• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * - 4 votes

Regarding the vaccines, I think this is a question we All should be asking as members of a longevity-promoting website.

coronavirus

  • Please log in to reply
1974 replies to this topic

#91 joesixpack

  • Member
  • 467 posts
  • 193
  • Location:arizona
  • NO

Posted 14 December 2021 - 03:14 AM

Wrong, Pfizer did not get full approval from the FDA. They approved another product, and extended the Pfizer EUA. Read the letter.

 

This is why all of the mandates are being struck down by the courts. You cannot legally require anyone to take an experimental vaccine.

 
The COVID vaccines are not experimental. They have gone through the same phase I, II and III clinical safety and efficacy trials as other licensed vaccines and medicines. Just conducted at a fast speed. The global scientific community's creation of these highly effective vaccines with such remarkable rapidity has been likened to the Apollo project of placing man on the moon, it was an outstanding achievement that all who are not Luddites celebrate.
 
I believe in the US, the Pfizer vaccine now has full FDA approval (versus the previous emergency use approval). I am not sure if other vaccines also have full approval.
 
mRNA vaccines have been used in humans for 10 years without any problems, and are a great technology for creating future vaccines to protect us from disease causing viruses and bacteria.

 

 
Those with natural immunity due to previous COVID infection 5.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than fully vaccinated people. Refs: here and here.
 
Natural immunity is nowhere near as effective as the immunity provided by the COVID vaccines.
 
 

 
Yes, this is true: in places with high population density, viruses naturally evolve into more benign forms over time (though in very sparse population density areas, the reverse can happen).
 
The work of Prof Paul Ewald on viral evolution talks about this: he says it is in the interests of a virus to become more benign, because the fundamental goal of a virus is to spread to more hosts, and a virus cannot spread if it kills or incapacitates the host. In crowded places where there are lots of humans about, a virus spreads more effectively if the host only has a very mild illness, and so still goes to work and continues to socialize with people — that then provides the virus with many more opportunities to spread.
 
 
So the hope is that SARS-CoV-2 will evolve into a more benign form, which has a much lower rate of hospitalization and death, and that will signal the end of the pandemic.
 
There is already some evidence that the omicron variant is more benign, and if so, this could result in the pandemic effectively coming to and end when omicron becomes the predominant variant in about 6 months time. We can keep our fingers crossed on that.
 
 
 

 
So the hundreds of thousands of deaths that the antivaxxers caused should be ignored, you are saying? 
 
Antivaxxers have caused deaths by:

  • Killing themselves from COVID
  • Spreading the antivax message which results in other people shunning the vaccine and then dying of COVID
  • Spreading SARS-CoV-2 to others, which results in many more deaths

 
And if you want to argue that the vaccinated spread COVID just as much as the unvaccinated, you might like to read this article: No, Vaccinated People Are Not ‘Just as Likely’ to Spread the Coronavirus as Unvaccinated People
 
The article says: "the United States, where more than half of the population is fully vaccinated, the unvaccinated are responsible for the overwhelming majority of transmission."
 
 
Of course, the unvaccinated can themselves be seen as victims, gullible victims of the organized antivax groups such as the one run by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, who has been banned from various social media platforms because of his antivax message of death.
 
The ringleaders of the antivax movement I hope will face the full force of the law after the pandemic is over. 
 
I believe in freedom of choice and freedom of speech, but not the freedom to kill others.

 


  • Good Point x 3
  • Needs references x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Agree x 1

#92 joesixpack

  • Member
  • 467 posts
  • 193
  • Location:arizona
  • NO

Posted 14 December 2021 - 04:07 AM

Wrong, Pfizer did not get full approval from the FDA. They approved another product, and extended the Pfizer EUA. Read the letter.

 

This is why all of the mandates are being struck down by the courts. You cannot legally require anyone to take an experimental vaccine.

 

Ill informed?

 

Go here and read the latest letter issued December 9,2021 extending the EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‐19 Vaccine. The Comirnaty product is not the vaccine being given, a federal court has ruled that it is not the same as the Biontech vaccine.

 

So the vaccine is experimental, doesn't have full FDA approval, and Pfizer can't be sued when someone dies or is seriously injured by it.

