up over the definition of vaccine and immunity and the like, you might need to explain it a little better.
And, no, not all vaccines provide long term immunity. It is not "the fact of the matter."
List vaccines that don't provide long term immunity. Let's see.
Only one is required to show that "long term immunity" is not a necessary element of the definition of a vaccine.
If you change the definition. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
The left has been I. The business of changing definitions in the last few years to fix their failed arguments. See Racism. This is just another in the list.
No, there have been vaccines for decades that do not have long term immunity.
Name them. Give us the list of vaccines that don't give immunity (as this one doesn't), either long term or short term.
D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.
The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."
Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.
The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity
2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.
And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?
The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.
Inexplicably changed? Not really. When you have people start to get worked up over the definition of vaccine and immunity and the like, you might need to explain it a little better.
And, no, not all vaccines provide long term immunity. It is not "the fact of the matter."
List vaccines that don't provide long term immunity. Let's see.
Only one is required to show that "long term immunity" is not a necessary element of the definition of a vaccine.
If you change the definition. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
The left has been I. The business of changing definitions in the last few years to fix their failed arguments. See Racism. This is just another in the list.
No, there have been vaccines for decades that do not have long term immunity.
Name them. Give us the list of vaccines that don't give immunity (as this one doesn't), either long term or short term.
This one does provide some immunity, but we were discussing the length of immunity. The flu shot comes to mind, which has to be redone every year and it's effectiveness varies widely. It's still a vaccine, and that is really the only example needed to demonstrate that the whole uproar among vaccine detractors about the definition of a vaccine is pretty pointless. If you would like another example, consider the cholera vaccine once a popular requirement for travel to any variety of countries. (Not sure if it still is). It lasted six months. They used to give it to people at some airports. The "fact of the matter" is that not all vaccines provide long term immunity, and this was the case long before any "changes" to the definition of a vaccine.
Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.
The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."
Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.
The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity
2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.
And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?
The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.
Inexplicably changed? Not really. When you have people start to get worked up over the definition of vaccine and immunity and the like, you might need to explain it a little better.
And, no, not all vaccines provide long term immunity. It is not "the fact of the matter."
List vaccines that don't provide long term immunity. Let's see.
Only one is required to show that "long term immunity" is not a necessary element of the definition of a vaccine.
If you change the definition. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
The left has been I. The business of changing definitions in the last few years to fix their failed arguments. See Racism. This is just another in the list.
No, there have been vaccines for decades that do not have long term immunity.
Name them. Give us the list of vaccines that don't give immunity (as this one doesn't), either long term or short term.
This one does provide some immunity, but we were discussing the length of immunity. The flu shot comes to mind, which has to be redone every year and it's effectiveness varies widely. It's still a vaccine, and that is really the only example needed to demonstrate that the whole uproar among vaccine detractors about the definition of a vaccine is pretty pointless. If you would like another example, consider the cholera vaccine once a popular requirement for travel to any variety of countries. (Not sure if it still is). It lasted six months. They used to give it to people at some airports. The "fact of the matter" is that not all vaccines provide long term immunity, and this was the case long before any "changes" to the definition of a vaccine.
Hold on. How much immunity? Quantify it. You can't. And because you can't, it's not legitimate to say it provides immunity. It's a man made global warming argument.
I'll leave the rest of what you wrote until you effectively address this.
And still waiting on you to give us the list of vaccines that don't give immunity (as this one doesn't), either long term or short term.
D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.
The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."
Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.
The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity
2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.
And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?
The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.
Inexplicably changed? Not really. When you have people start to get worked up over the definition of vaccine and immunity and the like, you might need to explain it a little better.
And, no, not all vaccines provide long term immunity. It is not "the fact of the matter."
List vaccines that don't provide long term immunity. Let's see.
Only one is required to show that "long term immunity" is not a necessary element of the definition of a vaccine.
If you change the definition. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
The left has been I. The business of changing definitions in the last few years to fix their failed arguments. See Racism. This is just another in the list.
No, there have been vaccines for decades that do not have long term immunity.
Name them. Give us the list of vaccines that don't give immunity (as this one doesn't), either long term or short term.
