Anonymous OP 2d

that's google ai that is not a source

10

Anonymous #1 2d

you’re right it absolutely is. you’re more than welcome to find the sources 😂 i was just showing the information does exist. i’m not going a full deep dive just to convince you and find a full source

-3

Anonymous OP 2d

ai is not proof it exists. you made a claim, back it up.

12

Anonymous #1 2d

https://youtu.be/5lglnnqXgxE?si=AEigFVdDiPWkTado https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8656271/ there’s a cute little video summarising it for you and an actual research paper in case you wanna go on your own deep dive x i found several news articles too but i figured you’d probably find some objection to that (im not well versed on american news articles n which ones yall accept and which ones you don’t)

0

Anonymous OP 2d

I mean I really don’t consider this a huge deal. This was well known, considering people get the flu vaccine and sometimes still get the flu

4

Anonymous #2 2d

i popped a few links down but essentially they removed the word “immunity” and replaced it with “stimulate the body’s immune response against” or words to that affect. the word for word is in the links i popped down

-1

Anonymous #3 2d

for sure but then you start looking at other factors and taking them into account. for example, if that discrepancy was unnecessary to change prior to covid, why was it so important for it to be changed just as the vaccines rolled out? there’s a lot more that was going on behind the scenes that most mainstream media pushed to the side so people wouldn’t connect certain dots as easily.

-1

Anonymous OP 2d

your video didn't come up and all i see in the article is them changing the wording to be more accurate to what vaccines actually do.

4

Anonymous OP 2d

What are the other factors?

8

Anonymous OP 2d

How are they different? Imo it sounds like the definition was refined to be more accurate to real life - the flu vaccines, measles vaccines, etc. all stimulate an immune response in the body. None of these vaccines make someone 100% immune (they instead help establish herd immunity), so it’s kinda misleading to say it is in a definition of what a vaccine is I’m open to hearing what you think tho

15

Anonymous #1 2d

maybe my link was wrong. i can put down a screenshot for the video if you’d like n you can search it read the article slightly closer. these articles can be quite dense to read but you’ll see it. just gotta read beyond the surface

-1

Anonymous OP 2d

i read the article. all it proves is that the definition has been changed to be more scientifically accurate. that isn't proof of anything other than science getting more accurate.

12

Anonymous #3 2d

The WHO has a page last revised in 2025. It still links to a “how do vaccines work” video from 2020 that uses a definition that’s valid today https://youtu.be/zoHOigIp94Q

8

Anonymous #1 2d

Literally god forbid we change definitions a bit so that they are updated to modern times and are easier to understand 😭

10

Anonymous #3 2d

i thought they'd be happy it's more accurate now 😭 i'm personally glad that things get updated as we research them and develop them

9

Anonymous OP 2d

That’s consistent. That’s how vaccines have always worked. They don’t just magically provide immunity

13

Anonymous #2 2d

absolutely! i’m in australia atm so give me a couple of hours (middle of the day for me) but ill get back to you soon

2

Anonymous OP 2d

I’m actually not sure what that paper (“Vaccination terminology: A revised glossary of key terms including lay person’s definitions”) was supposed to prove tbh. I don’t see anything about the agencies changing the definitions. In fact they literally make their own definitions and show how those are much easier to understand than the ones from the health agencies

10

Anonymous OP 2d

It sounds like you’re conflating a cure with a vaccine tbh, otherwise why are you so hooked on them making the definition more accurate (even if the timing is coincidental)?

8

Anonymous #6 2d

I mean in some cases it wasn’t coincidental and they specifically needed to change it because the old one was way too specific like “contains a weakened or inactivated form of a virus or bacteria”, and that didn’t cover mRNA vaccines. I have no clue why they didn’t change it before when that definition didn’t fit protein subunit vaccines (Hep B, Gardasil, and shingles). I guess they just never noticed it or figured it was already sufficient for laypeople

12

Anonymous #3 2d

Ahh I appreciate you, I didn’t realize that the previous definition already conflicted with some vaccines; but I could really see it being something along the lines of what you said about them thinking the previous definition was sufficient enough for laypeople, especially with how big of a disconnect in terminology there is

10

Anonymous #3 1d

Just wanted to check in on those other factors btw

6