O/T Covid Vaccine mRNA

[frogmiller]

They stop transmission so much that people are on their 9th booster 😂

[Eternal Optimist]

They stop transmission so much that people are on their 9th booster ��

Yep - complete logic fail!

[ragingpup]

They stop transmission so much that people are on their 9th booster ��

I'm not a medical bod, but doesn't a vacination only last X amount of time, I'm sure in the covid vaccine's case about 3 - 6 months. Hence the need, if you want to keep protected you would need a regular booster.

Isn't that how it works? How is the fact that people like my wife, who are medically vulnerable, and are advised to receive a booster every 6 months, funny or a 'logic fail'?

[frogmiller]

Yep, I’ve only had one measles, one mumps, one TB, a couple of polio sugar lumps and tetanus. Did they give us the smallpox one?

None of which I’ve had to have every 6 months.

There haven’t been any vaccines for AIDS

I don’t know if they’re all viruses though. Which vaccines have been made for viruses? With all the years that they’ve been doing vaccines I’d be interested to know which ones have been manufactured.

[KerrAvon]

So frog conflates two separate issues - the need to boost in order to maintain protection with the effect of the vaccines on transmission and EO talks about logic failures without picking up on that.

I think we can deduce from this that frog isn't a scientist and EO is neither a a scientist nor a philosopher.

But both like the 'truth' they find on Twitter.

[Eternal Optimist]

I'm not a medical bod, but doesn't a vacination only last X amount of time, I'm sure in the covid vaccine's case about 3 - 6 months. Hence the need, if you want to keep protected you would need a regular booster.

Isn't that how it works? How is the fact that people like my wife, who are medically vulnerable, and are advised to receive a booster every 6 months, funny or a 'logic fail'?

Because it's been confirmed in a court of law that they don't prevent transmission. See link above. ^

[Eternal Optimist]

The denial is strong...

[KerrAvon]

Yep, I’ve only had one measles, one mumps, one TB, a couple of polio sugar lumps and tetanus. Did they give us the smallpox one?

None of which I’ve had to have every 6 months.

There haven’t been any vaccines for AIDS

I don’t know if they’re all viruses though. Which vaccines have been made for viruses? With all the years that they’ve been doing vaccines I’d be interested to know which ones have been manufactured.

You probably have very little protection from the TB jab - it isn't very good.

To state the bleeding obvious, the causative agents of the diseases you mention vary. At a basic level, TB and Tetanus are bacterial whereas the remainder are viral.

Different causative agents target different structures in different ways within humans (hence them producing different diseases...). They also produce different immune responses.

An issue with RNA viruses like SARS-COV-2, is their high mutation rate, which means that vaccines have to be updated to keep up,in much the same way as 'flu vaccines do. The mRNA platform makes that much easier.

Eventually we'll slip into annual boosters for covid as we do for 'flu.

[KerrAvon]

Because it's been confirmed in a court of law that they don't prevent transmission. See link above. ^

It hasn't.

The court was hearing an appeal on a preliminary ruling. In doing so, it made a decision on the appellants case at its highest. Assuming that the decision is not further appealed, it will be returned to the first instance court to hear the case and make a determination on the contested issues.

I deduce from this that you aren't a lawyer and that your search for 'truth' involves accepting any old guff you read on an antivaxx site

[frogmiller]

Eventually we'll slip into annual boosters for covid as we do for 'flu.

I bloody won't! The Flu jab this year had the Covid jab mixed in.

The same in Australia thus the uptake was so low.

The amount of people trusting the mNRA part of the drug is being refussed by more and more people around the world.

Like me they're not anti Vaxxers they're anti mNRA!

[KerrAvon]

I bloody won't! The Flu jab this year had the Covid jab mixed in.

The same in Australia thus the uptake was so low.

The amount of people trusting the mNRA part of the drug is being refussed by more and more people around the world.

Like me they're not anti Vaxxers they're anti mNRA!

Your body, your choice, frog.

Sadly, people will die because of vaccine hesitancy, as they always have done.

[Eternal Optimist]

I
...I deduce from this that you aren't a lawyer and that your search for 'truth' involves accepting any old guff you read on an antivaxx site

You're right - I'm not a lawyer. However, RFK Jr. is a lawyer, and it's his website.

I suspect he's far better qualified than you to speak on this matter.

[frogmiller]

Your body, your choice, frog.

Sadly, people will die because of vaccine hesitancy, as they always have done.

It was my body and my choice before and if I was in the UK when I had it I would have been dead!

Thankfully the French health system kept going whilst yours closed down!

The choice wasn’t with the full details with an experimental drug.
Vaccines normally take 10 to 15 years to develop.

You know the rest!

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

It was my body and my choice before and if I was in the UK when I had it I would have been dead!

Thankfully the French health system kept going whilst yours closed down!

The choice wasn’t with the full details with an experimental drug.
Vaccines normally take 10 to 15 years to develop.

You know the rest!

mRNA research for vaccines has being going on since the 1960s

[KerrAvon]

You're right - I'm not a lawyer. However, RFK Jr. is a lawyer, and it's his website.

I suspect he's far better qualified than you to speak on this matter.

I've spotted the problem, EO.

The case that the article concerns was an appeal against a decision to strike out a court case in which it was alleged that the LA vaccines mandate was unlawful. The strike out was based on a previous decision in which it was held that mandates were lawful where the vaccine in question was a compulsory treatment for the health benefit of others.

The appellants argued that the earlier decision was based on a different factual position as the CDC had subsequently changed their definition of 'vaccine'.

The court didn't make a ruling on whether the COVID vaccines prevent transmission. They didn't need to. They simply accepted that the change in the definition of the word vaccine might take the current case out of the ambit of the earlier decision. The claim in your link was a mere sales puff or a load of bollox, if you prefer.

The decision strikes me as quite a poor one. The definition of 'vaccine' is a matter of fact, not something that is determined by what the CDC says.

It's actually quite an interesting case and one that I will watch as it progresses.

From this I have deduced that in your search for your truth, you either can't or don't distinguish between froth and fact. That's a very dangerous place to be if you are a regular visitor to rabid antivaxx sites that are heavy on froth and low on fact.