The denial is strong...
|
| + Visit Rotherham United FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
The denial is strong...
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.
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
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!
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!
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.