Jump to content

Brandon Strikes Again


I_M4_AU

Recommended Posts

MAGAs are far more concerned with trying to "own the libs" than they are in educating themselves to the nuances of reality. :rolleyes:

Edited by homersapien
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Why don’t you clarify your point if you have one.

See Leftfield's posts.  He did a fine job.

(By the way, I'm fully vaccinated and have yet to get infected with covid.  So that proves the vaccine is 100% effective, right? :rolleyes:)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

See Leftfield's posts.  He did a fine job.

(By the way, I'm fully vaccinated and have yet to get infected with covid.  So that proves the vaccine is 100% effective, right? :rolleyes:)

 

So your point is to stick your head in the sand as to the history of Biden’s vaccine mandate that was found unconstitutional and should have never been enacted?

I’m fully vaccinated and also have never gotten the virus, but I don’t assume it was all because of the vaccine as I have not idea if it helped and you don’t either.  I haven’t had the boosters either, its’ interesting that the medical establishment I’ve been to doesn’t ask if you have been boosted, just that you have the original vaccine.  My PCP didn’t even suggest I get the boosters and I’m 72.

As I asked Leftfield; if the CDC recommended you get the Monkeypox vaccine, would you get it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So you knew this all along and decided to wait until I brought up these instances of lying to the American public to try to tear them down.  Good work.

Quite frankly, I was stunned you were using the same examples. I thought for certain you had come up with something else instead of banging the same tired drum that you have from the start.

 

The CDC has never been *consistent* with their advice.  It has blown in the wind like Biden’s policies.  You will remember that the Biden Administration (CDC and Fauci) was hard selling the vaccine at that time and even instituted an OSHA mandate that cost people their livelihood because of a vaccine that was unproven and not as effective as they stated.  If you remember Fauci would give a percentage of people that are vaccinated that would equal herd immunity.  The closer America got to that number, he would increase the percentage.  He didn’t and doesn’t believe in natural immunity as a way out of the pandemic.  The CDC (Fauci) is very good at not getting too optimistic in their *official* statements, its the on air statements that people listen to that get them in trouble.

They've been far more consistent than you'll ever admit, because you so want to believe there's a conspiracy here and you jump on any change as proof of them waffling, rather than updating advice with new evidence. Interesting that you point out how the virus changed when we discussed Biden's illness being less severe than Trump's, because it suited your argument, but you don't allow for any other changes.

If there wasn't a massive anti-science push in this country, the mandate may not have been necessary. You continue to say the vaccine was unproven, which it wasn't. And you're right, Fauci didn't believe natural immunity was the way out of the pandemic, because he's not an idiot. Certainly natural immunity can help, but not if the person dies before they can achieve it. But I guess those people don't matter when we're talking about freedom, right? Damn Fauci just making stuff up to get rich. I guess he missed the gravy train on climate change, so he decided to make his own.

 

I’m not saying the vaccine didn’t help, I’m saying the hard sell was a wrong approach.  People were getting vaccinated on their own.  Coercing people into getting vaccinated was IMO because Biden wanted to fulfill one of his campaign promises to *shut down* the virus.  Again, he failed miserably.

Not nearly enough people were getting vaccinated, and you know that. Do you put no blame on them? Certainly, our nation's response and performance overall was lacking, and Biden did fail to fulfill his promise. Was that exclusively Biden's fault? After all, Trump promised the same thing, and he couldn't even get his own people in line, yet you still say Biden is the worst President in modern times.

 

The definition of *vaccine* has changed to more reflect this particular vaccine.  

Definition of vaccine

1: a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine

The only definition that has changed is yours.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said:

Definition of vaccine

1: a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine

The only definition that has changed is yours.

 

Do you enjoy being proven wrong?

Is the reason for the changes that *the science* isn’t as confident in their products and want to reflect  what is currently happening? Or some other nefarious reason.  The bottom line is most people remember what they were taught initially and fail to recognize updates like the ones that change those definitions, so the general population believes, as the President and the head of the CDC said, if you get this vaccine you will not get the virus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You said:

 

Definition of vaccine

1: a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine

The only definition that has changed is yours.

 

 

Do you enjoy being proven wrong?

Is the reason for the changes that *the science* isn’t as confident in their products and want to reflect  what is currently happening? Or some other nefarious reason.  The bottom line is most people remember what they were taught initially and fail to recognize updates like the ones that change those definitions, so the general population believes, as the President and the head of the CDC said, if you get this vaccine you will not get the virus.