 

https://www.fda.gov/...150386/download


  • WellResearched x 3
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1
  • like x 1

#93 xEva

  • Guest
  • 1,594 posts
  • 24
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 16 December 2021 - 08:00 PM

Sorry if this has been posted already, but I'm really curious to see the feedback from Hip and geo12the. Especially you, Hip. It's an audio of a week-old Joe Rogan with Peter McCullough podcast on vaccines. 

 


  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Informative x 1

#94 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 762 posts
  • -211

Posted 17 December 2021 - 04:47 AM

Sorry if this has been posted already, but I'm really curious to see the feedback from Hip and geo12the. Especially you, Hip. It's an audio of a week-old Joe Rogan with Peter McCullough podcast on vaccines. 

 

 

I did listen to probably more than 1/2 of it while stuck in traffic during my commute. I found McCullough charismatic and self confident but not credible. He would say some things that were true but in a distorted context. For example he made a big fuss about how at the beginning of the pandemic people were told to use hand sanitizer and how hand sanitizers are not effective and how stupid it was people were told to use hand sanitizers. I agree that we know NOW that hand sanitizers are not the answer BUT at the BEGINNING of the pandemic we had no idea. I am willing to give the authorities a pass on that one. But much of what he said was factually incorrect: He stated like it was an absolute fact that it's not possible to get COVID more than once. Rogan mentioned he new someone who did and McCullough essentially dismissed it as not credible. This is just one of the many things he said with certainty that he was 100% wrong on. FWIW my nephew caught COVID in October or November of 2020. His symptoms were mild and he recovered quickly. He caught it again in February of 2021 and the second time was worse. He lost his sense of smell for a very long time and it has not fully recovered.  You definitely CAN get re-infected with COVID.  And his conspiracy theories were bonkers. But where McCullough really lost me was once he started going into his conspiracies involving the Gates foundation, the Wuhan lab and miscellaneous other players. And how the pandemic response was planned and causing mass psychosis. His conspiracy theories are psychotic. And he thinks he can save the world with his early treatment protocols. But I personally would not send a loved one with COVID to him. At the end of the day, yes he is a doctor, perhaps well meaning(?) but I find him 100% not credible. He spouts some true things but in distorted context, he spouts factually incorrect things and he spouts bonkers conspiracy theories.  I know some here follow him but count me out. At the end of the day was the pandemic response perfect? Hell no. I've done consulting jobs where I have had to deal with government science agencies. They can be inept and ineffective; I have no illusions that the government is perfect. But vaccines saved countless lives. McCullough claims his early treatment would save countless lives. If I had to bet 1 million $ I would bet he is wrong.  


  • Disagree x 2
  • Ill informed x 2
  • like x 1

#95 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 1,047 posts
  • 633
  • Location:United States

Posted 17 December 2021 - 05:14 PM

Sorry if this has been posted already, but I'm really curious to see the feedback from Hip and geo12the. Especially you, Hip. It's an audio of a week-old Joe Rogan with Peter McCullough podcast on vaccines. 

 

The important part of the video beyond Vaccine injury and health agency exploitation(Read "The Real Anthony Fauci" for more), is the early treatment protocol using povidone iodine


Edited by Gal220, 17 December 2021 - 05:15 PM.

  • like x 1

#96 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,050 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 17 December 2021 - 10:41 PM

The COVID injections are not stopping the pandemic. The most vaccinated countries of the world have the highest number of cases. The most highly vaccinated states in the US are having the worst caseload/hospitalizations right now. 95% of the NFL players are vaccinated as well as 100% of the personnel, yet they are postponing games because they are getting dozens of cases every week. The omicron outbreak in California was among fully vaccinated people (whatever "fully vaccinated" means)

 

When even the Atlantic now says it is a pandemic of the vaccinated, you know the COVID injections are useless in stopping the pandemic.

 

A Harvard study even found a positive correlation when studying 68 states and most counties in the U.S., increasing COVID shot rates were correlated with increasing spread/cases!


Edited by Mind, 17 December 2021 - 11:07 PM.

