Very simple, I don't trust a system that is dispensing a product that they bear no responsibility for not IF it harms people but WHEN it harms people. The Vaccine industry is the ONLY business that is shielded from liability by Federal Law.
Vaccine manufacturers pay a percent of revenues into the liability fund for *potential* harms. And because the percentage is set cautiously, payouts for actual harms are far below the pay-ins.
(This is exactly how a reserve fund SHOULD be managed: to have a cushion to deal with the unexpected)
The vaccine manufacturers are forced to bear MORE THAN the actual, rather rare harms, while the people get to have a lifesaving product
protection from liability for the pharmaceutical industry is so ironclad no one can sue them and with pharma shills like paul and their clown car "correlation doesn't equal causation schtick" it's worse because then we have scumbag politicans taking money from these fat cats like paul in the pharmaceutical industry and making laws that don't allow people to avoid these shoddily made medical products.
quit the cope and just use your traditinal talking points instead of the profanity, pal.
okay. well there are those two. now show me the ones where babies were forced to have their bowels resected because of the rotavirus vaccine. I’m sure you can’t find me any of those…
paul accepts that rotavirus vaccine causes instussusception. I'm detailing the treatments for it. why is that hard for you? O need proof that intussusception caused by vaccine DOESN'T require the bowels of children to be re-sected!? or in some cases the children die?
Nope. It is a lie. Drug companies ARE liable. Claimants just have to go through the vaccine court first. And even the vaccine court is funded by the drug companies. It is actually the best possible deal for those who suffer unfortunate adverse effects of vaccinations, and you should be championing it.
"no one can sue them"
You're simply mouthing RFK junior who knows it's a lie because he has actually sued them. That's how much of a gullible fool you are. You believe the lies of someone who is deliberately and knowingly lying to you.
"pharma shills"
That trope is so discredited and so long in the tooth, I'm surprised you're still using it. If you make a claim, you are expected to be able to back it up. You won't because you can't because there is no evidence that he is a shill. That makes you a dishonest bad actor who will just say anything regardless of whether it is true or not.
"correlation doesn't equal causation"
The correct saying is that "correlation does not necessarily equal causation". But if you have multiple independent lines of correlation that can, indeed, equal causation. For example, the evidence that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer is correlational, but it is a well-established fact because of the multiple independent lines of evidence. Learn some science.
"scumbag politicans"
How many times do we need to remind you that this is a science-based blog. Take your politics elsewhere.
"like paul in the pharmaceutical industry"
That is a slanderous lie.
"shoddily made medical products."
Stop lying. Vaccines are the most researched and well-tested of all the pharmaceutical products.
the absence of accountability after countless children have been maimed and killed by vaccines tells us all we need to know.
sell your wares to those that will buy them. the fact is that people who’s children are maimed by these shoddily made medical products find out too late. but that’s why I warn them.
the pharmaceutical industry is so powerful they have no accountability. no one can control or regulate them. they can tell us all how to live and what is and is not good for us. according to you…
"The Covid vaccines were distributed ONLY after Pfizer was legally protected against lawsuits."
That is incorrect. They secured protection against lawsuits before even developing and manufacturing the vaccines. They were not prepared to risk bankruptcy through frivolous legal action as happened before the vaccine court was established.
"FDA approval was also waived."
The COVID-19 mRNA Pfizer vaccine was fully approved on 23rd August 2021. That's nearly 3 years ago. Please keep up, son.
Vaccine harm cases are heard in a US Federal court with specialized expertise. Proven injury (versus the grifting VAERS trollers who attribute even swallowed batteries to a vaccine because docs are required to report ALL serious issues immediately after vaccinations) is paid from the vaccine producers' fund
There seems to be a lot of whinging by CDF and other ambulance-chasing lawyers that they can't get high contingency-fee payments because the court deals—as the OP article that Offit refers to—with facts, not “oh, big pharma with deep pockets should be forced to pay.”
Go ahead and provide the transcripts for cases where harmed individuals had proven cases unfairly denied by the court, and THEN let's talk about what the liability fund is for
the pharmaceutical industry is not and never is held accountable. they want all the benefits and permanant market for their shoddily made medical products but they want no accountability.
parents find out only too late they have no recourse when their children are maimed or killed by vaccines. very slowly but surely more and more people are seeing it my way. paul forced us here. he helped cause the tipping point.
The process is geared towards protection of the drug companies instead of safety of consumers. You have to jump through a million hoops, pile up legal fees and then it's innocent until proven guilty with onerous standards. That's why so few cases even come forward, let alone win. Get you head out of your ass. The system is corrupt.
as evidenced by your willful ignorance and avoidance of very horrific side effects, parents are usually not told when theyre given “presumptive reccomendations” by doctors that quite literally bully parents into pumping their children full of these shoddily made pharmaceutical products.
coping and apologetics don’t change the facts, pal.
In February, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. The 2005 law empowers the HHS secretary to provide legal protection to companies making or distributing critical medical supplies, such as vaccines and treatments, unless there’s “willful misconduct” by the company. The protection lasts until 2024.
That means that for the next four years, these companies “cannot be sued for money damages in court” over injuries related to the administration or use of products to treat or protect against Covid.
Err, no. Read his post. He is saying there is a compensation scheme for those injured by vaccination, not that vaccination is perfectly safe. If it were, then the compensation fund wouldn't be needed.
Why are there any payouts at all if there is almost no damage, as you claim? It would be nice If you somehow manage to answer without the use of words like ‘shit’.
Yep that’s all you need to know.. no consequence for manufacturers producing harmful vaccines and regulators financially incentivised to approve all vaccines means we will see more harmful vaccines..
Anyone aware of how the real world works would NEVER trust a vaccine manufacturer or get vaccinated.
And for VAERS, this represents only 1-2% of the actual vaccine side effects people experience. Hardly anyone reports their side effects to VAERS. I know at least a dozen people with severe side effects from the Covid mRNA shots (including a few myocarditis, one heart attack and several with lasting heart arrhythmia) and none of them reported anything to VAERS.
Another antivax liar who will not accept that fact that drug companies are indeed liable quite apart from fully funding the vaccine court where claimants are given the benefit of the doubt and have all their legal fees fully paid. Your obvious lies discredit you.
"NEVER trust a vaccine manufacturer"
We don't. The drugs are tested independently, a privilege for which the drug companies pay in full, and a process which licences less than 20% of products submitted for testing.
"VAERS ...represents only 1-2% of the actual vaccine side effects"
Firstly, it is not adverse EFFECTS that are reported to VAERS. It is adverse EVENTS. Learn the difference. Adverse EVENTS occur after a vaccination but are not necessarily caused by the vaccination. Adverse EFFECTS are events that have been shown to have been caused by the vaccination because they occur more frequently in the vaccinated than in the general population (ie above the base rate).
Secondly, what you said is deliberately deceitful. It is probably true that only 1-2% of minor adverse events such as arm pain and reactive fever are reported, but practically all serious adverse events such as hospitalisations and deaths are reported to VAERS.
"I know at least a dozen people with severe side effects ... and none of them reported anything to VAERS."
So what? That does not mean they weren't reported. The treating doctor is obligated to report adverse events such as these, and they do. There are forms printed for this express purpose and there are fines and disciplinary procedures if these obligations are not met.
"FDA laboratories generally test drugs to standards set by the U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP), an organization that publishes quality monographs for medicines including attributes such as:
Identity – is it the right drug as indicated on the label?
Assay – how much drug is there and is it consistent with the labeled amount?
Impurities – are impurities within established specifications?
Dissolution – does the active ingredient dissolve out of the dosage unit so that the drug is available for the body to absorb?"
Using only your basic reading skills, you can learn that VAERS doesn't even measure side effects and....
The vaccine manufacturers have full liability for their products. The anti-vaccs lie about this simple fact because the anti-vacc fraud is well detailed in Court rulings:
You are simply wrong. COVID vaccine manufacturers were exempt from both liability and FDA approval. Do you work for Pfizer? You are pedantic in your responses, and also make claims with a confidence a physicist would not have about the existence of gravity.
How many times has everyone heard “safe and effective” talk about recycling. What’s the 3 month + safety profile of a vaxx tested for less than 3 months, what’s the effectiveness of a vaccine not tested to see if it prevents catching and spreading, so many lies.
Hey and you still haven’t updated your profile identity. Maybe change it to Anonymous Shill if you really can’t have anyone know who you are.
You are correct that most people don't report their vaccine side effects to VAERS...I didn't report mine for example (a sore arm for 24 hrs after Moderna). But most of the reports to VAERS consist of similarly minor reactions you will find, and a high proportion of reports are entirely coincidental. I suggest you read the information VAERS carries about this on its website.
I am referring to the 20 or so coworkers that got heart arrhythmia, vaginal bleeding for months, one heart attack with emergency open heart surgery needed, and myocarditis- they didn’t even know about VAERS. The SAE’s are underreported to VAERS by a factor of 30. The “sore arm” is not what we are referring to.. lol
There were so many cases of heart arrhythmia that we just expected it.. the arrhythmia would last 3 to 6 months approximately. The heart attack happened after a Pfizer booster shot (3rd shot)
There are so many factors that make auditing the safety of vaccines once out in the population almost impossible. The matter of selecting who takes vaccines and who does not. People on their death bed would never be given a vaccine as an example, yet are held up as an unvaccinated death. There are timing issues, just so many things that either side can point to to claim bias.
You’re better to look at a much higher proxy, like societal rates of chronic disease. Which has to be accepted have increased in all cohorts in step with an ever increasing number of vaccines people are encouraged to take. Or look at the total health profile of the vaccinated verse unvaccinated in the limited studies that have been able to be produced, the unvaccinated are healthier people, less allergies, less asthma, less autoimmune type diseases, ear infections, basically go done through list, staying away from vaccines is better for your health.
And if Covid achieved something it finally made it clear vaccines don’t prevent disease, and without that there is no social contract to take them to protect others. Just give up on the mandating aspect of vaccines and there is nothing to fight about. Except of course people will still be encouraged to take them without full disclosure, like they took Vioxx and other failed drugs and there needs to be a way for pharma to be liable for their vaccine products where they can be sued and be subject to discovery like every other industry. Your position that they are liable and fund the compensation for those injured, that is not being liable, that’s just being able to insure the problem away, it’s a deal no other industry has.
The days of simply dismissing people skeptical of vaccines is perhaps ending and that will be a positive in getting the dialog going on the old “safe and effective” hallmark.
Think about this, at one time the courts upheld slavery . . . & the fact that Thalidomide was FDA approved, we the people MUST maintain the right to question EVERYTHING.
Here is a crazy idea: why don't you question things by look for the basic facts?
Thalidomide was never FDA approved for morning sickness--which is where it causes the birth defects.
It is recently (1999?) approved for certain very deadly cancers. Those patients generally are not pregnant and you can't be pregnant and take thalidomide.
BTW: why don't you care that what Mr. Data claimed is clearly not true?
Why do you just blatantly lie? Everyone knows this claim is false, so what is the possible advantage to you to make it. All it does is discredit anything else you have to say. Drug companies ARE liable. You just have to go through the vaccine court first - a court funded by the drug companies.
What OTHER industry enjoys this protection from a direct lawsuit against the manufacturers which would normally include a "discovery" process to verify injury and damage ?
Frivolous lawsuits and sympathetic juries were awarding hundred million dollar settlements for adverse effects. This meant drug companies were going bankrupt and everyone else been left with nothing, as well as no more vaccines. We now have the best of both worlds:
- life-saving vaccines continuing to be produced.
- fair compensation for those suffering adverse effects with no legal costs.
- an option to sue if you are not happy with the decision of the vaccine court.
We know which vaccines have which adverse effects, and the only thing that needs to be ascertained in the fully paid for vaccine court cases is if the claimant actually has one of those recognised adverse effects. If that is the case, they are compensated accordingly.
If they do not have a recognised adverse effect, then there is an adversarial process to determine if they qualify in any case. And the determinations are very lenient. Obviously, if they are trying to get cover for a condition that is clearly not caused by a vaccine, then they are not compensated. Otherwise, abuse of the system would be rampant. There has to be some restrictions but, again, they are very much in favour of the claimant.
And to repeat:
Frivolous lawsuits and sympathetic juries were awarding hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements to individual claimants. This meant drug companies were going bankrupt which would mean that everyone else would be left with nothing at all. They would be extraordinarly inequitable. As well as drug companies facing possible bankruptcy, others were pulling out of vaccine development and manufacture altogether, which would have meant no more life-saving vaccines in the long run. So, we really do have the best of all worlds:
- life-saving vaccines continue to be produced.
- fair compensation is given for those suffering legitimate adverse effects with no legal costs imposed.
- there is an option to sue if the claimant is not happy with the decision of the vaccine court.
You are full of bluster, and you know it. You don't care if the present system works in everyone's favour, you simply want those life-saving vaccinations stopped. That is NOT going to happen.
Iam going to ignore your idiotic rant and drivel above ; and address your last point
>You don't care if the present system works in everyone's favour, you simply want those life-saving vaccinations stopped. That is NOT going to happen.
First there is nothing life saving about vaccinations. Mortality rates to child hood illnesses had declined over 90% before any vaccine for that illness was introduced
Finally, i subscribed to the Libertarian mindset. Free peoples should have the right to injest and inject whatever they want.
I dont want vaccines banned no more than I would want crack, cocaine, lsd, marijuana, advilpm, tylenol banned.
The core of this issue is mandates. If you want to vaccinate your children every hour on the hour be my guest. But you and your ilk will NEVER impose your will on my children. EVER!!!
Did you miss the part where it states the HHS Secretary determines whether or not any legal action can take place.
*******************************
Immune to lawsuits
In February, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. The 2005 law empowers the HHS secretary to provide legal protection to companies making or distributing critical medical supplies, such as vaccines and treatments, unless there’s “willful misconduct” by the company. The protection lasts until 2024.
That means that for the next four years, these companies “cannot be sued for money damages in court” over injuries related to the administration or use of products to treat or protect against Covid.
There was a pandemic in which people were dying, and the government needed to encourage drug companies to come up with a life-saving vaccine. As a result of previous litigation (that resulted in setting up the vaccine court), the drug companies were not prepared to risk bankruptcy in return for work and effort of developing a life-saving vaccine that would benefit everyone. There was no alternative but to offer immunity.
As it turned out, the scientists working for these drug companies came up with a safe and 95% effective vaccine at a time when 4000 Americans were dying of COVID-19 every single day. I know that is disturbing to antivax loons like you, but, fortunately, the vast majority of us are reasonable people.
The vaccine claims are paid for out of the VICP purse, which is the money raised through the excise tax of 75c per vaccine shot levied off the Pharmaceutical companies making that vaccine.
For info on the number of vaccine claims compensated through that scheme go to their website and see.
CONvid is a lie. The vaccine destroys your immune system leaving you susceptible to illnesses that require lifetime dependence on pharmaceutical giants.
Exercise, Get adequate rest, Go outside for fresh air and sunlight supplement your vitamin D3, zinc and magnesium levels during flu season
++++++++++++
The other side
++++++++++++
says Cower at home. Wear a mask. Social distance. Take this jab, this booster, this booster, this booster, this booster, this booster, this bivalent booster, this bivalent booster.
The Cardio vascular issues and facial paralysis and seizures are all in your head. That muscular tick that won't go away???
They don't know the cause of it but they are sure it's NOT the vaccine. How *convenient*
When pressed create a fictitious new term "long COVID" to explain away adverse events and sudden death
Also myocarditis drugs are on the market and pPazlovid is available to keep you on the hamster wheel
It's not difficult to figure out which side any thinking adult would go with
“ Some aren’t willing to accept any serious vaccine side effects no matter how quickly defined, well understood, or uncommon”
Then they should not take any medication, even paracetamol/acetaminophen or other over the counter medications, particularly in the states as adverts for these list possible side effects.
You will find it near impossible to restore public trust in the agencies that have treated the vaccine injured so cruelly.The entire world has seen it by now.
The NIH, CDC, and FDA all knew in January 2021 there were thousands of vaccine injuries taking place.
The NIH was flying injured out to Maryland and studying them.
They promised the injured they would help them and let the public know what was happening.
Instead, they silenced and abandoned them and that continues to this day.
Following is a response I have given to which includes a one minute excerpt with my friend , Bri Dressen, who was studied by the NIH. Full interview also is included.
Injuries and deaths have occurred with all the Covid vaccines.
You now have several attorney generals who have filed suit against Pfizer for their marketing of the vaccine being safe and effective.
For you, or anyone else, to expect that our government health agencies can treat good and decent Americans, who trusted these agencies, with such unconscionable cruelty is beyond the scope of rationality.
"You now have several attorney generals who have filed suit against Pfizer"
Being sued does not mean "you are guilty".
"agencies that have treated the vaccine injured so cruelly"
Allegedly.
Here is your error though: an adverse EVENT is not an adverse EFFECT.
