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

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Xtrozero
Chr0naut asked basically the same questions on page 11.

Where is the alpha strain now? Why is the alpha strain now extinct? Could it be that there are now no more hosts who can carry and transmit the strain? Isn't that the operation of herd immunity, which you are denying is happening? What other reason would a successfully infectious viral strain go extinct for?

That was 4 days ago and that's when I started searching online for answers.....

Clearly the member hasn't understood yet what herd immunity is.

Where is the alpha strain now? Why is the alpha strain now extinct? Could it be that there are now no more hosts who can carry and transmit the strain? Isn't that the operation of herd immunity, which you are denying is happening? What other reason would a successfully infectious viral strain go extinct for?

The text above proves exactly the confusion when it comes to herd immunity against SARS-CoV-2

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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.

As I said in an earlier post Merriam-Webster updated their definition to be more accurate as to what a vaccine actually does. Something is fishy with your quotes in the old Merriam-Webster definition didn't have this...

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.

It had this....

"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 phrase "by injection" and "produce immunity" were not in the old version. The other interesting part that I have said many times is there are more vaccines that do not give total immunity than do. Some don't stop you from getting it or dying at an almost 100%, but only delay the virus until you can get the full treatment like we see with the Rabies vaccine that you need to get 3 shots over 6 weeks and it just slows the virus down a little to get the treatment.

We also have the "Seasonal Flu Vaccines" that we call Flu shots, but they been called vaccines for many decades now... Why is that?

Don't trust an Instagram post that is liked 27,000 times is the moral of this story...

We have already discussed this before.

And no my sources don't come from an Instagram post. You are mistaken.

Old definition


www.clarkcountytoday.com...

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

www.cdc.gov...

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.

As you can see the definition has changed so to include the new mRNA products that wouldn't be regarded as vaccines with the old definition.

Scientific and medical definitions don't change because the CDC and other organizations want to. They change when evidence is brought forward and it is a lengthy process.

From my thread on herd immunity


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

A bit of repetition but crucial to see why herd immunity isn't possible with SARS-CoV-2 and a range of crippled vaccines.

However the same debunked argument is promoted by those who want to argue in favour of mass vaccinations and to protect granny (if anyone remembers the nonsense by the establishment)

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Scientific and medical definitions don't change because the CDC and other organizations want to. They change when evidence is brought forward and it is a lengthy process.

This is BS... BTW

You need to actually read the article your linked...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Scientific and medical definitions don't change because the CDC and other organizations want to. They change when evidence is brought forward and it is a lengthy process.

This is BS... BTW

Not really. Anyone who knows about science, even a little, knows well that definitions in science and medicine don't change easily. When they do there must be serious reasons and plenty of evidence to support the change.

It's obvious why the definition of the vaccine has changed.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Not really. Anyone who knows about science, even a little, knows well that definitions in science and medicine don't change easily. When they do there must be serious reasons and plenty of evidence to support the change.

It's obvious why the definition of the vaccine has changed.

Your basis of what a vaccine is now compared to what it has been for 100 years is total BS. It has never been a requirement for a vaccine to provide 100% immunity to becalled a vaccine. What do you call the annual flu vaccine that has been called a vaccine for like 50+ years? As I have said a number of times, immunity from a vaccine is more based on the virus type than anything else. Seems you and others just cannot understand that, or do not want to since it throws your whole argument out the window.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

It's obvious why the definition of the vaccine has changed.

I agree some slight adjustments... You article you linked says this... Do you disagree with your own support information?

“This definition has been revised to reflect both more scientifically accurate language and the fact that we have more space in the online dictionary,” said Peter Sokolowski, editor at large of Merriam-Webster.com. “We are now able to provide much more context and detail than previously possible in print dictionaries. The wording had originally been drafted in order to accommodate the space restrictions of our print editions, where definitions necessarily had to be as brief as possible.”

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Not really. Anyone who knows about science, even a little, knows well that definitions in science and medicine don't change easily. When they do there must be serious reasons and plenty of evidence to support the change.

