usernamezrhardtodo
Registered User
- Mar 26, 2014
- 2,504
- 3,072
I believe the point he’s making is that they quite literally changed the definition of a well established concept to suit their agenda.
If they kept the definition the same (as it’s always been) but made a note that people who have previously contracted COVID-19 may not have the antibodies long-term, it would not be a big deal.
Ya...they changed it to basically say that your antibodies aren't going to last but big pharma's will last. My wife had covid in early Jan and didn't get it from me in the middle of november...neither did my kids who also had it in January. This trust the science stuff only works if you consider science that has been used to treat and diagnose for many years...not make up as you go science that has no basis in fact. Out of the 60M people that have had covid only 4 people got it again...you have a better chance of getting struck by lighting while winning the lotto 6/49 than you do of getting covid again if you had it within the last year.