Why do we have a vaccine against a virus?

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

16 hours ago, TimHauck said:

I didn’t think you didn’t approve?   Not sure what you mean.  I said I wasn’t sure of your stance on the vaccine as a whole, and honestly I’m still not.  You are saying we may not know for 40 years if it’s killing people (I’m taking that to mean you don’t currently think it is), and it’s a symptom suppressant, which are mostly positive opinions.

I've made my stance on the vaccine quite clear.  It's NOT a traditional vaccine that is meant to prevent people from getting COVID and/or spreading it.  It's purely a symptom relief medication, no different than something like Theraflu.  Because of the mandates from the government virtually forcing or strong arming people into getting them, there will never actually be a study done on the side affects of the "vaccines" for a good 30 to 40 years.  At which point, they will find problems and settle an out-of-court class action suit (like the whole Camp Lejeune incident), and just set aside a couple billion dollars to pay out to family members of those who died because of the side affects.  Each person will get a slap in the face amount of like $10k, and in the end, no one will remember that the government/government officials had a hand in deceiving and poisoning a lot of people... just like no one is blaming the government for all the people getting cancer at Camp Lejeune (just an example).

I'm not a scientist or doctor.  I don't have all the data, so I can't say for sure that the vaccine is killing people.  That said, I can see and read.  To me, there's clear evidence that it should be looked into because there's credible information pointing to it.  The longer the government fails to investigate, the more I'm convinced the information is valid.

[TimHauck 2,856]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I've made my stance on the vaccine quite clear.  It's NOT a traditional vaccine that is meant to prevent people from getting COVID and/or spreading it.  It's purely a symptom relief medication, no different than something like Theraflu.  Because of the mandates from the government virtually forcing or strong arming people into getting them, there will never actually be a study done on the side affects of the "vaccines" for a good 30 to 40 years.  At which point, they will find problems and settle an out-of-court class action suit (like the whole Camp Lejeune incident), and just set aside a couple billion dollars to pay out to family members of those who died because of the side affects.  Each person will get a slap in the face amount of like $10k, and in the end, no one will remember that the government/government officials had a hand in deceiving and poisoning a lot of people... just like no one is blaming the government for all the people getting cancer at Camp Lejeune (just an example).

You're still being incredibly vague.   Do you think it works at relieving symptoms?  How many people do you think will get payouts 30 to 40 years from now?  

If the answers to those questions are yes and not a significant number,  then I'm not really seeing much that you disagreed with what Trump did about the vaccine, and thus you are in fact wearing MAGA colored glasses.  Of course Trump did not impose the mandates.

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

25 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

You're still being incredibly vague.   Do you think it works at relieving symptoms?  How many people do you think will get payouts 30 to 40 years from now?  

If the answers to those questions are yes and not a significant number,  then I'm not really seeing much that you disagreed with what Trump did about the vaccine, and thus you are in fact wearing MAGA colored glasses.  Of course Trump did not impose the mandates.

How am I being vague?  I literally said "It's purely a symptom relief medication, no different than something like Theraflu."  What, I'm vague because I didn't say "I know for a fact Theraflu works, so then the Covid vax does too?  I've never taken Theraflu, but I assume it works.  As a symptom relievers, yeah, I think the Covid vax works... but that's not what was sold to the public.

I have no idea how many will be payed out, just like I currently don't know how many were paid out for Camp Lejeune or any other class action suit that was settled.

No, I don't disagree with what Trump did about the vaccine.  His job was to listen to the "experts" at the CDC, WHO, and alike and put something in motion that fell in line with what they suggested.  He did that.  His job was to be a facilitator.  It wasn't his job to mandate that people take vaccine, which he did not do.  His job wasn't to make the vaccine, which he did not do.  He did his job, and did it well.  Period.  I give him credit for doing his job and doing it well, plain and simple. 

[TimHauck 2,856]

4 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

How am I being vague?  I literally said "It's purely a symptom relief medication, no different than something like Theraflu."  What, I'm vague because I didn't say "I know for a fact Theraflu works, so then the Covid vax does too?  I've never taken Theraflu, but I assume it works.  As a symptom relievers, yeah, I think the Covid vax works... but that's not what was sold to the public.

I have no idea how many will be payed out, just like I currently don't know how many were paid out for Camp Lejeune or any other class action suit that was settled.

