To avoid further hijacking of the Babylon Bee thread...

I thought I'd look up the official CDC definition of vaccine and found this:

CDC website glossary of terms said:

---

Vaccine: [url=https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/terms/media/Vaccine.mp3]Listen media icon[MP3][/url]

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).

---

Found here

Which I found odd, because it appears to not match exactly any of the definitions I've seen posted in various articles.

Then in another CDC page I find this:

CDC immunization basics said:

---

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.

---

Found here

So it appears they "adjusted" the definition again in the pages specific to vaccines or Covid, (from "provides protection" to "stimulate the body's immune response". but in their main glossary page, they did not change it.

Has vitamin C been proven to help the immune system? If so, could a glass of orange juice be considered a vaccine?

Only the agenda matters - as long as there is no accountability, definitions will remain fluid to fit the agenda.

Meh……we have posters who insist COVID isn't (wasn't) a pandemic.

B-1 83 said:

---

Meh……we have posters who insist COVID isn't (wasn't) a pandemic.

---

Does it matter if it was or wasn't?

Welcome to the Party Pal!

B-1 83 said:

---

Meh……we have posters who insist COVID isn't (wasn't) a pandemic.

---

We have posters that insist that the "vaccine" is a modern day scientific miracle, despite it not doing ****

B-1 83 said:

---

Meh……we have posters who insist COVID isn't (wasn't) a pandemic.

---

Its okay. You were wrong about the danger of covid and the proper response. Calling out other wrong takes to make yourself feel better is just sad. Its better to humble yourself then make prideful strawman that are easily cut done.

The fundamental issue stems from a misunderstanding by the general public regarding what immunity means. It has never meant "you can't get the disease at all" in the scientific realm. And now attempts to clarify that have resulted in conspiracy theories as seen here.

As I've said before, millions of people vaccinated against polio, measles, etc. still got milder forms of those diseases once upon a time. The reason they don't anymore in this part of the world is a product of disease prevalence (or lack thereof) not the full profit nature of those vaccines. Millions of Americans could get measles right now if exposed to significant by viral innocuous. They'll just never know they are susceptible because they'll likely never encounter the virus.

Leaky vaccines cause new definitions is what infection means

TAMUallen said:

---

Leaky vaccines cause new definitions is what infection means

---

All vaccines are "leaky". Someone in this thread is not "immune" to measles by what the average poster on this board defines as immune.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The fundamental issue stems from a misunderstanding by the general public regarding what immunity means. It has never meant "you can't get the disease at all" in the scientific realm. And now attempts to clarify that have resulted in conspiracy theories as seen here.

As I've said before, millions of people vaccinated against polio, measles, etc. still got milder forms of those diseases once upon a time. The reason they don't anymore in this part of the world is a product of disease prevalence (or lack thereof) not the full profit nature of those vaccines. Millions of Americans could get measles right now if exposed to significant by viral innocuous. They'll just never know they are susceptible because they'll likely never encounter the virus.

---

Take that science stuff back to the COVID board!

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Leaky vaccines cause new definitions is what infection means

---

All vaccines are "leaky". Someone in this thread is not "immune" to measles by what the average poster on this board defines as immune.

---

You know the definition of a leaky vaccine and a perfect vaccine. Don't play that game.

texagbeliever said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Meh……we have posters who insist COVID isn't (wasn't) a pandemic.

---

Its okay. You were wrong about the danger of covid and the proper response. Calling out other wrong takes to make yourself feel better is just sad. Its better to humble yourself then make prideful strawman that are easily cut done.

---

Oh? Was I? Please give examples……. I suspect you are yet another poster who has me confused with someone else.

B-1 83 said:

---

Meh……we have posters who insist COVID isn't (wasn't) a pandemic.

---

It wasn't. If it's a disease you can get TWICE, not take any medication for, and yet miraculously survive, you're narrative is *****

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The fundamental issue stems from a misunderstanding by the general public regarding what immunity means. It has never meant "you can't get the disease at all" in the scientific realm. And now attempts to clarify that have resulted in conspiracy theories as seen here.

As I've said before, millions of people vaccinated against polio, measles, etc. still got milder forms of those diseases once upon a time. The reason they don't anymore in this part of the world is a product of disease prevalence (or lack thereof) not the full profit nature of those vaccines. Millions of Americans could get measles right now if exposed to significant by viral innocuous. They'll just never know they are susceptible because they'll likely never encounter the virus.

---

I don't think there was a misunderstanding by the public.

I think most people understood that there was always a chance of a "breakthrough" infection.

