31 Reasons why I won't take the injection

think time to take a little time out, go get yourself some fresh air outside - lol

 

Ok, so you are not knowledgeable of sterilizing immunity vs. functional immunity. Of course that’s obvious when you make this claim:

"the vaccine does not stop you from getting the virus, it only trains your body to fight it off"

Here are the facts on immunity.

—Covid vaccines provide two types of immunity. Sterilizing immunity and functional immunity

—Covid vaccines in use in the US prevent people from being infected. This is sterilizing immunity (facilitated by the action of neutralizing antibodies) and occurs in approximately 80-95% of vaccinees (depending on the vaccine). These individuals are NOT infected, do NOT shed virus, and are NOT contagious. These individuals were prevented from “getting” the virus.

—The majority of vaccinees that do not develop the above sterilizing immunity develop functional immunity. These individuals lack neutralizing antibody titers sufficient to render virus incapable of infecting cells of the vaccinee. In these cases memory B cells and memory T cells work to quickly end the infection, doing so much more quickly than an immune system that has not had previous exposure to the antigen. This is the “fighting the virus” part of the equation. These individuals (“get the virus”) ARE infected, CAN shed virus (but may not), and CAN infect others (but only if they shed viable virons).

—a very small percentage of vaccinees do not develop sterilizing or functionalimmunity. We do not know how many.

The Covid vaccines in use in the US were designed intentionally to induce very high titers of neutralizing antibodies that are responsible for sterilizing immunity (prevention of infection/keeping you from “getting” or “having” SARS-CoV-2 replication or Covid. )

We have known neutralizing antibody titers were high enough to theoretically prevent infection (stop you from getting the virus) since immunogenicity data was released by Phizer and Moderna. Today we have empirical evidence these vaccines prevent symptomatic and asymptomatic infections in 80-95% of vaccinees. This verifies these vaccines induce sterilizing immunity (keep people from “getting” the virus).

Here is one study from the CDC verifying both symptomatic and asymptomatic infections are prevented by these vaccines. There are others in pre-print if you would like to read them just ask I’ll look them up for you.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm?s_cid=mm7013e3_w#T2_down

This is why I asked you to describe a type of infection outside the definitions of symptomatic and asymptomatic infections. If these vaccines are preventing both types, and there is no other type, they are by definition providing sterilizing immunity (preventing people from “getting” the virus).

In conclusion, the vast majority of vaccinees do not “get” the virus. Somewhere around 10-20% can and do sometimes “get” the virus and the functional immunity most of them developed “fight the virus off”. A few develop no immunity and can get seriously ill and die.

It’s important to me that people considering vaccination have accurate information to make the decision best for them. To deny the existence of sterilizing immunity and say these vaccines don’t keep most people from “getting the virus” is not accurate.

To address the part about “what I think I know”, I’ll just say I base my posts on empirical evidence, not what politicians and media say about virology and immunology. In fact, in my line of work I have to “know” about vaccines, not “think I know”. The ability of different vaccines to induce sterilizing immunity is crucial for me to know. In one case, I’m open to criminal prosecution if I do not use a vaccine that induces sterilizing immunity correctly. The coronavirus vaccines I use do not induce sterilizing immunity. That’s one reason I’m so excited about the ability of these Covid vaccines to induce sterilizing immunity and prevent infections. It’s good news for not just Covid control, but this technology will eventually make your food supply safer and lower cost.

 

The long term effects are unknown, and in spite of what you wish to believe that is the point.

 

You do know2 that if you left your parents basement you would find that "fresh air" you recommend.

Until then, live in your ignorance and bias.

 

Yet people vaccinated still catch the virus like Bill Maher. There also may be natural immunities already in the population which would be why the early estimates for this ‘novel’ virus were so far off. Yes, these may be the future but have been avoided in the past because of the unknown unknowns. Dictionaries only included this novel treatment as a vaccine in early 2021. The fact is that no long term studies have been done which would in fact take years to know if they are truly safe so the general population are now test subjects in an experiment which as I understand would be unethical.

 

oh that really hurts, lol

 

I never commented on the long term effects, nor did I disagree with you on this fact... so not sure your point other than to deflect

 

Yes, breakthrough infections are possible in 10 to 20% of US vaccinees. There is no vaccine that prevents all breakthrough infections— not even the measles vaccine.

Sure. Many people are less susceptible to Covid than the general population.

They were not avoided. The equine industry used a DNA platform West Nile Virus vaccine for a time before more shelf stable platforms were developed. We haven’t had mRNA vaccines previously in humans because we couldn’t figure out how to elicit a good immune response. This problem was solved within the last couple years by synthesis of new codons added to both ends of the vaccine codons that code for antigen production. These newly synthesized codons are better at getting ribosomes in the cytoplasm of the vaccinnee’s to produce antigen.

This technology hasn’t been avoided, it’s been heavily researched and anticipated.

Sure. Why would dictionaries specifically include mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines in their definitions before those vaccines were a reality? These vaccines fit the classical definition of vaccines anyway just as well as decades old vaccines. Semantics are less important than how vaccines actually stimulate the immune system.

But, I’ve thought about the semantics quite a bit. To start, the word vaccine was coined by E. Jenner of cowpox/smallpox fame. It’s essentially Latin for “made of cow” or “pertaining to cow”. Obviously that’s not what we think of today when we use the term vaccine. Here’s a pretty good definition of what most considered “vaccine” before COVID.

However, there are/were very notable exceptions to that accepted definition. One being the tetanus “vaccine”. It is not made of C. tetani or a part of that bacterium. It is purified and inactivated bacterial toxin (poop if you will). And it confers no protection from infection nor does it help clear an infection. It just prepares the body to deactivate the toxin produced by C. tetani infections.

