Despite warning, WHO OK with Thai plan of mixing vaccines

[JohninDublin]

8 hours ago, Stonker said:

@mic made the claim, followed by a couple of others.

It's not up to @MikeTexas to prove them wrong!

If someone claims the moon's made of cheese then it's up to them to prove it, not up to others to waste their time proving it isn't.  That's how these people get away with this sort of thing, trying to get others to  waste their time proving a negative while side-stepping ever having to justify what they say.

You are definitely of form today.

[JohninDublin]

7 hours ago, Aksi said:

Bad idea and kind of a confirmation that experimenting on people is ok these days..

But isn't that how progress has been made medically? There are a multitude of ethical tests that have to be adhered to nowadays including informed consent of the patients.

I would hope in a civilised world, we have got past state sponsored experiments such as Tuskegee or the use of LSD on the military. Similarly, Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims were never told that the US docs who they saw once a year were not aiding them, but purely studying the development of their illnesses.

[bushav8r]

if you were denied entry, and everything else was   ok...would you be shit canned for posting an un favorable  post?  Big Brother wants to know,,,

[BlueSphinx]

58 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

WADR: What you've just written is the equivalent of, "It hasn't happened yet, but that doesn't mean it can't or wont happen".

if we take that approach to all new innovations, then we might as well stop all research now. 

...

The reality is that medical advances have been made by taking calculated risks, and the governance of the  risktakers has increased exponentially over recent decades. 

You wrote "The reality is that medical advances have been made by taking calculated risks..." referring to the roll-out of the mRNA vaccines.

I am certainly not 'risk-averse', as life is indeed about taking risks.  But injecting hundred millions of people with an experimental new technology is a totally different ball-game.  

Especially knowing that:

1 - The 'approval for emergency reasons' was granted without the approval authorities demanding and insisting on a rigorous follow-up regime for all those receiving that experimental jab.  So we are now almost flying blind with no-one in the cockpit.

2 - The WHO had to change its definition of a 'vaccine', so that these mRNA gen-therapies could be labelled as such.  That was important because approval of gen-therapies requires fertility studies which take by definition at least 9 months, while such tests/studies are not required for vaccine approval.  That would have jeopardized the roll-out planning, so let's call them 'vaccines' and cut some additional corners.

3 - And most important: those vaccines could only be emergency approved when no other effective remedies were available.  That's the reason that known effective drugs for covid-19 like ivermectin, were not provided re-purposed approval.  And the WHO's Chief Scientist is now facing a possible death penalty charge by the Indian (Juridicial) Bar Association for lying and actively suppressing and manipulating the data that resulted in thousands of needless deaths in those Indian states that 'followed the science' (the ones that ignored her BS and approved Ivermectin had a 'miraculous' drop in death-rates/hospitalizations).

All of the above has NOTHING to do with medical advancements, but is just an incredibly profitable money cash-cow for Big Pharma (Pfizer was happy to announce to its shareholders that it will make billions of US $ profit on their covid-'vaccine').   And their greed has no boundaries, because seeing what they have come away with already they are now lobbying (and unfortunately succeeding) in further lowering the emergency approval bar so that also children and adolescents can be part of the 'customer base' for their jabs.  

It is absolutely disgusting, and they even know that there will be a reckoning (despite the immunity they were granted for any harm their products could cause) and that they will have to pay billions in compensation like they had to do in other cases, but they just consider that the 'cost of doing business'.  Only when the decision-makers in this Crime of the Century, will be given life-time sentences in jail, and there evil corporate empires and organizations disbanded is there any hope that we will not face a repeat later on. 

Now go ahead, and try to prove me wrong on ANY of the statements I made above.

[BookShe]

12 hours ago, Stonker said:

Sorry, but I can't be bothered to prove the moon's not made of cheese to you or anyone else.

It's common knowledge that the moon is indeed made out of cheese in Tucker's Fox universe.

[BlueSphinx]

14 hours ago, Stonker said:

Read both, thank you both, albeit not all 200 odd pages and not the Japanese version.

Sorry, but they simply don't say what you claimed, that "spike protein from mRNA vaxx is crossing cell blood barrier and accumulating in organs like ovaries brain liver testicles."

The Pfizer paper doesn't say that.

It's simply not there.

What is in Dr Bridle's own paper, though, rather amusingly, is that this happens with the spike protein from the Corona virus!