No, I don't disagree with what Trump did about the vaccine.  His job was to listen to the "experts" at the CDC, WHO, and alike and put something in motion that fell in line with what they suggested.  He did that.  His job was to be a facilitator.  It wasn't his job to mandate that people take vaccine, which he did not do.  His job wasn't to make the vaccine, which he did not do.  He did his job, and did it well.  Period.  I give him credit for doing his job and doing it well, plain and simple. 

For the most part I agree.   But what he did in "doing that job" included speeding up the approval process.   If there turns out to be significant safety issues (which I don't think there will be), then he is partly at fault.

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

For the most part I agree.   But what he did in "doing that job" included speeding up the approval process.   If there turns out to be significant safety issues (which I don't think there will be), then he is partly at fault.

This is the part in which I was talking about when I said "Good for you".

[TimHauck 2,856]

10 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

This is the part in which I was talking about when I said "Good for you".

You are of course welcome to your incorrect opinion.

[edjr 6,580]

On 8/14/2021 at 8:17 AM, Alias Detective said:

Vaccines are given to fight diseases, not viruses.  Until a year ago, people got flu shots, not flu vaccines.  
 

Is this anything?  Just a random morning thought.

Trump started it, ax him  

[Alias Detective 1,399]

1 minute ago, edjr said:

Trump started it, ax him  

My question was answered in 2021.  Thanks.

[edjr 6,580]

1 minute ago, Alias Detective said:

My question was answered in 2021.  Thanks.

How did you get in touch with him? Wasn't he tweet banned by then?

[Alias Detective 1,399]

Just now, edjr said:

How did you get in touch with him? Wasn't he tweet banned by then?

MySpace

[edjr 6,580]

18 minutes ago, Alias Detective said:

MySafeSpace

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

4 hours ago, TimHauck said:

You are of course welcome to your incorrect opinion.

If it makes you happy, I can pretend you are correct.

[TimHauck 2,856]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

If it makes you happy, I can pretend you are correct.

Only at the Geek Club would someone think a program called "Operation Warp Speed" wouldn't have any responsibility if safety issues were missed.   @BuckSwope I know you commented when I brought up this general argument in a different thread, this is what we're dealing with here.

[nobody 2,667]

18 hours ago, BuckSwope said:

It's bizarre.  They rail on people for being mindless sheep, but admit in posts like the one quoted they were taking info from politicians and talking heads.  

There's so much wrong with this

1. People who refused the jab weren't taken in by politicians and talking heads.  The point is that we were all lied to and now people like you and gutter are defending that.  
2. If you are going to put the blame on people who fall for a lie for being gullible, doesn't that mean we're decriminalizing fraud?  Although I guess we are if the politicians are on the blue team.
3. The fact that we knew we were and are being lied to doesn't excuse the lie and doesn't justify reframing events to make it seem like people just misunderstood what was happening

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Only at the Geek Club would someone think a program called "Operation Warp Speed" wouldn't have any responsibility if safety issues were missed.   @BuckSwope I know you commented when I brought up this general argument in a different thread, this is what we're dealing with here.

Yeah, I know it's hard for people like you to discuss things with common sense and logic.

[Baker Boy 1,699]

11 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Only at the Geek Club would someone think a program called "Operation Warp Speed" wouldn't have any responsibility if safety issues were missed.   @BuckSwope I know you commented when I brought up this general argument in a different thread, this is what we're dealing with here.

Pharmaceutical companies are protected from liability regarding the COVID-19 vaccines. If someone has an allergic reaction or injury from one of the vaccines, they can petition to receive compensation from the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).

[BuckSwope 654]

2 hours ago, nobody said:

There's so much wrong with this

1. People who refused the jab weren't taken in by politicians and talking heads.  The point is that we were all lied to and now people like you and gutter are defending that.  
2. If you are going to put the blame on people who fall for a lie for being gullible, doesn't that mean we're decriminalizing fraud?  Although I guess we are if the politicians are on the blue team.
3. The fact that we knew we were and are being lied to doesn't excuse the lie and doesn't justify reframing events to make it seem like people just misunderstood what was happening

I agree, because as usual you idiots post stuff that is not even my position.   It's always mixed with moronic stuff that you think some "lib" somewhere believes.   Not sure where I was defending being lied to or that I would decriminalize fraud.   We will disagree that people who refused the jab weren't taken in by politicians and SM.  

Yes, in an ideal world the population would have a base knowledge of medicine, viruses, and their bodies (stuff that is covered in HS biology for the most part) AND they wouldn't get lied to.   Yes, I put a large part of that responsibility on people informing themselves.    We were going through a pandemic, and I can't tell you how many people didn't understand base info about how a virus acts or is spread.   So, when you encounter somebody saying that you'd be immune if you got vaccinated, you'd know they were full of sh1t and that didn't make sense.    IF you didn't have that knowledge and was largely getting your info from the White House and Social Media, again - that's on you.   

