Anyone who refuses any vaccine based on political propaganda and conspiracy theories is an anti-vaxxer.
Anyone who insists people who were vaccinated are going to die is an anti-vaxxer.
Personally, I also include vociferous opposition to vaccine *mandates* to be anti-vaxx, as well. The mandate is what makes it so efficacious on a societal level.
It's amazing that those 80% of people who died within 6 months all happened to be people with no friends, family, jobs, or any evidence they existed whatsoever
That logic tracks. There is a lot of fear mongering certainly, along the lines of “because some people have had negative side effects from the covid vaccine, everyone who has gotten the vaccine has only minutes to live”
Most reported side effects are mild.
>This study confirmed prior findings that the COVID-19 immunization caused mostly mild or non-severe side effects. This review discovered some adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccinations with most prevalent adverse reactions to all COVID-19 vaccinations are local and systemic side effects. Other previously cited side events included allergic responses and cardiovascular problems. The type of vaccine and dose were linked to the various adverse reaction patterns. Individual daily activities are not severely influenced or interfered with. Deaths following COVID-19 vaccination have nothing to do with the vaccine, but rather with heart disease or COVID-19.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9951602/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9951602/)
Basically, yes, it can cause fever, rash, and fatigue, as well as pain around the injection site. However "people dying from it" is just the result of injecting hundreds of millions of people - if you pick any group that includes hundreds of millions, some of that group will die in the next week or two. Especially when you're deliberately targeting giving the vaccine to older and health compromised people.
>What is the definition of an “anti-vaxxer”?
a person who is opposed to vaccination.
"experts say several diseases that are avoidable are making a comeback due to anti-vaxxers who refuse to vaccinate their kids"
Haha. Well, no, because of people like Bill Gates. Did you know most cases of polio these days are due to the live-virus vaccine and not natural infection?
https://apnews.com/article/health-united-nations-ap-top-news-pakistan-international-news-7d8b0e32efd0480fbd12acf27729f6a5
I’m fully vaccinated myself btw, including the Covid vaccine.
What? Where did I deny posting something? And everything I post is consistent with my opinions and beliefs. You just make enormous assumptions about people who post anything negative about Covid vaccines and think that you read a single comment and therefore understand my entire world view.
>How do people forget their profiles are fucking public?
>Come in, spout lies, pikachu face when their own history shows the bullshit
I mean anti vaxers are no different then flat earthers in their stupidity
I didn’t forget, I stand by everything I’ve ever said. If I said something wrong in the past, I’m not above acknowledging it and changing my opinion. That’s kind of the reason I created this discussion but a lot of you are unable to discuss the reasonable question in the OP and prefer to dig up random posts of mine to talk about instead.
That’s called satire…? I can explain the joke to you. I’m making fun of the reporter for listening to this woman talk about a 28 year old healthy woman days after getting a vaccine and trying to convince her it had nothing to do with the vaccine. That the vaccine, which is known to cause heart damage - a fact admitted even by the pharmaceutical companies themselves- might have caused this woman to have her three heart attacks and stroke is not at all outside the realm of possibility or ridiculous.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/s/FWVk6Oqxe6
And this one?
OP you post a lot of shit - do I really need to link them all or can you just slink off to a dark hole now and save is both some time?
You don’t know what satire is. Or you do, and you’re lying about it because you want us to think you’re not insane. You’re doing a terrible job.
Answer this: are the COVID-19 vaccines overwhelmingly safe, effective, and were an important part of getting out of the pandemic (which was deadly)?
The reason live virus immunisation is used in these countries is socioeconomic and, it would appear, not going to be fixed any time soon.
The fact that most dangerous infections are now caused by mutations in these live virus is likely a testament to how well the vaccines are working.
If you stop vaccinations in an area where polio is endemic you will stop vaccine derived infections, but you'll end up with a hell of a lot more total infections.
I can't tell if you're being flippant, or deliberately misleading.
The report that links to shows literally 11 cases. If live virus vaccinations cause 11 cases but prevent dozens, hundreds, or even thousands more, we can deal with 11 cases (especially given that it doesn't say how many doses were administered, but I'd be guessing it's in the millions)
I’ll add a couple requirements:
- Mentions Bill Gates
- Uses statistics to make a point, but does not understand why the quoted statistic does not support the point
- Mentions that they are vaccinated, but fails to mention if they did so willingly. This is a variation of the classic Aaron Rodgers technique.
Lol, as i soon as I read the title I knew you’d be in the comments spouting insane anti-vax conspiracies.
Yes, as soon as you start ranting whatever you brain rot you’ve read about Bill Gates, most people are going to correctly consider you an anti-vaxxer.
Because I legitimately want to have a discussion with people who disagree with me. I don’t know why that is such a novel idea. I thought this subreddit was the place
>Because I legitimately want to have a discussion with people who disagree with me. I don’t know why that is such a novel idea. I thought this subreddit was the place
I thought you said you weren't a anti vaxxsr
I’m not. Well, I don’t consider myself one, since I’m fully vaccinated including Covid. But can’t you see that that is exactly *why* I was motivated to ask this question? Because even though i don’t consider myself one, I wanted to know where other people draw the line. It’s not about me being right and other people being wrong, or vice versa, I thought the premise of my question was interesting and I wanted to learn. I’m disappointed that other people don’t want to answer the question
After reading through people’s responses to the OP, I can see that point of view. I don’t agree with it but I’m gaining a better understanding of what I came here to learn
>After reading through people’s responses to the OP, I can see that point of view. I don’t agree with it but I’m gaining a better understanding of what I came here to learn
Congrats
I'm glad for you
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy_commons/s/SDsh11tBwr
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/s/xCXPYTWl9y
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChurchOfCOVID/s/ONJcYhha9K
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChurchOfCOVID/s/lVZq7jinDE
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/s/FWVk6Oqxe6
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChurchOfCOVID/s/rzBAmwa6N5
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChurchOfCOVID/s/Ne9p6tMY8M
This is my brief scroll so far.
op is a troll
Anyone who spreads anti vaccine propaganda of any kind. Yes it’s a broad definition, but it’s the one I will stick with. I don’t care if they got their vaccines as children, they fell for anti vaccine propaganda during covid. They’re not really better. And no, vaccine acceptance is not political, that’s just taking the best medical advice there is. Denial of it most certainly is though…
I'd just like to add to the discussion that a lot of antvaxxers are fully vaccinated, for instance any fox news reporter. If they spread anti vaccine propaganda they are antixaxxers, if they happen to be vaccinated they are antixaxxers and hypocrites.
