pull down to refresh
53 sats \ 23 replies \ @siggy47 OP 12 Aug \ parent \ on: Dr Fauci Has Covid Again, Despite Many Vaccines & Boosters news
Maybe that's my problem. When I was growing up vaccines were given to prevent you from getting a specific disease. Polio, measles, mumps, etc.
technically, covid 'vaccines' (at least mRNA 'vaccines') are not vaccines. The concept of a vaccine involves using weakened microorganisms that stimulate the body's defenses.
reply
You are correct. Yet the masses were lied to. Told they were safe and effective vaccines. Once it was clear they didn't prevent infection the goal posts changed. The lying just never stopped. I never had a problem with the treatments. By that I mean that they existed and were available. But the idea that they were ever vaccines is a lie.
We are told to trust authorities but they lie over and over again. Then the authorities blame the Internet for their loss of credibility. They did it to themselves.
reply
A lie told once remains a lie. A lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.
reply
So these shots were not manufactured to prevent you from getting covid?
reply
correct, they always said is voluntary and that if you take it you will not die (but if you do, then you get your money back...lol) was never meant to prevent it.
reply
Moderna is a shady company bordering on criminal
All their products use mRNA
Can't spell Moderna with m R N A
the boosters were a sign of failure: mRNA shots do not work
Coronavirus mutates too quickly for any 'vaccine' to be efficacious
started in 2010
IPO in 2018
never received FDA approval until their covid shot
reply
No, it's so that the infection doesn't develop into a very serious situation.
reply
Check out this article:
https://time.com/5920134/first-authorized-covid-19-vaccine-us/
It says 95% effective in preventing covid. That would make it a vaccine, no, if it worked?
reply
I'm not an expert, what I'm saying is what I've heard from some experts who haven't been radicalized about covid.
"...was 95% effective in protecting against COVID-19 disease, ..."
What I interpret from this sentence is that 95% of people don't get sick, but that doesn't mean you can't get infected. You can be infected and not be sick. Of course, I could be wrong.
reply
Yes, that is what I heard also, but not until a year later. It might have been a marketing thing, but there is no question that at the time that article came out the assertion was that if you got the vaccination, you would not get covid, unless you were amongst the unlucky 5%.
reply
I immediately had this idea when they started talking about the vaccines. Yes, the marketing was very aggressive, and almost everyone I know who got vaccinated thought they couldn't get COVID anymore.
reply
I think (noting that I'm NOT a scientist) that actually means that in 95% of exposures to the virus, it will prevent it. That's not quite the same as 95% of the people, since most folks get exposed multiple times.
reply
That's because you think of this 95% efficacy as absolute (as it should for any other vaccine approval) but both Pfizer and Moderna reported relative % efficacy and pretended it was absolute. The real efficacy is below 1% which explains why in reality the vaccines didn't make a difference, or one can also argue they made things worse by getting in the way of natural immunity against a weakening virus
reply
not if it is mRNA
95 percent effective for how many days or weeks?
The problem is covid mutates and then the 'vaccine' is 0 percent effective
reply
I know. I am proudly unvaccinated. When Biden came out with his grim "winter of death" speech that was the last straw for me with the whole government. But @0xbitcoiner usually has good information, so I want to hear him out.
reply
I didn't get vaccinated either, and guess what? I never caught COVID because I only got tested once. Haha!
reply
I got it before the vaccines came out. It was mild. But, a guy in the neighborhood got it around the same time as me and died. Very sad. He was younger than me, and in better health. Go figure.
Good points. Remember when they called them "breakthrough cases"? That ended quickly as the numbers piled up.
reply
that's a lie
reply
PCR cannot detect disease
reply
At least that's what the guy who invented it said.
reply
PCR detects traces of DNA or RNA. It's used as a proxy.
The accuracy is mega high though for a specific target. But viruses are evolving constantly. Within a single person, virus population are very heterogenous. So when the test works, the presence is clear. When it doesn't, there could be variants of the target or no virus at all.
reply
tetanus, whooping cough
reply