You Either Keep Getting Your Booster Shots Or Admit You Were Wrong

a reply to: daskakik
So you don't believe that variants die out because of herd immunity then.
Or that new variants arise because of herd immunity either.

I get it now......I think.

a reply to: Itisnowagain
What I believe is beside the point, always has been.

That is why I said there was no need for me to google anything. I'm not going to find "what chr0naut meant in post XYZ" on google.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

See also from my post above how the argument about herd immunity via vaccinations has been debunked long time ago. It was one of the narratives. Mass vaccinations will stop the spread and give us herd immunity. Protecting granny on the way...

I wonder how many vaccines exist for all other human coronaviruses? Rhetorical question.

How did we control measles? It has a R0 of like 18 which is massive? Also, not sure why you added all this in your reply to my post.

We are not discussing other diseases but Covid-19. So have a look at my post above on how herd immunity is impossible in this case.

If you think we have achieved herd immunity in this case then join the group of Chr0naut and AaarghZombies and a few other who were arguing about this debunked claim in an attempt to support to mass vaccinations.

With how many other coronaviruses we have achieved herd immunity and how many vaccines exist for them?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

We are not discussing other diseases but Covid-19. So have a look at my post above on how herd immunity is impossible in this case.

If you think we have achieved herd immunity in this case then join the group of Chr0naut and AaarghZombies and a few other who were arguing about this debunked claim in an attempt to support to mass vaccinations.

With how many other coronaviruses we have achieved herd immunity and how many vaccines exist for them?

For some reason you thrusted me into this conversation, why? Were any of my posts about herd immunity? I would say with RNA viruses it would be extremely hard thing to do since we constantly move from one primary to another with the flu, cold etc RNA type viruses.

The purpose for the vaccine is to minimize the level of illness by giving your body a primer before you get the real thing. If you want to talk reducing the spread, I will say if a person is sick for 3 days, they will have less days of contagious than someone sick for weeks.

I was sick for 2 days at age 62 and gave it to no one while 2 of my workers unvacced were sick 2 weeks each and gave it to their whole family. So, I would think if you can lower the number of days sick you reduce the R0.

I'm not sure why the point of herd immunity is something that really bothers you on the level you want to put into it.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

So you don't believe that variants die out because of herd immunity then.
Or that new variants arise because of herd immunity either.

I get it now......I think.

So how does a variant become the dominate variant? Where did Alpha go, why do we not see all variants spreading at the same rate, so that you might have Delta, your neighbor has Alpha, and your kids have Omicron?

Alpha, Beta, Gamma are no longer detected, Delta extremely low detection now... Where did they go?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

We are not discussing other diseases but Covid-19. So have a look at my post above on how herd immunity is impossible in this case.

If you think we have achieved herd immunity in this case then join the group of Chr0naut and AaarghZombies and a few other who were arguing about this debunked claim in an attempt to support to mass vaccinations.

With how many other coronaviruses we have achieved herd immunity and how many vaccines exist for them?

For some reason you thrusted me into this conversation, why? Were any of my posts about herd immunity? I would say with RNA viruses it would be extremely hard thing to do since we constantly move from one primary to another with the flu, cold etc RNA type viruses.

The purpose for the vaccine is to minimize the level of illness by giving your body a primer before you get the real thing. If you want to talk reducing the spread, I will say if a person is sick for 3 days, they will have less days of contagious than someone sick for weeks.

I was sick for 2 days at age 62 and gave it to no one while 2 of my workers unvacced were sick 2 weeks each and gave it to their whole family. So, I would think if you can lower the number of days sick you reduce the R0.

I'm not sure why the point of herd immunity is something that really bothers you on the level you want to put into it.

Some claims were made about herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 that were not correct. They have been shown repeatedly to be false. There is no herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2. This is an argument and one of the narratives that wanted to promote mass vaccinations.

I know what the purpose of the vaccine is. But it is not just to minimise severity of illness but on many occasions to stop you from getting infected and transmit the virus.

The current mRNA products don't fit the definition of the vaccine and they are often dangerous to use. So not safe and effective as advertised. The other vaccine from Astrazeneca has been withdrawn from most markets quitely and methodically after injuring and killing a substantial number of people.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Some claims were made about herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 that were not correct. They have been shown repeatedly to be false. There is no herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2. This is an argument and one of the narratives that wanted to promote mass vaccinations.