This one does provide some immunity, but we were discussing the length of immunity. The flu shot comes to mind, which has to be redone every year and it's effectiveness varies widely. It's still a vaccine, and that is really the only example needed to demonstrate that the whole uproar among vaccine detractors about the definition of a vaccine is pretty pointless. If you would like another example, consider the cholera vaccine once a popular requirement for travel to any variety of countries. (Not sure if it still is). It lasted six months. They used to give it to people at some airports. The "fact of the matter" is that not all vaccines provide long term immunity, and this was the case long before any "changes" to the definition of a vaccine.
Hold on. How much immunity? Quantify it. You can't. And because you can't, it's not legitimate to say it provides immunity. It's a man made global warming argument.
I'll leave the rest of what you wrote until you effectively address this.
And still waiting on you to give us the list of vaccines that don't give immunity (as this one doesn't), either long term or short term.
I gave you two examples, which is one more than what is needed to demonstrate the point.
Quantify immunity to what?
DEPARTMENT OF LOGICAL FALLACIES
— Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb) February 13, 2022
1) Makes policies for Alpha/Delta that turn out to be insufficient for Omicron (2 mnths) look retrospectively bad.
2) Pbms is NOT masks: Omicron is vastly more contagious than Delta.
3) Conflates doesn't work w/insufficient.https://t.co/VuIStd0PiA
Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.
The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."
Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.
The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity
2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.
And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?
The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.
Inexplicably changed? Not really. When you have people start to get worked up over the definition of vaccine and immunity and the like, you might need to explain it a little better.
And, no, not all vaccines provide long term immunity. It is not "the fact of the matter."
List vaccines that don't provide long term immunity. Let's see.
Only one is required to show that "long term immunity" is not a necessary element of the definition of a vaccine.
If you change the definition. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
The left has been I. The business of changing definitions in the last few years to fix their failed arguments. See Racism. This is just another in the list.
No, there have been vaccines for decades that do not have long term immunity.
Name them. Give us the list of vaccines that don't give immunity (as this one doesn't), either long term or short term.
This one does provide some immunity, but we were discussing the length of immunity. The flu shot comes to mind, which has to be redone every year and it's effectiveness varies widely. It's still a vaccine, and that is really the only example needed to demonstrate that the whole uproar among vaccine detractors about the definition of a vaccine is pretty pointless. If you would like another example, consider the cholera vaccine once a popular requirement for travel to any variety of countries. (Not sure if it still is). It lasted six months. They used to give it to people at some airports. The "fact of the matter" is that not all vaccines provide long term immunity, and this was the case long before any "changes" to the definition of a vaccine.
Hold on. How much immunity? Quantify it. You can't. And because you can't, it's not legitimate to say it provides immunity. It's a man made global warming argument.
I'll leave the rest of what you wrote until you effectively address this.
And still waiting on you to give us the list of vaccines that don't give immunity (as this one doesn't), either long term or short term.
I gave you two examples, which is one more than what is needed to demonstrate the point.
Quantify immunity to what?
Quantify immunity to the disease the so called vaccine provides immunity to. It appears to be zero with Covid.
Why did the definition of vaccine change?
Taleb is lost, What a terrible argument when mask mandates didn't work on Alpha or Delta either. He's still clinging to the idea of zero COVID. That's as whacked out of an idea as COVID being a hoax.jupiter said:DEPARTMENT OF LOGICAL FALLACIES
— Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb) February 13, 2022
1) Makes policies for Alpha/Delta that turn out to be insufficient for Omicron (2 mnths) look retrospectively bad.
2) Pbms is NOT masks: Omicron is vastly more contagious than Delta.
3) Conflates doesn't work w/insufficient.https://t.co/VuIStd0PiA
D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.
The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."
Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.
The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity
2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.
And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?
The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.
Inexplicably changed? Not really. When you have people start to get worked up over the definition of vaccine and immunity and the like, you might need to explain it a little better.
And, no, not all vaccines provide long term immunity. It is not "the fact of the matter."
List vaccines that don't provide long term immunity. Let's see.
Only one is required to show that "long term immunity" is not a necessary element of the definition of a vaccine.
If you change the definition. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
The left has been I. The business of changing definitions in the last few years to fix their failed arguments. See Racism. This is just another in the list.
No, there have been vaccines for decades that do not have long term immunity.
Name them. Give us the list of vaccines that don't give immunity (as this one doesn't), either long term or short term.
