Question about the Covid vaccine

[Harpoon]

If it doesn't stop infection or transmission, is it really a vaccine?

[markm]

Of course not.

[chuckman]

Technically by definition, it is. Now, you can argue that the definition has been changed. But is it an immunization? No, it is not.

[SomeOtherGuy]

Technically by definition, it is. Now, you can argue that the definition has been changed. But is it an immunization? No, it is not.

IIRC the pre-2019 CDC definition of vaccine was for a product that created immunity. Only once they saw "vax" problems was the definition changed to weasel words that the current US-market Covid jabs fit into.

[Alex V]

Technically by definition, it is. Now, you can argue that the definition has been changed. But is it an immunization? No, it is not.

The CDC did, in fact, change the definition they show on their website a few months ago.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.louderwithcrowder.com/amp/cdc-definition-emails-2655495838

"The definition of vaccine we have posted is problematic and people are using it to claim the COVID-19 vaccine is not a vaccine based on our own definition."

[chuckman]

I'll see if I can find the old definition. Basically, if it can make the body make antibodies, it's a vaccine. If it prevents catching and transmission, it's an immunization.

[Alex V]

I'll see if I can find the old definition. Basically, if it can make the body make antibodies, it's a vaccine. If it prevents catching and transmission, it's an immunization.

The link I posted has screen caps of former and current definition as posted on the CDC website.

I tried to post the screen cap directly but the window just sat there doing nothing.

[chuckman]

Whenever I can get back to my office at the hospital, probably after my radiation treatment, I'll whip out the old (and I literally mean old) virology and microbiology textbooks from grad school, and see how the definitions differ. I don't want to go from my already crappy memory to try to remember them.

[prepare]

The facts don't matter because this entire hoax was never about facts to begin with. The Davos planned this to bring about the great reset.

Arguing facts and science serves 2 purposes, divide and distract people from whats really going on.


https://rumble.com/embed/vqq4m5/?pub=6xx5n

[Wildcat]

Whenever I can get back to my office at the hospital, probably after my radiation treatment, I'll whip out the old (and I literally mean old) virology and microbiology textbooks from grad school, and see how the definitions differ. I don't want to go from my already crappy memory to try to remember them.

I'd be curious to see how that definition compares with this one from Websters 7th Ed:

"²Vaccine:...2 : a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease"

[The_War_Wagon]

If it doesn't stop infection or transmission, is it really a vaccine?

Step right up, be a guinea pig & find out!!! :stop:

[czgunner]

The CDC did, in fact, change the definition they show on their website a few months ago.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.louderwithcrowder.com/amp/cdc-definition-emails-2655495838

"The definition of vaccine we have posted is problematic and people are using it to claim the COVID-19 vaccine is not a vaccine based on our own definition."Yeah buddy, the left rearranging reality to create a "truth" that fits them!

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[RMiller]

They have most definitely slowly changed the definition of vaccine, even from the origin story.

The word.. has it's roots from vacca. Cow in Latin.

[chuckman]

The definition was bound to change anyway based on mRNA technology. I just wish people knew the difference between vaccine and immunization.