Prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 disease IS NOT equivalent to immunity. Therefore, those who are getting jabbed aren't getting a vaccine.

shnarkle

Well-known member
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a vaccine is “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” Immunity, in turn, is defined as “Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”

Neither Moderna nor Pfizer claim this to be the case for their COVID-19 “vaccines.” In fact, in their clinical trials, they specify that they will not even test for immunity.

Unlike real vaccines, which use an antigen of the disease you’re trying to prevent, the COVID-19 injections contain synthetic RNA fragments encapsulated in a nanolipid carrier compound, the sole purpose of which is to lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein, not the actual virus.

They do not actually impart immunity or inhibit transmissibility of the disease. In other words, they are not designed to keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they only are supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected.

As such, these products do not meet the legal or medical definition of a vaccine,

So, in summary, “vaccine” and “immunity” are well-defined terms that do not match the end points specified in COVID-19 vaccine trials. The primary end point in these trials is: “Prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 disease.” Is that the same as “immunity”? No, it is not.

 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Your argument is like saying wearing a seat belt in a car is a waste of time because they do not prevent car crashes. Surely the point here is that people are far less likely to get seriously ill.

If someone said they had a medicine that would stop cancer making you ill, but would not stop you getting the cancer, would you take it?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Your argument is like saying wearing a seat belt in a car is a waste of time because they do not prevent car crashes.

No. It's like pointing out that the automobile manufacturers just redefined a seat belt to include a rubber band.
Surely the point here is that people are far less likely to get seriously ill.
Except that isn't how the CDC defines a vaccine.
If someone said they had a medicine that would stop cancer making you ill, but would not stop you getting the cancer, would you take it?
Of course not, especially given that everyone has cancer cells in their body, and most people aren't sick to begin with. Excellent analogy!
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a vaccine is “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” Immunity, in turn, is defined as “Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”

Neither Moderna nor Pfizer claim this to be the case for their COVID-19 “vaccines.” In fact, in their clinical trials, they specify that they will not even test for immunity.

Unlike real vaccines, which use an antigen of the disease you’re trying to prevent, the COVID-19 injections contain synthetic RNA fragments encapsulated in a nanolipid carrier compound, the sole purpose of which is to lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein, not the actual virus.

They do not actually impart immunity or inhibit transmissibility of the disease. In other words, they are not designed to keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they only are supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected.

As such, these products do not meet the legal or medical definition of a vaccine,

So, in summary, “vaccine” and “immunity” are well-defined terms that do not match the end points specified in COVID-19 vaccine trials. The primary end point in these trials is: “Prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 disease.” Is that the same as “immunity”? No, it is not.

So earlier Fow Chee defined herd immunity as people who had been vaccinated and those which had antibodies. Then he pivoted to those who had been 2 dose vaccinated.

That also is a farce.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
So earlier Fow Chee defined herd immunity as people who had been vaccinated and those which had antibodies. Then he pivoted to those who had been 2 dose vaccinated.

That also is a farce.
As ridiculous as this all has become, I'm starting to wonder what the possibility is of viral shedding from those who have been injected. I haven't considered practicing social distancing or wearing a mask since this all began, but I'm seriously thinking about purchasing a hazmat suit and a respirator now. I really don't want to be around anyone anymore, but especially anyone who has had their holy jab already.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
No. It's like pointing out that the automobile manufacturers just redefined a seat belt to include a rubber band.
Only if the rubber bnand is effective at prevent injuries.

The injection DOES stop people getting badly ill.

Of course not, especially given that everyone has cancer cells in their body, and most people aren't sick to begin with. Excellent analogy!
Okay... You are aware that a lot of people become very ill, and many die from cancer, right? But even so, you would still refuse a drug that would prevent that?