It seems like you and your crew like to trumpet about personal responsibility, but then get all pissy when I suggest part of that is reading decent info and getting educated on something.   Then it's.... but, but, but - Fauci and Biden!!  

[BuckSwope 654]

7 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

How am I being vague?  I literally said "It's purely a symptom relief medication, no different than something like Theraflu."  What, I'm vague because I didn't say "I know for a fact Theraflu works, so then the Covid vax does too?  I've never taken Theraflu, but I assume it works.  As a symptom relievers, yeah, I think the Covid vax works... but that's not what was sold to the public.

I have no idea how many will be payed out, just like I currently don't know how many were paid out for Camp Lejeune or any other class action suit that was settled.

No, I don't disagree with what Trump did about the vaccine.  His job was to listen to the "experts" at the CDC, WHO, and alike and put something in motion that fell in line with what they suggested.  He did that.  His job was to be a facilitator.  It wasn't his job to mandate that people take vaccine, which he did not do.  His job wasn't to make the vaccine, which he did not do.  He did his job, and did it well.  Period.  I give him credit for doing his job and doing it well, plain and simple. 

See, this is where you are off base, IMO.   No, it didn't make you immune, but it did provide some protection that way.  You are giving it 0 credit for even that by saying the bolded.   Yes, what you are getting at largely became it's main function - to lessen the symptoms if you caught it (aka less likely to die as well).   The main reason to consider the shot was because of the asymptomatic spread, again going back to that first part - it did protect against that as well.   I don't think it's a mystery why the unvaccinated population had a higher death rate.  

A large portion of our population are old, fat, and have co-morbidities that would have made the shot make sense - but because they believe stuff like the bolded or that the vaccine was worthless because it didn't make you immune, way too many chose not to take the shot when they should have.

[GutterBoy 2,899]

When you get to the point where you don't believe it's a vaccine, then you're just done, you're lost 

[5-Points 3,522]

12 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

When you get to the point where you don't believe it's a vaccine, then you're just done, you're lost 

I got vaccinated against the measles when I was a kid. Once. Never got a booster. 50 years later and still no measles.

The covid shot isn't a vaccine. It's like a flu shot. I've never gotten a flu shot and, to my knowledge, never gotten the flu. I didn't get the covid shot and got covid once. It was little more than a cold with a fever. Healthy people are better off letting their immune system do its job. 

[BuckSwope 654]

10 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

I got vaccinated against the measles when I was a kid. Once. Never got a booster. 50 years later and still no measles.

The covid shot isn't a vaccine. It's like a flu shot. I've never gotten a flu shot and, to my knowledge, never gotten the flu. I didn't get the covid shot and got covid once. It was little more than a cold with a fever. Healthy people are better off letting their immune system do its job. 

So that's what makes it a vaccine - you don't get it again?    

[5-Points 3,522]

9 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

So that's what makes it a vaccine - you don't get it again?    

That's what it used to mean. 

Now it means you need to get it every few months so big pharma can keep greasing the palms of career politicians. 

[nobody 2,667]

2 hours ago, BuckSwope said:

So, when you encounter somebody saying that you'd be immune if you got vaccinated, you'd know they were full of sh1t and that didn't make sense.    IF you didn't have that knowledge and was largely getting your info from the White House and Social Media, again - that's on you.   



Or if they got info from the CDC... since before they "clarified" the definition of a vaccine, it clearly said a vaccine produces immunity.

And this is 100% rewriting history because the widely accepted definition was vaccine = immunity.  Just like when people used the word literally to mean an exaggeration.  And here's where gutter says, "but small pox vax is only 97%," or whatever, but let's try to pull our head's out of our asses - as hard as that may be for some.  For the vast majority of people... including apparently the CDC!!!!... a vaccine generally meant you were then immune to the disease you were being vaccinated for.

I get we need to defend the covid shots to the death because god forbid we acknowledge someone on the blue team focked up, but this whole narrative of, "no one ever said a covid vaccine would make you immune," is 100% grade-A BS.  This is all some technicality-ridden semantic BS.  It was misleading.  They were either incompetent or purposefully opaque and neither one of those things are good.

[BuckSwope 654]

3 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

That's what it used to mean. 