  • Informative x 3
  • like x 2
  • Ill informed x 1
  • WellResearched x 1
  • Agree x 1

#97 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 762 posts
  • -211

Posted 17 December 2021 - 11:13 PM

The COVID injections are not stopping the pandemic. The most vaccinated countries of the world have the highest number of cases. The most highly vaccinated states in the US are having the worst caseload/hospitalizations right now. 95% of the NFL players are vaccinated as well as 100% of the personnel, yet they are postponing games because they are getting dozens of cases every week. The omicron outbreak in California was among fully vaccinated people (whatever "fully vaccinated" means)

When even the Atlantic now says it is a pandemic of the vaccinated, you know the COVID injections are useless in stopping the pandemic.


If you look at hospitalization graphs I have posted from the CDC site they show a dramatic gap between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. How do you explain that? I would like to know how you can ignore that very real and compelling data that show the vaccines keep people from getting sick and dying. It boggles my mind that people here overlook very clear cut data that undercuts their right wing conspiratorial views. The injections are stopping the pandemic in the people who take them.
  • Ill informed x 3
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Agree x 1

#98 xEva

  • Guest
  • 1,594 posts
  • 24
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 18 December 2021 - 02:41 AM

thank you geo12the for your feedback! (though our takes happen to differ).

 

And a propos! Josh Mitteldorf just posted a brilliant analysis on the matter:

 

 Immune senescence, Christian theology, and the Spike protein

 

https://joshmitteldo...-spike-protein/

 

Please also read his responses to comments.

 

And Mind, above, supports Josh's thesis with the current news/data. 

 

Thank you all for your input to the discussion! 

 

We live in truly fascinating times. I'm mighty curious to see how this awesome storyline will develop. 


  • Informative x 2
  • Cheerful x 1

#99 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,840 posts
  • 721
  • Location:Austria

Posted 18 December 2021 - 10:44 AM

Latest results out of Israel comparing natural with vaccine immunity (not peer-reviewed yet) commented on SPI:

 

The Power of Natural Immunity

 

infection-risk-recovered-vaccinated-gold

 

Infection rates after recovery vs. vaccination (SPR based on Goldberg et al)

 

Published: December 11, 2021
Share on: Telegram / Twitter / Facebook

A new Israeli study confirms the superiority of natural covid immunity.

 


  • Informative x 2

#100 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 762 posts
  • -211

Posted 18 December 2021 - 07:14 PM

thank you geo12the for your feedback! (though our takes happen to differ).

 

And a propos! Josh Mitteldorf just posted a brilliant analysis on the matter:

 

 Immune senescence, Christian theology, and the Spike protein

 

https://joshmitteldo...-spike-protein/

 

Please also read his responses to comments.

 

And Mind, above, supports Josh's thesis with the current news/data. 

 

Thank you all for your input to the discussion! 

 

We live in truly fascinating times. I'm mighty curious to see how this awesome storyline will develop. 

 

I didn't read the who thing carefully but found it interesting.



#101 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 762 posts
  • -211

Posted 18 December 2021 - 07:45 PM

The COVID injections are not stopping the pandemic. 

 

I would like anyone who keeps saying the vaccines don't work to please explain the data in the graphs I am am posting which clearly shows they do work.

If you strip away the propaganda and and spin  and misrepresenting data ("most highly vaccinated states are having the worst hospitalizations"  Uh, they also have many more people. You can't compare CA and Idaho) and look at the data it speaks for itself. Please look at the data. Keep in mind that many more people are vaccinated than unvaccinated.

 

Do you dispute that:

 

1) Vaccines prevent infection (vaccines infection figure)

2) Vaccines prevent hospitalization (vaccines hospitalization figure)

3) VACCINES SAVE LIVES (Vaccines death figure)

Attached Files


  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • like x 1

#102 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,050 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 18 December 2021 - 08:17 PM

I would like anyone who keeps saying the vaccines don't work to please explain the data in the graphs I am am posting which clearly shows they do work.

If you strip away the propaganda and and spin  and misrepresenting data ("most highly vaccinated states are having the worst hospitalizations"  Uh, they also have many more people. You can't compare CA and Idaho) and look at the data it speaks for itself. Please look at the data. Keep in mind that many more people are vaccinated than unvaccinated.