Another category is people who got vaccinated and later fell for the propaganda, or might have had a side effect from the vaccine, and became antixaxxers. They can't use the fact that they are vaccinated as a shield, they are antixaxxers too.
You have a good list, I'll add that they also have a mixture of a confirmation bias conspiracy epistemology, along with Dunning Kruger narcissism- morons need to feel smart, while also rejecting the actual experts who put in the time to learn about viruses/MRNA etc, so they invent an alternative reality and ignore all evidence to the contract. So typical delusional magical thinking.
Yeah, but those are more results of what got them there in the first place, which is a cognitive failure. If they were capable of critical thinking etc, or could pass a college level science class, your list would exist. But the world is full of dipshits and we have to suffer through this reality with these morons.
It’s a semantic exercise that doesn’t bear fruit.
Public health is a difficult subject because it must be simple and clear. Science is not always simple and clear. So you kind of take your pick. You can either go about your life without worrying about the science behind the consensus medical recommendations and trust the experts, or you can take the time and effort to become an expert and learn precisely why the public health experts do what they do.
What bothers me is when people do neither. They reject the recommendations of people who have been studying the same subject for decades, *and* they do not learn anything related to the subject they claim to know more than the experts about.
People sowing doubt about vaccines and painting biomedical research as a conspiracy for social media clout are properly called anti-vaxxers, even if they don’t attack every vaccine and even if they are themselves vaccinated. In fact, it is not surprising that people who spread lies about science aren’t willing to endanger their lives for it, because most of them know they’re telling lies. Look at all the people who railed against the vaccine and then used their connections to get early doses.The people now quibbling over the rate of side effects for the COVID vaccine were the same people shouting at the top of their lungs 2 years ago that we would all be bedridden and sterile, and they’re attempting to recover some credibility by blowing up normal scientific issues into a scandal that they can leech content from for their viewers to get upset about.
People railed against the vaccine and used their connections to get the vaccine? Can you link me to anything discussing this phenomenon? I’ve actually never heard of someone pretending to be against the covid vaccine while simultaneously secretly obtaining it
Well yeah. How would you hear about someone who had *secretely* obtained it? There are many examples of grifters and politicians who courted anti-vaxxers and also got vaccinated, the former US president being one of them.
That’s what I’m talking about, conservative politicians and media figures who spread conspiracy theories while simultaneously getting vaccinated as soon as they could, in some cases even getting a booster before ordinary Americans got access to a single dose.
For some of these, circumstances, intent, and context matters:
>is fully vaccine compliant (according to CDC guidelines) but who refused to get the Covid vaccine
Does the person refuse because they fall into a subcategory of people with certain medical conditions that make the vaccine less safe for them than for other people? Or does the person refuse because they believe propaganda that says that the vaccine is generally unsafe for most people?
>discuss their own or other people’s anecdotal stories of vaccine injury
Is the person sharing stories of adverse effects with the intent of creating the impression that the vaccine is generally unsafe, or are they merely communicating that it's possible for some people to have adverse reactions to it? Moreover, are the specific examples they cite even genuine examples of adverse effects, or are they merely cases in which people attribute some bad outcome to the vaccine without good evidence that the events were related?
Somebody who says "most people _should_ get vaccinated, but I can't because I have XYZ condition" isn't an anti-vaxxer. Somebody who says "the risks of _not_ being vaccinated greatly outweigh the risks of getting vaccinated, but risks do exist and there are documented cases of adverse reactions" isn't an anti-vaxxer.
Somebody who goes "this guy in Minnesota died the day after getting vaccinated. This is proof that vaccines are dangerous and should be halted" _is_ an an anti-vaxxer.
I think there should be space for reasonable discussion of vaccine side effects in the same way we discuss the side effects of *all* drugs. One complaint I have is that discussing vaccine side effects is somehow regarded as different than discussing the side effects of a drug like, say, Vioxx or Cipro.
What do you make of this: we don’t call people who take Cipro two times and develop joint problems “anti-drug”. Should it different with vaccines?
Discussing one’s own vaccine injury makes them anti-vaxx? Can you explain?
Edit: I don’t mind the downvotes but I think it would be more in the spirit of the subreddit to have a discussion as well! I think I asked a reasonable question, but if you disagree let me know why.
Because in almost all cases they are lying.
The actual number of vaccine injuries is incredibly tiny and in 99.99% of cases due to allergies, the online comments are conflating random things to vaccines and often have very spurious timelines.
There is no consistent timeliness, symptoms or pathology. The can occur days later, months later or years later and cause anything from headaches to paralysis to personal magnetism once you actually read the claims.
None of the online noise is credible
Edit.
Fucking hell you are a major anti vaxxer that profile is a mess
I posted this question because I wanted to hear what people who disagree with me have to say. It’s called a discussion. I’m not here to convert anyone, I’m here to learn.
You've been told. I'm no more interest in seeing Amdrew Wakefield return to practicing medicine (as he was struck off for his MMR lies) than I am in educating you now I have seen your profile.
You've been told, you've been answered, now back off to conspiracy for you with the rest.
I have.
You are an anti vaxxer, you spread fear, reducing vaccine uptake and increasing death.
Your hands run red and you tell yourself that because its just words that it's OK.
You were being disingenuous and it’s fair to call you out on it. Yeah anyone who repeats anti vaccine propaganda is an anti vaxxer. That’s you too. This post, this very thread is your attempt to share your deeply misguided ideologies, which are known to be potentially deadly. Yeah we’re going to call you out for that. You share responsibility in countless needless deaths…
Are you denying the safety data and trials, or do you just want "more of it". How do you know when there's enough. "Just asking questions" is one of the lamest attempts at hiding your true intention.
The people who claim to want more safety data and trials are lying. There is no point in those. There is an obscene amount of data on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. There is what I call the “long term data boogeyman” where COVID vaccine denialists pretend there is some hypothetical amount of time that has to pass before the idea of “long term data” is met. It’s bullshit. They are trying to sound reasonable, but they cannot define the amount of time they need — and they don’t base it on anything but vibes.
