Reply #268: it beggars belief

[iverglas]

One vaccine, administered to people ALREADY INFECTED with a virus in the hopes that it will stop replication of the virus, fails to do so and promotes replication.

The vaccine under discussion here is, like most vaccines, meant to prevent the virus from being contracted.

You ask what the potential is for the vaccine under discussion here to do the opposite of what it is designed for. What; give women cervical cancer?

Once again: you are pretending that an apple is an orange.

Two vaccines. Meant to do two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Why would the fact that one did the opposite of what it was meant to do be in any way relevant to what the other will do??

Just because one thing that is a vaccine worked backwards, anything else that is a vaccine is going to work backwards? Even when that doesn't make a stitch of sense?

(Yes, yes, some vaccines have resulted in extremely rare cases of the disease they were meant to immunize against. Know of any cases of that happening during testing of the HPV vaccine?)

You said in another post:
I would say the apparent non-questioning worship of anything with the name vaccine attached to it, is blind and moronic, personally.

Well -- physician, heal thyself!

Hahahahaha!!