• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Covid Plandemic, New World order takeover

Wingman68

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Where is the vax for a cold? Apples & oranges, this is not a vax like you reference. No killed/live virus. No, it contains none of the traditional vaccine description. It contains that which has never been used before. They are administering it, experimentally, on a grand scale. Thanks for stepping up.

09CD4232-033A-416C-9AF8-BB3E8A9996C2.jpeg
 

nonaeroterraqueous

Active Member
In October, Yeadon wrote a column for the United Kingdom’s Daily Mail newspaper that also appeared on MailOnline, one of the world’s most-visited news websites. It declared that deaths caused by COVID-19, which then totaled about 45,000 in Britain, will soon “fizzle out” and Britons “should immediately be allowed to resume normal life.” Since then, the disease has killed about another 80,000 people in the UK.

Yup, real qualified.

Yes, I know. He's still the most qualified voice on the subject. The subject is vaccines.
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yea, but this website is one big soup bone. There is no meat at all (it misrepresents the source it references....I mean, it just uses the "500 doctors" and "committee" part. Everything else is made up.

Yes, the article could have been written better and it is sensationalistic. But you are focusing on only one small part of the piece, ignoring the other parts. For instance check out the quotes that were made well before Covid made news.. There is also the Fauci-Wuhan connection. Or the numerous money connections and incentives to keep playing this scenario.

Although this is not in the article does it not concern you that the strict medical definition for "vaccine" has been rewritten (twice now) to accommodate this current procedure. I am not necessarily an anti-vaxxer. I am against This. I think anyone who does rigorous, dispassionate research would end up with the same conclusion.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Yes, the article could have been written better and it is sensationalistic. But you are focusing on only one small part of the piece, ignoring the other parts. For instance check out the quotes that were made well before Covid made news.. There is also the Fauci-Wuhan connection. Or the numerous money connections and incentives to keep playing this scenario.

Although this is not in the article does it not concern you that the strict medical definition for "vaccine" has been rewritten (twice now) to accommodate this current procedure. I am not necessarily an anti-vaxxer. I am against This. I think anyone who does rigorous, dispassionate research would end up with the same conclusion.
I have to admit, once I see deliberate misinformation I do not consider something a credible source.


I missed their definition 9f a vacvine. I know the goal is to provide immunity (sterilising immunity) but few actually do. I know mRNA vaccines are not new (although this is the first approved).

What was their definition?
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have to admit, once I see deliberate misinformation I do not consider something a credible source.


I missed their definition 9f a vacvine. I know the goal is to provide immunity (sterilising immunity) but few actually do. I know mRNA vaccines are not new (although this is the first approved).

What was their definition?

Like I had written, my second paragraph was on topics not covered in the article. The definitions - three of them - are from the CDC.

1. Prior to 2015 (or 2016) their definition of vaccine was: "Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to *prevent* the disease."
2. From 2015-2021, their definition was: "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to *produce immunity* to a specific disease."
3. In seeming anticipation of Biden's speech, the CDC changed the definition of "vaccination" to: "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to *produce protection* from a specific disease."

Yes, I know the site above had some hooey. It also had a lot of good material. That is the nature of the beast called the Internet, which is why I said to spit out the bones. On Baptist Board here I see the same thing. There are a number of posters here - some in this very thread - who post things that I strongly disagree with - and then they post things that are totally spot on. I think it is unwise dis a site, or a person, because of obvious bones.
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What connection? Please be specific. And please, no appeals to loony web-sites - reputable sources only, please.


Again, this is just a claim - please provide credible evidence to support it.

Oh please. If you are so obtuse that you have not seen this yourself then it is a waste of my time to do your work for you.

Then again, you actually may not have come across contrary evidence seeing that you seem to equate Wikipedia with "reputable"
 

Andre

Well-Known Member
Oh please. If you are so obtuse that you have not seen this yourself then it is a waste of my time to do your work for you.
No one on this site seems to understand a basic principle of responsible debate - it is up to the person making the claim to defend it; it is not the responsibility of those challenging the claim to disprove it.

You have it backwards - it is your work to defend your claim, not mine to refute it.

And when you guys repeatedly evade this responsibility, you send a clear message: you are making things up.
 

Andre

Well-Known Member
Then again, you actually may not have come across contrary evidence seeing that you seem to equate Wikipedia with "reputable"
Profoundly misleading. Unlike the right-wing craze-oid sites that are so-oft quoted here in service of the propagation of disinformation, wikipedia cites reputable references.

Digging into the credibility of sources is not a road those of you on the anti-covid-vax side will want to go down.

But I am more than happy to go down that road if you wish.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Like I had written, my second paragraph was on topics not covered in the article. The definitions - three of them - are from the CDC.

