All Stop on the mRNA Vaccines

 

Just How Bad Are the mRNA Vaccines?  And just how wrong was I about them? I always knew not to trust them uncritically. I always took seriously the concerns with them. After a while, I concluded that “It’s Still Warp Five for the mRNA Vaccines,” although there were reasonable concerns and, certainly, there was no need to hassle Covid recoverees or children to take them.  Later, after some work “Rethinking the mRNA Vaccines,” I was able to have some cautious optimism while recognizing that Omicron is an improvement on earlier forms of Covid and that, for young males at least, Omicron is almost certainly safer than the mRNA vaxxes.

Things look worse now.  I think it’s time to call “All stop!” on this thing.  Drop the ship out of warp!  Or, to drop the Star Trek metaphors instead, it’s time to stop all public policies promoting, compelling, or paying for mRNA vaccines for Covid.  At this point, a friendly suggestion to the very vulnerable (elderly, obese, etc.) to consider this or another vaccine from time to time is the most we should do.

Why is it time to quit?

Well, it’s complicated. I’ve saved over fifty URLs of things I’d like to look into concerning various claims about mRNA vax problems.  This is a Gordian Knot of vaccine information, and as far as I can tell I only have four options:

1. Trust the experts.
2. Apply some heuristics.
3. Try to untangle the knot myself.
4. Cut through the knot.

A consideration of these options leads to the conclusion that it’s time to stop the push for mRNA vaxxes, especially when we look at Option 4.

Option 1: “Trust the experts” is right out.

I should be able to trust some public health officials, but I can’t after all their epic Covid policy failures.  I now trust these guys like I trust Democrats to spend money responsibly.  Internet independent thinkers are better, but just trusting them doesn’t solve all our problems either.  For example, I’m pretty sure I can trust Dr. Vinay Prasad to be honest and knowledgeable, but it’s still possible to catch him falling for fallacious arguments.

Option 2: “Apply some heuristics” ain’t a bad idea.

Data Star Trek Stop GIF - Data Star Trek Stop Stop It GIFsEveryone else is doing it, and why shouldn’t they?  For example, I could use a heuristic like “Follow the money” to conclude that it’s entirely plausible that the corrupting influence of money and power, maybe with a little help from groupthink and politics, supported these extra-big Big Pharma products much more than they deserved.

Or I could use a heuristic like “There’s a bit of a pattern here, don’t you think?”  Then I could reasonably conclude that the vaccines that have all the known problems also have some of the other problems people are talking about.  Drip by drip, we already have a lakeful of information on the failures of these vaccines; there is probably more to come.  Or I could use the same heuristic to conclude that the people who badly botched over 90% of Covid policy badly botched vaccines too.  Or to conclude that censored views will turn out to be true–again.  Or that the people whose warnings about mRNA vax problems have already been shown to be correct will be shown to be correct in the future.

No, not a bad idea at all.  I have plenty of tentative leanings in this direction.  Option 2 ain’t looking good for the mRNA vaxxes.

Option 3: “Try to untangle the knot myself” is still on the table, but it’ll have to wait.

Do I look like I have that kind of time?  Maybe I’ll try a little of it later.  I still have those fifty-plus links!  Maybe I can select a very few and drop some logic on them.

Option 4: “Cut through the knot” is the big one!

This approach is simple.  It works well.  And it’s not looking good for the mRNA vaccines.

Episode 1,596 of Ben Shapiro’s podcast is spot on.  The best heuristic is to trust some trustworthy experts, but that only works when we have trustworthy experts.  These days, until we get some new institutions to replace or at least compete with our old corrupt institutions, trustworthy experts is just what we don’t have.

So until I have more time to think, it sure would be nice to find some way of cutting through the whole problem.  And there is a way.  Here are a few things we know:

  • The mRNA vaccines are a new, experimental technology.
  • There is no long-term data on the effects of this technology.
  • The mRNA globules don’t all stay where they’re supposed to.
  • Myocarditis is a confirmed side-effect of the mRNA shots, for younger males especially.
  • These shots don’t prevent infection.
  • They don’t prevent transmission.
  • Omicron is uncontrollable.
  • Omicron, when there are symptoms at all, tends to range in severity from mild cold to bad flu.
  • A majority of us have almost certainly had Omicron by now.
  • Omicron confers superb immunity.

