Mandated vaccines or weekly testing for employers of 100+ people.......

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[chipbennett]

That's a bit of a strawman. What I recollect from past arguments on the topic was that you claimed the data was good, safety had been proven in the clinical trials, and we've had plenty of time (less than a year) to determine any adverse effects of the vax. I and others on the board warned months was not enough time to fully construct the safety profile (full FDA approval for vaccines is on the order of 10+ years not 10+ months) and we shouldn't trust anyone's data who'd already been caught lying and obfuscating on the topic. That is what I remember without trawling through thousands of year old posts. What did I get wrong?

This is the main thing that has changed, isn't it? What were presented as the data then are not what are being presented as the data today.

I don't recall saying that we've had plenty of time to determine any adverse effects of the vaccine. That's never true, with any newly marketed drug product. That's why pharmacovigilance is required for every drug product, and why initial market release is colloquially referred to as "Phase 4" clinical.

I did state that VAERS data, alone, didn't prove causation, which remains true. Someone has to vet those data, and CDC has admitted that they failed to do that vetting.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I did state that VAERS data, alone, didn't prove causation, which remains true. Someone has to vet those data, and CDC has admitted that they failed to do that vetting.

I read that as a part of giving the drug companies vaccination immunity, that’s why the VAERS system was created. When part of the bargain is not upheld, hopefully that will be a thread that be pulled to create the rope to hang some folks.

 

[chipbennett]

I read that as a part of giving the drug companies vaccination immunity, that’s why the VAERS system was created. When part of the bargain is not upheld, hopefully that will be a thread that be pulled to create the rope to hang some folks.

VAERS has been around long before Covid vaccines and Covid vaccine manufacturer immunity.

And I agree with you, that there should be people who (figuratively) hang for how everything vaccine-related has transpired.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

VAERS has been around long before Covid vaccines and Covid vaccine manufacturer immunity.

Understood. My understanding is it was created in 1986(?) when they established their legal immunity.

 

[chipbennett]

Understood. My understanding is it was created in 1986(?) when they established their legal immunity.

That sounds about right.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[buckwacker]

This is the main thing that has changed, isn't it? What were presented as the data then are not what are being presented as the data today.

I don't recall saying that we've had plenty of time to determine any adverse effects of the vaccine. That's never true, with any newly marketed drug product. That's why pharmacovigilance is required for every drug product, and why initial market release is colloquially referred to as "Phase 4" clinical.

I did state that VAERS data, alone, didn't prove causation, which remains true. Someone has to vet those data, and CDC has admitted that they failed to do that vetting.

Ok I found some motivation to do a quick thread search. The post below was my attempt at making the point that it wasn't possible to demonstrate safety in the timefeame that the development and rollout happened. We went back and forth a few times over the next several days with you claiming the data proved it was safe, and me claiming there wasn't enough time to establish the safety profile.

Mandated vaccines or weekly testing for employers of 100+ people.......

mRNA vaccines have been around for two decades. For use against this type of illness?

www.indianagunowners.com

So I'll reiterate, I told you so.

 

[chipbennett]

Ok I found some motivation to do a quick thread search. The post below was my attempt at making the point that it wasn't possible to demonstrate safety in the timefeame that the development and rollout happened. We went back and forth a few times over the next several days with you claiming the data proved it was safe, and me claiming there wasn't enough time to establish the safety profile.

Mandated vaccines or weekly testing for employers of 100+ people.......

mRNA vaccines have been around for two decades. For use against this type of illness?

www.indianagunowners.com

So I'll reiterate, I told you so.

And I'll repeat: the data we have today are different from the data we had then. If that's a gotcha, then so be it?

 

[MCgrease08]

Bombshell: Denmark will not offer COVID-19 vaccine to people under 50

hotair.com

Denmark has decided that they will no longer offer jabs to anyone under the age of 50.

 

[Shadow01]

None....the manufacturers were given full immunity.

I was leaning More towards criminal charges for the vaxxed

 

[bobzilla]

Bombshell: Denmark will not offer COVID-19 vaccine to people under 50

hotair.com

Denmark has decided that they will no longer offer jabs to anyone under the age of 50.

Not according to the Danish website: https://en.coronasmitte.dk/general-information/vaccination

 

[buckwacker]

And I'll repeat: the data we have today are different from the data we had then. If that's a gotcha, then so be it?

You're missing the point, and I can't tell whether or not it's intentional. I and others told you a year ago you couldn't trust data generated and provided by a set of organizations the had proven themselves untrustworthy, particularly as covid unfolded. We told you there was no way to even generate a safety profile in such a short time given the risk of latent side effects. You're a sharp guy and you should have known better. Some random guys with a little common sense on a gun forum were proven correct.

