Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 1
There aren't two vaccines.

The documents from the FDA contradict you. See https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download

In the above letter the FDA states that the mRNA Comirnaty COVID-19 Vaccine, has the same formulation as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine except "The products are legally distinct." Therefore:

• The FDA approved the Comirnaty COVID-19 Vaccine, a vaccine does not exist. Pfizer is not using the Comirnaty vaccine to vaccinate people because this so-called approval is a fraud. It is simply an attempt to claim approval in the face of a colossal loss of life and injury from the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.

• The FDA did not approve the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine that Pfizer is now using to vaccinate people and as a result this vaccine needs the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) otherwise it is curtains for Pfizer.

• The problem with untested and experimental vaccines is that they are now the Thalidomide of vaccines, except it is worse by orders of magnitude. We are now looking at tens of thousands people dead and hundreds of thousands injured. A computer programmer at the CDC, who is counting the actual vaccine VAERS deaths revealed that in the USA alone, we had thus far 45,000 deaths within 3 days of vaccination. So why would anyone risk his/her life just because this vaccine is now approved? A statement from this programmer was presented by America’s Frontline Doctors, to an Alabama Federal District Court seeking immediate halt of COVID vaccines. See https://boards.fool.com/final-approval-of-pfizer-vaccine-wil...

• According to medical protocol, vaccines are not needed in the presence of medications that cure Covid. Given that medications such as Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Budesonide etc cure Covid within hours then why risk your life with an experimental and untested vaccine?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
“That’s fine,” said the hospital, but you must also sign a statement that testifies you will not use any products developed with the same technology of fetal cell lines.
Among the products:
Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, aspirin, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, ibuprofen, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, albuterol, Preparation H, MMR vaccine, Claritin, Zoloft, Prilosec OTC, and azithromycin.


Some of those, like Tums, Tylenol and Sudafed, have been around a lot longer than there's been fetal stem cell research. There must be more to it than that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Some of those, like Tums, Tylenol and Sudafed, have been around a lot longer than there's been fetal stem cell research. There must be more to it than that.

Undoubtedly so.

Like………. Continuing research/product improvement
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I seem to remember someone voicing opposition to mRNA vaccines based upon the use of fetal cell lines in their development... "That’s fine," said the hospital, but you must also sign a statement that testifies you will not use any products developed with the same technology of fetal cell lines. Among the products... aspirin...

That is not true. The discovery of aspirin did not involve aborted fetuses. And this is also true for the rest of the products you listed.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
That is not true. The discovery of aspirin did not involve aborted fetuses. And this is also true for the rest of the products you listed.

Foolish Ajax…. There’s more to a drug than “discovery”.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41420-019-0170-x
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I seem to remember someone voicing opposition to mRNA vaccines based upon the use of fetal cell lines in their development... “That’s fine,” said the hospital, but you must also sign a statement that testifies you will not use any products developed with the same technology of fetal cell lines. Among the products... aspirin...

That is not true. The discovery of aspirin did not involve aborted fetuses...

Foolish Ajax…. There’s more to a drug than “discovery”. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41420-019-0170-x

You are changing the subject. Please tell us how and when the discovery of aspirin was based on fetal cell lines. No answer.

Therefore, the argument you made is not true!


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You are changing the subject. Please tell us how and when the discovery of aspirin was based on fetal cell lines. No answer.


As I said, there’s more to a drug than simply its discovery.

Fetal cell lines are used in more than simply a drug’s development.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
As I said, there’s more to a drug than simply its discovery. Fetal cell lines are used in more than simply a drug’s development.

The fact that the discovery of aspirin was not based on fetal cell lines invalidates the argument you presented in the Original Post of this thread.

Thank you for admitting that.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The fact that the discovery of aspirin was not based on fetal cell lines invalidates the argument you presented in the Original Post of this thread.

Thank you for admitting that.


No it doesn’t, and no, I didn’t.

Ajax, however, failed completely to make a valid point, as evidenced by his tired and often used distraction- No answer!

His attempted sleight of hand?

Substituting the word “discovery” for the word “development”.

And in doing so, it was he who veered off topic.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Substituting the word “discovery” for the word “development”.

Saw that right away. But a more important point was overlooked.

RWNJs are unable to develop because any "discovery" they make contradicts their restricted worldview.

Which was demonstrated above.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Substituting the word “discovery” for the word “development”.
And in doing so, it was he who veered off topic."

Kind of like when you substituted ... all media...for the time you clearly complained about many articles ...printed ... about Biden.

https://boards.fool.com/quotyou-dragged-this-thread-down-int...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Ajax... Substituting the word "discovery" for the word "development". And in doing so, it was he who veered off topic.

You are grasping at straws. In this thread you are defending the new medication, the monoclonal antibody treatments that are made from aborted fetuses. In the OP of this thread you stated that a Hospital replied to this objection - the aborted fetuses - by stating that aspirin was developed using aborted fetuses and that, is not the case because the history of aspirin goes back 2,500 years:

The German company Bayer patents aspirin on March 6, 1899. Now the most common drug in household medicine cabinets, acetylsalicylic acid was originally made from a chemical found in the bark of willow trees. In its primitive form, the active ingredient, salicin, was used for centuries in folk medicine, beginning in ancient Greece when Hippocrates used it to relieve pain and fever. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/bayer-patents-as...

In the end, your claim that aspirin was developed with the same technology as monoclonal antibody treatments that use fetal cell lines is bunk.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You are grasping at straws. In this thread you are defending the new medication, the monoclonal antibody treatments that are made from aborted fetuses. In the OP of this thread you stated that a Hospital replied to this objection - the aborted fetuses - by stating that aspirin was developed using aborted fetuses and that, is not the case because the history of aspirin goes back 2,500 years:

Fetal cell lines are not “aborted fetuses”.

That’s your first nonsense.

Running a close second…… your exclusive focus on the discovery of aspirin to the exclusion of the subsequent development and experimentation involving aspirin in subsequent years. And some of that experimentation involved fetal cell lines……by Bayer.

And third, you chose as your focus-the drug in the list I reprinted, that you thought would be easiest to challenge. But you could only do that by shifting the discussion to “discovery” to the exclusion of development and experimentation that has occurred most recently

In truth, there is not much in the way of modern pharmaceuticals that does not involve, at some stage of development, the use of human fetal cell lines.

And that is exactly the point being made by Conway Regional Health.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You are grasping at straws. In this thread you are defending the new medication, the monoclonal antibody treatments that are made from aborted fetuses.

Even there, you fail.

The issue was a health system’s challenge to mRNA vaccine hesitancy, not monoclonal antibody treatment.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
In the end, your claim that aspirin was developed with the same technology as monoclonal antibody treatments that use fetal cell lines is bunk.

As usual, you run away from fact-fact statements.

Aspirin was developed outside the US--and was patented by Bayer, in Germany. Those are facts.

However, that is just the original discovery and development over a century ago.

Aspirin today is not made from the original development. Yeah, that is reality (which you do not want to admit because it contradicts your limited point of view).

"Aspirin is prepared by chemical synthesis from salicylic acid, through acetylation with acetic anhydride. The molecular weight of aspirin is 180.16g/mol. It is odourless, colourless to white crystals or crystalline powder."

Here you go--for Regeneron, which DID use fetal stem cells in its development.

'Indeed, Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody drug works by binding to the virus’s spike protein. Early in the drug development process, scientists used HEK293T trained to produce the protein to test whether the drug would, in fact, bind to it, Bowie said.

“The antibodies themselves weren't made of any of these fetal cells,” Kriegstein noted. “But it was really critical to use these cells to test how effective their approach really was.”'

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/how-cells-taken-d...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You have personally received vaccines derived, directly or indirectly, from fetal stem cells.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-f...

'Viruses multiply readily in these cells, and they are used to manufacture many globally important vaccines, including those against measles, rubella, rabies, chicken pox, shingles and hepatitis A.'

You lost your argument, of which there was very little to discuss, to the US public.

And, to put your silly argument to rest once and for all:

'The hospital’s form includes a list of 30 common medications that used fetal cell lines during research and development. The list includes acetaminophen, albuterol, aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, Preparation H, Claritin, Prilosec, and Zoloft.'

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/2021091...

Webmd put the fatal shot into your dead argument. Go ahead, argue with webmd about their false claim. ROFLMAO !!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
From the link in the OP:

A hospital... in Arkansas is making it a bit more difficult for staff to receive a religious exemption from its COVID-19 vaccine mandate... The [hospital]... noted an unusual uptick in vaccine exemption requests that cited the use of fetal cell lines in the development and testing of the vaccines. https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/science/2021/09...

Fetal cell lines are not "aborted fetuses". That’s your first nonsense.

The facts say otherwise:

let’s break down the science... Fetal cell lines are cells that grow in a laboratory. They descend from cells taken from abortions... https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/you-asked-we-answered-do-t...


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
“That’s fine,” said the hospital, but you must also sign a statement that testifies you will not use any products developed with the same technology of fetal cell lines.

If true, just where does a hospital derive the authority to tell anyone that they must sign such a statement?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If true, just where does a hospital derive the authority to tell anyone that they must sign such a statement?

Employers have the right to set safety standards for the continued employment of their workers, in order to protect both their patients and other employees.

Cute little arguments concerning the rights of individuals to pose threats to others, and equally cute arguments that maintain that infected individuals pose no threats to others…… don’t seem to be carrying any weight with medical authorities.

I wonder why………
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
A hospital... in Arkansas is making it a bit more difficult for staff to receive a religious exemption from its COVID-19 vaccine mandate... If true, just where does a hospital derive the authority to tell anyone that they must sign such a statement?

Employers have the right to set safety standards for the continued employment of their workers, in order to protect both their patients and other employees.

In this case, they don't have such right because forcing their employees to receive an experimental and untested vaccine against their will is a violation of the "The Nuremberg Code."

"The Nuremberg Code" states that no human being can ever be forced to participate in a medical experiment and a violation of the "The Nuremberg Code" is a crime against humanity, punishable by death.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
In this case, they don't have such right because forcing their employees to receive an experimental and untested vaccine against their will is a violation of the "The Nuremberg Code."

The vaccines are neither experimental (certainly Pfizer’s, and soon to be approved Moderna), nor are they untested. In fact, they have passed some of the largest enrolled drug trials… ever.

There is no violation of the Nuremberg codes, no matter what your cute but unhinged sources say.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Quick question: if the federal health authorities had wanted to utterly destroy their own credibility... what would they have done different?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The Comirnaty vaccine, which the FDA approved, is not available.

This is a particularly rich, but still bullshoot conspiracy theory without merit.

See: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/business/story/...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"The Nuremberg Code" states that no human being can ever be forced to participate in a medical experiment and a violation of the "The Nuremberg Code" is a crime against humanity, punishable by death.

You are directing the company (a "person" under law) to hire someone who has been identified as a likely threat to other workers at the business. As you are requiring those people to be exposed to a potentially fatal encounter, you are guilty of violating the Nuremberg code and have committed a crime against humanity. Get a *good* lawyer. Start with Rudy Guiliani. How could you lose?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Quick question: if the federal health authorities had wanted to utterly destroy their own credibility... what would they have done different?

Swap out 'credibility' for 'population' and you have the 'poison pill' scenario.
I've often thought the 'potato famine' was a construct to do away with the Irish.
Wouldn't put it past a Soros confab, as the saying goes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Employers have the right to set safety standards for the continued employment of their workers, in order to protect both their patients and other employees.

In this case, they don't have such right because forcing their employees to receive an experimental and untested vaccine against their will is a violation of the "The Nuremberg Code."

"The Nuremberg Code" states that no human being can ever be forced to participate in a medical experiment and a violation of the "The Nuremberg Code" is a crime against humanity, punishable by death.


The question was NOT forcing the vaccination or set safety standards but where is the authority derived to tell anyone that they must sign such a statement? It has nothing to do with setting safety standards. It's just plain bullying.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
The question was NOT forcing the vaccination or set safety standards but where is the authority derived to tell anyone that they must sign such a statement? It has nothing to do with setting safety standards. It's just plain bullying.

In context, this is a private party employer vaccine mandate. The employer has directed all staff that they must obtain a vaccine as a condition of their employment. Generally, absent rules or agreements to the contrary, employers have the broad authority to set the terms and conditions of employment.

The employer has chosen to allow employees to assert that they should be exempt from the general policy if they have a religious objection to the vaccine. The employer is requiring this statement in order to determine whether the claimed religious objection is legitimate or pretextual. There's a massive amount of rules under the various federal and state anti-discrimination laws about how and when they can do this. But as a super-broad threshold matter, employers are allowed to make a limited inquiry into whether the facts and circumstances of an employee’s claim that a belief or practice at issue is actually religious and sincerely held.

So when an employer claims that they want to avoid a responsibility of their employment based on a claim religious belief, the employer probably has the authority to ask for some modicum of evidence that the professed religious belief is sincerely held and is not merely being asserted for the purpose of avoiding the requirement of their employment.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
...the employer probably has the authority...


Contrived rationale as well as "probably has" doesn't answer the question.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Contrived rationale as well as "probably has" doesn't answer the question.

Then I'll use a little more categorical language.

Private employers have the authority to set the terms of employment at their place of business. This includes both the authority to establish general requirements and the terms under which exceptions will be granted to those general requirements. Unless their proposed terms are prohibited by some other law, they have the authority to make the rules for their workplaces.

The hospital has the full authority to require its employees to be vaccinated. It has the authority to grant exceptions to that policy, and the equal authority to set the terms of those exceptions.

There's nothing contrived about that.