In order to know whether there is any ongoing need for the mRNA vaccines, I don’t have to know whether there ever was.  I don’t have to evaluate dozens of claims and counter-claims about VAERS.  I don’t have to learn how to do statistics.  I don’t have to learn new vocabulary words. I don’t have to figure out how strong is the insurance data evidence that they’re killing people.  I don’t have to wait for someone to provide me with the relevant information on how often European footballers suddenly fell over and died before 2020, how many after Covid hit but before mass vaccination, and how many after mass vaccination.  I don’t have to spend a few hours studying reverse transcriptase.  I don’t have to determine whether Peter McCullough, once a strong candidate for the position of Texas’ Greatest Research Doctor, is somehow a nut or whether he’s still a great research doctor and the establishment that made him a pariah were fools to do so.

All of that stuff matters, and I hope to look into at least some of it eventually, and the heuristics indicate it won’t turn out well for the mRNA vaccines if I ever do.

But we can know enough now, even without all that, to know whether it’s time to stop.  If there was ever a need for these vaccines, the time has passed.  If anyone actually needs the mRNA vaccines, it’s probably someone who’s a member of both of two minority groups: Those who have not yet had Covid in any form, and those whose age or obesity makes Omicron a real threat.

Meanwhile, everyone who is a member of either of two majority groups–those who have had Covid and those who are not particularly vulnerable–should not be pressured into taking an experimental biotechnology injection they don’t need.  And the public should not have to pay for it.

It’s time to stop.

Published in Domestic Policy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 133 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    By the way, I’m glad the “All” in the OP title is contradicted somewhat by the article itself.

    Meaning I’m not advocating a total ban?

    Yeah, it’s more like an All Stop on government support.

    And we can’t do all our thinking in Star Trek metaphors.

    I fully endorse Star Trek metaphors.

    Shut up Wesley.

    ;-)

    I wish you had a bald head and went to the Oxford school of drama.

    • #61
  2. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    So even though definitions have to be rewritten the definitions aren’t changing?

    This is confusing. It’s like you’re not even reading what you say. (I bolded above what I was reading when I wrote.)

    Even if the CDC web site said that a vaccine consisted of eye of newt and toe of frog, the mRNA vaccines would be vaccines and would be discussed that way at the CDC, the FDA, in immunology labs, and in public. But textbook authors, in order to instruct their students, would probably come up with better descriptions and would adjust them accordingly if old ones had somehow managed to have been written in a way that that excluded new technology. Probably it’s not as much of an issue with medical school texts as with, say, high school texts, but we’d have to do an analysis to know for sure. Old definitions tend to be inadequate when they were oversimplified in the first place, and that’s not as likely to have been done in materials used in med school.

    I went looking for my old microbiology text from the mid 70s to see if it had a description/definition of vaccines, but it seems to have fallen victim to the book-eliminating project we’ve been on for over 3 years now. A lot has changed since the 70s, and that wasn’t exactly an immunology text, but it may have had something. I’ve sometimes done projects to analyse how textbooks have changed over time (got an A on such a project back in my undergrad days) but I’ll let someone else do this one. My access to my university library has gotten more complicated since covid, so that doesn’t help.

    So even though definitions have to be rewritten, the definition isn’t changing?

    Just because a description is rewritten doesn’t mean a vaccine isn’t a vaccine. 

    This is not a matter of authority like in Russia where you have to say special military operation instead of war if you want to stay out of jail.  There is no central authority that decides when you can say vaccine and when you can’t.  That doesn’t mean that people who peddle information about the vaccines not being vaccines aren’t liars who are trying to deceive people.   The best way to make a distinction between the mRNA vaccines and other vaccines in discussions where that is an important distinction is to call them mRNA vaccines and to call the others just plain vaccines, or subunit vaccines (if that level of specificity is accurate and relevant) or whatever. 

    • #62
  3. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    So even though definitions have to be rewritten the definitions aren’t changing?

    This is confusing. It’s like you’re not even reading what you say. (I bolded above what I was reading when I wrote.)

    Even if the CDC web site said that a vaccine consisted of eye of newt and toe of frog, the mRNA vaccines would be vaccines and would be discussed that way at the CDC, the FDA, in immunology labs, and in public. But textbook authors, in order to instruct their students, would probably come up with better descriptions and would adjust them accordingly if old ones had somehow managed to have been written in a way that that excluded new technology. Probably it’s not as much of an issue with medical school texts as with, say, high school texts, but we’d have to do an analysis to know for sure. Old definitions tend to be inadequate when they were oversimplified in the first place, and that’s not as likely to have been done in materials used in med school.

