"Definition of Terms
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."
CDC
" a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease."
Oxford Languages
"A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins."
Wikipedia
"A vaccine is a suspension of weakened, killed, or fragmented microorganisms or toxins or of antibodies or lymphocytes that is administered primarily to prevent disease."
Britannica.com
Above are multiple definitions of "vaccine", my question is as follows.
If something described as a "vaccine", doesn't perform the functions of a vaccine as defined above, is it actually a "vaccine"?
32 comments:
There are so many lies, falsehoods, misinformation coming from those who decry lies, falsehoods and misinformation because they have an agenda totally unrelated to our health. What the refer to as "vaccines" is not in fact a vaccine by definition, doesn't protect against infection, nor the spread of it and is just as likely to harm as to help. The risk/reward calculation might be positive for the elderly and unhealthy, but not at all worth the risk for most people.
Art,
This is what I'm leaning toward as well. What they've offered does not seem to be a vaccine as that term is defined, but rather something that might make the symptoms less than they could be. In essence it seems closer to how Sudafed deals with a cold than an actual vaccine.
What's also interesting is the reality that actually getting and recovering from COVID is more effective that getting the vaccine, yet those who've recovered are classified as "unvaccinated" when they are better protected than the vaccinated.
It seems like the key word in the definitions is "immunity" (likely not 100%), but clearly the vaccine does NOT give people immunity.
Finally, it's hilarious to watch Biden and Fauci talk about the need for boosters, while the FDA/CDC disagrees with them.
Just taking reports at face value, "breakthrough" cases -- people who have been vaccinated and get the virus anyway -- are rare. Not zero, sure, but rare. They are similar to reinfection rates of those who have had COVID already. Very rare. The further claim of the vaccine folks is that if you do get COVID, it decreases the effects (or, rather, it can decrease the effects -- there are still COVID deaths among the vaccinated), but the vaccine is actually aimed at getting your body to fight off the infection just like any vaccine is designed to do.
On the other hand, the abject terror I see in some quarters who demand vaccines for all and masks for all and negative COVID tests if you're going to be where they are seems insane. I want to tell them, "Either it is a vaccine -- fully effective or not -- or it is not. Make up your minds."
Stan,
Exactly. If this is actually a vaccine, which meets the definition of a vaccine, then the other things are superfluous. Given that the extra measures are being put forth as necessary, this is more evidence that the vaccine, isn't actually a vaccine.
I'm sorry... the CDC and Fauci and countless other actual medical experts are saying this vaccine is the right way to deal with this deadly pandemic. But three conservative fellas on the internet have found something that all these experts have somehow missed?
Do you think this is a rational place to stand?
Regardless of whether or not YOU think it's rational, do you understand how most of us are going to listen to actual experts, doctors and scientists over three conservative white guys on the internet?
If most of Science is saying one thing and you're saying you disagree... you don't have another opinion. You're just wrong.
That you can't comprehend the scientists is not evidence that they're mistaken. You GET that, right?
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm
With all said here thus far, the adverse effects from the "vaccines" is not so rare after all. We're not being told the full story of these things. I just watched a Project Veritas series of two videos with a whistleblower who is a federal employee. I highly recommend it, but it is not the first time I've seen such reports about the problems being faced by lower level people in hospitals (mainly, nurses dealing with patients) who insist those in charge are not doing their duty with regard to reporting problems that are far less rare than those in charge are telling us.
I would also suggest that none of this evil matters with regard to mandates for these drugs. The Liar-In-Chief ("liar", or stupid puppet who says what he's told to say?) is among those who have referenced current vaccine mandates, such as measles, polio, etc., as if these drugs have had all the testing and safety scrutiny, and as if what they are meant to defend against is as serious as any of those diseases. This is particularly galling where kids are concerned, as the not-so-perfect battery of vaccinations required for school are for diseases that target kids more directly. It's all crap. There is no medical justification for any mandate for anyone. Profit and power is the motivation. The health of the American people is not a factor at all.
Project Veritas!
That says so much. The conservatives have no shame?
1. As we've just seen with the "booster", the CDC/FDA and Fauci don't agree on how best to deal with this virus.
2. Try reading my post and the comments again. My post is simply looking at the definitions (including by the CDC) and asking a question.