The one area of uncertainty is the application of various anti-discrimination regulations that govern how employers have to treat requests for religious accommodations from workplace requirements. Employers are authorized to make limited inquiries into asserted claims that compliance with a rule or practice are inconsistent with religious belief. They are allowed to make an assessment of whether the professed religious belief is, in fact, genuinely held and inconsistent with the rule or practice.

If someone claims that it's against their religious beliefs to take products that are developed with fetal cell lines, it's probably legitimate for an employer to conduct an inquiry to determine whether that is a genuinely held belief. I only say "probably" because there's a ton of precedent, guidance, and best practices relating to the religious discrimination provisions of the federal anti-discrimination laws and many (most?) states have their own requirements that might be different than the federal standard.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Private employers have the authority to set the terms of employment at their place of business. This includes both the authority to establish general requirements and the terms under which exceptions will be granted to those general requirements.

Does that include violation of HIPPA?

Certainly no one with any common sense believes that requiring the signing of a statement saying you don't take medications such as aspirin that have nothing to do with the question at hand (COVID vaccines) is not contrived.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Private employers have the authority to set the terms of employment at their place of business. This includes both the authority to establish general requirements and the terms under which exceptions will be granted to those general requirements. Unless their proposed terms are prohibited by some other law, they have the authority to make the rules for their workplaces.

The hospital has the full authority to require its employees to be vaccinated. It has the authority to grant exceptions to that policy, and the equal authority to set the terms of those exceptions.


It is again stated that employers have the authority to.....blah blah blah as if claiming such makes it true. The question is where does that authority come from. No answers yet.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
“That’s fine,” said the hospital, but you must also sign a statement that testifies you will not use any products developed with the same technology of fetal cell lines.
Among the products:
Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, aspirin, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, ibuprofen, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, albuterol, Preparation H, MMR vaccine, Claritin, Zoloft, Prilosec OTC, and azithromycin.


Are hospital implying that people have knowledge of how every product in the world was developed even as they demonstrate they lack this knowledge themselves with their list? Or perhaps they are lying in order to bully.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The fact of the matter, people lie to get what they want or get out of something they don’t want to do.
We are human and we’re imperfect, however, this is a very important issue and instead of saying to the employee, yeah, sure, religious reason exemption, they are going further, okay, if you want a religious exemption then surely you will avoid these other things too.

Personally, I wouldn’t have anybody working for me in my business who wasn’t vaccinated for measles, mumps, typhoid and COVID. It spreads to other employees and customers. It drains the business of workers and resources. Might as well kiss the business goodbye.

And as far as hospital workers, police, fire, and ambulance workers being unvaccinated, it’s insane to consider it.

Lucky Dog
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Does that include violation of HIPPA?

There is no violation of HIPPA involved. HIPPA doesn't mean that people can't ask you about medical matters. It only requires that third parties that possess your medical information have certain obligations on whether and how they disclose that medical information.

Certainly no one with any common sense believes that requiring the signing of a statement saying you don't take medications such as aspirin that have nothing to do with the question at hand (COVID vaccines) is not contrived.

The employee is asserting that their religious beliefs prevent them from taking medications developed with fetal cell lines. It's not contrived to ask them if they apply their stated belief in other contexts, and thus whether they take other medications that have been developed with fetal cell lines. That's a pretty basic inquiry for determining whether or not their stated religious objection to the vaccine is one that they genuinely practice, or whether it's a pretext for avoiding having to comply with the vaccine requirement.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
(Reposted for formatting)

It is again stated that employers have the authority to.....blah blah blah as if claiming such makes it true. The question is where does that authority come from. No answers yet.

Oh, I think I understand the question. You're asking about the basic core tenet of the employer-employee relationship. Going that far back, the source is basic employment and contract law....so basic that it goes to one of the most fundamental freedoms of the country.

Being employed at a work place is an exercise of contract law. Essentially, the employer and employee enter into a contractual agreement, although one that is not necessarily (or even usually) reduced to writing. For the employee to be 'hired,' the parties have to mutually agree (at least implicitly) on the terms and conditions of employment. For example, the most basic element of that contractual arrangement is that the employee provides labor (some services or activity that the employer wants) in exchange for compensation (a salary and often additional benefits to compensate the employee for their labor).

The contract only forms - the employee only has a 'job' with the employer - if the terms of the employer and employee are both met. So if the employee says that they will only work if they are paid $X per hour, and the employer refuses, the employer cannot force the employee to take the job (or remain on the job) - the employee has the authority to quit if the employer's terms are not satisfactory. Similarly, if the employer says they will only offer the job if the employee agrees to do X, and the employee refuses, the employee cannot force the employer to let them work there - the employer has the authority to fire the employee if the employer's terms are not met.

There are a lot of rules governing these contractual relationships - but one of the core rules, literally one of the most fundamental principles of our legal framework, is "Nulla poena sine lege." It literally means no penalty without law, but more colloquially means that everything which is not forbidden is permitted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nulla_poena_sine_lege

What that basically means that the parties to an employment agreement are free to do whatever they want unless it violates an actual law. And what that means is that unless there is a law prohibiting an employer from insisting on a particular requirement as a condition of employment, the employer is free to require it. Similarly, unless there is a law prohibiting an employee from insisting on a particular requirement as a condition of working there, the employee is free to require it.

So here, the hospital is completely free to set whatever terms of employment it wants for its employees, so long as those terms aren't prohibited by some law. The employees are free to insist on their own terms of employment (again, so long as they're not prohibited). If the parties agree, the employer-employee relationship exists, and the employee works for the employer; if not there is no employer-employee relationship, and thus no job.

So the hospital has the full authority to state whatever terms they wish as a condition of employing anyone, so long as those terms are legal. They can require that employees show up to work at a particular time, that they possess a certain level of education or professional credential, that they wear a particular uniform, that they only get a particular number of vacation days, etc. And they can require that such employees have to be vaccinated. Employees are similarly free to either accept or reject those terms by either complying or quitting.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's not contrived to ask them if they apply their stated belief in other contexts, and thus whether they take other medications that have been developed with fetal cell lines.

However, if some those "other medications that have been developed with fetal cell lines" were in fact NOT developed with fetal cell lines...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
However, if some those "other medications that have been developed with fetal cell lines" were in fact NOT developed with fetal cell lines...

The employee can always explain why those "some" other medications do not conflict with their stated religious principle. If there's a good faith argument over whether any given single medication does or does not comply with the religious principle, anti-discrimination laws would probably provide protection to the employee.

I expect that employees will face the most difficulties when they are unable to identify any other medications that they have refrained from using, when indicated, based on their religious principles. Employers aren't necessarily required to offer any religious exemptions upfront - the federal regulations, and AIUI most state regulations, require employers to offer qualifying accommodations at the request of the employee. The employer can then require the employee to provide some support for the claim that the workplace requirement or practice conflicts with a genuinely held religious belief.

The employer probably can't require that the employee adopt any particular views on whether any single medication (like aspirin) was or was not 'developed' (as opposed to discovered) using fetal cell lines. But that's probably not going to help an employee that has habitually used other medications where there isn't any ambiguity over whether they conflict with the stated religious beliefs.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
However, if some those "other medications that have been developed with fetal cell lines" were in fact NOT developed with fetal cell lines...

Then that list would be decreased by the number that did not use fetal cell lines at some stage of their development.

Given that this list was developed by a regional health system with direct and easy access to published literature on drug trials, I wouldn’t count on knocking off many drugs from that list.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You are directing the company (a "person" under law) to hire someone who has been identified as a likely threat to other workers at the business. As you are requiring those people to be exposed to a potentially fatal encounter...

Here you are trying to protect the vaccinated - who presumably have Covid immunity - from the unvaccinated.

So tell us, why are the vaccinated afraid of Covid? What is the purpose of the vaccine? And why are they vaccinated if Covid is bypassing and ignoring their vaccine? What kind of a vaccine is this?

Is it because the vaccine does not confer immunity? If so, why are you promoting such a useless vaccine?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Here you are trying to protect the vaccinated - who presumably have Covid immunity - from the unvaccinated.

So tell us, why are the vaccinated afraid of Covid?


First off, you're not just trying to protect the vaccinated. Workplace requirements often exist to protect workers themselves, not just to protect workers from each other. Trivially, at most construction sites you are required to wear a hardhat - not because failing to wear a hardhat presents a danger to other workers, but because wearing a hardhat protects you. Employers benefit when their workers are protected from hazards that would keep them from working.

Secondly, the Covid vaccines provide an enormous amount of protection - not absolute immunity. If you have the vaccine you are vastly less likely to contract Covid, and you are even less likely to be hospitalized from it. But not 100%. So having unvaccinated employees with your vaccinated staff will increase the risks that they might contract the disease - not by nearly as much as if they were unvaccinated, but more than zero. And since the delta variant of Covid is markedly more contagious than earlier versions of the virus, that poses a non-trivial threat even to the vaccinated.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So tell us, why are the vaccinated afraid of Covid? What is the purpose of the vaccine? And why are they vaccinated if Covid is bypassing and ignoring their vaccine? What kind of a vaccine is this?

First off, you're not just trying to protect the vaccinated. Workplace requirements often exist to protect workers themselves, not just to protect workers from each other.

You are changing the subject!

Protect workers from what? Be specific.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Protect workers from what? Be specific.

From Covid. Covid is a highly contagious infectious disease. Being vaccinated from Covid imparts considerable protection from that disease. If you are vaccinated, you are significantly less likely to get infect with the disease, and therefore less likely to transmit it to others. You are also vastly less likely to develop severe enough symptoms to require hospitalization or worse.

So therefore, mandatory vaccinations for an employer's workers provides critical protection for those workers from this disease. When an employee is vaccinated, that employee has (of course) considerably more protection from themselves getting sick. Requiring vaccination also protects employees who have already been vaccinated from a greater risk of exposure (since unvaccinated people are both more likely to contract the disease and to transmit it to others). Thus, mandatory vaccinations protect an employer's overall workforce from contracting Covid.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Protect workers from what? Be specific.

From Covid.

So you are admitting that the vaccine is useless and does not offer immunity. Thank you.

This admission now, takes us back to the Nuremberg argument that says the employer does not have the right to force their employees to receive an experimental and untested vaccine against their will because this is criminal - it is a violation of "The Nuremberg Code."

"The Nuremberg Code" states that no human being can ever be forced to participate in a medical experiment against his will. A violation of "The Nuremberg Code" is a crime against humanity and it is punishable by death.

Besides, a vaccine injury now becomes an on the job injury and a vaccine fatality is now an on the job fatality! Good luck with that.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
So you are admitting that the vaccine is useless and does not offer immunity. Thank you.

What are you talking about? The vaccine isn't useless. It offers enormous protection from infection.

It's just not 100%.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
What are you talking about? The vaccine isn't useless. It offers enormous protection from infection.

It's just not 100%.


Warning!

Ajax makes up "agreements" from whole cloth and states conspiracy theories as settled fact.

He then declares victory.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What are you talking about? The vaccine isn't useless. It offers enormous protection from infection.

If that is true, then how come, Most Covid Deaths - 80% - Are Vaccinated people? So, where is the protection? This, from Public Health Scotland:

Unvaccinated, 25 deaths
Vaccinated 98 deaths

Data from: Public Health Scotland COVID-19 Statistical Reports See https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/9030/21-09-08-covid1... and https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/8760/21-08-18-covid1...

More from https://principia-scientific.com/80-percent-of-covid-deaths-... and https://boards.fool.com/most-covid-deaths-80-are-vaccinated-...

This says that the vaccine you are pushing does not offer immunity. Is there any other explanation?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Here you are trying to protect the vaccinated - who presumably have Covid immunity - from the unvaccinated.

Wrong.

The vaccinated are being protected from the possibly infected with a new and maybe even more dangerous variant possibly carried by the non-vaccinated.

Such a new variant is far more readily created within the non-vaccinated population because they are trying to get the virus to create ever-more deadly versions in order to kill more people, more quickly.

Vaccines take away the ability to readily create new and more dangerous mutations. Absent a medical reason, the only reason to refuse a vaccine is because that person wants to become the breeding ground for Covid.

Look at what happened to Typhoid Mary.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3959940/
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The vaccinated are being protected from the possibly infected with a new and maybe even more dangerous variant possibly carried by the non-vaccinated.

The data prove otherwise. This last year, according to the data, Covid kiiled and decimated the vaccinated. Pretending that these Covid vaccinated deaths are the result of a new variant is bunk!

And if all these dead people were given Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine or Budesonide etc they will be alive today.

Question: Why were they denied any one of these life saving medications?


-=Ajax
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
If that is true, then how come, Most Covid Deaths - 80% - Are Vaccinated people?

I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I think you have your numbers reversed. The report you cite indicates that of 3,679 deaths recorded in Scotland during the vaccination period, fewer than 600 were among vaccinated persons. As noted in the report you cite:

COVID-19 vaccines are estimated to significantly reduce the risk of mortality for COVID-19,
however a small number of COVID-19 deaths are still expected in vaccinated people,
especially in vulnerable individuals where the vaccine or the immune response may not have
been effective. Evidence has shown that vaccination is highly effective in protecting against
death from coronavirus (COVID-19)


So more than 80% of covid deaths in Scotland during the time period analyzed in the report were among the unvaccinated, not the vaccinated.

However, we shouldn't be surprised to see that in heavily vaccinated countries, more vaccinated people will die of covid than unvaccinated. Note that doesn't mean the vaccine doesn't provide massive protection against covid deaths, for the simple reason that if there's many more vaccinated people than unvaccinated people, you'll get more deaths among the vaccinated even if vaccination reduces your chance of death.