    I went looking for my old microbiology text from the mid 70s to see if it had a description/definition of vaccines, but it seems to have fallen victim to the book-eliminating project we’ve been on for over 3 years now. A lot has changed since the 70s, and that wasn’t exactly an immunology text, but it may have had something. I’ve sometimes done projects to analyse how textbooks have changed over time (got an A on such a project back in my undergrad days) but I’ll let someone else do this one. My access to my university library has gotten more complicated since covid, so that doesn’t help.

    So even though definitions have to be rewritten, the definition isn’t changing?

    Just because a description is rewritten doesn’t mean a vaccine isn’t a vaccine.

    Ok, but that’s not what I asked.

    • #63
  4. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    So even though definitions have to be rewritten the definitions aren’t changing?

    This is confusing. It’s like you’re not even reading what you say. (I bolded above what I was reading when I wrote.)

    Even if the CDC web site said that a vaccine consisted of eye of newt and toe of frog, the mRNA vaccines would be vaccines and would be discussed that way at the CDC, the FDA, in immunology labs, and in public. But textbook authors, in order to instruct their students, would probably come up with better descriptions and would adjust them accordingly if old ones had somehow managed to have been written in a way that that excluded new technology. Probably it’s not as much of an issue with medical school texts as with, say, high school texts, but we’d have to do an analysis to know for sure. Old definitions tend to be inadequate when they were oversimplified in the first place, and that’s not as likely to have been done in materials used in med school.

    I went looking for my old microbiology text from the mid 70s to see if it had a description/definition of vaccines, but it seems to have fallen victim to the book-eliminating project we’ve been on for over 3 years now. A lot has changed since the 70s, and that wasn’t exactly an immunology text, but it may have had something. I’ve sometimes done projects to analyse how textbooks have changed over time (got an A on such a project back in my undergrad days) but I’ll let someone else do this one. My access to my university library has gotten more complicated since covid, so that doesn’t help.

    So even though definitions have to be rewritten, the definition isn’t changing?

    Also, when I referred to textbooks definitions having to be rewritten, I was not referring to any legal requirement but to a need to improve communication with students. 

    • #64
  5. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    I’m all for forgiveness, but not until there is accountability and justice.

    We were lied to from day 1 of this mess – from where and how the virus originated, to the ridiculous mandates to get vaccinated, to forcing this poison on children.

    Forgiveness comes when the other side agrees it screwed up.

    And says they’re sorry for doing it, and makes restitution, and promises never to do it again.

    • #65
  6. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    I’m all for forgiveness, but not until there is accountability and justice.

    We were lied to from day 1 of this mess – from where and how the virus originated, to the ridiculous mandates to get vaccinated, to forcing this poison on children.

    Forgiveness comes when the other side agrees it screwed up.

    And says they’re sorry for doing it, and makes restitution, and promises never to do it again.

    I’ve heard hints from some people that they are itching for the next big pandemic so they can do it right next time.  Their idea of doing it right is probably not the same as yours or mine.

    • #66
  7. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    So even though definitions have to be rewritten the definitions aren’t changing?

    This is confusing. It’s like you’re not even reading what you say. (I bolded above what I was reading when I wrote.)

    Even if the CDC web site said that a vaccine consisted of eye of newt and toe of frog, the mRNA vaccines would be vaccines and would be discussed that way at the CDC, the FDA, in immunology labs, and in public. But textbook authors, in order to instruct their students, would probably come up with better descriptions and would adjust them accordingly if old ones had somehow managed to have been written in a way that that excluded new technology. Probably it’s not as much of an issue with medical school texts as with, say, high school texts, but we’d have to do an analysis to know for sure. Old definitions tend to be inadequate when they were oversimplified in the first place, and that’s not as likely to have been done in materials used in med school.

    I went looking for my old microbiology text from the mid 70s to see if it had a description/definition of vaccines, but it seems to have fallen victim to the book-eliminating project we’ve been on for over 3 years now. A lot has changed since the 70s, and that wasn’t exactly an immunology text, but it may have had something. I’ve sometimes done projects to analyse how textbooks have changed over time (got an A on such a project back in my undergrad days) but I’ll let someone else do this one. My access to my university library has gotten more complicated since covid, so that doesn’t help.

    So even though definitions have to be rewritten, the definition isn’t changing?

