Why is the CDC so morally upstanding and transparent?
archive.is
Yes, the CDC changed its definition of vaccine
Charles Jones
Noah Flores
Didn't they also changed the definition of "epidemic" and "pandemic" where these originally referred to an virus, bacteria or other type of contaminant should cause symptoms to 100% of the people who get it?
Gabriel Reyes
Yes, we changed the definition of things because the old definition was not compatible with the newly changed definition. Checkmate science deniers.
Parker Walker
Maybe they can change terms like "safe for human consumption" next so Nestle can start recycling sawdust in their products.
Jace Johnson
We were always at war with Oceania
Jayden Williams
Aaron Brooks
Start recycling sawdust? Dietary cellulose is literally sawdust. It's already in everything.
Adrian Garcia
>yes we rewrite history before your eyes
>but the history we teach is correct and shit
Cooper King
>This has never been the case
lol
Gabriel Cox
>to be more transparent
No, it was to get around legal test reqiernmets for gene therapies
>verification not required
Joshua Rivera
>oceania
Eurasia/Eastasia, you retard
Justin Russell
they mean no vaccine is 100% effective against transmission.
this goes against what Any Forums has been heavily implying, that the covid vaccines are 0% effective against transmission -- which is of course not true. they are somewhat effective at reducing transmission. however, with the spread of highly contagious variants, the effectiveness of preventing transmission has waned.
why are YOU so dishonest?
William Cook
Real vaccines are sort of on or off. When they work, they are 100% effective at both sterilising the recipient and protecting him from the disease. When they don't work it's a low single-digit percentage of people that can possibly acquire and transmit the disease. "Reducing transmission probability", which allows for the statistical sleight-of-hand that we've seen with the quarterly serial genetic material injections, was never a goal of vaccination until 2021 .
Dominic James
Expected measels vaccine epidemological outcome:
>98% of the time you will be fully immune and not possibly infectious
Expected covid serial genetic material injections epidemological outcome:
>the probability that you will become infectious is reduced by n%, where n rises until two weeks since last injection have passes then wanes with time since last injection
Josiah Cook
Reminder that naturally acquired immunity has been shown to be durable and long lasting. People who were infected nearly two years ago still show a strong immune response to exposure to any variant of the virus. This doesn't mean you should intentionally contract covid but it does mean that the insistence that those with natural immunity get the injections is not based on science or concern for the person's health and welfare.
Meanwhile, the injections offer a steadily decreasing amount of immunity that's mostly gone within months and most be renewed indefinitely but repeat boosters.
Jace Morgan
>naturally acquired immunity has been shown to be durable and long lasting
Debunked.
Jason Peterson
damn it took two whole years to come up with that weak excuse?
Ryder Scott
In terms of both constitution (they're not comprised of attenuated pathogens, toxoids or subunits) and intended epidemological effect (rendering transmission impossible) and effect on morbidity (complete immunity from pathogen-caused disease) the serial genetic material injections fail. They have rendered the word "vaccine" a marketing term.
Gabriel Cox
>transparent
>just when I thought the gaslighting attempts could not get more brazen...
Austin Bell
>nice catch
Robert Howard
>they are somewhat effective
your goalposts are an electron cloud right now