Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

501 - 520 of 603 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,421 Posts
Do they follow the CDC's own definition of "vaccine" and "immunity" which has been around for decades and which all other vaccines actually adhere to?

If they don't, then what are they? If they don't adhere to the accepted medical definitions then they aren't what we're being told they are. We're being lied to. Does the CDC plan on changing its definitions?
The mRNA vaccines literally train the human immune system to identify the spike protein on the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 and attack it. How does that not fit the definition?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
558 Posts
Do they follow the CDC's own definition of "vaccine" and "immunity" which has been around for decades and which all other vaccines actually adhere to?

If they don't, then what are they? If they don't adhere to the accepted medical definitions then they aren't what we're being told they are. We're being lied to. Does the CDC plan on changing its definitions?
I guess what's at issue here is precise use on language; science doesn't allow a lot of wiggle room.

Your "genetic coding" would be your genome; the way you describe it, the vaccine would rewrite the genome at the somatic level, which would be the greatest medical advance in decades, because you could "edit" someone. Maybe someday!

Yes, the way a vaccine works is by making "pieces" of a virus so that your body's immune system knows what to look for. In the case of mRNA vaccines, it's a piece of mRNA script which goes directly to the cell's protein-construction apparatus (like the endoplasmic reticulum), adds its recipe to the queue, and then out pops a viral protein which will now be recognized as an "antigen" by the immune system. The actual DNA of the cell (which is packaged in the nucleus) is not altered or affected in any way.

It's not always a pleasant experience, generating an immune response, so sometimes people have reactions to vaccines. I never have, but it seems pretty random. Maybe someday vaccines can be accompanied by something to counter side effects? Sounds like a future technology.

Because I love analogies, here's my analogy for an mRNA vaccine.

You're a soldier in a sealed fortress. You have a bank of 3D printers which you use to generate stuff - cups, plates, shirts - needed in the fortress. It turns out that there might be an intrusion by a foreign invader, but you don't know what he looks like. Your spies outside the fort find out what to look for, and they tell you they're sending you a 3D script for the particular hat this invader wears. Let's call it a red baseball cap with a logo (for argument's sake ;) )

You receive the script, and run it through your 3D printers, and out pop red baseball caps. You distribute these among all the guards, with orders to shoot anyone they see wearing this cap. So even though your fortress has never been invaded (yet), your guards will know the enemy when they see him.

As for your central computer, it had nothing to do with printing the hats; you just plugged a thumb drive with the hat design directly into the 3D printers. When it's done, you toss it in the trash. Done.

DH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,536 Posts
I don't know the precise definition that the CDC uses to define a vaccine, but the coronavirus vaccine is a vaccine as defined by long-standing science definition. Also, we have been using similar vaccinations in veterinary medicine to generate complete immunity to a nearly 100% fatal disease (rabies) for the last 20 years. Immunity as in the body produces antibodies that neutralizes the rabies virus before it can establish an infection in the patient's body, the same way other vaccinations work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,919 Posts
I don't know the precise definition that the CDC uses to define a vaccine, but the coronavirus vaccine is a vaccine as defined by long-standing science definition.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.

Immunity:
Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,421 Posts
You're reading off the "Why Vaccinate" literature. That's elevator speech and not medical definitions.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/terms/glossary.html#v
"Vaccine: Listen media icon[MP3]
A suspension of live (usually attenuated) or inactivated microorganisms (e.g. bacteria or viruses) or fractions thereof administered to induce immunity and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae. Some vaccines contain highly defined antigens (e.g., the polysaccharide of Haemophilus influenzae type b or the surface antigen of hepatitis B); others have antigens that are complex or incompletely defined (e.g. Bordetella pertussis antigens or live attenuated viruses)."
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,519 Posts
Moe,

You need to go back and "redefine" lots of vaccines as "NOT vaccines" due to some internet page you found with "basics" on vaccines that you think now gives you the authority of a medical degree . . . :lol:


One dose of MMR vaccine is 93% effective against measles, 78% effective against mumps, and 97% effective against rubella.