 

Do you dispute that:

 

1) Vaccines prevent infection (vaccines infection figure)

2) Vaccines prevent hospitalization (vaccines hospitalization figure)

3) VACCINES SAVE LIVES (Vaccines death figure)

 

Turn on CNN. They say the pandemic is raging across the world.

 

Successful vaccines in the past have ended disease progression within the population. Because the COVID shot is not really a" vaccine", it has not stopped the pandemic. It is not a sterilizing vaccine like the polio vaccine or the smallpox vaccine. Once people get those vaccines, they are immune for years and decades and the disease does not spread. COVID is still spreading like wildfire around the world and in the most vaccinated states in the U.S. The Harvard study I linked above shows no correlation between vaccination rates and COVID spread. In fact, the data shows the higher the vaccination rate the worse the spread.

 

A therapeutic that does not stop you from catching the disease or spreading the disease, or from getting sick, or from getting hospitalized, but only lessens your chance of dying, IS NOT A VACCINE! It works like your standard pharma drug. It is not working like "vaccine". That is why people say it does not work. I know you comprehend this point.


  • Good Point x 4
  • Ill informed x 1
  • dislike x 1
  • Agree x 1

#103 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 237 posts
  • 162
  • Location:USA

Posted 18 December 2021 - 09:19 PM

The COVID injections are not stopping the pandemic. 

 

 

 It boggles my mind that people here overlook very clear cut data that undercuts their right wing conspiratorial views. The injections are stopping the pandemic in the people who take them.

I think this is matter of people talking past each other, as they have different definitions of the expression “stopping the pandemic”. Yes, it is true that vaccinated people are being hospitalized or dying (from Covid) at a lower rate than the unvaccinated. But it is also true that vaccinated people are getting infected, spreading the disease, some are still getting very sick, and there it is clear that more vaccination with the current vaccines will not bring this to a halt. So, I think that rather than “stopping the pandemic” it would be accurate to say that the vaccines have been useful, so far, in “managing the pandemic”. It is a reasonable question to wonder if the current vaccines have outlived their usefulness.


  • Agree x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • like x 1

#104 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 762 posts
  • -211

Posted 18 December 2021 - 09:24 PM

Turn on CNN. They say the pandemic is raging across the world.

Successful vaccines in the past have ended disease progression within the population. Because the COVID shot is not really a" vaccine", it has not stopped the pandemic. It is not a sterilizing vaccine like the polio vaccine or the smallpox vaccine. Once people get those vaccines, they are immune for years and decades and the disease does not spread. COVID is still spreading like wildfire around the world and in the most vaccinated states in the U.S. The Harvard study I linked above shows no correlation between vaccination rates and COVID spread. In fact, the data shows the higher the vaccination rate the worse the spread.

A therapeutic that does not stop you from catching the disease or spreading the disease, or from getting sick, or from getting hospitalized, but only lessens your chance of dying, IS NOT A VACCINE! It works like your standard pharma drug. It is not working like "vaccine". That is why people say it does not work. I know you comprehend this point.


It is absolutely a vaccine. Not all vaccines are sterilizing. For example the flu vaccine is not sterilizing. And the efficacy of the flu vaccines are much lower than the Covid vaccines. You still have not addressed the data I showed that the vaccienes are saving lives and keeping people out of the hospital.
  • dislike x 2
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

#105 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 237 posts
  • 162
  • Location:USA

Posted 19 December 2021 - 02:14 AM

It is absolutely a vaccine. Not all vaccines are sterilizing. 

I am sympathetic to the arguments that the current vaccines are not as safe as they are made out to be, and that they are not likely to be a long-term solution, I do part company, though, with vaccine skeptics when I see this “not a vaccine” accusation. The issues raised post #102 indicate that the current vaccines are not good vaccines, or at least they are not as good as we would like or need them to be, but it does not mean that they are not vaccines.