Maybe you, or whoever explained it to you, confused the two!

Well, the nice thing of referring to publicly available studies, is that you can check the statements made by those referring to them. So I looked it up in dr Bridle's paper < attached it again here > and the Executive Summary on page 2 of that study states crystal-clear that following vaccination with the Moderna vaccine (an mRNA vaccine very similar to Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine), the spike protein can enter the circulatory system.

This is deeply worrying for anybody that did get such an mRNA jab (read the potential consequences in that study), and your statement that rather amusingly, is that this happens with the spike protein from the Corona virus!, seems to be based on you miss-reading/miss-interpreting what the study says. 

Either you are totally confused, or deliberately spreading miss-information (which by the way seems to be your favorite accusation towards others).  I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just confused...

1911336809_Childrenandcovid-19vaccines-AScientistguideforParentsbydrByramW.BRIDLE-June2021.pdf

[Stonker]

13 hours ago, Xaos said:

Heres father of mRNA Robert Malone talking about it, worth a watch.

https://odysee.com/@DarkHorsePodcastClips:b/pfizer-data-reveal-where-do-the-lipid:c

Heres little extra

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096999612030406X

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-020-00771-8

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/spikevax-previously-covid-19-vaccine-moderna-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf

https://mdsafetech.org/blood-brain-barrier/

Well, that is Robert Malone, but he's not "the father of mRNA" and he's not talking about the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines changing your DNA, so I suppose one out of three's not bad.

[dj230]

Canada is also mixing vaccines, seems like what most countries are doing 

 

 

  

18 hours ago, mic said:

In my opinion Sinovac and AZ is much safer than mRNA.

Nobody knows what happens with your DNA after vaccinated with mRNA vaccine.

Even experts are not sure what will happen.

AZ vaccine is made from primate poop, enjoy...

 

Edited July 17, 2021 by dj230

[Guevara]

18 hours ago, mic said:

In my opinion Sinovac and AZ is much safer than mRNA.

Nobody knows what happens with your DNA after vaccinated with mRNA vaccine.

Even experts are not sure what will happen.

I'm not sure where you get your information from but it is inaccurate and out of date. Most of the reputable Pharma scientists have been working on 'mix and match' for months (excluding the placebo Sinovac). I think you will find many Countries will be offering alternative vaccines as a booster come Autumn. The Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel bit the bullet  weeks ago and chose an alternative vaccine for her second jab. To date she has reported no adverse reaction.

[JohninDublin]

6 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

You wrote "The reality is that medical advances have been made by taking calculated risks..." referring to the roll-out of the mRNA vaccines.

I am certainly not 'risk-averse', as life is indeed about taking risks.  But injecting hundred millions of people with an experimental new technology is a totally different ball-game.  

Especially knowing that:

1 - The 'approval for emergency reasons' was granted without the approval authorities demanding and insisting on a rigorous follow-up regime for all those receiving that experimental jab.  So we are now almost flying blind with no-one in the cockpit.

2 - The WHO had to change its definition of a 'vaccine', so that these mRNA gen-therapies could be labelled as such.  That was important because approval of gen-therapies requires fertility studies which take by definition at least 9 months, while such tests/studies are not required for vaccine approval.  That would have jeopardized the roll-out planning, so let's call them 'vaccines' and cut some additional corners.

3 - And most important: those vaccines could only be emergency approved when no other effective remedies were available.  That's the reason that known effective drugs for covid-19 like ivermectin, were not provided re-purposed approval.  And the WHO's Chief Scientist is now facing a possible death penalty charge by the Indian (Juridicial) Bar Association for lying and actively suppressing and manipulating the data that resulted in thousands of needless deaths in those Indian states that 'followed the science' (the ones that ignored her BS and approved Ivermectin had a 'miraculous' drop in death-rates/hospitalizations).

All of the above has NOTHING to do with medical advancements, but is just an incredibly profitable money cash-cow for Big Pharma (Pfizer was happy to announce to its shareholders that it will make billions of US $ profit on their covid-'vaccine').   And their greed has no boundaries, because seeing what they have come away with already they are now lobbying (and unfortunately succeeding) in further lowering the emergency approval bar so that also children and adolescents can be part of the 'customer base' for their jabs.  