For a trivial illustration, imagine a population where about 80% of the country is vaccinated. Even if the vaccine makes you 3x less likely to die of covid, you'll still have more vaccinated people dying than unvaccinated people - because there are 4x more vaccinated people. What matters is the rate of mortality, not the absolute number of deaths, because the population size is different. For Scotland, which has nearly 92% of the overall population vaccinated and almost 100% of the elderly population vaccinated, it is shocking how high the unvaccinated deaths are - because the vaccinated population is more than 9x the size of the unvaccinated population among the overall country and even higher among the elderly.

Fortunately for us, the Public Health Scotland has provided mortality statistics in the most recent version of that same report. They have calculated the mortality rates for the unvaccinated and the vaccinated. For the unvaccinated, mortality rates are about 4.61 per 100K population; for the vaccinated, about 1.09 per 100K.

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/9330/21-09-22-covid1...

So according to the agency you're citing, someone who is unvaccinated is four times more likely to die from Covid than a vaccinated person. That's a massive, unambiguous level of protection.

Get vaccinated forthwith!

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
how come, Most Covid Deaths - 80% - Are Vaccinated people?

I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

From the data - The data come from the United States, they come from England, they come from Scotland etc.

And I already gave you a link for the latest, the Scottish data: See https://boards.fool.com/most-covid-deaths-80-are-vaccinated-...


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I think you have your numbers reversed. The report you cite indicates that of 3,679 deaths recorded in Scotland during the vaccination period, fewer than 600 were among vaccinated persons.

No. You are the one reversing the numbers because you are ignoring one critical detail:

• Back in December 2020 and the early months of 2021 most everybody was unvaccinated! So why include the deaths from those early days of vaccination? You are deceiving yourself!

• Looking at the last 3 or 4 months when the numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated are about equal you see that the vaccinated deaths are the vast majority. Look at last month, Most Covid Deaths - 80% - Are Vaccinated people.

And this says the vaccines do not confer immunity.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
“The vaccines are neither experimental (certainly Pfizer’s, and soon to be approved Moderna), nor are they untested. In fact, they have passed some of the largest enrolled drug trials… ever.”

This is BS because the Pfizer vaccine is not approved. <==== Bill, read this again.

In the so-called approval letter the FDA acknowledged that Pfizer has two different vaccines.

• The Comirnaty vaccine that the FDA approved, is not available! Where is it Bill?

• The current untested and experimental vaccine - the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine - produced under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) with a "significant amount" of stocks available for use. . . .


Ajax, what about this FDA NEWS RELEASE (See https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr... ), huuuggh?
;-)

C.J.V. - looks like approval to me
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"The vaccines are neither experimental... nor are they untested... Ajax, what about this FDA NEWS RELEASE (See https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr... ), huuuggh?... C.J.V. - looks like approval to me

No, the FDA did not approve the Pfizer vaccine:

• If the Pfizer vaccine is approved, then why does it need an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? Answer! It comes with an EUA because it is not approved and remains an untested experimental vaccine.

• Besides, the third sentence of your FDA link contradicts you:

"The vaccine also continues to be available under emergency use authorization (EUA)"

If this Pfizer vaccine is now approved, then why does it need an EUA? Answer: The presence of the EUA proves that the FDA did not approve the Pfizer vaccine. In the so-called approval letter you are citing, the FDA acknowledged that Pfizer has two different vaccines:

• The Comirnaty vaccine, that the FDA approved, is not available! If this Comirnaty vaccine is approved by the FDA, then where is it? No answer!

• Why did Pfizer change the name of the vaccine to get approval? Answer: Because the so-called approval is Fake News! It is a fraud! Again, where is the Comirnaty vaccine? No answer!

• The current untested and experimental vaccine - the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine - produced under the EUA has a "significant amount" of stocks available for use.
So what, who cares? If the vaccine is approved, who cares if the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has a "significant amount" of stocks available for use? This says the Pfizer vaccine is not approved!

• So, using a magic wand the FDA decreed that "the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under the EUA should remain unlicensed but can be used "interchangeably" (page 2, footnote 8) with the newly licensed Comirnaty product."

In other words the FDA is pushing the untested and experimental vaccine as an approved vaccine. The FDA goes on to say that "the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine and the existing, EUA Pfizer vaccine are "legally distinct," but proclaims that their differences do not "impact safety or effectiveness." https://principia-scientific.com/what-the-msm-didnt-tell-you...

If that is so, then how does the FDA explain the huge number of deaths within 3 days of vaccination? No answer! See https://boards.fool.com/final-approval-of-pfizer-vaccine-wil...


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
If the Pfizer vaccine is approved, then why does it need an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? Answer! It comes with an EUA because it is not approved and remains an untested experimental vaccine.

Because the vaccine has been fully approved for those aged 16 years and older. It is still authorized to be administered to those between the ages of 12 and 16 under an Emergency Use Authorization.

This has caused some confusion. But if you're over the age of 16, the Pfizer vaccine is fully approved.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If the Pfizer vaccine is approved, then why does it need an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)? Answer! It comes with an EUA because it is not approved and remains an untested experimental vaccine.

Because the vaccine has been fully approved for those aged 16 years and older. It is still authorized to be administered to those between the ages of 12 and 16 under an Emergency Use Authorization.

Nonsense. The FDA approved the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine, a vaccine that it is not available, a vaccine that it is "legally distinct" from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and frankly, it is a vaccine that does not exist!

Question: If the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine is approved, then where is it? No answer!

Pfizer is now using a vaccine that it is still under the EUA, meaning the vaccine currently in use is not approved, and remains an untested and experimental vaccine.

Again, the FDA states clearly that the Comirnaty vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are "legally distinct." In other words the FDA and Pfizer fabricated the Comirnaty vaccine to deceive the American people. The evidence for this is the non-existent Comirnaty vaccine.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
The FDA approved the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine, a vaccine that it is not available, a vaccine that it is "legally distinct" from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and frankly, it is a vaccine that does not exist!

No, it's not. They're the same vaccine. Comirnaty is just the marketing name of the vaccine:

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr...

If you read the approval announcement, it's clear that the FDA approved the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is also being branded as Comirnaty. The approval announcement uses the terms interchangeably, and repeatedly refers to the vaccine under both identifiers in stating that it has been approved.

You're confusing the FDA's labelling and informational requirements for a difference in the actual medicine. For various regulatory reasons, the vials of the vaccine that are unlabeled and the vials of vaccine that are labelled with the brand name "Comirnaty" have to be treated separately in terms of the information and notification materials that are provided to patients. The vaccine that is contained within those vials is the same vaccine - identical in every way. But because the vials are labelled differently, medical providers are required to treat the vials as 'legally distinct' so that the appropriate tracking, labelling, and information materials are maintained:

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/you-asked-we-answered-are-...

There is only on Pfizer vaccine. The one that is being administered broadly across the U.S. has received full FDA approval for patients 16 and up.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The FDA approved the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine, a vaccine that it is not available, a vaccine that it is "legally distinct" from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and frankly, it is a vaccine that does not exist!

No, it's not. They're the same vaccine.

The FDA contradicts you and states that legally they are two different vaccines:

In this letter the FDA states that the mRNA Comirnaty COVID-19 Vaccine, is the same formulation as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine except "The products are legally distinct..." See https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download

So, again: If the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine is approved, then where is it? No answer!

Therefore, Pfizer is now using a vaccine that it is still under the EUA, meaning the vaccine currently in use is not approved, and remains an untested and experimental vaccine.


If you read the approval announcement, it's clear that the FDA approved the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is also being branded as Comirnaty.

Not according to the FDA. The Pfizer Comirnaty COVID-19 Vaccine, and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are two legally distinct vaccines.

The vaccine that is contained within those vials is the same vaccine - identical in every way.

Irrelevant. The FDA stated explicitely that the two are different and legally distinct vaccines. Therefore, Pfizer is now using a vaccine that it is under a EUA, meaning the vaccine is not approved, and remains an untested and experimental vaccine.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
The FDA contradicts you and states that legally they are two different vaccines:

In this letter the FDA states that the mRNA Comirnaty COVID-19 Vaccine, is the same formulation as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine except "The products are legally distinct..." See https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download


No, they do not. You're misunderstanding what the FDA means by "legally distinct." They are not chemically or pharmacologically different. The difference is merely a legal one. The stuff in the vials is exactly the same stuff, but the vials have to be tracked and described separately because of legal requirements.

Vaccines, like most medicines, are manufactured in batches. Pfizer has been manufacturing the covid vaccine pretty much continuously under the emergency authorization for many months now. They don't just manufacture 150 million doses at once - they will manufacture some amount of vials on one day, more vials on the next, and so on. They'll manufacture vials of vaccine on Monday, and then using the exact same process and materials they'll manufacture vials of the exact same thing on Tuesday, and then again on Wednesday. It's the same vaccine in each batch of vials.

All that's happened is that from day to day making the exact same vaccine, the regulatory status of the vaccine changed. Monday's output of the vaccine was manufactured under the EUA, and was placed in vials identifying it with the EUA approval number and other identifying information relating to that approval status. Tuesday's output of the exact same vaccine was issued under the FDA approval status, and placed in vials identifying it with the FDA approval for Comirnaty and other identifying information.

It's the exact same vaccine, no different from prior batches than any other batch of the vaccine is from prior batches. However, because it was manufactured and labelled under a different legal environment and regulatory status, all of the folks in the chain of administering it are required to treat the unlabeled vials separately from the Comirnaty vials. They are legally distinct, but biologically and medicinally identical.

A number of vaccine critics have chosen to misrepresent what the FDA's announcement means. It's not hard to find out that all of these doses are the exact same vaccine, and that different batches of that same vaccine are being treated differently solely because of the regulatory legalities. Heck, it's in the same materials you cited. But by willfully misunderstanding what the FDA means by legally distinct, they can create misunderstanding in other people.
Hopefully this has clarified to you what the FDA means, and that there is only one vaccine which has now been approved by the FDA for people 16 and older.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The FDA approved the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine, a vaccine that it is not available, a vaccine that it is "legally distinct" from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and frankly, it is a vaccine that does not exist!... The FDA... stated that legally these are two different vaccines:
In this letter the FDA stated that the mRNA Comirnaty COVID-19 Vaccine, is the same formulation as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine except "The products are legally distinct..."
See https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download

No, they do not. You're misunderstanding what the FDA means by "legally distinct." They are not chemically or pharmacologically different. The difference is merely a legal one.

Who cares? These lowlifes are lying and trying to deceive the American people!

Good grief, do you think people are that stupid to buy this nonsense?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Who cares?

They're your claims. If you don't care whether they're accurate or not, I don't know what to tell you.

There aren't two vaccines. There's only one vaccine. It's the same vaccine, produced from the same materials using the same techniques at the same manufacturing facilities. Because of the legalities and regulatory minutia, batches of that one vaccine that were produced prior to approval have to be treated as legally distinct from batches of the same vaccine produced after regulatory approval. But there aren't two vaccines.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Good grief, do you think people are that stupid to buy this nonsense?

The right swallows it whole all the time--tusks, humps, hooves, tails, hide, entrails, and more.

Still waiting for that plan for paying off the US National Debt in less than four years (8 yrs starting in 2016--remember?).

Still waiting for that Universal Health Care plan that is FAR better, covers virtually EVERYONE, and is cheap as hell.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
There aren't two vaccines.

The documents from the FDA contradict you. See https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download

In the above letter the FDA states that the mRNA Comirnaty COVID-19 Vaccine, has the same formulation as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine except "The products are legally distinct." Therefore:

• The FDA approved the Comirnaty COVID-19 Vaccine, a vaccine does not exist. Pfizer is not using the Comirnaty vaccine to vaccinate people because this so-called approval is a fraud. It is simply an attempt to claim approval in the face of a colossal loss of life and injury from the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.

• The FDA did not approve the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine that Pfizer is now using to vaccinate people and as a result this vaccine needs the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) otherwise it is curtains for Pfizer.

• The problem with untested and experimental vaccines is that they are now the Thalidomide of vaccines, except it is worse by orders of magnitude. We are now looking at tens of thousands people dead and hundreds of thousands injured. A computer programmer at the CDC, who is counting the actual vaccine VAERS deaths revealed that in the USA alone, we had thus far 45,000 deaths within 3 days of vaccination. So why would anyone risk his/her life just because this vaccine is now approved? A statement from this programmer was presented by America’s Frontline Doctors, to an Alabama Federal District Court seeking immediate halt of COVID vaccines. See https://boards.fool.com/final-approval-of-pfizer-vaccine-wil...

• According to medical protocol, vaccines are not needed in the presence of medications that cure Covid. Given that medications such as Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Budesonide etc cure Covid within hours then why risk your life with an experimental and untested vaccine?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, aspirin, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, ibuprofen, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, albuterol, Preparation H, MMR vaccine, Claritin, Zoloft, Prilosec OTC, and azithromycin.

Something funny about this list. Aspirin was discovered by pre-colonial Indians. Did they use stem cell technology?

Perhaps they’re talking about it’s original extraction, in 1899. We’re they using stem cells then?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Perhaps they’re talking about it’s original extraction, in 1899. We’re they using stem cells then?

Fetal cell lines, and no, they were not involved in the discovery of aspirin, but the development, testing and experimentation with aspirin didn't stop with its discovery.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
So according to the agency you're citing, someone who is unvaccinated is four times more likely to die from Covid than a vaccinated person. That's a massive, unambiguous level of protection.

Yes, but this needs to be age-weighted, as those over 65 are at far greater risk of Covid-19 death than are the young.

