Posted on 03/27/2023 2:51:14 PM PDT by nickcarraway
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.
Left off the word "not" due to poor editing.
AndyTheBear wrote: “A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease.” and “I am perfectly happy to keep the traditional definition rather than substituting my own.”
You’re ignoring the fact that there are no vaccines that fit that definition. Every vaccine in existance has ‘breakthrough infections’. Therefore, no vaccine can produce immunity. A vaccine can only produce degrees of immunity, never total immunity. Hence the reason for changing the definition.
For example, the smallpox vaccine has been effective in preventing smallpox infection in 95% of those vaccinated.
Here’s a personal experience. When I was in grade school, every child had to be vaccinated against small pox. Every vaccination had to ‘take’, you had to get a scab at the vaccination point or repeat the vaccination.
I had to take the vaccination, IIRC, at least three, maybe four times, before it took.
IOW, the small pox vaccine did not provide any degree of immunity for me until the third or fourth attempt. Was it a vaccine the first three times? Of course, it was. Whether it ‘toke’ or not didn’t determine if it was a vacccine. It only determined if I had some degree of immunity. I could still get small pox after it took but the chances were significantly decreased.
BTW, even if you do get a degree of immunity from the small pox vaccine, that ‘immunity’ only last three to five years.
We have been over this. The 100% clause you added was not part of the definition.
For example, the smallpox vaccine has been effective in preventing smallpox infection in 95% of those vaccinated.
Ok, so why does that mean it does not fit this definition:
A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease
You seem to be reading this definition as if it said:
A product that produces immunity therefore always protecting the body from the disease in 100% of the cases where the vaccine is administered. [The italics parts are your modifications]
If a vaccine produces immunity in 95% of people yet fails to produce immunity in 5% of people then the vaccine certainly qualifies as a "product that produces immunity". Just as a can opener is a tool that opens cans even if there are sometimes cans that it fails to operate well on.
Vitamin C and herbal tea and what not might "stimulate the immune system"...but they are not vaccines because they never give one immunity to a specific pathogen by triggering the targeted ability of the body to fight it like vaccines do.
What a bunch of nonsense. Government officials lying or providing inaccurate information about the effectiveness and safety of the covid shots has caused more damage than any pre covid anti vax efforts.
AndyTheBear wrote: “A product that produces immunity therefore always protecting the body from the disease in 100% of the cases where the vaccine is administered. [The italics parts are your modifications]”
Not mine. Those are the modifications made by those who claim the covid vaccines are not truly vaccines.
AndyTheBear wrote: “If a vaccine produces immunity in 95% of people yet fails to produce immunity in 5% of people then the vaccine certainly qualifies as a “product that produces immunity”
The latest figures are that the covid vaccines are 61.8% effectiveness in preventing infection. Why doesn’t that qualify as a “product that produces immunity”?
Stop being dishonest. Its disgusting.
EVO X wrote: “What a bunch of nonsense. Government officials lying or providing inaccurate information about the effectiveness and safety of the covid shots has caused more damage than any pre covid anti vax efforts.”
That is nonsense. Here are two correct verions:
Anti-vaccine grifters lying or providing inaccurate information about the effectiveness and safety of the covid shots has caused more damage than the covid shots.
Anti-vaxxine grifters or providing inaccurate information about the effectiveness and safety of the alternative covid cures have caused more damage than the covid shots.
Because producing immunity has a specific biological meaning.
Warm blankets might have some efficacy in preventing someone from catching a cold. However that does not make them vaccines because it does not prevent immunity.
Look, if you want to discuss these things and you really are not being dishonest (although I find that not very plausible) you need to do a lot better about thinking things through before talking about them.
There is nothing wrong with suggesting people get warm blankets or ivermectin or whatever else if there is evidence that it might help mitigate an illness. What one should not do is claim its a vaccine when its not.
er another typo: “does not prevent immunity” should be “does not produce immunity”.
You said:
Please identify three ‘vaccines’ that produced ‘immunity’ where ‘immunity’ is 100% protection from infection.
I did not take the bate because I did not modify the definition like you did to mean 100%.
So you are proven wrong again...by just a tiny bit of effort. Maybe its time for you to maybe start being honest finally?
I live in a blue state B10 town. The university threw in the towel on vax mandates at the beginning of this year. A couple of options come to mind for the end of mandate.
1.) University researchers determined there was no health benefit to continue the vax policy or
2.) They were losing students because of the policy..
AndyTheBear wrote: “Because producing immunity has a specific biological meaning.”
Please provide your definition of ‘immunity’.
EVO X wrote: “I live in a blue state B10 town. The university threw in the towel on vax mandates at the beginning of this year. A couple of options come to mind for the end of mandate.”
There is another option, they learned the virus wasn’t as deadly as they thought when they insituted the mandate.
AndyTheBear wrote: “I did not take the bate because I did not modify the definition like you did to mean 100%.”
Do you agree with this claim often made by vaccine skeptics: “These can’t be vaccines because you can take the vaccine and still catch the disease”.
you speak like joe biden...
I do not know how often this specific claim is made.
However, a related sentiment I think that is common is that vaccines that are approved are expected to be more efficacious then the jabs turned out to be.
As a matter of fact, many pro-jab proponents stated plainly that if one got these jabs (they used the word vaccine) that one would not get covid. I have seen video of Fauci and of Biden and other jab promoters making this claim.
To be fair to them, I would not hold them to mean that the jab was explicitly 100% effective, but I think it fair to say that they were asserting it is close enough to 100% that one did not have to worry about getting covid after they got the jab.
Then reality happened and the efficacy narrative became a farce. The goal posts were supposedly set by clinical trials before the release to the public, and they kept sliding and sliding. They slid to 60 something percent I think you mentioned a bit ago. Not really confident that the slide will not continue though...just impossible to trust people who were so wrong.
AndyTheBear wrote: “I do not know how often this specific claim is made.”
Very frequently. In effect, anytime anyone makes the claim that the vaccines do not prevent covid, they are making this claim.
AndyTheBear wrote: “As a matter of fact, many pro-jab proponents stated plainly that if one got these jabs (they used the word vaccine) that one would not get covid.”
That claim might have been truthful at the time it was made.
Often overlooked is the virus has mutated. Efficiency against the original variant could well have been close to 100% and approaching 60% against the latest variants. Those are not mutally exclusive.
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.