You made a mistake, don't defend it, learn from it. What I can't understand is why so many people, otherwise intelligent people, were so easily fooled, when they should have known better. A lot of people, like yourself, giving deference to "the science" despite all the bright red flashing warning signs telling you not to, has put us in a situation where we've potentially injected the majority of our population with a "cure" that just may be much worse than the disease.

No one likes to be wrong, much less have it pointed out. I'm an engineer, which my wife says makes me worse than most. But I'll point this out to anyone who trusted "the science" because of the damage that that unfounded trust wrought on both people's health and the institutions we must be able to trust for society to function properly.

 

[manifest destiny]

VAERS has been around long before Covid vaccines

It has. In my younger days I worked in a clinical trials lab and after that as a pharm-tech. I never heard of VAERS until the vidsanity hit. It is kinda like a wiki-database in that anyone can enter data, patients, docs, labs, etc. So clearly there is opportunity to utilize it for agenda driven purposes. But dang, it blew up during vidsanity.

 

[chipbennett]

You're missing the point, and I can't tell whether or not it's intentional. I and others told you a year ago you couldn't trust data generated and provided by a set of organizations the had proven themselves untrustworthy, particularly as covid unfolded. We told you there was no way to even generate a safety profile in such a short time given the risk of latent side effects. You're a sharp guy and you should have known better. Some random guys with a little common sense on a gun forum were proven correct.

Those same organizations have brought to market thousands of drug products in the time I've worked in the industry. By and large, the data used to approve those drugs have been reliable. Covid has been an exception, in many ways. I have stated elsewhere that how Covid-related drug products were handled greatly erodes trust, and that I find it hard to believe that there wasn't fraud, crony capitalism, and collusion involved. Unfortunately, I doubt it will ever truly come to light, because of politics. I'm not sure what more you want me to say.

What happened with Covid vaccines absolutely calls into question what happens when politics and public policy get intertwined in the development and approval of drug products (see also: Aduhelm). It doesn't, however, call into question the entire pharmaceutical industry.

You made a mistake, don't defend it, learn from it. What I can't understand is why so many people, otherwise intelligent people, were so easily fooled, when they should have known better. A lot of people, like yourself, giving deference to "the science" despite all the bright red flashing warning signs telling you not to,

I didn't give deference to "The Science" (quite the opposite, in fact). I gave deference to the available data. Those data were wrong, which made my conclusions/assertions based on those data wrong. I have stated this. What more are you looking for?

...has put us in a situation where we've potentially injected the majority of our population with a "cure" that just may be much worse than the disease.

People like me? I've done no such thing. I have been very vocal against forcing anyone to take the vaccine.

No one likes to be wrong, much less have it pointed out. I'm an engineer, which my wife says makes me worse than most. But I'll point this out to anyone who trusted "the science" because of the damage that that unfounded trust wrought on both people's health and the institutions we must be able to trust for society to function properly.

Yeah, I don't like being wrong about the safety of the vaccine. Not because it means I have to admit I was wrong, but because people's lives are adversely impacted. I have no problem having it pointed out if/when I'm wrong, and in fact respect and appreciate it - especially in the workplace. People's lives are literally impacted, which leaves little room for ego or pride.

But you can miss me with lumping me in with the "trust The Science" crowd, because that was never me. I made an assessment based on data made available, and revised that assessment when other data were made available.

(Side note: as for the safety of mRNA vaccines: I largely argued on the basis of decades of clinical data on mRNA vaccines in general, regarding the general safety of mRNA as a delivery method. There may be something inherently unsafe in using mRNA to deliver a SARS-CoV2 spike protein, or widespread use of mRNA may call into question something about mRNA itself. I hope we find out which it is, because mRNA was a promising technology.)

 

[MCgrease08]

Not according to the Danish website: https://en.coronasmitte.dk/general-information/vaccination

 

[bobzilla]

View attachment 224398

Correct. They recommend them. Not banning them.

 

[JettaKnight]

Not according to the Danish website: https://en.coronasmitte.dk/general-information/vaccination

You expect good reporting from an article that starts with the line, "The Danish government is filled with ghoulish inhumane death worshippers"?

 

[jamil]

Not according to the Danish website: https://en.coronasmitte.dk/general-information/vaccination

I am apparently a bot. I can’t get past the capcha.

 

[bobzilla]

I am apparently a bot. I can’t get past the capcha.

Screenshot of important part above