CDC asks vaccinated people to get re-tested

[Friesland]

this will keep you awake at night...

I started to write "Thanks for posting these links", the truth is "thanks" is a poor choice of words... the truth is I'm becoming less naive after the election and these links...

look into the polio story - it wasn't caused by a virus, it was caused by a strong insecticide in use in those days.

we eradicated polio by discontinuing the use of the pesticide.

the virus story was cooked up to sidestep lawsuits against the makers and government.

https://thetruthiswhere.wordpress.com/2021/03/16/20-things-you-dont-know-about-polio/

The Cutter Incident:

https://devastatingdisasters.com/the...incident-1955/

[rdfact]

Must exist somewhere. Link?

It was hyperlinked in the text I quoted:

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/11/25/health/ap-af-med-africa-polio.html?fbclid=IwAR33pK2m9VwPsCCjqIZUUr4XWgteahNIMLh56VtOUuNl7GyCIbfK2iPg7m8

I tried searching the NYT website and could not find any article saying the polio vaccine caused "paralysis deemed polio".

[Friesland]

Must exist somewhere. Link?

Reading through the first link, #21 has a NY Times link that no longer exists. Not surprised.

[rdfact]

look into the polio story - it wasn't caused by a virus, it was caused by a strong insecticide in use in those days.

we eradicated polio by discontinuing the use of the pesticide.

the virus story was cooked up to sidestep lawsuits against the makers and government.

https://thetruthiswhere.wordpress.com/2021/03/16/20-things-you-dont-know-about-polio/

The Cutter Incident:

https://devastatingdisasters.com/the...incident-1955/

Reading through the first link, #21 has a NY Times link that no longer exists. Not surprised.

21. At this added link

[bigbossman]

Reminds me of the punchline to an old joke:

"....... admit it, you didn't come here to hunt, did you?"

[five.five-six]

You know how they say the guy that is overtly homophobic is usually gay?...

You secretly got the jab didn't you?

[LuckyGuy]

What?

Getting tested does nothing for YOU, it just provides the fascists with more false positives to make it look like cases are increasing in order for them to keep thos charade alive

Why get tested if you have already been VAXED. Does not the test, test you for the antibodies. If you all ready had COVID or you were already filled up with antibodies? The test will show you as a positive with COVID. Am I wrong?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Wow, interesting. I'd like to know more, and see that link!

Actually, it's already out there if people would care to look. While some would shout accusations of legerdemain, the reality is that it's simply taking the definitions of vaccine and treatment, comparing those definitions to what the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines is accomplishing, and seeing which term best applies.

According to the CDC...

Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.

Vaccine:Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.

Synonyms for "protect" include: defend, shield, safeguard, bulwark, screen, stonewall, cover all bases, give refuge or sanctuary, keep safe. Such would be consistent with not only "can be exposed to it without becoming infected," but would meet the colloquial definition of "protect" - "to cover or shield from exposure, injury, damage, or destruction." That is how the majority view vaccines and it's the very definition of one as provided by the CDC itself.

Short version, it's supposed to be a preventive or that is how it is 'sold' and perceived; which, to be fair, is defined in the medical profession with 'caveats' you tend not to 'hear' or, at least, 'register'...

adj.
1. Intended or used to prevent or hinder; acting as an obstacle: preventive measures.
2. Carried out to deter expected aggression by hostile forces.
3. Preventing or slowing the course of an illness or disease; prophylactic: preventive medicine; preventive health care.
n.
1. Something that prevents; an obstacle.
2. Something that prevents or slows the course of an illness or disease.

In medical parlance, "treatment" is considered to be: "The use of an agent, procedure, or regimen, such as a drug, surgery, or exercise, in an attempt to cure or mitigate a disease, condition, or injury." The key terms as related to this discussion are 'cure' and 'mitigate.' More in a second.