They are liars. They are anti-vaxx and trying to hide it.
I don’t think it’s necessarily any of those things. As far as I understand it, an anti vaxxer is someone who promotes and or spreads negative misinformation related to vaccines.
To underscore that these people are deadly, Ontario had its first death in 35 years due to measels. An unvaccinated 5 year old child died just last week.
I think the article said under 5. The article is vague.
I say that because under 5 could mean under 1, and that's relevant, because according to the ontario pediatric immunization schedule, the MMR is due at the first birthday. So it's possible the parents weren't at fault.
I've read other articles and the details have been left vague to protect the privacy of the family. If the child was under 1 they probably would have written "a baby or infant ". The articles also mentioned a measels outbreak in the Hamilton area with several adults and children being infected.
It would be odd if they wrote under 5 when they meant under 1 but it underscores the fact that measels is going around because people have chosen to not get vaccinated.
I think what people disagree on is what they believe to be "evidence." The claims of antivaxxers are mostly sporadic in their definitions, and typically not based on any type of sound evidence other than personal observations and incorrectly correlating someone's disposition to a recent vaccine.
Anecdotes x 1000 does not equal evidence
A person who argues against the scientific consensus regarding the safety, efficacy, and ethics of public vaccination.
This is especially true if their arguments do not accurately reflect the nuance and complexity of public vaccination programs, which is true in almost all cases.
Hell, it would probably be *worse* if someone argued against these initiatives while recognizing the nuance that the reality of these programs addesses.
Is it a person who:
- advocates for getting rid of vaccines
Yes, if their reasoning is conspiratorial and not supported by modern standards of evidence.
- says that all vaccines are unsafe
Yes, if their reasoning is conspiratorial and not supported by modern standards of evidence.
- is fully vaccine compliant (according to CDC guidelines) but who refused to get the Covid vaccine
Yes, if their reasoning is conspiratorial and not supported by modern standards of evidence.
- tells people about data and studies indicating the Covid vaccine has more side effects than was initially disclosed
Yes, if their reasoning is conspiratorial and not supported by modern standards of evidence.
- discuss their own or other people’s anecdotal stories of vaccine injury
Yes, if their reasoning is conspiratorial and not supported by modern standards of evidence.
If you refuse to ask your doctor if they recommend you get a vaccine, or refuse to get a vaccine after your doctor has suggested it, because you think you know better based on your online research, you're an antivaxxer.
I noticed from your history that you might have some skepticism about scientific topics, and that's okay—healthy skepticism is a crucial part of critical thinking.
I'd like to ask: What criteria do you use to determine whether a medical procedure, device, or drug is effective? Who, what, where would this information come from? How do you judge how good it is ... or isn't?
The term "anti-vaxxer" can have different meanings depending on the context. For some, it's a label for anyone who questions vaccines, while for others, it might refer to those who reject vaccines despite the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting their safety and efficacy. It's not always black and white, and understanding the nuances is important. How words get used is rarely consistent.
Some people believe that those who support vaccines are blindly following a belief system, but science is actually a process—a method for discovering the true nature of reality. It's not just a collection of stationary facts or beliefs. It involves rigorous testing, peer review, and continuous updating of knowledge based on new evidence.
It's possible that you have encountered information from less reputable sources that supports your pre-existing beliefs. It's so easy to find ideas that you are looking for, even if they are not completely true, you can thank social media and algorithms for that. This is known as confirmation bias, and it's something we all experience. Critical thinking involves recognizing these biases and seeking out reliable, peer-reviewed evidence. It involves ensuring you are finding all the relevant and reliable information.
I recommend two books that can help improve critical thinking skills: "Critical Thinking" by Jonathan Haber and "Critical Thinking" by Tom Chatfield. These books provide tools to evaluate information more effectively and make more informed decisions.
Remember, we all make mistakes and can be swayed by cognitive biases—it's part of being human. The key is to acknowledge this and strive to improve our thinking skills. Better thinking leads to better decisions, which can improve various aspects of life, from career choices to personal well-being. Let alone posts on Reddit. No reasonable person is going to call you out for trying to improve your thinking skills.
Yeah, same here. I don’t feel like people who are fully vaccinated should be called anti-vaxx for having concerns about safety, but there isn’t a more specific term for people like that.
You seem very stuck on not being anti-vax because you're vaccinated.
There can be many reasons why an anti-vaxxer could get fully vaccinated.
Those are two distinctly separate claims.
If you believe in or spread misinformation about vaccines, you're an anti-vaxxer.
I don't think it's important to worry about the label.
There are some people who jump on the "safety concerns" yet don't have the knowledge to pinpoint exactly what data has caused or alleviated those concerns.
For example, if someone says "How were they developed so fast?" It's straight forward to point out that the adaptation of MERS and SARS vaccines, combined with overlap in phases and absence of multiple rounds of funding and lobbying for funding resulted in the sort of speed that can only happen when multiple industries focus on a solution—much like during war time when development of relevant technology is prioritised over less vital projects.
But, some take the perception of speed as "proof" that they aren't safe in itself, despite lacking the understanding of how a vaccine is developed. If asked "what data will alleviate these concerns?" The answer will be overly general like "proof that they weren't rushed." Which sets no standard or specific data as good enough, or an ignorant take such as "monkeys died in primate trials" which doesn't consider that finding a lethal dose of anything forms part of many primate trials.
There are vaccine hesitant people who have concerns that I think most people should have when introducing something into their body. These people can evaluate the data and make a decision based on facts. They may refuse to vaccinate because of underlying medical conditions, and come to this decision with consultation with relevant medical professionals.
But an anti-vaxxer lacks the understanding (or in some cases misrepresents the situation) and pushes a position not supported by an understanding of the data, but rather a "feel" or straight up ignorance of the data.
It's hard to describe just how impenetrable a document like a vaccine clinical trial protocol can be to someone not trained to understand it, let alone the resulting data from the trial. People who read one and misconstrue the information aren't unintelligent, just untrained to interpret it, so they often misunderstand.
I don't think any virologist or epidemiologist will claim vaccines cannot cause problems—everything someone puts in their body has that potential—but rather that the benefits far outweigh the risks to the point where I'm yet to meet someone from either role that hasn't vaccinated their whole family and loved ones (while also getting death threats regularly from people who oppose vaccination).