    Also, when I referred to textbooks definitions having to be rewritten, I was not referring to any legal requirement but to a need to improve communication with students.

    Ok, but I didn’t think you were talking about a legal requirement because you didn’t say you were talking about a legal requirement.

    What I’m pretty sure you did say is that the definition doesn’t change even though it gets rewritten. Is that what you mean?  It’s confusing.

    • #67
  8. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    I’ve heard hints from some people that they are itching for the next big pandemic so they can do it right next time.  Their idea of doing it right is probably not the same as yours or mine.

    Do  you mean like our glorious  new 80% lethal new COVID concoction put together by  Dr Fauci funded EcoHealth Alliance’s Peter Dazak ( who trained the Bat Lady how to insert the  Spike Protein into a coronavirus at the U of North Carolina) and Boston U?

    COVID didn’t kill enough people the first go around so now the same perps are back nat it to make it right this time and kill all of humanity. 

    • #68
  9. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Unsk (View Comment):

    I’ve heard hints from some people that they are itching for the next big pandemic so they can do it right next time. Their idea of doing it right is probably not the same as yours or mine.

    Do you mean like our glorious new 80% lethal new COVID concoction put together by Dr Fauci funded EcoHealth Alliance’s Peter Dazak ( who trained the Bat Lady how to insert the Spike Protein into a coronavirus at the U of North Carolina) and Boston U?

    COVID didn’t kill enough people the first go around so now the same perps are back nat it to make it right this time and kill all of humanity.

    I think Ret’s talking about passport/ banking chips.  That’s what’s most recent on his browsing history.  Not that I’m looking at it right now.

    • #69
  10. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Disagree with you a bit on this one, but not majorly. It’s entirely possible that the real issue here isn’t the mRNA vaccines, but rather that Covid-19 is a slippery virus that defies most of our attempts to control it. The old adage about curing the common cold comes to mind because that’s spent of what Covid-19 is…a more virulent common cold, well from a virology aspect at least. We all know there isn’t a vaccine for the cold and that the flu shot is hit or miss because they mutate so rapidly that it’s difficult to control them and getting the flu doesn’t confer lifelong immunity like other diseases do.

    So, we have a disease that mutates rapidly, that is much more virulent than similar coronavirus ailments, and initial observations show it having a 8-10% CFR. That’s a scary proposition. Of course, it wasn’t as perfect a storm as we thought it was. The CFR was much lower and the IFR would end up even in the early days) below 1%, perhaps even in the 0.1% range. Having a disease with a 40% infection rate and an 8% fatality rate would make it in the league of the Bubonic Plague which killed close to 25% of Europe (yes a 3.2% overall mortality rate isn’t as bad as 25%, but the sheer number of deaths would overwhelm the system).

    That was the fear, and the worry I’ve had since January of 2020 was that this cannot be controlled AND that it maintains a high lethality. Lucky for us, it isn’t nearly as deadly as we feared, though no one knew that certain, or that it will stay that way.

    So, while there is plenty of blame to go around and tons of really stupid things that got done, don’t assume that the mRNA vaccines aren’t effective in toto, because that likely isnt true.

    We knew it wasn’t that universally lethal early on, in 2020.  What you’re showing above is the excuse being used now for catastrophic policy failures.  The mRNA vaccines aren’t effective, in toto – that *is* true.  If it’s a vaccine, and I took the shot, and got Covid, that’s not a vaccine.  Apply the same logic to smallpox and get back to me.

    But thanks.

    • #70
  11. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine:

    • These shots don’t prevent infection.
    • They don’t prevent transmission.

    And after those two, the only thing they have left is that the disease is subsequently “less severe.”

    A) They didn’t check for the prevention of transmission. Did they check on the “suppression of severity?” Where’s the data? I wanna see.

    B) What is their basis for determining severity?

    The severity argument sounds like a fairy tale, and I’ve always been partial to the ones where the brave knight rescues the damsel in distress.

    I saw some news anchor discussing this with … was it Bill Maher, maybe? Regardless, he mentioned that he had had 2 shots and boosters, but still ended up in the hospital. Maher (if that’s who it was) said “ok, and you still think it works?” (or, more importantly, that it should be forced on people) – and the guy responded, “well, they say that if I hadn’t had the vaccine, I’d be dead.”

    So that’s where we are, now. “Suppression of severity” when argued in that manner cannot be tested (or will not be tested). It is just like everything else the left argues – “but for” this, things would be so much worse!