The CDC has absolutely been changing their definition of things. One reason is that the FDA, like the FAA has started giving in to the pressures of companies (Cough...cough...Boeing 737 Max) wanting things done a certain way in the name of profits. So we end up with things rushed and less effective or hell some actually end up not doing what they were intended. CDC has to lower their standards. LOL

Funny how the CDC still says the shingles vaccine is to prevent the occurrence of shingles. 

It is not surprising that so many people on here defend this, leadership comes from the top and this current administration seems to like to redefine things. 

One has to wonder with the mass number of folks getting the virus lately, is it even working? Are symptoms just less now because this virus isn't as strong? There could be no possibility that the makers are still pushing along with people in the agencies to keep profits high right? LOL

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You said:

 

Definition of vaccine

1: a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine

The only definition that has changed is yours.

 

 

Do you enjoy being proven wrong?

Is the reason for the changes that *the science* isn’t as confident in their products and want to reflect  what is currently happening? Or some other nefarious reason.  The bottom line is most people remember what they were taught initially and fail to recognize updates like the ones that change those definitions, so the general population believes, as the President and the head of the CDC said, if you get this vaccine you will not get the virus.

I stand corrected. They did change their definition. I couldn't verify the first change shown in that tweet, but I was definitely wrong on the second.

This begs two questions: 1) Why did they have the incorrect definition to begin with; 2) Why did they change it?

For the first question, no vaccine in history has been 100% effective. None have provided total immunity, so clearly saying vaccines provide immunity was misleading. I'm surprised that definition was not effectively challenged before.

As to the second, you appear to be attributing the change of definition to the CDC covering themselves, or for any reason that doesn't involve good intentions. Certainly covering themselves could be one of the factors, but are you saying it is a bad thing that they changed the definition to be accurate? You leave no possibility that they changed it for the right reason....that it didn't reflect the reality of any vaccine? Of course the correct response should be to denigrate them for doing the right thing. That will certainly encourage good behavior in the future! 

I'd also note that the change brings the definition in line with the very quote you attributed to Fauci in an earlier post. Apparently the CDC is just as evil as he is.

Walensky's statement bothered me far more than Biden's. I'm pretty much trained to ignore a President's hyperbole, but she should have known better. 

So yes, I was wrong. Congratulations on proving it so, and please continue to miss the forest for a tick on a bear's ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

One has to wonder with the mass number of folks getting the virus lately, is it even working? Are symptoms just less now because this virus isn't as strong? There could be no possibility that the makers are still pushing along with people in the agencies to keep profits high right? LOL

Sure, if you want to be a conspiracy theorist. 

So you feel that the CDC's definition of a vaccine was correct before and is incorrect now?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I stand corrected. They did change their definition. I couldn't verify the first change shown in that tweet, but I was definitely wrong on the second.

This begs two questions: 1) Why did they have the incorrect definition to begin with; 2) Why did they change it?

For the first question, no vaccine in history has been 100% effective. None have provided total immunity, so clearly saying vaccines provide immunity was misleading. I'm surprised that definition was not effectively challenged before.

As to the second, you appear to be attributing the change of definition to the CDC covering themselves, or for any reason that doesn't involve good intentions. Certainly covering themselves could be one of the factors, but are you saying it is a bad thing that they changed the definition to be accurate? You leave no possibility that they changed it for the right reason....that it didn't reflect the reality of any vaccine? Of course the correct response should be to denigrate them for doing the right thing. That will certainly encourage good behavior in the future! 

I'd also note that the change brings the definition in line with the very quote you attributed to Fauci in an earlier post. Apparently the CDC is just as evil as he is.

Walensky's statement bothered me far more than Biden's. I'm pretty much trained to ignore a President's hyperbole, but she should have known better. 

So yes, I was wrong. Congratulations on proving it so, and please continue to miss the forest for a tick on a bear's ass.

There are two reasons to change these type of definitions; 1) the original standard no longer can be met and the standard needs to be changed and/or 2) to CYA and Fauci is a very good politician.

You never did answer if the CDC recommends Americans to take the Monkeypox vaccine if you would get the vaccine?  Any thoughts?

Edited by I_M4_AU
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sure, if you want to be a conspiracy theorist. 

So you feel that the CDC's definition of a vaccine was correct before and is incorrect now?

 

Corruption in our governmental agencies happens all the time. 

Historically vaccines were used to prevent or stop outbreaks, some worked better than others. But we did pretty good against smallpox, polio, measles, etc. 

What is funny is the Covid vaccine is not even listed with the other vaccines on the CDC site. LOL 

Look at this........62.8% effectiveness preventing infection after 3 doses and 94% effectiveness at preventing ending up on a ventilator or death.  

image.png

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are two reasons to change these type of definitions; 1) the original standard no longer can be met and the standard needs to be changed and/or 2) to CYA and Fauci is a very good politician.