Two doses of MMR vaccine are 97% effective against measles and 88% effective against mumps.

Go ahead and launch your public awareness campaign. MMR vaccine is Not A Vaccine!

:rotfl:

This site is completely overrun with wacky conspiracy theorists who appear unwilling to engage in 30 seconds of basic research if they think there is even a 1% chance that something they find will challenge their pet conspiracy at the moment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,919 Posts
Moe,

You need to go back and "redefine" lots of vaccines as "NOT vaccines" due to some internet page you found with "basics" on vaccines that you think now gives you the authority of a medical degree . . . :lol:
I don't claim to have a medical degree nor do I claim to have a full understanding of this whole coronavirus crap. What I do know is there are people here who are book smart and street stupid.

Oops. Almost forgot...........

:lol: :rotfl:

Because that makes your opinions the final say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,919 Posts
I guess what's at issue here is precise use on language; science doesn't allow a lot of wiggle room.
There's a lot more at stake here than just precise language use. People's lives are at stake. We have been misled and lied to for nearly a year by certain politicians, medical and scientific experts and billionaires, all of them with vested interests at stake, over the infection fatality rate, number of actual deaths attributable to the coronavirus, viable and readily available alternative treatments and who knows what else. And the goal posts are constantly moved to meet an ever changing official narrative. Politicians and medical and scientific experts with opposing viewpoints have been heavily suppressed or outright cancelled. Our social and financial support structures have been inexorably altered and in many cases just destroyed.

And now we're asked to voluntarily submit to a miracle vaccine that has been developed, tested and brought to market in the shortest time frame ever seen. A vaccine that hasn't been fully tested on certain groups (eg, pregnant women and the elderly). A vaccine whose long term effects are completely unknown because of the shortened development cycle. A vaccine that doesn't adhere to the CDC's own definitions of "vaccine" or "immunity." A vaccine that may be mandated for use because of the widespread fear of many people, including knowledgeable medical personnel, of the uncertainty of taking the vaccine. Governments only mandate things for one reason. Control.

I'm not disputing that people haven't died from the coronavirus but why shouldn't we be very skeptical of how this whole coronavirus episode is being handled? Never before in the history of mankind has government reacted to a pandemic, one that's proven far less deadly than many others in the past, the way it has to the coronavirus.

Caveat emptor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,421 Posts
I'm not disputing that people haven't died from the coronavirus but why shouldn't we be very skeptical of how this whole coronavirus episode is being handled? Never before in the history of mankind has government reacted to a pandemic, one that's proven far less deadly than many others in the past, the way it has to the coronavirus.
The times, they are a changin'...
This is the first time on record that the human race has had the capability and capacity to confront a pandemic, in this manner, at this velocity.

Should we not fight the pandemic at all?

Should we not take the learnings and growing pains in this one as knowledge and experience for the next one?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,519 Posts
I don't claim to have a medical degree nor do I claim to have a full understanding of this whole coronavirus crap. What I do know is there are people here who are book smart and street stupid.

Oops. Almost forgot...........

:lol: :rotfl:

Because that makes your opinions the final say.
Note that I did not provide you an "opinion." I provided you with information with which you could form your own opinion.

You are the one putting forth a claim - that the coronavirus vaccines are not really vaccines because they do not grant 100% immunity.

Indeed, you repeated that claim when you were challenged, claiming you had a "CDC definition."

So I provided you another example of a vaccine that has been around for a long time but does not provide 100% immunity. I then jokingly suggested that you start a campaign to have persons stop calling it a vaccine.

I stupidly assumed that this would incentivize you to start investigating the validity of your claims and maybe even check into whether other vaccines might not be 100% effective. MAYBE this would cause you to re-examine your flawed conclusions, since they are based on a flawed premise.