I remember Biden and Fauci pushing some BS like a year ago. My favorite was them saying if you don't get the vaccine then you are endangering those that did. I was like WTF I get the vaccine why should I care what others do. Herd immunity is all based on the type of virus and RNA based viruses are just too volatile. Something like a DNA virus (smallpox) has had 2 variants in 30,000 years so the smallpox vaccine has both of those in it, done deal for another 30,000 years lol

I know what the purpose of the vaccine is. But it is not just to minimise severity of illness but on many occasions to stop you from getting infected and transmit the virus.

There are more vaccines that DO NOT stop transmission than do... It all depends on the virus, not the vaccine.

The current mRNA products don't fit the definition of the vaccine and they are often dangerous to use. So not safe and effective as advertised. The other vaccine from Astrazeneca has been withdrawn from most markets quitely and methodically after injuring and killing a substantial number of people.

What is YOUR definition of a vaccine? I bet I can name 20 vaccines that been around a long time that does not fit your definition too. We have not also defined what you mean by safe and effective. You were the one pushing 1 per 100,000 was dangerous and so drugs are removed because of that, and that is crazy to even think that is how any of this works. When I point out a common Osteoarthritis drug that kills 75 per 100,000 you just blow it off and don't address it, or the 100s of like drugs.

You have this annoying habit to repeat the same lines over and over without really defining what you mean by them.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Some claims were made about herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 that were not correct. They have been shown repeatedly to be false. There is no herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2. This is an argument and one of the narratives that wanted to promote mass vaccinations.

I remember Biden and Fauci pushing some BS like a year ago. My favorite was them saying if you don't get the vaccine then you are endangering those that did. I was like WTF I get the vaccine why should I care what others do. Herd immunity is all based on the type of virus and RNA based viruses are just too volatile. Something like a DNA virus (smallpox) has had 2 variants in 30,000 years so the smallpox vaccine has both of those in it, done deal for another 30,000 years lol

I know what the purpose of the vaccine is. But it is not just to minimise severity of illness but on many occasions to stop you from getting infected and transmit the virus.

There are more vaccines that DO NOT stop transmission than do... It all depends on the virus, not the vaccine.

The current mRNA products don't fit the definition of the vaccine and they are often dangerous to use. So not safe and effective as advertised. The other vaccine from Astrazeneca has been withdrawn from most markets quitely and methodically after injuring and killing a substantial number of people.

What is YOUR definition of a vaccine? I bet I can name 20 vaccines that been around a long time that does not fit your definition too. We have not also defined what you mean by safe and effective. You were the one pushing 1 per 100,000 was dangerous and so drugs are removed because of that, and that is crazy to even think that is how any of this works. When I point out a common Osteoarthritis drug that kills 75 per 100,000 you just blow it off and don't address it, or the 100s of like drugs.

You have this annoying habit to repeat the same lines over and over without really defining what you mean by them.

Yes, that's why herd immunity was never a realistic aim for a virus that mutates very rapidly such as SARS-CoV-2.

I didn't provide my own definition of what a vaccine is. But we all know that the definition of the vaccine had to change so that the mRNA products can be regarded as vaccines. That's wicked....

Repetition is very good for learning. Especially when members don't get the basis of what herd immunity is and why it cannot be achieved or when they keep claiming that these products are safe and effective or even when they are claiming that Covid-19 has come from SARS-CoV-2, both being virus.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Sometimes we have to remember that we're talking to people who don't believe in evolution.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Old definition

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

New definition

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Very different definitions. The CDC has changed the definition without consulting anyone. I would thought that scientific and medical definitions don't change very easily and you really need a bulk of evidence to make some changes and modifications.

But we all know who is behind these changes. The same forces that have been convicted and paid billions of dollars in criminal fines for fraud, deception, and harming individuals with their products.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut

According to the CDC (Estimated COVID-19 Burden), there have been 921,000 deaths (worldwide) from COVID-19 and in that same period there were an estimated 146,600,000 infections, which gives an IFR of 0.628 %, which is more than four times the IFR you quoted.

The other problem that they refuse to see or understand is the vast majority of those deaths come from mostly a few groups with other groups hardly even touched. The virus was devastating on the older population, but I guess that doesn't matter its .15% no matter what, where, who...

I'm not sure it was devastating to any part of the population.

Putting "Covid" as a contributing cause of death on a death certificate was a "get out of malpractice allegations free" card.

Being a new virus with so little data available, nobody could say your treatment had been wrong, no matter how the patient ended up.

The biggest "comorbidities" were things that had very nearly the same kill ratio for patients without Covid as they did for patients with Covid. They weren't quite to the point of saying "gunshot wound to the head" + Covid can kill you, but Heart Disease, for example already kills about 2% of those who have it, per year, without Covid (with it the rate goes up to 2.5%, although all death rates went up that year, since people weren't getting preventative care.)