Yep. Absolutely. Those are the only two possible reasons. Couldn't be that the definition was wrong to begin with. That might mean your argument is totally invalid, which can't be, because you're clearly smarter than anyone else, including a literal room full of scientists.

 

You never did answer if the CDC recommends Americans to take the Monkeypox vaccine if you would get the vaccine?  Any thoughts?

Yes, I would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yep. Absolutely. Those are the only two possible reasons. Couldn't be that the definition was wrong to begin with. That might mean your argument is totally invalid, which can't be, because you're clearly smarter than anyone else, including a literal room full of scientists.

Yes, I would.

The first paragraph is the same as the standard can’t be met any longer, therefore, the definition has to be changed.

To the Monkeypox vaccine; I would have guessed you would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Corruption in our governmental agencies happens all the time. 

Sure it does. You're telling me that the entire agency, and scientists worldwide, are all in on it? Same as the climate change crowd, right?

 

Historically vaccines were used to prevent or stop outbreaks, some worked better than others. But we did pretty good against smallpox, polio, measles, etc. 

Yes, some work better than others, because diseases are different. The examples you list are different types of viruses. They weren't easy to develop vaccines for, but they also didn't mutate as quickly or severely. Other viruses (flu, colds, etc.) still float about freely. Smallpox is actually the only disease that appears to have been completely eradicated.

 

Look at this........62.8% effectiveness preventing infection after 3 doses and 94% effectiveness at preventing ending up on a ventilator or death.  

Not sure what your point is on this, as it shows the vaccine actually helps quite a bit, but it's also incomplete, as it only lists the J&J vaccine, which was shown to be less effective than Pfizer and Moderna.

Edited by Leftfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The first paragraph is the same as the standard can’t be met any longer, therefore, the definition has to be changed.

The standard never could be met. You're attacking them for recognizing reality. In what sane world does that make sense? Are you really not seeing this?

 

To the Monkeypox vaccine; I would have guessed you would.

O....k...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The standard never could be met. You're attacking them for recognizing reality. In what sane world does that make sense? Are you really not seeing this?

O....k...?

The Small Pax vaccine was the one vaccine that eradicated the disease.

We rate the claim that smallpox, which killed 300 million people in the 20th century alone and was eliminated through vaccination, not herd immunity, as TRUE, as it is supported by our research. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/12/fact-check-vaccination-helped-eliminate-smallpox/4124284001/

When the original definition came out, I am sure the medical community held the small pox vaccine as the standard of what a vaccine is suppose to do. (Speculation in my part).  I wasn’t until 2015 that they admitted that all vaccines could not live up to this standard.

The public knew a long time before that as the annual flu vaccine was not 100% effective at stopping the flu.  I’m not attacking them, just understanding they are far from perfect and it takes them a long time to change standards like most government run entities.

ETA:  I would not take the Monkeypox vaccine if the CDC recommended it.

Edited by I_M4_AU
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sure it does. You're telling me that the entire agency, and scientists worldwide, are all in on it? Same as the climate change crowd, right?

Yes, some work better than others, because diseases are different. The examples you list are different types of viruses. They weren't easy to develop vaccines for, but they also didn't mutate as quickly or severely. Other viruses (flu, colds, etc.) still float about freely.

Not sure what your point is on this, as it shows the vaccine actually helps quite a bit, but it's also incomplete, as it only lists the J&J vaccine, which was shown to be less effective than Pfizer and Moderna.

It lists all the types of vaccinations, not just the Janssen. The Janssen is not mRNA. So the 3 mRNA doses are actually Pfizer and Moderna.  

What it shows is that this vaccine is nowhere near as effective as previous and other current vaccines. 63% is better than 0%, but not what I would consider good. Which has been my whole point all along, typically we expect to have protection against infection when we put substances like this in our body. 

Can you imagine if the polio vaccine had only a little more than 50% chance of working? 

Practically everyone I know that is vaccinated is catching Covid, it hit our house about two weeks ago. 

You mention the flu vaccine, yes it is not as effective either. Which is why I do not get it anymore. I rarely get the flu.........maybe once every 7-10 years. So why introduce more substances to my body? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 I’m not attacking them, just understanding they are far from perfect and it takes them a long time to change standards like most government run entities.

Oh, I see. You're not attacking them. You're just relentlessly criticizing them and saying they're in the tank for profits, pointing to the fact that they changed their definition, which you speculate had been based on the fact that one single disease has been eradicated by a vaccine, as evidence. Could you possibly be any more disingenuous?

