No such thing as 'fully vaccinated'!!!

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
She won't find much support here though as I had zero vaccinations.

Yet here you are saying "Yes, you must be careful what you say, how you say what you say, and what to think. Don't use offensive language please." based on this one person's opinion which nobody else here, vaxxed or not, seems to be giving any weight.

Regardless of whether one here agrees or disagrees, and I am sure most will disagree with the lunacy, it is a fact that one of the experts is trying to push some new 'agenda'. A change in the vocabulary which shows how absurd the vaccine ideology has become.

Nobody is fully vaccinated according to her.

I am sure that the unvaccinated will find this proposition ridiculous and that the vaccinated have probably become very uneasy with what they are hearing as I haven't come anyone, and especially the younger generations, who is willing to continue with the jabs for an indefinite period of time.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: zosimov
These jabs don't "fully protect" against anything.

And they never did, which is why "fully vaccinated" never meant that and why I said that this piece of fluff from the MSM is based on nothing more than semantics.

Semantics is not the word.

Crazy misinformation is probably the best

ATTENTION

I don't know how it is that people can't understand that opinions of each other are not the topic on ATS - EVER - but it's close to time to start issuing Posting Bans to those who ignore this.

BE WARNED IF YOUR POST IS NOT ON TOPIC AND IS ABOUT OTHER MEMBERS YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE POSTING BANNED!

Everyone and I mean everyone is allowed to post here on topic and to do so without being called names or becoming the target of others' posts. Debate the topic and leave each other out of it.

The topic is No such thing as 'fully vaccinated'!!!

These rules apply to all threads and if you want to engage in personal attacks there are other sites on the Internet where you can do that. Our goal is for ATS to be above that. For members here to post like mature adults.

 

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.
Including posting bans.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You clearly have never been 'fully' indoctrinated?

No. I didn't really believe in the Covid dogma and the vaccine ideology.

What did you believe in, then, and why did you believe it? Do you ever question the foundation of your beliefs?

I don't believe in anything.

Clearly, you do.

To accept something I need some good evidence.

Are you sure there is a brain in side your skull? What evidence do you have? Have you ever seen it?

So clearly, you have to make some assumptions about things in the real world and those assumptions are at the core of the acquisition of other observed evidence and lead to a whole chain of the un-evidenced, but the reasoned, based upon belief.

I am trying always to avoid dogma and ideology. That's why I avoid the absurd vaccine ideology that seems to be at odds with common sense and basic science.

Vaccines are not absurd. Most science is not 'basic', and common sense runs counter to much that is observed, especially that which forms a basis of modern science (paradigms such as wave-particle duality, metamaterials, quantum indeterminacy, semiconductance, superfluids, superconductance, DNA transcription, and a host of other observed science).

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
She won't find much support here though as I had zero vaccinations.

Yet here you are saying "Yes, you must be careful what you say, how you say what you say, and what to think. Don't use offensive language please." based on this one person's opinion which nobody else here, vaxxed or not, seems to be giving any weight.

Nobody is fully vaccinated according to her.

I am sure that the unvaccinated will find this proposition ridiculous and that the vaccinated have probably become very uneasy with what they are hearing as I haven't come anyone, and especially the younger generations, who is willing to continue with the jabs for an indefinite period of time.

This new speak is likely designed to enhance that uneasy feeling as this group also contains those who were peer pressured/coerced into the shots, with some even lashing out at the unvaccinated and so creating a group that was shunned that they themselves don't want to be part of it. That alone makes these people vulnerable to more rounds of shots even if some do not want them for an indefinite amount of time.

I agree that many people don't want more shots and won't get them but the weaker among them will not want to be shunned at all costs and if language changes, so does perception.

Just my opinion but something to watch.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Semantics is not the word.

Actually it is. "'Fully vaccinated' is not the term that we want to use." has everything to do with the meaning of the term, which is semantics.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Semantics is not the word.

Actually it is. "'Fully vaccinated' is not the term that we want to use." has everything to do with the meaning of the term, which is semantics.

If they look at the post above and my posts you will see they nobody here thinks we deal with semantics.