It is absolutely disgusting, and they even know that there will be a reckoning (despite the immunity they were granted for any harm their products could cause) and that they will have to pay billions in compensation like they had to do in other cases, but they just consider that the 'cost of doing business'.  Only when the decision-makers in this Crime of the Century, will be given life-time sentences in jail, and there evil corporate empires and organizations disbanded is there any hope that we will not face a repeat later on. 

Now go ahead, and try to prove me wrong on ANY of the statements I made above.

I am not looking to be confrontational on this. I've seen several of your posts on this and I you strike me as a Vax agnostic who has considered the problem and your approach strikes me as rational. I wish I could say the same for all that post on vaxxes in general.

One thing I will dispute with you is your opening sentence. My post was not specific to the roll out of RNA vaxxes, but to medical advances.

My understanding of medicine approvals is that it is a long drawn out process that usually takes at least 5 years, and under normal circumstances takes at least 5 years.  Even then, the drug is put under surveillance, and depending on what adverse effects are reported, the drug then becomes contra-indicated for use by certain patients. Even then, is some cases adverse reactions might depend on sustained use over many years, so the initial 5 years is still not foolproof.

I have personal experience of the failings of one such drug, sodium valproate which is blamed for my wife's kidney. As a toddler she was hit by a car which then caused seizures which is why she was given the drug. Eventually, this got the seizures under control, and by the time we met, she had been taking the drug for over 25 years, including the last 15 years seizure free. Then she started to become ill, and it was eventually linked to this drug by the long term surveillance, as were several other side effects including birth defects. If she had waited say 15 years before she had total faith in the drug, she would have still been caught out by it and had a miserable life of a further 15 years of seizures.

Conversely, we are currently in a race against time where 10 million people a month are being infected by CV. One in three will suffer "long covid" and 200k are dying, and all that time there are new variants occurring. Going through normal procedures and taking 5 years to evaluate the treatments suggests that in the time, 600 mil will be infected. 12 mill will die, and 200 mill will suffer long covid. 

The circumstances are exceptional and needs an exceptional response. We can't wait 5 years IMHO. 

I don't doubt that there will be among the billions some who will be vaxxed, people who will be damaged. And you are right, we don't now what the long term impact will be. But can the world afford to wait 5 or 15 years while we wait for the agnostics to decide? I say no.

[ChristyS]

19 hours ago, mic said:

In my opinion Sinovac and AZ is much safer than mRNA.

Nobody knows what happens with your DNA after vaccinated with mRNA vaccine.

Even experts are not sure what will happen.

I have to agree I would rather have the old tech viral vector,  the M-rna was a long time in research but not so long in testing  Waiting for  Novavax 

[ChristyS]

32 minutes ago, Guevara said:

I'm not sure where you get your information from but it is inaccurate and out of date. Most of the reputable Pharma scientists have been working on 'mix and match' for months (excluding the placebo Sinovac). I think you will find many Countries will be offering alternative vaccines as a booster come Autumn. The Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel bit the bullet  weeks ago and chose an alternative vaccine for her second jab. To date she has reported no adverse reaction.

Did she not get Pfizer for both shots ? ( aka BioNTech )  

[Stonker]

59 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

Well, the nice thing of referring to publicly available studies, is that you can check the statements made by those referring to them. So I looked it up in dr Bridle's paper < attached it again here > and the Executive Summary on page 2 of that study states crystal-clear that following vaccination with the Moderna vaccine (an mRNA vaccine very similar to Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine), the spike protein can enter the circulatory system.

 

Yes, that's definitely what it says, following on from his rather bizarre idea that "there was a previously wide-held assumption that vaccination with the mRNA vaccinees is safe because it is a localised event in the body, with the vaccine remaining limited to the shoulder muscle ... etc ...".

 

Unfortunately that's got nothing to do with what either you or your oppo @Xaos claimed it said - absolutely nothing!

 

That's a seriously wierd idea, though, that vaccines are a "localised event in the body, with the vaccine remaining limited to the shoulder muscle" and don't enter the blood-stream, which as @JamesE pointed they have to do to do their job!

 

A local anaesthetic stays "localised", not a vaccine - any vaccine.  

 

What happens if you've had a rabies shot in the shoulder, and a rabid dog bites your arse?