3. Given the inconsistency of "the science", the variety of approaches worldwide which have produced reasonably good results, and the multitude of times "the science" has changed since "15 days to flatten the curve", I think it's completely reasonable to ask questions about the demands being imposed by our government.
4. I don't expect anyone to "listen" to me. However, I'm simply asking a question.
5. I love it when you act like "The Science" is in 100% monolithic agreement when you find it convenient. It seems like you are suggesting that those practicing "The Science" in countries that have adopted different strategies are 100% wrong.
6. I simply asked a question, you get that right?
7. For all your blather and blind, lemminglike following of "The Science", you haven't actually answered or pointed to an answer for the question asked.
8. If the vaccine isn't safe (According to the most recent "The Science"), then how could it be "safe" for a child in utero?
"I'm sorry... the CDC and Fauci and countless other actual medical experts are saying this vaccine is the right way to deal with this deadly pandemic."
Well, Dan...you at least got one thing right. You're definitely sorry. Here you do what you've done before...most recently with regard to election officials in states were election fraud was justly alleged...you cite the very people whose honesty and integrity is under great suspicion.
"But three conservative fellas on the internet have found something that all these experts have somehow missed?"
No. Three conservative fellows acknowledge realities dismissed by Fauci, the CDC and your "countless"(?) other medical "experts" which many other medical experts have brought to light.
"Do you think this is a rational place to stand?"
It would be irrational to simply swallow what Fauci and the CDC say given their many falsehoods and flip-flops. But then, you often use the word "rational" as if you actually understand what it means.
"do you understand how most of us are going to listen to actual experts, doctors and scientists over three conservative white guys on the internet?"
You listen to all sorts of morons over everyone more honest and sensible than them. But we don't expect anyone to look to us for more than encouragement to do more than to listen to the liars you find so compelling.
"If most of Science is saying one thing and you're saying you disagree..."
If what you want to believe is "most of Science" is saying the right thing, we wouldn't disagree. Your "experts" have been lying from the beginning and suppressing true scientific debate.
"That you can't comprehend the scientists is not evidence that they're mistaken."
Given your history, you've no room to question anyone's comprehension skills. You don't even comprehend that what Fauci expects us all to have injected into our bodies without our consent are not vaccines.
8. Who says the vaccine is not safe? I've not seen that suggestion in any credible sources.
Beyond that, it is always OK to ask questions. The point I'm making is that if you have questions and don't understand the science involved, that is not an indictment of the science involved. It just means you have questions. Not a damn thing more. It just means that you don't understand. And not a damn thing more.
And that is fine that you don't understand and have questions. Just don't act like It means anything beyond that you have questions and don't understand.
1. Has anyone ever demonstrated that any of the hours of recorded conversations made public by Project Veritas has been faked?
2. This notion that my having questions (that haven't been answered) automatically means that I "don't understand", or that I am wrong by default is quite bizarre.
3. You do realize that "the science" doesn't exist, don't you? That "the science" has led to multiple different approaches across different states and countries, and that it hasn't made much difference.
4. When "the science" told us "!5 days to flatten the curve" was "the science" 100% accurate? When "the science" told us that the "vaccine" (one or two shots) would lead to immunity, was "the science" correct? When "the science" tells us that natural immunity or the immunity achieved by actually having COVID is more effective than the "vaccine" why do politicians refer to those folks as "unvaccinated" and impose restrictions on them?
5. If the "unvaccinated" pose the greatest risk to the US, why would we allow thousands of "unvaccinated" to cross our borders with no testing, vaccine, or quarantine?
6. You do realize that your failure to actually answer the question (now questions), but to simply default the "the science" is always right doesn't really help your case.
Allow me to clarify.
8. If the "vaccine" according to "the science" isn't safe for children under 5, then why would anyone assume that it's safe for an child in utero?
I could be wrong and have missed the FDA announcing that the "vaccine" is safe for all children under 5, but I don't think I have.
"8. Who says the vaccine is not safe? I've not seen that suggestion in any credible sources."
Your notion of what constitutes "credible" is as unreliable as those "credible" sources upon which you rely. I also doubt you put much effort in verifying those you regard as "credible" and far less in those who present alternative points of view due to your sheep-like devotion to your "experts".
