Posted on 06/20/2022 1:12:41 PM PDT by ransomnote
T.B. Yoits wrote: “Again, how much is your company billing taxpayers for you to post propaganda on social media?”
How much are you receiving from the anti-vaxxer industry to post their propaganda on social media?
p
So do I get a new vaccine card that shows I’m inoculated against the vaccine? Is that also going to be required for employment?
Regardless of what the Center for Disease Coercion changed their definition to, the Jim Jones Jab is not a vaccine.
I'm pro-vaccine and have had all mine.
T.B. Yoits wrote: “Regardless of what the Center for Disease Coercion changed their definition to, the Jim Jones Jab is not a vaccine. I’m pro-vaccine and have had all mine.”
You’re just playing word games. They are vaccines regardless of the anti-vaxxer propaganda you’re trying to spread.
They wouldn't have to do that unless it wasn't a vaccine to start with.
T.B. Yoits wrote: “Just playing word games? The CDC changed their definition. They wouldn’t have to do that unless it wasn’t a vaccine to start with.”
Yes, the CDC changed its definition of vaccine to be ‘more transparent’
A spokesperson for the CDC said the previous definition could be interpreted to mean vaccines are 100% effective. This has never been the case for any vaccine.
So now, according to the CDC, vitamins, supplements, fruits, vegetables, and nuts are vaccines as they are "a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases".
At the same time, the Jim Jones Jab doesn't even meet their description because it doesn't stimulate the body's immune response as evidence by all those who got the shot and have gotten COVID-1984 multiple times.
T.B. Yoits wrote: “At the same time, the Jim Jones Jab doesn’t even meet their description because it doesn’t stimulate the body’s immune response as evidence by all those who got the shot and have gotten COVID-1984 multiple times.”
If that’s your reasoning then there are no vaccines since no vaccine is 100% effective. BTW, the link I provided explained that.
I said that the Jim Jones Jab doesn't stimulate the body's immune response as evidenced by all those who go the shot and have gotten COVID-1984 multiple times. Don't see any "stimulated immune response" there.
T.B. Yoits wrote: “I said that the Jim Jones Jab doesn’t stimulate the body’s immune response as evidenced by all those who go the shot and have gotten COVID-1984 multiple times. Don’t see any “stimulated immune response” there.”
What does that say about natural immunity?
It says the Jim Jones Jab interferes with natural immunity.
T.B. Yoits wrote: “It says the Jim Jones Jab interferes with natural immunity.”
Now where does it say that. Most evidence is that the best immunity stems from an infection and the vaccine.
most evidence is that you’re a liar and a drug pusher...
bookmark...sounds reasonable
No. The data shows the Jim Jones Jab weakens the immune system.
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/328102
https://www.westernjournal.com/johns-hopkins-doc-says-natural-immunity-27-times-effective-vaccine/
https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination
More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective antibodies
Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity
Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination
Absolutely untrue.
Those who were exposed to SARS in 2003 still have the antibodies now.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8529429/Could-immunity-17-YEARS-Singaporean-researchers-SARS-patients-crucial-T-cells.html
Bttt.
5.56mm
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.