And neither seems to be the right term in the context of a vaccine. A vaccine just trains your immune system to be able to react sufficiently to deal with a future exposure. It doesn't itself "disinfect" you from the virus if you already have it.
For the term "disinfect" or "sterilize" to be appropriate, they would need to be talking about a treatment that eliminates the virus from people who already have the virus. Does this "vaccine" do that?
I don't necessarily think this means he was talking about making people infertile, although I wouldn't be too surprised if he was. But something definitely doesn't hang together about what he said.
Good point. The way the left always goes rabid over technicality gotchas on Trump - taking what he says literally and intentionally missing the point he was clearly trying to make.
Why should I give these assholes the benefit of the doubt? They LITERALLY said (and boy how the left loves the term "literally") "sterilize" 70-80 percent of the population. We should make them choke on it.
Nah this is a nothing burger, just because others are idiots doesn't mean we should be. By all means use this if you want to fight back, but I'm gonna file this one in the junk folder
I hadn't heard of this term being used in epidemiology (i.e., to measure a vaccine's effectiveness). The way you phrased it doesn't make sense -- vaccines don't disinfect people (in fact, the exact opposite).
I did turn up hits that the phrase "sterilizing immunity" is in common use. However, I don't see it used in this context (with a percentage) either. A vaccine either produces sterilizing immunity, or it doesn't. It's not a population-level measure.
For you to understand the answer to this, you need to understand the differences in vaccine platforms.
Vaccination with a live virus that is weakened enough to induce immunity but not cause significant disease symptoms (polio live attenuated oral vax) is vastly different than vaccination with mRNA or protein subunits which train the immune system to recognize the most abundant and/or long term immunity inducing pieces of the virus (covid and others). These subunits are incapable of completing and replicating a live virus and thus spreading virus to anyone.
These are just a few of the ways to make a vaccine. There are dozens of platforms with the ability to be specific for millions of different viral components.
Yeah... if this was a real problem, I'd weigh the seriousness of vaccine side effects vs natural immunity.
But there's no point in getting the shot unless you're in a high risk group. If you are, then you need to weigh any potential risks of the vaccine, and bear in mind that these are the most rushed vaccine development in history with no liability on the part of the manufacturers.
The term 'live virus' in virology is a little misleading. What it means is that it is capable of infecting, replicating itself, and spreading.
Viruses aren't really 'alive' per se because viruses don't metabolize and they require host cells and cellular components to fulfill their replication cycle. Viruses are kinda like parasitic robots.
I don't believe he intended to use that word and the 60-70% is surely related to how effective the vaccine will be in use but it's very interesting that that word did slip in there.
In Microbiology the term 'sterilize' is synonymous with 'disinfect'. e.g. you sterilize surgical instrument.
And neither seems to be the right term in the context of a vaccine. A vaccine just trains your immune system to be able to react sufficiently to deal with a future exposure. It doesn't itself "disinfect" you from the virus if you already have it.
For the term "disinfect" or "sterilize" to be appropriate, they would need to be talking about a treatment that eliminates the virus from people who already have the virus. Does this "vaccine" do that?
I don't necessarily think this means he was talking about making people infertile, although I wouldn't be too surprised if he was. But something definitely doesn't hang together about what he said.
This mother fucker just said we should all inject bleach! /s
Good point. The way the left always goes rabid over technicality gotchas on Trump - taking what he says literally and intentionally missing the point he was clearly trying to make.
Why should I give these assholes the benefit of the doubt? They LITERALLY said (and boy how the left loves the term "literally") "sterilize" 70-80 percent of the population. We should make them choke on it.
Nah this is a nothing burger, just because others are idiots doesn't mean we should be. By all means use this if you want to fight back, but I'm gonna file this one in the junk folder
I'm skeptical.
I hadn't heard of this term being used in epidemiology (i.e., to measure a vaccine's effectiveness). The way you phrased it doesn't make sense -- vaccines don't disinfect people (in fact, the exact opposite).
I did turn up hits that the phrase "sterilizing immunity" is in common use. However, I don't see it used in this context (with a percentage) either. A vaccine either produces sterilizing immunity, or it doesn't. It's not a population-level measure.
spez: example MSM article where this is talked about in context of the CCP virus: https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/501677-what-is-sterilizing-immunity-and-do-we-need-it
Gates' polio vaccine re-introduced polio.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/11/15/779865471/polio-vaccine-may-be-preventing-the-end-of-polio
Are we certain that a more deadly strain of Sars-Cov-2 will not be the result of a "vaccine"?
For you to understand the answer to this, you need to understand the differences in vaccine platforms.
Vaccination with a live virus that is weakened enough to induce immunity but not cause significant disease symptoms (polio live attenuated oral vax) is vastly different than vaccination with mRNA or protein subunits which train the immune system to recognize the most abundant and/or long term immunity inducing pieces of the virus (covid and others). These subunits are incapable of completing and replicating a live virus and thus spreading virus to anyone.
These are just a few of the ways to make a vaccine. There are dozens of platforms with the ability to be specific for millions of different viral components.
After looking at the risks of sars-cov-2 versus the risks of mRNA side effects, I would rather build an immunity naturally than artificially.
https://www.phgfoundation.org/briefing/rna-vaccines
Yeah... if this was a real problem, I'd weigh the seriousness of vaccine side effects vs natural immunity.
But there's no point in getting the shot unless you're in a high risk group. If you are, then you need to weigh any potential risks of the vaccine, and bear in mind that these are the most rushed vaccine development in history with no liability on the part of the manufacturers.
Can you please link me to a study or article about viruses being alive? This is the first time I’ve heard of a live virus
Btw, I believe in terrain theory and not germ theory so I’m being 100% genuine in this request
The term 'live virus' in virology is a little misleading. What it means is that it is capable of infecting, replicating itself, and spreading.
Viruses aren't really 'alive' per se because viruses don't metabolize and they require host cells and cellular components to fulfill their replication cycle. Viruses are kinda like parasitic robots.
Yeah that was my thought, words often have multiple or precise technical meanings in scientific and engineering contexts.
I don’t buy it.
Yes. And in this case that's not the correct one.
https://www.immune.org.nz/vaccines/efficiency-effectiveness#:~:text=Vaccine%20efficacy%20and%20effectiveness%20are,use%20in%20the%20general%20population.
I don't believe he intended to use that word and the 60-70% is surely related to how effective the vaccine will be in use but it's very interesting that that word did slip in there.