The 'up to date with vaccines' create space for future encounters with the same product multiple times.

If you are vaccinated against Polio then you dont run to the clinics and health centers every few months for more and more. As an example.

originally posted by: igloo

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
She won't find much support here though as I had zero vaccinations.

Yet here you are saying "Yes, you must be careful what you say, how you say what you say, and what to think. Don't use offensive language please." based on this one person's opinion which nobody else here, vaxxed or not, seems to be giving any weight.

Nobody is fully vaccinated according to her.

I am sure that the unvaccinated will find this proposition ridiculous and that the vaccinated have probably become very uneasy with what they are hearing as I haven't come anyone, and especially the younger generations, who is willing to continue with the jabs for an indefinite period of time.

This new speak is likely designed to enhance that uneasy feeling as this group also contains those who were peer pressured/coerced into the shots, with some even lashing out at the unvaccinated and so creating a group that was shunned that they themselves don't want to be part of it. That alone makes these people vulnerable to more rounds of shots even if some do not want them for an indefinite amount of time.

I agree that many people don't want more shots and won't get them but the weaker among them will not want to be shunned at all costs and if language changes, so does perception.

Just my opinion but something to watch.

And it's unlikely there is any clinical evidence that multiple shots enhance significantly immunity against the virus. One may argue the opposite i.e that it may have an immunosuppressive effect on the most vulnerable or in general terms.

Here in the UK anyone over a certain age or who has certain health issues are offered a flu jab once a year.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Semantics is not the word.

Actually it is. "'Fully vaccinated' is not the term that we want to use." has everything to do with the meaning of the term, which is semantics.

If they look at the post above and my posts you will see they nobody here thinks we deal with semantics.

The 'up to date with vaccines' create space for future encounters with the same product multiple times.

If you are vaccinated against Polio then you dint run to the clinics and health centers every few months for more and more. As an example.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
If they look at the post above and my posts you will see they nobody here thinks we deal with semantics.

Regardless, the article in the OP is about semantics.

If you are vaccinated against Polio then you dint run to the clinics and health centers every few months for more and more. As an example.

Flu shots are offered every year. Tetanus, diphtheria, and whooping cough boosters are recommended every 10 years.

Vaccines are not all the same and obviously not the magic bullets some people thought they were. That is on them.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
If they look at the post above and my posts you will see they nobody here thinks we deal with semantics.

Regardless, the article in the OP is about semantics.

If you are vaccinated against Polio then you dint run to the clinics and health centers every few months for more and more. As an example.

Flu shots are offered every year. Tetanus, diphtheria, and whooping cough boosters are recommended every 10 years.

Vaccines are not all the same and obviously not the magic bullets some people thought they were. That is on them.

It is not about semantics. We all know this.
You can't compare flu with Covid. Flu jabs are given once a year not multiple times as they are trying to recommend. Nor there is a campaign about changing the language used or the obvious 'obsession' to vaccinate everyone multiple times.

The question you should ask yourself is can you really have effective vaccines for RNA viruses?

originally posted by: nonspecific
Here in the UK anyone over a certain age or who has certain health issues are offered a flu jab once a year.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Semantics is not the word.

Actually it is. "'Fully vaccinated' is not the term that we want to use." has everything to do with the meaning of the term, which is semantics.

If they look at the post above and my posts you will see they nobody here thinks we deal with semantics.

The 'up to date with vaccines' create space for future encounters with the same product multiple times.

If you are vaccinated against Polio then you dint run to the clinics and health centers every few months for more and more. As an example.

Very different to the mass and repeated vaccinations they have in mind about Covid.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

So would you have an issue with a yearly covid 19 jab that's offered to people?

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Asmodeus3

So would you have an issue with a yearly covid 19 jab that's offered to people?

That's a very different question.
I have an issue obviously with mass and mandatory vaccinations every few months for all age groups. And we both know that the campaign is out there to vaccinate everyone multiple times for some good profit.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Are covid 19 vaccines mandatory where you live then?

I'd look at moving somewhere else if that were me.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
It is not about semantics. We all know this.

Saying it over and over isn't going to change the fact that the article clearly says "experts say the term no longer means...", which is 100% semantics.

