erry hour on tha hour. even take some samples home and snort 'em
Covid Vaccine
- Thread starter jitter77
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2014
- Messages
- 10,577
- Reaction score
- 6,286
- Points
- 113
Not sure what you guys are talking about? We have not had resident cases at work in several months and probably over a month for any employees. The latest numbers I posted were from 3 large hospitals combined which is not my work..
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,259
- Reaction score
- 8,070
- Points
- 113
I am not for mandates, never have been.
dude/dudette, you've been documented as producing more WooFloo patients than all of China. You posted as much all year.
now you're confused?
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,801
- Reaction score
- 6,254
- Points
- 113
91 to 77! What a precipitous drop!
Where has that led to an increase in serious illness or death among the vaccinated? Post a source, I’ll wait…
Do you know when that image first came out?
That is a huge drop in efficacy for a vaccine. Huge.
These shots could be 10% effective and you'd still cheer for them.
These vaccines are the worst vaccines used en masse in populations in history. The least effective, the most dangerous.
I and others have posted hundreds of sources on this topic. Hit your "BACK" button, or manually navigate through the thread.
but, wait.
77 is less than 91, correct?
so are you now admitting that the shot is waning in efficacy? it sure seems like you just admitted that the shot wanes in efficacy.
would appendectomy be considered a serious illness?
asking for a few thousand people.
asking for a few thousand people.
but but but but we were told if you're vaccinated you cannot get the virus. what is this all about?
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,801
- Reaction score
- 6,254
- Points
- 113
Waning efficacy against mild to moderate illness? Yes.
Waning efficacy against severe illness and death? No.
How Long Pfizer & Moderna COVID-19 Vaccines Work
Recent research finds that protection from currently available mRNA vaccines wanes over time.
www.healthline.com
What do we really know about COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness?
PolitiFact | Studies show the vaccines remain strongly protective against severe disease, hospitalization and death.
Yes. While they haven't waned as much in preventing severe illness and death, they have waned in those areas as well.
We have provided this information to you. Hit the "BACK" button or search through prior pages.
Well isn't this indeed special. Much more detail on the CDC changing the definition of vaccines, and FOIA-obtained emails from the CDC proving just why they changed the definitions. Because these vaccines fail to meet the traditional definition.
technofog.substack.com
The prior CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination (August 26, 2021):
Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie
Check out @CDCgov’s evolving definition of “vaccination.” They’ve been busy at the Ministry of Truth:
September 8th 2021
11,193 Retweets22,210 Likes
To many observers, it appeared the CDC changed the definitions because of the waning effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines. For example, the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine falls over time, with an Israeli study reported in August 2021 as showing the vaccine being “only 16% effective against symptomatic infection for those individuals who had two doses of the shot back in January.” The CDC recognizes the waning effectiveness, thus explaining their promotion of booster shots.
Of course, the usual suspects defended the CDC. The Washington Post, for example, cast doubt that the CDC changed the definition because of issues with the COVID-19 vaccines. The CDC tried to downplay the change, stating “slight changes in wording over time … haven’t impacted the overall definition.”
Internal CDC E-Mails
CDC emails we obtained via the Freedom of Information Act reveal CDC worries with how the performance of the COVID-19 vaccines didn’t match the CDC’s own definition of “vaccine”/“vaccination”. The CDC’s Ministry of Truth went hard at work in the face of legitimate public questions on this issue.
In one August 2021 e-mail, a CDC employee cited to complaints that “Right-wing covid-19 deniers are using your ‘vaccine’ definition to argue that mRNA vaccines are not vaccines…”
After taking some suggestions, the CDC’s Lead Health Communication Specialist went up the food chain to propose changes to the definitions: “I need to update this page Immunization Basics | CDC since these definitions are outdated and being used by some to say COVID-19 vaccines are not vaccines per CDC’s own definition.”
Getting no response, there was a follow-up e-mail a week later: “The definition of vaccine we have posted is problematic and people are using it to claim the COVID-19 vaccine is not a vaccine based on our own definition.”