 

Another version of “not a vaccine” is based on the technology. I have seen allegations that a vaccine is, by definition, an attenuated or killed whole pathogen, or that DNA or RNA products are strictly gene therapy and not vaccines. These arguments are implied when you see “vaccines” in quotes, as if the things being called vaccines are not really vaccines. I am surprised that any professional immunologist would make such an assertion, but I have seen it happen. These narrow definitions of vaccine are far out of date. Immunologists have been referring to products that present antigens via DNA or RNA as vaccines for a long time. As evidence I refer to a viral vector vaccine patent issued in 1994 and general DNA vaccine platform issued in 1998 and an RNA vaccine patent issued in 2000 (see claim 26). My own former boss was experimenting with vaccination by projectile DNA (“gene gun”) more than 20 years ago.


  • Agree x 3
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#106 Advocatus Diaboli

  • Guest
  • 562 posts
  • 622
  • Location:Chronosynclastic Infundibulum ( floor Z/p^nZ )
  • NO

Posted 19 December 2021 - 03:52 AM

When you see that a product isn't meeting the criteria of an original definition, then just change the definition.

 

tweet-600x475.jpg

 

 

 

(Note that "immunity" is actually homologous to "prevent". So, the 2015-2021 definition of vaccination, above, is superfluous.)

 

 

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

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity 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 into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.

 

 

That had been their definition since at least May 16, 2018, according to PJ Media.

But then, come September 1, suddenly there was a big change.

 

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

Vaccine: 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.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.

 


Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 19 December 2021 - 04:40 AM.

  • Good Point x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • like x 1

#107 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 762 posts
  • -211

Posted 19 December 2021 - 06:12 PM

 

When you see that a product isn't meeting the criteria of an original definition, then just change the definition.

 

 

 

 

While mRNA vaccine technology is relatively new and cutting edge, it's really a stretch to say the definition of vaccine has radically changed.  From the early days there have been vaccines that are not killed or weakened pathogens. For example Diphtheria vaccine, introduced about 100 years ago, is based on inactivated toxins.  AND as I have pointed out multiple times here, not all vaccines produce 100% sterilizing immunity.  I refer you to this informative review paper with more information:

 

A guide to vaccinology: from basic principles to new developments

 

There is an entire section dedicated to "what is a vaccine"


Edited by geo12the, 19 December 2021 - 06:41 PM.

  • Ill informed x 2
  • Agree x 1

#108 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 762 posts
  • -211

Posted 19 December 2021 - 06:25 PM

I think this is matter of people talking past each other, 

 

I generally try to find middle ground with people and I know the best approach for getting people to see your point of view is to be gentle and find common ground and allow them to save face. But these days people are so crazy and believe such silly nonsense and are so indoctrinated by extreme political dogma and conspiracy nonsense that I just can't. Sometimes crazy is just crazy. You can't reason with crazy.


  • Agree x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Unfriendly x 1

#109 Advocatus Diaboli

  • Guest
  • 562 posts
  • 622
  • Location:Chronosynclastic Infundibulum ( floor Z/p^nZ )
  • NO

Posted 19 December 2021 - 09:04 PM

re:post #107

geo12the wrote:

"While mRNA vaccine technology is relatively new and cutting edge, it's really a stretch to say
the definition of vaccine has radically changed.  From the early days there have been vaccines
that are not killed or weakened pathogens."

I made no mention of the types of technologies employed. The thrust of my post #106 dealt with

the fact that there has been, indeed, highly significant changes in definitions.


This citation in your post #107 states :

"A vaccine is a biological product that can be used to safely induce an immune response that
confers protection against infection and/or disease on subsequent exposure to a pathogen."

The hyperlink to the definition of "protection" from your citation states:

"Protection The state in which an individual does not develop disease after being exposed to a
pathogen.
"  (my emphasis)

Under the definitions given in your own references, the current crop of COVID-19 "vaccines" are
not vaccines--as it's clear that inoculated people can contract COVID-19.

If a particular inoculation doesn't provide "100% sterilizing immunity" then is isn't a vaccine when
gauged by the classic definition of vaccine (as well as when gauged by your reference, as previously noted).

 

Your reference actually contradicts the CDC's current, re-manufactured definitions (see my post #106)

and conforms to the classic definition of what constitutes a vaccine.

