Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Donald Trump was not re-elected. *Poof* Silent Master absconds to the Discord.COVID-19 kills hundreds of thousands of Americans. *Poof* dadudemon absconds to the Discord.
They dug the hole too deep for themselves, and are too embarrassed to come back. They need enough time to pass for people to forget, the same way they need the page to flip, so they can distance themselves from the ass-beating they were taking on the previous page.
Yup
Changing the definition of a vaccine written by Dr Mike Yeadon
What is a vaccine? Dr Mike Yeadon:
The rotten liars at the US CDC unilaterally changed the definition of a vaccine.
Sorry people, no one died & left you in charge of defining what words mean.
Seriously, a vaccine had held a particular meaning for decades at least.
It’s explicitly the case here that the covid19 “vaccines” didn’t meet the definition of the word.
That left then open to accusations that these agents aren’t vaccines at all.
In order to fend off legitimate objections, THEY CHANGED THE DEFINITION OF VACCINE.
For all my life, it’s meant the administration of a preparation of killed or weakened infectious disease organism, bringing about immunity to that organism. The effect of that immunity is to prevent development of clinical illness if infected again by that organism. It doesn’t always prevent infection but such infections remain sub-clinical. Vaccines also prevent transmission, because the body of the person with immunity after vaccination will not allow the infectious organism to replicate to any great extent. Finally, the vaccinated person is generally protected against relatives of the organism in question because our immune systems have memorised dozens of structural features of the organism, common to related infections.
Now they’ve changed it such that a vaccine now merely “stimulates the bodies immune response against a disease”.
Sorry. That’s so vague that, on this definition, a vitamin D capsule is a vaccine.
In the end though, the argument isn’t about whether the gene-based preparations are vaccines or not.
Here’s the key point. If they’re vaccines, people automatically ascribe to them characteristics that are typical of all prior vaccines, especially that they’re widely regarded as safe and that the immunity provides tremendous protection against clinical illness.
No wonder they fight so desperately to cling to the V word.
Of course they’re not vaccines. They don’t provide good protection against clinical illness. The original clinical trials results were merely what’s called an “interim analysis” (around 1/3rd of the way through the trial, a normal part of a clinical trial, but what’s NOT normal is to lie, to deceive & pretend those data are “the results”) & the thing measured was NOT severe illness, hospitalisation & death, but only MINOR SYMPTOMS, like a cough or a runny nose.
Almost no one knows that the medicines regulators regard the technology as “genetic therapy”. Explicitly they gave guidance for development of products exactly like this, if the thing to which you’re supposed to become immune is part of a cancer. This is what DNA- & mRNA-“vaccines” were conceived as. And the development requirements are HUGE. Consider the kind of person likely to receive one of these Star Trek style genetic therapies against a cancer. Short life expectancies & failure of other modes of treatment. Nevertheless the regulatory agencies have a long list of requirements & long term obligations for the drug company to meet.
But absurdly, if the thing to which you’re supposed to be come immune is part of an infectious disease miraculously, exactly the same design of product is treated as if it was a “vaccine” of the same mode of action as all previous vaccines.
This is an extremely lightweight set of obligations. The reason they do that is that because prior vaccines are (with notable exceptions) generally considered safe.
Since these agents WORK IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAY, it’s reckless to assign an expectation of good safety to it, merely because they’ve shoehorned the word “vaccine” somewhere into its description / definition.
Evil fools.
So you’re not “anti-Vax” but “anti-badly tested novel technology genetic therapy”
Best wishes
Mike
Dr Mike Yeadon
Ps: apologies for drifting off topic.
@deano
Repeat: They'll been working on SARS related vaccines for about 20 years now, the covid-19 specific vaccines were built around that.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/how-did-we-develop-a-covid-19-vaccine-so-quickly
Originally posted by Deano
Changing the definition of a vaccine written by Dr Mike Yeadon[B] What is a vaccine? Dr Mike Yeadon:
The rotten liars at the US CDC unilaterally changed the definition of a vaccine.
Sorry people, no one died & left you in charge of defining what words mean.
Seriously, a vaccine had held a particular meaning for decades at least.
It’s explicitly the case here that the covid19 “vaccines” didn’t meet the definition of the word.