Here is the difference:
An adverse EVENT occurs after a vaccination but is not necessarily caused by the vaccination.
An adverse EFFECT is an adverse event that has been shown to be caused by the vaccination because it occurs at a higher rate among the vaccinated than in the general population.
So, the NIH was studying adverse EVENTS that occurred after the vaccinations to determine if they were actually caused by the vaccination. That sounds like what they should be doing.
It is clear from your reply that you are completely unaware of all the facts surrounding Bri Dressen.
In regards to the NIH study in January 2021 the reason why those with vaccine injuries were flown out to the NIH is because the NIH knew that the injuries had occurred from the vaccines.
If you, or Dr.Offit, really want to address vaccine hesitancy, then the vaccine injured need to be acknowledged and helped.
To continue to call people who took the vaccine any-vaxxers Is completely illogical.
Albus, I am personal friends with Bri - so all the information I have is first hand. There is no reason why anyone should be against helping people who were injured by the vaccine.
Truth is the pharma cartel has been proven guilty of actually committing fraud. Why don’t you update your profile with your real identity and declare your conflicts of interest. Or Just sit there and lie to yourself about how wonderful they are and watch society’s health further decline instep with a higher and higher percentage of GDP being spent on healthcare. Do more of what’s obviously not working, that only makes sense to those getting rich from all the sickness.
thoughtful -- yes, it is impossible to predict an adverse event with a frequency of 4/10e6 prior to enormous populations receiving a drug/vaccine/device. Rigorous post-licensing follow-up will detect low frequency events, and thoughtful decisions can be made after the analysis of data.
The scale of Covid highlighted that as per the 1986 Vaccine Act, vaccines are unavoidably dangerous - now it’s just a dance moving data around to downplay to what extent.
COVID also required that the long understood position that vaccines prevent disease be reframed (look at Biden, on record with 6 shots and still gets Covid). The idea that no one is safe until everyone is safe can’t be achieved with vaccines. Society’s health continues to decline right along with an ever greater percentage of GDP being spent on healthcare including an ever expanding vaccine schedule - doing more of what’s not working will not provide better outcomes.
Giving interventions to perfectly healthy people is a different proposition than treating people with something like terminal cancer, vaccines must be a choice.
The funding sources and authors with conflicts of interest being cited by health authorities as proof of vindication where various vaccines have been caught up in controversy does not restore confidence. It’s the equivalent of a company resolving an employee grievance without the employee being present or having representation. It’s time for pharma to include their staunchest opponents in the process of evaluating the clinical trials that are utilized to first approve vaccines and the review of the post rollout reporting of identified problems.
It is becoming clear to a great more people that vaccines are wildly unpredictable and very far from an exact science - we’re experimenting on healthy people.
As long as vaccines are mandated proponents of vaccines should welcome critical analysis of the products. Choice should be the path forward.
Paul if you believe the options for not accepting shots is a fair choice, or that critiques of the vaccines is welcome you’re the perfect example of a homer. Just wait until something comes along that you are required to do to participate in society in a meaningful way that you don’t agree with, then you will have a realization worth having.
"Just wait until something comes along that you are required to do to participate in society in a meaningful way"
Firstly, that is hyperbolic nonsense. As if you can't participate in society in any meaningful way if you don't vaccinate when there is a mandate. Secondly, imagine if you could only pass laws that EVERYONE agrees with. Everyone is eventually going to be faced with laws that don't like that the majority approve of. That's life.
how about the example of the demand that everyone who travels by air,
"voluntarily" give up their 4th amendment rights in order to be able to board their flight. { especially when the entire foundation for the procedure is at best QUESTIONABLE }
This is where there’s a divergence between the USA and U.K. which people need to bear in mind before making assumptions. I’m a retired nurse practitioner in the U.K.
Perhaps there’s a case for identifying your country of residence as experiences could differ, for example the USA vaccinates children against chickenpox whereas the U.K. doesn’t generally do so as part of the childhood vaccine schedule. The U.K. does not mandate children being vaccinated before they can go to school whereas other countries do.
vaccines are NOT a choice. we don't all have $30 million+ like paul from the pharmaceutical industry. we can't pay our way through life avoiding the harms caused by shoddily made medical products.
Don't you mean 'vaccinations'? Vaccinations ARE a choice. Nobody is held down and forcibly vaccinated against their will. There is ALWAYS a choice. But with choice comes consequences. That is also always the case.
"we don't all have $30 million+ like paul from the pharmaceutical industry."
That is a slanderous lie, and you know it. Otherwise, you would have provided the evidence by now. But you can't, because there is none. What we have here is a grossly dishonest tactic by a grossly dishonest person.
I'm sure paul can use his influence or big pharma connections to have his buddies tell google to hide his net worth.
and to be clear, these are shoddily made medical products. we know this is true otherwise these medical products wouldn't have side effects. these medical products maim children and they also kill. it's just a fact.
for children that want to attend public school in many states it is NOT a choice. it is forced. and being a reasonably well to do person which I have to assume you are. you cannot understand the pattern of economies this presents. that's fine. just get with the program and accept it. all mandates must end. not in any setting can there be mandates. not one.
It is a requirement to start school the same as certain vaccinations are required to work in certain professions.
Pre school vaccinations are compulsory in Austria for example, so those states are not unique, we don’t mandate here in the U.K.
Countries where vaccinations are compulsory include Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy and Czechia.
Here in the U.K. the following vaccinations or evidence of significant antibodies were compulsory for me to work in an Emergency Department in a hospital in Leicester.
Hepatitis B
Measles (this was an IgG antibody count as I’d had measles as a child)
TB (Leicester is a high risk area and evidence of this vaccination is required although its effectiveness is less than 59%)
tell paul to talk to google about his networth. some of his powerful fat cat friends in pharma can probably get them to supress any information about him.
and the majority of parents don't have a choice they have to work and send their children to school. in order to send their children to school the phamaceutical industry has imposed their products on people and politicians force parents to have their children injected with these shoddily made products.
you might not like that reality but that's what it is.
There’s something new alright, the scale of the fraud reached new heights never witnessed before. It’s partially the silver lining of covid, the fraud was so obvious it woke many more people up to what has been going on all along.
" . . . stupid the anti-vacc lies are." . . . what a CROCK, you have labeled the loyal opposition as Liars & therefore having nothing of any value to offer.
You don't know what that phrase means, do you? Someone fooled you into reading something into that phrase that is not actually there, and you fell for it. It is a legal term and legal terms often have less than obvious meanings. In this case, it simply means that there are adverse effects that are unavoidable because of how the drug or vaccine works. For example, a vaccine works by inducing an immune response and that immune response causes unavoidable symptoms such as fever, headache, and muscle pains.
"The idea that no one is safe until everyone is safe can’t be achieved with vaccines"
Yet, no one can get smallpox anymore, right?
"vaccines must be a choice."
There is ALWAYS a choice. No one ever holds you down to forcibly vaccinate you against your will. Of course, with choice comes consequences. That is ALWAYS the case as well. No choices come without consequences.
"It’s time for pharma to include their staunchest opponents in the process of evaluating the clinical trials"
I know it may come as a complete surprise to you, but the drug companies do not approve their own vaccines. That is done independently, and the drug companies pay for the privilege so that the taxpayer does not have to. The clinical trials are independently evaluated and approved only after specific criteria are met. But you did actually know that, right?
"vaccines are wildly unpredictable and very far from an exact science - we’re experimenting on healthy people."
Compared with what? Compared with the infections? Let's compare SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with infection shall we:
- Mortality rate of VV vaccines: 1 in a million.
- Mortality rate of mRNA vaccines: FAR LESS THAN 1 in a million.
- Mortality rate of the infection: 6,800 in a million.
So the vaccines are at least 6,800 times safer than the infection and prevented 95% of the deaths form the infection.
But antivaxxers never want to talk about that - because it kills their argument stone cold dead.
There are some people who will never be convinced, no matter the strength of the evidence, nor the blatant lies exposed by folks such as Wakefield. But many could be convinced if they have a good relationship with a doctor or NP whom they trust, and if the risk/benefit ratio is presented in a jargon-free and nonjudgemental, "information only" manner, with opportunities to ask questions (link #1). While school mandates have worked in the past, it seems like they are becoming less effective now, so PCP's need to perhaps get trained in motivational interviewing. I think doctors should not only provide the risk/benefit ratio for the vaccine, but also the risk that comes with infection, although it's important to do so in a manner that is not fear-mongering, nor tinged with moral judgment. With Covid, we are still learning about that risk as we continue to learn more about the increased risks of post-viral sequela, not only from Covid, but other viruses as well, and we may learn even more about these due to renewed interest in researching them. Also, parents may be more convinced by other parents who have faced similar doubts and worries. (link #2).
The real problem is that it takes time to determine whether there is a safety signal in the different reporting mechanisms across the world. Then there’s the time required to determine whether there is a causal link or a coincidental link. For the clotting issue with AstraZeneca its failure straightforward as anti pf4 antibodies can be measured. The myocarditis issue is not unique to the mRNA vaccines either, it has occurred following both smallpox and influenza vaccination with occasional reports of it being associated with other vaccines.
The anti PF4 antibody issue with both J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines pales into insignificance if compared with the same problem associated with the different heparins.
paul you have done more damage to vaccine confidence than anyone else. more damage than wakefield could have dreamed.
the fact is that acip needs reformation. acip should not be a pharma operation used to mandate shoddily made medical products to guarantee they have a market.
the safety ship sailed and you failed to meet in the middle. the middle is gone. accept it.
There will ALWAYS be vaccine mandates for primary school entry and for certain health care workers in certain health care facilities, and rightly so. They save the lives of school children and of the sick and vulnerable people in hospital settings. Most of us care about that.
No, families are opting out of childhood vaccines everywhere.. religious exemptions are now very common, homeschooling is on the rise and many families are moving to safer states to avoid children being vaccinated. And in the grade schools, nurses see vaccinated kids are the ones with anxiety issues, ADHD, ADD, anger issues, all types of food allergies, etc while the unvaccinated kids don’t have any of these issues.
"To assess the impact of anti-vaccine movements that targeted pertussis whole-cell vaccines, we compared pertussis incidence in countries where high coverage with diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccines (DTP) was maintained (Hungary, the former East Germany, Poland, and the USA) with countries where immunisation was disrupted by antivaccine movements (Sweden, Japan, UK, The Russian Federation, Ireland, Italy, the former West Germany, and Australia). Pertussis incidence was 10 to 100 times lower in countries where high vaccine coverage was maintained than in countries where immunisation programs were compromised by anti-vaccine movements. Comparisons of neighbouring countries with high and low vaccine coverage further underscore the efficacy of these vaccines. Given the safety and cost-effectiveness of whole-cell pertussis vaccines, our study shows that, far from being obsolete, these vaccines continue to have an important role in global immunisation."
"While most healthy older children and adults fully recover, infection in newborns is particularly severe. Pertussis is fatal in an estimated 0.5% of US infants under one year of age." Most people ( & children ) recover, therefore, natural immunity is best.
Your Mentor Stanley Plotkin just admitted that the Safety of all vaccines has never been Scientifically established either through a pre clinical trial or during a clinical trial.
No vaccine has ever been tested to determine if it is safe enough to proceed to the small scale clinical efficacy trials and the proof of this is in every Vaccine package insert.
Since you have never identified the biological mechanisms of adverse events in any of the FDA approved vaccines, all you have is Anecdotal evidence but as you well know temporal association does not equal causation.
Yet you are still trying to prove that vaccines don’t cause Autism based on observational studies.
Can you or any of your pro vaxxers explain how you can determine through observational studies that a biological mechanism exists or does not exist with absolute certainty?
The answer is you can’t and it is purely Propaganda.
And the chant that “The Science is settled Vaccines are SAFE and effective” is the worst kind of Propaganda and is clearly false as indicated by the God Father of Vaccines,
An independent lab should use some of the 4.6 billion and test every FDA approved vaccine with a full toxicology screen so you could finally understand the safety profiles and potential mechanisms.
There is no lack in Trust just a lack in Trustworthiness.
I think you need to read again exactly what Plotkin said, because he doesn't say what you think he did.
Where do people chant that "The science is settled" regarding vaccines? ...Stop building strawmen please.
One can never prove a negative, you are correct. Eg: Can you demonstrate please that Hydroxychloroquine does not cause cancer? We cannot prove vaccines do not cause autism; all we can do is demonstrate using multiple observational studies that the vaccinated have no higher risk of autism than the unvaccinated (and in many studies, they actually have a lower risk). Stating that fact is not "propaganda", but to look at that same data and claim that vaccines cause autism certainly is propaganda.
They make the claim that we are no longer satisfied with the traditional observations of post licensure safety. And yes this not exactly how they phrase it due to potential legality.
We have never been satisfied with the post market Safety.
If they had done the proper safety Science on all vaccines we wouldn’t have to rely on Observational studies you could point to actual Science.
Great I have no problem with phase 4 observational studies. The problem is that the very basic safety science has never been done. And until that science has been done your observational studies will be anecdotal.
Take Prevnar 7 for example. It never did a full toxicology test and therefore was never proven to safe enough to inject prior to the clinical trial. And then they used an experimental vaccine as the control instead of the standard of care making it Scientifically impossible to determine safety. So any so called safety data would be null and void in a phase 4 study.
Injectable acetaminophen has far more safety science done than any FDA approved vaccine.
Show me one vaccine critic that has the integrity to ask toxicologists why they all agree that those tests would be scientifically incorrect to do those tests?
"No vaccine has ever been tested to determine if it is safe enough to proceed to the small scale clinical efficacy trials"
That is a blatant lie.
All vaccines go through phase I, II, III, and IV clinical trials:
Phase I: a study in a small group of 20-100 volunteers, to evaluate safety. They answer the following questions:
- is this vaccine safe?
- does the vaccine seem to work?
- does it produce an immune response?
- are there any serious side effects?
- how is the size of the dose related to the side effects?
Phase II: a study in a larger group of several hundred volunteers, stratified by age, to determine efficacy and to further evaluate its safety. They answer the following questions:
- what are the most common short-term side effects?
- how are the volunteers’ immune system responding to the vaccine?
Phase III: a study of the safety and efficacy of the intervention in large groups of several hundred to several thousand volunteers over time. They answer the following questions:
- how do people who get the vaccine and people who do not get the vaccine compare?
- is the vaccine safe?
- is the vaccine effective?
- what are the most common side effects?
Phase IV: This is conducted after the drug is marketed and looks for rare adverse effects of the vaccine.
The process sounds ok, but when you dig into trials that are designed and run by manufacturers and overseen by regulators that are largely funded by the same manufacturers, it’s ripe for fraud. From selecting the wrong trial participants to using placebos that might be useful for testing something but certainly not safety.
benefits are commonly positioned against overstated risks, and harms from the vaccines are downplayed or dismissed. Yet real world experience tells us the population has gotten sicker in step with an ever increasing emphasis on vaccination. There are likely many factors but for vaccines to not be on the table when they intentionally stimulate immune responses when so many of the chronic health issues are based on autoimmune problems is not appropriate.
There’s enough wrong with vaccines that they should only be by choice without consequence of any restrictions for taking a pass. And as long as people advocate for them to be a requirement to attend school etc then of course people will push back.
Update you profile already. You do realize the “anti-vaxx” slur isn’t even an insult anymore. In fact to not be skeptical one should be embarrassed by the level of their naivety. Unless of course they totally understand what’s going on and they are part of the corruption, then it makes perfect sense.
Where is the science that was done to prove the childhood vaccine ingredients were safe to inject. I have never seen that science have you? And If so please provide. Paul’s argument that aluminum adjuvants are safe are based on ingested not injected. But if you have the science that would be great.
Aluminium salts have been used for almost a century as adjuvants to vaccines, see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-018-0089-x and are considered the gold standard against which other adjuvants should be compared.
The vaccine package inserts say the opposite. I am not asking for studies I am looking for the safety science that everyone says exists but nobody has shown.
Can you show me the science for MMR that shows its carcinogenic, mutagenic potential and potential to impair male fertility?
1. "The vaccine package inserts say the opposite."
No they do not.
For those with the integrity to read the words, they will see the inserts have less than 0.001% of the information.
Sadly, the anti-vacc liars continue to prey upon folks not willing to bother looking.
2. "Can you show me the science for MMR that shows its carcinogenic, mutagenic potential and potential to impair male fertility?"
Of course not!
We have decades of toxicologists explaining--and the regulators of every country agreeing--that it would be scientifically incorrect to do that testing.
Hard to believe, but there are parents out there that just don't care enough about their children to bother asking toxicologists....
"Your Mentor Stanley Plotkin just admitted that the Safety of all vaccines has never been Scientifically established either through a pre clinical trial or during a clinical trial."
No he did NOT.
The anti-vaccs just grossly lied and so far ZERO of the vaccine critics have had the integrity to read his words and see the anti-vacc lies.