 

The definitional changes made by the CDC appear to be in response to this failure to provide

"protection" (see above).

 

 

 


  • like x 3
  • Ill informed x 1

#110 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 762 posts
  • -211

Posted 20 December 2021 - 12:32 AM

re:post #107

geo12the wrote:

"While mRNA vaccine technology is relatively new and cutting edge, it's really a stretch to say
the definition of vaccine has radically changed.  From the early days there have been vaccines
that are not killed or weakened pathogens."

I made no mention of the types of technologies employed. The thrust of my post #106 dealt with

the fact that there has been, indeed, highly significant changes in definitions.


This citation in your post #107 states :

"A vaccine is a biological product that can be used to safely induce an immune response that
confers protection against infection and/or disease on subsequent exposure to a pathogen."

The hyperlink to the definition of "protection" from your citation states:

"Protection The state in which an individual does not develop disease after being exposed to a
pathogen.
"  (my emphasis)

Under the definitions given in your own references, the current crop of COVID-19 "vaccines" are
not vaccines--as it's clear that inoculated people can contract COVID-19.

If a particular inoculation doesn't provide "100% sterilizing immunity" then is isn't a vaccine when
gauged by the classic definition of vaccine (as well as when gauged by your reference, as previously noted).

 

Your reference actually contradicts the CDC's current, re-manufactured definitions (see my post #106)

and conforms to the classic definition of what constitutes a vaccine.

 

The definitional changes made by the CDC appear to be in response to this failure to provide

"protection" (see above).

 

I will add some points:

 

"Protection The state in which an individual does not develop disease after being exposed to a
pathogen.
"  (my emphasis)

 

Is it disease if someone tests positive from a PCR test which is super sensitive if they show no symptoms? 

 

Under the definitions given in your own references, the current crop of COVID-19 "vaccines" are
not vaccines--as it's clear that inoculated people can contract COVID-19.

 

In that case the flu vaccine and many other vaccines are not vaccines because people inoculated with the flu vaccine can get the flu. And it's been shown that flu vaccines can prevent disease but not infection.  The flu vaccines are much less effective than the COVID vaccines. I have been pleasantly surprised how well the COVID vaccines have worked, I don't know what more people want from them.

 

AND the paper states: "A vaccine is a biological product that can be used to safely induce an immune response that

confers protection against infection and/or disease on subsequent exposure to a pathogen."

 

The key point is "protection against infection and/or disease"

 

People here love to hammer the point that people who are vaccinated can get infected but if you look closely at the data (see graph) the vaccines do prevent infection. Not 100% but no vaccines are 100%. That may change with the variants, we will see. I am hoping they will continue to keep people out of the hospital, others are rooting for them to fail. But so far so good.   

 

At the end of the day I am not sure what point you are trying to make about the definitions of vaccine changing. I don't see anything nefarious there but we can agree to disagree.

Attached Files


Edited by geo12the, 20 December 2021 - 12:36 AM.

  • Ill informed x 1
  • like x 1

#111 Advocatus Diaboli

  • Guest
  • 562 posts
  • 622
  • Location:Chronosynclastic Infundibulum ( floor Z/p^nZ )
  • NO

Posted 20 December 2021 - 03:37 AM

geo12the wrote in post #110:

 

"People here love to hammer the point that people who are vaccinated can get infected but if you look closely at the data (see graph) the vaccines do prevent infection. Not 100% but no vaccines are 100%"

 

So, the correct way to word the above portion of the quote which I italicized, would be: "for the vaccinated, the "vaccines" appear to lower the incidence of infection in comparison with the unvaccinated"--not that they prevent infection.

 

 

"In that case the flu vaccine and many other vaccines are not vaccines because people inoculated with the flu vaccine can get the flu.".

 

Correct, by strict application of the pertinent definitions, as given in post #109, for example.

 

 

"At the end of the day I am not sure what point you are trying to make about the definitions of vaccine changing."

 

Previous CDC definition:

 

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease.

 

Current CDC definition

 

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.

 

One problem, which lies in the semantical realm was, as I see it, the use of term "immunity", for example, in the classic definition of "vaccine". A term which did not, and does not, apply--as you correctly point out with: "no vaccines are 100%.

