Kinda but a fraud towards the medical meaning of vaccine. The risk death for immunisation wasn't worth the reward if all it provided is efficacy. Where is the greater good? Efficacy isn't greatness, it hasn't succeeded in immunity.
But like the film just watched, god damn it, it was shit. In the shadow of the moon. There hasn't been a vaccine that has completely eradicated any disease. But they have provided far better immunity towards disease vaccinated. Immunity simply isn't efficacy. But on the margin of risk. The numbers, few deaths, for immunity. Obviously a vaccine, causes the greater good. Disease, immunised.
So not like Pol Pot, that's a comparison for any later courts. If it goes on trial. Simply a loophole exploited where the risk hasn't been worth the reward. How many vaccines later did it take to achieve contrary status, failing to provide immunity. Your own body did most of that. Or it also wained. But unlike a murderous vaccine, it became became immune.
Perhaps but debatable. I am trying to stick to the facts. As CNN the topic is so factual. Not. But I mean okay. If I take a measles vaccine I am immunised. I won't catch measles because the vaccine has provided immunity. Not completely it can perhaps be argued. But okay. What it hasn't provided is efficacy. It has provided immunity. So the risk, yes there are risks even with the measles vaccine, but not as many no. Not as many side affects. It is worth the reward the greater good, immunity, the disease is often worse. The same with almost every other vaccination. Up until this bullshit modern woke fraud came along. It hasn't been effective by the definition of vaccination. It is a con. Take more vaccines and you might, god forbid, it still needs further vaccines to provide a simple definition of immunisation. Because it simply isn't effective. Therefore the risk, numerous risks, has not been worth the reward, efficacy.
Like Pol Pot was a fraud, if you know what i mean.
Kinda but a fraud towards the medical meaning of vaccine. The risk death for immunisation wasn't worth the reward if all it provided is efficacy. Where is the greater good? Efficacy isn't greatness, it hasn't succeeded in immunity.
But like the film just watched, god damn it, it was shit. In the shadow of the moon. There hasn't been a vaccine that has completely eradicated any disease. But they have provided far better immunity towards disease vaccinated. Immunity simply isn't efficacy. But on the margin of risk. The numbers, few deaths, for immunity. Obviously a vaccine, causes the greater good. Disease, immunised.
So not like Pol Pot, that's a comparison for any later courts. If it goes on trial. Simply a loophole exploited where the risk hasn't been worth the reward. How many vaccines later did it take to achieve contrary status, failing to provide immunity. Your own body did most of that. Or it also wained. But unlike a murderous vaccine, it became became immune.
Yeah i agree, that was more referring to the death toll
If you take care or yourself, vaccines are not necessary.
Perhaps but debatable. I am trying to stick to the facts. As CNN the topic is so factual. Not. But I mean okay. If I take a measles vaccine I am immunised. I won't catch measles because the vaccine has provided immunity. Not completely it can perhaps be argued. But okay. What it hasn't provided is efficacy. It has provided immunity. So the risk, yes there are risks even with the measles vaccine, but not as many no. Not as many side affects. It is worth the reward the greater good, immunity, the disease is often worse. The same with almost every other vaccination. Up until this bullshit modern woke fraud came along. It hasn't been effective by the definition of vaccination. It is a con. Take more vaccines and you might, god forbid, it still needs further vaccines to provide a simple definition of immunisation. Because it simply isn't effective. Therefore the risk, numerous risks, has not been worth the reward, efficacy.