     

    Which run entirely contrary to the public policy decisions made early on.  I don’t have to post the zillion videos of president Biden stating “If you get the shot, you won’t get Covid”, and the crap about the masks.  Suppression of severity is the argument you make when the vaccines don’t work, and everybody inevitably gets Covid at some point.

    • #71
  12. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Gazpacho Grande' (View Comment):

    The mRNA vaccines aren’t effective, in toto – that *is* true.

    Indeed.

    If it’s a vaccine, and I took the shot, and got Covid, that’s not a vaccine.  Apply the same logic to smallpox and get back to me.

    But thanks.

    Why not just call it a lousy vaccine?

    • #72
  13. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Gazpacho Grande’ (View Comment):

    The mRNA vaccines aren’t effective, in toto – that *is* true.

    Indeed.

    If it’s a vaccine, and I took the shot, and got Covid, that’s not a vaccine. Apply the same logic to smallpox and get back to me.

    But thanks.

    Why not just call it a lousy vaccine?

    Yes, the “vaccine definition” discussion is quite tiresome.

    • #73
  14. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    So even though definitions have to be rewritten, the definition isn’t changing?

    There is a simple way to determine this. Use the old definition and see how long it takes them to complain that you are doing so.

    • #74
  15. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Told ya so. Back in February. February 2021. Probably before that too, but it is too much trouble to find my comments.

    These mRNA vaccines carry substantial unknown risks. We should avoid them until we have at least 5 year data.

    Which won’t be that long now.

    https://ricochet.com/901310/dont-vaccinate-first-graders/

    Big ups to you.

    You’re missing my point, Henry; perhaps I should be clearer.  This line of reasoning should be basal, should be natural, should be intuitive to any physician, researcher or patient.  Especially a parent of a potential child vaccine victim.

    • #75
  16. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    What I’m pretty sure you did say is that the definition doesn’t change even though it gets rewritten. Is that what you mean?  It’s confusing.

    I thought I was pretty clear that there is no such thing as “the” definition.   If I wasn’t clear about that maybe you  should show me where I wasn’t so I can be more careful another time. 

    • #76
  17. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Gazpacho Grande' (View Comment):
    If it’s a vaccine, and I took the shot, and got Covid, that’s not a vaccine. 

     

    This isn’t true. If you listened to somebody who told you that, you were listening to a liar (or somebody who listened to a liar). 

    • #77
  18. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    What I’m pretty sure you did say is that the definition doesn’t change even though it gets rewritten. Is that what you mean? It’s confusing.

    I thought I was pretty clear that there is no such thing as “the” definition.

    Yes. You were perfectly clear on that.

    If I wasn’t clear about that maybe you should show me where I wasn’t so I can be more careful another time.

    Well, I can show you what you did say that was confusing.  Here’s where you said that the definitions change:

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    I wouldn’t be surprised if every time a new variation on vaccine technology came along, the definition had to be rewritten to cover it.

    And here’s where you say the definitions don’t change–or at least that no change happened this time that allowed this new technology to count as a “vaccine.”

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    There was no change that allowed this to be called a vaccine. It was a vaccine no matter what.

    • #78
  19. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    What I’m pretty sure you did say is that the definition doesn’t change even though it gets rewritten. Is that what you mean? It’s confusing.

    I thought I was pretty clear that there is no such thing as “the” definition.

    Yes. You were perfectly clear on that.

    If I wasn’t clear about that maybe you should show me where I wasn’t so I can be more careful another time.

    Well, I can show you what you did say that was confusing. Here’s where you said that the definitions change:

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    I wouldn’t be surprised if every time a new variation on vaccine technology came along, the definition had to be rewritten to cover it.

    I’m talking about what a good textbook author or classroom instructor might want to do for maximum clarity for his audience.  As the technology advances, some older definitions might be found to have been oversimplified and need to be improved, just as I’m now trying to improve the way I’m describing this situation in order to avoid confusion.  

    And here’s where you say the definitions don’t change–or at least that no change happened this time that allowed this new technology to count as a “vaccine.”

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    There was no change that allowed this to be called a vaccine. It was a vaccine no matter what.