 

Immunity means "the state of being insusceptible to disease, certain poisons, etc." (definition 3). Bad choice of words in the classic definition of vaccine. And, redefining from producing "immunity" to producing "immune response" further confounds the issue, as evidenced by the current claims and counterclaims as to what a vaccine is, and does.

 

 

"Is it disease if someone tests positive from a PCR test which is super sensitive if they show no symptoms?".

 

This, perhaps rhetorical, question would seem to beg metaphysical and/or epistemological analysis (as opposed to being subject to unobjectionable resolution) until such a time when mutually agreed-upon definitions (for disease and symptoms, e.g.) and agreed-upon axioms (such as: PCR test results are to be considered as being completely accurate, e.g.) are presented.

 


  • Agree x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#112 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,050 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 20 December 2021 - 09:56 PM

It is absolutely a vaccine. Not all vaccines are sterilizing. For example the flu vaccine is not sterilizing. And the efficacy of the flu vaccines are much lower than the Covid vaccines. You still have not addressed the data I showed that the vaccienes are saving lives and keeping people out of the hospital.

 

"but only lessens your chance of dying"

 

Read more carefully.


  • Ill informed x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • dislike x 1

#113 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,050 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 20 December 2021 - 09:59 PM

 

Current CDC definition

 

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.

 

By the CDC's new definition, exercise, certain diet "preparations", and vitamin D3 are now vaccines. The current COVID injections are not vaccines, in the traditional sense, in the way that most people think of vaccines.


  • Cheerful x 2
  • Good Point x 2
  • Enjoying the show x 1

#114 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,395 posts
  • -447
  • Location:UK

Posted 20 December 2021 - 10:08 PM

To understand what a vaccine is, you have to understand how it interacts with the immune system and trains the adaptive immune response.

 

Since most people on this website probably have never even heard of the adaptive immune response, and probably would not be able to understand it even if they tried, there is no chance they will ever understand what a vaccine is. 

 

Tough luck. Not everyone is blessed with a scientific mind.


  • Unfriendly x 3
  • Needs references x 1
  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#115 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 237 posts
  • 162
  • Location:USA

Posted 21 December 2021 - 03:08 AM

By the CDC's new definition, exercise, certain diet "preparations", and vitamin D3 are now vaccines. The current COVID injections are not vaccines, in the traditional sense, in the way that most people think of vaccines.

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.

 

This may be a recent revision on the CDC website, but this definition comes close to the way professional immunologists have been using the term “vaccine” for many years.

In the field of cancer treatment, one strategy has been developed in recent years is to administer a composition that comprises a cancer antigen, usually together with one or more adjuvants. The antigen may be a peptide, or it may be expressed from DNA or RNA, among other strategies. Such compositions are called vaccines. Examples: US Patent 9,598,479 (claim 18), US Patent 9,956,276 (claim 1). Note there is no intent or expectation that these vaccines will prevent cancer. The sole purpose is to stimulate the body’s immune response against the cancer. I am quite certain that the people who make these vaccines know how to properly use terms in the field of immunology. A definition of “vaccine” that requires disease prevention is out of date.

 

On the other hand, while new CDC definition comes close to actual up-to-date usage of the term, it lacks one critically important element: there is no mention of specificity. There is no antigen. Mind is correct in post 113 to point out that any broad-spectrum immune stimulator would meet this definition. So, it is fair to interpret the CDC’s change in definition as propaganda meant to blunt the criticism of the current crop of vaccines.


  • Agree x 3

#116 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 237 posts
  • 162
  • Location:USA

Posted 21 December 2021 - 03:14 AM

To understand what a vaccine is, you have to understand how it interacts with the immune system and trains the adaptive immune response.

 

Since most people on this website probably have never even heard of the adaptive immune response, and probably would not be able to understand it even if they tried, there is no chance they will ever understand what a vaccine is. 

 

Tough luck. Not everyone is blessed with a scientific mind.

This is downright nasty, totally uncalled for, and unsupportable by evidence. Whoever rated it “good point” should be ashamed.