The issue is at what point does the amount of "breakthrough" infections indicate that the vaccine is not working as advertised, or as expected.

Sure, we had all heard of someone who was vaccinated against some illness but got it anyway. Possible, but expected to be rare.

Almost everyone I know who has been vaccinated, has also caught Covid; after being vaccinated.

The continual goalpost moving is incredible; and what makes it reduce trust is not necessarily the changes, but the fact that the recommendations and changes are never prefaced with any explanation of "we're still trying to figure this out". It is all stated with a level of certainty that has not been warranted; and never with an admission that something noted previously was incorrect and why. They are more worried about preventing "vaccine hesitancy" than they are about being honest and open.

The rhetoric has always been focused on control rather than honesty. Things were said, and things were not said not based on what the truth was, but based on how the powers that be wanted people to respond. It continues.

TAMUallen said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Leaky vaccines cause new definitions is what infection means

---

All vaccines are "leaky". Someone in this thread is not "immune" to measles by what the average poster on this board defines as immune.

---

You know the definition of a leaky vaccine and a perfect vaccine. Don't play that game.

---

There is no perfect vaccine, and all vaccines are varying degrees of "leaky". I'm not playing any game.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The fundamental issue stems from a misunderstanding by the general public regarding what immunity means. It has never meant "you can't get the disease at all" in the scientific realm. And now attempts to clarify that have resulted in conspiracy theories as seen here.

As I've said before, millions of people vaccinated against polio, measles, etc. still got milder forms of those diseases once upon a time. The reason they don't anymore in this part of the world is a product of disease prevalence (or lack thereof) not the full profit nature of those vaccines. Millions of Americans could get measles right now if exposed to significant by viral innocuous. They'll just never know they are susceptible because they'll likely never encounter the virus.

---

I don't think there was a misunderstanding by the public.

I think most people understood that there was always a chance of a "breakthrough" infection.

The issue is at what point does the amount of "breakthrough" infections indicate that the vaccine is not working as advertised, or as expected.

Sure, we had all heard of someone who was vaccinated against some illness but got it anyway. Possible, but expected to be rare.

Almost everyone I know who has been vaccinated, has also caught Covid; after being vaccinated.

The continual goalpost moving is incredible; and what makes it reduce trust is not necessarily the changes, but the fact that the recommendations and changes are never prefaced with any explanation of "we're still trying to figure this out". It is all stated with a level of certainty that has not been warranted; and never with an admission that something noted previously was incorrect and why. They are more worried about preventing "vaccine hesitancy" than they are about being honest and open.

The rhetoric has always been focused on control rather than honesty. Things were said, and things were not said not based on what the truth was, but based on how the powers that be wanted people to respond. It continues.

---

The issue again is disease prevalence. If a disease has a high prevalence in a population, lots of people will get the infection regardless of vaccination. Only with many years of mass widespread vaccine (>95% of American kids at one point) did measles get weeded out to the point where most never encounter the virus.

Now, dies covid have a higher vaccine breakthrough rate than some viruses dif once upon a time? Sure, and that's a product of the nature of this RNA virus. But the core issue here is that decreased susceptibility to severe disease and death IS immunity, and the covid vaccine is exceedingly good at that. Again, a vaccinated 80 year old with multiple risk factors is at lower risk of death than a unvaccinated 40 year old based on LARGE studies from at least 3 countries (and that person is already at an exceedingly low risk of death).

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Leaky vaccines cause new definitions is what infection means

---

All vaccines are "leaky". Someone in this thread is not "immune" to measles by what the average poster on this board defines as immune.

---

You know the definition of a leaky vaccine and a perfect vaccine. Don't play that game.

---

There is no perfect vaccine, and all vaccines are varying degrees of "leaky". I'm not playing any game.

---

What do you know about vaccines? This is F16, by god, and we are sci-en-tists! [/spits, wipes mouth on sleeve]

With so much variance in symptoms by non vaccinated people, there is no way to accurately gauge the vaccines effectiveness. Any allegiance to its effectiveness is baseless.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Again, a vaccinated 80 year old with multiple risk factors is at lower risk of death than a unvaccinated 40 year old based on LARGE studies from at least 3 countries (and that person is already at an exceedingly low risk of death).

---

Are you saying that more unvaccinated 40 year olds died as a percentage of their age group than vaccinated 80 years olds did? I'd like to see that study.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

With so much variance in symptoms by non vaccinated people, there is no way to accurately gauge the vaccines effectiveness. Any allegiance to its effectiveness are baseless.