Same thing with the rest of the nonsense you posted, it just takes the integrity to read the documents to see the anti-vacc lies......
"“The Science is settled Vaccines are SAFE and effective” is the worst kind of Propaganda"
It is indeed SETTLED that the vaccines are "safe and effective". But it is lying antivax propaganda that what is meant by "safe and effective" is that the vaccines are "completely 100% safe and completely 100% effective". That is not the meaning, and you know it. It means safe and effective compared with the disease that it helps prevent. For example:
- Mortality rate of VV vaccines: 1 in a million.
- Mortality rate of mRNA vaccines: FAR LESS THAN 1 in a million.
- Mortality rate of the infection: 6,800 in a million.
So, during 2021, the vaccines were at least 6,800 times safer than the infection and effectively prevented 95% of the deaths from the infection. That is "safe and effective" by anyone's standard.
I have been asking the pro vax side on this substack what safe and effective actually means and I have received silence. It is curious that now you have a clear definition and speak as if everyone’s first thought when they hear safe and effective is as you suggest, safer than the disease.
It reminds me of a fairly recent modification of a definition to cover one arse.
Since nothing in life can be described as 100% safe (not even breathing, eating, drinking water, walking downstairs), the term is universally acknowledged as representing a degree of safety that is acceptable and which carries an extremely low risk of any serious outcome.
WRT Covid vaccines, serious side effects are very rare. The main ones of concern such as clotting issues and clinically defined myocarditis come in at an incidence of around 1 in 50,000 or even less. Death from the vaccines is extremely rare. Despite my keeping an eye out in the medical literature for confirmed cases, these seem to be in double figures only, world wide. There will be some under-reporting, but considering the billions of doses of vaccines given, the safety of them seems unarguable.
The term "effective" similarly needs qualification, and is dependent upon what it is attempting to describe. As regards medical products or interventions, nothing is 100% effective; the term "effective" merely implies that the medication/procedure has a high degree of established effectiveness at acheiving the desired outcome.
Take for example, condoms. They are "effective" at preventing conception. Not 100%, but around 90% (dropping to 0% if they are kept in the bedside drawer). Would you deride condoms as NOT effective?
WRT Covid vaccines, when first released they were around 60% effective at preventing transmission and 80-90% effective at preventing hospitalisation and death. That effectiveness has declined since, mainly because viral mutation has generated less pathogenic variants and because most people now have some degree of immunity, be it vaccine induced or post infection, and because there are effective treatments for Covid.
Effectiveness against transmission may now be down to 20% or so for Omicron, but 20% is not 0%, so it is still the case that the vaccines have a degree of effectiveness here that may be clinically important, especially for the vulnerable. Effectiveness against death is around 50%, and another benefit of vaccination that was noted after they were introduced is their effectiveness against long Covid (a 50% reduction in risk, and higher if boosters are given).
So no "arse covering" in this response....just the facts. I would point out though that I articularly despise folk who bang the drum of "Covid vaccines are neither safe nor effective", when all the evidence indicates otherwise, and those who use the Nirvana fallacy every chance they get ("If it isn't 100% effective, then it's useless")
Nothing is absolutely certain in science. Absolute certainty is an unachievable standard deliberately and deceitfully erected by arseholes with no arguments exposing their abject ignorance of science. That's all! We don't need absolute certainly, we just need to be confident about conclusions based on ALL of the available evidence, collated and evaluated by panels of experts with recognised expertise in their respective fields based on their vast depth of knowledge and experience.
They have only looked at one vaccine and that was the MMR. To claim no vaccine causes autism is a flat out lie. I don’t think vaccines cause Autism they can however cause brain damage if you have mitochondrial dysfunction.
They have looked at other vaccines, including those containing thimerosal, DPT etc.
And the answer is still the same...no evidence of a link to autism.
"I don’t think vaccines cause Autism they can however cause brain damage if you have mitochondrial dysfunction."
I'm assuming this pertains to the Hannah Poling case and similar reports. Whilst it is true that vaccines may cause encephalopathy in certain circumstances (eg where there is underlying mitochondrial dysfunction, and where the oxidative stress that can potentially be triggered by vaccines could trigger worsening mitochondrial dysfunction in those so predisposed, resulting in an encephalopathy), one must bear in mind that such encephalopathy may be triggered in those with underlying mito dysfunction by ANY stressor of the system, including routine childhood infections and fevers. That's one reason wht experts in mito diseases stress the importance of vaccination in children with the condition. So I wouldn't necessarily say a vaccine which caused encephalopathy with some autistic features is a vaccine causing autism, I'd say it caused a condition that looks very like autism, that's all. That may seem like splitting hairs, or even "arse covering" to you, but I am a stickler for accuracy in science and medicine, so that's my opinion.
Secondly, encephalopathy is a definite pathological entity...it always causes demonstarable neuronal damage in parts of the brain. This damage can be detected through scanning techniques like MRI, and of course at autopsy when histopathological changes are demonstrable. Brain damage of any type could result in a phenotype similar to autism, but one doesn't generally say that events which cause brain damage are a cause of autism (eg a traumatic brain injury might simulate an ASD/autism behaviours).
Autism is something that doesn't cause clinically detectable brain damage; it seems to operate on a cellular/biochemical level, and it is a dvelopmental problem that is accumulative.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I was under the Impression that identification of autism spectrum disorder was determined by one’s cognitive abilities through a series of tests.
Do all potential diagnosis’s receive an MRI to determine if there are signs of brain damage?
What about the rest of the child hood vaccines. Did they figure out what the biological mechanisms were for the adverse events listed on every vaccine insert?
"Your Mentor Stanley Plotkin just admitted that the Safety of all vaccines has never been Scientifically established "
You are lying. This is the paper that Dr. Offit was actually referring to in his article. In any case, Stanley Plotkin was not the principle, or even the corresponding, author. And the paper was about how to improve an already very good system even further. I mean, even the best system in the world can be improved, right? And that is the case here. We already have a really good system of post-marketing surveillance, but who would not agree that it should continue to be improved as much as possible. Do you think Usain Bolt stopped trying when he was the best in the world in the 100 meters.
But this is not really YOUR lie. This is lawyer Aaron Siri's lie. And he knows it is a lie, and he lied deliberately. He is a lawyer who prides himself on convincing others that lies are true. And he has been doing it for years with vaccines. You were just another common garden variety gullible fool who fell into his trap. He is laughing at you.
Still gaslighting on vaccines, eh Paul? Bernadine Healy on CBS Evening News for Christ's sake opined that there is no science disproving the connection. And Lancet 1998 had 14 authors.
People don't trust vaccines because the people who peddle them (like you) lie over and over again. In addition, everyone knows someone who had a healthy child or friend go sideways after a "routine" shot. I am pleased to see the truth is finally out. The vaccine liars, like the Biden liars, are exposed.
"According to Healy, when she began researching autism and vaccines she found credible published, peer-reviewed scientific studies that support the idea of an association. That seemed to counter what many of her colleagues had been saying for years. She dug a little deeper and was surprised to find that the government has not embarked upon some of the most basic research that could help answer the question of a link.
The more she dug, she says, the more she came to believe the government and medical establishment were intentionally avoiding the question because they were afraid of the answer."
Suck on that, Paul. I guess you'll just have to try to get it cleansed off the internet- or tell us the former NIH director is an anti science antivaxxer? Game over, Paul. Maybe timeshares could be your next gig?
Lancet 1988 had 14 authors...when Wakefield's fraudulent science was exposed, 11 of them wrote a "retraction" distancing themselves from the paper, and of course as you know, the paper itself was retracted.
Flawed, fraudulent scince cannot be allowed to hold sway over scientific opinion.
No matter how many times the studies are posted, the anti-vacc fraud still finds folks too clueless to read the words and see that the vaccines DO prevent transmission and death!
It doesn’t help when lawyers hold large (but “private”) conferences to discuss how they should upscale litigation for vaccine “side effects” with the primary aim being a profit based one.
I agree that conflicts of interest and lack of transparency is a problem in the pharmaceutical industry. But let's not forget that conflicts of interest also occur in those who prescribe alternative therapies (and make money off those therapies), or make even more money through lawsuits against the pharmaceutical industry. Andrew Wakefield, who promoted the disproven notion that vaccines cause autism, was funded by lawyers seeking to bring litigation against vaccine manufacturers, and Wakefield's case studies were recruited AFTER he was hired by these lawyers, with the stated goal of linking vaccines to illness. Wakefield failed to ever disclose this conflict of interest, and we only know about it because of the intensive research of investigative journalist Brian Deer.
Perdue aside, I am unaware of secret Pharma conferences taking place where the point of the discussion is to deliberately maximise profit at the expence of patient welfare.
...But thanks for giving readers here such an excellent example of the "Tu Quoque" argumental fallacy.
Didn’t say anything about secret conferences. Imagine how far your once respected profession has fallen. So much fraud coming to light. When my dad practised it was a different world, it was considered unprofessional to advertise even in the yellow pages, how you guys have changed.
Merck was exposed for fraudulently covering up clinical trial rates of heart attacks from Vioxx, there’s one example they paid billions for, but even after the fine the product made them a fortune.
Love it, you’re so locked into you position that pharma can do no wrong you take up defending the Merck/Vioxx scenario. Less people think people like you have a relevant view any longer - the fraud is so apparent, defending common practices of the industry signals you are conflicted. And you still haven’t updated your profile identity, which makes your positions look all the more ridiculous.
2 items that also cause concern among the populace.
1. We heard quite a bit about Herd Immunity in the early days of COVID. Then there wasn't any.
2. Many people fixed on the measles vaccine effectiveness and anticipated a One-and-Done nature for COVID vaccination. Instead coronavirus resistance seems to decline seriously in 4 months and by 6 months many people can simply get COVID again.
NET: my expectation and many people's expectation was too high.
You are correct; in the early days of the pandemic a lot was said about herd immunity. It was assumed by many that natural infection could impart herd immunity; indeed it was the main driver behind the strategy proposed by proponents of the Great Barrington Declaration. But they were wrong; since natural immunity was fleeting in nature.
Similarly immunity from vaccination also wore off, "one shot proved to be only a temporary solution, and the virus mutated to produce variants that evaded the natural and vaccine-induced rsponse. But fortunately booster vaccination was able to keep immunity up to a significant level so as to render Covid a far less serious disease than it could be, particularly among the vulnerable. And another benefit is that vaccination halved the risk of getting long Covid.
These are the facts. Expectations were indeed high, and the hopes of many were dashed by the resilience of the virus and its persistence. But it is fortunate that science has largely kept pace, and continues to save the lives of those who most need protection.
The phrasing of the 4 reasons listed for distrust all seem quite biased to me.
1. - People won't trust a system when that system is gaslighting them, essentially asking them to believe the pharmaceutical industry rather than their lying eyes. We know the pharmaceutical industry is notorious for making fraudulent claims and putting profits over people's lives. We know that vaccines can have serious adverse effects for some people. We don't know why some people have such terrible reactions nor do we know how to predict which individuals will suffer from such reactions. Why aren't we seeing research published on this aspect of vaccination?
2 and 3 - Some people are unwilling to deliberately take a small risk (vaccination) in exchange for escaping a larger risk (disease) that may never happen to them. That is a choice that people living in a free society get to make for themselves. I don't see this as a lack of trust, but simply a natural hesitancy that must be accepted by the industry rather than trying to mandate that everyone be vaccinated.
4. - I reject the notion of mandates not because I don't like the government telling me what to do (Who does? I can accept the government telling my what speed I am allowed to drive, that I must pay taxes, etc. ) but because I don't think that in a free society the government should be mandating medical procedures for citizens.
I think the main problem with lack of trust is #1 - that the industry is not being transparent and honest with citizens about the harms of vaccination. If you want to change that, the industry will have to be more transparent with their data, allowing others to check their work and verify the conclusions.
Again, please stop with the distortions and the erection of straw man arguments. The advice was, and still is, that people are *recommended* to have the vaccine, and not mandated to have them. The only people who had mandates in place were certain occupations (eg medics and other professions/occupations at high risk), and the armed forces. Some learning institutions imposed their own requirements, and there were restrictions imposed on those who were not vaccinated (eg travel, but then travel itself was greatly restricted during the pandemic).
There was no universal mandate, and people were and still are able to just say "No" if they don't wish to be vaccinated. Virtually all restrictions for unvaccinated individuals have now ceased, anyway.
However you are correct to some degree in your observation that the pharma industry needs to be more transparent. It needs to be more proactive about the messaging it sends out about vaccination and not raise expectations to the levels seen early on during the introduction of vaccination. It got much wrong, but the bulk of the guilt in this respect was down to political messaging which was outside the control of Pharma. In fact no one could control what happened, and as much as there were those who promised more than the vaccines could deliver, there were plenty of people who were spreading disinformation and lies about vaccines, misrepresenting their side effects and their effectiveness, which has wrongly made many assume that the shots are dangerous and useless. Antivax activists need to shoulder the responsibility for that.
Dr. Offit said "Many reject the notion of vaccine mandates. They don’t like the government telling them what to do." That was the strawman argument. I was pointing out the falsity of that argument. People who reject the notion of mandates are not necessarily opposed to all government requirements/restrictions. Or the vaccine itself. I opposed mandates, but got vaccinated myself.
As far as a universal mandate, you are right that it wasn't actually enacted. Instead, the U.S. government demanded that all employers who did business with the government needed to impose a mandate on their employees. That idea was dropped when lawsuits started up. Mandates were pushed pretty hard along with restrictions for the unvaccinated and the idea of a 'vaccine passport'. These have fallen by the wayside at this point, when it became clear that the vaccine did not prevent infection or the spread of the disease. Those who objected to such measures were not just 'opposed to the government telling them what to do'. They had legitimate concerns about the overreach of such measures and potential for abuse in the future.
Thank you for acknowledging that the pharma industry needs to be more transparent. It is the single most important step that could be taken to increase trust in vaccinations. The politicians spreading the incorrect message that the vaccines were much better than they turned out to be were repeating what the pharmaceutical companies and the CDC - relying on the information the pharma companies provided - had told them. Neither group is blameless in that matter.
But if it’s the case that “Many reject the notion of vaccine mandates. They don’t like the government telling them what to do”, then it’s hardly a strawman, is it?
It's a strawman because people do not reject the notion simply because they don't like the government telling them what to do. It's easy to make the argument that the government has the right to tell us how to behave - that why we have laws in the first place. It's a lot harder to justify a new law/regulation telling citizens they have to be vaccinated with a new vaccine or they will lose their livelihood.
Offit said “many “ had rejected vaccine mandates [because] they don’t like the government telling them what to do.
That’s true, we’ve heard as much from many with a libertarian stance during the pandemic saying just this.
“Many” is an unspecified number/proportion here, anyhow… Offit makes no attempt to quantify the term here.
For the sake of argument, let’s say ALL of those who rejected mandates did so because they objected to getting a new vaccine with side effects. Then if Offit claimed that government diktat was the reason ALL those who rejected mandates did so, that might qualify as a straw man.
Nope, that was the percentage still unvaccinated 9 months into the vaccination roll out. They didn't get "fake vaccinations". They either rejected vaccinations or just hadn't gotten them yet.
At memorial MSK hospital staff got fake vaccinations. Let me spell it out since you don’t understand and I do know what happened
For 500$ to 2500$, hospital staff paid to get 1 or 2 shots done by a network of people including entry to the official Ny state database. It actually happened all over Ny. It was a false entry to the database to satisfy the hospital vaccination mandate.
You really don’t know what you’re talking about..and I know MANY people who did this, close friends. Once nurses began seeing patients getting very sick from the mRNA shots, cancers in remission would return immediately after vaccination or patients would get Covid immediately after vaccination (because the mRNA shot suppresses the immune system- making it easy to catch any disease), then hospital staff became anti-mRNA shot.
In fact, when a patient got sick with Covid he was treated with expensive remdesivir while any Covid sick hospital staff were treated with ivermectin & hydroxychloroquine.. the fraud in the hospital was everywhere. Even the recording of Covid sick patients, vaccinated vs not vaccinated, was fraudulent to make the vaccine data look better.
The mask study that Mike S linked to is very straightforward. Masks work and they don't harm the wearer. The study was not by "big pharma." It was written by experts with diverse expertise in England, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The ten authors represented a medical school, a children's hospital, mechanical and manufacturing engineering, biomedical engineering, and public health. They reviewed over 100 published reviews and studies and concluded, quote,
"First, there is strong and consistent evidence for airborne transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other respiratory pathogens. Second, masks are, if correctly and consistently worn, effective in reducing transmission of respiratory diseases and show a dose-response effect. Third, respirators are significantly more effective than medical or cloth masks. Fourth, mask mandates are, overall, effective in reducing community transmission of respiratory pathogens. Fifth, masks are important sociocultural symbols; non-adherence to masking is sometimes linked to political and ideological beliefs and to widely circulated mis- or disinformation. Sixth, while there is much evidence that masks are not generally harmful to the general population, masking may be relatively contraindicated in individuals with certain medical conditions, who may require exemption."