    “Allowed” is not a factor.  There is nobody who is allowing or not allowing.  The FDA sometimes doesn’t allow certain claims to be made about a medicine or treatment, but nothing like that is involved here, as far as I’ve ever heard.  If there is, we should be looking at FDA regulatory changes and not what some web droid at the CDC put on a web page in order to describe vaccines to us simpletons and deplorables. But I imagine if you tried to market strychnine as a vaccine against Alzheimer’s disease the FDA might get into the “not allowing” business. If something in that realm has changed, that would be worth knowing about.  

    • #79
  20. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    What I’m pretty sure you did say is that the definition doesn’t change even though it gets rewritten. Is that what you mean? It’s confusing.

    I thought I was pretty clear that there is no such thing as “the” definition.

    Yes. You were perfectly clear on that.

    If I wasn’t clear about that maybe you should show me where I wasn’t so I can be more careful another time.

    Well, I can show you what you did say that was confusing. Here’s where you said that the definitions change:

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    I wouldn’t be surprised if every time a new variation on vaccine technology came along, the definition had to be rewritten to cover it.

    I’m talking about what a good textbook author or classroom instructor might want to do for maximum clarity for his audience. As the technology advances, some older definitions might be found to have been oversimplified and need to be improved, just as I’m now trying to improve the way I’m describing this situation in order to avoid confusion.

    Why don’t you just answer the question–are you saying the definitions never change even when people rewrite them, or aren’t you?

    And here’s where you say the definitions don’t change–or at least that no change happened this time that allowed this new technology to count as a “vaccine.”

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    There was no change that allowed this to be called a vaccine. It was a vaccine no matter what.

    “Allowed” is not a factor. There is nobody who is allowing or not allowing. The FDA sometimes doesn’t allow certain claims to be made about a medicine or treatment, but nothing like that is involved here, as far as I’ve ever heard. If there is, we should be looking at FDA regulatory changes and not what some web droid at the CDC put on a web page in order to describe vaccines to us simpletons and deplorables. But I imagine if you tried to market strychnine as a vaccine against Alzheimer’s disease the FDA might get into the “not allowing” business. If something in that realm has changed, that would be worth knowing about.

    Completely beside the point.

    • #80
  21. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    What I’m pretty sure you did say is that the definition doesn’t change even though it gets rewritten. Is that what you mean? It’s confusing.

    I thought I was pretty clear that there is no such thing as “the” definition.

    Yes. You were perfectly clear on that.

    If I wasn’t clear about that maybe you should show me where I wasn’t so I can be more careful another time.

    Well, I can show you what you did say that was confusing. Here’s where you said that the definitions change:

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    I wouldn’t be surprised if every time a new variation on vaccine technology came along, the definition had to be rewritten to cover it.

    I’m talking about what a good textbook author or classroom instructor might want to do for maximum clarity for his audience. As the technology advances, some older definitions might be found to have been oversimplified and need to be improved, just as I’m now trying to improve the way I’m describing this situation in order to avoid confusion.

    Why don’t you just answer the question–are you saying the definitions never change even when people rewrite them, or aren’t you?

    I’m rejecting the premise that  descriptions are definitions in any prescriptive sense.

    And here’s where you say the definitions don’t change–or at least that no change happened this time that allowed this new technology to count as a “vaccine.”

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    There was no change that allowed this to be called a vaccine. It was a vaccine no matter what.

    “Allowed” is not a factor. There is nobody who is allowing or not allowing. The FDA sometimes doesn’t allow certain claims to be made about a medicine or treatment, but nothing like that is involved here, as far as I’ve ever heard. If there is, we should be looking at FDA regulatory changes and not what some web droid at the CDC put on a web page in order to describe vaccines to us simpletons and deplorables. But I imagine if you tried to market strychnine as a vaccine against Alzheimer’s disease the FDA might get into the “not allowing” business. If something in that realm has changed, that would be worth knowing about.

    Completely beside the point.

    I was trying to be generous and to point out that it isn’t complete, 100 percent nonsense to think that a definition may have allowed something.  Like maybe only 99.999 percent nonsense. 

    • #81
  22. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    What I’m pretty sure you did say is that the definition doesn’t change even though it gets rewritten. Is that what you mean? It’s confusing.

    I thought I was pretty clear that there is no such thing as “the” definition.

    Yes. You were perfectly clear on that.

    If I wasn’t clear about that maybe you should show me where I wasn’t so I can be more careful another time.

    Well, I can show you what you did say that was confusing. Here’s where you said that the definitions change:

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    I wouldn’t be surprised if every time a new variation on vaccine technology came along, the definition had to be rewritten to cover it.