 

1 hour ago, BlueSphinx said:

This is deeply worrying for anybody that did get such an mRNA jab (read the potential consequences in that study), and your statement that rather amusingly, is that this happens with the spike protein from the Corona virus!, seems to be based on you miss-reading/miss-interpreting what the study says. 

Only deeply worrying if they thought you got Covid in the shoulder, like arthritis!

 

My "statement" was that what you and Xaos describe (spike proteins circulating in the body with the potential to damage cells in the body)   isn't based on any "mis-reading or mis-interpreting [of] what the study says". 

You can find it on pages 20 and 21, in the section coincidentally headed "The spike protein from Sars-Cov-2 has the potential to damage cells in the body".  The conclusion which you can find on page 21, marked "Conclusion  says "the spike protein, if it gets into circulation, has the potential to cause damage to the cardiovascular system and other tissues." 

I'm not sure why you think I've mis-read or mis-represented it since that's exactly what I said it said, unlike Xaos' and your claims!

Well ... OK, I am pretty sure but it wouldn't be polite for me to say

 

2 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

Either you are totally confused, or deliberately spreading miss-information (which by the way seems to be your favorite accusation towards others).  I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just confused...

No, not "deliberately spreading miss-information", and definitely not "totally confused"   -   I'll bet you wish I was, though, but I learnt how to see through smoke and mirrors like this BS long ago. 

[BlueSphinx]

12 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

...

Conversely, we are currently in a race against time where 10 million people a month are being infected by CV. One in three will suffer "long covid" and 200k are dying, and all that time there are new variants occurring. Going through normal procedures and taking 5 years to evaluate the treatments suggests that in the time, 600 mil will be infected. 12 mill will die, and 200 mill will suffer long covid. 

The circumstances are exceptional and needs an exceptional response. We can't wait 5 years IMHO. 

I don't doubt that there will be among the billions some who will be vaxxed, people who will be damaged. And you are right, we don't now what the long term impact will be. But can the world afford to wait 5 or 15 years while we wait for the agnostics to decide? I say no.

Thanks for your civil and honest response to my 'rant' against the mRNA vaccines.

But it looks like you did overlook this part in what I wrote.

And most important: those vaccines could only be emergency approved when no other effective remedies were available.  That's the reason that known effective drugs for covid-19 like ivermectin, were not provided re-purposed approval.  And the WHO's Chief Scientist is now facing a possible death penalty charge by the Indian (Juridicial) Bar Association for lying and actively suppressing and manipulating the data that resulted in thousands of needless deaths in those Indian states that 'followed the science' (the ones that ignored her BS and approved Ivermectin had a 'miraculous' drop in death-rates/hospitalizations).

Why this insistence on 'covid-vaccines are the only solution to the current situation', while there are PROVEN EFFECTIVE remedies that can be applied in ALL STAGES of covid-19.  From prophylactic (prevention) use over mild symptoms to hospitalization. 

The media want you to believe that when you test positive for covid (using a dodgy test-method, but that's another can of worms) that that is almost a 'death sentence' and that mass-vaccination is the only way out.  The covid-vaccine propaganda has been so repetitive and overwhelming that Guy Average has become immune for evidence-based logic and reason.

I will post today a new contribution on the Controversial Covid Corner thread by dr Tess LAWRIE.  She is the most consistent, authorative and common sense voice in these mad covid-times, and worth listening what she has to say = an immediate halt of mass-vaccination and focus on PROVEN preventive and curative remedies to address this covid-crisis. 

[Thaichris]

Stonker is suggesting to us that mRNA in a vaccine  is somehow different to mRNA in normal life. And. He claims that vaccine mRNA cannot incorporate into DNA because ‘that’s not what it was designed to do’. Salk Polio vaccines were not designed to give 1 million people the SV40 virus when they were launched, but they did. That’s a nonsense argument.

mRNA is mRNA. Normally polymerase moves it forward into proteins.

I gave one example of his flawed theory- The Thomas Jefferson University article (and yes I have been to the submission AND the University Website) says

‘Discovery identifies a Highly efficient Human reverse transcriptase that can write RNA sequences into DNA. I don’t think the statement could be much clearer.

It’s not ‘hypothetical’ as he/she claims. It is -as someone on this thread asked - ‘possible’ that mRNA can be incorporated into DNA. 

And it’s not just Polymerase Theta that can do this. In the longer term a foreign mRNA could possibly highjack any transcriptase - it happened with AIDS.