Now, the narrative you are hearing from the politicians is that this round or wave is a 'pandemic of the unvaccinated.' The problem is that the media headlines beg to differ. As an example, from yesterday... Fully vaccinated people make up quarter of new COVID-19 infections in Los Angeles County

Set that against what a vaccine is supposed to do vis a vis "you can be exposed to it without becoming infected." Again, to be fair, in medical parlance, there are caveats and the word 'absolute' is not used in conjunction with 'protection.' However, numbers of infected among the vaccinated are not insignificant contributors to this wave and if the warning is that as "more people are vaccinated, the number of fully vaccinated people becoming infected will increase," the question of whether these COVID vaccines are actually vaccines by the CDC's own definition is tempting to ask. Of course, that will depend upon the intent behind the vaccine; i.e., was the intent to prevent or slow/hinder (i.e., 'mitigate') the disease?

I think the answer is obvious given the statements being made with regard to how 'effective' the vaccine is... less severe symptoms (if any), fewer hospitalizations, reduction of the death rate. In other words, mitigation of the disease, not prevention of infection. In fact, published on 1 July 2021... Scientists identify long-sought marker for COVID vaccine success

Put another way, if a 'correlate of protection' has only recently been discovered, then I think it can be argued that protection from infection was never the agenda for the vaccines currently under the EUA. Instead, they were intended as 'preventives' using the caveats provided in medical parlance; i.e., slow, hinder. Which returns us to the definition of "treatment" - "The use of an agent, procedure, or regimen, such as a drug, surgery, or exercise, in an attempt to cure or mitigate a disease, condition, or injury."

So... While it may meet the medical understanding of 'preventive,' the current EUA vaccines do not necessarily provide 'protection' in the way most understand the term. Given that 'protect' is a crucial element in the CDC's definition of 'vaccine,' if the COVID-19 vaccines being used under the auspices of the EUA do not 'protect' and, instead, mitigate, for the vast unwashed, that would make them more closely akin to how even the medical community defines... 'treatment.'

As I have posted elsewhere, the FDA's Industry Guidance for Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines to Prevent COVID-19, released 25 May 2021. On page 6, you will find the following...

Note that last; i.e., no 'alternatives' for preventing or treating the disease. In other words, the issuance of an EUA for a vaccine isn't dependent upon prevention, but includes treatment potential. In fact, you find that in both the 2nd and 3rd criteria as well. Of course, you have to divorce yourself from a cursory understanding of what the CDC claims a vaccine is supposed to be for and accept the caveats provided by the medical profession insofar as 'preventives' as the 'goal' attempting to be achieved with this initial group. But, as I indicated, that's part of the problem with the messaging that's been going on.

Does that mean the vaccines "don't work?" No. But, you have to accept not only that the vaccines don't 'eradicate' the pathogen, you also have to accept that they don't provide the same levels of protection as evidenced by vaccines for polio, smallpox, etc. They are more akin to 'flu vaccines;' something which makes intuitive sense given that the virus is a 'relative' of sorts. But, to my mind and to that of many, maybe most, in the public, that makes the COVID (and flu) vaccines a treatment more than a preventive...

Does it mean a 'true, preventive vaccine' isn't in the works? No. But, clearly, those currently being used are not what they are being pushed as.

Colloquial and scientific 'fact' and 'definition' are not always (in fact, can rarely be) interchangeable. Yet, politicians, the media, and even many public health officials have been using them 'interchangeably' in an effort to push various narratives. It's precisely why Fauci says something and, when 'called' on it, he 'hides' behind the 'scientific definition,' claiming what we understood based on what he said isn't what he meant.

It also brings up questions related to mandates in that if it's a 'treatment' (even as a prophylaxis) more than a 'preventive/protection,' then evidence suggests that there are alternatives, including effective ones. While the EUA criteria notes "the totality of scientific evidence available," we're now months beyond issuance of the EUA's and the scientific evidence is now much richer and more complete... Something which was not as carefully weighed in DOJ Says It's Legal To Mandate COVID Vaccines - w/ Link To Their Legal Opinion as I think it should be and, hopefully, the courts will identify that as an issue.

[The Duke]

As I've said for a year and a half, this very thing is the biggest, single cause for most of the problems. The mixed/muddled messaging and the agendas displayed have created a situation where no one knows who/what to trust. Thus, people default to whatever comes closest to their personal take; a comforting, but not necessarily reliable course of action.