--Even cloth masks have benefit, especially for protecting other people, given that almost half of Covid infections are asymptomatic.
--On my last airplane trip, I wore an N-95 mask for 14 hours straight, including flight legs and airports. No big deal and I'm over 70. I still mask in crowded stores, have had 8 shots, and still haven't caught Covid. Hmm, that stuff apparently works.
--However, if you'd rather believe conspiracy theories than the consensus of the world's experts, PLEASE, be my guest, go ahead and avoid masks during the next pandemic. Also, given that you don't think masks work, PLEASE, the next time you have surgery, ask your surgeon to not wear a mask. "Darwin" could use a little help in cleaning out the gene pool. The present population of H. sapiens is far too gullible.
If their "study" was legitimate, it would have been published in an actual journal, like reputable scientists do. The fact that there are some problems with peer review doesn't mean that the whole of published scientific knowledge is bunk. The vast majority is legitimate and useful to rational people who look at the whole body of the literature. As I often say, "Just because science isn't perfect, that doesn't mean you get to make shit up."
That "study" IS indirectly selling something. There is something to be gained by conspiracy theorists. A major goal is often sowing mistrust in the government and authorities by people who hate their government. If conspiracies were merely laughed off, it wouldn't be a problem, but conspiracy theories have damaged public health. AIDS denial in South Africa led to an estimated unnecessary 330,000 deaths from AIDS. Conspiracy theories about GMOs led the government of Zambia to turn down food aid during a famine, theories about Western malfeasance prevented polio eradication, AND Covid/vaccine denial led to a few hundred thousand extra deaths in the USA (published estimates put it at about 100 times as many deaths as 9-11. Compared to our own home-grown wackos, the Islamic terrorists were amateurs. This crap is dangerous and should be called out for what it is. Crap.
If however, you trust chiropractors for advice on epidemiology and virology, go ahead. Just don't expect rational people to take you (or them) seriously.
As for "big pharma," they have to actually prove that their products are safe and effective. Because of the DSHEA act in the USA, supplement makers don't have to prove anything. As for the size of the supplement industry, according to Statista-dot-com, "Overall, the global vitamins and minerals market is worth 19.5 billion U.S. dollars. Food that supposedly has an additional function is known as functional food. Functional food and drink has a much larger global market size at close to 530 billion U.S. dollars." Not exactly pocket change.
Blah blah, you didn’t bother to read the link. Both peer reviewed and published. In Vaccine.
Every other detail you cite is coming from big-pharma sources. You won’t admit the corporate capture of the science industry so you call any criticism of it “conspiracy” or crap.
"Blah blah, you didn’t bother to read the link. Both peer reviewed and published. In Vaccine."
1. In was in the New England Journal of Medicine--NOT the journal Vaccine.
2. All it takes is basic reading skills--and the integrity to read the words--and so far ZERO of the vaccine critics have the integrity to read the words and see that the anti-vaccs are clearly lying about the article.
The facts are clear:
A. the anti-vaccs stupidly lie about ~everything.
B. there is not a speck of integrity in even one of the vaccine critics that post here.!
"A major goal is often sowing mistrust in the government and authorities by people who hate their government. If conspiracies were merely laughed off, . . . " This miss-characterizes people who have most certainly good reason to not trust corporations & politicians.
and as to causing harm, I cite the masks fiasco, the wearing of a little strip of cloth over your face to prevent the spread of some "Deadly plague" is so completely bogus, the evidence is clear, the masks are a detriment to health in that they restrict air intake by the wearer.
however many municipalities still cling to the notion that mandating masks is a good thing.
"and as to causing harm, I cite the masks fiasco, the wearing of a little strip of cloth over your face to prevent the spread of some "Deadly plague" is so completely bogus, the evidence is clear"
"mask mandates are, overall, effective in reducing community transmission of respiratory pathogens. Fifth, masks are important sociocultural symbols; non-adherence to masking is sometimes linked to political and ideological beliefs and to widely circulated mis- or disinformation. " Your link promotes dis-info & fake news
speaking of what the SCIENCE supports, be advised that the SCIENCE fully supports the statement that no airliner ever flown could have crashed in the manner alleged by the media & politicians ( 9/11/2001 ) and that is a fact!
Very simple, I don't trust a system that is dispensing a product that they bear no responsibility for not IF it harms people but WHEN it harms people. The Vaccine industry is the ONLY business that is shielded from liability by Federal Law.
Horse.
Shit.
Vaccine manufacturers pay a percent of revenues into the liability fund for *potential* harms. And because the percentage is set cautiously, payouts for actual harms are far below the pay-ins.
(This is exactly how a reserve fund SHOULD be managed: to have a cushion to deal with the unexpected)
The vaccine manufacturers are forced to bear MORE THAN the actual, rather rare harms, while the people get to have a lifesaving product
youre so upset about it. it is a fact.
protection from liability for the pharmaceutical industry is so ironclad no one can sue them and with pharma shills like paul and their clown car "correlation doesn't equal causation schtick" it's worse because then we have scumbag politicans taking money from these fat cats like paul in the pharmaceutical industry and making laws that don't allow people to avoid these shoddily made medical products.
quit the cope and just use your traditinal talking points instead of the profanity, pal.
"protection from liability for the pharmaceutical industry is so ironclad no one can sue them"
Here is a lawsuit--the anti-vaccs were exposed as liars and frauds:
https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2009/112a08.pdf
Here is a lawsuit--the anti-vaccs were exposed as being at best complete morons:
https://casetext.com/case/jane-doe-v-merck-co
Here is a law firm that specializes in suing vaccine makers, and they have many current lawsuits:
https://www.lanierlawfirm.com/gardasil-vaccine-lawsuit/
Thanks again for demonstrating the two basic facts:
1. The anti-vaccs are liars
2. One has to be a complete and total moron to believe them
okay. well there are those two. now show me the ones where babies were forced to have their bowels resected because of the rotavirus vaccine. I’m sure you can’t find me any of those…
See how it works?
The anti-vaccs lie and say you can't sue vaccine makers--but you don't care.
The courts detail how the anti-vaccs are liars and frauds--but you don't care.
I provided more than two--but you are unable or unwilling to read correctly.
And naturally, you provided zero evidence of harm from the rotavirus vaccine.
paul accepts that rotavirus vaccine causes instussusception. I'm detailing the treatments for it. why is that hard for you? O need proof that intussusception caused by vaccine DOESN'T require the bowels of children to be re-sected!? or in some cases the children die?
"it is a fact."
Nope. It is a lie. Drug companies ARE liable. Claimants just have to go through the vaccine court first. And even the vaccine court is funded by the drug companies. It is actually the best possible deal for those who suffer unfortunate adverse effects of vaccinations, and you should be championing it.
"no one can sue them"
You're simply mouthing RFK junior who knows it's a lie because he has actually sued them. That's how much of a gullible fool you are. You believe the lies of someone who is deliberately and knowingly lying to you.
"pharma shills"
That trope is so discredited and so long in the tooth, I'm surprised you're still using it. If you make a claim, you are expected to be able to back it up. You won't because you can't because there is no evidence that he is a shill. That makes you a dishonest bad actor who will just say anything regardless of whether it is true or not.
"correlation doesn't equal causation"
The correct saying is that "correlation does not necessarily equal causation". But if you have multiple independent lines of correlation that can, indeed, equal causation. For example, the evidence that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer is correlational, but it is a well-established fact because of the multiple independent lines of evidence. Learn some science.
"scumbag politicans"
How many times do we need to remind you that this is a science-based blog. Take your politics elsewhere.
"like paul in the pharmaceutical industry"
That is a slanderous lie.
"shoddily made medical products."
Stop lying. Vaccines are the most researched and well-tested of all the pharmaceutical products.
LOOOOOOOL!
the absence of accountability after countless children have been maimed and killed by vaccines tells us all we need to know.
sell your wares to those that will buy them. the fact is that people who’s children are maimed by these shoddily made medical products find out too late. but that’s why I warn them.
the pharmaceutical industry is so powerful they have no accountability. no one can control or regulate them. they can tell us all how to live and what is and is not good for us. according to you…
we will fix that...
"the absence of accountability "
There is no absence of accountability, just anti-vacc lies.
cope as much as you want. their days of controlling government policy and regulation are over.
The Covid vaccines were distributed ONLY after Pfizer was legally protected against lawsuits. You KNOW this.
FDA approval was also waived.
Yes, there are some legal protections under and EUA. Is it not obvious to you why?
And approval was NOT waived, they are approved:
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine
"The Covid vaccines were distributed ONLY after Pfizer was legally protected against lawsuits."
That is incorrect. They secured protection against lawsuits before even developing and manufacturing the vaccines. They were not prepared to risk bankruptcy through frivolous legal action as happened before the vaccine court was established.
"FDA approval was also waived."
The COVID-19 mRNA Pfizer vaccine was fully approved on 23rd August 2021. That's nearly 3 years ago. Please keep up, son.
That doesn't mean the drug manufacturers., government, and FDA aren't all corrupted by money.
Just look at how top people move jobs back and forth between drug companies and FDA. It's a disgraceful corrupt sham.
" Vaccines are the most researched and well-tested of all the pharmaceutical products." Can you support your assertion?
The testing for different products is clearly listed on the FDA site.
Read away.
Ya, the "FDA" works for the Pharmaceutical industry - that is GREED INC.
FDA approved was waived for COVID vaccines - yet mandated anyway.
So no, you literally won't use your basic reading skills and see the facts.
Vaccine harm cases are heard in a US Federal court with specialized expertise. Proven injury (versus the grifting VAERS trollers who attribute even swallowed batteries to a vaccine because docs are required to report ALL serious issues immediately after vaccinations) is paid from the vaccine producers' fund
There seems to be a lot of whinging by CDF and other ambulance-chasing lawyers that they can't get high contingency-fee payments because the court deals—as the OP article that Offit refers to—with facts, not “oh, big pharma with deep pockets should be forced to pay.”
Go ahead and provide the transcripts for cases where harmed individuals had proven cases unfairly denied by the court, and THEN let's talk about what the liability fund is for
yeah. sure, pal.
the pharmaceutical industry is not and never is held accountable. they want all the benefits and permanant market for their shoddily made medical products but they want no accountability.
parents find out only too late they have no recourse when their children are maimed or killed by vaccines. very slowly but surely more and more people are seeing it my way. paul forced us here. he helped cause the tipping point.
paul has done irreparable damage to vaccines.
"the pharmaceutical industry is not and never is held accountable. "
Yes it is. The anti-vaccs just lie and count on folks being too stupid to read.
The process is geared towards protection of the drug companies instead of safety of consumers. You have to jump through a million hoops, pile up legal fees and then it's innocent until proven guilty with onerous standards. That's why so few cases even come forward, let alone win. Get you head out of your ass. The system is corrupt.
Parents should read the vaccine information leaflets issued with every vaccine. These carry information about the VICP and how to claim.
Parents finding out "only too late" that such a scheme exists will be the ones who don't pay attention to the information they are given.
as evidenced by your willful ignorance and avoidance of very horrific side effects, parents are usually not told when theyre given “presumptive reccomendations” by doctors that quite literally bully parents into pumping their children full of these shoddily made pharmaceutical products.
coping and apologetics don’t change the facts, pal.
"whinging"?
No you are wrong. The vaccine companies are specifically protected from direct litigation. Your only recourse is an adversarial CLOSED VICP court.
No other industry enjoys this protection. Its the number 1 reason why we vowed never to take anothet vaccine a decade ago
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html
I can......I have posted the law and Civil lawsuits against vaccine companies.
But I make you functionally literate or give you integrity.
*You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects. The government likely won’t compensate you for damages either*
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html
Yes, you do have this strange idea that posting lies predicated on folks being too stupid to read is a good idea.
And apparently selective reading is your forte
**************************************
Immune to lawsuits
In February, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. The 2005 law empowers the HHS secretary to provide legal protection to companies making or distributing critical medical supplies, such as vaccines and treatments, unless there’s “willful misconduct” by the company. The protection lasts until 2024.
That means that for the next four years, these companies “cannot be sued for money damages in court” over injuries related to the administration or use of products to treat or protect against Covid.
HHS declined CNBC’s request for an interview
***********************************************************
HHS Secretary is the determinant of whether or not any legal action can take place. And his stance on the matter is clear above ...
Thats called "reading comprehension"
Thanks for playing ...
so you appear to be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Vaccines are “Safe & Effective” . . . is that it?
It is not about belief, it is about data.
bad data.
OK, so explain in detail.
Thanks,
you would never accept it no matter what information is put in front of you. youre a hamas style jihadist in that regard.
Err, no. Read his post. He is saying there is a compensation scheme for those injured by vaccination, not that vaccination is perfectly safe. If it were, then the compensation fund wouldn't be needed.
Why are there any payouts at all if there is almost no damage, as you claim? It would be nice If you somehow manage to answer without the use of words like ‘shit’.
Yep that’s all you need to know.. no consequence for manufacturers producing harmful vaccines and regulators financially incentivised to approve all vaccines means we will see more harmful vaccines..
Anyone aware of how the real world works would NEVER trust a vaccine manufacturer or get vaccinated.
And for VAERS, this represents only 1-2% of the actual vaccine side effects people experience. Hardly anyone reports their side effects to VAERS. I know at least a dozen people with severe side effects from the Covid mRNA shots (including a few myocarditis, one heart attack and several with lasting heart arrhythmia) and none of them reported anything to VAERS.
"no consequence for manufacturers"
Another antivax liar who will not accept that fact that drug companies are indeed liable quite apart from fully funding the vaccine court where claimants are given the benefit of the doubt and have all their legal fees fully paid. Your obvious lies discredit you.
"NEVER trust a vaccine manufacturer"
We don't. The drugs are tested independently, a privilege for which the drug companies pay in full, and a process which licences less than 20% of products submitted for testing.
"VAERS ...represents only 1-2% of the actual vaccine side effects"
Firstly, it is not adverse EFFECTS that are reported to VAERS. It is adverse EVENTS. Learn the difference. Adverse EVENTS occur after a vaccination but are not necessarily caused by the vaccination. Adverse EFFECTS are events that have been shown to have been caused by the vaccination because they occur more frequently in the vaccinated than in the general population (ie above the base rate).
Secondly, what you said is deliberately deceitful. It is probably true that only 1-2% of minor adverse events such as arm pain and reactive fever are reported, but practically all serious adverse events such as hospitalisations and deaths are reported to VAERS.
"I know at least a dozen people with severe side effects ... and none of them reported anything to VAERS."
So what? That does not mean they weren't reported. The treating doctor is obligated to report adverse events such as these, and they do. There are forms printed for this express purpose and there are fines and disciplinary procedures if these obligations are not met.
" The drugs are tested independently," Can you document that assertion?
Sure, besides lots of universities and independent testing companies and other governments, there is the FDA and the Pentagon:
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/science-and-research-drugs/drug-quality-sampling-and-testing-programs#:~:text=The%20FDA%20uses%20a%20risk,specific%20tests%20for%20this%20vulnerability.
"FDA laboratories generally test drugs to standards set by the U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP), an organization that publishes quality monographs for medicines including attributes such as:
Identity – is it the right drug as indicated on the label?
Assay – how much drug is there and is it consistent with the labeled amount?
Impurities – are impurities within established specifications?
Dissolution – does the active ingredient dissolve out of the dosage unit so that the drug is available for the body to absorb?"
https://www.axios.com/2023/08/08/pentagon-generic-drug-safety-tests
Facts got your tongue?
Using only your basic reading skills, you can learn that VAERS doesn't even measure side effects and....
The vaccine manufacturers have full liability for their products. The anti-vaccs lie about this simple fact because the anti-vacc fraud is well detailed in Court rulings:
https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2009/112a08.pdf
You are simply wrong. COVID vaccine manufacturers were exempt from both liability and FDA approval. Do you work for Pfizer? You are pedantic in your responses, and also make claims with a confidence a physicist would not have about the existence of gravity.
1. "Do you work for Pfizer? "
Nope!
2. "COVID vaccine manufacturers were exempt from both liability and FDA approval. "
A. It is right in the Prep act and right in the Prep declaration that one can sue the vaccine makers.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-03-17/pdf/2020-05484.pdf
b. The vaccines are approved.
On August 23, 2021, the FDA put out a press release that the Pfizer vaccine was approved.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine
The FDA keeps a list of all approved vaccines on their site:
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/vaccines-licensed-use-united-states
Both the Pfizer and the Moderna vaccines are approved!
3. Of course I am confident.
Fact is the anti-vaccs just keep recycling the same old lies over and over.
Good news: it really is trivially easy to see their lies!