To repeat, mRNA is mRNA whether a vaccine or your own. It is ludicrous to suggest that as soon as it is a vaccine mRNA it is somehow different and ‘safe’. 

The question from people was ‘Is it possible that it could be incorporated into your DNA. And the answer is ‘Yes’. Not highly likely, but possible.

I hope that gives people a balanced view in what seems a very aggressive thread.

[Stonker]

7 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

Now go ahead, and try to prove me wrong on ANY of the statements I made above.

 

No need - some of them even have a basis in fact, just not your alternate facts.

7 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

1 - The 'approval for emergency reasons' was granted without the approval authorities demanding and insisting on a rigorous follow-up regime for all those receiving that experimental jab.  So we are now almost flying blind with no-one in the cockpit.

Yes, that's based on fact - hard to know, though, how you can have a "rigorous follow up" for all of the two billion vaccinated so far (half of them fully vaccinated) and the four billion or so still to go.  Are you going to pass that to GPs to do instead of treating their patients, or is someone else going to do it?

7 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

2 -The WHO had to change its definition of a 'vaccine', so that these mRNA gen-therapies could be labelled as such.  That was important because approval of gen-therapies requires fertility studies which take by definition at least 9 months, while such tests/studies are not required for vaccine approval.  That would have jeopardized the roll-out planning, so let's call them 'vaccines' and cut some additional corners

Well, a definition of a vaccine changed, but it wasn't the WHO's, it was Merriam-Webster dictionary's.

What did the WHO supposedly change it from and to?

Pretty simple question! ... but it never happened.

Prove it never happened ... ?  That would mean proving a negative which is impossible, so Russell's teapot has to apply.

8 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

And most important: those vaccines could only be emergency approved when no other effective remedies were available.  That's the reason that known effective drugs for covid-19 like ivermectin, were not provided re-purposed approval.  

True, but no other effective remedies   were   available!  

 

Had your beloved ivermectin been used been "re-purposed" it would have been just as experimental if used as proposed, since it had never been widely approved for anything other than treating animals or treating worms or skin parasites in humans.

 

It's pure  hypocrisy, as it would have been simply swopping experimental vaccines that had at least been trialled for purpose for a drug that had never been trialled for purpose at all.

 

8 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

And the WHO's Chief Scientist is now facing a possible death penalty charge by the Indian (Juridicial) Bar Association for lying and actively suppressing and manipulating the data that resulted in thousands of needless deaths in those Indian states that 'followed the science'

So what?

 

She's being sued in a private case, by a voluntary organisation with no legal or regulatory authority.

 

If I were to sue you, does that mean you're guilty?

 

8 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

' (the ones that ignored her BS and approved Ivermectin had a 'miraculous' drop in death-rates/hospitalizations).

No they didn't. 

That's completely untrue.

 

The two states were Goa and Uttarakhand.

 

While they had a far from " 'miraculous' drop in  death rates / hospitalizations" in May after a peak on May 9, that was matched in the states that hadn't used Ivermectin, and most tellingly it wasn't just the "death rates / hospitalizations" that dropped country-wide (including in Goa and Uttarakhand) but the asymptomatic and mild cases and overall number of cases as well.

 

Maybe ivermectin isn't just a miracle cure, but it stops transmission too but its supporters forgot to mention that ..... ..... or maybe not .....

 

[JohninDublin]

7 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

Thanks for your civil and honest response to my 'rant' against the mRNA vaccines.

But it looks like you did overlook this part in what I wrote.

And most important: those vaccines could only be emergency approved when no other effective remedies were available.  That's the reason that known effective drugs for covid-19 like ivermectin, were not provided re-purposed approval.  And the WHO's Chief Scientist is now facing a possible death penalty charge by the Indian (Juridicial) Bar Association for lying and actively suppressing and manipulating the data that resulted in thousands of needless deaths in those Indian states that 'followed the science' (the ones that ignored her BS and approved Ivermectin had a 'miraculous' drop in death-rates/hospitalizations).

Why this insistence on 'covid-vaccines are the only solution to the current situation', while there are PROVEN EFFECTIVE remedies that can be applied in ALL STAGES of covid-19.  From prophylactic (prevention) use over mild symptoms to hospitalization. 