It's obvious why the definition of the vaccine has changed.

Your basis of what a vaccine is now compared to what it has been for 100 years is total BS. It has never been a requirement for a vaccine to provide 100% immunity to becalled a vaccine. What do you call the annual flu vaccine that has been called a vaccine for like 50+ years? As I have said another of times, immunity from a vaccine is more based on the virus type than anything else. Seems you and others just cannot understand that, or do not want to since it throws your whole argument out the window.

You are mistaken with the dates I am afraid.

The definition of the vaccine was changed very recently and not 100 years ago. Everyone knows it. If you are trying to engage in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality is another story.

See the old and the new definition.

Immunity and protection are two different things. And it's perfectly clear what they mean. However everyone here who knows how to read has noticed that the definition of the vaccine has changed. And the timing is more than suspicious.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

It's obvious why the definition of the vaccine has changed.

I agree some slight adjustments... You article you linked says this... Do you disagree with your own support information?

“This definition has been revised to reflect both more scientifically accurate language and the fact that we have more space in the online dictionary,” said Peter Sokolowski, editor at large of Merriam-Webster.com. “We are now able to provide much more context and detail than previously possible in print dictionaries. The wording had originally been drafted in order to accommodate the space restrictions of our print editions, where definitions necessarily had to be as brief as possible.”

The article I posted is to show the definition of the vaccine has changed. Not why it has been changed. It's not a support information for the reasons it has changed but to verify it has changed.

Don't confuse the two.

Everyone disagrees with the interpretation of the mainstream that also has called the vaccines 'safe and effective' and the severe adverse reactions 'rare'. We know that this is not the case.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Everyone disagrees with the interpretation of the mainstream that also has called the vaccines 'safe and effective' and the severe adverse reactions 'rare'. We know that this is not the case.

Nothing in the definition old or new that uses the words 'safe and effective' or "rare"...

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

The definition of the vaccine was changed very recently and not 100 years ago. Everyone knows it. If you are trying to engage in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality is another story.

For 100 years a vaccine did not need to provide full immunity to be called a vaccine. Some actually provide zero immunity and only a little protection.

I'll ask you again for like the 10th time. Why have they been calling the annual flu vaccine "vaccine" for like 50 years now as it basically does the same thing as the COVID vaccines do.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

The definition of the vaccine was changed very recently and not 100 years ago. Everyone knows it. If you are trying to engage in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality is another story.

For 100 years a vaccine did not need to provide full immunity to be called a vaccine. Some actually provide zero immunity and only a little protection.

I'll ask you again for like the 10th time. Why have they been calling the annual flu vaccine "vaccine" for like 50 years now as it basically does the same thing as the COVID vaccines do.

This is not what we are debating though.
The change in definition is what is for debate and the timing of this change that magically coincided with the distribution of the mRNA products.

How is the flu vaccine doing the same thing as the mRNA products?? I didn't hear the flu vaccine being responsible for myocarditis, pericarditis, heart attacks, sudden deaths, and a series of serious adverse reactions where the risks could outweigh the benefits.

Are the mechanisms of protection conferred by these two vaccines the same?

The relevant question is why the definition has changed recently and not while the flu vaccine was around for many years. Something new?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Everyone disagrees with the interpretation of the mainstream that also has called the vaccines 'safe and effective' and the severe adverse reactions 'rare'. We know that this is not the case.

Nothing in the definition old or new that uses the words 'safe and effective' or "rare"...

Yes there is nothing in the definition. However the products must be safe and effective before distributed into the market. This doesn't seem to be the case with the mRNA products that seem to have failed completely to do what they supposed to do.

My reply to you above is about whether I agree with the interpretation of a scientist who argued on why the definition has changed.

We all know why it has changed.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Professor Retsef Levi MIT

(from a recent thread of mine)

By now I believe that the cumulative evidence is conclusive and confirms our concern that the mRNA vaccines indeed cause sudden cardiac arrest as a sequel of vaccine-induced myocarditis

And finally, autopsies of people that die closely after they receive the vaccine indicate that with the enlarged number of cases, there is strong evidence that the death was caused by vaccine-induced myocarditis.