Here's a summary of the Public Health Scotland data on vaccinated vs non-vaccinated from the link provided (values are the average per week over the 4 weeks of the study)


.......................unvaxed...............1 shot............2 shots

Cases % of pop...........1.02................ .95.............. .43

Hosp 60+................ .057 .............. .052 ............ .023
Hosp 30 - 59............ .026 .............. .013 ............ .007
Hosp 16 - 29............ .012 .............. .005 ............ .003
Hosp <16 ............... .007 .............. -0- ..............-0-

Age Stndzd deaths
per 100,000 .............3.128 .............. 3.303 ............. .763


Clearly, age is a primary risk factor along with not being vaccinated. Not sure what 'Age Standardised' is, unless they mean age-weighted.

The other missing part with this is the mortality and morbidity of the vaccine itself.
For those over age 20 in the US, per the CDC VAER system, the M&M rate are low,
but due to the very low Covid-19 mortality rate with the population under 20...particularly under age 16....the M&M of the vaccine becomes a significant risk.

BruceM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
The other missing part with this is the mortality and morbidity of the vaccine itself.

For those over age 20 in the US, per the CDC VAER system, the M&M rate are low, but due to the very low Covid-19 mortality rate with the population under 20...particularly under age 16....the M&M of the vaccine becomes a significant risk.


Yes, and I think that those concerns are what caused governments to give the development of an under 15 vaccine such low priority. Because children (thankfully!) have such a lower rate of mortality, there's not nearly as much health benefit to an under-15 vaccine recipient as older folks.

The public health calculus is a little more complicated, though, because vaccination protects not just the recipient, but also other people in the community. Those who have been vaccinated are vastly less likely to get infected, and thus less likely to pass the disease on to other people - including the unvaccinated. So although vaccinating kids might provide only marginal benefits to the kids themselves, it can provide significant benefits if it will reduce transmission to adults that are at higher risk of serious Covid outcomes (especially unvaccinated adults).

Ironically, the more adults refuse to get vaccinated, the more the public health calculation bends towards vaccinating children. In a society where nearly every adult is vaccinated, there's a lot less risk associated with kids passing the illness around.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Did Bayer use "fetal cell lines" to isolate and market Aspirin in 1899? Answer: No!

Therefore, asking people not to take Aspirin because its development involved "fetal cell lines" is bunk.

Bill, you stated in the OP of this thread that Aspirin was developed using "fetal cell lines" and this is not factual! Bayer did not use "fetal cell lines" to develop and market aspirin!

Fetal cell lines... were not involved in the discovery of aspirin...

True!


but the development, testing and experimentation with aspirin didn't stop with its discovery.

Who cares? This is irrelevant.

Bottom line: Asking people not to take Aspirin because its development involved "fetal cell lines" is bunk.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Because children (thankfully!) have such a lower rate of mortality, there's not nearly as much health benefit to an under-15 vaccine recipient as older folks.

Yup....you can say 'Thankfully' again...over and over!

Children under 20 that are otherwise in good health (non-obese, no cancer and no diabetes) are effectively immune from the SARS-CoV-2 virus caused mortality. An NIH funded study conduced November 2020 shows a 5.3% incidence of severe Covid-19 infections in children with comorbidities and .2% in children with no comorbidities. That's a 25.5-to-1 ratio. Here are the ratios

age............Total Covid deaths.......no comorbidity deaths.....US Age Group Pop....Deaths/100,000

0-18......................540........................21.2 ................82,080,856......... .0258
5-18 (school age)..374........................14.7 ................62,261,369......... .0179

Thru Sep 18, 2021 updated Sep 22

This is one of the lowest causes of death in this age group. As a comparison, for the 5-14 age group per CDC Death Dashboard, there were 9,413 deaths in this age group in the US 1/1/2020 thru 9/15/2021.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7679116/


The other factor that will carry much weight I mentioned previously, in the decision to vaccinate/not vaccinate children is the risk of death from the vaccine itself. The CDC VAERS web site provides the following data:

Presumptive Vaccine Induced Deaths in US
Age Group 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 (est)
< 6 months 33 27 20 15 11 14
6-11 months 11 3 5 5 1 1
1-2 years 7 7 1 9 5 7
3-5 years 2 1 - 1 1
6-17 years 2 4 2 2 17 22
18-29 years 1 1 2 1 88 115
30-39 years 1 2 2 - 142 186
40-49 years 1 2 3 5 231 303
50-59 years 2 2 4 496 651
60-64 years 4 4 2 10 444 583
65-79 years 8 18 12 24 2,019 2,650
80+ years 8 12 9 26 2,222 2,916
Unknown 11 12 19 13 142 186

Total ........89 94 80 114 5,819 7,636

Source: https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html

This is the scary part. The vaccine deaths by age group beginning 2021 shoot up sharply, particularly in the older age groups and did not in the 6-17 because the age <12 in this group have not been vaccinated. What would vaccine-caused deaths look like for those under 12 without comorbidities compared to actual covid deaths in this age group.

Now, to be sure, these are inexact, and the VAERS web site tells you this, as this reporting system is not nearly as organized and structured as their death dashboard is. But what this strongly suggests is the vaccine should not be given to children unless they have significant comorbidities.

If children showed higher severe illness or death, then it may makes sense to push vaccines on the older population harder simply, as you say, to keep infection rates, whether symptomatic or not, down in kids....but the kids without comorbidities just aren't getting sick and dying. So the primary beneficiaries of the adult vaccine are other adults who also elected not to take the vaccine. My advice to any adult who asks me to is take the vaccine. Yes, there's some risk, but there's risk in everything we do. The sooner we can get the virus to heel, as we have so many other similar cold & flu viruses, the sooner we can see it in our review mirror, although like all other viruses and bacteria, we are going to have to accept that it is now with us and every year people in nursing homes or with severe systemic disease, will contract it and die as they do from other infectious agents each year, such as pneumococcus.

BruceM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
If children showed higher severe illness or death, then it may makes sense to push vaccines on the older population harder simply, as you say, to keep infection rates, whether symptomatic or not, down in kids....but the kids without comorbidities just aren't getting sick and dying. So the primary beneficiaries of the adult vaccine are other adults who also elected not to take the vaccine.

Absolutely right that there's far less of an individual health basis for vaccinating kids.
But the public health issue is a bit more complicated. It's not just to keep the infection rates down in kids, which we might discount because of the lower serious cases among children. There might also be a public health benefit to vaccinating kids in order to reduce the infection rates in adults.

Those who willfully refuse to vaccinate aren't the most sympathetic folks, and their risk of death may not elicit a whole lot of concern. But their high levels of death still presents a public health crisis. It wouldn't be the first public health crisis to arise among people who are engaged in poor decision-making (like the opioid crisis).

But we also have to acknowledge that having large numbers of infections among children might still pose a threat to people beyond the willfully unvaccinated. Partially that's because an unacceptably large number of vaccinated people are still dying of Covid. Estimates of breakthrough deaths vary considerably, but it looks like we're at around 15-20% - which would be around 300-350 vaccinated people dying per day. Around 100K per year. Which, for comparison, would make Covid the 7th leading cause of death in the U.S. (between Alzheimers and diabetes) even if everyone were vaccinated.

The other public health threat is the increased risk of new variants. With most of the world still unvaccinated, that's not really something we need to take into account now; but in the very long term, we might find it dangerous to have a large pool of unvaccinated children transmitting Covid back and forth.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Bill, you stated in the OP of this thread that Aspirin was developed using "fetal cell lines" and this is not factual! Bayer did not use "fetal cell lines" to develop and market aspirin!

To quote Joe Wilson: "You lie !!"

Bill never said aspirin was developed using "fetal cell lines". YOU are the only one claiming he posted it.

Current versions of aspirin are not made using the original ingredients and/or technology. They are made using modern technology, and fetal cell lines ARE used (directly or indirectly) to test if it works.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Current versions of aspirin are not made using the original ingredients and/or technology.

No kidding? What are they using then? Magic?


They are made using modern technology, and fetal cell lines ARE used (directly or indirectly) to test if it works.

So, what happened to the quality control lab? Did Bayer shutdown their quality control lab?

Who checks for the purity of the final product, the Easter Bunny?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Current versions of aspirin are not made using the original ingredients and/or technology.

No kidding? What are they using then? Magic?


To you, it -is- "magic". Any sufficiently advanced science/technology will appear to be "magic" to those who do not understand it.

Who checks for the purity of the final product, the Easter Bunny?

Any sufficiently advanced science/technology will appear to be "magic" to those who do not understand it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Current versions of aspirin are not made using the original ingredients and/or technology... Any sufficiently advanced science/technology will appear to be "magic" to those who do not understand it.

Tell us then, what are the raw materials for Aspirin these days - is it aborted fetuses? No kidding?

And how about this new Aspirin process - did Bayer change their 1899 process?... When?

So, what is this new Aspirin process? Are they now connected to hospitals doing abortions so they can be near their raw materials?... For Aspirin?...


Any sufficiently advanced science/technology will appear to be "magic" to those who do not understand it.

You seem to be so well informed. Please enlighten us! What are the raw materials for Aspirin these days and what is this new Aspirin process?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What are the raw materials for Aspirin these days and what is this new Aspirin process?

Go make your own aspirin--from the same original ingredients used by Bayer. No longer covered under the original patent, remember?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What are the raw materials for Aspirin these days and what is this new Aspirin process?

Go make your own aspirin--from the same original ingredients used by Bayer.

Why not Jerryab2? The Aspirin chemistry is the same! If you think that the Aspirin chemistry changed, think again!


No longer covered under the original patent, remember?

Irrelevant.

• You are now speaking from ignorance on this topic. Give it a rest.

• And feel free to go and have your booster shot and good luck with vaccine injuries and death.

• The rest of us have medications to take care of Covid with hundreds of studies confirming their very high efficacy - Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Budesonide etc.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
My earlier reply was deleted... so I removed the offending part and I am posting it again...
-----------------
Earlier I said... forcing their employees to receive an experimental and untested vaccine against their will is a violation of the "The Nuremberg Code."

wzambon2:The vaccines are neither experimental (certainly Pfizer’s, and soon to be approved Moderna), nor are they untested. In fact, they have passed some of the largest enrolled drug trials... ever.

This is not true because the Pfizer vaccine is not approved. <==== Bill, read this again.

In the so-called approval letter the FDA acknowledged that Pfizer has two different vaccines.

• The Comirnaty vaccine that the FDA approved, is not available! Where is it Bill?

• The current untested and experimental vaccine, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, produced under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) has, we are told, a "significant amount" of stocks available for use. That is why this Pfizer vaccine is still an experimental and untested vaccine - It has an EUA!

So, using a magic wand the FDA decreed that "the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under the EUA should remain unlicensed but can be used "interchangeably" (page 2, footnote 8) with the newly licensed Comirnaty product."

In other words the FDA is pushing the untested/experimental vaccine as an approved vaccine. The FDA goes on to say that "the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine and the existing, EUA Pfizer vaccine are "legally distinct," but proclaims that their differences do not "impact safety or effectiveness." https://principia-scientific.com/what-the-msm-didnt-tell-you...

If that is so, then how does the FDA explain the huge number of deaths within 3 days of vaccination? See https://boards.fool.com/final-approval-of-pfizer-vaccine-wil...


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Why not Jerryab2? The Aspirin chemistry is the same! If you think that the Aspirin chemistry changed, think again!

The finished product is the same chemistry, but the ingredients AND the processes used to create the finished product is different.

You are now speaking from ignorance on this topic.

You are talking to your mirror again.

Give it a rest.

Why have you NOT?

The rest of us have medications to take care of Covid with hundreds of studies confirming their very high efficacy - Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Budesonide etc.

Which Brooklyn Bridge did you buy *this* time?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And feel free to go and have your booster shot and good luck with vaccine injuries and death. The rest of us have medications to take care of Covid with hundreds of studies confirming their very high efficacy - Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Budesonide etc.

Which Brooklyn Bridge did you buy *this* time?

Again, good luck to you jerryab2 and have a nice day.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Ironically, the more adults refuse to get vaccinated, the more the public health calculation bends towards vaccinating children. In a society where nearly every adult is vaccinated, there's a lot less risk associated with kids passing the illness around.

I don't have the hard data, but using logic on what we do know...

Those under 20 are definitely covid-19 carriers....as they are with most cold viruses (Rhino, Adeno viruses) but because their immune systems are so robust in identifying and quicky building anti-bodies, they do not build a viral load and so are poor transmitters. This is why the young who test positive are usually asymptomatic. Now, kids can transmit but this is topically to 30 - 50 year old adults whose mortality rates are less than an infuenza outbreak. If kids had regular access to nursing homes, this would be an issue. Remember, about 80% of covid deaths are over age 65 with an average 2.9 comorbidities each.

BruceM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
“What are the raw materials for Aspirin these days and what is this new Aspirin process?”

Go make your own aspirin--from the same original ingredients used by Bayer. No longer covered under the original patent, remember?


The original process for making aspirin was treating sodium salicylate with acetyl chloride. Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), which is being sold under the trade name "aspirin" by the Bayer Company is synthesized by the conversion of Salicylic acid (SA) to Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) using acetic anhydride in the presence of phosphoric acid acting as a catalyst. The reaction involves the conversion of a phenol to an ester.

For more on aspirin, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aspirin.
;-)

C.J.V. - interesting history of aspirin, that
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Thank you for documenting the massive change in how aspirin is produced.

The change saved massive numbers of willow trees over the past century-plus.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
If kids had regular access to nursing homes, this would be an issue. Remember, about 80% of covid deaths are over age 65 with an average 2.9 comorbidities each.