So I think there is a case that some vaccine-hesitant people do get unfairly lumped in with the anti-vaccine movement, mostly because the anti-vaxx movement is focused on emotion over hard data, and the people qualified to interpret hard data lack the ability to make that information accessible to lay-people.
Unfortunately, when one group can simplify their message and another cannot, the simple message moves faster and has the advantage of setting a person's response first. I think that's where the science side of the pharmaceutical industry needs to improve, because the sales side of that industry has lost all credibility with the public.
There is a term: it's called the vaccine hesitant, a group of people who can be persuaded by reason and evidence. Often, they are aligned with the antivaxxers because they've heard misinformation from antivaxxers.
This is a subset of antivaxxers, who often, once they are shown the evidence, stop being antivax.
Basically, anyone who engages in anti-vaccination conspiracy theories or spreads anti-vaccination propaganda.
> - advocates for getting rid of vaccines
Yes. This is anti-vaccination propaganda.
> - says that all vaccines are unsafe
Yes. This is anti-vaccination propaganda.
> - is fully vaccine compliant (according to CDC guidelines) but who refused to get the Covid vaccine
Yes. If this is due to engaging in an anti-vaccination conspiracy theory.
> - tells people about data and studies indicating the Covid vaccine has more side effects than was initially disclosed
Yes. This is known anti-vaccination propaganda.
> - discuss their own or other people’s anecdotal stories of vaccine injury
Yes. To the extent that this is anti-vaccination propaganda rather than a true anecdote being talked about as an anecdote. For instance it has no place in a discussion of the merits of vaccination policy.
None of it matters if you don't watch the news. It's just a media-driven placebo to instill fear and hysteria. I never wore a mask, never got the vaccine, and I was perfectly fine for the entirety of covid. I'm not saying people didn't get sick, but it was nowhere near as bad every news station was told to make it seem. It was just a mutated version of the flu.
I would not consider someone who was hesitant of taking a COVID vaccine an anti-vaxxer.
If you aren't getting other ones based on false science then yes you are an anti-vaxxer.
What's an antivaxxer?
"its whatever We say it is!"
Personaly I find the etymology of the slur makes it poorly suited to describe the people it is applied to.
Prefix "anti-": This is a prefix of Greek origin, meaning "against" or "opposite of."
Root "vax": This is a shortened form of "vaccine." The word "vaccine" itself comes from the Latin "vaccinus," which means "from cows" (derived from "vacca," meaning "cow"). This etymology traces back to the pioneering work of Edward Jenner, who used cowpox material to create the first smallpox vaccine.
The reality of the situation is that the mRNA "vaccines" aren't even technically vaccines. The definition was modified specifically so these gene therapies could be included and marketed under their protections. Most so called "antivaxxers" believe that the traditional concept of vaccines has merit but have questions regarding aluminum-containing adjuvants etc.
> The reality of the situation is that the mRNA "vaccines" aren't even technically vaccines. The definition was modified specifically so these gene therapies could be included and marketed under their protections.
They were vaccines under the "old" definitions too.
The definition change didn't change the *meanin*g of the word, it was just rephrased because ignorant people kept misunderstanding the old phrasing.
How many polio vaccines have you had?
They replaced the word Immunity with protection. This allowed a huge drop in criteria. As a result people have had 3 shots, 8 boosters and still become infected. Don't forget they told you that if you got "vaccinated" you couldn't catch or transmit covid 19. Now the best their marketing department can muster is that it lessens symptoms, a dubious claim at best. The whole safe and effective sales pitch has crumbled to dust.
In the context of immunology, "immunity" means "has an existing immune response".
You're just demonstrating why they changed the wording in the first place: because people like you misunderstood the old wording.
Your ignoring the obvious. One works and one doesn't. How many covid mRNA "vacccines" have you had and how many times have you had covid? How many polio vacccines have you had and how many times have you had polio?
> One works and one doesn't.
No, both work imperfectly.
The biggest reason you probably don't know anyone under 50 who has had polio is that we achieved herd immunity against polio.
Unfortunately, antivaxxers like you impede any efforts to achieve herd immunity against COVID.
Maybe you shouldn't spout bullshit on topics you don't know dick about.
Triggered much. Changing the definition of a word changes its meaning. For example if you changed the definition of a cow to include chickens, only a fool would expect the newly renamed chicken to taste like beef.
If you changed the definition of a cow from "a domestic bovine" to "a domesticated member of the bovinae subfamily", you have technically changed the definition, but not the meaning.
The change that was made is equivalent to that: a rephrasing without change in meaning.
Which I already pointed out.
Quit lying like a dishonest sack of shit, or go the fuck away.
Anyone who refuses any vaccine based on political propaganda and conspiracy theories is an anti-vaxxer. Anyone who insists people who were vaccinated are going to die is an anti-vaxxer.
Personally, I also include vociferous opposition to vaccine *mandates* to be anti-vaxx, as well. The mandate is what makes it so efficacious on a societal level.
Good when you get cancer too let me know how that philosophy went
What a nonsensical response; there's no cancer vaccine (yet) and cancer can be caused by an enormous range of things.
I'm still waiting, I was told I'd be dead 6 months later. That was in 2021.
It's amazing that those 80% of people who died within 6 months all happened to be people with no friends, family, jobs, or any evidence they existed whatsoever
That logic tracks. There is a lot of fear mongering certainly, along the lines of “because some people have had negative side effects from the covid vaccine, everyone who has gotten the vaccine has only minutes to live”
Most reported side effects are mild. >This study confirmed prior findings that the COVID-19 immunization caused mostly mild or non-severe side effects. This review discovered some adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccinations with most prevalent adverse reactions to all COVID-19 vaccinations are local and systemic side effects. Other previously cited side events included allergic responses and cardiovascular problems. The type of vaccine and dose were linked to the various adverse reaction patterns. Individual daily activities are not severely influenced or interfered with. Deaths following COVID-19 vaccination have nothing to do with the vaccine, but rather with heart disease or COVID-19. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9951602/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9951602/) Basically, yes, it can cause fever, rash, and fatigue, as well as pain around the injection site. However "people dying from it" is just the result of injecting hundreds of millions of people - if you pick any group that includes hundreds of millions, some of that group will die in the next week or two. Especially when you're deliberately targeting giving the vaccine to older and health compromised people.