You've done no better than find one story about James O'Keefe which you think destroys the worthiness of everything he's done...as if it means he is untrustworthy. In the meantime, the leftist media you defend as if they are noble creatures has proven themselves the enemy of the people for their wanton disregard for objectivity and facts. So it seems, like "rational", you have no real grasp of what "credible" means or looks like. But we've known this about you for years.
From the radicals at Johns Hopkins...
"Is the COVID-19 vaccine available to pregnant women?
Yes, COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)are recommended for pregnant and lactating individuals as well as those trying or intending to become pregnant. We strongly recommend that women with remaining concerns, talk with their doctor to discuss all factors about the vaccine and their pregnancy. The recommendation is based on the following:
Symptomatic pregnant women who contract COVID-19 are at more risk of severe illness, complications and death than non-pregnant women. Many pregnant women have medical conditions that put them at further increased risk."
Should pregnant and lactating women receive the COVID-19 vaccine?
Yes. Johns Hopkins Medicine agrees with and strongly supports the recommendations of the CDC, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) who recommend that all pregnant or lactating individuals, along with those trying to get pregnant, be vaccinated against COVID-19.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention includes pregnant women as a high-risk group for severe COVID-19 illness, though severe disease is fortunately uncommon. The decision to receive the COVID-19 vaccine should be a shared decision among a woman, her care partner(s) and medical provider(s)."
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/the-covid19-vaccine-and-pregnancy-what-you-need-to-know
I think the point being that there is the risk from contracting covid is greater than any potential risk from the vaccine.
I'm no scientist, and I am a healthy skeptic, AND YET, I don't think the CDC or professionals like the people at John Hopkins are making stuff up or ignoring danger signs.
Craig... " isn't safe for children under 5"
I can't find any place where the experts say that the vaccine "isn't safe for children under five..." only that it's not recommended. Is it possible you're reading into the recommendations something that actual experts aren't saying?
It's possible that it's reasonable to conclude that there is a reason why it's not recommended to children under 5, and that lack of testing on that group is why. It's reasonable to conclude that in the absence of testing, and when not recommended, that safety is the reason.
Unfortunately, your comments don't explain why. Unfortunately, the why is the critical point.
But, if (as you note) the "vaccine" is not recommended for children under 5, then it would seem unwise for a pregnant woman to expose her unborn child to something not recommended, wouldn't it?
COVID “vaccines” safe?
The latest I’ve seen this morning:
Reproductive immunologist identifies over 30,000 reports of irregular periods, bleeding post-jab
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/reproductive-immunologist-identifies-over-30000-reports-of-irregular-periods-bleeding-post-jab/
What about all those who end up with enlarged hearts or other heart ailments?
What about those in whom the “jab” caused blood clots?
What about those whose fertility was affected?
What about those who didn’t have COVID until after the jab, and then died of it?
(My good friend and his wife both got their “jabs” and six weeks later came down with severe bouts to where she needed hospitalization and eventually died this month.)
Almost weekly I read of other “vaccine” induced severe medical problems.
If this "vaccine" is so wonderful, safe, and effective, (and has been adequately tested) why would the government go so far as to absolve the drug companies of any and all liability for any negative effects?
Are we really suggesting that people negatively affected now or in the future don't deserve the same opportunity to pursue damages as all the other people who've suffered from FDA approved drugs?
Glenn... "The latest I’ve seen this morning..."
Good Lord! Glenn has found something that the CDC and all the experts have missed. Quick, Glenn! Alert these experts to your findings.
Please.
To repeat: It's always fine to ask questions, to seek understanding.
But, if a Quantum Theorist explains something to me about the individual quanta that the Quantum scientist believes explain light and I don't understand and I ask a question, I should not act like or suggest that my lack of understanding means that the scientist is wrong. It's just me trying to understand something beyond my understanding and education.
It's FINE to ask the question.
It's presumptuous and foolish to say that my lack of understanding suggests somehow that the scientist is wrong/mistaken/lying/promoting some scheme.
The latter is what is happening in too many conservative circles.
Modern conservatives have gone all in for conspiracy theories and anti-expert nonsense. They've exposed themselves as fools.
