Enraged. incandescent

Jaster

I came for the porn
America's Frontline Doctors (AFLDS), a group that has spread disinformation about vaccines and the COVID-19 pandemic, is suing the Pentagon to stop its vaccine mandate.

Lt. Col. Theresa M. Long, who serves as the brigade surgeon for the Army's 1st Aviation Brigade, falsely wrote in an affidavit last week that the Pfizer vaccine is made of antifreeze.
All we have at present is two Pfizer trials, one in which 5- to 11-year-olds were followed for two months and another with just six weeks of follow-up. Both were too small to detect potential risks such as myocarditis. That won't be studied until AFTER the shot is authorized for children. As reported by The Defender:18

"Experts raised concerns over the lack of safety and efficacy data presented by Pfizer for use of its COVID vaccine in younger children, and they pointed to increasing safety signals based on reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). They also questioned the need to vaccinate children — whose risk of dying from COVID is "almost nil" — at all.

According to Dr. Meryl Nass, member of the Children's Health Defense Scientific Advisory Panel, Pfizer once again did not use all of the children who participated in the trial in their safety study.

'Three thousand children received Pfizer's COVID vaccine, but only 750 children were selectively included in the company's safety analysis,' Nass said.

'Studies in the 5-11 age group are essentially the same as the 12-15 group — in other words, equally brief and unsatisfying, with inadequate safety data and efficacy data, with no strong support for why this type of immuno-bridging analysis is sufficient … All serious adverse events were considered unrelated to the vaccine' …

Dr. Jessica Rose, viral immunologist and biologist, told the panel EUA of biological agents requires the existence of an emergency and the nonexistence of alternate treatment. 'There is no emergency and COVID-19 is exceedingly treatable,' Rose said.

In a peer-reviewed study19 co-authored by Rose, myocarditis rates were significantly higher in people 13 to 23 years old within eight weeks of the COVID vaccine rollout. In 12- to15-year-olds, Rose said, reported cases of myocarditis were 19 times higher than background rates …

Rose said tens of thousands of reports have been submitted to VAERS for children ages 0 to 18. Rose explained: 'In this age group, 60 children have died — 23 of them were less than 2 years old. It is disturbing to note that 'product administered to patient of inappropriate age' was filed 5,510 times in this age group. Two children were inappropriately injected, presumably by a trained medical professional, and subsequently died.'"
 

Jaster

I came for the porn
Ha! I’m pointing out your errors (and I’m not going to re-read her affidavit but presumably you were referring to what she said). You said polyethylene glycol is NOT non toxic to humans. It’s used in laxatives and other medical products. Granted if you want to chug a gallon of Miralax and test it’s toxicity that way by all means, go ahead. But that would just make it toxic to stupid. Too much water is toxic to stupid.
If you have to be persuaded, bullied, pressured, incentivized, lied to, guilt-tripped, coerced, socially-shamed, censored, threatened, paid, punished, and criminalized, if all of this is necessary to gain your compliance, you can be absolutely certain what is being promoted is NOT in your best interest.
433
 

jack

The Legendary Troll Kingdom
None of which I was subjected to and I just had my 3rd shot.

I'm immunocompromised and if you know anything about double pneumonia (the most common form the virus induces in humans), then you'd understand why many have no hesitancy to be in the control group of the field trials. I get that I'm being experimented on. Since it's my free will I willingly "subject" myself to the experiment. If I get cancer from it in 40 years I'll be dead at least 10 or 15 years before that, and since life is a sport I like the gambles I've been taking. they got me this far and lately it's been one wild fucking ride.

I've had more vaccines than God in this lifetime. You have to be shitting me? I wrote my Capstone thesis for my bachelors in '19 about the evils of Big Pharma. It isn't frogs and princes. I found it fascinating that a corrupt organization was suddenly forced into being "good"

Anyway, I digress.
 

The Question

Eternal
The following list outlines which FDA vaccine advisory committee board members are compromised and how:

• Acting Chair Arnold S. Monto was a paid consultant at Pfizer as recently as 2018.
• Steve Pergam received the Pfizer “vaccine” and was featured getting and promoting it by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
• Committee member Archana Chatterjee worked on a research project involving vaccines for infants that took place from 2018-2020 and was sponsored by Pfizer.
• Myron Levine has mentored numerous U.S. post-doctoral fellows, and one of his proteges is Raphael Simon, Pfizer’s senior director of vaccine research and development.
• James Hildreth, a temporary voting member, made a financial interest disclosure stating that he accepted $1.5 million while serving as president at Meharry Medical College, which administers Pfizer’s covid injections.
• Geeta K. Swamy chairs the “Independent Data Monitoring Committee for the Pfizer Group B Streptococcus Vaccine Program,” which is sponsored by Pfizer. Swamy was also listed by Duke University as “a co-investigator for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trial.”
• Gregg Sylvester used to work as vice president at Pfizer Vaccines where he launched numerous vaccines for the company, including one for children.

Several other “temporary voting members,” including Ofer Levy of Boston Children’s Hospital, Eric Rubin, Jay Portnoy and Melinda Wharton, are all outspoken in their support for injecting children with Pfizer’s covid jabs.