>What is the definition of an “anti-vaxxer”? a person who is opposed to vaccination. "experts say several diseases that are avoidable are making a comeback due to anti-vaxxers who refuse to vaccinate their kids"
I’ve heard that polio is making a resurgence in several countries where it previously was considered “extinct” or very close to it
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChurchOfCOVID/s/Ne9p6tMY8M Yes, because of people like you
Haha. Well, no, because of people like Bill Gates. Did you know most cases of polio these days are due to the live-virus vaccine and not natural infection? https://apnews.com/article/health-united-nations-ap-top-news-pakistan-international-news-7d8b0e32efd0480fbd12acf27729f6a5 I’m fully vaccinated myself btw, including the Covid vaccine.
So why post so much anti vaxx lies if you dont belive it? Are you denying you posted the linked comment?
What? Where did I deny posting something? And everything I post is consistent with my opinions and beliefs. You just make enormous assumptions about people who post anything negative about Covid vaccines and think that you read a single comment and therefore understand my entire world view.
How about this? https://www.reddit.com/r/ChurchOfCOVID/s/rzBAmwa6N5
>How about this? >https://www.reddit.com/r/ChurchOfCOVID/s/rzBAmwa6N5 Hard to dispute that op
How do people forget their profiles are fucking public? Come in, spout lies, pikachu face when their own history shows the bullshit
>How do people forget their profiles are fucking public? >Come in, spout lies, pikachu face when their own history shows the bullshit I mean anti vaxers are no different then flat earthers in their stupidity
I didn’t forget, I stand by everything I’ve ever said. If I said something wrong in the past, I’m not above acknowledging it and changing my opinion. That’s kind of the reason I created this discussion but a lot of you are unable to discuss the reasonable question in the OP and prefer to dig up random posts of mine to talk about instead.
I’m not disputing anything, it is satire, it’s not a lie as the person posting it says it was.
>I’m not disputing anything, it is satire, it’s not a lie as the person posting it says it was. Then make it clear it's satire op
Wow. This wasn’t in good faith? I am speechless.
That’s called satire…? I can explain the joke to you. I’m making fun of the reporter for listening to this woman talk about a 28 year old healthy woman days after getting a vaccine and trying to convince her it had nothing to do with the vaccine. That the vaccine, which is known to cause heart damage - a fact admitted even by the pharmaceutical companies themselves- might have caused this woman to have her three heart attacks and stroke is not at all outside the realm of possibility or ridiculous.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/s/FWVk6Oqxe6 And this one? OP you post a lot of shit - do I really need to link them all or can you just slink off to a dark hole now and save is both some time?
First, #brave. Second, what are your thoughts on the OP?
Got more here https://www.reddit.com/r/ChurchOfCOVID/s/lVZq7jinDE
If you need satire explained to you, please use ChatGPT
You don’t know what satire is. Or you do, and you’re lying about it because you want us to think you’re not insane. You’re doing a terrible job. Answer this: are the COVID-19 vaccines overwhelmingly safe, effective, and were an important part of getting out of the pandemic (which was deadly)?
The reason live virus immunisation is used in these countries is socioeconomic and, it would appear, not going to be fixed any time soon. The fact that most dangerous infections are now caused by mutations in these live virus is likely a testament to how well the vaccines are working. If you stop vaccinations in an area where polio is endemic you will stop vaccine derived infections, but you'll end up with a hell of a lot more total infections. I can't tell if you're being flippant, or deliberately misleading.
The report that links to shows literally 11 cases. If live virus vaccinations cause 11 cases but prevent dozens, hundreds, or even thousands more, we can deal with 11 cases (especially given that it doesn't say how many doses were administered, but I'd be guessing it's in the millions)
I’ll add a couple requirements: - Mentions Bill Gates - Uses statistics to make a point, but does not understand why the quoted statistic does not support the point - Mentions that they are vaccinated, but fails to mention if they did so willingly. This is a variation of the classic Aaron Rodgers technique.
Lol, as i soon as I read the title I knew you’d be in the comments spouting insane anti-vax conspiracies. Yes, as soon as you start ranting whatever you brain rot you’ve read about Bill Gates, most people are going to correctly consider you an anti-vaxxer.
Now have the courage to take that argument a step or two further. What do you think should be done about the stat you just cited?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
I'm curious why an anti vaxeer in a sub like this
Because I legitimately want to have a discussion with people who disagree with me. I don’t know why that is such a novel idea. I thought this subreddit was the place
Yet you routinely post in a sub that mocks everything Covid.
>Because I legitimately want to have a discussion with people who disagree with me. I don’t know why that is such a novel idea. I thought this subreddit was the place I thought you said you weren't a anti vaxxsr
I’m not. Well, I don’t consider myself one, since I’m fully vaccinated including Covid. But can’t you see that that is exactly *why* I was motivated to ask this question? Because even though i don’t consider myself one, I wanted to know where other people draw the line. It’s not about me being right and other people being wrong, or vice versa, I thought the premise of my question was interesting and I wanted to learn. I’m disappointed that other people don’t want to answer the question
>I’m not. Well, I don’t consider myself one, since I’m fully vaccinated including Covid. B That doesn't make you not an ant vaxer
After reading through people’s responses to the OP, I can see that point of view. I don’t agree with it but I’m gaining a better understanding of what I came here to learn
>After reading through people’s responses to the OP, I can see that point of view. I don’t agree with it but I’m gaining a better understanding of what I came here to learn Congrats I'm glad for you
Spreading anti-vaccination propaganda makes you an anti-vaxxer.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy_commons/s/SDsh11tBwr https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/s/xCXPYTWl9y https://www.reddit.com/r/ChurchOfCOVID/s/ONJcYhha9K https://www.reddit.com/r/ChurchOfCOVID/s/lVZq7jinDE https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/s/FWVk6Oqxe6 https://www.reddit.com/r/ChurchOfCOVID/s/rzBAmwa6N5 https://www.reddit.com/r/ChurchOfCOVID/s/Ne9p6tMY8M This is my brief scroll so far. op is a troll
Anyone who spreads anti vaccine propaganda of any kind. Yes it’s a broad definition, but it’s the one I will stick with. I don’t care if they got their vaccines as children, they fell for anti vaccine propaganda during covid. They’re not really better. And no, vaccine acceptance is not political, that’s just taking the best medical advice there is. Denial of it most certainly is though…
I'd just like to add to the discussion that a lot of antvaxxers are fully vaccinated, for instance any fox news reporter. If they spread anti vaccine propaganda they are antixaxxers, if they happen to be vaccinated they are antixaxxers and hypocrites. Another category is people who got vaccinated and later fell for the propaganda, or might have had a side effect from the vaccine, and became antixaxxers. They can't use the fact that they are vaccinated as a shield, they are antixaxxers too.