Most of the people over age 65 don't live in nursing homes, though. Nearly all seniors live in independent housing in the community. It's certainly true that there's only so much interaction between the elderly and the school age population, though there's a lot of visits to grandpa and grandma that take place.

But that's my point. My original observation was that the high level of unvaccinated adults is what might push more towards vaccinating school age kids - and adults have regular access to nursing homes. If nearly all adults were vaccinated, we would have less of a public health impact in allowing kids to remain unvaccinated. The kids themselves have a low rate of adverse health impacts, and their role as a vector in transmitting the disease to the high rate population (the elderly) is more limited. But if there's a large population of unvaccinated adults and children, then you increase the chance of the disease finding its way from the children to the elderly through an adult carrier. Ie. student gives disease to their unvaccinated parent who is a drug store cashier, and who interacts with elderly people all day long.

The larger the unvaccinated adult population, the more likely that you have transmittal to the elderly - which raises the public health stakes to having children also being unvaccinated.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
From Covid. Covid is a highly contagious infectious disease. Being vaccinated from Covid imparts considerable protection from that disease. If you are vaccinated, you are significantly less likely to get infect with the disease, and therefore less likely to transmit it to others. You are also vastly less likely to develop severe enough symptoms to require hospitalization or worse.

Same can be said for those who have already had COVID with even greater certainty and efficacy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Covid is a highly contagious infectious disease. Being vaccinated from Covid imparts considerable protection from that disease. If you are vaccinated, you are significantly less likely to get infect with the disease, and therefore less likely to transmit it to others. You are also vastly less likely to develop severe enough symptoms to require hospitalization or worse.

The data we have contradict you and in fact, if you are vaccinated the exact opposite is true, namely:

• The vaccinated lose most if not all their immunity against Covid.

• If you are vaccinated, you are significantly more likely to get infected with the disease, and more likely to transmit Covid to others.

• The vaccinated are also most likely to develop severe Covid symptoms to require hospitalization and more likely to die from Covid.

Specifically, the latest Covid-19 Statistical Report released by Public Health Scotland (PHS) on the 8th September 2021 shows the Confirmed Covid Cases from August 7 to September 3, 2021:

Table 15: Confirmed Covid Cases By Vaccination Status:

Dates Unvaccinated Vaccinated
Aug_7_To_Sep_3 47,580 62,768
https://principia-scientific.com/80-percent-of-covid-deaths-...

So, there were 15,188 more cases among the vaccinated population, meaning, the Covid vaccines are increasing the risk of Covid infections.

Now what about Covid deaths?

Between August 5, 2021 and August 26, 2021 Most Covid Deaths, 80%, are vaccinated people. In other words the vaccines do not offer immunity and evidently remove any natural immunity you might have against Covid:

Unvaccinated, 25 deaths
Vaccinated 98 deaths
https://principia-scientific.com/80-percent-of-covid-deaths-...

In other words your claims are contradicted by the facts.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"In other words your claims are contradicted by the facts.


-=Ajax=-"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Careful. The numbers you quote suffer from the same limitations as other reports.
If the age of the two groups - vaccinated and unvaccinated - are not the same and if the
conditions of the two groups are not the same, the rate of hospitalizations and death are
not related.

Howie52
Course the other uncertainty is "are the cause of hospitalization and death actual Covid".
The data as presented from the start of the "unpleasantness" has been difficult to follow.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Most of the people over age 65 don't live in nursing homes, though.

With an average of 3.9 comorbidities for those 65+ who die from Covid-19? These are not healthy 65+ year olds.

Yes....some school-aged children do go home to grandparents. For these few, wouldn't it make sense to target these grandparents for the vaccine and/or broadcast public service announcements to to keep these groups at a safe distance from grandchildren as we might with a flu epidemic that we get every so often? Or is media induced mass hysteria and punishing children for political purposes more important?

BruceM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You are also vastly less likely to develop severe enough symptoms to require hospitalization or worse.

Such as the asymptomatic that most were pre-vaccine?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I heard that Moderna vaccine has more of the active ingredient in it as compared to Pfizer,so the interval between doses was longer, the chances of side-effects higher.

The Pfizer booster is identical to the first two doses.

The stronger Moderna vaccine booster is only a half dose of the original.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
So, there were 15,188 more cases among the vaccinated population, meaning, the Covid vaccines are increasing the risk of Covid infections.

As we've discussed several times already, that is incorrect - because in Scotland, the population of people who are vaccinated is an order of magnitude higher than the unvaccinated. You can't tell the effect of vaccines on infection just by looking at the total number of infected cases in each category - you need to know how many people are in each category to get the rate.

Imagine you have 100,000 people, and 92,000 of them are vaccinated. You have 1,000 cases of Covid among the vaccinated, and 800 cases of Covid among the unvaccinated. Does that mean vaccines increase the risk of Covid infections? Of course not. In that hypothetical, 1% of vaccinated people caught covid - but 10% of unvaccinated people caught covid. The people who are unvaccinated are 10x more likely to catch the disease - but because they make up such a small percentage of the population, their absolute numbers are smaller than the number of infected people who are vaccinated. When nearly all of the population is vaccinated, it is absolutely possible - and indeed likely - that you end up with more vaccinated infections than unvaccinated infections even when the vaccine is super-effective.

And that's what's happened in Scotland. Scotland is one of the world leaders in vaccination rates - close to 93% of the adult population. So they have a teeny-tiny population of unvaccinated people. And even though the unvaccinated are only 7% of the adult population (and an even smaller percentage of the elderly population), they account for 42% of the infections and 20% of the deaths.

So, no - you're wrong. Those numbers are not evidence the vaccines don't work - they're evidence that they do.

Get the vaccine. It can save your life.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
With an average of 3.9 comorbidities for those 65+ who die from Covid-19? These are not healthy 65+ year olds.

There aren't very many "healthy" 65+ year olds, if you're defining them as being free of all comorbidities. "Comorbidities" in this context means that they have one of a very large number of possible health conditions that are exceedingly common among the elderly population, everything from being overweight to having high blood pressure or suffering from asthma. Those aren't conditions that will require you to have supervised care or be in a nursing home.

For these few, wouldn't it make sense to target these grandparents for the vaccine and/or broadcast public service announcements to to keep these groups at a safe distance from grandchildren as we might with a flu epidemic that we get every so often? Or is media induced mass hysteria and punishing children for political purposes more important?

Again, that's why the degree of vaccination uptake among non-elderly adults affects the public health impacts of leaving children unvaccinated. If all of the adults do the responsible thing and get vaccinated, then segregating the elderly from school-age children might be an effective barrier against transmission. But if a large proportion of non-elderly adults refuse vaccination, then you increase the number of transmission vectors from kids to the elderly - because the kids can pass the disease to an unvaccinated non-elderly adult who can then pass along to the elderly. If you have 20-30 million unvaccinated adults available to serve as a conduit from the kids to the elderly, keeping the kids and elderly separated becomes a lot less effective.

The public health calculation is different than for seasonal flu, because Covid is much deadlier than the flu - it's both more contagious and more likely to kill when contracted. We're still learning about the delta variant, and how it compares to the original, so we don't have the exact numbers. For the seasonal flu, the "basic reproduction number" (measure of contagiousness) is about R1.3. Early estimates for the Delta variant put it at about R5 to R9 - it's many times more contagious than seasonal flu. And of course, the fatality rate is enormously higher.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Such as the asymptomatic that most were pre-vaccine?

Sure. Part of the benefit of the vaccine is that if you are infected, you are more likely not to suffer any adverse symptoms from Covid at all - and if you do, they'll be milder. So not only are you less likely to get symptoms that are so bad that hospitalization is required, but you're less likely to have severe but not hospitalization-level symptoms - or possibly any symptoms at all. It doesn't just protects you from death or hospitalization - it protects you from a very unpleasant time being sick outside of hospital as well.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So, there were 15,188 more cases among the vaccinated population, meaning, the Covid vaccines are increasing the risk of Covid infections... Between August 5, 2021 and August 26, 2021 Most Covid Deaths, 80%, are vaccinated people.

that is incorrect - because in Scotland, the population of people who are vaccinated is an order of magnitude higher than the unvaccinated.

Irrelevant. You need to look at the infected and decide if the vaccine offers immunity compared to the unvaccinated. Here, the numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated amongst the infected are almost equal:

Table 15: Confirmed Covid Cases By Vaccination Status:

Dates Unvaccinated Vaccinated
Aug_7_To_Sep_3 47,580 62,768
https://principia-scientific.com/80-percent-of-covid-deaths-...

So there were 15,188 more cases among the vaccinated population, meaning, the Covid vaccines are increasing the risk of Covid infections.

Now what about Covid deaths? Do the vaccines offer any immunity? Answer: No, because most Covid Deaths, 80%, are vaccinated people despite the fact that the two infected populations are almost equal:

Between August 5, 2021 and August 26, 2021 Most Covid Deaths, 80%, are vaccinated people. In other words the vaccines do not offer immunity and evidently remove any natural immunity you might have against Covid:

Unvaccinated, 25 deaths
Vaccinated 98 deaths
https://principia-scientific.com/80-percent-of-covid-deaths-...


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
So there were 15,188 more cases among the vaccinated population, meaning, the Covid vaccines are increasing the risk of Covid infections.

No, it doesn't. You're simply wrong. For vaccines to increase the risk of Covid infections, it would have to increase the number of infected people relative to the proportion of the vaccinated.

If you have a 100 people in one group and three get sick, and 10 people in a second group and one gets sick, which group had the greater chance of getting sick? Hint: it's the people in the second group. They had a higher proportion of people getting sick (one in ten), even though the absolute number of people getting sick was lower.

And that's what's happening in Scotland. Nearly everyone in Scotland is vaccinated, so most of the infections and deaths are now occurring in vaccinated people. Because nearly all of the population is vaccinated. Unvaccinated people are only 7% of the adult population, but are more than 40% of the infections. Why? Because the vaccine lowers the risk of infection.

Answer: No, because most Covid Deaths, 80%, are vaccinated people despite the fact that the two infected populations are almost equal

But the populations aren't equal, because the unvaccinated are much younger than the vaccinated population (plus, you're using data from different time series). And death rates skew markedly towards the older folks.

You don't need to go through these exercises, Ajax. The Scotland health department actually calculated the different mortality rates for the vaccinated and unvaccinated. The unvaccinated are 4x more likely to die from Covid.

Because the vaccine works. It protects people from infection, and it protects them from death. Not 100% - but a huge amount of protection.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
So there were 15,188 more cases among the vaccinated population, meaning, the Covid vaccines are increasing the risk of Covid infections.

On reflection, I think I actually have to do the math and show you the numbers so that you can understand why this is wrong.

The adult population of Scotland is roughly 4.3 million people. About 93% of those adults are vaccinated, while approximately 7% of them are unvaccinated. That yields a vaccinated population of about 4 million, with an unvaccinated population of about 0.3 million.

So, taking your numbers from above, we get the following:

Confirmed Cases 47,580 62,768
Population 300,000 4,000,000
-------------------
Percent infected 16% 1.6%

Now then - over the month that you're looking at, approximately 16% of Scotland's unvaccinated population contracted a confirmed case of Covid. Meanwhile, less than 2% of Scotland's vaccinated population contracted a confirmed case of Covid.

Which group had more protection against being infected? Which group should a person belong to if they want to lower their chance of being infected?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You don't need to go through these exercises, Ajax... Because the vaccine works. It protects people from infection, and it protects them from death. - Albaby

• If the vaccine works, then why are the vaccinated getting infected with Covid? Where is the immunity from the vaccine? No answer.

• If the vaccine works, then why are the vaccinated dying from Covid? Where is the immunity from the vaccine? No answer.

• If the vaccine works, then why are the vaccinated deaths much higher than the unvaccinated deaths? No answer.


the vaccine works...

No, the vaccine does not work! The fact that the vaccinated get Covid and that Covid is killing the vaccinated, means that the vaccine does not work and that it is useless. What else is there?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
• If the vaccine works, then why are the vaccinated getting infected with Covid?

Because the vaccine offers enormous protection against being infected, not 100% invulnerability.

• If the vaccine works, then why are the vaccinated dying from Covid?

Because the vaccine offers enormous protection against being death, not 100% invulnerability.

• If the vaccine works, then why are the vaccinated deaths much higher than the unvaccinated deaths?

Because there are 10x as many vaccinated people as unvaccinated people (or more) in the areas we've been discussing.


The fact that the vaccinated get Covid and that Covid is killing the vaccinated, means that the vaccine does not work and that it is useless.

No, it does not. It offers protection, not 100% immunity. The vaccine substantially reduces your chance of getting Covid or dying from it, as clearly shown by the data you keep citing. As noted above, someone in Scotland who is unvaccinated is nearly 10x more likely to catch Covid than someone who got the vaccine. The fact that it is not 100% does not mean that it is useless.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Albaby,

I admire your ability to answer with calm, logical, and well supported answers. You have great patience and I thank you for that!!

Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
• If the vaccine works, then why are the vaccinated getting infected with Covid?

Because the vaccine offers enormous protection against being infected, not 100% invulnerability.

Nonsense! Where is your "enormous protection" given that the vaccinated are getting infected with Covid?


• If the vaccine works, then why are the vaccinated dying from Covid?

Because the vaccine offers enormous protection against being death, not 100% invulnerability.

Covid is killing the vaccinated and you call that "enormous protection?" This "enormous protection" is based on what? They are vaccinated and Covid killed them, so what you are talking about?


