Stop using the term 'Anti Vaxx'

The year is not even over yet...get your head out of your ass.The vaccines started being administered in December of 2020

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

The actual research overwhelmingly shows the benefits of vaccination. Claiming otherwise is the lie.

Riddle me this batman;
Why have there been more deaths from covid-19 in 2021 with the vaccine roll-out (free donuts and gift cards)
Than in 2020 without a vaccine?

Que the jeopardy music....

a reply to: ScepticScot

Because the virus wasn't here around for the full year in 2020, and certainly not as well spread.

Stricter restrictions in 2020.

Vaccine roll out takes time so well in to 2021 before the majority vaccinated.

Not really much of a riddle.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe
Well, according to this the changed the wording to say pretty much the same thing. Also, technically they didn't change it in the dictionaries, just in how they use it.

The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

If you got something more convincing, bring it.

www.miamiherald.com...

Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.”

Read more at: www.miamiherald.com...=cpy

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: fringeofthefringe
Well, according to this the changed the wording to say pretty much the same thing. Also, technically they didn't change it in the dictionaries, just in how they use it.

The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

If you got something more convincing, bring it.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe
That is what I linked.

The definition the CDC uses, which says the same thing in different words, was changed, not the general definition.

Besides the old definition fit the mrna vaccines as well, since they both say the same thing.

Got anything else?

You just said, "the old definition ?"
What are we debating here?
I said they changed the definition of vaccines and you said they didn't. Now you are referring to the "old definition?"
Ok, I think we've come to an impasse.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: fringeofthefringe
That is what I linked.

The definition the CDC uses, which says the same thing in different words, was changed, not the general definition.

Besides the old definition fit the mrna vaccines as well, since they both say the same thing.

Got anything else?

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
www.miamiherald.com...

Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.”

Read more at: www.miamiherald.com...=cpy

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: fringeofthefringe
Well, according to this the changed the wording to say pretty much the same thing. Also, technically they didn't change it in the dictionaries, just in how they use it.

The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

If you got something more convincing, bring it.

From your source. Did you read it?


"But the coronavirus vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do, which is to prevent severe disease, including the need for hospitalization, and death — even in the presence of more dangerous versions of the virus such as the delta variant. While data show the coronavirus shots are preventing infections in many outbreak scenarios, the fact breakthrough infections are happening doesn’t suggest failure, experts say."

Read more at: www.miamiherald.com...=cpy

a reply to: fringeofthefringe
I linked to that same article that says they did change it, which means you are right.

I then pointed out that the old and new definition say the same thing, making your point moot.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0
Calling me an antivaxxer is fine with me.
The other side of that coin is a communist bootlicker.

Not about being right, but being happy.

Licking the boots of communism is not my idea of happiness. I'm a student of history so can identify communism on it's face.

Disinfection protocols are being ignored so to force mask mandates.
Ivermectin treatment (antiparasitic) kills the virus, not the host.

Spanish flu numbers were in the millions, covid is still ten% of that in the same two year time span.

It's a manufactured crises, in cooperation with communist china ambitions.

🙏❤

Did you read our discussion?
Wether the vaccine did what ,"they" intended it to do or not is not Germane to our debate.

I said they changed the definition of vaccine and showed what they changed. It went from immunity to protection.
< Snipped ad hominem attack >

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
www.miamiherald.com...

Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.”

Read more at: www.miamiherald.com...=cpy

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: fringeofthefringe
Well, according to this the changed the wording to say pretty much the same thing. Also, technically they didn't change it in the dictionaries, just in how they use it.

The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

If you got something more convincing, bring it.

From your source. Did you read it?


"But the coronavirus vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do, which is to prevent severe disease, including the need for hospitalization, and death — even in the presence of more dangerous versions of the virus such as the delta variant. While data show the coronavirus shots are preventing infections in many outbreak scenarios, the fact breakthrough infections are happening doesn’t suggest failure, experts say."

Read more at: www.miamiherald.com...=cpy

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
Did you read our discussion?
Wether the vaccine did what ,"they" intended it to do or not is not Germane to our debate.

I said they changed the definition of vaccine and showed what they changed. It went from immunity to protection.
Ugh, you're an idiot

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
www.miamiherald.com...

Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.”

Read more at: www.miamiherald.com...=cpy

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: fringeofthefringe
Well, according to this the changed the wording to say pretty much the same thing. Also, technically they didn't change it in the dictionaries, just in how they use it.

The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

If you got something more convincing, bring it.

From your source. Did you read it?


"But the coronavirus vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do, which is to prevent severe disease, including the need for hospitalization, and death — even in the presence of more dangerous versions of the virus such as the delta variant. While data show the coronavirus shots are preventing infections in many outbreak scenarios, the fact breakthrough infections are happening doesn’t suggest failure, experts say."

Read more at: www.miamiherald.com...=cpy

Yes I did read it.

Really, do you now understand where you went wrong?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
Did you read our discussion?
Wether the vaccine did what ,"they" intended it to do or not is not Germane to our debate.

I said they changed the definition of vaccine and showed what they changed. It went from immunity to protection.
Ugh, you're an idiot

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
www.miamiherald.com...

Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.”

Read more at: www.miamiherald.com...=cpy

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: fringeofthefringe
Well, according to this the changed the wording to say pretty much the same thing. Also, technically they didn't change it in the dictionaries, just in how they use it.

The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

If you got something more convincing, bring it.

From your source. Did you read it?