The change of the “vaccination” definition was eventually approved on August 31. The next day, on September 1, they approved the change to the “vaccine” definition from discussing immunity to protection (seen below).
There you have it. Affirmative action for the multinational corporations. Why have them improve their vaccines when you can just change the definition of vaccine to fit their ineffective vaccines?
Congrats to all the skeptics out there – you raised enough hell that the the CDC went and tried to change reality.
CDC Emails: Our Definition of Vaccine is "Problematic"
CDC: Problematic Vaccine? No, Problematic Definition of Vaccine.
technofog.substack.com
CDC Emails: Our Definition of Vaccine is "Problematic"
CDC: Problematic Vaccine? No, Problematic Definition of Vaccine.
The CDC caused an uproar in early September 2021, after it changed its definitions of “vaccination” and “vaccine.” For years, the CDC had set definitions for vaccination/vaccine that discussed immunity. This all changed on September 1, 2021.The prior CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination (August 26, 2021):
The CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination since September 1, 2021:
People noticed. Representative Thomas Massie was among the first to discuss the change, noting the definition went from “immunity” to “protection”.
Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassieCheck out @CDCgov’s evolving definition of “vaccination.” They’ve been busy at the Ministry of Truth:
September 8th 2021
11,193 Retweets22,210 Likes
To many observers, it appeared the CDC changed the definitions because of the waning effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines. For example, the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine falls over time, with an Israeli study reported in August 2021 as showing the vaccine being “only 16% effective against symptomatic infection for those individuals who had two doses of the shot back in January.” The CDC recognizes the waning effectiveness, thus explaining their promotion of booster shots.
Of course, the usual suspects defended the CDC. The Washington Post, for example, cast doubt that the CDC changed the definition because of issues with the COVID-19 vaccines. The CDC tried to downplay the change, stating “slight changes in wording over time … haven’t impacted the overall definition.”
Internal CDC E-Mails
CDC emails we obtained via the Freedom of Information Act reveal CDC worries with how the performance of the COVID-19 vaccines didn’t match the CDC’s own definition of “vaccine”/“vaccination”. The CDC’s Ministry of Truth went hard at work in the face of legitimate public questions on this issue.
In one August 2021 e-mail, a CDC employee cited to complaints that “Right-wing covid-19 deniers are using your ‘vaccine’ definition to argue that mRNA vaccines are not vaccines…”
After taking some suggestions, the CDC’s Lead Health Communication Specialist went up the food chain to propose changes to the definitions: “I need to update this page Immunization Basics | CDC since these definitions are outdated and being used by some to say COVID-19 vaccines are not vaccines per CDC’s own definition.”
Getting no response, there was a follow-up e-mail a week later: “The definition of vaccine we have posted is problematic and people are using it to claim the COVID-19 vaccine is not a vaccine based on our own definition.”
The change of the “vaccination” definition was eventually approved on August 31. The next day, on September 1, they approved the change to the “vaccine” definition from discussing immunity to protection (seen below).
There you have it. Affirmative action for the multinational corporations. Why have them improve their vaccines when you can just change the definition of vaccine to fit their ineffective vaccines?
Congrats to all the skeptics out there – you raised enough hell that the the CDC went and tried to change reality.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,801
- Reaction score
- 6,254
- Points
- 113
Quite the “Gotcha moment”… NOTWell isn't this indeed special. Much more detail on the CDC changing the definition of vaccines, and FOIA-obtained emails from the CDC proving just why they changed the definitions. Because these vaccines fail to meet the traditional definition.
CDC Emails: Our Definition of Vaccine is "Problematic"
CDC: Problematic Vaccine? No, Problematic Definition of Vaccine.
CDC Emails: Our Definition of Vaccine is "Problematic"
CDC: Problematic Vaccine? No, Problematic Definition of Vaccine.
The CDC caused an uproar in early September 2021, after it changed its definitions of “vaccination” and “vaccine.” For years, the CDC had set definitions for vaccination/vaccine that discussed immunity. This all changed on September 1, 2021.