You very well know I refer to the vaccinations mandated before the approvals.
I know that I posted the links so anyone with basic reading skills could see you are wrong.
How many times has everyone heard “safe and effective” talk about recycling. What’s the 3 month + safety profile of a vaxx tested for less than 3 months, what’s the effectiveness of a vaccine not tested to see if it prevents catching and spreading, so many lies.
Hey and you still haven’t updated your profile identity. Maybe change it to Anonymous Shill if you really can’t have anyone know who you are.
See how it works?
1. Bob posted old anti-vacc lies predicated on folks being too clueless to read.
Naturally, you didn't have the integrity to acknowledge the facts.
Instead, you changed the subject.
2. "What’s the 3 month + safety profile of a vaxx tested for less than 3 months,"
That is a lie predicated on folks being too stupid to read or count.
3. "what’s the effectiveness of a vaccine not tested to see if it prevents catching and spreading"
Again, anyone that can read will see the vaccines were tested for effectiveness and preventing infection and preventing transmission.......
Just standard anti-vacc lies predicated on folks being too stupid to read.
Anti-vaccs keep resorting to name-calling because almost everything they claim is a lie that insults the intelligence of the average 10 year old.
You just proved this fact.
Now here is where you ignore the previous anti-vacc lies and just add more.....
You are correct that most people don't report their vaccine side effects to VAERS...I didn't report mine for example (a sore arm for 24 hrs after Moderna). But most of the reports to VAERS consist of similarly minor reactions you will find, and a high proportion of reports are entirely coincidental. I suggest you read the information VAERS carries about this on its website.
I am referring to the 20 or so coworkers that got heart arrhythmia, vaginal bleeding for months, one heart attack with emergency open heart surgery needed, and myocarditis- they didn’t even know about VAERS. The SAE’s are underreported to VAERS by a factor of 30. The “sore arm” is not what we are referring to.. lol
There were so many cases of heart arrhythmia that we just expected it.. the arrhythmia would last 3 to 6 months approximately. The heart attack happened after a Pfizer booster shot (3rd shot)
VAERS has problems with under and over reporting.
Naturally, none of the anti-vaccs ever reference the better safety data then VAERS.....
There are so many factors that make auditing the safety of vaccines once out in the population almost impossible. The matter of selecting who takes vaccines and who does not. People on their death bed would never be given a vaccine as an example, yet are held up as an unvaccinated death. There are timing issues, just so many things that either side can point to to claim bias.
You’re better to look at a much higher proxy, like societal rates of chronic disease. Which has to be accepted have increased in all cohorts in step with an ever increasing number of vaccines people are encouraged to take. Or look at the total health profile of the vaccinated verse unvaccinated in the limited studies that have been able to be produced, the unvaccinated are healthier people, less allergies, less asthma, less autoimmune type diseases, ear infections, basically go done through list, staying away from vaccines is better for your health.
And if Covid achieved something it finally made it clear vaccines don’t prevent disease, and without that there is no social contract to take them to protect others. Just give up on the mandating aspect of vaccines and there is nothing to fight about. Except of course people will still be encouraged to take them without full disclosure, like they took Vioxx and other failed drugs and there needs to be a way for pharma to be liable for their vaccine products where they can be sued and be subject to discovery like every other industry. Your position that they are liable and fund the compensation for those injured, that is not being liable, that’s just being able to insure the problem away, it’s a deal no other industry has.
The days of simply dismissing people skeptical of vaccines is perhaps ending and that will be a positive in getting the dialog going on the old “safe and effective” hallmark.
1. You changed the subject. Are you trying to hide the anti-vacc lie about VAERS?
2. "There are so many factors that make auditing the safety of vaccines once out in the population almost impossible. "
That is 100% not true.
E.g. all one has to do is to listen to health insurance companies and national healthcare systems.
The have many decades of data on 100s of millions of patients.
We know two things with certainty:
1. vaccinated are much healthier
2. the anti-vacc lie about this fact.
Sadly, some folks don't care that the anti-vaccs are liars.
Of course all those you know got serious side effects after vaccination…goes without saying. The Vaccine apocalypse!!!! (Which never happened)…😵💫😜
There are 2000 heart attacks each day in the US.
This means that in the week following any vaccine shot, there will be 14,000 heart attacks, entirely by coincidence!!!!!
I think you should change your nym to “Mr Don’t know Data”
there is a statistical base-line ALL CAUSE MORTALITY, given that,
Post vaccine roll-out, the ACM figures increased above the statistical norm.
Shocking. All-cause mortality increased during a global pandemic.
That is one remarkable discovery you made!
No, ACM rose BEFORE vaccine rollout.
In the US, it was up to 40% above baseline when vaccines started their roll out at the end of 2020.
Here is data from the economist:
https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid
Still working on reading?
Or just don't care what the facts are?
Think about this, at one time the courts upheld slavery . . . & the fact that Thalidomide was FDA approved, we the people MUST maintain the right to question EVERYTHING.
Here is a crazy idea: why don't you question things by look for the basic facts?
Thalidomide was never FDA approved for morning sickness--which is where it causes the birth defects.
It is recently (1999?) approved for certain very deadly cancers. Those patients generally are not pregnant and you can't be pregnant and take thalidomide.
BTW: why don't you care that what Mr. Data claimed is clearly not true?
This may seem like a tangent, but bear with,
PLEASE
. . . Question for you: do you believe that an airliner could have penetrated a skyscraper wall "like a hot knife through butter" ?
.
Please indulge me . . . { & Thanks }
Answer: if you are referring to 911, then it is not a question of belief it is a matter of data and facts.
Rude and wrong.
Sorry the words are too difficult for you to read.
You should find a new hobby. I hear pet rocks are good for people with your intellect.
Rude
Are you embarrassed by how stupid the anti-vacc lies are?
It is simple: US law clearly states that everyone can sue vaccine makers for alleged injuries:
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title42/chapter6A/subchapter19&edition=prelim
(note the section: authority to bring actions)
The anti-vaccs keep lying about this simple fact.
BTW: in the US the gun industry has very significant liability shielding in federal law.
>BTW: in the US the gun industry has very significant liability shielding in federal law.
Bullets aren't injected into your blood stream you ignoramus
BTW: no vaccine is injected into your blood stream.
Yes, you offer lots of name-calling, but the fact is you just keep proving unable to read at the 3rd grade level.
And I suppose the blood the trickles out is "aether" and the cotton swab and bandaid placed over the site - is just for show
Idiot
Oh look......your previous comments were lies predicated on folks being too stupid to read......so you changed the topic.
Why do you just blatantly lie? Everyone knows this claim is false, so what is the possible advantage to you to make it. All it does is discredit anything else you have to say. Drug companies ARE liable. You just have to go through the vaccine court first - a court funded by the drug companies.
What OTHER industry enjoys this protection from a direct lawsuit against the manufacturers which would normally include a "discovery" process to verify injury and damage ?
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html
There is discovery against vaccine makers, once again functional literacy is just too difficult for you.
No there is not; you vaccine pharma shill.
A discovery process will call into question
1) the contents and formulation of vaccine under question
2) **independent lab** verification of the RCT results
3) court order demanding all lab data and communication related to this product
It was necessary.
Frivolous lawsuits and sympathetic juries were awarding hundred million dollar settlements for adverse effects. This meant drug companies were going bankrupt and everyone else been left with nothing, as well as no more vaccines. We now have the best of both worlds:
- life-saving vaccines continuing to be produced.
- fair compensation for those suffering adverse effects with no legal costs.
- an option to sue if you are not happy with the decision of the vaccine court.
>We now have the best of both worlds:
You are insane.
1) we have an adversarial court hand picked by vaccine company allies
2) a lack luster enforced event reporting system
3) road blocks in severity clauses and time constraints that stymie the path to justice
4) ballooning cases of chronic disorders and developmental problems
Don't be silly.
We just have anti-vacc liars preying upon fools.
anti-vax no longer has the sting - YOU THINK IT DOES
https://rumble.com/v26wiem-scott-addams-admits-that-anti-covid-vaxxers-were-the-winners.html
You are babbling.
We know which vaccines have which adverse effects, and the only thing that needs to be ascertained in the fully paid for vaccine court cases is if the claimant actually has one of those recognised adverse effects. If that is the case, they are compensated accordingly.
If they do not have a recognised adverse effect, then there is an adversarial process to determine if they qualify in any case. And the determinations are very lenient. Obviously, if they are trying to get cover for a condition that is clearly not caused by a vaccine, then they are not compensated. Otherwise, abuse of the system would be rampant. There has to be some restrictions but, again, they are very much in favour of the claimant.
And to repeat:
Frivolous lawsuits and sympathetic juries were awarding hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements to individual claimants. This meant drug companies were going bankrupt which would mean that everyone else would be left with nothing at all. They would be extraordinarly inequitable. As well as drug companies facing possible bankruptcy, others were pulling out of vaccine development and manufacture altogether, which would have meant no more life-saving vaccines in the long run. So, we really do have the best of all worlds:
- life-saving vaccines continue to be produced.
- fair compensation is given for those suffering legitimate adverse effects with no legal costs imposed.
- there is an option to sue if the claimant is not happy with the decision of the vaccine court.
You are full of bluster, and you know it. You don't care if the present system works in everyone's favour, you simply want those life-saving vaccinations stopped. That is NOT going to happen.
Iam going to ignore your idiotic rant and drivel above ; and address your last point
>You don't care if the present system works in everyone's favour, you simply want those life-saving vaccinations stopped. That is NOT going to happen.
First there is nothing life saving about vaccinations. Mortality rates to child hood illnesses had declined over 90% before any vaccine for that illness was introduced
vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html
Vaccinated children still contract and transmit the very illnesses they were vaccinated against
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-whooping-cough-vaccine-20190316-story.html
Finally, i subscribed to the Libertarian mindset. Free peoples should have the right to injest and inject whatever they want.
I dont want vaccines banned no more than I would want crack, cocaine, lsd, marijuana, advilpm, tylenol banned.
The core of this issue is mandates. If you want to vaccinate your children every hour on the hour be my guest. But you and your ilk will NEVER impose your will on my children. EVER!!!
A vaccine court funded by the drug companies.. right, and just how naïve and gullible are you?
Then there are courts like the THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2009/112a08.pdf
Remember, all American's can sue vaccine makers in civil court.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html
Once again you prove unable to read.
And once again you prove you are unable to think
Look it up, son, you are embarrassing yourself. Drug companies pay a percent on every vaccine sold and that funds the vaccine court. That is a fact.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html
Amazing isn't it?
We keep going over time and time again......
Here again is the Prep act declaration:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-03-17/pdf/2020-05484.pdf
And just like all the other times, it just takes basic reading skills to see one could sue Pfizer or Moderna for their mRNA vaccines.
Of course, the vaccines are now licensed so the normal law applies and everyone can sue for vaccine injuries.
Thanks again for demonstrating that the anti-vacc liars count on folks being too stupid to read.
Did you miss the part where it states the HHS Secretary determines whether or not any legal action can take place.
*******************************
Immune to lawsuits
In February, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. The 2005 law empowers the HHS secretary to provide legal protection to companies making or distributing critical medical supplies, such as vaccines and treatments, unless there’s “willful misconduct” by the company. The protection lasts until 2024.
That means that for the next four years, these companies “cannot be sued for money damages in court” over injuries related to the administration or use of products to treat or protect against Covid.
HHS declined CNBC’s request for an interview
******************************************************
That's a special case, and you know it.
There was a pandemic in which people were dying, and the government needed to encourage drug companies to come up with a life-saving vaccine. As a result of previous litigation (that resulted in setting up the vaccine court), the drug companies were not prepared to risk bankruptcy in return for work and effort of developing a life-saving vaccine that would benefit everyone. There was no alternative but to offer immunity.
As it turned out, the scientists working for these drug companies came up with a safe and 95% effective vaccine at a time when 4000 Americans were dying of COVID-19 every single day. I know that is disturbing to antivax loons like you, but, fortunately, the vast majority of us are reasonable people.
There was no pandemic.
It was simply OVER hyped FALSE positive PCR tests coupled with reclassifying deaths "with" as deaths from Covid
Dr Deborah Brix of the Covid task force explains the grift here
https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1247669966939262977?s=09
Its been 4 years of this bullshit. Try and keep up
https://rumble.com/v20bpjc-safe-and-effective-lie-countdown.html
"antivax loons like you, but, fortunately, the vast majority of us are reasonable people." . . . thank U 4 Your OPINION
How many victims have actually been compensated, and where is your DOCUMENTATION stating the the Drug companies pay the settlements?
“Everyone knows this claim is false,” REALLY
exactly how can you possibly support that assertion?
Please read the vaccine court site/law.
All their funds come from a tax put on the vaccine makers.
The vaccine claims are paid for out of the VICP purse, which is the money raised through the excise tax of 75c per vaccine shot levied off the Pharmaceutical companies making that vaccine.
For info on the number of vaccine claims compensated through that scheme go to their website and see.
So that would be a big old no, you won't use your basic reading skills and see the facts.
What?
You don't care that the anti-vaccs lied to you?
You don't care that it was childishly easy to see the lies.........but you didn't......
***************
One side says:
***************
CONvid is a lie. The vaccine destroys your immune system leaving you susceptible to illnesses that require lifetime dependence on pharmaceutical giants.
Exercise, Get adequate rest, Go outside for fresh air and sunlight supplement your vitamin D3, zinc and magnesium levels during flu season
++++++++++++
The other side
++++++++++++
says Cower at home. Wear a mask. Social distance. Take this jab, this booster, this booster, this booster, this booster, this booster, this bivalent booster, this bivalent booster.
The Cardio vascular issues and facial paralysis and seizures are all in your head. That muscular tick that won't go away???
They don't know the cause of it but they are sure it's NOT the vaccine. How *convenient*
When pressed create a fictitious new term "long COVID" to explain away adverse events and sudden death
Also myocarditis drugs are on the market and pPazlovid is available to keep you on the hamster wheel
It's not difficult to figure out which side any thinking adult would go with
“ Some aren’t willing to accept any serious vaccine side effects no matter how quickly defined, well understood, or uncommon”
Then they should not take any medication, even paracetamol/acetaminophen or other over the counter medications, particularly in the states as adverts for these list possible side effects.
https://robertyoho.substack.com/p/320-tylenol-is-a-pharma-atrocity
You will find it near impossible to restore public trust in the agencies that have treated the vaccine injured so cruelly.The entire world has seen it by now.
The NIH, CDC, and FDA all knew in January 2021 there were thousands of vaccine injuries taking place.
The NIH was flying injured out to Maryland and studying them.
They promised the injured they would help them and let the public know what was happening.
Instead, they silenced and abandoned them and that continues to this day.
Following is a response I have given to which includes a one minute excerpt with my friend , Bri Dressen, who was studied by the NIH. Full interview also is included.
Injuries and deaths have occurred with all the Covid vaccines.
You now have several attorney generals who have filed suit against Pfizer for their marketing of the vaccine being safe and effective.
For you, or anyone else, to expect that our government health agencies can treat good and decent Americans, who trusted these agencies, with such unconscionable cruelty is beyond the scope of rationality.
https://x.com/annmforti/status/1808883016376185247?s=46&t=N6Yk0Teky5Qc1acSgwZgEw
"You now have several attorney generals who have filed suit against Pfizer"
Being sued does not mean "you are guilty".
"agencies that have treated the vaccine injured so cruelly"
Allegedly.
Here is your error though: an adverse EVENT is not an adverse EFFECT.
Here is the difference:
An adverse EVENT occurs after a vaccination but is not necessarily caused by the vaccination.
An adverse EFFECT is an adverse event that has been shown to be caused by the vaccination because it occurs at a higher rate among the vaccinated than in the general population.
So, the NIH was studying adverse EVENTS that occurred after the vaccinations to determine if they were actually caused by the vaccination. That sounds like what they should be doing.
Everyone who was studied by the NIH would have been classified by your definition as a vaccine effect.
The depth of deception that have taken place is really beyond what most of us can even comprehend.
As Bri Dressen herself has said, “I would have never believed all of this had I actually not lived through it.”
We agree, there sure is a whole of deception and really stupid lies from the anti-vaccs!
1."Everyone who was studied by the NIH would have been classified by your definition as a vaccine effect."
That is 100% not true. Just an old anti-vacc lie. All it takes is the integrity to read the definitions:
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=312.32
2. "As Bri Dressen herself has said,"
You failed to mention that she is suing for money or to post her lawsuit.
Putting aside the facts that it is legally and scientifically complete BS........it also is predicated on folks being too clueless to read.
https://aboutblaw.com/bd0D
My bet: her case gets destroyed in Court and is dismissed with prejudice.
Followed by lots and lots of bitching from anti-vaccs, none of whom will bother to read the facts.
It is clear from your reply that you are completely unaware of all the facts surrounding Bri Dressen.