Edited by DanCG, 21 December 2021 - 03:24 AM.

  • Agree x 3
  • Good Point x 2
  • Enjoying the show x 2
  • Disagree x 1

#117 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,395 posts
  • -447
  • Location:UK

Posted 21 December 2021 - 11:05 AM

This is downright nasty, totally uncalled for, and unsupportable by evidence. Whoever rated it “good point” should be ashamed.

 

Sadly my statement is the truth. 

 

If you believe the truth is uncalled for, you are in good company, as many here seem to prefer pseudoscience and conspiracy theory websites to truth. Many people here have been Zuckerberged: they believe Facebook and YouTube are reliable sources of information.


  • Unfriendly x 2
  • Needs references x 1
  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Agree x 1

#118 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 237 posts
  • 162
  • Location:USA

Posted 21 December 2021 - 02:11 PM

Sadly my statement is the truth. 

 

If you believe the truth is uncalled for, you are in good company, as many here seem to prefer pseudoscience and conspiracy theory websites to truth. Many people here have been Zuckerberged: they believe Facebook and YouTube are reliable sources of information

So you believe that “most people on this website probably have never even heard of the adaptive immune responseis truth. You can’t possibly know this. I am sure we have persons of varying levels of training and expertise here; maybe some with only high school biology. But I have not seen a single comment that indicates the level of ignorance you are accusing “most people” of.

 

And, even if it were true, how is truth advanced by a sweeping accusation that “most people” participating in the discussion are ignorant, and lack a scientific mind?

 

As for me, if I feel a need to brush up on the basics of the immune system, I can always go back to my notes. I am not referring to notes I took while sitting in a class, I mean the notes I used when I was lecturing.


  • Off-Topic x 1
  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • WellResearched x 1
  • like x 1

#119 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,395 posts
  • -447
  • Location:UK

Posted 21 December 2021 - 02:18 PM

And, even if it were true, how is truth advanced by a sweeping accusation that “most people” participating in the discussion are ignorant, and lack a scientific mind?

 

Simply by making people aware that they do not know enough about the subject to have the highly opinionated views they express online. Strong opinions promoted online by people with insufficient knowledge of the subject leads to misinformation and the spread of falsehoods.

 

When the knowledge / opinionation ratio is low in an individual, this is bad, as it tends to lead to the promotion of naive or false statements.


Edited by Hip, 21 December 2021 - 02:20 PM.

  • Off-Topic x 2
  • dislike x 2
  • Agree x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1

#120 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 762 posts
  • -211

Posted 21 December 2021 - 04:20 PM

So you believe that “most people on this website probably have never even heard of the adaptive immune responseis truth. You can’t possibly know this. I am sure we have persons of varying levels of training and expertise here; maybe some with only high school biology. But I have not seen a single comment that indicates the level of ignorance you are accusing “most people” of.

 

And, even if it were true, how is truth advanced by a sweeping accusation that “most people” participating in the discussion are ignorant, and lack a scientific mind?

 

As for me, if I feel a need to brush up on the basics of the immune system, I can always go back to my notes. I am not referring to notes I took while sitting in a class, I mean the notes I used when I was lecturing.

 

The problem that you overlook is that tons of people here get most of their science information related to COVID from places like Zerohedge (described on Wikipedia as "a far-right[12] libertarian[17] financial blog" and Tucker Carlson or Swiss policy Research (according to Wikipedia "The Swiss Policy Research site has been criticized for spreading conspiracy theories including claims that QAnon was a psyop of the FBI[4] and theories relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.[2][5] German public broadcaster Tagesschau calls SPR a propaganda tool.[6]". Or from divisive internet gurus who their trust like deities. In other words they get their science information from political slanted non-science news outlets that specialize in spreading political division. Then you have people spouting nonsense about the COVID vaccines are not vaccines because they heard it from those places.  You are extremely patient with those folks. But I find it frustrating to counter their ridiculous narratives. Setting aside political views do you think Zerohedge or Tucker Carlson or for that matter Rachael Maddow are trustworthy sources for COVID information? 


Edited by geo12the, 21 December 2021 - 04:29 PM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 3
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • like x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: coronavirus

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users