Now it means you need to get it every few months so big pharma can keep greasing the palms of career politicians. 

Thanks, back to my point about people being ignorant about basic science.  No, it never used to mean that. 

[BuckSwope 654]

7 minutes ago, nobody said:

Or if they got info from the CDC... since before they "clarified" the definition of a vaccine, it clearly said a vaccine produces immunity.

And this is 100% rewriting history because the widely accepted definition was vaccine = immunity.  Just like when people used the word literally to mean an exaggeration.  And here's where gutter says, "but small pox vax is only 97%," or whatever, but let's try to pull our head's out of our asses - as hard as that may be for some.  For the vast majority of people... including apparently the CDC!!!!... a vaccine generally meant you were then immune to the disease you were being vaccinated for.

I get we need to defend the covid shots to the death because god forbid we acknowledge someone on the blue team focked up, but this whole narrative of, "no one ever said a covid vaccine would make you immune," is 100% grade-A BS.  This is all some technicality-ridden semantic BS.  It was misleading.  They were either incompetent or purposefully opaque and neither one of those things are good.

And the definition of the bolded word? 

the state or quality of being resistant to a particular infectious disease or pathogen

 

[GutterBoy 2,899]

12 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

That's what it used to mean. 

Now it means you need to get it every few months so big pharma can keep greasing the palms of career politicians. 

No it didn't.

Just because you didn't know something doesn't mean you have to keep repeating the lie and showing your ignorance.

Not all vaccines are the same, but they're still all vaccines.

[nobody 2,667]

8 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

And the definition of the bolded word? 

the state or quality of being resistant to a particular infectious disease or pathogen

 

More semantic... yay.

Go ask 10 people what the word immune means? 

And you yourself had to go look that up to find the semantic.

You guys still don't get it.  I can speak very precisely to actually definitions, but if I'm not using the commonly excepted connotation of the word, I can't expect the people I'm talking to to understand.  Actually, I know you guys actually do get it, but you'd rather try to be right than get it right.

[GutterBoy 2,899]

17 minutes ago, nobody said:

Or if they got info from the CDC... since before they "clarified" the definition of a vaccine, it clearly said a vaccine produces immunity.

And this is 100% rewriting history because the widely accepted definition was vaccine = immunity.  Just like when people used the word literally to mean an exaggeration.  And here's where gutter says, "but small pox vax is only 97%," or whatever, but let's try to pull our head's out of our asses - as hard as that may be for some.  For the vast majority of people... including apparently the CDC!!!!... a vaccine generally meant you were then immune to the disease you were being vaccinated for.

I get we need to defend the covid shots to the death because god forbid we acknowledge someone on the blue team focked up, but this whole narrative of, "no one ever said a covid vaccine would make you immune," is 100% grade-A BS.  This is all some technicality-ridden semantic BS.  It was misleading.  They were either incompetent or purposefully opaque and neither one of those things are good.

Or you're just a retarded petulant child.

We had the influenza vaccine for decades you idiot.  Stop being so obtuse.

[jerryskids 6,790]

3 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

No it didn't.

Just because you didn't know something doesn't mean you have to keep repeating the lie and showing your ignorance.

Not all vaccines are the same, but they're still all vaccines.

I'm confused by your position on this, which you are being quite aggressive about.  You do realize that they substantively removed "immunity" from the definition of vaccine, right?  I know it's been said, but if you do realize it, why are you defending it so hard?   

[5-Points 3,522]

11 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Thanks, back to my point about people being ignorant about basic science.  No, it never used to mean that. 

 

3 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

No it didn't.

Just because you didn't know something doesn't mean you have to keep repeating the lie and showing your ignorance.

Not all vaccines are the same, but they're still all vaccines.

So how come nobody ever needed a second measles "vaccine"? 

7 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

And the definition of the bolded word? 

the state or quality of being resistant to a particular infectious disease or pathogen

 

re·sist·ant

[rəˈzist(ə)nt]

 

ADJECTIVE

1. offering resistance to something or someone:

   "some of the old Churches are resistant to change" · "a water-resistant adhesive"

   SIMILAR:

   water-resistant

   waterproof

   impenetrable

   against

   anti

   impervious to

   proof against

   unaffected by

   repellent of

   unsusceptible to

   immune to

   invulnerable to

   imperviable to

   opposed to

   averse to

   hostile to

   inimical to

   unwilling to accept

   disinclined to accept

   reluctant to accept

   unenthusiastic about

[GutterBoy 2,899]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I'm confused by your position on this, which you are being quite aggressive about.  You do realize that they substantively removed "immunity" from the definition of vaccine, right?  I know it's been said, but if you do realize it, why are you defending it so hard?   