The fact that the vaccinated get Covid and that Covid is killing the vaccinated, means that the vaccine does not work and that it is useless.

No, it does not. It offers protection, not 100% immunity.

Where is this protection if Covid is killing the vaccinated? Given that Covid is killing the vaccinated then why are we vaccinating people?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Nonsense! Where is your "enormous protection" given that the vaccinated are getting infected with Covid?

They are getting infected at vastly lower rates than the unvaccinated. You don't need "zero" to have enormous protection. Per the data that you posted, having the vaccine lowers your chance of being infected from about 16% (over a month) to less than 2%. That's enormous protection - even though there remains a small chance that you'll be infected, it is vastly lower than if you hadn't been vaccinated.

Covid is killing the vaccinated and you call that "enormous protection?" This "enormous protection" is based on what? They are vaccinated and Covid killed them, so what you are talking about?

They are being killed at vastly lower rates than the unvaccinated. You don't need "zero" to have enormous protection. From the health agency that you linked to, having the vaccine reduces the expected mortality of Covid by about 4x. That's enormous protection - even though there remains a small chance that you'll be killed, it is vastly lower than if you hadn't been vaccinated.

Where is this protection if Covid is killing the vaccinated? Given that Covid is killing the vaccinated then why are we vaccinating people?

Because Covid kills far fewer people if the people are vaccinated, and kills far more people when they are unvaccinated.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Where is your "enormous protection" given that the vaccinated are getting infected with Covid?

They are getting infected at vastly lower rates than the unvaccinated.

Absolutely not! You had almost 100 vaccinated deaths in August alone and this is not a lower rate.

According to Dr. Luc Montagnier, a French virologist with a 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine:

• The vaccines don’t stop the virus. They help the virus to mutate and make it stronger because

• The antibodies, created by the vaccine, do not kill Covid because they are not Covid specific.

• As a result, the new Covid mutation, or variant, is stronger, more resistant and more transmittable than the original.

• That is why this mass vaccination program is a major medical blunder - a blunder that is taking humanity into uncharted medical territory.

• According to Dr. Montagnier the virus mutates and strengthens from a process known as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE). "ADE is a mechanism that increases the ability of a virus to enter cells and cause a worsening of the disease." https://principia-scientific.com/frightening-warnings-about-...

This is a very simple and logical explanation of how the variants are created and at the same time it explains very nicely why those who are vaccinated have a mortality rate more than twice that of the unvaccinated.

The reason? The antibodies of the unvaccinated are Corona killers while the antibodies of the vaccinated are weak and not Corona specific.

Step back and think about this: We have medications that wipe out Covid within hours from the human body - We have Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Budesonide etc... So why don't we use what we know works and skip these mRNA vaccines that are deadly to humans and require boosters on top of boosters and take humanity into uncharted territory?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
So why don't we use what we know works and skip these mRNA vaccines that are deadly to humans and require boosters on top of boosters and take humanity into uncharted territory?

We are using what we know works. We know the vaccines work. The data you posted, yourself, in this thread, shows it - vaccinated populations show dramatically reduced rates of infection and death. That result has been observed in every population in which these vaccines have been used. These vaccines reduce the rate of infection, and reduce the rate of serious consequences (including death) of the illness.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
These vaccines reduce the rate of infection, and reduce the rate of serious consequences (including death) of the illness. - Albaby

Not according to Pfizer scientists. Three Pfizer scientists in separate recordings agreed that natural antibodies produced following a Covid-19 infection (meaning the unvaccinated with a Covid infection) are superior to the vaccine.

"When somebody is naturally immune -- like they got COVID -- they probably have more antibodies against the virus... When you actually get the virus, you’re going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus... So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the [COVID] vaccination," said scientist Nick Karl. https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/veritas-records-pfizer-sc...

That is why Covid kills the vaccinated. The unvaccinated have superior immunity!


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
That is why Covid kills the vaccinated. The unvaccinated have superior immunity!

Except they don't. The unvaccinated suffer infections and death rates that are much higher than the vaccinated.

What those Pfizer employees were discussing was the possibility that people who are infected with Covid might develop stronger antibodies than those generated in response to the vaccine. Whether that's true is the subject of considerable study right now (a few scientists talking off the cuff doesn't substitute for actually researching the question). But the reactions of people who have already caught Covid is not a statement about the unvaccinated generally, and unvaccinated people who have become infected with Covid obviously didn't have immunity to getting infected in the first place. And you can't use post-infection immunity as a medical practice to help people avoid getting infected in the first place.

And once more, none of this negates the fact that the vaccines are effective in providing considerable protection against infection and death compared to being not vaccinated. Whether people who have survived a bout of Covid come out the other side with better or worse immunity doesn't change the fact that the vaccine provides an enormous amount of protection.

Get the vaccine.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Albaby, stop trying to confuse Ajax with facts when his mind is already made up.
;-)

C.J.V. - just better to ignore him, yes
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
• If the vaccine works, then why are the vaccinated getting infected with Covid? Where is the immunity from the vaccine? No answer.

• If the vaccine works, then why are the vaccinated dying from Covid? Where is the immunity from the vaccine? No answer.

• If the vaccine works, then why are the vaccinated deaths much higher than the unvaccinated deaths? No answer.


• If the vaccine works, then why do the vaccinated need to be protected by Biden from the unvaccinated?

• If the vaccine works, then why are the liberal vaccinated worried whether or not others get vaccinated?

• If the vaccine works, then why did Biden and Harris refuse it when Trump was president?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
If the vaccine works, then why do the vaccinated need to be protected by Biden from the unvaccinated?

As has been mentioned numerous times on this thread, the vaccines do not confer 100% invulnerability. They work - they substantially reduce the threat of infection and death compared to being unvaccinated. But they do not utterly and completely eliminate the threat of contracting the virus or possibly even dying from it. The unvaccinated still put the vaccinated at a degree of risk, which is one of the reasons why it is irresponsible to refuse to get vaccinated.

If the vaccine works, then why are the liberal vaccinated worried whether or not others get vaccinated?

In addition to the point above (the unvaccinated still pose a risk to the vaccinated), the same reason why liberals want people to wear seatbelts or wear hardhats at construction sites or to quit smoking or not die from opioid overdoses. It's bad when people subject themselves to an unnecessary risk of harm and death, even in circumstances (unlike Covid) where the risk is entirely borne by them. When people die avoidable Covid deaths due to limited uptake in vaccines, it is a loss to the country - and they leave behind broken families and damaged communities.

If the vaccine works, then why did Biden and Harris refuse it when Trump was president?

Both Biden and Harris were vaccinated, live on TV, when Trump was still President:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/21/politics/bidens-coronavirus-v...
https://abc7news.com/kamala-harris-covid-vaccine-gets-vaccin...

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Three Pfizer scientists at different times, stated that natural antibodies produced following a Covid-19 infection are superior to the vaccine. In other words the unvaccinated have a superior immunity... That is why Covid kills the vaccinated. The unvaccinated have superior immunity! https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/veritas-records-pfizer-sc...

Except they don't.

Tell that to the Pfizer scientists.


The unvaccinated suffer infections and death rates that are much higher than the vaccinated.

Nonsense, the data contradict you. According to Public Health Scotland, between August 5, 2021 and August 26, 2021 most Covid Deaths, 80%, are vaccinated people. In other words the vaccines do not offer immunity and evidently remove any natural immunity you might have against Covid:

Unvaccinated, 25 deaths
Vaccinated 98 deaths
https://principia-scientific.com/80-percent-of-covid-deaths-...


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Tell that to the Pfizer scientists.

Why? They didn't say that the unvaccinated have superior immunity. They suggested that people who got infected with Covid and survived might thereafter have superior immunity. Their comments have nothing to do with the unvaccinated who haven't previously been infected.

Nonsense, the data contradict you. According to Public Health Scotland, between August 5, 2021 and August 26, 2021 most Covid Deaths, 80%, are vaccinated people. In other words the vaccines do not offer immunity and evidently remove any natural immunity you might have against Covid:

No, the data do not contradict me - because the fact that 80% of the deaths are vaccinated people does not mean that the vaccines don't offer immunity. Because while only 20% of the deaths are unvaccinated people, unvaccinated people are less than 7% of the population (and an even smaller proportion of the elderly population). Those data show that unvaccinated people are dying at a higher rate than vaccinated people.

According to Public Health Scotland, the mortality rate for the unvaccinated is about 4x higher than that for vaccinated people. Because vaccines do offer protection and do not remove natural immunity you might have against Covid.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Tell that to the Pfizer scientists.

Why? They didn't say that the unvaccinated have superior immunity.

Look at the data: According to Public Health Scotland, in August 2021 most Covid Deaths, 80%, are vaccinated people. This says that the immunity of the unvaccinated is superior to that of the vaccinated. Just follow the data!

Unvaccinated, 25 deaths
Vaccinated 98 deaths
https://principia-scientific.com/80-percent-of-covid-deaths-...

And unfortunately, most if not all these deaths could have been avoided if they were given Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine or Budesonide etc. - medications that cure Covid within hours.

-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Look at the data: According to Public Health Scotland, in August 2021 most Covid Deaths, 80%, are vaccinated people. This says that the immunity of the unvaccinated is superior to that of the vaccinated. Just follow the data!

Unvaccinated, 25 deaths
Vaccinated 98 deaths


The data don't say that, Ajax.

The data show that there were more vaccinated deaths than unvaccinated deaths. But unless you know how big those two populations were, you don't know which group had a higher death rate. So you can't determine whose immunity is superior until you look at the figures relative to their populations.

We know the relative size of those populations. Of Scotland's 4.3 million adults, about 4 million are vaccinated, and about 0.3 million are unvaccinated. So taking those numbers, we find that:

Unvaccinated Vaccinated
Deaths 25 98
Population 300,000 4,000,000
Deaths per 100K 8.3 2.5

So you can see with just raw numbers, the death rate for the unvaccinated is more than 3x larger than for the vaccinated. You're more than three times likelier to die of Covid if you haven't been vaccinated. Because there are literally 13x more vaccinated people than unvaccinated people, the total number of deaths will be larger for the vaccinated population. But the death rate for the unvaccinated people is much, much larger.

That reflects the fact that the vaccine provides enormous protection from being killed by Covid. In this limited sampling of the population of Scotland, being vaccinated reduced the death rate by more than two-thirds. I say more than, because vaccination status skews by age - the unvaccinated are likely to be younger than the vaccinated, so the actual benefits from vaccination will be larger than these figures. Which is why Public Health Scotland concluded that vaccination provided about 4x lower death rates than being unvaccinated.

You're just misreading the data, Ajax - thinking that the total number of deaths tells you which group has better immunity without taking into account the size of the groups.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Look at the data: According to Public Health Scotland, in August 2021 most Covid Deaths, 80%, are vaccinated people. This says that the immunity of the unvaccinated is superior to that of the vaccinated. Just follow the data!

Unvaccinated, 25 deaths
Vaccinated 98 deaths
https://principia-scientific.com/80-percent-of-covid-deaths-...


The data don't say that, Ajax. The data show that there were more vaccinated deaths than unvaccinated deaths. But unless you know how big those two populations were, you don't know which group had a higher death rate. So you can't determine whose immunity is superior until you look at the figures relative to their populations.

Albaby1, The swine flu vaccine in 1976 was halted after it caused a total of 53 deaths.

How many thousands of Covid vaccine deaths are we going to have before you put an end to this slaughter?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Albaby1, The swine flu vaccine in 1976 was halted after it caused a total of 53 deaths.

How many thousands of Covid vaccine deaths are we going to have before you put an end to this slaughter?


As noted above, the Covid vaccine reduces deaths. Had the 4 million vaccinated Scots in the above table died at the rate of the unvaccinated Scots, then another 235 would have died. The vaccine saved 235 lives, just in Scotland, and just in a single month. And a good 3/4 of the people who were unvaccinated would have survived, if they had only bothered to get the vaccine.

The vaccine saves lives. It could save your life. Get the vaccine.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Look at the data: According to Public Health Scotland, in August 2021 most Covid Deaths, 80%, are vaccinated people. This says that the immunity of the unvaccinated is superior to that of the vaccinated. Just follow the data!

Unvaccinated, 25 deaths
Vaccinated 98 deaths
https://principia-scientific.com/80-percent-of-covid-deaths-...


As noted above, the Covid vaccine reduces deaths.

This is circular logic. If 80% of the Covid deaths are Vaccinated against Covid, then how do you conclude that the Covid vaccine reduces Covid deaths? Based on what?

Was your Covid vaccine developed to reduce Covid deaths? And if we have 100 Covid deaths a month amongst the vaccinated in Scotland alone then this says that the vaccines are a major failure!

This is an experimental and untested vaccine so why vaccinate people if Covid is killing the vaccinated at such a high rate? Where are you going with this?


The vaccine saved 235 lives, just in Scotland, and just in a single month.

If Covid killed 100 vaccinated individuals, in one month in Scotland alone then how did it save lives? The vaccine is not providing immunity and therefore, it is a massive spectacular failure!


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
This is circular logic. If 80% of the Covid deaths are Vaccinated against Covid, then how do you conclude that the Covid vaccine reduces Covid deaths? Based on what?

Based on the relative rates of death of the two populations. As noted above, we know that more than 93% of the Scottish population is vaccinated. That means that about 300K of the population is vaccinated, and about 4 million is unvaccinated. So we can calculate the mortality rate of Covid of each group:

Unvaccinated Vaccinated
Deaths 25 98
Population 300,000 4,000,000
Deaths per 100K 8.3 2.5

As I've mentioned several times, you're at least 3x more likely to die of Covid (based on the Public Health Scotland figures) if you are unvaccinated than if you are vaccinated. Because there's a skew in ages between the two population groups, you're actually about 4x more likely to die of Covid if you don't get the vaccine than if you do.