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

The current mRNA products don't fit the definition of the vaccine and they are often dangerous to use. So not safe and effective as advertised. The other vaccine from Astrazeneca has been withdrawn from most markets quitely and methodically after injuring and killing a substantial number of people.

What is YOUR definition of a vaccine? I bet I can name 20 vaccines that been around a long time that does not fit your definition too. We have not also defined what you mean by safe and effective. You were the one pushing 1 per 100,000 was dangerous and so drugs are removed because of that, and that is crazy to even think that is how any of this works. When I point out a common Osteoarthritis drug that kills 75 per 100,000 you just blow it off and don't address it, or the 100s of like drugs.

You have this annoying habit to repeat the same lines over and over without really defining what you mean by them.

The question of whether it meets the definition of "vaccine" is just a red herring. People are trying to conflate meantings. Group an untested MRNA treatment together with a long list of tried and true treatments that have been getting perfected and refined for over a century.

Whether it makes up part of a vaccine or not, MRNA is highly experimental.

Conflating terms like that, it's like taping a lit stick of dynamite to golf cart, and then arguing that because golf carts are largely considered safe, and the stick of dynamite is now part of the cart, the stick of dynamite must therefore be safe now.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Global average IFR = 0.15%

Wow, first time seeing this...thank you for the presenting it...

See also from my post above how the argument about herd immunity via vaccinations has been debunked long time ago.

And yet, you fail to see that this argument against herd immunity rests only on the basis of IFR estimates, something which is widely variable, and which experts do not, and will not, agree on.

Nor will they ever even intend to agree on a single value, because trying to reduce the array of potential outcomes of the disease to a single number, for all demographics, all strains, and all environments, is a nonsense.

It was one of the narratives. Mass vaccinations will stop the spread and give us herd immunity. Protecting granny on the way...

But you are implying that the IFR for 'granny' will be 0.15%?

According to the CDC page on Estimated COVID-19 Burden, the IFR for those 65+ in the USA is 3.922%.

So why do you persist in using an inapplicable IFR?

I wonder how many vaccines exist for all other human coronaviruses? Rhetorical question.

Non-rhetorical answer:

There is a vaccine against MERS currently undergoing phase 1 test. The WHO also have a blueprint for at least two different types of human MERS vaccine to be developed.

Also, there's this: Experimental vaccine protects against multiple coronaviruses

There are not any other life threatening coronaviruses other than 'big three' of SARS, MERS and SARS-Cov-2, at the moment, so there is no impetus to develop vaccines against low-impact coronaviruses. Doing so would be creating something with risks attached to it, to fight against variants with almost no risk at all.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut

According to the CDC (Estimated COVID-19 Burden), there have been 921,000 deaths (worldwide) from COVID-19 and in that same period there were an estimated 146,600,000 infections, which gives an IFR of 0.628 %, which is more than four times the IFR you quoted.

The other problem that they refuse to see or understand is the vast majority of those deaths come from mostly a few groups with other groups hardly even touched. The virus was devastating on the older population, but I guess that doesn't matter its .15% no matter what, where, who...

How can anyone think that such a ratio is anything like an accurate representation of real-world deadliness of a disease (but it does reveal worst-case estimates useful for epidemiological planning)?

They do because it is a convenient number to throw around without understanding what it might even represent. It's this same group that thinks event 1 death per 100,000 means a drug is so bad it needs to be removed, but 600 deaths per 100,000 deaths from the virus in some countries is still .15% and that means the virus is nothing there.

If we look at a reference group of 1 to 29 to understand the risk of death 30 to 39 is 3.5X risk, 40 to 49 is 10x risk, 50 to 65 is 25x risk, 65 to 74 is 60x risk, 75 to 84 is 140x risk and 85+ is 350x risk of dying...

What makes matter worst is that these increased risks are also on 40% less people infected in those groups. if it was 1 per 10,000 people in the reference group died then that would be 25 per 6,000 in my age group.

Then we have not even started down the path of long COVID which is a whole new story on top of all this.

Global average IFR = 0.15%

Obviously different age groups have different risks. But a disease is characterised by one bummer the global average IFR and not what suits the argument.

I confused if I want the IFR of the 0-19 age group which seems to be extremely low. As low as 0.0003%

The universe is as near as we can tell, infinite in spatial extent. However the matter it contains is a finite value.

This means that as a ratio of matter to space, the answer is so close to zero that to speak of matter existing, is mathematically ridiculous.

So, there is empirically no matter in the universe.

You are made of matter, and so you must necessarily not exist.

See how easy it is to draw nonsense conclusions by making abstractions!

a reply to: Xtrozero
Do you believe it's down to 'herd immunity'?

