If it doesn't stop infection or transmission, is it really a vaccine?
If it doesn't stop infection or transmission, is it really a vaccine?
Of course not.
"What would a $2,000 Geissele Super Duty do that a $500 PSA door buster on Black Friday couldn't do?" - Stopsign32v
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.lou...ils-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."
I am part of that power which eternally wills evil, and eternally works good.
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.
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.
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
You won't outvote the corruption.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
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"
Bookmarks