So, are you one that's asking questions, seeking understanding - AND at the same time rebuking the anti-vaxxers for promoting conspiracy theories - or are you on the side of the conspiracy theorists, asking questions as a pathetic attempt to undermine the science?
1. Thank you ever so much for your permission to ask questions.
2. Your notion that the default response to those questions is that I'm wrong, that I don't understand (which is usually why I ask them), or that I shouldn't expect an answer is bizarre.
3. Thank you ever so much for acknowledging that (on some topics) you simply accept the explanation of "experts" regardless.
4. It's amusing to see you criticize others for what you do on a regular basis.
5. This attempt to link my questions, with your hatred for "anti-vaxxers" is also bizarre.
6. I guess "My body, My choice" only goes so far, and y'all are going to set the limits.
7. I can't help but note that you haven't answered any of my questions, just repeated some version of "Believe the experts".
8. It seems possible that the information Glenn cited has come to light, recently enough that your "experts" haven't seen or evaluated it. It seems possible that your "experts" have seen the evidence and decided that the risk is small enough not to change their recommendations.
9. I'll note that you haven't addressed the content of Glenn's citation, nor have you demonstrated that the information he's cites is wrong.
10. I'll note that you haven't actually answered any of Glenn's questions either.
Honestly, I'd be more respectful of "The Science" if the politicians/bureaucrats approached and applied it consistently.
There are two things that "The Science" tells us.
1. That those who have had COVID and recovery have immunity that is at least as significant as those who've had the vaccine.
2. There are people who have natural immunity to COVID.
So, if "The Science" tells us those two things, why do the politicians/bureaucrats tell us that people in those two groups must be treated as if they are "unvaccinated" and as if they don't already have a high(er) degree of immunity as those who are vaccinated? It certainly seems as if they are ignoring "The Science", in favor of pointless mandates. It's difficult, because of my proximity to one of the temples of "The Science" (a place called the Mayo Clinic), I hear tell that they've got some real good folks who know all about "The Science", and "The Medicine". Some of these folks spend a fair amount of time on local news, and they tell us various things that contradict public policy. So it's confusing when "The Science" says one thing and public policy imposes something that contradicts "The Science".
We also hear many wonderful things about the Scandinavians, and their little Nordic paradises. I presume that they have "The Science" in Scandinavia, and that they are reasonably intelligent, yet somehow they've decided to follow a completely different course from the US. While Australia has become a virtual police state in order to use physical force to compel people to bow to "The Science".
But clearly, it's because we're all a bunch of idiots who should just shut up and listen to "The Experts", just because.
Sigh.
I don't believe science tells us either of those things. The only one I've heard make that claim is you. Just now.
Maybe the problem is not the science or the politicians but you're understanding. Or lack, thereof.
Trabue,
The CDC, et al, haven't missed what I noted; they ignore it and hide it. Just follow the money with the money and who is being enriched by selling the "vaccines" and "boosters."
Because we all know it's impossible that you could possibly wrong, or have missed some bit of news that would be relevant.
Still no answers, just personal attacks.
Ironic. I point out the gland is making insane conspiracy theory personal attacks against expert opinion in the CDC. E. And my pointing that out is, to you a personal attack. You all don't understand words or use them correctly. Pointing pointing out crazy behavior and idear and ideas and noting that something is a totally unsupported and irrational emotionally fragile sounding claim is not a personal attack. It's noting someone is acting irrationally.
Conservatives really need to toughen up some if they want to hold rational conversations in the adult world.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/15/natural-immunity-vaccine-mandate/
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/09/07/1033677208/new-studies-find-evidence-of-superhuman-immunity-to-covid-19-in-some-individuals
Why look, two pieces that both refer to (with links) Scientific studies that support both of my bullet points.
I understand that it's easier to take shots that to work the Google, but this laziness should be embarrassing.
Ironic. I point out the Glenn is making insane conspiracy theory personal attacks against expert opinion and the CDC... And my pointing that out is, to you, a personal attack.
You all don't understand words or use them correctly. Pointing pointing out crazy behavior and ideas and noting that something is a totally unsupported and irrational, emotionally-fragile sounding claims is not a personal attack. It's noting someone is acting irrationally.