If so, I'd love to see any link you can provide that says that variants disappear because of 'herd immunity'.

Because as yet I have failed to find any.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: Xtrozero

Old definition

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

New definition

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Very different definitions. The CDC has changed the definition without consulting anyone. I would thought that scientific and medical definitions don't change very easily and you really need a bulk of evidence to make some changes and modifications.

The CDC does not define dictionary terms. Even medical dictionary ones.

The English language is massively mutable, especially in regard to scientific and technical terms which arise and change with great rapidity and multitudinous instances.

But we all know who is behind these changes. The same forces that have been convicted and paid billions of dollars in criminal fines for fraud, deception, and harming individuals with their products.

Yes, them dammed human beings.

Oh, except all them quacks, con-men, deceiving showmen, and snake-oil salesmen. They are all good, eh - Ivermectin and HQC anyone??

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Global average IFR = 0.15%

Wow, first time seeing this...thank you for the presenting it...

See also from my post above how the argument about herd immunity via vaccinations has been debunked long time ago.

And yet, you fail to see that this argument against herd immunity rests only on the basis of IFR estimates, something which is widely variable, and which experts do not, and will not, agree on.

Nor will they ever even intend to agree on a single value, because trying to reduce the array of potential outcomes of the disease to a single number, for all demographics, all strains, and all environments, is a nonsense.

It was one of the narratives. Mass vaccinations will stop the spread and give us herd immunity. Protecting granny on the way...

But you are implying that the IFR for 'granny' will be 0.15%?

According to the CDC page on Estimated COVID-19 Burden, the IFR for those 65+ in the USA is 3.922%.

So why do you persist in using an inapplicable IFR?

I wonder how many vaccines exist for all other human coronaviruses? Rhetorical question.

Non-rhetorical answer:

There is a vaccine against MERS currently undergoing phase 1 test. The WHO also have a blueprint for at least two different types of human MERS vaccine to be developed.

Also, there's this: Experimental vaccine protects against multiple coronaviruses

There are not any other life threatening coronaviruses other than 'big three' of SARS, MERS and SARS-Cov-2, at the moment, so there is no impetus to develop vaccines against low-impact coronaviruses. Doing so would be creating something with risks attached to it, to fight against variants with almost no risk at all.

No it doesn't. It is just your misguided interpretation.

There are no other vaccines for human coronaviruses.


January 27, 2022
Kevin Kavanagh, MD

Those Who Believe in Herd Immunity Cannot Do the Math.

COVID-19 mutations are evading our immunity and at the same time our immunity is waning. Herd immunity to disease and the eradication of SARS-CoV-2 is no longer possible.

The developer of the AstraZeneca shot says the Delta variant has made herd immunity impossible because vaccinated people can still transmit the virus

Prof Devi Sridhar is chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh

Herd immunity now seems impossible. Welcome to the age of Covid reinfection

The virus is now embedded in our world. But there are steps we can take to keep it at bay while we continue to live our lives

So the herd immunity argument is debunked

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: Xtrozero

Old definition

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

New definition

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Very different definitions. The CDC has changed the definition without consulting anyone. I would thought that scientific and medical definitions don't change very easily and you really need a bulk of evidence to make some changes and modifications.

The CDC does not define dictionary terms. Even medical dictionary ones.

The English language is massively mutable, especially in regard to scientific and technical terms which arise and change with great rapidity and multitudinous instances.

But we all know who is behind these changes. The same forces that have been convicted and paid billions of dollars in criminal fines for fraud, deception, and harming individuals with their products.

Yes, them dammed human beings.

Oh, except all them quacks, con-men, deceiving showmen, and snake-oil salesmen. They are all good, eh - Ivermectin and HQC anyone??

They are the ones who have changed the definition to suit the new untested, experimental, and potentially hazardous products.

Old definition

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

New definition

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Stop defending the pharmaceuticals and the CDC

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut

According to the CDC (Estimated COVID-19 Burden), there have been 921,000 deaths (worldwide) from COVID-19 and in that same period there were an estimated 146,600,000 infections, which gives an IFR of 0.628 %, which is more than four times the IFR you quoted.

The other problem that they refuse to see or understand is the vast majority of those deaths come from mostly a few groups with other groups hardly even touched. The virus was devastating on the older population, but I guess that doesn't matter its .15% no matter what, where, who...

How can anyone think that such a ratio is anything like an accurate representation of real-world deadliness of a disease (but it does reveal worst-case estimates useful for epidemiological planning)?

They do because it is a convenient number to throw around without understanding what it might even represent. It's this same group that thinks event 1 death per 100,000 means a drug is so bad it needs to be removed, but 600 deaths per 100,000 deaths from the virus in some countries is still .15% and that means the virus is nothing there.

