>>6825792>>6821013The first thing to keep in mind is that there are a wide range of different methods, tools, and techniques, which are all blurred under the same name of 'vaccine'. This is something most people concerning these sorts of questions have difficulty explicitly conceptualizing, but it is especially true of those that naively stooge for power.
The first therapeutic technique to ever be called a vaccine, was a virus literally called vaccinia, also known as cowpox ('vaccinus' being a latin root for 'of or from the cow'). It was observed that milkmaids and other folk who worked with dairy animals were far less affected by smallpox when outbreaks would pass through an area, and it was eventually linked to cowpox, which, while having mild effects on humans, was also related with the former, meaning prior infection with one providing cross-resistance to the other.
Once this phenomena was discovered, techniques elaborating on it for use against other highly morbid viruses (viruses, specifically) quickly proliferated; whether by use of related but less morbid strains of a virus, or by the same strain, but weakened or denatured in some way first, or some combination thereof. An early bottleneck in this process was actually the question of, how do you even produce the viruses and get them in a serum in sufficient numbers, in the first place? Until another enterprising fellow came up with the idea of infecting developing chicken eggs with your target strain, then later collecting and filtering out the virus filled serum left over. Morbid, but effective.
There are some vaccines that still take this traditional form, which are usually safe and effective. There are also many measures, which are also labeled as vaccines, that do not take this form, and you are generally better off avoiding them.
There is also a more meta-leval dynamic to the process, which is the inverse relationship between the morbidity of a virus and the rationality of 'vaccine' as a therapeutic measure against it to begin with. In order for a vaccine virus to actually 'prime' an immune system to recognize it or things related to it in the future, it needs provoke an immune response. Ie, it needs to have teeth, have morbidity of its own. When the question is viral afflictions with very high degrees of morbidity, like smallpox, polio, ebola, and so on, the trade-off between the morbidity of the target affliction, and the morbidity of a vaccine, can be large. When you start speaking of increasingly trivial viral diseases however, you start approaching the point where the morbidity of the disease, and the morbidity of an actually effective vaccine, become essentially equivalent. And in the case of highly endemic viruses, like influenza, rhinoviruses, et cetera, it can not be uncommon for a vaccination to be even worse than an actual infection, due to differences between how different folk can respond to a given dosage, differences in types of possible exposure in the real world environment, and so on. This is also besides the fact that such sorts of endemic viruses are eternally mutating, which is why you can find yourself catching a cold one year, and still find yourself catching another cold later some other year, which basically renders the idea of vaccination techniques for such thing as a big joke to begin with. (But if you could somehow meme people into the idea of buying a never ending stream of 'vaccines' for such a thing, that would certainly promise great payoff; and if you could somehow meme people into the idea that an endemic dynamic that humanoid societies have dealt with from the year dot, was in fact an extraordinary matter that requires *extraordinary measures*, and you place yourself in position to *administrate* those measures, that would certainly promise great payoff as well... in power. An interesting thought eh?)