Again, you can't assess the effectiveness of the vaccine based just on the total number of deaths in each group - you have to take into account the size of each group.

Perhaps this might help you to understand: suppose I tell you that I'm going to divide a bunch of people into two groups. In one of the groups, a person will be randomly chosen to die; in the second group, two people will be randomly chosen to die. Which group would you rather be in?
Obviously more people will be killed in the second group - but unless you know the size of the groups overall, you can't tell which group puts you at bigger risk. If there are only 10 people in the first group (and one is killed), and there are 1,000 people in the second group (and two are killed), obviously the people in the second group have a better chance of surviving than the first group - even though the number of people being killed in the second group is larger.

That's the error you're making. The vaccine does not provide 100% invulnerability to Covid - but it does make you much, much less likely to die from the disease. So many more people have gotten vaccinated in Scotland that even though they are dying at a far lower rate than the unvaccinated, you end up with more total deaths. The unvaccinated are only 7% of the population, but they're more than 20% of the deaths.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is circular logic. If 80% of the Covid deaths are Vaccinated against Covid, then how do you conclude that the Covid vaccine reduces Covid deaths? Based on what?

Based on the relative rates of death of the two populations.

This is another invalid assumption because you are ignoring medications that cure and eradicate Covid within hours. Why?

In the presence of medications that eradicate Covid your vaccine is useless!

See the following data that compare Vaccines against Ivermectin:

India (Ivermectin/low vaccination) vs Israel (No Ivermectin/high vaccination) cases
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/COVID-In...

and
Africa Ivermectin countries vs non-Ivermectin countries deaths
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/COVID-Af...


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
This is another invalid assumption because you are ignoring medications that cure and eradicate Covid within hours. Why?

Because you have claimed that the vaccine does not work. You have claimed that assertion is supported by the Public Health Scotland data. Both of those statements are false. They are false regardless of whether there are other medications that might or might not be effective, even more effective, in treating Covid.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
you are ignoring medications that cure and eradicate Covid within hours. Why?

Because you have claimed that the vaccine does not work.

That is a true statement. The vaccines do not work because they kill and injure people by the thousands.

• We now have tens of thousands people dead and hundreds of thousands injured. A computer programmer at the CDC, who is counting the actual vaccine VAERS deaths revealed that in the USA alone, we had thus far over 45,000 deaths within 3 days of vaccination.

• A statement from this CDC programmer was presented by America’s Frontline Doctors, to an Alabama Federal District Court seeking immediate halt of COVID vaccines.

CDC Programmer: "On July 9, 2021, there were 9,048 deaths reported in VAERS. I verified these numbers by collating all of the data from VAERS myself, not relying on a third party to report them. In tandem, I queried data... and have assessed that the deaths occurring within 3 days of vaccination are higher than those reported in VAERS by a factor of at least 5. This would indicate the true number of vaccine-related deaths was at least 45,000. Put in perspective, the swine flu vaccine was taken off the market which only resulted in 53 deaths." See "Federal Lawsuit Seeks Immediate Halt of COVID Vaccines" https://principia-scientific.com/federal-lawsuit-seeks-immed...

Here is an hour of Israelis describing how they have been maimed by the vaccines... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4BpEr8gztU
Ironically, Israel just announced that people with only TWO shots are now considered unvaccinated and that their Health Passports are canceled.

The vaccines are killing and maiming people by the thousands. We are better off using medications that we know work against Covid with a very high efficacy - such as Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Budesonide etc. Why risk your life with a vaccine?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
• We now have tens of thousands people dead and hundreds of thousands injured. A computer programmer at the CDC, who is counting the actual vaccine VAERS deaths revealed that in the USA alone, we had thus far over 45,000 deaths within 3 days of vaccination.

But there is no reason to believe that those deaths had any connection to vaccination, even if we were to assume this computer programmer (not an epidemiologist) had 'adjusted' the deaths by a factor of five correctly.

Every year in in the U.S., about 2.85 million people die. That's about 7.8K per day, or about 25 per million persons. So if you went up to a million people in the U.S. at random and sang them a few bars from "Let it Go," or told them a limerick, or patted them on the shoulder...about 75 of them would die within three days. That doesn't mean that singing a song or telling them a limerick or patting them on the shoulder caused them to die, of course. It just means that if you take a sufficiently large number of Americans, some number of them will die in three days.

So then - we've administered about 400 million doses. If we administered 400 million placebos at random to the U.S. population, we would expect 30,000 people to die within 3 days of receiving the placebos. And since the vaccines aren't administered at random, but skew towards an older population (they're not given to children and the elderly are the most vaccinated population), we would expect that the number of deaths that would result at random even with 400 million placebos would be even higher.

And that's the purpose of the VAERS mandatory reporting of any death occurring after the administration of the vaccine. That dataset is not a tabulation of deaths caused by the vaccine. It's intended to be a tabulation of deaths near in time to the administration of the vaccine so that using statistical analysis the CDC can figure out whether that number of deaths is higher or lower than the number we would expect, at random, for that number of doses.

To date, there have been virtually no deaths that can be shown to be caused by the vaccine. Had there been 53 deaths shown to be caused by the vaccine (as with the Spanish Flu vaccine), it would have been immediately stopped. After all, we've seen several instances where health authorities here or in the other 180+ countries where the vaccine is administered when even the merest hint of an adverse reaction shown to be caused by the vaccine has caused them to suspend the vaccine.

So, no - there's absolutely no evidence that the vaccine is actively harming people. There's literally been billions of doses administered - if there were any adverse effect that manifested within a few days (or weeks or months), it would be easily detectable and would have led to suspension of the vaccine.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There's literally been billions of doses administered - if there were any adverse effect that manifested within a few days (or weeks or months), it would be easily detectable and would have led to suspension of the vaccine.

I'm not sure that's true. With deaths, sure. But with other, more subjective, quality-of-life related symptoms (e.g. fatigue, brain fog)?
Medical science does poorly where it doesn't have hard data. Corpses are good. You can count them. With corpses, you know where you're at. There's no "How dead do you feel today on a scale of 1 to 10".

Non-specific, diffuse, subjective symptoms? That's where medical science doesn't do so well. If you want a practical medical example, just look at hypothyroidism. Some doctors want to treat at TSH 2.5, some at 10+, and both ends of the spectrum think that the ones at the other end are quacks.

Well, they all agree that pregnant women should be treated at TSH > 2.5, because "births" and "miscarriages" can be counted quite well, unlike "fatigue", "dry skin", depression and "anhedonia", which are difficult to measure (there's also the added problem that the optimal dose window for thyroid medication is really narrow and has sharp edges).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I'm not sure that's true. With deaths, sure.

That's absolutely correct. I shouldn't have referred to 'harms' when I should have said 'deaths.' After all, we know that there are side effects to some of the vaccines, especially among certain populations - and that these are showing up in the continual and ongoing monitoring of the vaccines' safety. For example, several Nordic countries are starting to advise against Moderna in the under-30 population:

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/finland-joins-nordic...

Of course, that's exactly the point - health organizations around the world are closely monitoring the health effects of the vaccine, and intervening as soon as the data shows the risk of harms that fall well short of death. The idea that the vaccine is killing tens of thousands of people - whether in any one country or globally - and no one has noticed except a random anonymous computer programmer (who doesn't say she works for the CDC, BTW) is laughable.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
A computer programmer at the CDC, who is counting the actual vaccine VAERS deaths revealed that in the USA alone, we had thus far 45,000 deaths within 3 days of vaccination... Put in perspective, the swine flu vaccine was taken off the market which only resulted in 53 deaths... Here is an hour of Israelis describing how they have been maimed by the vaccines... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4BpEr8gztU

But there is no reason to believe that those deaths had any connection to vaccination...

On the contrary, these 45,000 deaths, within 3 days of vaccination were caused by the vaccine! What else is there Albaby?

And given that the swine flu vaccine was taken off the market after 53 American deaths, then why is this slaughter with the Covid vaccines allowed to go on? It needs to stop! Given that medications such as Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Budesonide etc cure Covid within hours then there is no need to risk a vaccine injury and death with an experimental and untested vaccine.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
On the contrary, these 45,000 deaths, within 3 days of vaccination were caused by the vaccine! What else is there Albaby?

Everything else. That's the point. Those deaths weren't caused by the vaccine.

About 8,000 people in the U.S. die every day. They die from a variety of causes, the overwhelming majority of which are natural causes. Since there are about 330 million Americans, that means that for any given million Americans (chosen at random), about 25 will die within the next 24 hours. Or if you extend that out to three days, about 75 out of every one million Americans are expected to die.

If you go up to one million Americans (at random) and give them a completely harmless injection, about 75 of them will die within the next three days - even though the injection was (by construction) completely harmless. Because that's how many people typically die.

So then - what of the claims here? It's important to note that this anonymous computer programmer (who doesn't work for the CDC) did not claim that there were 45,000 deaths within three days of vaccination. That figure was for all VAERS deaths - after she 'adjusted' them. Although her statement didn't give the 72-hour figure, the lawsuit that her affidavit was submitted with (and which you cited above) did: they put it at about 4.5K:

As of July 9, reported deaths in the VAERS totaled 10,991. Of those, 4,593 occurred within 72-hours of vaccination.

https://principia-scientific.com/federal-lawsuit-seeks-immed...

Now then - as of July 9, the U.S. had administered about 332 million doses of vaccine. At that time, earlier in the rollout, the vaccinated population skewed heavily elderly. But even assuming that the vaccine were given randomly, we would expect that approximately 24,900 Americans would die within 72 hours after receiving even a completely harmless vaccine. That's the level of baseline mortality that exists in the U.S. If you take 332 million people, about 25,000 of them will die within the next 72 hours - even if you do absolutely nothing. And that's just random people - the population of people who received the vaccine skews much, much older than the U.S. population, which means that the number of expected deaths is actually much higher.

Note that this is more than 5x the amount of deaths that were reported to VAERS.

What that means is that there is nothing about the deaths of 4,593 people occurring within 72 hours of receiving the vaccine that would make us think the vaccine caused those deaths. That's vastly fewer deaths than we would expect to occur within 72 hours of receiving a vaccine, or being told a knock-knock joke, or being shown a picture of Lucille Ball. None of those deaths were identified as being caused by the vaccine. The Covid vaccine didn't cause 4,593 deaths. That's just the total amount of deaths that occurred within the 72 hour window afterwards, and it's vastly lower than the amount of deaths we would expect from a harmless vaccine.

That's the difference between the Covid vaccine and the swine flu vaccine. If the Covid vaccine had caused 53 deaths, it would never have been rolled out. But it didn't. The Covid vaccine didn't cause 4,593 deaths.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Forgot the link showing the number of doses administered as of July 9:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210710060308/https://www.npr.o...

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
The problem when reasoning with Ajax, albaby, is that you can't reason someone out of a position if they haven't reasoned themselves into that position in the first place.

Ajax is wholly irrational. Trying to reason with him isn't going to work, ever. Although I suppose there is a chance that others who might read the conversation see this.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So according to the agency you're citing, someone who is unvaccinated is four times more likely to die from Covid than a vaccinated person.

The comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated mortality is understating vaccine protection for another reason - prior infection also provides protection (at least for a while).
A large share, eventually most or nearly everyone, of the unvaccinated will be immune/resistant due to prior infection. The share of the unvaccinated that had a prior infection will be much larger than the share of the vaccinated because the vaccine lowers the risk of infection substantially and the vaccinated are also generally more cautious.
That said, there have been several HCA winners now who stated that they had Covid before, some of them were even hospitalized for it previously.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
If the vaccine works, then why are the liberal vaccinated worried whether or not others get vaccinated?

Several reasons. For example, every day, hundreds of children in the US lose an unvaccinated parent. ICUs in many parts of the US are filled to the rafters with dying unvaccinated COVID patients, and many non-Covid patients are suffering and dying because they cannot receive needed care as the hospitals are overwhelmed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
On the contrary, these 45,000 deaths, within 3 days of vaccination were caused by the vaccine! What else is there Albaby?

About 8,000 people in the U.S. die every day.

And 45,000 deaths, within 3 days of vaccination equals 15,000 deaths per day!

And given that the swine flu vaccine was taken off the market after 53 American deaths, then why is this slaughter with the Covid vaccines allowed to go on? It needs to stop!

The medications we have - Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Budesonide etc - cure Covid within hours. There is no need to risk vaccine injuries and deaths with experimental and untested vaccines.

And why are you ignoring this video from Israel that describes severe vaccine injuries and deaths?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4BpEr8gztU

In the end, the actual cause of Covid deaths is denial of treatment - Covid patients are denied the use of medications that cure Covid. Instead, infected people are sent home, and when their lungs fill up with fluids, they are admitted to the hospital and placed on a ventilator and given Remdesivir - a medication that, according to The Lancet, is worse than a placebo and costs $5,000 a week. Most patients die at this point because they were actually denied medical treatment - medications that cure Covid within hours.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
And 45,000 deaths, within 3 days of vaccination equals 15,000 deaths per day!

No, it doesn't. Because the vaccines weren't all given on a single day. Those deaths were spread out over about 8 months.

And it's also not 45,000 deaths within three days of vaccination. Those are the total of all deaths in the VAERS database (and then marked up with some unidentified fudge factor). The total number of deaths within three days was about 4,600.

