[flagged]
There's many different types of vaccines, you can invent new ones without changing the definition.
> They prevent you from contracting and spreading the virus. > Okay they don't prevent you from contracting the virus but they prevent you from spreading. > Okay they don't prevent you from spreading but they reduce symptoms.
They work on a specific strain of the virus, they're not effective against other strains. The whole point about quarantining, social distancing, masks, etc, is to lower the spread of a strain before it has a chance to mutate into a new one so a vaccine that targets it can be administrated to enough of the population so it can actually be effective in stopping its spread.
Did you happen to have a brain worm by any chance?
"Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccination reduces infectiousness and susceptibility; however, these effects are insufficient for complete control of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, especially in older people and household setting."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36724697/
Overall, I think the dominant phenomenon here is people wanted to typecast floating-point data to boolean answers, the media did their best to accomodate that want, and almost nobody reads primary sources.
> Pfizer/BioNTech says its Covid-19 vaccine is 100% effective and well tolerated in adolescents
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/health/pfizer-vaccine-adolesc...
Later down in this article, they clarify with some hard numbers: "Researchers observed 18 Covid-19 cases among the 1,129 participants who were given a placebo, and none among the 1,131 volunteers who got the vaccine. The data has yet to be peer reviewed."
So Pfizer/BioNTech is reporting 100% efficacy on a non-peer-reviewed study where 1.5% of the control group contracted the disease (news article doesn't say how "contraction of disease" was identified, whether that was antibody presence or symptoms).
News has a bad habit of reducing complex circumstances to headlines that appear yes-or-no.
> IgG4 Antibodies Induced by Repeated Vaccination May Generate Immune Tolerance to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein
It would be good to point out William Makis is a disgraced, long unlicensed (pre pandemic) physician and anti-vax grifter, a quack. Quite telling he still claims affiliation with an institution he was terminated from nearly a decade ago.
He worked at a cancer center as a radiologist but continues to misrepresent his expertise as an oncologist. Real piece of work.
The thing about the IgG4 topic overall, is it's not just a small handful of papers that are discussing it, along with other immune issues that have resulted from the mRNA shots.
> It would be good to point out William Makis is a disgraced
Can you give us a solid citation on exactly how? I would like to see this.
> He worked at a cancer center as a radiologist but continues to misrepresent his expertise as an oncologist.
This means he had a front row seat to how cancer develops in patients, how cancer is successfully neutralized (or not) in patients, and also the internal politics and realpolitik imperatives of such a place. Given that cancer is a multi-hundred billion dollar industry, and a patient cured or prevented from having the disease in the first place is not profitable, unironically his work history could provide insight into how institutions that employ fleets of oncologists actually operate.