If we look at a reference group of 1 to 29 to understand the risk of death 30 to 39 is 3.5X risk, 40 to 49 is 10x risk, 50 to 65 is 25x risk, 65 to 74 is 60x risk, 75 to 84 is 140x risk and 85+ is 350x risk of dying...

What makes matter worst is that these increased risks are also on 40% less people infected in those groups. if it was 1 per 10,000 people in the reference group died then that would be 25 per 6,000 in my age group.

Then we have not even started down the path of long COVID which is a whole new story on top of all this.

Global average IFR = 0.15%

Obviously different age groups have different risks. But a disease is characterised by one bummer the global average IFR and not what suits the argument.

I confused if I want the IFR of the 0-19 age group which seems to be extremely low. As low as 0.0003%

The universe is as near as we can tell, infinite in spatial extent. However the matter it contains is a finite value.

This means that as a ratio of matter to space, the answer is so close to zero that to speak of matter existing, is mathematically ridiculous.

So, there is empirically no matter in the universe.

You are made of matter, and so you must necessarily not exist.

See how easy it is to draw nonsense conclusions by making abstractions!

The analogy you have given is just terrible. Speaking about basic cosmology and trying to apply the logic of the ratio of 'mass to volume'. Confusion.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Global average IFR = 0.15%

Wow, first time seeing this...thank you for the presenting it...

See also from my post above how the argument about herd immunity via vaccinations has been debunked long time ago.

And yet, you fail to see that this argument against herd immunity rests only on the basis of IFR estimates, something which is widely variable, and which experts do not, and will not, agree on.

Nor will they ever even intend to agree on a single value, because trying to reduce the array of potential outcomes of the disease to a single number, for all demographics, all strains, and all environments, is a nonsense.

It was one of the narratives. Mass vaccinations will stop the spread and give us herd immunity. Protecting granny on the way...

But you are implying that the IFR for 'granny' will be 0.15%?

According to the CDC page on Estimated COVID-19 Burden, the IFR for those 65+ in the USA is 3.922%.

So why do you persist in using an inapplicable IFR?

I wonder how many vaccines exist for all other human coronaviruses? Rhetorical question.

Non-rhetorical answer:

There is a vaccine against MERS currently undergoing phase 1 test. The WHO also have a blueprint for at least two different types of human MERS vaccine to be developed.

Also, there's this: Experimental vaccine protects against multiple coronaviruses

There are not any other life threatening coronaviruses other than 'big three' of SARS, MERS and SARS-Cov-2, at the moment, so there is no impetus to develop vaccines against low-impact coronaviruses. Doing so would be creating something with risks attached to it, to fight against variants with almost no risk at all.

You clearly have confused things for once more. Herd immunity and IFR are two different matters.

What describes how deadly a disease is, is given by the global average IFR and not by local IFRs or IFRs based on age. For example the IFR of the Spanish Flu was 10% and that's a global average. Total Number of people died over estimated total number of people infected. Back in 1918, 1919, 1920 I don't even think they knew how many people died. Today we can have an accurate measurement.

Again, no vaccines have ever been developed and authorised for any other coronaviruses.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
I didn't provide my own definition of what a vaccine is. But we all know that the definition of the vaccine had to change so that the mRNA products can be regarded as vaccines. That's wicked....

I put this in the bucket of who give a crap... I don't... "we all" is a small group you are a part of without spending 3 mins to actually look it up to see if an Instagram was true or not. You all just go REEeee on it and label it as fact. I asked you to provide information as to what you are talking about, and you can't because your level of knowledge on all this comes from a totally incorrect Instagram...geez

This is what the Instagram said

"Vaccine used to be defined as a substances that provides 'immunity' to a specific disease," reads the text of an Instagram post shared Nov. 4. "Now, Merriam Webster has literally changed the definition of 'vaccine' and removed the 'immunity' portion in order to possibly cover for the fact that the COVID 'vaccines' don't actually provide immunity from COVID."

According to an archived version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary's website...

It said a

"vaccine" was "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 new definition published in May that is driving you and others crazy.

"a preparation that is administered – as by injection – to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease."

So, the BIG change...lol Was the change from "increase immunity" to "stimulate the body's immune response" which they say is a more accurate wording since

the definition (of) immune response provides a detailed description of how a vaccine actually works and is therefore more specific, scientific and complete than the more general term immunity,"

Repetition is very good for learning.

Really, the educator now... I think it is because that is the limit to your knowledge, and you really can't go much past your key phrases in depth as I did above.