Conservatives really need to toughen up some if they want to hold rational conversations in the adult world.
So, we're supposed to believe the people who have expertise in these areas. I've also heard it said that actions speak louder than words. So I'm left to wonder what to make of the fact that 10,000 plus people with much more expertise in the health care/medical/science of disease than Dan, have decided that they'd rather be fired than get the "vaccine". I suppose we should just ignore this and pretend that it means nothing and that it's totally reasonable to replace civilian health care workers with the military. Nothing to see her, just move along and keep listening to Fauci and the rest of the politicians.
I'm curious, it seems like referring to the "vaccine" as the Trump vaccine is not an inaccurate way to refer to it. Obviously Trump didn't actually formulate the "vaccine", but his decisive actions certainly laid the foundation for the "vaccine" that is currently being pushed on the populace.
Dan,
1. I was referring to your personal attacks directed at me, not a Glenn.
2. You simply disagreeing with Glenn, isn't really providing anything material to the discussion.
3. You still haven't answered the initial question in the original post, or any of the subsequent questions.
4. My pointing out the reality that you have substituted personal attacks for substantive conversation isn't evidence of this skin, it's merely pointing out that you had the opportunity to prove your claims, and answer the questions, but chose personal attacks and ridicule instead.
5. Your personal attacks don't particularly bother me, but I feel compelled to point them out. Especially when they come from someone who spent so much time whining about "slander" and "ad hom" and the like. For someone who claims that those are "sin", you certainly engage in them frequently.
6. Given the reality that there was virtually no substance in your last two comments, I fail to see why you felt it necessary to make two virtually identical comments, virtually simultaneously.
Trabue,
Well thanks for bearing false witness against me by saying I made personal attacks on someone. I provided factual information as to the hazards of the “vaccine.” The ineffectiveness of the mask has been very well demonstrated in Australia where everyone is mandated to wear them or get beaten and arrested by police and yet their rates of infection are off the charts.
It’s not a “conspiracy theory” to point out the fact that the makers of the “vaccines” and boosters are making $millions as they continue pressuring the government to order more and more boosters. It is also not a conspiracy theory to say that the CDC, et al, KNOW all about the problems with the dangers of the “vaccines” when the information is readily available all over the ‘net yet totally ignored by the LEFTIST media (sort of how they are ignoring the NAZI tactics in Australia and the invasion of COVID-carrying illegals coming across our borders).
You want to remain an ignorant sheep because you love the agenda of the LEFTISTS.
Craig continues to make great points about the problems with the “vaccines” - such as the thousands of medical professionals who are being fired for refusing the “jab” - yet you still worship the nonsense propagated by the LEFT.
Once again, it is necessary to point out that Dan aligns with only certain people he refers to as "experts", while dismissing, ignoring or generally pretending non-existence of other highly qualified medical professionals who have an opposing point of view. This makes Dan unworthy to participate in good faith debate, given "good faith" is anathema to the likes of him.
Citing John Hopkins does little without showing results and how they came to them. I haven't the time to wade through all one can find from them, but one piece I read about vaxxing kids was no more than repeating what we're hearing from those with a vested interest in the proliferation of these drugs...which as Craig reminds are not subject to liability. That alone is enough to indicate serious problems with them.
I did find this, however, and it provides answers as well as a couple dozen questions at the end which evidently continue to go unanswered.
As an aside, my daughter just informed us of the evil news that her company is forcing vaccination upon her under pain of employment termination. Their cowardly excuse is that they have more than 100 employees and thus must succumb to the stupidity of the Biden administration's absolute dictatorial fascism. My daughter is young, healthy (as well as very health conscious and had been pre-China virus), planning marriage in 11 months and then likely a child or two, though with the nation being run by Dan-level morons, she's not sure she'll ever believe bringing kids into the world is wise...provided the forced vaccination doesn't impede here ability to reproduce successfully. To say I'm angry at a Satanic level is an understatement. To paraphrase the moron wife of the moron Barack Obama, I've never been less proud of my country as I am now. I've never struggled with feelings of hate and contempt as I am now. My nation's going down the crapper and it's due to stupidity (yes, Craig..."stupidity"), apathy and selfishness. May God have mercy on us. He has no reason to.
Post a Comment