In regards to the NIH study in January 2021 the reason why those with vaccine injuries were flown out to the NIH is because the NIH knew that the injuries had occurred from the vaccines.
If you, or Dr.Offit, really want to address vaccine hesitancy, then the vaccine injured need to be acknowledged and helped.
To continue to call people who took the vaccine any-vaxxers Is completely illogical.
I posted the lawsuit.
You are silent on the facts because the suit is abject idiocy.
The NIH study is NOT about vaccine injured--that is an anti-vacc lie predicated on folks not having basic reading skills.
Just like the claims vaccines have never been tested against placebos is a lie predicated on folks not having basic reading skills.
Just like the claim that all other drugs must be tested against placebos is a lie predicated on folks not having basic reading skills.
You can ignore the truth as long as you want, but right now you know that the anti-vaccs are liars.
Albus, I am personal friends with Bri - so all the information I have is first hand. There is no reason why anyone should be against helping people who were injured by the vaccine.
Makes sense.
Last article, you refused to use your basic reading skills to see the anti-vacc lies........like how proper placebos are used.
Now you won't use your basic reading skills to see that those are NOT vaccine injuries being studied.
Simple fact: the anti-vaccs lie about ~everything.
"Simple fact: the anti-vaccs lie about ~everything."
More OPINION . . .
Nope--proven.
Truth is the pharma cartel has been proven guilty of actually committing fraud. Why don’t you update your profile with your real identity and declare your conflicts of interest. Or Just sit there and lie to yourself about how wonderful they are and watch society’s health further decline instep with a higher and higher percentage of GDP being spent on healthcare. Do more of what’s obviously not working, that only makes sense to those getting rich from all the sickness.
Why did you change the subject?
Are you ashamed by the stupidity of the anti-vacc lies?
Why didn't you provide any examples of them being proven of committing fraud? Are you lying?
thoughtful -- yes, it is impossible to predict an adverse event with a frequency of 4/10e6 prior to enormous populations receiving a drug/vaccine/device. Rigorous post-licensing follow-up will detect low frequency events, and thoughtful decisions can be made after the analysis of data.
The scale of Covid highlighted that as per the 1986 Vaccine Act, vaccines are unavoidably dangerous - now it’s just a dance moving data around to downplay to what extent.
COVID also required that the long understood position that vaccines prevent disease be reframed (look at Biden, on record with 6 shots and still gets Covid). The idea that no one is safe until everyone is safe can’t be achieved with vaccines. Society’s health continues to decline right along with an ever greater percentage of GDP being spent on healthcare including an ever expanding vaccine schedule - doing more of what’s not working will not provide better outcomes.
Giving interventions to perfectly healthy people is a different proposition than treating people with something like terminal cancer, vaccines must be a choice.
The funding sources and authors with conflicts of interest being cited by health authorities as proof of vindication where various vaccines have been caught up in controversy does not restore confidence. It’s the equivalent of a company resolving an employee grievance without the employee being present or having representation. It’s time for pharma to include their staunchest opponents in the process of evaluating the clinical trials that are utilized to first approve vaccines and the review of the post rollout reporting of identified problems.
It is becoming clear to a great more people that vaccines are wildly unpredictable and very far from an exact science - we’re experimenting on healthy people.
As long as vaccines are mandated proponents of vaccines should welcome critical analysis of the products. Choice should be the path forward.
Vaccines are always a choice, and critical analysis of vaccine and other medical products is always welcome. Don't imply that they are not.
You are trying to make your argument by deploying a number of false claims and logical fallacies.
Paul if you believe the options for not accepting shots is a fair choice, or that critiques of the vaccines is welcome you’re the perfect example of a homer. Just wait until something comes along that you are required to do to participate in society in a meaningful way that you don’t agree with, then you will have a realization worth having.
"Just wait until something comes along that you are required to do to participate in society in a meaningful way"
Firstly, that is hyperbolic nonsense. As if you can't participate in society in any meaningful way if you don't vaccinate when there is a mandate. Secondly, imagine if you could only pass laws that EVERYONE agrees with. Everyone is eventually going to be faced with laws that don't like that the majority approve of. That's life.
how about the example of the demand that everyone who travels by air,
"voluntarily" give up their 4th amendment rights in order to be able to board their flight. { especially when the entire foundation for the procedure is at best QUESTIONABLE }
The name is Mike. I am a recently retired NHS doc in the UK.
This is where there’s a divergence between the USA and U.K. which people need to bear in mind before making assumptions. I’m a retired nurse practitioner in the U.K.
Perhaps there’s a case for identifying your country of residence as experiences could differ, for example the USA vaccinates children against chickenpox whereas the U.K. doesn’t generally do so as part of the childhood vaccine schedule. The U.K. does not mandate children being vaccinated before they can go to school whereas other countries do.
I previously posted some links to basic logic sites.
You should have invested a few minutes and learned how to think correctly.
Nice to know, you should edit your profile, put your full name, disclose your conflicts of interest.
My bio says it all. Read it.
vaccines are NOT a choice. we don't all have $30 million+ like paul from the pharmaceutical industry. we can't pay our way through life avoiding the harms caused by shoddily made medical products.
"vaccines are NOT a choice."
Don't you mean 'vaccinations'? Vaccinations ARE a choice. Nobody is held down and forcibly vaccinated against their will. There is ALWAYS a choice. But with choice comes consequences. That is also always the case.
"we don't all have $30 million+ like paul from the pharmaceutical industry."
That is a slanderous lie, and you know it. Otherwise, you would have provided the evidence by now. But you can't, because there is none. What we have here is a grossly dishonest tactic by a grossly dishonest person.
"shoddily made medical products."
That is a blatant unadulterated LIE.
I'm sure paul can use his influence or big pharma connections to have his buddies tell google to hide his net worth.
and to be clear, these are shoddily made medical products. we know this is true otherwise these medical products wouldn't have side effects. these medical products maim children and they also kill. it's just a fact.
To be clear, you have nothing to offer but lies.
I have not written any lies. vaccines maim children. they also kill
“Vaccines are NOT a choice”????
Really? 🙄
…So you are fully vaccinated, get annual flu boosters and get regular Covid vax updates?
…Fascinating!
for children that want to attend public school in many states it is NOT a choice. it is forced. and being a reasonably well to do person which I have to assume you are. you cannot understand the pattern of economies this presents. that's fine. just get with the program and accept it. all mandates must end. not in any setting can there be mandates. not one.
Again, your BS is predicated on not understanding the word choice.
I understamd the word choice. I also understand when a person isn’t given choice.
It is a requirement to start school the same as certain vaccinations are required to work in certain professions.
Pre school vaccinations are compulsory in Austria for example, so those states are not unique, we don’t mandate here in the U.K.
Countries where vaccinations are compulsory include Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy and Czechia.
Here in the U.K. the following vaccinations or evidence of significant antibodies were compulsory for me to work in an Emergency Department in a hospital in Leicester.
Hepatitis B
Measles (this was an IgG antibody count as I’d had measles as a child)
TB (Leicester is a high risk area and evidence of this vaccination is required although its effectiveness is less than 59%)
https://vaccine-schedule.ecdc.europa.eu/
well I leave brittain to the british. I hope they end force vaccinations too.
Your "argument" is predicated on not understanding the word "choice"
there was no choice. there is now. I’m sure paul regrets that..
You seem to be struggling with the definition and meaning of words such as "forced".
you seem to be struggling with very harmful correlations like autism, horrific side effects and death.
none of which I am claiming are caused by vaccines. there are just some very strange "coincidences" and correlations...
"vaccines are NOT a choice."
That is a lie.
"we don't all have $30 million+ like paul from the pharmaceutical industry."
That is a lie.
You clearly just don't have an honest thought to offer
tell paul to talk to google about his networth. some of his powerful fat cat friends in pharma can probably get them to supress any information about him.
and the majority of parents don't have a choice they have to work and send their children to school. in order to send their children to school the phamaceutical industry has imposed their products on people and politicians force parents to have their children injected with these shoddily made products.
you might not like that reality but that's what it is.
it's going to end but these are the facts.
This is really simple.
You claimed he received $30 million+ from the pharmaceutical industry.
If that is true, you will provide the evidence.
But if you are lying, you won't.
I said his net worth. I’m certain paul has taken tons of blood money and some not put on paper. the man is a pharmaceutical industry popinjay.
"The scale of Covid highlighted that as per the 1986 Vaccine Act, vaccines are unavoidably dangerous"
Here is the law:
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title42/chapter6A/subchapter19&edition=prelim
There is nothing new with covid, just the same old anti-vacc liars preying upon people too clueless to read.
There’s something new alright, the scale of the fraud reached new heights never witnessed before. It’s partially the silver lining of covid, the fraud was so obvious it woke many more people up to what has been going on all along.
1. Why did you change the subject? I posted the Vaccine Act so everyone could see you were making things up.....
2. Yup, the amount of fraud is incredible.
Simple fact: it is literally impossible to have a middle-school education and fall for the anti-vacc lies.
"Simple fact: it is literally impossible to have a middle-school education and fall for the anti-vacc lies." . . Again . . OPINION . . .
.
.
.
whatever . . .
Nope, I posted the Act above so everyone with basic reading skills could see the anti-vacc lie.
Clearly you just don't care.......no matter how stupid the anti-vacc lies are.
" . . . stupid the anti-vacc lies are." . . . what a CROCK, you have labeled the loyal opposition as Liars & therefore having nothing of any value to offer.
Your limitation & your problem . . .
"vaccines are unavoidably dangerous"
You don't know what that phrase means, do you? Someone fooled you into reading something into that phrase that is not actually there, and you fell for it. It is a legal term and legal terms often have less than obvious meanings. In this case, it simply means that there are adverse effects that are unavoidable because of how the drug or vaccine works. For example, a vaccine works by inducing an immune response and that immune response causes unavoidable symptoms such as fever, headache, and muscle pains.
"The idea that no one is safe until everyone is safe can’t be achieved with vaccines"
Yet, no one can get smallpox anymore, right?
"vaccines must be a choice."
There is ALWAYS a choice. No one ever holds you down to forcibly vaccinate you against your will. Of course, with choice comes consequences. That is ALWAYS the case as well. No choices come without consequences.
"It’s time for pharma to include their staunchest opponents in the process of evaluating the clinical trials"
I know it may come as a complete surprise to you, but the drug companies do not approve their own vaccines. That is done independently, and the drug companies pay for the privilege so that the taxpayer does not have to. The clinical trials are independently evaluated and approved only after specific criteria are met. But you did actually know that, right?
"vaccines are wildly unpredictable and very far from an exact science - we’re experimenting on healthy people."
Compared with what? Compared with the infections? Let's compare SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with infection shall we:
- Mortality rate of VV vaccines: 1 in a million.
- Mortality rate of mRNA vaccines: FAR LESS THAN 1 in a million.
- Mortality rate of the infection: 6,800 in a million.
So the vaccines are at least 6,800 times safer than the infection and prevented 95% of the deaths form the infection.
But antivaxxers never want to talk about that - because it kills their argument stone cold dead.
There are some people who will never be convinced, no matter the strength of the evidence, nor the blatant lies exposed by folks such as Wakefield. But many could be convinced if they have a good relationship with a doctor or NP whom they trust, and if the risk/benefit ratio is presented in a jargon-free and nonjudgemental, "information only" manner, with opportunities to ask questions (link #1). While school mandates have worked in the past, it seems like they are becoming less effective now, so PCP's need to perhaps get trained in motivational interviewing. I think doctors should not only provide the risk/benefit ratio for the vaccine, but also the risk that comes with infection, although it's important to do so in a manner that is not fear-mongering, nor tinged with moral judgment. With Covid, we are still learning about that risk as we continue to learn more about the increased risks of post-viral sequela, not only from Covid, but other viruses as well, and we may learn even more about these due to renewed interest in researching them. Also, parents may be more convinced by other parents who have faced similar doubts and worries. (link #2).
https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/aphw.12540
https://backtothevax.com/
The real problem is that it takes time to determine whether there is a safety signal in the different reporting mechanisms across the world. Then there’s the time required to determine whether there is a causal link or a coincidental link. For the clotting issue with AstraZeneca its failure straightforward as anti pf4 antibodies can be measured. The myocarditis issue is not unique to the mRNA vaccines either, it has occurred following both smallpox and influenza vaccination with occasional reports of it being associated with other vaccines.
The anti PF4 antibody issue with both J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines pales into insignificance if compared with the same problem associated with the different heparins.
paul you have done more damage to vaccine confidence than anyone else. more damage than wakefield could have dreamed.
the fact is that acip needs reformation. acip should not be a pharma operation used to mandate shoddily made medical products to guarantee they have a market.
the safety ship sailed and you failed to meet in the middle. the middle is gone. accept it.
ALL mandates in any setting must end.
Fact is you just keep making things up.
nope. only the facts, pal.
All your postings are still fact-free!
nope. just the facts from me, pal.
"ALL mandates in any setting must end."
There will ALWAYS be vaccine mandates for primary school entry and for certain health care workers in certain health care facilities, and rightly so. They save the lives of school children and of the sick and vulnerable people in hospital settings. Most of us care about that.
No, families are opting out of childhood vaccines everywhere.. religious exemptions are now very common, homeschooling is on the rise and many families are moving to safer states to avoid children being vaccinated. And in the grade schools, nurses see vaccinated kids are the ones with anxiety issues, ADHD, ADD, anger issues, all types of food allergies, etc while the unvaccinated kids don’t have any of these issues.
Amazing isn't it?
We have done the experiment. In modern, developed countries with excellent sanitation/nutrition/healthcare........
When you stop vaccinating lots more kids get really sick or die.
Sadly, some folks just don't care that the anti-vacc fraud kills children.
"When you stop vaccinating lots more kids get really sick or die."
support your assertion . . .
You mean like Sweden and Japan that stopped using the DPT vaccine for a couple of years?
What?
You don't care that the anti-vacc lies kill lots of children?????
support your assertion . . .
Here is evidence looking at just one disease...pertussis.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)04334-1/abstract
"To assess the impact of anti-vaccine movements that targeted pertussis whole-cell vaccines, we compared pertussis incidence in countries where high coverage with diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccines (DTP) was maintained (Hungary, the former East Germany, Poland, and the USA) with countries where immunisation was disrupted by antivaccine movements (Sweden, Japan, UK, The Russian Federation, Ireland, Italy, the former West Germany, and Australia). Pertussis incidence was 10 to 100 times lower in countries where high vaccine coverage was maintained than in countries where immunisation programs were compromised by anti-vaccine movements. Comparisons of neighbouring countries with high and low vaccine coverage further underscore the efficacy of these vaccines. Given the safety and cost-effectiveness of whole-cell pertussis vaccines, our study shows that, far from being obsolete, these vaccines continue to have an important role in global immunisation."
"While most healthy older children and adults fully recover, infection in newborns is particularly severe. Pertussis is fatal in an estimated 0.5% of US infants under one year of age." Most people ( & children ) recover, therefore, natural immunity is best.
no. actually there will not always be those. I’m coming for them and I will succeed. come hell or high water. this I promise you.
these medical products can be suggested. not mandated.
mandates are already dead you just don’t realize it yet.
"come hell"
Yes, according to many people's faith, that is exactly where you are going!
LOOOOOL!
I won’t be talking advice on faith from a person pushing shoddily made medical products on children that maim and kill them regularly.
what a laughable comment.
"shoddily made medical products"
If that were true, you could post some evidence.
But you can't, because you are lying.
va vaccine that causes 1000’s of cases EVERY year of intussusception is shoddily made.
Your Mentor Stanley Plotkin just admitted that the Safety of all vaccines has never been Scientifically established either through a pre clinical trial or during a clinical trial.
No vaccine has ever been tested to determine if it is safe enough to proceed to the small scale clinical efficacy trials and the proof of this is in every Vaccine package insert.
Since you have never identified the biological mechanisms of adverse events in any of the FDA approved vaccines, all you have is Anecdotal evidence but as you well know temporal association does not equal causation.
Yet you are still trying to prove that vaccines don’t cause Autism based on observational studies.
Can you or any of your pro vaxxers explain how you can determine through observational studies that a biological mechanism exists or does not exist with absolute certainty?
The answer is you can’t and it is purely Propaganda.
And the chant that “The Science is settled Vaccines are SAFE and effective” is the worst kind of Propaganda and is clearly false as indicated by the God Father of Vaccines,
An independent lab should use some of the 4.6 billion and test every FDA approved vaccine with a full toxicology screen so you could finally understand the safety profiles and potential mechanisms.
There is no lack in Trust just a lack in Trustworthiness.
I think you need to read again exactly what Plotkin said, because he doesn't say what you think he did.
Where do people chant that "The science is settled" regarding vaccines? ...Stop building strawmen please.