---

At this stage of the game, there is some merit to that statement. Early on there should be little doubt the vaccines were effective against the original COVID and early variants. Delta changed all that, and Omicron simply showed it again.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The fundamental issue stems from a misunderstanding by the general public regarding what immunity means. It has never meant "you can't get the disease at all" in the scientific realm. And now attempts to clarify that have resulted in conspiracy theories as seen here.

As I've said before, millions of people vaccinated against polio, measles, etc. still got milder forms of those diseases once upon a time. The reason they don't anymore in this part of the world is a product of disease prevalence (or lack thereof) not the full profit nature of those vaccines. Millions of Americans could get measles right now if exposed to significant by viral innocuous. They'll just never know they are susceptible because they'll likely never encounter the virus.

---

So why did they officially say you won't get covid if you get vaccinated? Why did they just happen to change the definition after they realized the experimental mRNA pre-therapeutic didn't provide any immunity? Why didn't they just call it an experimental mRNA pre-therapeutic if that's what it really is?

https://pharmanewsintel.com/news/amp/modernas-mrna-therapeutic-helps-patients-with-heart-failure

Same technology, but this one isn't called a vaccine?

gig em 02 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The fundamental issue stems from a misunderstanding by the general public regarding what immunity means. It has never meant "you can't get the disease at all" in the scientific realm. And now attempts to clarify that have resulted in conspiracy theories as seen here.

As I've said before, millions of people vaccinated against polio, measles, etc. still got milder forms of those diseases once upon a time. The reason they don't anymore in this part of the world is a product of disease prevalence (or lack thereof) not the full profit nature of those vaccines. Millions of Americans could get measles right now if exposed to significant by viral innocuous. They'll just never know they are susceptible because they'll likely never encounter the virus.

---

So why did they officially say you won't get covid if you get vaccinated?

---

Because they think you're too ignorant of the subject matter to have nuanced understanding of such things, and thus their best shot at getting the most people vaccinated is to lie to you. I'm not defending it, but it's reality.

I'm not sure if you'll find that more or less disturbing than believing they just didn't know what they were talking about, but you asked the question.

Quote:

---

Why did they just happen to change the definition after they realized the experimental mRNA pre-therapeutic didn't provide any immunity?

---

The vaccines do provide immunity, most people just never understood what immunity meant. That's the point. It does not and never did mean "you can't get the disease".

Quote:

---

Why didn't they just call it an experimental mRNA pre-therapeutic if that's what it really is?

---

Because that's a meaningless term invented by internet conspiracy theorists and opportunistic grifters and has no place in intelligent discussion.

For perspective, recognize that to someone like me most of the discussion regarding vaccines on this board is every bit as absurd as you perceive the left's claims regarding gender. The things posted here about vaccines are, scientifically, as nonsensical as claiming sex is a social construct. It's just not as intuitively absurd.

Quote:

---

Because they think you're too ignorant of the subject matter to have nuanced understanding of such things, and thus their best shot at getting the most people vaccinated is to lie to you. I'm not defending it, but it's reality.

---

If you believe they lied about this (I do too), then how can you believe the other data regarding infections, hospitalizations, deaths, etc?

And why couldn't they just say, "it won't keep you from getting infected, but it can make you less sick"?

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

Because they think you're too ignorant of the subject matter to have nuanced understanding of such things, and thus their best shot at getting the most people vaccinated is to lie to you. I'm not defending it, but it's reality.

---

If you believe they lied about this (I do too), then how can you believe the other data regarding infections, hospitalizations, deaths, etc?

---

One, because standing at a podium and lying is a very different thing than fabricating mountains of statistical data from numerous sources out of whole cloth.

Two, the data supporting vaccine efficacy in terms of decreasing the risk of severe disease and death comes from literally all over the globe. When large data sets from China, America, the UK, Israel, etc. all line up on a topic it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that it's ALL a conspiracy.

Quote:

---

And why couldn't they just say, "it won't keep you from getting infected, but it can make you less sick"?

---

Because A LOT more lay people will get the vaccine if they believe they can't get it at all vs maybe they still get sick and it just decreases their chance of severe disease and death. Hell, look how many people on this board have said either they didn't get it because they can still get sick or have said they wouldn't have gotten it he they known they could still get sick.

CDC, MSM, politicians, drug companies : If you take this "vaccine"*, you won't get COVID.

Data: that's not true. Even a smidgen.

CDC, MSM, politicians, drug companies: sure it is, just look at the (newly written) definition

Data: LOL, y'all are morons.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Because that's a meaningless term invented by internet conspiracy theorists and opportunistic grifters and has no place in intelligent discussion.

