one.opinion

@nebula and @Sparks why don’t you guys take a break, “do your own research”, maybe have a Zoom meeting or two together, then see if you can come up with a coherent explanation of what a vaccine is and how they work.

This has nothing to do with the factual explanation I gave you. If you are unable to address what I’m telling you in an intelligent manner, please say so.

You have a shockingly low aversion to lying. I am fully capable of recognizing different categories of vaccines.

This is astonishingly ironic, coming from a guy that still doesn’t understand (despite being told multiple times) what a vaccine is or how it works.

HCQ is great - for malaria! That doesn’t mean that it will cure anything that ails you. I didn’t take either HCQ or ivermectin and was back to work in 3 days. This is clearly my own anecdote, so you can probably see the logic would fail if I claimed that your HCQ more than doubled your recovery time. Realistically, it sounds much more likely that the virus ran its course and your immune system prevailed, just as it does for most people.

Well dang, now I have to add “therapeutic” along side “vaccine” and “gaslighting” to the growing list of terms you don’t understand.

I can think of a couple of good reasons. 1. It is actually effective. 2. It won’t harm patients with heart issues. You’ll get zero argument from me that the pharmaceutical industry is messed up in the US. That doesn’t mean we should use therapeutic drugs that are pointless or even harmful.

Not engaging with your propaganda is not an issue of courage 😂 It just isn’t worth either my time or effort (plus, I’m enjoying the fact that it is irritating you). Believe it or not, it is about as rare as a day of the week ending in “y” that one part of government criticizes another.

You: “Explain this!” Me: Explains it You: “Gaslighting!!” I’m beginning to suspect you are just like Sparks - zero interest in understanding anything, but all about some sort of imaginary contest between “sides”. Let me try this again. Could you explain your understanding of what a vaccine is and how it works? It would help me pinpoint where your misunderstanding originates.

I think I accidentally deleted my earlier reply. Basically, there was a new type of vaccine introduced in late 2020. This new type of vaccine was obviously not a big secret, but I suppose it was different enough that the CDC wanted to make sure that people knew that mRNA vaccines were really vaccines. Also, as I mentioned in my other post, the definition was suboptimal already, so a fix was an improvement. I’ll not be checking back in for a number of hours, but I will be back eventually.

It’s probably also worth mentioning that “immunity” is really a misnomer when it comes to vaccines. There has never been a vaccine in history that was 100% effective. So the updated CDC definition is a clear improvement in that regard.

You are comparing apples and oranges. You can’t effectively compare prophylactic and therapeutic treatments. When it comes to therapeutic effectiveness, HCQ is only marginal in the very best light and did a lot more harm than help to individuals with pre-existing heart conditions. There is no comparison between HCQ and paxlovid, the best therapeutic drug available for COVID.

Oops, initially missed this last part. The COVID vaccines (let me know if you want me to explain why they are correctly classified as vaccines) worked very well at reducing the risk of infection (of any severity) against the SARS-CoV-2 strains that were prevalent at the time they were first introduced. Very true, newer strains of the virus have been able to cause increased rates (compared to what was seen initially) of disease in vaccinated and boosted individuals. Regardless, vaccinated and boosted individuals were/are better protected against severe disease and death than unvaccinated individuals.

Who do you think manufactures HCQ?

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19/art-20555331#:~:text=In June 2020%2C the FDA,not effectively treat COVID-19.

That’s a rather simple explanation. Raoult’s paper was pivotal in making people think HCQ was a viable COVID treatment, when it was not.

Does the PDF say anything about the retraction of Raoult's HCQ paper or your fondness for ignorance and falsehood? If not, it has nothing to do with the OP or what I've said in this thread.

Ah, yes, the old “the government lies about everything except this one thing” argument. You’ve had the opportunity for 4 years to learn why mRNA vaccines are vaccines and you still haven’t put in the effort. You’ve even been in a community where people that understand such things have explained it to you. I might be a little sad for you except for the fact that you continue to choose ignorance and falsehood.

I’m not sorry for you. I’m sorry that you’ve been peddling false information for over four years and have learned absolutely nothing.

Wanting Elon Musk to be Speaker of the House is idiocy and should be blasted.

I’m on the side of people getting appropriate prophylactic and therapeutic treatments. I’m sorry you aren’t.

Thanks! It's good to see that intentional ignorance is still alive and well!

There is no reasonable science-based refutation of global climate change. There is also no reasonable science-based refutation that human activity is increasing the rate of global climate change. The changes will not be enough to significantly impact the ability of living things (including humans) to survive on the planet, but there are (and will continue to be) major implications to us and to other living things.

For anyone keeping track, Raoult's paper has just recently been retracted (his 28th retraction). Folks, HCQ is NOT an effective COVID treatment.

I would NOT ride that train. The giant cat is SCARY!!