I think that sums up the difference in our positions.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Only if the rubber bnand is effective at prevent injuries.
Rubber bands are not seat belts.
The injection DOES stop people getting badly ill.
So what? That's not the definition of a vaccine. The CDC clearly defines a vaccine as providing immunity. The injection has proven to actually make people sick, in some cases being exposed to the wild virus can have the exact opposite effect.
Okay... You are aware that a lot of people become very ill, and many die from cancer, right?
You are aware that everyone has cancer cells, and that cancer is easily controlled by diet, right?
But even so, you would still refuse a drug that would prevent that?
I don't need any drugs. I'm healthy. I've had cancer, but did some research and discovered how cancer cells function. Cancer prevents cellular death from oxygen deprivation. The caveat is that the more an environment becomes anaerobic the more cancer thrives; it's a catch 22 if one doesn't do anything to stop it. The simple fix is to move one's ph to a more alkaline level, and oxygenate the system. Viruses, harmful bacteria, parasites, and most especially cancer cannot live in an oxygenated environment.
When they injected their radioactive dye into my veins I asked them how does a radioactive dye light up cancer cells or tumors? They pointed out that they have to mix the dye with a "delivery mechanism". I then had to prod them for that ingredient as well which they then revealed was "glucose" aka Sugar. Cancer LOVES sugar, and the rate at which it uptakes sugar is significantly higher than normal cells so it lights up the cancer cells and tumors.

I stopped consuming sugar, and lo and behold; no more cancer. In addition to exercising regularly, I also found a great way to increase oxygen in my body which makes it impossible for me to get sick at all anymore. I boost my CO2 levels which automatically boosts oxygen levels as well. So I'm a major cause of global warming which is great for my vegetable garden as well; a win/win.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
As ridiculous as this all has become, I'm starting to wonder what the possibility is of viral shedding from those who have been injected. I haven't considered practicing social distancing or wearing a mask since this all began, but I'm seriously thinking about purchasing a hazmat suit and a respirator now. I really don't want to be around anyone anymore, but especially anyone who has had their holy jab already.
Hijab
Holy Jab

Placebo?
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Only if the rubber bnand is effective at prevent injuries.

The injection DOES stop people getting badly ill.


Okay... You are aware that a lot of people become very ill, and many die from cancer, right? But even so, you would still refuse a drug that would prevent that?

I think that sums up the difference in our positions.
How do you know?
People without "holy jab' that were infected ..many asymptomatic. The vaccine didn't make them asymptomatic.
Many infected didn't get "badly ill" who were not 'vaccinated."

You are not an infectious diseases expert.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Hijab
Holy Jab

Placebo?
It wouldn't surprise me if there were a lot of placebo injections out there. Now there's a shot I would go for. Have you seen the news footage of the doctor administering a shot to some politician with a syringe with no needle? They go through all the motions, but someone enhanced the picture and zoomed in revealing that there was no needle.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
How do you know?
There has been a lot of testing to establish efficacy.

People without "holy jab' that were infected ..many asymptomatic. The vaccine didn't make them asymptomatic.
Many infected didn't get "badly ill" who were not 'vaccinated."
I have no idea what you point is. But then, nor do you.

You are not an infectious diseases expert.
I am also not the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, have an olympic daughter, 16 sloops, etc. Just like you.

The difference is that I do not feel a need to pretend I do.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
There has been a lot of testing to establish efficacy.
There has been ZERO testing on ANY isolated sequences. The inventor of the PCR test admitted this. Even the pieces that they have used are mixed in with all sorts of other material; it's a soup.
I have no idea what you point is. But then, nor do you.
Their point is that healthy people with no symptoms don't need to be vaccinated with an experimental gene therapy. Just sick people who are clearly insane are going to feel the need to do something like this to stem the fear porn that Big Pharma is peddling through the mainstream news outlets. The "fire and brimstone" preachers don't hold a candle to the fear mongering going on around the world nowadays. It's ironic how people who can see how wrong it is for Christians to preach the dangers of hell fire for rejecting the gospel message, are so quick to jump on the fear porn wagon and get their holy jab little knowing that this is only going to be the first of many of these sacramental holy jabs that await them for the rest of their lives.

It's no coincidence that the guy who stole, and then patented open source software from others, and continues to throw out "updates" would see the financial benefit of applying this same method to vaccines. The first one requires two shots, but of course just like the computer viruses that are released into the world wide web, genetic material can also be manipulated requiring more vaccines to deal with them.

How about we stop letting them create these new strains in the first place, or is that too simple of an idea?
 

J regia

Well-known member
So what is your point, and do you think that we shouldn't get annual flu vaccines and other vaccines either?
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a vaccine is “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” Immunity, in turn, is defined as “Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”

Neither Moderna nor Pfizer claim this to be the case for their COVID-19 “vaccines.” In fact, in their clinical trials, they specify that they will not even test for immunity.

