The science is manipulated to achieve a predetermined outcome. It’s only accepted by those who desire that same outcome.
-
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!
Sample form to apply for religious exemption from covid vax
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
- Status
Conspiracies.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Realities
That's debatable ... who do you believe.
But what can certainly be mutually understood ... if the cv vaxes reduce symptoms and the symptoms would have been mild without the cv vax, how would a cv vaxed person know they are sick yet are still contagious?
THIS is the problem with the presumption of "effectiveness"
no sir, There are documented reports of adjacent county health departments changing their PCR scan numbers "live" last year.
there is so much about this which is simply absurd, the only thing which is undoubtedly real, the Chinese Communist Party executed a 'gain-of-function' project with US taxpayer money. Our military intelligence knows the CCP agent's name who "muffed" the handling protocol in the lab and allowed the Sars Covi2 to reach the wuhan wet market.
almost everything about the response has been to produce a predictable outcome; fear ... and consolidated power in the government. Obviously NONE OF that contributes to public health.
They did change the wording but not the meaning. And that was the dictionary definition.
Vaccines rarely provide sterilising immunity. But the anti-covid-vaxers do not typically understand this. So the CDC changed the word to protection (as in functional immunity).
It is strange to me that we all knew for years that the flu shot, the measles vaccine, the mumps vaccine, the pneumonia vacvine....etc....all provided protection but not sterilizing immunity.....then all of a suddenen some people got stupid and complained that the vovid vaccinations are not accusations because - just like most of our vaccinations- they provide functional (protection) but not sterilizing immunity.
Politics just makes people dumb.
Again, we are talking about accepted science.
Flat-earthers will tell you a spherical earth is debatable - it depends on who you believe.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Again, accepted by who? Man-Made climate change, global warming is accepted science. Evolution is accepted science. Neither of those are true.
LOL ... this is like the inverse of the rebuttal to concerns about the NASB2020 ...
there is an expectation there will be very little infection with a vaccine's going to market. It's in the process peter McCullough discusses with the FDA overview of proposed medicines.
One can spin the expectation to protection over immunity ... but the fact is these specific cv jabs have contributed to issues without materially reducing the number of infections.
this isn't an earnings report "revenue less than expected, but we baked that expectation into the expectation so there's no real bad news to report."
It's quite easy to see if we simply WILL.
I don't think so.
By your standards the mumps vaccine, measles vacvine, rubella vacvine (and the combined mmr vacvine), the pneumonia vaccine, the HPV vacvine, the hepatitis vaccines, the covid vaccines, the adenovirus vacvine, the Influenza vaccine, the diphtheria vaccine, the rotavirus vaccine.....etc....were not really vaccines until "immunity" was changed to "protection".
All of those provide functional immunity. None of those have reached the goal of sterilising immunity.
It's the same science that determined there is no God and we came from apes. According to JonC, it must be right because it is science????
Accepted science says you are an evolved ape.
lol. Ok Jon
Then explain it.
The CDC says it changed the definition to "protection" from "immunity" because people were confusing "functional immunity" with "sterilizing immunity".
Let's look at it.
The measles vaccine provides immunity from the measles. This is functional immunity. You can still get the measles. But it does provide protection.
Do you believe the mumps vaccine is a vaccine?
95% effectivity.
well not really in the sense that 95 of 100 exposures will result in no infection. But that's not what was promoted a year ago and even as late as this summer '21.
a shot of hope!
yeah, hope it works and doesn't present serious adverse effects.
You believe in the mRNA cv vax which never had it's own animal trials ... had 90 days cumulative between 2 periods of about 30K participants ... and the only metrics were "did they die within (12) hours to establish the claim "safe."
You take a mumps vaccine and are exposed to the virus ... it's highly unlikely you're going to contract the disease ... and because the mumps vaccine is a modified live virus with the only antigen being in the syringe ... there's no risk of ADE, virus tolerance (e.g. no immune response), nor over reaction to the body's own cells akin to AIDS.
this thing? meh.
for a mortality of < 1% overall (which includes the susceptible) and NO effective treatment. Risk reward my friend. This one doesn't pass the test for those who'll be healthy and think for themselves.
I know you'll disagree and I'll respect your position ... you have the right to challenge because the country in which you live is still FREE to express a counter argument regardless of that arguments accuracy or righteousness.
We should have pressed with the MLV type vaccine (much smaller production schedule by necessity) ... administered to the truly susceptible ... and pressed on ... encouraging the HCQ, Ivermectin, Budesonide protocols to treat the hard hit healthy population.
We'd have been done with this a year ago.
but ... approaching year 3 with this thing:
Attachments
You are shifting (avoiding the question). We were talking about the definition of a vaccine.
Based on your reasoning we really have....what....one vaccine (the chickenpox vaccine) and the measles, mumps, rubella, covid, pneumonia, HPV vacvines are not really vaccines at all?
I directly addressed the CDC's shift in definition ...
expectation of repelling a virus from the action of taking an injection.
with the list you created ... there's a reasonable expectation of repelling the virus.
With this mRNA cv vax (any of 'em) ... not so much.
you wanna quibble over percentage points to reach a qualifying (changed) definition. I am addressing what was promoted as an (errant) expectation for these jabs.
They did not change directions. Their explanation was clear - the original definition used the word "immunity" which means "protection".
With the covid vaccines some, ignorant of the word, took it to mean "sterilizing immunity" (to be fair, they probably did not know the definitions or were too dishonest to use them) to say the covid vaccine was not a vaccine because it did not provide immunity in the context of being unable to get covid.
The change was essentially a clarification for the partially illiterate.
But the meaning is the same.
The expectation (from a scientific point of view) was always the same. Only an idiot would believe a less than 100% effective vaccine provided 100% effectiveness. The anti-covid-vaxers just promoted misinformation.
- Status