- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules mRNA COVID-19 Jab is NOT a Vaccine
Posted on 6/9/24 at 8:22 am to Pikes Peak Tiger
Posted on 6/9/24 at 8:22 am to Pikes Peak Tiger
quote:
That’s ridiculous on the face of it. Real science moves slowly.
This. Amazes me how professionals completely ignored the common scientific method in regards to Covid shots. You know the method everyone learns about in 2nd grade that is the basis for any and all scientific research and findings
Posted on 6/9/24 at 9:04 am to deltaland
quote:Right. Traditionally they're live attenuated, or killed. There is little immunological difference between killed, particulated antigens and mRNA vax produced antigens. Eventually, mRNA technology will predominate vax production.
Traditional vaccines give you an inactive dose of the actual virus
The current difference is a killed vax exposes patients to a far wider range of viral antigen than, for example, a single reduced segment of particular s-protein produced by the mRNA vax. Whereas the former entails more side-effect potential, it is also more immunogenic, i.e., effective.
So while saying the mRNA vax is "not a vaccine" is uninformed, noting that mRNA CV19 vax iterations, especially the recent ones, are ineffective is simple fact.
Posted on 6/9/24 at 9:07 am to NC_Tigah
If a vaccine doesn’t work, is it a vaccine?
Posted on 6/9/24 at 10:33 am to faraway
quote:
that's every viral vaccine. you still get the virus. that's a stupid why of defining anything.
Uh, polio vaccine says "hold my beer while I enlighten you".
quote:
Two doses of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) are 90% effective or more against paralytic polio; three doses are 99% to 100% effective
Posted on 6/9/24 at 11:03 am to the808bass
quote:Believe it or not, yes.
If a vaccine doesn’t work, is it a vaccine?
E.g., We guess at seasonal flu strains and put out the annual flu vax anticipating our guess to be correct. Sometimes it is, and the flu vax is quite effective. Sometimes we are surprised, and the vax is ineffective. The latter is also a component to the CV19 vax ineffectiveness, as new variants arise more quickly than we can develop a new vax.
Posted on 6/9/24 at 11:26 am to NC_Tigah
quote:I know they missed rather badly a few years ago. However, although ineffective against what turned out to be the predominate strain, it still would have been effective against the strain that it was developed to fight, right? So, still a vaccine.
Sometimes we are surprised, and the vax is ineffective.
Posted on 6/9/24 at 11:26 am to NC_Tigah
quote:I know they missed rather badly a few years ago. However, although ineffective against what turned out to be the predominate strain, it still would have been effective against the strain that it was developed to fight, right? So, still a vaccine.
Sometimes we are surprised, and the vax is ineffective.
Posted on 6/9/24 at 11:29 am to LSUGrrrl
quote:
Them saying natural immunity wasn’t a thing with Covid was the first flaming red flag for me with this “vax.”
For me, it was the speed with which they crafted it.
The normal timeframe for a new medicine's testing is ~10 years, animal testing alone usually lasts at least a year. For fast-tracked medicines, the testing time is cut down greatly, but it's still something like 3-5 years of testing before it's approved for widespread use.
This concoction went from being created in February 2020 to beginning being mass-distributed by January 2021. Anyone not skeptical about that was ruled by their fear, had no fricking clue about the history of rushed drugs (thalidomide, swine flu vax in 76, etc) -nor wished to know about it-, is the type of person who knee-jerks falls for the "new is better" philosophy to the point of wearing blinders to prevent objective criticisms (see also: EVs), or some combination thereof.
It had nothing to do with right/left, but knowing that quick creation is, more often than not, rife with carelessness. It had to do with the science of understanding that you need to fully vet something before you begin demanding people inject themselves with it and that takes time.
Posted on 6/9/24 at 11:31 am to Bard
You can read any COVID vaccine thread on any board on any day and come to realize quickly who trusted the government and who has the clot shot running through their veins!
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt!

Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt!
Posted on 6/9/24 at 11:46 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Believe it or not, yes.
I believe this is a bug of our approval process for vaccines. Not a feature.
A vaccine that isn’t effective in stopping transmission shouldn’t be approved. Our approval process is corrupted. And an unapproved vaccine has the form of a vaccine, but denies the power thereof.
Posted on 6/9/24 at 11:50 am to Placekicker
So when is everyone gonna die? Soon? How long this gonna take. Inflation killing me gimme a clot shot.
Posted on 6/9/24 at 12:02 pm to Diamondawg
quote:and in fairness, that's what's going on with the recent less virulent, more transmissible CV19 strains.
it still would have been effective against the strain that it was developed to fight, right? So, still a vaccine.
The newest vax is developed to target what is anticipated to be the next endemic CV19 strain. But at the conclusion of the six-month period required to deploy the new vax version, the strain it is targeting has peaked and is well on the way to disappearing.
With a static, less mutable virus, the CV19 vax would be more effective.
But to be clear, if one is vaxxed, and if the strain is the one targeted by the vax, and if exposure is to a non-overwhelming viral count, the vaxxed person will avoid infection whereas a CV19 naive person would get infected.
This post was edited on 6/9/24 at 12:04 pm
Posted on 6/9/24 at 12:05 pm to Placekicker
I'm shocked that the 9th circuit court came out with this ruling.
Posted on 6/9/24 at 12:10 pm to the808bass
quote:Initially the CV19 vax was effective in reducing transmission, and severity of infection, if transmitted. When CV19 was more virulent, those effects were important. Now? Not so much.
A vaccine that isn’t effective in stopping transmission
Posted on 6/9/24 at 12:15 pm to Craig86
quote:
So when is everyone gonna die? Soon?
Reminder for the Tennessee fans: If COVID-19 were the extinction level event that your television earnestly swore to you that it was, there would've been flatbed trucks going around every town in the country picking up the bodies of the homeless, as they would've been incredibly susceptible, and likely have compromised immune systems.
They did not.
Posted on 6/9/24 at 4:08 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:In my feeble brain, I think this is what happened with me. In the lead up to the vaccines, I had already lost 3 friends to covid and they were younger and at least at healthy or healthier than I was. So, Jan and Feb, 2021, I was a willing patient that took the 2 shots. I did not get covid and probably was around it a good bit. I refused boosters but in June, 2022, I got what I assume was the Omicron variant. Sicker than spit for several days. But I assume the shots I took 18 months earlier were end of life or little to no effect on the variant. My wife got it several months later and she was hardly sick at all. Low grade fever for a couple of days were worst symptoms.
With a static, less mutable virus, the CV19 vax would be more effective.
Popular
Back to top

0








