If it reduced the severity of your symptoms I would call it a therapeutic and not a vaccine.
I'm hardly an expert on the terminology, but is paralysis a 'symptom' of polio or its devastating potential effect?
They then pivoted to “well maybe it reduces hospitalizations” - WITHOUT a double blind test to justify this claim.
Not maybe. Data in many countries do show this. It also makes sense, because the antibodies are a temporary effect, while the T-cells provide much more solid protection, even against variants as they continue to evolve. That is my understanding.
The ClotShot
If you go around calling it 'the clotshot', then even your legitimate points will reach only people who already agree with you.
It is some product that many well intended scientists thought might work. But because of the money involved and the failure of our government it was never stopped nor correctly tested.
Have you heard of the contacts between Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer, which they refused to release? One wonders why.
But all it takes is one country to day: hey, we don't want healthy young people to die because of a vaccine that does not benefit them much, as they are our tax base. It's the old 'moon landing' argument: if the US faked the moon landing, surely the USSR would have pointed it out.
And there are competing vaccines. If the vaccines are really as devastating as some people here believe, surely the Chinese and Cubans and perhaps non-RNA Novavax would be spreading that information like wildfire. Companies would be rushing the develop a vaccine that isn't like that, and they'd make billions. Why are they leaving money on the table?
I'm hardly an expert on the terminology, but is paralysis a 'symptom' of polio or its devastating potential effect?
Not maybe. Data in many countries do show this. It also makes sense, because the antibodies are a temporary effect, while the T-cells provide much more solid protection, even against variants as they continue to evolve. That is my understanding.
If you go around calling it 'the clotshot', then even your legitimate points will reach only people who already agree with you.
Have you heard of the contacts between Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer, which they refused to release? One wonders why.
But all it takes is one country to day: hey, we don't want healthy young people to die because of a vaccine that does not benefit them much, as they are our tax base. It's the old 'moon landing' argument: if the US faked the moon landing, surely the USSR would have pointed it out.
And there are competing vaccines. If the vaccines are really as devastating as some people here believe, surely the Chinese and Cubans and perhaps non-RNA Novavax would be spreading that information like wildfire. Companies would be rushing the develop a vaccine that isn't like that, and they'd make billions. Why are they leaving money on the table?
I tailor my terminology for the expected audience