One can never prove a negative, you are correct. Eg: Can you demonstrate please that Hydroxychloroquine does not cause cancer? We cannot prove vaccines do not cause autism; all we can do is demonstrate using multiple observational studies that the vaccinated have no higher risk of autism than the unvaccinated (and in many studies, they actually have a lower risk). Stating that fact is not "propaganda", but to look at that same data and claim that vaccines cause autism certainly is propaganda.
Science is “simply” continuously testing hypotheses/theories against observations recursively.
They make the claim that we are no longer satisfied with the traditional observations of post licensure safety. And yes this not exactly how they phrase it due to potential legality.
We have never been satisfied with the post market Safety.
If they had done the proper safety Science on all vaccines we wouldn’t have to rely on Observational studies you could point to actual Science.
Great I have no problem with phase 4 observational studies. The problem is that the very basic safety science has never been done. And until that science has been done your observational studies will be anecdotal.
Take Prevnar 7 for example. It never did a full toxicology test and therefore was never proven to safe enough to inject prior to the clinical trial. And then they used an experimental vaccine as the control instead of the standard of care making it Scientifically impossible to determine safety. So any so called safety data would be null and void in a phase 4 study.
Injectable acetaminophen has far more safety science done than any FDA approved vaccine.
That is a problem.
Taked prevnar 7--all the proper tox studies were done.
The problem is people that just don't care enough about our children to ask toxicologists and see the anti-vacc lies.
"The problem is people that just don't care enough about our children"
the people who really care about their children are being cautious with their kids health, to vaccinate or not is always a PERSONAL CHOICE.
When you are making choices based on medical fraud, then that is not an informed choice.
The example here is how the anti-vaccs lie about the tox studies.
Show me the science that was done to determine Prevnar’s carcinogenic, mutagenic or impairment to fertility potential.
Show me one vaccine critic that has the integrity to ask toxicologists why they all agree that those tests would be scientifically incorrect to do those tests?
Bet you can't give one example.
Let’s take a side effect like blood clots after J&J vaccine (incidence one in 250,000).
How would you detect that this is a risk in a standard Phase 3 trial?
…to detect a statistically significant signal, you’d need several million people in each arm of the study.
So yes, to detect rare side effects you need Phase4 OBSERVATIONAL studies, no question!
These studies are still proper “actual” science. What Offit is asking is that VICP money be used to ensure this process is more robust and proactive.
Which is exactly the purpose of MHRA yellow card system and VAERS. The difference being that MHRA monitors all medications and medical devices.
"They make the claim that we are no longer satisfied with the traditional observations of post licensure safety."
No they are not. Too bad you didn't have the integrity to read the article before posting anti-vacc lies
Why don’t you provide a link so everyone can read it for themselves preferably one that is not behind a paywall.
The article is behind a paywall.
Why don't you spend the spend the money and read the words?
I mean, other than the fact that the anti-vacc fraud requires you not to look!
"No vaccine has ever been tested to determine if it is safe enough to proceed to the small scale clinical efficacy trials"
That is a blatant lie.
All vaccines go through phase I, II, III, and IV clinical trials:
Phase I: a study in a small group of 20-100 volunteers, to evaluate safety. They answer the following questions:
- is this vaccine safe?
- does the vaccine seem to work?
- does it produce an immune response?
- are there any serious side effects?
- how is the size of the dose related to the side effects?
Phase II: a study in a larger group of several hundred volunteers, stratified by age, to determine efficacy and to further evaluate its safety. They answer the following questions:
- what are the most common short-term side effects?
- how are the volunteers’ immune system responding to the vaccine?
Phase III: a study of the safety and efficacy of the intervention in large groups of several hundred to several thousand volunteers over time. They answer the following questions:
- how do people who get the vaccine and people who do not get the vaccine compare?
- is the vaccine safe?
- is the vaccine effective?
- what are the most common side effects?
Phase IV: This is conducted after the drug is marketed and looks for rare adverse effects of the vaccine.
The process sounds ok, but when you dig into trials that are designed and run by manufacturers and overseen by regulators that are largely funded by the same manufacturers, it’s ripe for fraud. From selecting the wrong trial participants to using placebos that might be useful for testing something but certainly not safety.
benefits are commonly positioned against overstated risks, and harms from the vaccines are downplayed or dismissed. Yet real world experience tells us the population has gotten sicker in step with an ever increasing emphasis on vaccination. There are likely many factors but for vaccines to not be on the table when they intentionally stimulate immune responses when so many of the chronic health issues are based on autoimmune problems is not appropriate.
There’s enough wrong with vaccines that they should only be by choice without consequence of any restrictions for taking a pass. And as long as people advocate for them to be a requirement to attend school etc then of course people will push back.
"it’s ripe for fraud. "
Translation: "no, don't look at all the safeguards and see how the anti-vaccs lie"
Update you profile already. You do realize the “anti-vaxx” slur isn’t even an insult anymore. In fact to not be skeptical one should be embarrassed by the level of their naivety. Unless of course they totally understand what’s going on and they are part of the corruption, then it makes perfect sense.
Translation: "no, don't look at all the safeguards and see how the anti-vaccs lie"
It not that you are mistaken.
It is that you choose willful stupidity to hide from the anti-vacc lies.
Where is the science that was done to prove the childhood vaccine ingredients were safe to inject. I have never seen that science have you? And If so please provide. Paul’s argument that aluminum adjuvants are safe are based on ingested not injected. But if you have the science that would be great.
Aluminium salts have been used for almost a century as adjuvants to vaccines, see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-018-0089-x and are considered the gold standard against which other adjuvants should be compared.
I have found these papers:
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40264-015-0350-4.pdf
https://www.telegram.ee/lisad/Aluminium_EN_731_-_734.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0264410X93901909
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e4e0/2b9a8c408f420f9c8bb74bceafa1d929001f.pdf
https://pgibertie.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/tomljenovic_shawcmc2011.pdf
"I have never seen that science have you?"
Translation: you won't listen to scientists, and you won't look at the studies......which you have clearly demonstrated you don't understand.....
I am willing to listen but you cannot or will not provide the science I am looking for.
Where is the science they used to determine that a vaccine in its complete formulation was safe enough to start a clinical efficacy trial?
I keep providing basic references to get you started and you never seem to read one word....
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/biologics-guidances/vaccine-and-related-biological-product-guidances
https://www.fda.gov/files/vaccines%2C%20blood%20%26%20biologics/published/Preclinical-Considerations--for-Products-Regulated-in-OCTGT.pdf
A summary of one example:
https://www.fda.gov/media/144246/download
“Mechanistic studies have been valuable for better understanding of adjuvant action, but mechanisms of adjuvant toxicity are less well understood.”
The first paragraph of your second link clearly shows the need for a full toxicology screen.
So why aren’t they doing it and why aren’t you asking them to do the science?
Are you even trying?
You are mixing up two topics:
1. We know what a safe dose is
2. We don't fully understand the exact mechanisms as to why higher doses are not safe.
#2 does NOT change #1
All the proper tox studies have been done to demonstrate the safety of adjuvants in vaccines.
The vaccine package inserts say the opposite. I am not asking for studies I am looking for the safety science that everyone says exists but nobody has shown.
Can you show me the science for MMR that shows its carcinogenic, mutagenic potential and potential to impair male fertility?
1. "The vaccine package inserts say the opposite."
No they do not.
For those with the integrity to read the words, they will see the inserts have less than 0.001% of the information.
Sadly, the anti-vacc liars continue to prey upon folks not willing to bother looking.
2. "Can you show me the science for MMR that shows its carcinogenic, mutagenic potential and potential to impair male fertility?"
Of course not!
We have decades of toxicologists explaining--and the regulators of every country agreeing--that it would be scientifically incorrect to do that testing.
Hard to believe, but there are parents out there that just don't care enough about their children to bother asking toxicologists....
"Your Mentor Stanley Plotkin just admitted that the Safety of all vaccines has never been Scientifically established either through a pre clinical trial or during a clinical trial."
No he did NOT.
The anti-vaccs just grossly lied and so far ZERO of the vaccine critics have had the integrity to read his words and see the anti-vacc lies.
Same thing with the rest of the nonsense you posted, it just takes the integrity to read the documents to see the anti-vacc lies......
The science says otherwise.
What science?
All you have are lies predicated on folks being too stupid to read.
"“The Science is settled Vaccines are SAFE and effective” is the worst kind of Propaganda"
It is indeed SETTLED that the vaccines are "safe and effective". But it is lying antivax propaganda that what is meant by "safe and effective" is that the vaccines are "completely 100% safe and completely 100% effective". That is not the meaning, and you know it. It means safe and effective compared with the disease that it helps prevent. For example:
- Mortality rate of VV vaccines: 1 in a million.
- Mortality rate of mRNA vaccines: FAR LESS THAN 1 in a million.
- Mortality rate of the infection: 6,800 in a million.
So, during 2021, the vaccines were at least 6,800 times safer than the infection and effectively prevented 95% of the deaths from the infection. That is "safe and effective" by anyone's standard.
I have been asking the pro vax side on this substack what safe and effective actually means and I have received silence. It is curious that now you have a clear definition and speak as if everyone’s first thought when they hear safe and effective is as you suggest, safer than the disease.
It reminds me of a fairly recent modification of a definition to cover one arse.
"I have been asking the pro vax side on this substack what safe and effective actually means and I have received silence. '
That is not true, I have exactly answered those questions.
Just like I have posted lots of references on how to run trials correctly and how to use placebos correctly.......
Apparently you have refused to learn anything.
"Safe" means "generally safe".
Since nothing in life can be described as 100% safe (not even breathing, eating, drinking water, walking downstairs), the term is universally acknowledged as representing a degree of safety that is acceptable and which carries an extremely low risk of any serious outcome.
WRT Covid vaccines, serious side effects are very rare. The main ones of concern such as clotting issues and clinically defined myocarditis come in at an incidence of around 1 in 50,000 or even less. Death from the vaccines is extremely rare. Despite my keeping an eye out in the medical literature for confirmed cases, these seem to be in double figures only, world wide. There will be some under-reporting, but considering the billions of doses of vaccines given, the safety of them seems unarguable.
The term "effective" similarly needs qualification, and is dependent upon what it is attempting to describe. As regards medical products or interventions, nothing is 100% effective; the term "effective" merely implies that the medication/procedure has a high degree of established effectiveness at acheiving the desired outcome.
Take for example, condoms. They are "effective" at preventing conception. Not 100%, but around 90% (dropping to 0% if they are kept in the bedside drawer). Would you deride condoms as NOT effective?
WRT Covid vaccines, when first released they were around 60% effective at preventing transmission and 80-90% effective at preventing hospitalisation and death. That effectiveness has declined since, mainly because viral mutation has generated less pathogenic variants and because most people now have some degree of immunity, be it vaccine induced or post infection, and because there are effective treatments for Covid.
Effectiveness against transmission may now be down to 20% or so for Omicron, but 20% is not 0%, so it is still the case that the vaccines have a degree of effectiveness here that may be clinically important, especially for the vulnerable. Effectiveness against death is around 50%, and another benefit of vaccination that was noted after they were introduced is their effectiveness against long Covid (a 50% reduction in risk, and higher if boosters are given).
So no "arse covering" in this response....just the facts. I would point out though that I articularly despise folk who bang the drum of "Covid vaccines are neither safe nor effective", when all the evidence indicates otherwise, and those who use the Nirvana fallacy every chance they get ("If it isn't 100% effective, then it's useless")
Ones
"with absolute certainty"
Nothing is absolutely certain in science. Absolute certainty is an unachievable standard deliberately and deceitfully erected by arseholes with no arguments exposing their abject ignorance of science. That's all! We don't need absolute certainly, we just need to be confident about conclusions based on ALL of the available evidence, collated and evaluated by panels of experts with recognised expertise in their respective fields based on their vast depth of knowledge and experience.
"you are still trying to prove that vaccines don’t cause Autism"
That is a blatantly obvious LIE. It is well known that no vaccines cause autism. The pathological process that leads to ASD is pre-natal.
They have only looked at one vaccine and that was the MMR. To claim no vaccine causes autism is a flat out lie. I don’t think vaccines cause Autism they can however cause brain damage if you have mitochondrial dysfunction.
They have looked at other vaccines, including those containing thimerosal, DPT etc.
And the answer is still the same...no evidence of a link to autism.
"I don’t think vaccines cause Autism they can however cause brain damage if you have mitochondrial dysfunction."
I'm assuming this pertains to the Hannah Poling case and similar reports. Whilst it is true that vaccines may cause encephalopathy in certain circumstances (eg where there is underlying mitochondrial dysfunction, and where the oxidative stress that can potentially be triggered by vaccines could trigger worsening mitochondrial dysfunction in those so predisposed, resulting in an encephalopathy), one must bear in mind that such encephalopathy may be triggered in those with underlying mito dysfunction by ANY stressor of the system, including routine childhood infections and fevers. That's one reason wht experts in mito diseases stress the importance of vaccination in children with the condition. So I wouldn't necessarily say a vaccine which caused encephalopathy with some autistic features is a vaccine causing autism, I'd say it caused a condition that looks very like autism, that's all. That may seem like splitting hairs, or even "arse covering" to you, but I am a stickler for accuracy in science and medicine, so that's my opinion.
Secondly, encephalopathy is a definite pathological entity...it always causes demonstarable neuronal damage in parts of the brain. This damage can be detected through scanning techniques like MRI, and of course at autopsy when histopathological changes are demonstrable. Brain damage of any type could result in a phenotype similar to autism, but one doesn't generally say that events which cause brain damage are a cause of autism (eg a traumatic brain injury might simulate an ASD/autism behaviours).
Autism is something that doesn't cause clinically detectable brain damage; it seems to operate on a cellular/biochemical level, and it is a dvelopmental problem that is accumulative.
"They have only looked at one vaccine and that was the MMR. "
That is not true, all one has to do is to read the names of the vaccines tested to see the anti-vaccs are lying.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I was under the Impression that identification of autism spectrum disorder was determined by one’s cognitive abilities through a series of tests.
Do all potential diagnosis’s receive an MRI to determine if there are signs of brain damage?
"you have never identified the biological mechanisms of adverse events in any of the FDA approved vaccines"
That is a blatantly obvious LIE. The biological mechanism of the mRNA vaccines is well known.
What about the rest of the child hood vaccines. Did they figure out what the biological mechanisms were for the adverse events listed on every vaccine insert?
Is there any vaccine critic that can understand what adverse event means?
"Your Mentor Stanley Plotkin just admitted that the Safety of all vaccines has never been Scientifically established "
You are lying. This is the paper that Dr. Offit was actually referring to in his article. In any case, Stanley Plotkin was not the principle, or even the corresponding, author. And the paper was about how to improve an already very good system even further. I mean, even the best system in the world can be improved, right? And that is the case here. We already have a really good system of post-marketing surveillance, but who would not agree that it should continue to be improved as much as possible. Do you think Usain Bolt stopped trying when he was the best in the world in the 100 meters.
But this is not really YOUR lie. This is lawyer Aaron Siri's lie. And he knows it is a lie, and he lied deliberately. He is a lawyer who prides himself on convincing others that lies are true. And he has been doing it for years with vaccines. You were just another common garden variety gullible fool who fell into his trap. He is laughing at you.
Still gaslighting on vaccines, eh Paul? Bernadine Healy on CBS Evening News for Christ's sake opined that there is no science disproving the connection. And Lancet 1998 had 14 authors.
People don't trust vaccines because the people who peddle them (like you) lie over and over again. In addition, everyone knows someone who had a healthy child or friend go sideways after a "routine" shot. I am pleased to see the truth is finally out. The vaccine liars, like the Biden liars, are exposed.
"According to Healy, when she began researching autism and vaccines she found credible published, peer-reviewed scientific studies that support the idea of an association. That seemed to counter what many of her colleagues had been saying for years. She dug a little deeper and was surprised to find that the government has not embarked upon some of the most basic research that could help answer the question of a link.
The more she dug, she says, the more she came to believe the government and medical establishment were intentionally avoiding the question because they were afraid of the answer."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-open-question-on-vaccines-and-autism/
Suck on that, Paul. I guess you'll just have to try to get it cleansed off the internet- or tell us the former NIH director is an anti science antivaxxer? Game over, Paul. Maybe timeshares could be your next gig?
Gaslighting according to Josh: pointing out that Healy was an administrator with a background in treating people with cardiovascular disease.
And that an honest person would get their science from qualified scientists.
Lancet 1988 had 14 authors...when Wakefield's fraudulent science was exposed, 11 of them wrote a "retraction" distancing themselves from the paper, and of course as you know, the paper itself was retracted.
Flawed, fraudulent scince cannot be allowed to hold sway over scientific opinion.
aren't you late for your 10th covid shot?
the one that "prevents transmission" and death?
The one that Biden said will prevent you from killing grandma?
don't be late, they may run out. and please social distance, wear a mask, and stay out public places. for the science.
Amazing isn't it?