This one does provide some immunity, but we were discussing the length of immunity. The flu shot comes to mind, which has to be redone every year and it's effectiveness varies widely. It's still a vaccine, and that is really the only example needed to demonstrate that the whole uproar among vaccine detractors about the definition of a vaccine is pretty pointless. If you would like another example, consider the cholera vaccine once a popular requirement for travel to any variety of countries. (Not sure if it still is). It lasted six months. They used to give it to people at some airports. The "fact of the matter" is that not all vaccines provide long term immunity, and this was the case long before any "changes" to the definition of a vaccine.
Hold on. How much immunity? Quantify it. You can't. And because you can't, it's not legitimate to say it provides immunity. It's a man made global warming argument.
I'll leave the rest of what you wrote until you effectively address this.
And still waiting on you to give us the list of vaccines that don't give immunity (as this one doesn't), either long term or short term.
I gave you two examples, which is one more than what is needed to demonstrate the point.
Quantify immunity to what?
Quantify immunity to the disease the so called vaccine provides immunity to. It appears to be zero with Covid.
Why did the definition of vaccine change?
1. It does not appear to be zero with COVID.
2. What a vaccine is didn't actually change. A vaccine is still something given to generate an immune response so that when an organism encounters a particular pathogen it is able to respond more effectively to that pathogen.
And I have provided sufficient proof that a vaccine does not need to provide long term immunity to meet the definition of a vaccine. You should simply concede that you were mistaken, but you are probably psychologically unable to do so.
D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Canon said:D. C. Bear said:1. Vaccines have always had a range of "protection."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:One type complaint is that "vaccines" provide "immunity" so if you can still catch the disease after vaccination then it isn't a "vaccine."Canon said:D. C. Bear said:I've seen two kinds of complaints about the "changing definitions" of vaccines. I am wondering which one you are complaining about.Canon said:D. C. Bear said:Exactly how was the definition changed?Canon said:Sam Lowry said:Calling them pseudo-vaccines is anti-vax propaganda. Sorry if that hits a nerve.Canon said:Sam Lowry said:
There's nothing you can come up with that these anti-vaxxers won't believe. I know because I've tried.
You can't help but lie. Calling people who have been vaccinated with every modern vaccine, many with one of the Covid pseudo-vaccines, "antivaxxers" is a bald faced lie. Nothing new for you. Carry on liar.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Ok.
I suppose if you get the CDC and Mirriam-Webster to change the definition of vaccine, then you are not lying. Propaganda indeed.
Look it up. Tell me and tell me why you think it doesn't matter.
Explain the two changes you are referring to. Thanks.
The other appears to be more specific to the mRNA vaccines and complains that because the production of the antigen is inside the body instead of in a factory, they aren't really "vaccines."
Thanks. I was referring to the removal of the word "immunity" to be replaced with "protection" that happened last year when it became clear the pseudo vaccines don't provide immunity.
The pseudo vaccines are at best short to mid range therapies. Vaccines provide long term immunity. Changing the definition 9 months ago just gave away the game.
https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity
2. Not all "vaccines" provide long term immunity. Length of immunity is not an essential part of the definition of a vaccine.
And yet the definition was inexplicably changed in May 2021. The change was from providing "immunity " to "protection". Why? Why then?
The fact of the matter is vaccines do provide long lived immunity. The change wasn't one to be more precise. It was a change to try and incorporate the pseudo vaccines (therapeutics) that were being mandated.
Inexplicably changed? Not really. When you have people start to get worked up over the definition of vaccine and immunity and the like, you might need to explain it a little better.
And, no, not all vaccines provide long term immunity. It is not "the fact of the matter."
List vaccines that don't provide long term immunity. Let's see.
Only one is required to show that "long term immunity" is not a necessary element of the definition of a vaccine.
If you change the definition. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
The left has been I. The business of changing definitions in the last few years to fix their failed arguments. See Racism. This is just another in the list.
No, there have been vaccines for decades that do not have long term immunity.
Name them. Give us the list of vaccines that don't give immunity (as this one doesn't), either long term or short term.
This one does provide some immunity, but we were discussing the length of immunity. The flu shot comes to mind, which has to be redone every year and it's effectiveness varies widely. It's still a vaccine, and that is really the only example needed to demonstrate that the whole uproar among vaccine detractors about the definition of a vaccine is pretty pointless. If you would like another example, consider the cholera vaccine once a popular requirement for travel to any variety of countries. (Not sure if it still is). It lasted six months. They used to give it to people at some airports. The "fact of the matter" is that not all vaccines provide long term immunity, and this was the case long before any "changes" to the definition of a vaccine.