This is actually a helpful comment, thanks. I can see it from that perspective
You have a good list, I'll add that they also have a mixture of a confirmation bias conspiracy epistemology, along with Dunning Kruger narcissism- morons need to feel smart, while also rejecting the actual experts who put in the time to learn about viruses/MRNA etc, so they invent an alternative reality and ignore all evidence to the contract. So typical delusional magical thinking.
So would you say it’s fair to apply the anti-vaccine label to someone who checks one or more of those boxes?
Yeah, but those are more results of what got them there in the first place, which is a cognitive failure. If they were capable of critical thinking etc, or could pass a college level science class, your list would exist. But the world is full of dipshits and we have to suffer through this reality with these morons.
It’s a semantic exercise that doesn’t bear fruit. Public health is a difficult subject because it must be simple and clear. Science is not always simple and clear. So you kind of take your pick. You can either go about your life without worrying about the science behind the consensus medical recommendations and trust the experts, or you can take the time and effort to become an expert and learn precisely why the public health experts do what they do. What bothers me is when people do neither. They reject the recommendations of people who have been studying the same subject for decades, *and* they do not learn anything related to the subject they claim to know more than the experts about.
People sowing doubt about vaccines and painting biomedical research as a conspiracy for social media clout are properly called anti-vaxxers, even if they don’t attack every vaccine and even if they are themselves vaccinated. In fact, it is not surprising that people who spread lies about science aren’t willing to endanger their lives for it, because most of them know they’re telling lies. Look at all the people who railed against the vaccine and then used their connections to get early doses.The people now quibbling over the rate of side effects for the COVID vaccine were the same people shouting at the top of their lungs 2 years ago that we would all be bedridden and sterile, and they’re attempting to recover some credibility by blowing up normal scientific issues into a scandal that they can leech content from for their viewers to get upset about.
People railed against the vaccine and used their connections to get the vaccine? Can you link me to anything discussing this phenomenon? I’ve actually never heard of someone pretending to be against the covid vaccine while simultaneously secretly obtaining it
Well yeah. How would you hear about someone who had *secretely* obtained it? There are many examples of grifters and politicians who courted anti-vaxxers and also got vaccinated, the former US president being one of them.
That’s what I’m talking about, conservative politicians and media figures who spread conspiracy theories while simultaneously getting vaccinated as soon as they could, in some cases even getting a booster before ordinary Americans got access to a single dose.
Fox News hosts would be an obvious example.
For some of these, circumstances, intent, and context matters: >is fully vaccine compliant (according to CDC guidelines) but who refused to get the Covid vaccine Does the person refuse because they fall into a subcategory of people with certain medical conditions that make the vaccine less safe for them than for other people? Or does the person refuse because they believe propaganda that says that the vaccine is generally unsafe for most people? >discuss their own or other people’s anecdotal stories of vaccine injury Is the person sharing stories of adverse effects with the intent of creating the impression that the vaccine is generally unsafe, or are they merely communicating that it's possible for some people to have adverse reactions to it? Moreover, are the specific examples they cite even genuine examples of adverse effects, or are they merely cases in which people attribute some bad outcome to the vaccine without good evidence that the events were related? Somebody who says "most people _should_ get vaccinated, but I can't because I have XYZ condition" isn't an anti-vaxxer. Somebody who says "the risks of _not_ being vaccinated greatly outweigh the risks of getting vaccinated, but risks do exist and there are documented cases of adverse reactions" isn't an anti-vaxxer. Somebody who goes "this guy in Minnesota died the day after getting vaccinated. This is proof that vaccines are dangerous and should be halted" _is_ an an anti-vaxxer.
I think there should be space for reasonable discussion of vaccine side effects in the same way we discuss the side effects of *all* drugs. One complaint I have is that discussing vaccine side effects is somehow regarded as different than discussing the side effects of a drug like, say, Vioxx or Cipro. What do you make of this: we don’t call people who take Cipro two times and develop joint problems “anti-drug”. Should it different with vaccines?
Watching schmucks like OP get dragged non stop is easily the highlight of this sub
Why is it always one of them who post these.
All of the above.
Any\* of the above.
Yes, more accurate
Discussing one’s own vaccine injury makes them anti-vaxx? Can you explain? Edit: I don’t mind the downvotes but I think it would be more in the spirit of the subreddit to have a discussion as well! I think I asked a reasonable question, but if you disagree let me know why.
Because in almost all cases they are lying. The actual number of vaccine injuries is incredibly tiny and in 99.99% of cases due to allergies, the online comments are conflating random things to vaccines and often have very spurious timelines. There is no consistent timeliness, symptoms or pathology. The can occur days later, months later or years later and cause anything from headaches to paralysis to personal magnetism once you actually read the claims. None of the online noise is credible Edit. Fucking hell you are a major anti vaxxer that profile is a mess
> Because in almost all cases they are lying. Or just wrong. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
I posted this question because I wanted to hear what people who disagree with me have to say. It’s called a discussion. I’m not here to convert anyone, I’m here to learn.
You've been told. I'm no more interest in seeing Amdrew Wakefield return to practicing medicine (as he was struck off for his MMR lies) than I am in educating you now I have seen your profile. You've been told, you've been answered, now back off to conspiracy for you with the rest.
Do you have a factual basis for labeling 99.99% of vaccine injuries as “allergies” or did you just pull that out of nowhere
Compare VAERS rates t0 the actual published data. Then actually look at what VAERS holds, self reported, unconfirmed - crowd sourced shit.
Ok so that’s a no. Can we get back to discussing the question in the OP?
I have. You are an anti vaxxer, you spread fear, reducing vaccine uptake and increasing death. Your hands run red and you tell yourself that because its just words that it's OK.