The media want you to believe that when you test positive for covid (using a dodgy test-method, but that's another can of worms) that that is almost a 'death sentence' and that mass-vaccination is the only way out.  The covid-vaccine propaganda has been so repetitive and overwhelming that Guy Average has become immune for evidence-based logic and reason.

I will post today a new contribution on the Controversial Covid Corner thread by dr Tess LAWRIE.  She is the most consistent, authorative and common sense voice in these mad covid-times, and worth listening what she has to say = an immediate halt of mass-vaccination and focus on PROVEN preventive and curative remedies to address this covid-crisis. 

I've never seen anything you've posted that remotely resembles a rant.

Regarding the Indian Bar Association, I am less than impressed with that. Indian courts are not unknown for hysterical reactions. WHO is a soft target, especially after it was trashed by the ignoramus Trump, and India is one of the rare countries where Trump is popular because many Hindus see his attacks on Muslims as a proxy battle on their behalf.

Regarding Invermectin, I must confess that I've only just recently heard about it, and a quick look on google doesn't really help as there are as many articles for it, as against it. However, on the Wiki page, I found this: 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin was beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.[15] Such claims are not backed by sound evidence.[16][17][18][19][20]

As there are so many claims still being made for and against this drug, maybe it would be fairer to say "not yet backed". At the moment it looks like another HCQ. If you look at the various studies  on HCQ, you will see that they range from "no good" to "lifesaving". There is clearly something wrong with some of these studies. They can't all be right, and under normal circumstances, I would ask myself, what is the propensity of these findings, and it's difficult to even get a handle on that.

But on the mention of HCQ, I also saw on the Wiki page, mention of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#COVID-19_misinformation It appears that many of those who advocated for HCQ, suddenly changed their allegiance to Invermectin. Looking at how this unfolded, the tactics used were similar to the tactics used by anti-vaxxers. I hope you are right about Invermectin, but so far, I've seen nothing encouraging about it.

Looking at it's effects in India, there is no data regarding the alleged success of this drug. More tellingly, since June 7th, the Indian Gov has dropped this drug from it's treatment list. https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/story/revised-health-ministry-guidelines-stop-usage-of-ivermectin-doxycycline-in-covid-treatment-1811809-2021-06-07

There are also reports of multiple faked studies supporting this drug. This comment is not directed at you, but it is totally beyond my comprehension why someone should want to do this and put lives at risk. It seems that some of these reports can be tracked by to the usual suspects: anti-vaxxers. I don't wish to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I am wondering if some of this is not being driven by others in Big Pharma who see themselves not being able to cash in on a very lucrative market if covid is cured tomorrow. There is a precedent for such behaviour with the film, "Promised Land" which was anti-fracking and was financed by the oil industry of Abi Dhabi. Basically, the plot involves the use of people as Trojan Horses to spread misinformation.

Regarding your comments about what the media wants me to believe. I would guess that you and I must be viewing different media. 

[BlueSphinx]

15 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Well, a definition of a vaccine changed, but it wasn't the WHO's, it was Merriam-Webster dictionary's.

What did the WHO supposedly change it from and to?

Pretty simple question! ... but it never happened.

Prove it never happened ... ?  That would mean proving a negative which is impossible, so Russell's teapot has to apply.

Yes, it's correct that it was not WHO that changed the definition.  And here a fact-checker report:

 

THE CLAIM: Merriam-Webster changed the definition of “vaccine” to include the messenger RNA vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer.

THE FACTS: It’s true that the dictionary publisher’s definition of a vaccine today is not the same as it was a year ago.

The current definition includes “a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein).” 

The previous definition referred to organisms “administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease.”

But definitions change frequently, and the new one better describes how the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines work. Unlike other vaccines — like ones for influenza or measles — they don’t include copies of the specific virus itself. And the change has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the vaccines themselves.

https://www.cbs17.com/community/health/coronavirus/checking-the-facts-cited-by-vaccine-hesitant-demonstrators-in-downtown-raleigh/

= = = = =

But my point was not play with words, but WHY the definition of a vaccine had to be amended.

I wrote: That was important because approval of gen-therapies requires fertility studies which take by definition at least 9 months, while such tests/studies are not required for vaccine approval.  That would have jeopardized the roll-out planning, so let's call them 'vaccines' and cut some additional corners.

Not making things up, the above has been stated by dr Robert Malone, who has considerable experience in the mRNA field.