The prior CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination (August 26, 2021):
The CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination since September 1, 2021:
People noticed. Representative Thomas Massie was among the first to discuss the change, noting the definition went from “immunity” to “protection”.
Check out @CDCgov’s evolving definition of “vaccination.” They’ve been busy at the Ministry of Truth:
September 8th 2021
11,193 Retweets22,210 Likes
To many observers, it appeared the CDC changed the definitions because of the waning effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines. For example, the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine falls over time, with an Israeli study reported in August 2021 as showing the vaccine being “only 16% effective against symptomatic infection for those individuals who had two doses of the shot back in January.” The CDC recognizes the waning effectiveness, thus explaining their promotion of booster shots.
Of course, the usual suspects defended the CDC. The Washington Post, for example, cast doubt that the CDC changed the definition because of issues with the COVID-19 vaccines. The CDC tried to downplay the change, stating “slight changes in wording over time … haven’t impacted the overall definition.”
Internal CDC E-Mails
CDC emails we obtained via the Freedom of Information Act reveal CDC worries with how the performance of the COVID-19 vaccines didn’t match the CDC’s own definition of “vaccine”/“vaccination”. The CDC’s Ministry of Truth went hard at work in the face of legitimate public questions on this issue.
In one August 2021 e-mail, a CDC employee cited to complaints that “Right-wing covid-19 deniers are using your ‘vaccine’ definition to argue that mRNA vaccines are not vaccines…”
After taking some suggestions, the CDC’s Lead Health Communication Specialist went up the food chain to propose changes to the definitions: “I need to update this page Immunization Basics | CDC since these definitions are outdated and being used by some to say COVID-19 vaccines are not vaccines per CDC’s own definition.”
Getting no response, there was a follow-up e-mail a week later: “The definition of vaccine we have posted is problematic and people are using it to claim the COVID-19 vaccine is not a vaccine based on our own definition.”
The change of the “vaccination” definition was eventually approved on August 31. The next day, on September 1, they approved the change to the “vaccine” definition from discussing immunity to protection (seen below).
There you have it. Affirmative action for the multinational corporations. Why have them improve their vaccines when you can just change the definition of vaccine to fit their ineffective vaccines?
Congrats to all the skeptics out there – you raised enough hell that the the CDC went and tried to change reality.
It is in fact an epic gotcha moment. As explained in the article, the vaccines couldn't meet the CDC definition of "vaccine" so the CDC instead changed the definition of "vaccine" to dumb it down to these ineffective shots.
With emails in tow to prove it.
So you can now STFU about the CDC not doing this....
Once again, we right.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,801
- Reaction score
- 6,254
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,425
- Reaction score
- 1,391
- Points
- 113
LOL @ using radical left wing trash like the Washington Compost as a reference.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,425
- Reaction score
- 1,391
- Points
- 113
BTW- I notice, though you seem to have time for multiple posts here you're strangely absent from all the recent Election threads where we're discussing the Democrat's disastrous showing. Funny that.
Last edited:
He's suffering more from Vax Derangement Syndrome than his TDS.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,801
- Reaction score
- 6,254
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,801
- Reaction score
- 6,254
- Points
- 113
None of them concerned me, I didn’t even vote yesterday.
Hey dumbass....you do realize the links and data I've provided today with FOIA letters exposing internal CDC emails are current? As in - published in the past day or two?
And that that trumps your article from one month ago?
Do you understand the concept that new data typically clarifies, changes, or obliterates past data??
Like, the Compost said:
Ummmm....the recently released emails CONFIRM that is indeed what the CDC was in fact doing. Watering down the definition.
LOL, it bears repeating - you really do absolutely, utterly suck at this.
Yay! Another link behind a pay wall.
Has it been said enough that you suck at this?
You don't contribute here. Why are we surprised you don't contribute in real life either?
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,425
- Reaction score
- 1,391
- Points
- 113
I see, so the major rejection of your party and the direction it's headed doesn't concern you? Good to know.