That left then open to accusations that these agents aren’t vaccines at all.
In order to fend off legitimate objections, THEY CHANGED THE DEFINITION OF VACCINE.
For all my life, it’s meant the administration of a preparation of killed or weakened infectious disease organism, bringing about immunity to that organism. The effect of that immunity is to prevent development of clinical illness if infected again by that organism. It doesn’t always prevent infection but such infections remain sub-clinical. Vaccines also prevent transmission, because the body of the person with immunity after vaccination will not allow the infectious organism to replicate to any great extent. Finally, the vaccinated person is generally protected against relatives of the organism in question because our immune systems have memorised dozens of structural features of the organism, common to related infections.
Now they’ve changed it such that a vaccine now merely “stimulates the bodies immune response against a disease”.
Sorry. That’s so vague that, on this definition, a vitamin D capsule is a vaccine.
In the end though, the argument isn’t about whether the gene-based preparations are vaccines or not.
Here’s the key point. If they’re vaccines, people automatically ascribe to them characteristics that are typical of all prior vaccines, especially that they’re widely regarded as safe and that the immunity provides tremendous protection against clinical illness.
No wonder they fight so desperately to cling to the V word.
Of course they’re not vaccines. They don’t provide good protection against clinical illness. The original clinical trials results were merely what’s called an “interim analysis” (around 1/3rd of the way through the trial, a normal part of a clinical trial, but what’s NOT normal is to lie, to deceive & pretend those data are “the results”) & the thing measured was NOT severe illness, hospitalisation & death, but only MINOR SYMPTOMS, like a cough or a runny nose.
Almost no one knows that the medicines regulators regard the technology as “genetic therapy”. Explicitly they gave guidance for development of products exactly like this, if the thing to which you’re supposed to become immune is part of a cancer. This is what DNA- & mRNA-“vaccines” were conceived as. And the development requirements are HUGE. Consider the kind of person likely to receive one of these Star Trek style genetic therapies against a cancer. Short life expectancies & failure of other modes of treatment. Nevertheless the regulatory agencies have a long list of requirements & long term obligations for the drug company to meet.
But absurdly, if the thing to which you’re supposed to be come immune is part of an infectious disease miraculously, exactly the same design of product is treated as if it was a “vaccine” of the same mode of action as all previous vaccines.
This is an extremely lightweight set of obligations. The reason they do that is that because prior vaccines are (with notable exceptions) generally considered safe.
Since these agents WORK IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAY, it’s reckless to assign an expectation of good safety to it, merely because they’ve shoehorned the word “vaccine” somewhere into its description / definition.
Evil fools.
So you’re not “anti-Vax” but “anti-badly tested novel technology genetic therapy”
Best wishes
MikeDr Mike Yeadon
Ps: apologies for drifting off topic.
[/B]
Originally posted by Robtard
@deanoRepeat: They'll been working on SARS related vaccines for about 20 years now, the covid-19 specific vaccines were built around that.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/how-did-we-develop-a-covid-19-vaccine-so-quickly
You can work on something as long as you want. It is still experimental and on trial.
Originally posted by DeanoI keep telling you he's a fat old man. He's high risk, but looks okay despite being positive, probably because of something called a vaccine.
You sound like a druggyWhat do I think a vaccine is? Well It's definetly not what's being injecting into people now that's for sure. And you keep claiming its safe when it clearly isn't if people are getting injured and dying . And unless you are a time traveller you do not know the long term effects. Until you so, you cannot claim it safe. And it's definetly not effective.
My partner and I had covid and will ill for a few days. It just felt like a lighter version of the flu. Her double vaxxed sister had covid and was worse off. But let me guess, she would of been in icu if it wasn't for the vaccine right? And we would of been better off if we had it. Assumptions to fit people's belief systems If people are gonna get it they will get it and the vaccine will not make a blind bit of difference
I'm sorry about your dad and I hope he is doing ok.. But how do you know he would of been worse off without the vaccine? (it's not a vaccine). What evidence is this based on? You are just assuming that's the case. Sounds to me like he would of been in a much healthier state having not taking it
You have basically just admitted without realising that the vaccine does not work.