"But the coronavirus vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do, which is to prevent severe disease, including the need for hospitalization, and death — even in the presence of more dangerous versions of the virus such as the delta variant. While data show the coronavirus shots are preventing infections in many outbreak scenarios, the fact breakthrough infections are happening doesn’t suggest failure, experts say."

Read more at: www.miamiherald.com...=cpy

Yes I did read it.

You helped cement my point after all.
I guess I should thank you

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
Did you read our discussion?
Wether the vaccine did what ,"they" intended it to do or not is not Germane to our debate.

I said they changed the definition of vaccine and showed what they changed. It went from immunity to protection.
Ugh, you're an idiot

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
www.miamiherald.com...

Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.”

Read more at: www.miamiherald.com...=cpy

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: fringeofthefringe
Well, according to this the changed the wording to say pretty much the same thing. Also, technically they didn't change it in the dictionaries, just in how they use it.

The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

If you got something more convincing, bring it.

From your source. Did you read it?


"But the coronavirus vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do, which is to prevent severe disease, including the need for hospitalization, and death — even in the presence of more dangerous versions of the virus such as the delta variant. While data show the coronavirus shots are preventing infections in many outbreak scenarios, the fact breakthrough infections are happening doesn’t suggest failure, experts say."

Read more at: www.miamiherald.com...=cpy

Yes I did read it.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
The year is not even over yet...get your head out of your ass.The vaccines started being administered in December of 2020

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

The actual research overwhelmingly shows the benefits of vaccination. Claiming otherwise is the lie.

Riddle me this batman;
Why have there been more deaths from covid-19 in 2021 with the vaccine roll-out (free donuts and gift cards)
Than in 2020 without a vaccine?

Que the jeopardy music....

a reply to: ScepticScot

Because the virus wasn't here around for the full year in 2020, and certainly not as well spread.

Stricter restrictions in 2020.

Vaccine roll out takes time so well in to 2021 before the majority vaccinated.

Not really much of a riddle.

Started yes.

Saying that changes absolutely nothing about my post.

They changed the definition of vaccine and showed what they changed. It went from immunity to protection.
They did this in the middle of a pandemic with a never used approach that even the pioneer of Mrna gene therapy, Dr Moore, stated it is going to create ADE- antibody dependent enhancement.
Where have you been the last 12 months..

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: fringeofthefringe
I linked to that same article that says they did change it, which means you are right.

I then pointed out that the old and new definition say the same thing, making your point moot.

They changed the definition of vaccine and I showed what they changed. It went from immunity to protection.
They did this in the middle of a pandemic with a never before used approach that even the pioneer of Mrna gene therapy, Dr Moore, stated it is going to create ADE- antibody dependent enhancement.
Where have you been the last 12 months..

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: fringeofthefringe
I linked to that same article that says they did change it, which means you are right.

I then pointed out that the old and new definition say the same thing, making your point moot.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe
Immunity is a synonym of protection.

The mrna shots would have fit the old definition as well as the new, your point is moot.

Lol...ok

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: fringeofthefringe
Immunity is a synonym of protection.

The mrna shots would have fit the old definition as well as the new, your point is moot.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe
I'm glad you finally see it.

originally posted by: litterbaux
a reply to: shaemac

The definition of vaccine was changed.

The current lexicon of the word vaccine actually encompasses the use,efficacy and results of the current Covid-19 vaccine.

Get with the program.

Nope. You cannot just start changing definitions of vaccine. That is not how language works FFS.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Not everyone who choses not to get vaccinated is anti vax .

However its a convenient shorthand for those who post lies, misinformation and completely made bollocks about vaccines.

Since there are plenty of those in this site I will continue to use the term, thanks all the same.

Some folks are anti-vaxx in respect to the experimental Covid vax .
And some folks are anti- fact in respect to the experimental Covid vax .
The latter cannot make up their own minds so therefore they have to rely on government , the media , and their neighbors to tell them what to do .

Anti vaxers are anti fact. It's kind of their thing .

You can make up your own mind but you don't get to make up your own facts . Something anti vaxers seem to have an issue with.

One has to look at facts from both sides and make a decision .
Not just listen to the folks mentioned.

Help Deny Ignorance .
Become informed .

Listening to facts is good. The facts are extremely clear in favour of vaccination.

What anti vaxers are selling isn't facts.

Then you haven't spent enough time in research .

Believing fact free bitchute videos and anti vax bull# isn't research.

I expected a response as such .
One failing in a debate always resorts to the above tactics.
The WHO , the CDC , and many epidemiologists have published a list of potential side effects.
Even my GP has informed me .
If one had done their research , they would know this .

Denying ignorance.
Why ?
Why do folks resort to ignorance ?

Can you quote where I said there were zero potential side effects?

While the actual research shows the risk of serious side effects is very low and massively outweighed by the benefits of being vaccinated for the majority of people.

Deny ignorance indeed.

The post was not meant for that .
First , reread your post.
Then reread my post and learn the term research .
You spoke of bitchute .
Media is just an outlet .
It is the source of the article that counts.
Even the most ignorant amongst us can surprise with a bit of wisdom every now and then .

The actual research overwhelmingly shows the benefits of vaccination. Claiming otherwise is the lie.

What research? All of this is still in experimental trials until 2023. They said they will not even release all of their crap for another 50 years. Nobody knows what the actual benefits are nor the long term effects.

Everyone injected is a TEST SUBJECT until the day they die.