About Half The Cases Are Vaccine Failures

a reply to: Doctor Smith Not everyone has the ability to make the antibodies because of various reasons. Some people do need this vaccine, but the vast majority don't. This virus is never going to go away nor is it going to stay out of mutations that will need to have booster shots, for now the natural immunity will protect us and maybe over time will be altered by exposure to other variants and alter it's response to the virus. Our immune system can figure out how to change if a new variant comes along, it's initial response is not set in stone.

but they want us to believe that our immune systems are inferior even though they got us here from our ancestors thousands of generations of evolution. I am more concerned about the unnatural chemistries they are using on our foods and in our environment than this virus, the chance that those unnatural things kill us is much higher.

originally posted by: Chalcedony
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It is great that these vaccines prevent serious effects and hospitalization. However, that is not the metric by which "protocols" and "restrictions" are decided. Cases are the metric being used to implement restrictions, not hospitalizations or deaths. So how do we ever get to the end when the vaccine still allows cases to spread?

Well everyone keeps talking about natural immunity being the best thing ever and will prevent further infections. So I imagine a vaccine that keeps people alive will result in people living to get natural immunity.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Nope it’s gene therapy, which since you are willing to openly lie about now puts everything you say into question.

Funny i was thinking the same thing about you. So lets deal with your stupidity shall we?

So lets start by using real world definitions

vac·cine
/vakˈsēn/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

So let's see does the covid vaccine stimulates the production of antibodies? Check
Does it provide immunity against covid? check
does it act as an antigen without causing covid? check

Hmmm so now we determined it is a vaccine for our next class we will go over the definition of a fool.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Chalcedony
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It is great that these vaccines prevent serious effects and hospitalization. However, that is not the metric by which "protocols" and "restrictions" are decided. Cases are the metric being used to implement restrictions, not hospitalizations or deaths. So how do we ever get to the end when the vaccine still allows cases to spread?

Well everyone keeps talking about natural immunity being the best thing ever and will prevent further infections. So I imagine a vaccine that keeps people alive will result in people living to get natural immunity.

Your body doesn't care as long as it can make antigens that combat the virus. Your body has no idea where it comes from so it is irrelevant.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Really? Because I have seen "medical experts" on television and even UChicago Med and many health systems say that even if you caught coronavirus and recovered, you still definitely need the vaccine because "we don't know" how good the natural immunity is and that the vaccine is better.

a reply to: Chalcedony

Well if you have both the vaccine, and then get natural immunity on top of it, it won't matter who is right, right?

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Chalcedony
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It is great that these vaccines prevent serious effects and hospitalization. However, that is not the metric by which "protocols" and "restrictions" are decided. Cases are the metric being used to implement restrictions, not hospitalizations or deaths. So how do we ever get to the end when the vaccine still allows cases to spread?

Well everyone keeps talking about natural immunity being the best thing ever and will prevent further infections. So I imagine a vaccine that keeps people alive will result in people living to get natural immunity.

Your body doesn't care as long as it can make antigens that combat the virus. Your body has no idea where it comes from so it is irrelevant.

While I agree, the camp that says natural immunity is better should be happy they still get Covid with the vaccine.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Except the data does not show that at all. The only thing in your post worth not laughing at is looking at how effective having recovered from covid and natural immunity is vs the variants. The very small amount of data we have says it's about the same effectiveness as the vaccines, I'd like more data.

Question, what percent of the >65 population is vaccinated in the UK, or Israel, and what percent of serious illness/death from the Delta variant were vaccinated vs unvaccinated?

Then what percent of the unvaccinated have immunity from a previous infection?

Well what do you think of this: the drug companies themselves tell you these shots offer NO PROTECTION against covid-19, and they say that the drugs only MAY lessen severity of symptoms if you get the virus.

Go look it up. All four drug companies.

Ok. So since the “vaccines” don’t offer immunity, at all, then what do you now have to say about the number of people being hospitalized for covid-19 even though they’ve been “fully vaccinated?”

a reply to: KansasGirl

It's your claim, usually the one making the claim quotes it and provides the source. I know I always do. I found this on the Pfizer website.

Analysis of 927 confirmed symptomatic cases of COVID-19 demonstrates BNT162b2 is highly effective with 91.3% vaccine efficacy observed against COVID-19, measured seven days through up to six months after the second dose

Vaccine was 100% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 95.3% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Vaccine was 100% effective in preventing COVID-19 cases in South Africa, where the B.1.351 lineage is prevalent

www.pfizer.com...

Still looking for where they say it offers no protection.

a reply to: all2human

You are probably right. I felt that way after 911.

a reply to: KansasGirl

Remember what Kierkegaard said back when, it's easier to fool a man than it is to explain to him how he has been fooled.