If you were to take Americans at random and schedule 332 million appointments, just like we did with the vaccine....but instead of giving them an injection of anything you just handed them a printed card with the word "VACCINE" on it, approximately 25,000 people would die within 72 hours of receiving that card. Not because receiving a card with the printed word "VACCINE" on it can kill people, of course. Rather, that's just how many people will die from just ordinary baseline mortality in this country.

So, 25,000 people would die within 72 hours if you handed them a "VACCINE" card. VAERS reported 4,600 deaths within 72 hours of vaccine appointments. That is entirely consistent with the vaccines causing zero deaths.

And given that the swine flu vaccine was taken off the market after 53 American deaths, then why is this slaughter with the Covid vaccines allowed to go on?

Because the swine flu vaccine was shown to have caused 53 American deaths, and the covid vaccine hasn't been shown to have caused any. You're confusing deaths that occurred after a vaccine was given, and deaths that were caused by the vaccine.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
A computer programmer at the CDC, who is counting the actual vaccine VAERS deaths revealed that in the USA alone, we had thus far 45,000 deaths within 3 days of vaccination...

And it's also not 45,000 deaths within three days of vaccination.

You are arguing against the facts!


And given that the swine flu vaccine was taken off the market after 53 American deaths, then why is this slaughter with the Covid vaccines allowed to go on?

Because the swine flu vaccine was shown to have caused 53 American deaths, and the covid vaccine hasn't been shown to have caused any.

What part of "in the USA alone, we had thus far 45,000 deaths within 3 days of vaccination" don't you understand?

Conclusions:
• The vaccines cause severe injuries and death and
• they do not offer any protection or immunity against Covid.
• The best protection that we have are the medications Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Budesonide etc that cure Covid within hours.
• There is no need to risk vaccine injuries and deaths with experimental and untested vaccines.

-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
A computer programmer at the CDC, who is counting the actual vaccine VAERS deaths revealed that in the USA alone, we had thus far 45,000 deaths within 3 days of vaccination...

You are arguing against the facts!

Your statement is wrong. In fact, almost everything about your statement is wrong.

Here's a link to the actual "Jane Doe" declaration that you're referring to, as well as the description of the affidavit and the litigation that you linked earlier:

https://principia-scientific.com/federal-lawsuit-seeks-immed...
https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/3c6a0774-cfad-46fa-aa97-af5...

So, from the top: the affidavit never says that the affiant is computer programmer at the CDC. She just downloaded the CDC data. At most, she claims that she has access to CMS data as part of her job - but she never says she works for the CDC, and that claim is absent from the lawsuit.

Second, she never claimed that there were 45,000 "actual vaccine VAERS deaths." Her affidavit notes that at the time she reviewed the data, there were 9,048 vaccine VAERS deaths. She made up the 45K figure by applying some adjustment she derived from looking at the CMS data, which process she never explained or described. But the actual deaths in the VAERS database were just over 9K deaths.

Finally, she never claimed that those deaths were within three days of receiving the vaccine. In fact, she never made any claims about timing at all - her affidavit is based on the totality of VAERS deaths, not those within three days of vaccine administration.

However, the lawsuit does provide that information. The litigants claim that:

"As of July 9, reported deaths in the VAERS totaled 10,991. Of those, 4,593 occurred within 72-hours of vaccination."

I'm not sure where all the mistaken claims you made came from, exactly - but I suspect it was due to a bit of 'media telephone.' The original lawsuit gets reported, then someone writes a column on that story, then someone writes a story on the column....and over time, what was an affidavit on an adjustment about all deaths in the VAERS database gets mixed up with a claim about the much smaller number of deaths in a three day time period.

So, no - the actual number of deaths in the VAERS database taking place within a 72-hour time period isn't 45,000. It's 4,593.

What part of "in the USA alone, we had thus far 45,000 deaths within 3 days of vaccination" don't you understand?

The part where you demonstrate that the 4,593 deaths (not 45K) were caused by the vaccine, rather than happening to take place within 3 days of vaccination. Given the number of vaccination appointments that took place, ordinary baseline mortality in the U.S. would predict that at least 25,000 of those people would die within 72 hours even if they had been given a placebo. The fact that 4,593 deaths were logged in the VAERS database within 72 hours is completely unremarkable. It's actually a fifth lower than the expected mortality - which again, is not surprising, given that VAERS is just self- or doctor-reported, not an actual study or analysis of post-vaccination effects.

This is utterly consistent with all the trials and studies, conducted both in the U.S. and all over the world, where vaccine recipients were monitored after receiving the injection and did not show any increased mortality over baseline.

So, no - these people didn't die from the vaccine. They died because if you have 330+ million appointments for anything, about 25,000 people will die within three days.**

Albaby

** All of this understates the baseline mortality rate, because vaccines have been administered with a skew towards the more elderly population - which has higher baseline mortality than the population generally.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So, from the top: the affidavit never says that the affiant is computer programmer at the CDC. https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/3c6a0774-cfad-46fa-aa97-af5...

Yes it does. She stated that "I am fully competent to make this declaration and I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration."


Second, she never claimed that there were 45,000 "actual vaccine VAERS deaths."

Yes she did. She stated "VAERS... is under-reported by a conservative factor of at least 5. On July 9, 2021, there were 9,048 deaths reported in VAERS."


Finally, she never claimed that those deaths were within three days of receiving the vaccine.

Yes she did. " I... have assessed that the deaths occurring within 3 days of vaccination are higher than those reported in VAERS by a factor of at least 5. This would indicate the true number of vaccine-related deaths was at least 45,000. "


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Yes it does. She stated that "I am fully competent to make this declaration and I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration."

But the declaration does not assert that she is a programmer at the CDC. In fact, the affidavit doesn't mention the CDC at all.

Yes she did. She stated "VAERS... is under-reported by a conservative factor of at least 5. On July 9, 2021, there were 9,048 deaths reported in VAERS."

Which isn't the same thing as claiming there were 45,000 actual vaccine VAERS death. The actual number of VAERS deaths is 9,048 (at the time she examined the data). She's claiming that the number is under-reported - that the number of actual deaths was higher than the number reported to VAERS. But that's not a claim that there are 45K VAERS deaths - it's her estimate based just on her unexplained, unidentified CMS calculation.

Yes she did. " I... have assessed that the deaths occurring within 3 days of vaccination are higher than those reported in VAERS by a factor of at least 5. This would indicate the true number of vaccine-related deaths was at least 45,000. "

But that's not a claim that the true number of vaccine-related deaths within three days was 45,000. She looked at the 3-day population, concluded that it was off by a factor of 5, and then used that to 'adjust' the total number of deaths - not the 3-day deaths. She never said that the 45k was the adjusted 3-day death rate.

The 3-day deaths were only about 4.5K - not the full 9K, which represents all VAERS-reported deaths. [Note that even if you 'adjust' the 3-day deaths by a factor of 5x, it's still lower than the number of deaths you would expect from just ordinary baseline mortality.]

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But the declaration does not assert that she is a programmer at the CDC.

Why are you trying to insert your own meaning into the statement of a whistleblower?


" I... have assessed that the deaths occurring within 3 days of vaccination are higher than those reported in VAERS by a factor of at least 5. This would indicate the true number of vaccine-related deaths was at least 45,000. "

Which isn't the same thing as claiming there were 45,000 actual vaccine VAERS death...

Read it again.


But that's not a claim that the true number of vaccine-related deaths within three days was 45,000.

Yes, it is.

Bottom line:

• The vaccines do not prevent Covid.
• And we know the vaccinated are spreading Covid.
• And that the vaccine does not prevent death from Covid.
• And this, in addition to the severe vaccine injuries and deaths.

So, why not use a medication that wipes out Covid from the body within hours? And you have a few choices - Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Budesonide etc.

-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Why are you trying to insert your own meaning into the statement of a whistleblower?

At no point in the affidavit does she say she works for the CDC. At no point in the affidavit does she identify her employer at all. That's not 'inserting' a meaning into her statement - it's pointing out the statement doesn't say what you have claimed it does.

Read it again.

I have, several times. She claims that the VAERS data understates death by a factor of five (without ever describing how she reached that conclusion), and then applies that multiplier to the entirety of VAERS deaths - not the ones that took place within a 72 hour period. This is consistent with the actual claims made in the lawsuit, which repeatedly compares the 45K figure contained in the affidavit with the total death report of VAERS - not the 72-hour death report.

So again, your reading of the affidavit is mistaken - as are some of the media reports. The affiant does not claim she works for the CDC (and neither does the lawsuit claim she does, either). Nor does she claim that 45,000 people died within 72 hours of receiving the vaccine (and neither does the lawsuit).

Albaby

https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/3c6a0774-cfad-46fa-aa97-af5...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
jax:"Conclusions:
• The vaccines cause severe injuries and death and
• they do not offer any protection or immunity against Covid.
• The best protection that we have are the medications Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Budesonide etc that cure Covid within hours.
• There is no need to risk vaccine injuries and deaths with experimental and untested vaccines."

https://boards.fool.com/long-covid-kidney-damage-34953542.as...

"Covid-19 can cause "long Covid" kidney damage in around 13 per 1,000 people with COVID-19. Covid patients who were hospitalized have a higher incidence, but some with mild Covid were affected.

Given that nearly 44 million people have been infected with COVID-19 in the U.S., they estimate that more than half a million people will have some form of kidney disease as a result of long-COVID.

It is now abundantly clear that some clinical manifestations of long-COVID, such as fatigue, may resolve with time in some people; but it is also abundantly clear that long-COVID results in chronic conditions such as chronic kidney disease (and other non-communicable disease such as heart failure, and new onset diabetes).

The federal government pays for dialysis. Some of the other long Covid problems can cause enough disability to keep people unemployed long-term. Long Covid will be an expensive problem."


----

Excellent reasons to get the vaccine. Oh you want to get a case to test your 'natural immunity'? Wind up with Long Covid? micro infections in heart, lung, brain cells and tissues?

You want PERMANENT kidney damage? Heart damage? Live 10 or 20 years less due to Long Covid?

Go for it Ajax!

The rest of us are smart enough to take advantage of technology. We wear our seatbelts. Don't text and drive or drive drunk. Don't drive on bare tires with no treads or cars with failing brakes. We get our vaccines. COVID...shingles....measles...mumps...whooping cough...polio.....


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Ajax:"So, why not use a medication that wipes out Covid from the body within hours?"

Permenant damage might also have been done. Plus of course, now you're running up hospital bills and costs treating 'sick' people who should never have gotten sick in the first place.

that's like saying don't wear your seat belt since hospitals and surgeons can put you back together again after an accident.

Oh...and some folks die QUICKLY from COVID - within a day. And of course, hospitals are overflowing and in some cases, if you haven't already had a vax, they just leave you in the hallway until someone in the ICU dies and they move you in next - likely 'too late' to save you

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oh...and some folks die QUICKLY from COVID - within a day. And of course, hospitals are overflowing and in some cases, if you haven't already had a vax, they just leave you in the hallway until someone in the ICU dies and they move you in next - likely 'too late' to save you - t.

This is Fake News.

In the US, the so-called medical protocol does not include early treatment for the infected. Instead, they sent the infected home, and when their lungs fill up with fluids, they are admitted to the hospital and placed on a ventilator and given Remdesivir - a medication that, according to The Lancet, is worse than a placebo and costs $5,000 a week. Most patients die at this point because they were actually denied proper medical treatment.

That is why the US has 4.21% of the World’s Population and 16% of Covid-19 Deaths.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Why are you trying to insert your own meaning into the statement of a whistleblower?

She claims that the VAERS data understates death by a factor of five (without ever describing how she reached that conclusion)

This is not true. She told us that: "On July 9, 2021, there were 9,048 deaths reported in VAERS. I verified these numbers by collating all of the data from VAERS myself, not relying on a third party to report them. In tandem, I queried data from CMS medical claims with regard to vaccines and patient deaths, and have assessed that the deaths occurring within 3 days of vaccination are higher than those reported in VAERS by a factor of at least 5. This would indicate the true number of vaccine-related deaths was at least 45,000. Put in perspective, the swine flu vaccine was taken off the market which only resulted in 53 deaths." See "Federal Lawsuit Seeks Immediate Halt of COVID Vaccines" https://principia-scientific.com/federal-lawsuit-seeks-immed...


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
" In tandem, I queried data from CMS medical claims with regard to vaccines and patient deaths, and have assessed that the deaths occurring within 3 days of vaccination are higher than those reported in VAERS by a factor of at least 5. "

Like I said, she never describes how she reaches her conclusion. The only thing she says is that she "queried data" from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. No information on what the data were or how they actually support her claim. She doesn't show any of her work - she doesn't even describe the methodology she used. Just a conclusory statement that after she looked at some data, she decided that the VAERS reports should be increased five-fold.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Like I said, she never describes how she reaches her conclusion.

She searched the database and counted them. Is that rocket science? Read it again:

"On July 9, 2021, there were 9,048 deaths reported in VAERS. I verified these numbers by collating all of the data from VAERS myself, not relying on a third party to report them. In tandem, I queried data from CMS medical claims with regard to vaccines and patient deaths, and have assessed that the deaths occurring within 3 days of vaccination are higher than those reported in VAERS by a factor of at least 5. This would indicate the true number of vaccine-related deaths was at least 45,000. Put in perspective, the swine flu vaccine was taken off the market which only resulted in 53 deaths." See "Federal Lawsuit Seeks Immediate Halt of COVID Vaccines" https://principia-scientific.com/federal-lawsuit-seeks-immed...

Or do you think her statement will go away if you insert your own meaning into the statement of a whistleblower?


She doesn't show any of her work...

Meaning what? Did you want her to include the computer code she used in her sworn statement to the court?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post