The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee has never really been trustworthy or legitimate. It has pretty much always functioned as a rubber stamp for Big Pharma, approving and pushing all of the latest drugs, both pill and injections, on Americans.

“FDA advisory committee members in the past have frequently been the target of heavy politicking by industry representatives of whatever drug they were considering for a recommendation at in-person meetings,” reported FDANews back in December.

“That process has been somewhat altered by the fact that during COVID-19, meetings are being held virtually. But it’s likely that behind-the-scenes pressuring still goes on. The industry defends the attempts to influence committee members as simply efforts to best present their case.”

It is now an undeniable fact that the FDA cannot be trusted. Since it is run by the pharmaceutical industry, this fake federal agency is always going to push whatever brings in the profits, which in this case include Pfizer’s “Operation Warp Speed” injections.

More related news about the corrupt FDA can be found
I'm pretty sure those people weren't ground up, rendered into soluble chemicals, then packaged up as doses of vaccine. 'Cause that's what... yeah. That's what I meant by, 'constituent compounds.'

Whether you believe it's more harm than good, I think we can all agree that one thing it ain't is Soylent Green.
 

The Question

Eternal
If you have to be persuaded, bullied, pressured, incentivized, lied to, guilt-tripped, coerced, socially-shamed, censored, threatened, paid, punished, and criminalized, if all of this is necessary to gain your compliance, you can be absolutely certain what is being promoted is NOT in your best interest.
433
Now that, I agree with. It's shady enough when a business uses tactics like that -- it's outright illegal for government to help them do it. We've had an outlaw government for some time now, but it's never been quite this blatantly so until relatively recently.
 

The Question

Eternal
As an aside: has it escaped anybody's attention that the "right wing" guy is the one arguing against corporate profit motive and in favor of concepts of individual human rights and body autonomy here?
 

USUC

Trollzilla
All we have at present is two Pfizer trials, one in which 5- to 11-year-olds were followed for two months and another with just six weeks of follow-up. Both were too small to detect potential risks such as myocarditis. That won't be studied until AFTER the shot is authorized for children. As reported by The Defender:18

"Experts raised concerns over the lack of safety and efficacy data presented by Pfizer for use of its COVID vaccine in younger children, and they pointed to increasing safety signals based on reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). They also questioned the need to vaccinate children — whose risk of dying from COVID is "almost nil" — at all.

According to Dr. Meryl Nass, member of the Children's Health Defense Scientific Advisory Panel, Pfizer once again did not use all of the children who participated in the trial in their safety study.

'Three thousand children received Pfizer's COVID vaccine, but only 750 children were selectively included in the company's safety analysis,' Nass said.

'Studies in the 5-11 age group are essentially the same as the 12-15 group — in other words, equally brief and unsatisfying, with inadequate safety data and efficacy data, with no strong support for why this type of immuno-bridging analysis is sufficient … All serious adverse events were considered unrelated to the vaccine' …

Dr. Jessica Rose, viral immunologist and biologist, told the panel EUA of biological agents requires the existence of an emergency and the nonexistence of alternate treatment. 'There is no emergency and COVID-19 is exceedingly treatable,' Rose said.

In a peer-reviewed study19 co-authored by Rose, myocarditis rates were significantly higher in people 13 to 23 years old within eight weeks of the COVID vaccine rollout. In 12- to15-year-olds, Rose said, reported cases of myocarditis were 19 times higher than background rates …

Rose said tens of thousands of reports have been submitted to VAERS for children ages 0 to 18. Rose explained: 'In this age group, 60 children have died — 23 of them were less than 2 years old. It is disturbing to note that 'product administered to patient of inappropriate age' was filed 5,510 times in this age group. Two children were inappropriately injected, presumably by a trained medical professional, and subsequently died.'"
Look!! A squirrel!
Thus far this post has been about vaccines for adults. If you want to take it in another direction that’s fine but don’t think your spastic thinking and red herring attempts go unnoticed.
I’m sure if you keep looking you’ll find something to be right about.
 

USUC

Trollzilla
If you have to be persuaded, bullied, pressured, incentivized, lied to, guilt-tripped, coerced, socially-shamed, censored, threatened, paid, punished, and criminalized, if all of this is necessary to gain your compliance, you can be absolutely certain what is being promoted is NOT in your best interest.
433
So wearing a seatbelt, not driving drunk, trying to prevent the insane from owning guns and not smoking in restaurants are not in YOUR best interests? Too bad. They’re in my best interests.
 

The Question

Eternal
So wearing a seatbelt, not driving drunk, trying to prevent the insane from owning guns and not smoking in restaurants are not in YOUR best interests? Too bad. They’re in my best interests.
How about banning abortion, castrating gays to prevent the transmission of HIV, and summarily executing drug addicts to prevent drug-fueled crime? Those are in the best interests of others, too -- you cool with any of them?
 