Unlike real vaccines, which use an antigen of the disease you’re trying to prevent, the COVID-19 injections contain synthetic RNA fragments encapsulated in a nanolipid carrier compound, the sole purpose of which is to lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein, not the actual virus.

They do not actually impart immunity or inhibit transmissibility of the disease. In other words, they are not designed to keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they only are supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected.

As such, these products do not meet the legal or medical definition of a vaccine,

So, in summary, “vaccine” and “immunity” are well-defined terms that do not match the end points specified in COVID-19 vaccine trials. The primary end point in these trials is: “Prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 disease.” Is that the same as “immunity”? No, it is not.

Okay, so it's not technically a vaccine. So what?
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Rubber bands are not seat belts.

So what? That's not the definition of a vaccine. The CDC clearly defines a vaccine as providing immunity. The injection has proven to actually make people sick, in some cases being exposed to the wild virus can have the exact opposite effect.

You are aware that everyone has cancer cells, and that cancer is easily controlled by diet, right?

I don't need any drugs. I'm healthy. I've had cancer, but did some research and discovered how cancer cells function. Cancer prevents cellular death from oxygen deprivation. The caveat is that the more an environment becomes anaerobic the more cancer thrives; it's a catch 22 if one doesn't do anything to stop it. The simple fix is to move one's ph to a more alkaline level, and oxygenate the system. Viruses, harmful bacteria, parasites, and most especially cancer cannot live in an oxygenated environment.

When they injected their radioactive dye into my veins I asked them how does a radioactive dye light up cancer cells or tumors? They pointed out that they have to mix the dye with a "delivery mechanism". I then had to prod them for that ingredient as well which they then revealed was "glucose" aka Sugar. Cancer LOVES sugar, and the rate at which it uptakes sugar is significantly higher than normal cells so it lights up the cancer cells and tumors.

I stopped consuming sugar, and lo and behold; no more cancer. In addition to exercising regularly, I also found a great way to increase oxygen in my body which makes it impossible for me to get sick at all anymore. I boost my CO2 levels which automatically boosts oxygen levels as well. So I'm a major cause of global warming which is great for my vegetable garden as well; a win/win.
Both of these 'treatments' for cancer - more oxygen and less sugar are pseudoscience at best with no proven benefit whatsoever.
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
When they injected their radioactive dye into my veins I asked them how does a radioactive dye light up cancer cells or tumors? They pointed out that they have to mix the dye with a "delivery mechanism". I then had to prod them for that ingredient as well which they then revealed was "glucose" aka Sugar. Cancer LOVES sugar, and the rate at which it uptakes sugar is significantly higher than normal cells so it lights up the cancer cells and tumors.
The fact that cancer cells metabolize carbs faster than other cells is useful for detection only. It does not work as a treatment. No matter how much you cut down on sugar, the cancer cells will metabolize more of whatever there is than other cells. You will never get to the point of "starving" the cancer cells without starving (and killing) the rest of the body. What is true is that too much sugar can cause inflammation and that can lead to cancer. There are plenty of good reasons to cut down on sugar (for heart health, especially). But curing cancer is not one of them.

Note to readers: Do not take health advice from any anonymous internet source, including me. Talk to your doctor.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
As ridiculous as this all has become, I'm starting to wonder what the possibility is of viral shedding from those who have been injected. I haven't considered practicing social distancing or wearing a mask since this all began, but I'm seriously thinking about purchasing a hazmat suit and a respirator now. I really don't want to be around anyone anymore, but especially anyone who has had their holy jab already.
Oh, this "old" thread. So they still insist people who have been vaccinated keep wearing masks.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
The fact that cancer cells metabolize carbs faster than other cells is useful for detection only. It does not work as a treatment. No matter how much you cut down on sugar, the cancer cells will metabolize more of whatever there is than other cells. You will never get to the point of "starving" the cancer cells without starving (and killing) the rest of the body. What is true is that too much sugar can cause inflammation and that can lead to cancer. There are plenty of good reasons to cut down on sugar (for heart health, especially). But curing cancer is not one of them.

Note to readers: Do not take health advice from any anonymous internet source, including me. Talk to your doctor.
You defend Fao Chi Min who gets his proclamations from the world wide web posts.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
You defend Fao Chi Min who gets his proclamations from the world wide web posts.
Just the other day..may have been yesterday or the day before Fai Chi was being interviewed and he said the vaccine will not prevent someone from getting the virus then asymptomatically spreading it.
 
Top