Posted on 03/27/2023 2:51:14 PM PDT by nickcarraway
What is it with you DugwayDouche? You only comment on threads that have to do with the clot shot and then you defend the government’s abuse. Sod off and go to DU.
Your words are politically true, they are just not actually true.
Feb 24, 2011 CDC definition of a "vaccine":
“A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease. Vaccines are administered through needle injections, by mouth and by aerosol.”
July 15, 2015 CDC definition of a "vaccine":
“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed in the nose.”
The definition remained unchanged for a while, but then within a week of the FDA approval of the Pfizer mRNA jab it was changed to:
“A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”
The meaning of "vaccine" was changed from something that gave immunity to something that stimulated immune responses.
There are tons and tons and tons of news articles trying to explain this away as just a run of the mill common update to the wording. Which might be enough to sway morons. Is it enough to sway you?
I think what you say is substantially correct. But, for those relevantly few, like myself, that are not intimidated by the Franchise 75 lawyers from 20 states and the District of Columbia granted themselves back on August 28, 1878 in a meeting in Saratoga, New York...., representing yourself pro se CAN BE very rewarding.
I just sued a large company and it settled in 3 months for 5 times my original claim and I did not have to pay a lawyer a dime. The disadvantage to them was that they quickly figured out (about 2 minutes!) that they would spend thousands on attorneys and I would spend zero through a trial and they likely would still lose.
I’ve been in at least 50 hearings over 50 years and never lost one (a hearing) as far as I can recall.
So, NEVER say NEVER. Lawyers are like any other profession. There are some damn good ones (I know several) and there some that aren’t worth the lead it would take to shoot them.
Apparently you don’t remember your mom taking you to play with some friend you usually didn’t hang out with and the friend had funny red dots on his face and arms. That was your chicken pox party.
Chicken pox is about as trivial as Covid is to a kid, meaning it’s nothing.
Because my mom didn’t do that. Chicken pox inoculation has been around since the thirties
And we didn’t have polio parties either
I'm still miffed about the 5000 bucks I am out for the lawyer, but I am not sure what would have happened if I had tried to fight it myself, even if I won I would have had to spend more than 5000 bucks worth of my time perhaps. ...so did not seem worth it.
I figure I am a professional in my field and get paid for my expertise. Might as well hire a professional in the legal field when I need one.
Chicken pox parties didn’t always work and varicella causes birth defects when contracted during pregnancy.
My parents were shit record keepers and couldn’t remember whether I had had the illnesses or been vaccinated, lost my birth cert too. I got vaccinated or maybe revaccinated as a young adult because it was cheaper and more certain than a antibody titer.
AndyTheBear wrote: “The meaning of “vaccine” was changed from something that gave immunity to something that stimulated immune responses.”
If a substance must provide immunity to be considered a vaccine, then there are no vaccines.
wildcard_redneck wrote: “What is it with you DugwayDouche? You only comment on threads that have to do with the clot shot and then you defend the government’s abuse. Sod off and go to DU.”
Resorting to ‘name-calling’ proves you cannot defend your position.
Keep up with your clot shot boosters and exercise vigorously.
I wonder when you will meet “suddenly?”
CDC definition of a vaccine BEFORE the mRNA crap was being developed:
“A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease. Vaccines are administered through needle injections, by mouth and by aerosol.”
For decades the definition of a vaccine as something that "produced immunity" was no problem because vaccines lived up to it!
Stop being a tool of deception and try some honesty instead. Its good for your soul.
AndyTheBear wrote: “For decades the definition of a vaccine as something that “produced immunity” was no problem because vaccines lived up to it!
Please identify three ‘vaccines’ that produced ‘immunity’ where ‘immunity’ is 100% protection from infection.
Not Sequitur. The definition said "produces immunity" it does not add the "100%" qualification you did.
AndyTheBear wrote: “Not Sequitur. The definition said “produces immunity” it does not add the “100%” qualification you did.”
Please define ‘immunity’.
You already lost the debate. Demanding I define things and hoping to find a weakness is not something I will fall for.
AndyTheBear wrote: “It has already defined by those far more competent on the subject than than I am and before the current polemics that became necessary because of the failure of mRNA jabs to qualify as vaccines. You already lost the debate. Demanding I define things and hoping to find a weakness is not something I will fall for.”
You sound like a democrat who can’t define ‘woman’.
The mRNA vaccinations are vaccines.
You obviously can't say the same.
Red Herrings and projection are not going to work. You are still exposed as a fraud. How about you start being honest as I suggested earlier. Its good for your soul.
AndyTheBear wrote: “Red Herrings and projection are not going to work. You are still exposed as a fraud. How about you start being honest as I suggested earlier. Its good for your soul.”
You can start being honest by explaining why the old definition is more accurate/approprite than the new.
The bottom line is this: if you want to cling to the old definition, then you have admitted that vaccines do not exist since there are no vaccines that are 100% effective in producing immunity. All vaccines are subject to breakthrough infections. Meaning none are 100% effective in producing immunity. It follows then that the new definition is the correct definition.
I have already been honest as daylight in this discussion. You have been deceptive in this discussion and thus the only who could "start" being honest here.
Its more appropriate to not change definitions in order to equivocate as the CDC has done. For example changing what "vaccine" means in order to get the jabs to qualify.
Your words:
If a substance must provide immunity to be considered a vaccine, then there are no vaccines.
The 2011 definition of vaccine per the CDC:
“A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease."
I am perfectly happy to keep the traditional definition rather than substituting my own.
Since I note the mRNA jabs do not qualify as vaccines by this established definition, honesty compels me to use a different term for them to avoid confusion.
Now you may have been able to argue that the Jabs also qualified under the traditional definition, but you gave up that approach when your chain of rationalizing took you to this gem: "If a substance must provide immunity to be considered a vaccine, then there are no vaccines."
When you say "mRNA vaccines are vaccines" its very much like saying "Trans-women are women". You could just say something like "The mRNA jabs are a good thing" and then argue for it. But calling them "vaccines" gives them credibility which they did earned. It also lets you equivocate on terms like "anti-vax" conflating those who have claims about actual vaccines with those that have legitimate claims about mRNA jabs.
Changing definitions of terms as part of polemics is dishonest, and by insisting on doing this you are being dishonest as well.
Start being honest. Its good for your soul, even though you have a lot of crow to eat to get there, I think its well worth it--well unless (as many here have suggested) you are being paid to push the pro-jab narrative. I have no idea if that is true, but I can certainly see why people expect it. But it is obvious you are being dishonest, either with us or yourself and with us. I can't see motives, only what you say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.