Myself and many I know, were we to get sick, refuse to be 'tested' unless things become dicey, at which point the choice of being tested will be taken out of our hands. When I was sick in January of 2020, testing wasn't yet available to the masses and one simply does not go to the doctor/hospital if they feel they have 'the flu/a cold,' where, given the growing awareness of COVID, I might have been tested. (Likely, I wouldn't have been given the lack of testing kits at that time.)

The conflation of COVID-19 with things such as measles, mumps, rubella, polio, smallpox, etc. is part of the problem here. This is where, I feel, the term 'vaccine' is misapplied, just as with 'flu vaccines.' I get that there is some confusion in that vaccines don't eradicate a virus (from 1999)...



While there's some discussion over what 'eradication' actually means when it comes to viruses...



...the general perception that's been created, and justifiably so, is that true vaccines provide protection from the disease, not simply mitigation of the symptoms from the disease and only IF you get the correct formulation for the current, dominant strain.

If we accept that the current crop of vaccines do not eradicate the virus under the first definition, the extinction of the pathogen, then we are left with the second definition, permanent reduction to zero of infection. Clearly, the vaccines are not doing that either. Not because of the unvaccinated; but, because those who are fully vaccinated are still catching, suffering the effects of, and transmitting the pathogen.

Does that mean the vaccines "don't work?" No. But, you have to accept not only that the vaccines don't 'eradicate' the pathogen, you also have to accept that they don't provide the same levels of protection as evidenced by vaccines for polio, smallpox, etc. They are more akin to 'flu vaccines;' something which makes intuitive sense given that the virus is a 'relative' of sorts. But, to my mind and to that of many, maybe most, in the public, that makes the COVID (and flu) vaccines a treatment more than a preventive.

Viewed from that perspective, a whole range of issues comes to the fore; including the validity of the EUA for the vaccines and, particularly, the mandates.

Does it mean a 'true, preventive vaccine' isn't in the works? No. But, clearly, those currently being used are not what they are being pushed as.

Wow, interesting. I'd like to know more, and see that link!

[LBDamned]

I will never get the vaccine. They can burn me alive. I am never getting it.

You know how they say the guy that is overtly homophobic is usually gay?...

You secretly got the jab didn't you?

[LBDamned]

This is starting to get silly.

Ya think

[LBDamned]

I don't think they're scared at all. They're seeing success with the latest fear tactics. Vax mandates so far:
- Federal government
- Many private universities
- Hospitals
- Sports teams
- Google, Facebook

Within a couple months it will be the entire country. You read it here first.

Nope.

You heard it here - multiple times.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

New definition of "immunity" is "reduced symptoms."

Imagine if polio vaccine doesn't protect kids. The kids will still get it. They will just be a "little" crippled.

Getting tested, and with a positive result, will lead to many repeated calls from a public health official, attempting “contact tracing”, and requesting answers to a barrage of personal questions...

As I've said for a year and a half, this very thing is the biggest, single cause for most of the problems. The mixed/muddled messaging and the agendas displayed have created a situation where no one knows who/what to trust. Thus, people default to whatever comes closest to their personal take; a comforting, but not necessarily reliable course of action.

Myself and many I know, were we to get sick, refuse to be 'tested' unless things become dicey, at which point the choice of being tested will be taken out of our hands. When I was sick in January of 2020, testing wasn't yet available to the masses and one simply does not go to the doctor/hospital if they feel they have 'the flu/a cold,' where, given the growing awareness of COVID, I might have been tested. (Likely, I wouldn't have been given the lack of testing kits at that time.)

The conflation of COVID-19 with things such as measles, mumps, rubella, polio, smallpox, etc. is part of the problem here. This is where, I feel, the term 'vaccine' is misapplied, just as with 'flu vaccines.' I get that there is some confusion in that vaccines don't eradicate a virus (from 1999)...

