Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

I see, the old definition has been broadened to include a new technology. 

LOL!!

Now, take that LOL and multiply it 50X! 

Thanks for proving that when I took your words, when you accused me of not being able to ever admit I am wrong, and I threw your words right back in your face, that I was completely justified in doing so.   

I'll say those words to you again (your words)  

"Of course You will not.  You are unable to admit that you are wrong"

Originally Posted by James Brown

James posted good numbers from a scientific and respected source detailing the tens of millions who are alive, not hospitalized, and not infected because of the effectiveness of the covid vaccines.  I endorse those numbers.  It is up to you to make your counter argument, not me.  Post some peer-reviewed studies quantifying the number of patients who experienced bad outcomes, up to and including death as a result of the covid vaccines.  I know that such studies exist.  This is your rebuttal point, not mine.  Put up or shut up as they say.  (You won't reply, but what the hell).

If you were to reply with legitimate data, we could compare the numbers from James' scholarly source with whatever you find.  Do us a favor though, don't post an opinion piece.  I'd like to see your data from a scientifically literate source.  

Fat chance you'll defend your position with legit data, but hey, maybe you'll surprise us all.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Of course I was wrong that the definition I posted was not 100 years old.  I acknowledged that in my first reply.  I am right that the definition I posted was broadened recently to encompass new technology.  I was also right that the core of the definition is that a substance administered to provoke an immune response is a vaccine under the old or broadened definitions. 

So, are you going to deny that mRNA compositions administered to provoke an immune response are vaccines?

That is a pretty easy one to answer.  Will you answer it?  

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Also, Rich, do not post data from VAERS.

VAERS is an early warning mechanism designed to detect possible vaccine safety problems. It is not a good source of objective data determining a vaccine's overall safety or effectiveness. It is a passive reporting system that anyone can submit to. As such, you will get people who report aliens abducted them after receiving the vaccine. The onus is on you to provide data from a scholarly peer-reviewed article demonstrating that COVID-19 vaccines have resulted in an abnormally high number of complications and deaths. It can't be an opinion piece.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Crickets??  I answered your question counselor.  What are you talking about?  Have you lost it, or are you just frustrated that you got it wrong?  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Under the NEW definition of what is or is not a vaccine, Yes, under the NEW definition of a vaccine, it is now a vaccine.  

Under the old definition of a vaccine, which formerly was something given to you that provided you immunity from getting a disease, then no I wouldn't say it acted as a vaccine.  

When 10s of millions of people who were vaccinated got the illness anyway, then no I wouldn't call that a vaccine under the former definition of the word.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

No, your spin won't work.  

The definition was NOT changed in order "to encompass New technology", it WAS changed because of the faulty results and therefore they needed to change the definition so that the definition would fit their narrative in this instance.

The former definition for a vaccine was that it would provide immunity to getting the disease or illness.  

This vaccine obviously did not provide immunity to getting the disease or illness.

You are providing SPIN to try and win the argument at all costs, which is how you operate much of the time.

Truth is typically not your goal, the goal for you is winning the argument.  

Here is how I will PROVE that the definition was not changed because they are trying to include new technology, as you falsely claim.

They could have LEFT the orignal definition in place and it would FOR SURE STILL have encompassed new technology.

Just because they used mRNA technology doesn't mean, that they couldn't have still achieved immunity from getting and spreading the disease, which was the OLD definition.

Why would the OLD original definition need to be changed just because they used NEW technology?  

Your statement makes no sense?  

If they left the Old definition in place, the mRNA vaccine still could have provided immunity to getting and spreading the virus.  

So your spin and transmography of the word ain't makin' it.  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

I'm pretty much done with wasting any more time arguing with obstinate fools who just want to win an argument.  

Have a great night!   

Originally Posted by George Blahun

The real issue is:  How many did you buy?  These will never make it in the NFT world.  In a few weeks, the only place they'll be found is on Trump Trading Card night at the local John Birch Society.

Originally Posted by George Blahun

Jim:
     I found this article in Forbes to be informative, but it still makes me leery of jumping into the craze.  https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/cryptocurrency/nft-non-fungible-token/