The second “exception” to the above definition is subunit vaccines. They do not contain the actual pathogen in an attenuated or killed form. They only contain a specific “copy” of a piece of a pathogen, like a protein (amino acid sequence) or sugar (polysaccharide sequence). The “copy” bit of protein or polysaccharide can be/is produced in different ways including isolation and purification of disassembled cultured pathogen, in limited cases synthetic production of polysaccharides, and recombination. Recombination is where genetic material (DNA) of the pathogen is combined with that of another organism (usually a yeast/fungus) and the yeast “manufacturers” the protein (in this case) that is the antigen (that elicits an immune response) in the resultant vaccine.

So the first point is we have been using “vaccines” for decades that do not fit the old “tried and true” definition of a vaccine. Some attenuated and killed pathogen vaccines still use bovine serum, blood, milk proteins, and milk sugars as components in growth media the pathogens are cultured on/in. But no human vaccine today literally comes “from cow” or from cowpox sores or necessarily “pertains to cow”. Yet we still use the term for things that are very different from the original smallpox vaccine the term was coined for. Also, we have moved far beyond using only actual pathogens in vaccines. Even the “copies” of parts of pathogens we use can be synthetic. Yet, we still call all these ways of preventing disease and infection “vaccines”.

So, as far as the semantics of what we call these “therapies”, I see no valid reason not to refer to them as vaccines. They “fit” the definition of “vaccine” as well as or better than some traditional “vaccines” and new vaccine technologies like synthetic polysaccharide. Nobody refused to refer to subunit or toxoidpreparations as vaccines, I don’t see any reason not to refer to mRNA technology as vaccines.

How long of a study do you propose? The poliovirus vaccine trial lasted about a year before we started mass vaccinating children. The only serious problem was a manufacturer that created a faulty product after trials were over and the vaccine was approved. It’s interesting to note this was possible because there was no patent on the vaccine and second rate companies were manufacturing inferior product not up to original specifications.

That said, absolutely we should consider how fast these products came to market. That’s why I’m 100% opposed to mandating, cajoling, incentivizing or threatening to get people to do things they don’t inherently wish to do. If an individual is uncomfortable with these vaccines they shouldn’t take them. I’m not here to convince anyone or pressure anyone—my only “agenda” is making sure everyone’s decision is based on accurate information.

 

I doubt 9 months or so would be a qualified trial period. As it stands, these treatments are still not FDA approved and only have Emergency Release Authorization which means bypassing standard trials to push to the public. I believe the Sars vaccine took 6 years. I find it unconscionable pushing this on kids that have the highest rate of survivability. The unknown consequences could be a worse choice but only time will tell.

The accurate information is that these treatments were withheld in the past on humans, they are not fully tested, and they do not have FDA approval due skipping testing protocols for Emergency Release Authorization. They could be the future but the initial fear mongering around Covid allowed total acceptance by both the public and politicians so opened the floodgates for the drug companies that will benefit greatly financially from them.

Prove any of that as incorrect.

 

You are correct there has not been full FDA approval and the vaccines are being used under Emergency Use Authorization. You are incorrect on standard trials. Phase 1,2, and 3 trials were conducted. It is standard procedure for trials to officially conclude after licensing.
[QUOTE
I believe the Sars vaccine took 6 years.
[/QUOTE]
No SARS1 vaccine exists. The SARS1 “pandemic” lasted less than two years, ending without a vaccine.

Personally I am not a fan of vaccinating kids for Covid either.

Evidence?

No drug or vaccine is “fully tested” before use.

Yes, there has been fear mongering. That is a separate issue from the technical aspects of these vaccines. I’m on record here questioning the motives of pharmaceutical companies already talking about annual vaccinations when there is no evidence they will be necessary for protection or reduced transmission.

Well, what constitutes proof? Here’s solid evidence a lot of your post is inaccurate.

Emergency Use Authorization is the correct terminology, not Emergency Release Authorization.
https://www.fda.gov/emergency-prepa...-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization

There is no SARS vaccine. A few have entered clinical trials—none have come close to approval.
https://www.bcm.edu/departments/mol...ions-and-biodefense/specific-agents/sars-mers

COVID vaccines have released phase 3 clinical trial data prior to EUA. No phases of trials were skipped. Here’s an example.

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-r...ntech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine

 

LOL, only on CNN or some other complicit MSM site.

 

About as much as your attempt to insult me.

I, however, do not value anything you say so your attempts to insult me make no difference.

 

The point is, if you can comprehend it, is that you are supporting and insisting that all others support an unproven and not investigated procedure just because your masters tell you to.

 

just following your trend, reply in kind ya know, speak your language

 

never commented on it, you're trying to change the subject of what we were talking about to this as you were wrong

if you want to say some are not taking the vaccine because they are scared of possible long term side effects, fine... better than all the fake reasons out there

 

Oh, you didn't give numbers? There's a surprise.

 

Again, a comment without thought or value. As expected.

 

I agree with all this, but would point out the sterilising immunity is still produced by the human being and this process is triggered by the vaccine

 

Actually, it is no surprise that you make a claim and cannot back it up.

Do you ever tell the truth, or is that against your training?

 

did not take much thought as we're not having a real conversation about anything it seems, maybe time to move on?

 

Nice dodge.

 

Or not. If you support something, that is reason enough to doubt it.

 

Admitting that you have nothing to contribute to any conversation is a good first step for you. Now just admit that you have no right or authority to tell others how they should live.

 

What? Exposing the truth about you?

No dodge, just speaking the truth which you don't deny.

 

time to move on....