So presented with all of this evidence, I think that there is no other ethical or scientific choice but to pull out of the market these medical products and stop all the mRNA vaccination programmes. This is clearly the most failing medical product in the history of medical products, both in terms of efficacy and safety. And we need to investigate and think hard: How did we end up in a situation that it’s also the most profitable medical product in the history of medical products

I think what Professor Levi says is quite clear adding to a number of scientists and doctors who have asked for the withdrawal of the product which doesn't fit whatever definition one can come up with.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Professor Retsef Levi MIT

You throw this name around like a club... doesn't work on me...

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

This doesn't seem to be the case with the mRNA products that seem to have failed completely to do what they supposed to do.

Your opinion, thank you...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Professor Retsef Levi MIT

You throw this name around like a club... doesn't work on me...

Is when the reality hits you hard and a range of well qualified and distinguished academics and medical doctors are calling for the withdrawal of these mRNA products due to their failure to do what they supposed to do.

So presented with all of this evidence, I think that there is no other ethical or scientific choice but to pull out of the market these medical products and stop all the mRNA vaccination programmes. This is clearly the most failing medical product in the history of medical products, both in terms of efficacy and safety. And we need to investigate and think hard: How did we end up in a situation that it’s also the most profitable medical product in the history of medical products

Professor Levi doesn't have just an opinion. He has knowledge. And as a result of his knowledge and experience the products have been called the most failing in the history of medical products. You cannot have a more powerful argument than the one above.

They will likely follow the path of the AZ and J&J vaccines.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3


Professor Levi doesn't have just an opinion. He has knowledge. And as a result of his knowledge and experience the products have been called the most failing in the history of medical products. You cannot have a more powerful argument than the one above.

Purely based on knowledge would be 10,000 others signing up too, in this case it is his opinion no matter how smart or MIT he may be.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3


Professor Levi doesn't have just an opinion. He has knowledge. And as a result of his knowledge and experience the products have been called the most failing in the history of medical products. You cannot have a more powerful argument than the one above.

Purely based on knowledge would be 10,000 others signing up too, in this case it is his opinion no matter how smart or MIT he may be.

You mean his qualified professional opinion based on the evidence of myocarditis, pericarditis, heart failure, heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, autoimmune disorders, allergies, death... And many others severe adverse reactions.

Others may have unqualified opinions. He doesn't. He has knowledge and years of experience. Several others have asked for the withdrawal of these products because of health and safety reasons.

The products are not safe and effective as this was never proven anywhere. It has been asserted as fact but in the last 2 years the opposite has been shown. Only vaccine apologists and denialists keep supporting these products. Most don't even continue with their 'boosters'.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

You mean his qualified professional opinion

I mean people from MIT have opinions that can be based on many things. BTW what exactly is he qualified in?

Here are his areas of interest from his own page.

Areas of Interest

Food Supply Chain Analytics and Sensing Initiative (FSAS)
Supply Chain, Logistics and Revenue Management Optimization
Health Systems
Approximation Algorithm to Multistage Stochastic Optimization Models
Data-driven Algorithms
Stochastic Optimization
Combinatorial Optimization
Risk Management

Others may have unqualified opinions. He doesn't. He has knowledge and years of experience.

Really?

How does his expertise relate exactly... He is not a medical doctor, nor medical scientist. He is a part of Sloan School of Management that is affiliated with MIT, not really MIT, where he is a professor of management. Here is his past experience...

He received a Bachelor's degree in Mathematics from Tel-Aviv University (Israel) in 2001, and a PhD in Operations Research from Cornell University in 2005. Levi spent almost 12 years in the Israeli Defense Forces in the Intelligence Wing and was designated as an Extra Merit Officer.

I'm a highly experienced pilot for 40+ years, so I think that makes me an expert too in the field of vaccines.