But, sigh, no such luck. You have such a closed mind that it is impenetrable. You seize upon whatever internet bullshit catches your fancy and "supports" preconceived notions you already hold and then vomit this information all over the web site in an attempt to spread your ignorance around.

When persons attempt to get you to question the flawed arguments and information you present, you simply dig in deeper and refuse to consider any extra information, as if your head is simply too full of bullshit to permit the entry of anything else.

Then you make "laughing face" emoticons and start making jabs at what you think are my "opinion." You did not even quote any "opinion." The MMR statistics on immunity, which I notice you conveniently omitted (because even quoting it would cause you a slight chance of reconsidering your conclusion, an outcome that you simply cannot tolerate) is also not "opinion."

Facts matter.

Your conclusions might be slightly better if you based them on facts, but I am not keeping my fingers crossed. At this point your ignorance is absolutely deliberate - you have to make a real, conscious effort to keep yourself at this stage of ignorance. Sharing facts with you is wasted effort.

And this has nothing to do with "smarts," book or street. You are plenty intelligent enough to consider and evaluate the information presented. You just don't want to do so. Like I said, it is deliberate ignorance. That's worse than regular ignorance, because regular ignorance is something a person can easily correct. Deliberate ignorance indicates some sort of psychological block that does not portend good things for educating oneself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,154 Posts
Can we stop splitting hairs over terminology? I don't care what it's called, it does the same thing. You're injected with something, and that something tells your cells to produce the same protein the virus carries so your immune system can recognize and attack it. I don't give a flying crap what something's called, I care about what it does, and its effects, both beneficial and harmful. What I particularly care most about are the effects on reproduction, though the way things are going, I'm never going to have to worry about that anyways so I might as well just get the garden shears and neuter myself instead of letting some goverment-mandated science experiment do it for me!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,421 Posts
Regarding the infertility misinformation:
https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covi...id-vaccines-are-falsely-linked-to-infertility

Offit says to consider that 70 million Americans have been infected, or about 20% of the population. If the infertility theory was true, he says, you'd expect that the body making antibodies against the natural infection would show up in our fertility statistics. It hasn't.

"There's no evidence that this pandemic has changed fertility patterns," Offit says.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,919 Posts
The times, they are a changin'...
This is the first time on record that the human race has had the capability and capacity to confront a pandemic, in this manner, at this velocity.

Should we not fight the pandemic at all?
I didn't say that nor imply it. Of course we should confront the virus. Dead bodies usually indicate a problem afoot. There are existing prophylaxes that are relatively inexpensive with lots of long term data available that have been found to be of value for some people. Yet their usefulness is demeaned, large scale testing is forbidden and doctors are forbidden from prescribing them for treatment. Why? They may or may not be the most efficient treatments but they certainly could perform as stopgap measures while development of a specific vaccine continues.

Having "the capability and capacity to confront a pandemic, in this manner, at this velocity" doesn't mean it's the appropriate method to develop the needed vaccine. Shortcuts are taken. Long term effects aren't known and considered. The vaccine's efficiency isn't truly known. The current jab du jour requires two shots. Will it require more? We're not talking about developing a new flavor for Coca-Cola, which probably takes longer and gets tested better.

And then there's the lies and shenanigans I discussed in my prior post. I'm not going to repeat them here. A new medical treatment is something that should be driven by medical and scientific understanding and not, as we're seeing, political considerations. Unless there's something else going on.

Should we not take the learnings and growing pains in this one as knowledge and experience for the next one?
Can we afford the emotional, social and financial costs of a "next one" if it plays out like the current Theater of the Absurd? I highly doubt it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,919 Posts
Your conclusions might be slightly better if you based them on facts, but I am not keeping my fingers crossed. At this point your ignorance is absolutely deliberate - you have to make a real, conscious effort to keep yourself at this stage of ignorance. Sharing facts with you is wasted effort.
You crack yourself up. :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,919 Posts
No argument from me. But nobody died from it either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,277 Posts
501 - 520 of 603 Posts
Top