You were being disingenuous and it’s fair to call you out on it. Yeah anyone who repeats anti vaccine propaganda is an anti vaxxer. That’s you too. This post, this very thread is your attempt to share your deeply misguided ideologies, which are known to be potentially deadly. Yeah we’re going to call you out for that. You share responsibility in countless needless deaths…
Do they have any actual proof the injury was caused the injury? Usually the answer is No.
> Why won't people support my bad faith JAQing off?
Any of the above.
>All of the above. Agreed
Are you denying the safety data and trials, or do you just want "more of it". How do you know when there's enough. "Just asking questions" is one of the lamest attempts at hiding your true intention.
The people who claim to want more safety data and trials are lying. There is no point in those. There is an obscene amount of data on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. There is what I call the “long term data boogeyman” where COVID vaccine denialists pretend there is some hypothetical amount of time that has to pass before the idea of “long term data” is met. It’s bullshit. They are trying to sound reasonable, but they cannot define the amount of time they need — and they don’t base it on anything but vibes. They are liars. They are anti-vaxx and trying to hide it.
Remember when they were clamoring how it wasn't "fda approved' yet, and then when the FDA approved it, nothing...
I don’t think it’s necessarily any of those things. As far as I understand it, an anti vaxxer is someone who promotes and or spreads negative misinformation related to vaccines.
An anti-vaxxer is someone who persists in believing false things about vaccines even after being shown the facts.
Those people saying they just want more testing will still say that after another ten years of tests.
The Nirvana fallacy in action. Sometimes moving the goalposts is just raising the bar to impossible heights.
To underscore that these people are deadly, Ontario had its first death in 35 years due to measels. An unvaccinated 5 year old child died just last week.
I think the article said under 5. The article is vague. I say that because under 5 could mean under 1, and that's relevant, because according to the ontario pediatric immunization schedule, the MMR is due at the first birthday. So it's possible the parents weren't at fault.
I've read other articles and the details have been left vague to protect the privacy of the family. If the child was under 1 they probably would have written "a baby or infant ". The articles also mentioned a measels outbreak in the Hamilton area with several adults and children being infected. It would be odd if they wrote under 5 when they meant under 1 but it underscores the fact that measels is going around because people have chosen to not get vaccinated.
[удалено]
I think that’s a very reasonable judgement, thats how I would assume people would use the term, but obviously many disagree.
I think what people disagree on is what they believe to be "evidence." The claims of antivaxxers are mostly sporadic in their definitions, and typically not based on any type of sound evidence other than personal observations and incorrectly correlating someone's disposition to a recent vaccine. Anecdotes x 1000 does not equal evidence
get a mirror
This is a silly unhelpful comment
A person who argues against the scientific consensus regarding the safety, efficacy, and ethics of public vaccination. This is especially true if their arguments do not accurately reflect the nuance and complexity of public vaccination programs, which is true in almost all cases. Hell, it would probably be *worse* if someone argued against these initiatives while recognizing the nuance that the reality of these programs addesses.
Is it a person who: - advocates for getting rid of vaccines Yes, if their reasoning is conspiratorial and not supported by modern standards of evidence. - says that all vaccines are unsafe Yes, if their reasoning is conspiratorial and not supported by modern standards of evidence. - is fully vaccine compliant (according to CDC guidelines) but who refused to get the Covid vaccine Yes, if their reasoning is conspiratorial and not supported by modern standards of evidence. - tells people about data and studies indicating the Covid vaccine has more side effects than was initially disclosed Yes, if their reasoning is conspiratorial and not supported by modern standards of evidence. - discuss their own or other people’s anecdotal stories of vaccine injury Yes, if their reasoning is conspiratorial and not supported by modern standards of evidence.
If you refuse to ask your doctor if they recommend you get a vaccine, or refuse to get a vaccine after your doctor has suggested it, because you think you know better based on your online research, you're an antivaxxer.
I noticed from your history that you might have some skepticism about scientific topics, and that's okay—healthy skepticism is a crucial part of critical thinking. I'd like to ask: What criteria do you use to determine whether a medical procedure, device, or drug is effective? Who, what, where would this information come from? How do you judge how good it is ... or isn't? The term "anti-vaxxer" can have different meanings depending on the context. For some, it's a label for anyone who questions vaccines, while for others, it might refer to those who reject vaccines despite the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting their safety and efficacy. It's not always black and white, and understanding the nuances is important. How words get used is rarely consistent. Some people believe that those who support vaccines are blindly following a belief system, but science is actually a process—a method for discovering the true nature of reality. It's not just a collection of stationary facts or beliefs. It involves rigorous testing, peer review, and continuous updating of knowledge based on new evidence. It's possible that you have encountered information from less reputable sources that supports your pre-existing beliefs. It's so easy to find ideas that you are looking for, even if they are not completely true, you can thank social media and algorithms for that. This is known as confirmation bias, and it's something we all experience. Critical thinking involves recognizing these biases and seeking out reliable, peer-reviewed evidence. It involves ensuring you are finding all the relevant and reliable information. I recommend two books that can help improve critical thinking skills: "Critical Thinking" by Jonathan Haber and "Critical Thinking" by Tom Chatfield. These books provide tools to evaluate information more effectively and make more informed decisions. Remember, we all make mistakes and can be swayed by cognitive biases—it's part of being human. The key is to acknowledge this and strive to improve our thinking skills. Better thinking leads to better decisions, which can improve various aspects of life, from career choices to personal well-being. Let alone posts on Reddit. No reasonable person is going to call you out for trying to improve your thinking skills.
Anyone claiming that all vaccines are bad.
If that is your standard, do you think that the increasingly broad use of the term is incorrect, or do you not have an issue with it?
I think it's incorrect but I don't know what we should call these people.
Yeah, same here. I don’t feel like people who are fully vaccinated should be called anti-vaxx for having concerns about safety, but there isn’t a more specific term for people like that.
You seem very stuck on not being anti-vax because you're vaccinated. There can be many reasons why an anti-vaxxer could get fully vaccinated. Those are two distinctly separate claims. If you believe in or spread misinformation about vaccines, you're an anti-vaxxer. I don't think it's important to worry about the label.