 

 

ETA:  I would not take the Monkeypox vaccine if the CDC recommended it.

Well, I didn't ask, but color me shocked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Oh, I see. You're not attacking them. You're just relentlessly criticizing them and saying they're in the tank for profits, pointing to the fact that they changed their definition, which you speculate had been based on the fact that one single disease has been eradicated by a vaccine, as evidence. Could you possibly be any more disingenuous?

 

Well, I didn't ask, but color me shocked.

Would it help if he listed all the other diseases that we have completely eradicated in the US?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It lists all the types of vaccinations, not just the Janssen. The Janssen is not mRNA. So the 3 mRNA doses are actually Pfizer and Moderna.  

What it shows is that this vaccine is nowhere near as effective as previous and other current vaccines. 63% is better than 0%, but not what I would consider good. Which has been my whole point all along, typically we expect to have protection against infection when we put substances like this in our body. 

Can you imagine if the polio vaccine had only a little more than 50% chance of working? 

Practically everyone I know that is vaccinated is catching Covid, it hit our house about two weeks ago. 

You mention the flu vaccine, yes it is not as effective either. Which is why I do not get it anymore. I rarely get the flu.........maybe once every 7-10 years. So why introduce more substances to my body? 

You're right - I stopped looking when I saw Janssen and missed the mRNA. My mistake.

Regardless, Covid has been mutating fairly quickly, and the vaccine hasn't even caught up to the latest strains, so naturally its effectiveness is going to suffer. Fortunately for all of us, Covid seems to be settling into a more contagious, less virulent pattern, which is to be expected, but we're still being urged to be cautious. We're only 2-1/2 years into the life of this virus, as far as human transmission is concerned.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Would it help if he listed all the other diseases that we have completely eradicated in the US?

Not really. For one, smallpox was all that was mentioned. For another, the list is extremely short, and includes diseases that are still present in the rest of the world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should also mention....just because the disease was wiped out doesn't mean the vaccine was 100% effective. The Smallpox vaccine is listed as having about 95% effectiveness. Measles and Rubella are about the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Should also mention....just because the disease was wiped out doesn't mean the vaccine was 100% effective. The Smallpox vaccine is listed as having about 95% effectiveness. Measles and Rubella are about the same.

Yes, but 95% is much much better than 63% after 3 doses.

Look at it this way, the smallpox vaccine has a 95% effectiveness at preventing you from getting it altogether after one dose and that dose is good for 3-5 years. Compare that to 94% effectiveness at preventing you from ending up on a ventilator or dead after 3 doses and 2 months from last dose. 

 We literally went from being told it has great effectiveness at preventing you from getting covid and will stop the pandemic to "if you don't die, it did it's job." This was over a span of a few months. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, but 95% is much much better than 63% after 3 doses.

Look at it this way, the smallpox vaccine has a 95% effectiveness at preventing you from getting it altogether after one dose and that dose is good for 3-5 years. Compare that to 94% effectiveness at preventing you from ending up on a ventilator or dead after 3 doses and 2 months from last dose. 

 We literally went from being told it has great effectiveness at preventing you from getting covid and will stop the pandemic to "if you don't die, it did it's job." This was over a span of a few months. 

Not arguing the smallpox vaccine wasn't more effective. I'm not going to pretend I know all the reasons why, other than to say it was a different type of virus and I'm sure that plays into it. My point was that the original CDC definition of a vaccine was wrong because a vaccine has never been 100% effective. The change made sense because that definition was clearly causing confusion (and "gotcha" moments on message boards).

And if you recall, the mRNA vaccines were 90+ percent effective against the original variants. The medical community was quite open about the fact the vaccines would have reduced effectiveness against the newer, more contagious variants. I haven't read into the history of smallpox so I don't know if it ever mutated significantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not arguing the smallpox vaccine wasn't more effective. I'm not going to pretend I know all the reasons why, other than to say it was a different type of virus and I'm sure that plays into it. My point was that the original CDC definition of a vaccine was wrong because a vaccine has never been 100% effective. The change made sense because that definition was clearly causing confusion (and "gotcha" moments on message boards).

And if you recall, the mRNA vaccines were 90+ percent effective against the original variants. The medical community was quite open about the fact the vaccines would have reduced effectiveness against the newer, more contagious variants. I haven't read into the history of smallpox so I don't know if it ever mutated significantly.

Which a year or so ago with the first variants I said there's no point of the vaccine if they can't keep up with the variants. By the time they come up with a new version covid is like Bill Belicheck and on to the next already. My stance has been all these boosters and people getting vaccinated for the first time now are not very well protected, hence why I say the effectiveness is being overplayed. 63% is not good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...