    I’m talking about what a good textbook author or classroom instructor might want to do for maximum clarity for his audience. As the technology advances, some older definitions might be found to have been oversimplified and need to be improved, just as I’m now trying to improve the way I’m describing this situation in order to avoid confusion.

    Why don’t you just answer the question–are you saying the definitions never change even when people rewrite them, or aren’t you?

    I’m rejecting the premise that descriptions are definitions in any prescriptive sense.

    Still not answering the question.

    And here’s where you say the definitions don’t change–or at least that no change happened this time that allowed this new technology to count as a “vaccine.”

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    There was no change that allowed this to be called a vaccine. It was a vaccine no matter what.

    “Allowed” is not a factor. There is nobody who is allowing or not allowing. The FDA sometimes doesn’t allow certain claims to be made about a medicine or treatment, but nothing like that is involved here, as far as I’ve ever heard. If there is, we should be looking at FDA regulatory changes and not what some web droid at the CDC put on a web page in order to describe vaccines to us simpletons and deplorables. But I imagine if you tried to market strychnine as a vaccine against Alzheimer’s disease the FDA might get into the “not allowing” business. If something in that realm has changed, that would be worth knowing about.

    Completely beside the point.

    I was trying to be generous and to point out that it isn’t complete, 100 percent nonsense to think that a definition may have allowed something. Like maybe only 99.999 percent nonsense.

    Still not on topic.

    • #82
  23. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    What I’m pretty sure you did say is that the definition doesn’t change even though it gets rewritten. Is that what you mean? It’s confusing.

    I thought I was pretty clear that there is no such thing as “the” definition.

    Yes. You were perfectly clear on that.

    If I wasn’t clear about that maybe you should show me where I wasn’t so I can be more careful another time.

    Well, I can show you what you did say that was confusing. Here’s where you said that the definitions change:

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    I wouldn’t be surprised if every time a new variation on vaccine technology came along, the definition had to be rewritten to cover it.

    I’m talking about what a good textbook author or classroom instructor might want to do for maximum clarity for his audience. As the technology advances, some older definitions might be found to have been oversimplified and need to be improved, just as I’m now trying to improve the way I’m describing this situation in order to avoid confusion.

    Why don’t you just answer the question–are you saying the definitions never change even when people rewrite them, or aren’t you?

    I’m rejecting the premise that descriptions are definitions in any prescriptive sense.

    Still not answering the question.

    Maybe you should ask a better question.  A way to improve yours would be to remove the word “the” as applied to definitions.  

    And here’s where you say the definitions don’t change–or at least that no change happened this time that allowed this new technology to count as a “vaccine.”

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    There was no change that allowed this to be called a vaccine. It was a vaccine no matter what.

    “Allowed” is not a factor. There is nobody who is allowing or not allowing. The FDA sometimes doesn’t allow certain claims to be made about a medicine or treatment, but nothing like that is involved here, as far as I’ve ever heard. If there is, we should be looking at FDA regulatory changes and not what some web droid at the CDC put on a web page in order to describe vaccines to us simpletons and deplorables. But I imagine if you tried to market strychnine as a vaccine against Alzheimer’s disease the FDA might get into the “not allowing” business. If something in that realm has changed, that would be worth knowing about.

    Completely beside the point.

    I was trying to be generous and to point out that it isn’t complete, 100 percent nonsense to think that a definition may have allowed something. Like maybe only 99.999 percent nonsense.

    Still not on topic.

     

    • #83
  24. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    What I’m pretty sure you did say is that the definition doesn’t change even though it gets rewritten. Is that what you mean? It’s confusing.

    I thought I was pretty clear that there is no such thing as “the” definition.

    Yes. You were perfectly clear on that.

    If I wasn’t clear about that maybe you should show me where I wasn’t so I can be more careful another time.

    Well, I can show you what you did say that was confusing. Here’s where you said that the definitions change:

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    I wouldn’t be surprised if every time a new variation on vaccine technology came along, the definition had to be rewritten to cover it.

    I’m talking about what a good textbook author or classroom instructor might want to do for maximum clarity for his audience. As the technology advances, some older definitions might be found to have been oversimplified and need to be improved, just as I’m now trying to improve the way I’m describing this situation in order to avoid confusion.

    Why don’t you just answer the question–are you saying the definitions never change even when people rewrite them, or aren’t you?

    I’m rejecting the premise that descriptions are definitions in any prescriptive sense.

