What defines a vaccine?
Concepts to consider when judging the medical value of COVID-19 “vaccines”:
Contrary to all other true vaccines, these ones have negative efficacy, not only because they increase the susceptibility of the “vaccinated” to infection by depressing their innate immune system and so making them more prone to the illness (clinical disadvantage), but also because they render the infection they are intended to prevent and control, more endemic in their environment (epidemiological disadvantage)
Contrary to all other true vaccines, these ones have such a sinister and tramped with safety record so far (for less than a year), that their side effects, with different degrees of seriousness but including large amounts of death, have tens of times higher incidence than those caused by all other existing vaccines, combined, since ever.
It is fraudulent to authorise a medical intervention before phase 3 trials have been completed. The phase 3 trials for Pfizer will only be completed in 2023.
There is, therefore, no long term safety testing for chronic disease in relation to these “vaccines”.
On top of all this, negative performance it has to be carefully considered the implications of the fact that these “vaccines” do not rely on the etiological agent of the disease that they are intended to tackle but are themselves, in their own right, agents of a different, new infection.
That’s because they don’t use an innocuous natural agent to create an immune response, using a synthetic genetic agent instead to turn the body into a producer of a toxic agent which, when inoculated induces a new systemic disease.
Depending on a number of factors related to the individual’s health state, this new systemic disease has the potential for helplessly establishing in such person a pathology of wide and serious consequences.
In conclusion, these “vaccines” are not vaccines. They must be considered pathological agents which are being used as coadjuvants of an existing endemic.