Eradication is the permanent reduction to zero of the worldwide incidence of infection caused by a specific agent as a result of deliberate efforts; intervention measures are no longer needed. To date, the only infectious disease that has been eradicated is smallpox. Poliomyelitis is targeted for eradication by the year 2000, and the eradication initiative is well under way, with the Western Hemisphere certified as being polio-free and more than one year having passed since polio cases occurred in the Western Pacific Region of the World Health Organization. A review of the technical feasibility of eradicating other diseases preventable by vaccines currently licensed for civilian use in the United States indicates that measles, hepatitis B, mumps, rubella, and possibly disease caused by Haemophilus influenzae type b are potential candidates. From a practical point of view, measles seems most likely to be the next target. Global capacity to undertake eradication is limited, and care must be taken to ensure that a potential measles eradication effort does not impede achievement of polio eradication. Even in the absence of eradication, major improvements in control are both feasible and necessary with existing vaccines. New and improved vaccines may give further possibilities of eradication in the future. Eradication represents the ultimate in sustainability and social justice.

While there's some discussion over what 'eradication' actually means when it comes to viruses...

...Eradiction can be hard to conceptualize. Infectious disease anthropologist Thomas Aiden Cockburn defined disease eradication as “the extinction of the pathogen that causes disease.” By this definition, smallpox and rinderpest are not eradicated. Samples of both viruses still exist in the world: the United States and Russia have stocks of VARV securely stored, while samples of RPV remain in many facilities around the globe. Extinction would require the destruction of these stocks, a complex topic involving geopolitics and cultural norms, as well as microbiology.

Another definition of eradication that is widely accepted by many organizations, including the WHO, is the “permanent reduction to zero of the worldwide incidence of infection caused by a specific agent as a result of deliberate efforts.” The last reported case of smallpox occurred in Somalia in 1977 and the last reported case of rinderpest occurred in Kenya in 2001...

...the general perception that's been created, and justifiably so, is that true vaccines provide protection from the disease, not simply mitigation of the symptoms from the disease and only IF you get the correct formulation for the current, dominant strain.

If we accept that the current crop of vaccines do not eradicate the virus under the first definition, the extinction of the pathogen, then we are left with the second definition, permanent reduction to zero of infection. Clearly, the vaccines are not doing that either. Not because of the unvaccinated; but, because those who are fully vaccinated are still catching, suffering the effects of, and transmitting the pathogen.

Does that mean the vaccines "don't work?" No. But, you have to accept not only that the vaccines don't 'eradicate' the pathogen, you also have to accept that they don't provide the same levels of protection as evidenced by vaccines for polio, smallpox, etc. They are more akin to 'flu vaccines;' something which makes intuitive sense given that the virus is a 'relative' of sorts. But, to my mind and to that of many, maybe most, in the public, that makes the COVID (and flu) vaccines a treatment more than a preventive.

Viewed from that perspective, a whole range of issues comes to the fore; including the validity of the EUA for the vaccines and, particularly, the mandates.

Does it mean a 'true, preventive vaccine' isn't in the works? No. But, clearly, those currently being used are not what they are being pushed as.

[Foothills]

Well, as someone in the Novavax trial, I agreed to do this back in January. This is how they test an experimental vaccine to figure out how well it works. It takes a couple of years. By my count I’ve teated negative at least 9 times.

The fun thing about being a vaccine trial is they need people to get sick to find out if it works or not. They don’t want us to sit at home with two masks on. They encourage us to be out and about, go places with crowds, etc. Finally has a BBQ with strangers too!

It’s been a while since someone criticized my level of protocols. If they hint at it, I pleasantly ask if they’ve read the Phase 3 study results. And of course they haven’t. So I cheerfully provide the link. And if they parrot any of the talking points, I ask them to show me the study where whatever the concern is and how it supplies specifically to the Novavax vaccine. And of course no such study exists, because it even works against the “Delta Variant.”

So I shrug and say that I got a better vaccine than they did.

At least once a week I’m having a scientific discussion with a medical professional. They CAN read and understand the studies. And frankly a bunch of them are enthusiastically anticipating when they can get this one instead of an mRNA one.

[sigstroker]

Test is a waste of time unless they disclose what level of infection results in a positive test. You might easily test positive yet have nowhere near the viral load needed to make you sick.