---

It's literally the term used by Moderna. Multiple times. On their website. In their research. In their SEC filings.

For perspective, you lack the credentials to have an intelligent discussion on this political issue. I'm glad you can clean lab equipment though.

"Vaccines" for heart disease, kidney disease, liver disease, all the VACCINES!

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

Because they think you're too ignorant of the subject matter to have nuanced understanding of such things, and thus their best shot at getting the most people vaccinated is to lie to you. I'm not defending it, but it's reality.

---

If you believe they lied about this (I do too), then how can you believe the other data regarding infections, hospitalizations, deaths, etc?

---

One, because standing at a podium and lying is a very different thing than fabricating mountains of statistical data from numerous sources out of whole cloth.

Two, the data supporting vaccine efficacy in terms of decreasing the risk of severe disease and death comes from literally all over the globe. When large data sets from China, America, the UK, Israel, etc. all line up on a topic it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that it's ALL a conspiracy.

Quote:

---

And why couldn't they just say, "it won't keep you from getting infected, but it can make you less sick"?

---

Because A LOT more lay people will get the vaccine if they believe they can't get it at all vs maybe they still get sick and it just decreases their chance of severe disease and death. Hell, look how many people on this board have said either they didn't get it because they can still get sick or have said they wouldn't have gotten it he they known they could still get sick.

---

Same can be said about some of the therapeutics available, but ya'lls whining, squealing and shrieking about how it was off-label and such, and we never got the chance to find out, did we?

SeMgCo87 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

Because they think you're too ignorant of the subject matter to have nuanced understanding of such things, and thus their best shot at getting the most people vaccinated is to lie to you. I'm not defending it, but it's reality.

---

If you believe they lied about this (I do too), then how can you believe the other data regarding infections, hospitalizations, deaths, etc?

---

One, because standing at a podium and lying is a very different thing than fabricating mountains of statistical data from numerous sources out of whole cloth.

Two, the data supporting vaccine efficacy in terms of decreasing the risk of severe disease and death comes from literally all over the globe. When large data sets from China, America, the UK, Israel, etc. all line up on a topic it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that it's ALL a conspiracy.

Quote:

---

And why couldn't they just say, "it won't keep you from getting infected, but it can make you less sick"?

---

Because A LOT more lay people will get the vaccine if they believe they can't get it at all vs maybe they still get sick and it just decreases their chance of severe disease and death. Hell, look how many people on this board have said either they didn't get it because they can still get sick or have said they wouldn't have gotten it he they known they could still get sick.

---

Same can be said about some of the therapeutics available, but ya'lls whining, squealing and shrieking about how it was off-label and such, and we never got the chance to find out, did we?

---

HCQ and invermectin were (and in the case of invermectin still is) extensively studied. Moreso than any medications without a plausible mechanism of action for the disease in question in history.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

SeMgCo87 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

Because they think you're too ignorant of the subject matter to have nuanced understanding of such things, and thus their best shot at getting the most people vaccinated is to lie to you. I'm not defending it, but it's reality.

---

If you believe they lied about this (I do too), then how can you believe the other data regarding infections, hospitalizations, deaths, etc?

---

One, because standing at a podium and lying is a very different thing than fabricating mountains of statistical data from numerous sources out of whole cloth.

Two, the data supporting vaccine efficacy in terms of decreasing the risk of severe disease and death comes from literally all over the globe. When large data sets from China, America, the UK, Israel, etc. all line up on a topic it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that it's ALL a conspiracy.

Quote:

---

And why couldn't they just say, "it won't keep you from getting infected, but it can make you less sick"?

---

Because A LOT more lay people will get the vaccine if they believe they can't get it at all vs maybe they still get sick and it just decreases their chance of severe disease and death. Hell, look how many people on this board have said either they didn't get it because they can still get sick or have said they wouldn't have gotten it he they known they could still get sick.

---

Same can be said about some of the therapeutics available, but ya'lls whining, squealing and shrieking about how it was off-label and such, and we never got the chance to find out, did we?

---

HCQ and invermectin were (and in the case of invermectin still is) extensively studied. Moreso than any medications without a plausible mechanism of action for the disease in question in history.

---

I can't argue with the "extensively studied" part of your response, but essentially everyone who's watched CNN in the last year and a half think both those drugs are dangerous and should not be taken. The point you responded to (and didn't refute) was that had those two drugs been mentioned in the same positive light that the vaccine(s) have, we almost certainly would have had many fewer deaths and would have for sure had much less suffering.

No?