There is some serious anxiety generated by those shots that the masses stood in line to take. Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.

a reply to: Salander

Try again, already said multiple times the vaccine may not be for everyone and I would never let my daughter get it. I guess that destroys your argument.

Sorry I keep asking you guys to source your statements, it makes it hard to post things when you need to back it up.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

My argument was not influenced by anything in your daughter's life.

My argument is based on facts--the vaccines are dangerous as hell, and they don't do what they were implied to do. All this has been a scam, hence scamdemic.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
Your natural antibodies are superior to the vaccine. If you have recovered from the disease and have the antibodies you would be a fool to take the vaccine. They've been misinforming you all along as always to get you to take the vaccines.

Your natural immunity to Covid - gained if you have contracted the disease - is not necessarily better than vaccine-caused immunity. There are numerous factors, including the length of time since first contracting the disease, as immunity reduces over time.

Natural immunity differs from vaccine-given immunity.

It's wrong to say natural antibodies are superior.

It would be better to take the vaccine, even if you think you have natural immunity.

On alternatives to vaccinations, I favour rubbing cow manure and honey on my cheeks having eaten a slug - it's a tried and tested Medieval remedy.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Nope it’s gene therapy, which since you are willing to openly lie about now puts everything you say into question.

Funny i was thinking the same thing about you. So lets deal with your stupidity shall we?

So lets start by using real world definitions

vac·cine
/vakˈsēn/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

So let's see does the covid vaccine stimulates the production of antibodies? Check
Does it provide immunity against covid? check
does it act as an antigen without causing covid? check

Hmmm so now we determined it is a vaccine for our next class we will go over the definition of a fool.

Thank you.

Y'know I've learned way more about the jab, fact checking anti-vaxxers here than I knew before (and I did read as much as I could) and I still don't regret my choice to get both shots.

a reply to: Chalcedony
Bryn Bosely M.D, an infectious disease expert involved with the vaccination program at UCSF has this to say.

Is immunity from the vaccine stronger than natural immunity from infection?

“The first time your body sees the spike protein, it activates some immune system cells to begin to recognize and develop antibodies against that protein,” said Boslett. The response may be similar whether that first encounter is from infection with the virus or from the first dose of the vaccine.

Studies of the mRNA vaccines suggest that one dose may offer between 50 to 80 percent protection against symptomatic COVID-19, though more data is needed, said Boslett. “We know you get some amount of protection after one dose of the vaccine or after infection with the virus, but we don’t know in either case how long that protection lasts,” she said. Some cases of reinfection have been reported after three to six months, so the protection from one dose of the vaccine also may wane in that timeframe.

“However, when you get the second dose of the vaccine, you’re further training your immune system,” said Boslett. “You’re strengthening that response from the antibody-producing B cells and you’re also activating T memory cells that stick around for much longer.” Getting both doses of the vaccine means your body is shown this spike protein multiple times in a short duration. “So that immune response might be bigger, better and longer lasting than just getting the infection one time,” she said.

Because the booster effect is so important, Boslett adds that this is why people who have had COVID-19 are still recommended to get the vaccine.

VERDICT: Probably.

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Except the data does not show that at all. The only thing in your post worth not laughing at is looking at how effective having recovered from covid and natural immunity is vs the variants. The very small amount of data we have says it's about the same effectiveness as the vaccines, I'd like more data.

Question, what percent of the >65 population is vaccinated in the UK, or Israel, and what percent of serious illness/death from the Delta variant were vaccinated vs unvaccinated?

Then what percent of the unvaccinated have immunity from a previous infection?

Well what do you think of this: the drug companies themselves tell you these shots offer NO PROTECTION against covid-19, and they say that the drugs only MAY lessen severity of symptoms if you get the virus.

Go look it up. All four drug companies.

The onus is on you to present this evidence but I don't think you can.

No vaccine is 100% effective.

Sigh.

Yes, you can still get covid-19 if you get the vaccine. And bullets can still hit you when you wear bulletproof armor.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: KansasGirl

It's your claim, usually the one making the claim quotes it and provides the source. I know I always do. I found this on the Pfizer website.

Analysis of 927 confirmed symptomatic cases of COVID-19 demonstrates BNT162b2 is highly effective with 91.3% vaccine efficacy observed against COVID-19, measured seven days through up to six months after the second dose

Vaccine was 100% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 95.3% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Vaccine was 100% effective in preventing COVID-19 cases in South Africa, where the B.1.351 lineage is prevalent

www.pfizer.com...

Still looking for where they say it offers no protection.

Oops, didn't read on before replying, you handled that one

I think AZ was something like 75% effective against catching it altogether and 100% effective against severe disease, gonna go check now.

I bet they don't say it's not effective either

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

My argument was not influenced by anything in your daughter's life.

My argument is based on facts--the vaccines are dangerous as hell, and they don't do what they were implied to do. All this has been a scam, hence scamdemic.

I thought you said facts, everything you just stated is false.