What's confusing?  It's a vaccine.  I'm defending that position because it's a fact.

[TimHauck 2,856]

23 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

That's what it used to mean. 

Now it means you need to get it every few months so big pharma can keep greasing the palms of career politicians. 

Meningitis vaccine fake too?

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mening/public/index.html

 

[GutterBoy 2,899]

3 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

 

So how come nobody ever needed a second measles "vaccine"? 

re·sist·ant

[rəˈzist(ə)nt]

 

ADJECTIVE

1. offering resistance to something or someone:

   "some of the old Churches are resistant to change" · "a water-resistant adhesive"

   SIMILAR:

   water-resistant

   waterproof

   impenetrable

   against

   anti

   impervious to

   proof against

   unaffected by

   repellent of

   unsusceptible to

   immune to

   invulnerable to

   imperviable to

   opposed to

   averse to

   hostile to

   inimical to

   unwilling to accept

   disinclined to accept

   reluctant to accept

   unenthusiastic about

Actually you do.  The modern mmr vaccine (measles, mumps, rubella) is a 2 dose vaccine.

Tetanus vaccine is every 10 years.

Flu and pneumonia is every year.

Not all vaccines work the same, but they're all vaccines.

[5-Points 3,522]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Meningitis vaccine fake too?

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mening/public/index.html

 

It's real. It just isn't a vaccine. 

[5-Points 3,522]

6 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Actually you do.  The modern mmr vaccine (measles, mumps, rubella) is a 2 dose vaccine.

Tetanus vaccine is every 10 years.

Flu and pneumonia is every year.

Not all vaccines work the same, but they're all vaccines.

So old timey vaccines were more powerful? Such that you only needed one, for life?  Nowadays you need 2 or 3 or yearly...

I'm sure that has nothing to do with money. 

Also, I've never heard of a tetanus shot being called a vaccine. Even my Dr. called it a tetanus "shot" the last time I got one. 

Shots are not vaccines. 

 

[nobody 2,667]

Does this mofo know that the flu shot changes every year, and does provide immunization against the strains contained in that year's shot?

If they just said the same thing about the covid shot, we wouldn't have a problem.  They didn't.  they said if you got it, you wouldn't get COVID.  You wouldn't spread the vid, and if you didn't get the shot, you would kill grandma.  Most vaccines actually do work that way in general.  The flu shot is more unique in that it addresses strains, but unless they say, "Oh by the way, this is like the flu shot.  It might work or it might not," people are going to naturally assume it's similar to all the other vaccines we take.

Now he's going to go run and find examples of some more vaccines that need boosters that no one heard of.  Go run to your google.  "Oooh here's a vaccine for dypfocockysuckulous that has to be taken every 6 months."

[GutterBoy 2,899]

3 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

So old timey vaccines were more powerful? Such that you only needed one, for life?  Nowadays you need 2 or 3 or yearly...

I'm sure that has nothing to do with money. 

 

[jerryskids 6,790]

13 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

What's confusing?  It's a vaccine.  I'm defending that position because it's a fact.

But they changed the definition of a vaccine, substantively, to make it fit.  I feel like I'm having a Spinal Tap "this one goes to 11" discussion.   

[nobody 2,667]

11 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

So old timey vaccines were more powerful? Such that you only needed one, for life?  Nowadays you need 2 or 3 or yearly...

I'm sure that has nothing to do with money. 

 

You were supposed to assume that it was like the flu shot and not like the 9 out of 10 other vaccines you took where after 1 or 2 doses you're good for life even though everyone was saying they worked like the 9 out of 10 other vaccines that work for life after taking 1 or 2 doses.  Everyone was supposed to assume they were full of sh¡t, and if you didn't you were dumb.  Hell, I actually did know they were full of sh¡t and they think I'm dumb for thinking that was too large of an expectation.

Think about how conveniently retarded this is:

"Hi guys, I know you've taken a bunch of vaccines that conferred immunity on you for life.  "

"Here's a vaccine that will make sure you don't get covid and won't spread covid."

"Here check out this CDC definition that says a vaccine makes you immune."

.

.

.

"Why did everyone assume this shot would make you not get covid?  Haven't they heard of the flu shot?"

But, no, they're not rewriting history.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,408]

What’s the difference? Whatever you call it, you can’t say it does what we were told it would. Never mind moving the goalposts, they took them down.