You can't compare flu with Covid.

You can when the claim being refuted is that other vaccines don't require multiple jabs.

Flu jabs are given once a year not multiple times as they are trying to recommend. Nor there is a campaign about changing the language used or the obvious 'obsession' to vaccinate everyone multiple times.

That is called semantics.

The question you should ask yourself is can you really have effective vaccines for RNA viruses?

Why? It isn't like anyone can even answer that given that nobody knows what tech might exist in the future.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
It is not about semantics. We all know this.

Saying it over and over isn't going to change the fact that the article clearly says "experts say the term no longer means...", which is 100% semantics.

You can't compare flu with Covid.

You can when the claim being refuted is that other vaccines don't require multiple jabs.

Flu jabs are given once a year not multiple times as they are trying to recommend. Nor there is a campaign about changing the language used or the obvious 'obsession' to vaccinate everyone multiple times.

That is called semantics.

The question you should ask yourself is can you really have effective vaccines for RNA viruses?

Why? It isn't like anyone can even answer that given that nobody knows what tech might exist in the future.

I can't remember which vaccines require multiple shots, let's say every 3 or 4 months. Flu is once a year and one shot and not many participate as far as I know. It is aimed for the elderly mainly.

In the current scheme of things you can't stop or provide sterilising immunity when you have RNA viruses. And you can't be very effective either. How effective are these flu jabs? What about when you have other viruses such as HIV which belongs to the family of retroviruses. I don't think you can do much.

I will say it again then. It's not about semantics. That is your own opinion only. If you want to repeat your argument I will reply the same way.

The topic of this discussion is the absurd and ludicrous attempt to create a long term dependence on these vaccines so more and more will get vaccinated, probably with the same jab.

I think a lot of people like to use statements like "not fully vaccinated" or "leaky vaccine" as some kind of failure of the vaccine. In the case with COVID vaccine it is elevated to extreme levels to label "does not work", but what we need to understand is that it is more based on the virus than the vaccine as to whether the vaccine is pure, leaky, or not fully vaccinated.

In the case of pure vaccines most are based on DNA viruses that do not mutate very much because DNA is a hell of a lot more stable with built in checks that RNA based ones do not have. As example, Smallpox has had only 2 variants in the last 30,000 years, so the vaccine is pure in it will not only prevent, but also doesn't allow transmission. When we look at RNA viruses the vast majority are leaky or not fully vaccinated because of the nature of the virus to produce variants like crazy.

Natural immunity is also very leaky, so even mother nature doesn't typically have "pure" immunity. Other leaky ones are whooping cough, malaria and HIV in both natural immunity and vaccines. A good rule of thumb is if the body cannot create pure immunity then the vaccine can not either. An example of this is with measles where we get lifelong immunity after a single exposure of either the virus or vaccine, but the deal here is you would want the vaccine over the the virus to have extremely less reactions and illness.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
The topic of this discussion is the absurd and ludicrous attempt to create a long term dependence on these vaccines so more and more will get vaccinated, probably with the same jab.

That might be the discussion you want but that is a tangent on what the article in the OP is about, it is, like I said in my first post in the thread, a lame semantic argument.

Whether covid jabs become flu jabs 2.0 is not what I was addressing.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
The topic of this discussion is the absurd and ludicrous attempt to create a long term dependence on these vaccines so more and more will get vaccinated, probably with the same jab.

That might be the discussion you want but that is a tangent on what the article in the OP is about, it is, like I said in my first post in the thread, a lame semantic argument.

Whether covid jabs become flu jabs 2.0 is not what I was addressing.

No it's not semantics.

Flu doesn't require multiple shots per year.
Covid does require one shot after the other every 3-4 months and probably with the same vaccine.

You can't say you are fully vaccinated, one expert said. This creates the path for repeated vaccinations over small periods of time as the objective of vaccination wanes over this exact small period of time.

I know well what the article says as I created the thread. It addresses the absurdity of the vaccine campaign which likes to vaccinate everyone for as long as it takes and in regular time periods. What was the price for the Pfizer vaccine? Was it $20 per shot? Now going to $100 per shot...

www.reuters.com...