I also reject the idea that US citizens need to be treated like idiots even though many are. If they choose to not take a vaccine because they don't think its 100% effective (and that's their standard for whatever reason), then that's their problem. That's not a function of government. Honesty -- or at least an attempt at it -- should be. We're going down a dangerous path when we start thinking about doing "what's best for everyone." No thank you.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

SeMgCo87 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

Because they think you're too ignorant of the subject matter to have nuanced understanding of such things, and thus their best shot at getting the most people vaccinated is to lie to you. I'm not defending it, but it's reality.

---

If you believe they lied about this (I do too), then how can you believe the other data regarding infections, hospitalizations, deaths, etc?

---

One, because standing at a podium and lying is a very different thing than fabricating mountains of statistical data from numerous sources out of whole cloth.

Two, the data supporting vaccine efficacy in terms of decreasing the risk of severe disease and death comes from literally all over the globe. When large data sets from China, America, the UK, Israel, etc. all line up on a topic it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that it's ALL a conspiracy.

Quote:

---

And why couldn't they just say, "it won't keep you from getting infected, but it can make you less sick"?

---

Because A LOT more lay people will get the vaccine if they believe they can't get it at all vs maybe they still get sick and it just decreases their chance of severe disease and death. Hell, look how many people on this board have said either they didn't get it because they can still get sick or have said they wouldn't have gotten it he they known they could still get sick.

---

Same can be said about some of the therapeutics available, but ya'lls whining, squealing and shrieking about how it was off-label and such, and we never got the chance to find out, did we?

---

HCQ and invermectin were (and in the case of invermectin still is) extensively studied. Moreso than any medications without a plausible mechanism of action for the disease in question in history.

---

I can't argue with the "extensively studied" part of your response, but essentially everyone who's watched CNN in the last year and a half think both those drugs are dangerous and should not be taken. The point you responded to (and didn't refute) was that had those two drugs been mentioned in the same positive light that the vaccine(s) have, we almost certainly would have had many fewer deaths and would have for sure had much less suffering.

No?

---

Excellent!

My thought was he was deflecting. Maybe continue to study them for another 83 years...8 years beyond the point at which the FDA wanted to release the data on testing...

That way, virtually all of those involved would be dead and buried. Well, maybe not Fauci...

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

SeMgCo87 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

Because they think you're too ignorant of the subject matter to have nuanced understanding of such things, and thus their best shot at getting the most people vaccinated is to lie to you. I'm not defending it, but it's reality.

---

If you believe they lied about this (I do too), then how can you believe the other data regarding infections, hospitalizations, deaths, etc?

---

One, because standing at a podium and lying is a very different thing than fabricating mountains of statistical data from numerous sources out of whole cloth.

Two, the data supporting vaccine efficacy in terms of decreasing the risk of severe disease and death comes from literally all over the globe. When large data sets from China, America, the UK, Israel, etc. all line up on a topic it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that it's ALL a conspiracy.

Quote:

---

And why couldn't they just say, "it won't keep you from getting infected, but it can make you less sick"?

---

Because A LOT more lay people will get the vaccine if they believe they can't get it at all vs maybe they still get sick and it just decreases their chance of severe disease and death. Hell, look how many people on this board have said either they didn't get it because they can still get sick or have said they wouldn't have gotten it he they known they could still get sick.

---

Same can be said about some of the therapeutics available, but ya'lls whining, squealing and shrieking about how it was off-label and such, and we never got the chance to find out, did we?

---

HCQ and invermectin were (and in the case of invermectin still is) extensively studied. Moreso than any medications without a plausible mechanism of action for the disease in question in history.

---

I can't argue with the "extensively studied" part of your response, but essentially everyone who's watched CNN in the last year and a half think both those drugs are dangerous and should not be taken. The point you responded to (and didn't refute) was that had those two drugs been mentioned in the same positive light that the vaccine(s) have, we almost certainly would have had many fewer deaths and would have for sure had much less suffering.

No?

I also reject the idea that US citizens need to be treated like idiots even though many are. If they choose to not take a vaccine because they don't think its 100% effective (and that's their standard for whatever reason), then that's their problem. That's not a function of government. Honesty -- or at least an attempt at it -- should be. We're going down a dangerous path when we start thinking about doing "what's best for everyone." No thank you.

---

HCQ and ivermectin are safe medications, they just don't appear to be effective at treating covid. The vaccines are safe and are effective at preventing severe disease and death.

So I guess I don't really get the relevance of this. If you want me to agree that CNN falsely labeled both drugs dangerous then I'll happily agree with you. But if they don't work why should anyone take them? If the vaccines were safe but you were just as likely to die with it without it you shouldn't get it either.