1. Prior to 2015 (or 2016) their definition of vaccine was: "Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to *prevent* the disease."
2. From 2015-2021, their definition was: "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to *produce immunity* to a specific disease."
3. In seeming anticipation of Biden's speech, the CDC changed the definition of "vaccination" to: "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to *produce protection* from a specific disease."

Yes, I know the site above had some hooey. It also had a lot of good material. That is the nature of the beast called the Internet, which is why I said to spit out the bones. On Baptist Board here I see the same thing. There are a number of posters here - some in this very thread - who post things that I strongly disagree with - and then they post things that are totally spot on. I think it is unwise dis a site, or a person, because of obvious bones.
I do not know why the change.

"The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to *produce immunity* to a specific disease" applies to the covid vaccine.

It is no different from the flu vaccine...or the measles vaccine...or the pneumonia vaccine...(the list goes on).

If you get the measles vaccine you can still get the measles. If you get the pneumonia vaccine you can still get pneumonia (pneumonia is actually a possible side effect).

While sterilizing immunity is always the goal, this goal is rarely met.

The covid vacvine provides functional immunity. Just like you can get a flu vaccine and still due of the flu, the goal is to give the body some protection to fight a virus.

The covid vaccines do provide functional immunity to a specific disease (and the vaccination introduces the vaccine to the body). So the definition has not changed.

My guess would be the CDC changed the language because there was so much misinformation out there. Some do not realize that immunity does not necessarily mean you cannot get the disease as they think "sterilizing immunity".

But as far as I know we have not come up with vaccines that provide that type of immunity on a long time...they ate fairly rare (I think the Chickenpox vaccine provides sterilizing immunity...but I could be wrong).

I get changing the language in 2015 or 2016 (ModeRNA Technologies had been well in the process of mRNA vaccines....they developed 24 but were not approved (were unnecessary, actually, as vaccines already existed).
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Like I had written, my second paragraph was on topics not covered in the article. The definitions - three of them - are from the CDC.

1. Prior to 2015 (or 2016) their definition of vaccine was: "Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to *prevent* the disease."
2. From 2015-2021, their definition was: "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to *produce immunity* to a specific disease."
3. In seeming anticipation of Biden's speech, the CDC changed the definition of "vaccination" to: "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to *produce protection* from a specific disease."

Yes, I know the site above had some hooey. It also had a lot of good material. That is the nature of the beast called the Internet, which is why I said to spit out the bones. On Baptist Board here I see the same thing. There are a number of posters here - some in this very thread - who post things that I strongly disagree with - and then they post things that are totally spot on. I think it is unwise dis a site, or a person, because of obvious bones.
I do not know why the change.

"The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to *produce immunity* to a specific disease" applies to the covid vaccine.

It is no different from the flu vaccine...or the measles vaccine...or the pneumonia vaccine...(the list goes on).

If you get the measles vaccine you can still get the measles. If you get the pneumonia vaccine you can still get pneumonia (pneumonia is actually a possible side effect).

While sterilizing immunity is always the goal, this goal is rarely met.

The covid vacvine provides functional immunity. Just like you can get a flu vaccine and still due of the flu, the goal is to give the body some protection to fight a virus.

The covid vaccines do provide functional immunity to a specific disease (and the vaccination introduces the vaccine to the body). So the definition has not changed.

My guess would be the CDC changed the language because there was so much misinformation out there. Some do not realize that immunity does not necessarily mean you cannot get the disease as they think "sterilizing immunity".

But as far as I know we have not come up with vaccines that provide that type of immunity on a long time...they ate fairly rare (I think the Chickenpox vaccine provides sterilizing immunity...but I could be wrong).

I get changing the language in 2015 or 2016 (ModeRNA Technologies had been well in the process of mRNA vaccines....they developed 24 but were not approved ...were unnecessary, actually, as vaccines already existed).
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Profoundly misleading. Unlike the right-wing craze-oid sites that are so-oft quoted here in service of the propagation of disinformation, wikipedia cites reputable references.

Digging into the credibility of sources is not a road those of you on the anti-covid-vax side will want to go down.

But I am more than happy to go down that road if you wish.

Years ago I had a junior high student that wrote a Wiki page. With sources. It had several errors. You seem to already have your mind up about my integrity and ability. Forget it.
 

just-want-peace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Post # 24 JonC sez: “I have to admit, once I see deliberate misinformation I do not consider something a credible source.“

This is “WHY” !!!!
 

Andre

Well-Known Member
Comparing Wikipedia to these zany, tinfoil hat right-wing sites is absurd. Yes, there are mistakes in Wikipedia. But, for these right-wing sites that we see invoked here, the question is not "Do these sites contain any errors of fact?"; it is instead "Do these sites contain any truth at all?"
 

xlsdraw

Active Member
What connection? Please be specific. And please, no appeals to loony web-sites - reputable sources only, please.


Again, this is just a claim - please provide credible evidence to support it.

Would your name happen to be Thomas?
 
Top