    Still not answering the question.

    Maybe you should ask a better question. A way to improve yours would be to remove the word “the” as applied to definitions.

    My only question is what you’re talking about. Why don’t you tell me? Are you not saying the definition of vaccine does not change? Did you misspeak when you said the definitions get rewritten?

    I can tell you what I’ve speculated you were saying: that a vaccine is and always has been a particular thing, that the correct definition of it would be an accurate description of that thing, and that there are various working definitions which have needed to be revised from time to time inasmuch as they were only approximation descriptions.

    • #84
  25. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    My only question is what you’re talking about. Why don’t you tell me? Are you not saying the definition of vaccine does not change? Did you misspeak when you said the definitions get rewritten?

    Definitions get rewritten. The meanings of words change with changes in usage, and some changes in usage come about with changes in technology. I can’t say about “the definition” because there is no such thing (except perhaps in some regulatory context) and I am not going to accept your premise that there is. 

    I can tell you what I’ve speculated you were saying: that a vaccine is and always has been a particular thing, that the correct definition of it would be an accurate description of that thing, and that there are various working definitions which have needed to be revised from time to time inasmuch as they were only approximation descriptions.

    This sounds like a plato vs aristotle conflict, though I’m probably out of my league in categorizing it as such.

    • #85
  26. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    My only question is what you’re talking about. Why don’t you tell me? Are you not saying the definition of vaccine does not change? Did you misspeak when you said the definitions get rewritten?

    Definitions get rewritten. The meanings of words change with changes in usage, and some changes in usage come about with changes in technology. I can’t say about “the definition” because there is no such thing (except perhaps in some regulatory context) and I am not going to accept your premise that there is.

    It’s not my premise.  I’m asking what you were talking about.

    • #86
  27. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Reticulator, my best guess as to what you’re talking about didn’t pan out.  You’re not writing with any clarity.  You called a bunch of people liars, and your explanation for that accusation in # 44 made no sense that I could understand.  My efforts to understand it have led to repeated failures of either of us to understand the other.

    I suggest you go back to whatever your point was in # 44 and try to explain why you’re calling people–including a lot of people here on Ricochet–liars.

    • #87
  28. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    My only question is what you’re talking about. Why don’t you tell me? Are you not saying the definition of vaccine does not change? Did you misspeak when you said the definitions get rewritten?

    Definitions get rewritten. The meanings of words change with changes in usage, and some changes in usage come about with changes in technology. I can’t say about “the definition” because there is no such thing (except perhaps in some regulatory context) and I am not going to accept your premise that there is.

    It’s not my premise. I’m asking what you were talking about.

    If I said “the” definitions get rewritten I would like to revise that because it can have the wrong implications. It would be better to say that definitions and descriptions get rewritten. 

    • #88
  29. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Reticulator, my best guess as to what you’re talking about didn’t pan out. You’re not writing with any clarity. You a bunch of people liars, and your explanation for that accusation in # 44 made no sense that I could understand. My efforts to understand it have been led to repeated failures of either of us to understand the other.

    I suggest you go back to whatever your point was in # 44 and try to explain why you’re calling people–including a lot of people here on Ricochet–liars.

    If I ever think of a way to be more clear about it or write a better explanation, I’ll do so.  

    In the meantime, it would be well for the people who complain about being lied to by the government to not to go around spreading lies saying that the mRNA vaccines are not vaccines.  

    • #89
  30. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    My only question is what you’re talking about. Why don’t you tell me? Are you not saying the definition of vaccine does not change? Did you misspeak when you said the definitions get rewritten?

    Definitions get rewritten. The meanings of words change with changes in usage, and some changes in usage come about with changes in technology. I can’t say about “the definition” because there is no such thing (except perhaps in some regulatory context) and I am not going to accept your premise that there is.

    It’s not my premise. I’m asking what you were talking about.

    If I said “the” definitions get rewritten I would like to revise that because it can have the wrong implications. It would be better to say that definitions and descriptions get rewritten.

    And that part was perfectly clear.  You’re still trying to fix imaginary problems.  I know you said that the definitions get rewritten.

    Our current epic failure to communicate stems, apparently, from your remark that there was no change in the definition which makes it possible for this new technology to be correctly called a “vaccine.”  It looked like your point was that there is some sort of fixed definition that hasn’t changed. Maybe you didn’t mean that.  But I can’t make heads or tails out of what you do mean.

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.