No matter how many times the studies are posted, the anti-vacc fraud still finds folks too clueless to read the words and see that the vaccines DO prevent transmission and death!
Done and dusted, mate.
It doesn’t help when lawyers hold large (but “private”) conferences to discuss how they should upscale litigation for vaccine “side effects” with the primary aim being a profit based one.
I agree that conflicts of interest and lack of transparency is a problem in the pharmaceutical industry. But let's not forget that conflicts of interest also occur in those who prescribe alternative therapies (and make money off those therapies), or make even more money through lawsuits against the pharmaceutical industry. Andrew Wakefield, who promoted the disproven notion that vaccines cause autism, was funded by lawyers seeking to bring litigation against vaccine manufacturers, and Wakefield's case studies were recruited AFTER he was hired by these lawyers, with the stated goal of linking vaccines to illness. Wakefield failed to ever disclose this conflict of interest, and we only know about it because of the intensive research of investigative journalist Brian Deer.
https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full
If you don’t think pharma puts profit above patient outcomes review Merck Vioxx or Perdue OxyContin, or many more.
Perdue aside, I am unaware of secret Pharma conferences taking place where the point of the discussion is to deliberately maximise profit at the expence of patient welfare.
...But thanks for giving readers here such an excellent example of the "Tu Quoque" argumental fallacy.
Didn’t say anything about secret conferences. Imagine how far your once respected profession has fallen. So much fraud coming to light. When my dad practised it was a different world, it was considered unprofessional to advertise even in the yellow pages, how you guys have changed.
Merck was exposed for fraudulently covering up clinical trial rates of heart attacks from Vioxx, there’s one example they paid billions for, but even after the fine the product made them a fortune.
"Merck was exposed for fraudulently covering up clinical trial rates of heart attacks from Vioxx, "
Then please show us exactly where that determination was made in the Court rulings.
Love it, you’re so locked into you position that pharma can do no wrong you take up defending the Merck/Vioxx scenario. Less people think people like you have a relevant view any longer - the fraud is so apparent, defending common practices of the industry signals you are conflicted. And you still haven’t updated your profile identity, which makes your positions look all the more ridiculous.
"Then please show us exactly where that determination was made in the Court rulings."
You didn't do so.
So, you were lying.
Tu Quoque again… you can’t stop it, can you!?
Yes Merck tried to hide reports of increased CV mortality, after the event, and paid the price.
Vaccine litigation lawyers are planning and organising legal claims regarding vaccine damage, purely for profit.
…That's what I was talking about.
2 items that also cause concern among the populace.
1. We heard quite a bit about Herd Immunity in the early days of COVID. Then there wasn't any.
2. Many people fixed on the measles vaccine effectiveness and anticipated a One-and-Done nature for COVID vaccination. Instead coronavirus resistance seems to decline seriously in 4 months and by 6 months many people can simply get COVID again.
NET: my expectation and many people's expectation was too high.
You are correct; in the early days of the pandemic a lot was said about herd immunity. It was assumed by many that natural infection could impart herd immunity; indeed it was the main driver behind the strategy proposed by proponents of the Great Barrington Declaration. But they were wrong; since natural immunity was fleeting in nature.
Similarly immunity from vaccination also wore off, "one shot proved to be only a temporary solution, and the virus mutated to produce variants that evaded the natural and vaccine-induced rsponse. But fortunately booster vaccination was able to keep immunity up to a significant level so as to render Covid a far less serious disease than it could be, particularly among the vulnerable. And another benefit is that vaccination halved the risk of getting long Covid.
These are the facts. Expectations were indeed high, and the hopes of many were dashed by the resilience of the virus and its persistence. But it is fortunate that science has largely kept pace, and continues to save the lives of those who most need protection.
The phrasing of the 4 reasons listed for distrust all seem quite biased to me.
1. - People won't trust a system when that system is gaslighting them, essentially asking them to believe the pharmaceutical industry rather than their lying eyes. We know the pharmaceutical industry is notorious for making fraudulent claims and putting profits over people's lives. We know that vaccines can have serious adverse effects for some people. We don't know why some people have such terrible reactions nor do we know how to predict which individuals will suffer from such reactions. Why aren't we seeing research published on this aspect of vaccination?
2 and 3 - Some people are unwilling to deliberately take a small risk (vaccination) in exchange for escaping a larger risk (disease) that may never happen to them. That is a choice that people living in a free society get to make for themselves. I don't see this as a lack of trust, but simply a natural hesitancy that must be accepted by the industry rather than trying to mandate that everyone be vaccinated.
4. - I reject the notion of mandates not because I don't like the government telling me what to do (Who does? I can accept the government telling my what speed I am allowed to drive, that I must pay taxes, etc. ) but because I don't think that in a free society the government should be mandating medical procedures for citizens.
I think the main problem with lack of trust is #1 - that the industry is not being transparent and honest with citizens about the harms of vaccination. If you want to change that, the industry will have to be more transparent with their data, allowing others to check their work and verify the conclusions.
By gaslighting, you mean pointing out basic facts to you, and watching you ignore them.
Got it!
No. Not what I meant.
There are lots of examples here where you ignore the basic facts!
Again, please stop with the distortions and the erection of straw man arguments. The advice was, and still is, that people are *recommended* to have the vaccine, and not mandated to have them. The only people who had mandates in place were certain occupations (eg medics and other professions/occupations at high risk), and the armed forces. Some learning institutions imposed their own requirements, and there were restrictions imposed on those who were not vaccinated (eg travel, but then travel itself was greatly restricted during the pandemic).
There was no universal mandate, and people were and still are able to just say "No" if they don't wish to be vaccinated. Virtually all restrictions for unvaccinated individuals have now ceased, anyway.
However you are correct to some degree in your observation that the pharma industry needs to be more transparent. It needs to be more proactive about the messaging it sends out about vaccination and not raise expectations to the levels seen early on during the introduction of vaccination. It got much wrong, but the bulk of the guilt in this respect was down to political messaging which was outside the control of Pharma. In fact no one could control what happened, and as much as there were those who promised more than the vaccines could deliver, there were plenty of people who were spreading disinformation and lies about vaccines, misrepresenting their side effects and their effectiveness, which has wrongly made many assume that the shots are dangerous and useless. Antivax activists need to shoulder the responsibility for that.
Dr. Offit said "Many reject the notion of vaccine mandates. They don’t like the government telling them what to do." That was the strawman argument. I was pointing out the falsity of that argument. People who reject the notion of mandates are not necessarily opposed to all government requirements/restrictions. Or the vaccine itself. I opposed mandates, but got vaccinated myself.
As far as a universal mandate, you are right that it wasn't actually enacted. Instead, the U.S. government demanded that all employers who did business with the government needed to impose a mandate on their employees. That idea was dropped when lawsuits started up. Mandates were pushed pretty hard along with restrictions for the unvaccinated and the idea of a 'vaccine passport'. These have fallen by the wayside at this point, when it became clear that the vaccine did not prevent infection or the spread of the disease. Those who objected to such measures were not just 'opposed to the government telling them what to do'. They had legitimate concerns about the overreach of such measures and potential for abuse in the future.
Thank you for acknowledging that the pharma industry needs to be more transparent. It is the single most important step that could be taken to increase trust in vaccinations. The politicians spreading the incorrect message that the vaccines were much better than they turned out to be were repeating what the pharmaceutical companies and the CDC - relying on the information the pharma companies provided - had told them. Neither group is blameless in that matter.
But if it’s the case that “Many reject the notion of vaccine mandates. They don’t like the government telling them what to do”, then it’s hardly a strawman, is it?
It's a strawman because people do not reject the notion simply because they don't like the government telling them what to do. It's easy to make the argument that the government has the right to tell us how to behave - that why we have laws in the first place. It's a lot harder to justify a new law/regulation telling citizens they have to be vaccinated with a new vaccine or they will lose their livelihood.
It’s not a strawman.
Offit said “many “ had rejected vaccine mandates [because] they don’t like the government telling them what to do.
That’s true, we’ve heard as much from many with a libertarian stance during the pandemic saying just this.
“Many” is an unspecified number/proportion here, anyhow… Offit makes no attempt to quantify the term here.
For the sake of argument, let’s say ALL of those who rejected mandates did so because they objected to getting a new vaccine with side effects. Then if Offit claimed that government diktat was the reason ALL those who rejected mandates did so, that might qualify as a straw man.
But he didn’t.
Strawman arguments aren't false, but the weakest of arguments that the opposing side might make. Which it is.
Btw, there’s a very high percentage of hospital employees in NYC who got fake Covid vaccinations.. on the order of 30 to 40% are NOT Covid vaccinated.
But, but, but there is ~zero% chance of the anti-vaccs telling the truth!
"But, but, but there is ~zero% chance of the anti-vaccs telling the truth!"
again . . thank you ever so much for your opinion . . .
The comments here make that clear.
Nope, that was the percentage still unvaccinated 9 months into the vaccination roll out. They didn't get "fake vaccinations". They either rejected vaccinations or just hadn't gotten them yet.
Wrong
At memorial MSK hospital staff got fake vaccinations. Let me spell it out since you don’t understand and I do know what happened
For 500$ to 2500$, hospital staff paid to get 1 or 2 shots done by a network of people including entry to the official Ny state database. It actually happened all over Ny. It was a false entry to the database to satisfy the hospital vaccination mandate.
You really don’t know what you’re talking about..and I know MANY people who did this, close friends. Once nurses began seeing patients getting very sick from the mRNA shots, cancers in remission would return immediately after vaccination or patients would get Covid immediately after vaccination (because the mRNA shot suppresses the immune system- making it easy to catch any disease), then hospital staff became anti-mRNA shot.
In fact, when a patient got sick with Covid he was treated with expensive remdesivir while any Covid sick hospital staff were treated with ivermectin & hydroxychloroquine.. the fraud in the hospital was everywhere. Even the recording of Covid sick patients, vaccinated vs not vaccinated, was fraudulent to make the vaccine data look better.
The facts are clear: you offered zero evidence!
It appears you have spent time in the cesspool of anti-vaccs where any crap, no matter how stupid, is believed.
In the real world, people love their children and if you shovel feces, you get called out.
The solution is clear.
Ah, I see…it’s true just because you say it is.
….No evidence then.
so much has to be built on TRUST
.
However the system lost my trust when they announced that an airliner had penetrated a skyscraper wall "like a hot knife through butter" . . . BUMMER!
If you insist on lying you should at least try and be a bit clever.
Your evidence for those claims being what, exactly?
Please answer, or instead change your nym to “Mr No Data”
The mask study that Mike S linked to is very straightforward. Masks work and they don't harm the wearer. The study was not by "big pharma." It was written by experts with diverse expertise in England, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The ten authors represented a medical school, a children's hospital, mechanical and manufacturing engineering, biomedical engineering, and public health. They reviewed over 100 published reviews and studies and concluded, quote,
"First, there is strong and consistent evidence for airborne transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other respiratory pathogens. Second, masks are, if correctly and consistently worn, effective in reducing transmission of respiratory diseases and show a dose-response effect. Third, respirators are significantly more effective than medical or cloth masks. Fourth, mask mandates are, overall, effective in reducing community transmission of respiratory pathogens. Fifth, masks are important sociocultural symbols; non-adherence to masking is sometimes linked to political and ideological beliefs and to widely circulated mis- or disinformation. Sixth, while there is much evidence that masks are not generally harmful to the general population, masking may be relatively contraindicated in individuals with certain medical conditions, who may require exemption."
--Even cloth masks have benefit, especially for protecting other people, given that almost half of Covid infections are asymptomatic.
--On my last airplane trip, I wore an N-95 mask for 14 hours straight, including flight legs and airports. No big deal and I'm over 70. I still mask in crowded stores, have had 8 shots, and still haven't caught Covid. Hmm, that stuff apparently works.
--However, if you'd rather believe conspiracy theories than the consensus of the world's experts, PLEASE, be my guest, go ahead and avoid masks during the next pandemic. Also, given that you don't think masks work, PLEASE, the next time you have surgery, ask your surgeon to not wear a mask. "Darwin" could use a little help in cleaning out the gene pool. The present population of H. sapiens is far too gullible.
If their "study" was legitimate, it would have been published in an actual journal, like reputable scientists do. The fact that there are some problems with peer review doesn't mean that the whole of published scientific knowledge is bunk. The vast majority is legitimate and useful to rational people who look at the whole body of the literature. As I often say, "Just because science isn't perfect, that doesn't mean you get to make shit up."
That "study" IS indirectly selling something. There is something to be gained by conspiracy theorists. A major goal is often sowing mistrust in the government and authorities by people who hate their government. If conspiracies were merely laughed off, it wouldn't be a problem, but conspiracy theories have damaged public health. AIDS denial in South Africa led to an estimated unnecessary 330,000 deaths from AIDS. Conspiracy theories about GMOs led the government of Zambia to turn down food aid during a famine, theories about Western malfeasance prevented polio eradication, AND Covid/vaccine denial led to a few hundred thousand extra deaths in the USA (published estimates put it at about 100 times as many deaths as 9-11. Compared to our own home-grown wackos, the Islamic terrorists were amateurs. This crap is dangerous and should be called out for what it is. Crap.
If however, you trust chiropractors for advice on epidemiology and virology, go ahead. Just don't expect rational people to take you (or them) seriously.
As for "big pharma," they have to actually prove that their products are safe and effective. Because of the DSHEA act in the USA, supplement makers don't have to prove anything. As for the size of the supplement industry, according to Statista-dot-com, "Overall, the global vitamins and minerals market is worth 19.5 billion U.S. dollars. Food that supposedly has an additional function is known as functional food. Functional food and drink has a much larger global market size at close to 530 billion U.S. dollars." Not exactly pocket change.
Blah blah, you didn’t bother to read the link. Both peer reviewed and published. In Vaccine.
Every other detail you cite is coming from big-pharma sources. You won’t admit the corporate capture of the science industry so you call any criticism of it “conspiracy” or crap.
"Blah blah, you didn’t bother to read the link. Both peer reviewed and published. In Vaccine."
1. In was in the New England Journal of Medicine--NOT the journal Vaccine.
2. All it takes is basic reading skills--and the integrity to read the words--and so far ZERO of the vaccine critics have the integrity to read the words and see that the anti-vaccs are clearly lying about the article.
The facts are clear:
A. the anti-vaccs stupidly lie about ~everything.
B. there is not a speck of integrity in even one of the vaccine critics that post here.!
"The facts are clear:
A. the anti-vaccs stupidly lie about ~everything.
B. there is not a speck of integrity in even one of the vaccine critics that post here.!"
Thank you ever so much for your opinion . . .
I note that like all other vaccine critics, you too refused to read the words and see the anti-vacc lies.
It literally takes willful stupidity to fall for their scam.
doesn't help at all to have people labeled and then told that everyone who has been so labeled is "willfully stupid" . . .
It has been weeks now........and all the anti-vaccs including you.........have refused to use their basic reading skills and read the article.
Yup--that is exactly willful stupidity.
"A major goal is often sowing mistrust in the government and authorities by people who hate their government. If conspiracies were merely laughed off, . . . " This miss-characterizes people who have most certainly good reason to not trust corporations & politicians.
and as to causing harm, I cite the masks fiasco, the wearing of a little strip of cloth over your face to prevent the spread of some "Deadly plague" is so completely bogus, the evidence is clear, the masks are a detriment to health in that they restrict air intake by the wearer.
however many municipalities still cling to the notion that mandating masks is a good thing.
"and as to causing harm, I cite the masks fiasco, the wearing of a little strip of cloth over your face to prevent the spread of some "Deadly plague" is so completely bogus, the evidence is clear"
Yes, the evidence is very clear.
Guess that is why you didn't post any of it!
look up what Steven Petty P.E. has to say about masks . . .
So you won't look at the evidence.
But you will listen to an engineer that makes really basic virology mistakes.
please elaborate, exactly what "virology mistakes"
be specific . . . can you do that?
His arguments are based on the size of the virus.
An absurd mistake, if only you cared to look at the evidence.
Guess that is why you didn't post any!
Perhaps read what the scientific view is on the effect of masking, rather than just what you read on Zerohedge or the Epochtimes?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38775460/
"mask mandates are, overall, effective in reducing community transmission of respiratory pathogens. Fifth, masks are important sociocultural symbols; non-adherence to masking is sometimes linked to political and ideological beliefs and to widely circulated mis- or disinformation. " Your link promotes dis-info & fake news
My link goes to a science-based review of evidence on masking.
….It isn’t fake news or disinformation, but factual.
speaking of what the SCIENCE supports, be advised that the SCIENCE fully supports the statement that no airliner ever flown could have crashed in the manner alleged by the media & politicians ( 9/11/2001 ) and that is a fact!
would you like to know the complete explanation?
I’m happy to go with scientific evidence, wherever it takes me.
Hence my support for masking as being effective.
I’m glad to know you are of a like mind!