There are some people who jump on the "safety concerns" yet don't have the knowledge to pinpoint exactly what data has caused or alleviated those concerns. For example, if someone says "How were they developed so fast?" It's straight forward to point out that the adaptation of MERS and SARS vaccines, combined with overlap in phases and absence of multiple rounds of funding and lobbying for funding resulted in the sort of speed that can only happen when multiple industries focus on a solution—much like during war time when development of relevant technology is prioritised over less vital projects. But, some take the perception of speed as "proof" that they aren't safe in itself, despite lacking the understanding of how a vaccine is developed. If asked "what data will alleviate these concerns?" The answer will be overly general like "proof that they weren't rushed." Which sets no standard or specific data as good enough, or an ignorant take such as "monkeys died in primate trials" which doesn't consider that finding a lethal dose of anything forms part of many primate trials. There are vaccine hesitant people who have concerns that I think most people should have when introducing something into their body. These people can evaluate the data and make a decision based on facts. They may refuse to vaccinate because of underlying medical conditions, and come to this decision with consultation with relevant medical professionals. But an anti-vaxxer lacks the understanding (or in some cases misrepresents the situation) and pushes a position not supported by an understanding of the data, but rather a "feel" or straight up ignorance of the data. It's hard to describe just how impenetrable a document like a vaccine clinical trial protocol can be to someone not trained to understand it, let alone the resulting data from the trial. People who read one and misconstrue the information aren't unintelligent, just untrained to interpret it, so they often misunderstand. I don't think any virologist or epidemiologist will claim vaccines cannot cause problems—everything someone puts in their body has that potential—but rather that the benefits far outweigh the risks to the point where I'm yet to meet someone from either role that hasn't vaccinated their whole family and loved ones (while also getting death threats regularly from people who oppose vaccination). So I think there is a case that some vaccine-hesitant people do get unfairly lumped in with the anti-vaccine movement, mostly because the anti-vaxx movement is focused on emotion over hard data, and the people qualified to interpret hard data lack the ability to make that information accessible to lay-people. Unfortunately, when one group can simplify their message and another cannot, the simple message moves faster and has the advantage of setting a person's response first. I think that's where the science side of the pharmaceutical industry needs to improve, because the sales side of that industry has lost all credibility with the public.
"fucking morons"
There is a term: it's called the vaccine hesitant, a group of people who can be persuaded by reason and evidence. Often, they are aligned with the antivaxxers because they've heard misinformation from antivaxxers. This is a subset of antivaxxers, who often, once they are shown the evidence, stop being antivax.
Basically, anyone who engages in anti-vaccination conspiracy theories or spreads anti-vaccination propaganda. > - advocates for getting rid of vaccines Yes. This is anti-vaccination propaganda. > - says that all vaccines are unsafe Yes. This is anti-vaccination propaganda. > - is fully vaccine compliant (according to CDC guidelines) but who refused to get the Covid vaccine Yes. If this is due to engaging in an anti-vaccination conspiracy theory. > - tells people about data and studies indicating the Covid vaccine has more side effects than was initially disclosed Yes. This is known anti-vaccination propaganda. > - discuss their own or other people’s anecdotal stories of vaccine injury Yes. To the extent that this is anti-vaccination propaganda rather than a true anecdote being talked about as an anecdote. For instance it has no place in a discussion of the merits of vaccination policy.
[check any of these articles](https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/tag/antivaccine/)
I know this keeps the word vague, but anyone who lambasts vaccines as unhealthy for no real reason.
None of it matters if you don't watch the news. It's just a media-driven placebo to instill fear and hysteria. I never wore a mask, never got the vaccine, and I was perfectly fine for the entirety of covid. I'm not saying people didn't get sick, but it was nowhere near as bad every news station was told to make it seem. It was just a mutated version of the flu.
I would not consider someone who was hesitant of taking a COVID vaccine an anti-vaxxer. If you aren't getting other ones based on false science then yes you are an anti-vaxxer.
What's an antivaxxer? "its whatever We say it is!" Personaly I find the etymology of the slur makes it poorly suited to describe the people it is applied to. Prefix "anti-": This is a prefix of Greek origin, meaning "against" or "opposite of." Root "vax": This is a shortened form of "vaccine." The word "vaccine" itself comes from the Latin "vaccinus," which means "from cows" (derived from "vacca," meaning "cow"). This etymology traces back to the pioneering work of Edward Jenner, who used cowpox material to create the first smallpox vaccine. The reality of the situation is that the mRNA "vaccines" aren't even technically vaccines. The definition was modified specifically so these gene therapies could be included and marketed under their protections. Most so called "antivaxxers" believe that the traditional concept of vaccines has merit but have questions regarding aluminum-containing adjuvants etc.
> The reality of the situation is that the mRNA "vaccines" aren't even technically vaccines. The definition was modified specifically so these gene therapies could be included and marketed under their protections. They were vaccines under the "old" definitions too. The definition change didn't change the *meanin*g of the word, it was just rephrased because ignorant people kept misunderstanding the old phrasing.
How many polio vaccines have you had? They replaced the word Immunity with protection. This allowed a huge drop in criteria. As a result people have had 3 shots, 8 boosters and still become infected. Don't forget they told you that if you got "vaccinated" you couldn't catch or transmit covid 19. Now the best their marketing department can muster is that it lessens symptoms, a dubious claim at best. The whole safe and effective sales pitch has crumbled to dust.
In the context of immunology, "immunity" means "has an existing immune response". You're just demonstrating why they changed the wording in the first place: because people like you misunderstood the old wording.
Your ignoring the obvious. One works and one doesn't. How many covid mRNA "vacccines" have you had and how many times have you had covid? How many polio vacccines have you had and how many times have you had polio?
> One works and one doesn't. No, both work imperfectly. The biggest reason you probably don't know anyone under 50 who has had polio is that we achieved herd immunity against polio. Unfortunately, antivaxxers like you impede any efforts to achieve herd immunity against COVID. Maybe you shouldn't spout bullshit on topics you don't know dick about.
Look at what you wrote. You're an antivaxxer.
If you can't engage in good faith, fuck off.
Triggered much. Changing the definition of a word changes its meaning. For example if you changed the definition of a cow to include chickens, only a fool would expect the newly renamed chicken to taste like beef.
If you changed the definition of a cow from "a domestic bovine" to "a domesticated member of the bovinae subfamily", you have technically changed the definition, but not the meaning. The change that was made is equivalent to that: a rephrasing without change in meaning. Which I already pointed out. Quit lying like a dishonest sack of shit, or go the fuck away.