 

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, BlueSphinx said:

Why this insistence on 'covid-vaccines are the only solution to the current situation', while there are PROVEN EFFECTIVE remedies that can be applied in ALL STAGES of covid-19.  From prophylactic (prevention) use over mild symptoms to hospitalization. 

Because there aren't.

 

It's like saying we didn't need a polio vaccine because we already had the iron lung.

[Stonker]

20 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Indian courts are not unknown for hysterical reactions

You've fallen for the BS, JiD - I'm surprised at you.

 

It's got nothing to do with "Indian courts". 

 

It's a private case where she's being sued, nothing more - and so far the case has only been registered, which means that she's onlyrequired to give a reply / answer / response, and it probably won't even get to court at all and will end with statements - it's just Indian politics.

[Stonker]

14 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

Yes, it's correct that it was not WHO that changed the definition. 

So why have you said repeatedly that it was, when it was absolute bollox?

 

Merriam-Webster's a dictionary, updating definitions and meanings to reflect what's common usage, not setting medical standards.

 

The idea that Merriam-Webster had to change their definition of a vaccine because otherwise "that would have jeopardized the roll-out planning" for Pfizer and Moderna isn't "making things up" or "a play on words" - it's just plain daft, and there's no nicer way of putting it.

 

 

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, ChristyS said:

Did she not get Pfizer for both shots ? ( aka BioNTech )  

AZ in April, Moderna last month.

[BlueSphinx]

24 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

I've never seen anything you've posted that remotely resembles a rant.

....

Regarding your comments about what the media wants me to believe. I would guess that you and I must be viewing different media. 

Hi @JohninDubin,  first let me sincerely thank you for your post and civil way of presenting your views.  It is obvious that you did an honest effort to check some of the statements I made.  And I actually applaud that, because doing your research will help you make up your mind in these matters, and result in informed decisions.

But the final paragraph of your response hits the nail squarely on the head.  Yes, our sources of information are clearly different.  And of course, I have an 'advantage' there because I have full access to all the mainstream media but ALSO know my way around to alternative sources that are not compromised like many of the MSM (and NO, it are not dark conspiracy sites).

The fact that you used Wikipedia to get information on the subject, is tell-tale.  Wikipedia is great for looking up 'harmless facts and data' and for that purpose I use them too, but don't think for one minute that they provide you with unbiased info on 'politicized' subjects.  

Since you did an honest effort in trying to get information on  Ivermectin (but unfortunately looked in the wrong corner) I provide you here some info from trustworthy alternative sources.  

I attached 2 versions of a covid-19 treatment Protocol compiled by dr MARIK, a US medical professor, which maps out the treatment to be provided and which differs depending on the stage of the disease (from early symptoms to hospitalization).  He actually mentioned in one paragraph of the +40 page Protocol that the treatment can support vaccination (probably not to offend the ‘vaccination only’ enthusiasts).

Ivermectin plays a prominent role in the treatment, no matter the stage of covid-19.  I also attach below some links to articles/studies on non-vaccine remedies for treatment of covid:

> https://c19early.com/

> https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/

> https://biotheorist.files.wordpress.com/2021/03/covid-19-prevention-treatment-measures-march-2021-by-dr.-anthony-g.-payne.pdf

This is only the tip of the iceberg, so if you have questions or need additional information on some areas of concern, don't hesitate contacting me.

Cheers - Peter BlueSphinx

Marik-Covid-Protocol-12.12.2020.pdf Marik_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf

[BookShe]

3 minutes ago, Stonker said:

So why have you said repeatedly that it was, when it was absolute bollox?

Merriam-Webster's a dictionary, updating definitions and meanings to reflect what's common usage, not setting medical standards.

The idea that Merriam-Webster had to change their definition of a vaccine because otherwise "that would have jeopardized the roll-out planning" for Pfizer and Moderna isn't "making things up" or "a play on words" - it's just plain daft, and there's no nicer way of putting it.

I'm surprised that you are still explaining the cheese-moon rabbit hole :))))))

[BookShe]

1 minute ago, BlueSphinx said:

Ivermectin plays a prominent role in the treatment, no matter the stage of covid-19. 

If it does (dunno) let the hospitals and doctors deal with it. I don't think we should promote a strong parasite-killing medicine so people could just use it as they like.