That's a harder claim to make and be able to prove. Despite that vaccines have destroyed the health of the whole world, each individual vaccine generally confers reduced likelihood of contracting its opposing disease. All vaccines are asked to do is to proffer that benefit and not kill the subject within a few weeks and they are considered safe. In that sense, they are "effective" in the limited, deceptive definition they've decreed they shall live up to. The problem is that the innumerable vaccines administered have cumulative side effects, and even genetically permanent side effects. The root problem is not that the vaccines do not do what they claim, but that in combination they are radically more dangerous and destructive to health than the diseases they prevent. Especially since we have many new powerful anti-bacterial and anti-viral drugs that can "cure" those diseases in the low probability chance that someone contracts them, it is preposterous to accept the side effects of dozens of vaccines for every member of the population when we can instead treat only those who actually get sick. I've had pretty good success converting people to be vaccine-skeptical with that line of reasoning. Ultimately, it doesn't take a hard line that vaccines don't work, or that science is all lies, and instead accepts the premise and works despite it.
Any incorrectness in germ theory or understanding of viruses is a bit immaterial to whether a particular concoction injected into the body causes the recipient to be less likely to contract a particular disease. Certainly, traditional vaccines are produced in such a way that perfect understanding is not strictly necessary, but if mRNA "vaccines" can be relied upon to confer 95% infection reduction then "immunity" is occurring somehow. I think it is a bit silly to suggest that they do not have a workable understanding if they can induce antibody production with mRNA injections.
That said, my anti-vaccine argument in no way whatsoever takes issue with germ theory. As far as I can see, vaccines are -individually- effective at their intended effect. The problem is that the adjuvants, a critical component to force immune response to a non-threat, the deactivated viruses, cause cumulative epigenetic dysfunction and genetic damage. There is no way to avoid the use of adjuvants in traditional vaccines, and thus vaccines are bad medicine. mRNA vaccines do not have this particular flaw, and that is a significant reason that their development has been pursued by the medicos. However, so far it appears that they have alternate flaws just as destructive.
If germ theory is incorrect, then the entire principle of vaccines is founded upon flawed science.
There is a lot of science behind germ theory. If you try to convince people that vaccines are harmful with germ theory being false as your basis of argument you will likely convince nearly no-one. I think that avenue of persuasion, even if you are correct (which I do not think you are), is not an effective one.
We are talking about 95% infection reduction of a virus that's never been isolated, never proven to exist
Never been proven by standards of proof made before those standards proved inadequate to the challenges offered by disease research. It is fair to criticize the changes to those standards, but the fact that antibodies generated by disease survivors can be isolated, mRNA can be isolated which produces those antibodies, and that injection of that mRNA causes a production of those antibodies in people who have never had that disease, and that people producing those antibodies have a radically reduced incident of developing the disease, is a pretty powerful indication that the understanding of the situation is quite good. Further, natural corona virus has been photographed via electron microscope, and the Wuhan corona virus' genetic code has been analyzed quite thoroughly (enough to know that it is a combination of natural corona virus and HIV). I do not find the skepticism of germ theory to be particularly intelligent or reasonable, and I find it completely unpersuasive.
flawed test amplifying genetic material so much the test is rendered effectively pointless.
It's important not to get sucked into the weeds about vaccines based on the wackiness of this particular disease. Normally, you would never bother testing healthy people nor caring to know if healthy people got mildly ill from a virus that was no practical threat to their health. Judging germ theory by the ridiculous attempts to exaggerate this hoax pandemic is unfair.
Just because it can be shown the "vaccine" induces antibody production doesn't mean it's preventing disease.
Despite that they are trawling for false positives among the general population with bullshit testing, that is not how they determined that the vaccine is successful at reducing infection probability. To do that, they vaccinate large enough test subject groups that they know statistically how many will fall seriously ill and/or die from the disease over a period of time, and they compare that prediction, and the results of a control group, to the results of being given the vaccine.
That's a harder claim to make and be able to prove. Despite that vaccines have destroyed the health of the whole world, each individual vaccine generally confers reduced likelihood of contracting its opposing disease. All vaccines are asked to do is to proffer that benefit and not kill the subject within a few weeks and they are considered safe. In that sense, they are "effective" in the limited, deceptive definition they've decreed they shall live up to. The problem is that the innumerable vaccines administered have cumulative side effects, and even genetically permanent side effects. The root problem is not that the vaccines do not do what they claim, but that in combination they are radically more dangerous and destructive to health than the diseases they prevent. Especially since we have many new powerful anti-bacterial and anti-viral drugs that can "cure" those diseases in the low probability chance that someone contracts them, it is preposterous to accept the side effects of dozens of vaccines for every member of the population when we can instead treat only those who actually get sick. I've had pretty good success converting people to be vaccine-skeptical with that line of reasoning. Ultimately, it doesn't take a hard line that vaccines don't work, or that science is all lies, and instead accepts the premise and works despite it.
Any incorrectness in germ theory or understanding of viruses is a bit immaterial to whether a particular concoction injected into the body causes the recipient to be less likely to contract a particular disease. Certainly, traditional vaccines are produced in such a way that perfect understanding is not strictly necessary, but if mRNA "vaccines" can be relied upon to confer 95% infection reduction then "immunity" is occurring somehow. I think it is a bit silly to suggest that they do not have a workable understanding if they can induce antibody production with mRNA injections.
That said, my anti-vaccine argument in no way whatsoever takes issue with germ theory. As far as I can see, vaccines are -individually- effective at their intended effect. The problem is that the adjuvants, a critical component to force immune response to a non-threat, the deactivated viruses, cause cumulative epigenetic dysfunction and genetic damage. There is no way to avoid the use of adjuvants in traditional vaccines, and thus vaccines are bad medicine. mRNA vaccines do not have this particular flaw, and that is a significant reason that their development has been pursued by the medicos. However, so far it appears that they have alternate flaws just as destructive.
There is a lot of science behind germ theory. If you try to convince people that vaccines are harmful with germ theory being false as your basis of argument you will likely convince nearly no-one. I think that avenue of persuasion, even if you are correct (which I do not think you are), is not an effective one.
Never been proven by standards of proof made before those standards proved inadequate to the challenges offered by disease research. It is fair to criticize the changes to those standards, but the fact that antibodies generated by disease survivors can be isolated, mRNA can be isolated which produces those antibodies, and that injection of that mRNA causes a production of those antibodies in people who have never had that disease, and that people producing those antibodies have a radically reduced incident of developing the disease, is a pretty powerful indication that the understanding of the situation is quite good. Further, natural corona virus has been photographed via electron microscope, and the Wuhan corona virus' genetic code has been analyzed quite thoroughly (enough to know that it is a combination of natural corona virus and HIV). I do not find the skepticism of germ theory to be particularly intelligent or reasonable, and I find it completely unpersuasive.
It's important not to get sucked into the weeds about vaccines based on the wackiness of this particular disease. Normally, you would never bother testing healthy people nor caring to know if healthy people got mildly ill from a virus that was no practical threat to their health. Judging germ theory by the ridiculous attempts to exaggerate this hoax pandemic is unfair.
Despite that they are trawling for false positives among the general population with bullshit testing, that is not how they determined that the vaccine is successful at reducing infection probability. To do that, they vaccinate large enough test subject groups that they know statistically how many will fall seriously ill and/or die from the disease over a period of time, and they compare that prediction, and the results of a control group, to the results of being given the vaccine.