USUC

Trollzilla
How about banning abortion, castrating gays to prevent the transmission of HIV, and summarily executing drug addicts to prevent drug-fueled crime? Those are in the best interests of others, too -- you cool with any of them?
That’s not just a slippery slope; it’s a fucking avalanche. Shut up until you have something intelligent to say.
 

USUC

Trollzilla
Okay.

Of course...


Medical science disagrees with you. Trust the science, right? Or is that only "the science that agrees with corporate profits"?
Face/palm. As I said, water can be toxic too. Congratulations on finding some obscure science on polyethylene glycol that completely ignores its regular use in medicines like ibuprofen.
 

The Question

Eternal
That’s not just a slippery slope; it’s a fucking avalanche. Shut up until you have something intelligent to say.
It's nothing of the kind. It's a 'consistency of principle' question. You support mandatory seatbelts, DUI laws, gun control, and smoking bans presumably because you think that the state has a legitimate claim to power over individual decisions in the interest of community safety.

Right?

So do you hold to that principle when it comes to the state's claim to power over womens' reproductive choices in the interest of the life of the unborn? In preventing the spread of HIV in the LGBTWTF community? In preventing property crimes and violent crimes by drug users?

It's the same principle at work in both sets of examples. So do you apply it consistently, or selectively? Basic question. Have you got a basic answer to it, or only more artless dodging?
 

The Question

Eternal
Face/palm. As I said, water can be toxic too. Congratulations on finding some obscure science on polyethylene glycol that completely ignores its regular use in medicines like ibuprofen.
Lt. Col. Long wasn't talking about topical or ingested application. She's talking about it in the context of injection, which the science bears out as potentially toxic. As she alleges.

I'd like you to clarify: Are you expressing "trust in science"? Or faith in Pfizer? And, another question you've dodged -- would you put that same faith in a petrochemical corporation? A gun manufacturer? Why does the Pharma industry get this love from you?
 

USUC

Trollzilla
It's nothing of the kind. It's a 'consistency of principle' question. You support mandatory seatbelts, DUI laws, gun control, and smoking bans presumably because you think that the state has a legitimate claim to power over individual decisions in the interest of community safety.

Right?

So do you hold to that principle when it comes to the state's claim to power over womens' reproductive choices in the interest of the life of the unborn? In preventing the spread of HIV in the LGBTWTF community? In preventing property crimes and violent crimes by drug users?

It's the same principle at work in both sets of examples. So do you apply it consistently, or selectively? Basic question. Have you got a basic answer to it, or only more artless dodging?
Selectively of course. As any thinking person/society should. I’ve never seen an aborted fetus run a red light and kill an innocent bystander. And while I think it’s criminal for someone to knowingly or negligently infect someone with HIV, I’m not at all concerned that me or mine might catch it from someone while we’re standing in line at Safeway.
Your arguments are lame. You seem to be looking for some absolute, righteous THIS IS RIGHT AND THAT IS WRONG opinion but only idiots are that narrow minded/obtuse. Are you that simple minded? Shame if so.
 

The Question

Eternal
Selectively of course.
How convenient. That lets you insist on your own rights being respected while encouraging the rights of others to be trampled, with nary a twinge of conscience about it. "Rules for thee, but none for me." "Principles" that flimsy aren't worth much.
As any thinking person/society should. I’ve never seen an aborted fetus run a red light and kill an innocent bystander.
A life lost is a life lost.
Your arguments are lame. You seem to be looking for some absolute, righteous THIS IS RIGHT AND THAT IS WRONG opinion but only idiots are that narrow minded/obtuse.

So you're falling back on moral relativism. Good. I'm cool with that. Relatively, then, it's perfectly moral for people to refuse to obey government dictates that hand more money to corporations and more power to government, no matter how many lives those dictates might save.

Relativism it is. But, you sure? You sure you wouldn't like to take a firm stand on an ethical principle -- even one that might not go your way sometimes? Or is each of us an ethical island, as you're now suggesting? Or, let me be flexible here, are you only suggesting that except when you're not?

You're being argumentative, so it should follow that you're actually sticking by some position or other -- unless and until you're not.

Right?

Would you like to, I dunno, actually take a position and defend it? Or are you just having fun dancing around in a haze of unfalsifiability so that you can self-declare victory no matter what?
 

The Question

Eternal

Soooo... the vaccinated can still contract COVID. Can still transmit COVID. Can still sicken and die from COVID.

Which means that the vax doesn't do what it says on the tin. But they're pushing it like religious cultists.

So what does it do, that they're so keen to have us cooperate with having it inflicted on us?
 

jack

The Legendary Troll Kingdom
You don't shed the virus if you're vaccinated. Only the sick or unvaxxed do that, which is where the breakthroughs come from. That's the science. Its all about viral load.
 

The Question

Eternal

The Question

Eternal
Anybody notice the difference in the way I respond to Jack? Jack debates in good faith, and I respect that enough to respond in kind to him.

Assertion versus assertion, supported with data.

Because Jack doesn't just dance around from position to position, refusing to address counterpoints. He takes a position and argues it like an adult.
 

The Question

Eternal
eee9d1c107f78c70.png
 
Top