Will you take the vaccine

[Blind Squirrel]

Cause Wiki is always right and a source of truth

AllSides Media Bias Ratings This is for The Brownstone Institute (the author of the article) since there is no entry for zerohedge.

 

[fac191]

This was not the initial message we were given by our government or the drug companies!

They told us "get the vax and you can return to life as normal". Only after "a few break through cases" became "many break through cases" which then became a preponderance of evidence pointing to the fact that many vaccinated people were still becoming infected/transmitting the infection, did the message change to "it will keep you from dying and reduce duration of illness".

I'm not saying the vax is a bad thing (got my shots early on), just saying that the vax should not have been sold as a vax but more so as a therapeutic (which it more closely resembles).

Just my .02

Thats not the message we got here ( U.K. ) but we have a very different relationship with healthcare here because its mostly free. When i talk to a Doctor i am getting advise. In the USA your talking to a sales person aswell. Its just how it is.

 

[thughes317]

Thats not the message we got here ( U.K. ) but we have a very different relationship with healthcare here because its mostly free. When i talk to a Doctor i am getting advise. In the USA your talking to a sales person aswell. Its just how it is.

Especially when the nightly newscast is "brought to you by Pfizer".

 

[fac191]

Especially when the nightly newscast is "brought to you by Pfizer".

Thats enough
To put you on Anti-Depressants !

 

[Sierra1]

Apropos the divergence of opinion in this thread, might I remind members that we all share a love of motorcycling and we have more in common than separates us.

It's either this or an oil thread.

 

[Eville Rich]

This was not the initial message we were given by our government or the drug companies!

They told us "get the vax and you can return to life as normal". Only after "a few break through cases" became "many break through cases" which then became a preponderance of evidence pointing to the fact that many vaccinated people were still becoming infected/transmitting the infection, did the message change to "it will keep you from dying and reduce duration of illness".

I'm not saying the vax is a bad thing (got my shots early on), just saying that the vax should not have been sold as a vax but more so as a therapeutic (which it more closely resembles).

Just my .02

I'm not sure where the semantics went sideways, but a vaccine has always been a therapeutic. At least that's how I've always understood it. It trains your body to fight an infection. That's how it's been since cowpox was discovered as a vaccine for smallpox.

I'm not sure if the significance of the semantics, but some folks seem to care about it. I do think the medical industry has been a bit loose with overhyping vaccines. When coupled with people that "know what they know and no one can tell me anything," it can be a problem.

 

[Sierra1]

Well . . . . the covid shot isn't a vaccine in the same manner as mumps, measles, or polio. Not a one and done. For the most part it's just the same as a flu shot. At this point, people will either get it or not. Just like the flu shot.

 

[WJBertrand]

Vaccines aren’t defined by how effective they are but rather by their mechanism of action. In this case stimulation of the immune system. By this accepted definition flu shots are also vaccines. Nowhere in the definition of a vaccine does it say they must be 100% effective in every application to be classified as such.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Sierra1]

I'll take your word for it. But all the other vaccines I ever got, didn't need repeated applications. I also don't think I've ever heard of the flu shot being called a vaccine. Not that will make a difference. To me anyway.

 

[audiowize]

Vaccines aren’t defined by how effective they are but rather by their mechanism of action.

So if someone makes a vaccine that is 0% effective but has the proper mechanism of action, is it still a vaccine?

 

[Sierra1]

There's almost nothing anybody could have done, other than coming up with "the shot", to prevent how this turned out. Nobody is ever going to prove who is responsible for covid, and there's definitely no chance of anybody admitting to being responsible. We each have to choose how we're going to move on and proceed. The time for complaining/debating is over.

At this point, everything has, more or less, returned to "normal". Those that believe in the shot have been jabbed and will likely continue to get the boosters. Those that don't . . . . won't.

 

[thughes317]

I prefer Amsoil......

 

[WJBertrand]

So if someone makes a vaccine that is 0% effective but has the proper mechanism of action, is it still a vaccine?

Kind of a pointless question. If it’s 0% effective it has no mechanism of action so could not be defined.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[audiowize]

That's entirely the point. The CDC's definition of a vaccine has changed how many times in the last three years? (2 or 3)

We had promises of 95% efficacy and eradication of Covid with 70% uptake. Was that based on dreams, incompetence, or corporate greed? (Maybe all of that)

Now we know these treatments weren't even tested to determine what effect they had on spread, but our governments were all on board with vaccine passports and dumping trucks full of money into these treatments.

 

[sheikyerbooty]

It's either this or an oil thread.

Tyres?

 

[audiowize]

I went with a neighbor to look at an old bike with severely aged tires. The seller let us know that we could just soak the tires in motor oil and that would stop the dry rot.

My neighbor believed him...

 

[Sierra1]

Tyres?

Still not as divisive.

 

[Eville Rich]

That's entirely the point. The CDC's definition of a vaccine has changed how many times in the last three years? (2 or 3)

We had promises of 95% efficacy and eradication of Covid with 70% uptake. Was that based on dreams, incompetence, or corporate greed? (Maybe all of that)

The CDC has adjusted the definitions of a vaccine to deal with the know-it-alls that decided semantic debates were more important than substance.

And I don't know about 95% efficacy, but my bout with COVID post-jab was pretty minor. And the general severity has substantially declined across the population. So it seems to be working. And the original COVID has been pretty much wiped out. We're now onto new variants, just like the flu and for which adjustments to the flu vaccine are a regular thing. I'm not really sure what the argument is here.

 

[WJBertrand]

The 95% came from the data on the clinical studies that were based on the original strain. It was data, not a promise. By the time the vaccines became widely available the Delta variant was already predominant, then came Omicron. The vaccines were unfortunately less effective on the variants than was hoped. The other disappointment was shorter than hoped for duration. Though I think part of that was due to the emergence of the variants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[fac191]

The covid vaccines are (mRNA) and not the traditional type and they work differently so its no surprise that there is confusion and misinformation. Do your homework.