O/T Covid Vaccine mRNA

[KerrAvon]

I bloody won't! The Flu jab this year had the Covid jab mixed in.

The same in Australia thus the uptake was so low.

The amount of people trusting the mNRA part of the drug is being refussed by more and more people around the world.

Like me they're not anti Vaxxers they're anti mNRA!

Your body, your choice, frog.

Sadly, people will die because of vaccine hesitancy, as they always have done.

[frogmiller]

Your body, your choice, frog.

Sadly, people will die because of vaccine hesitancy, as they always have done.

It was my body and my choice before and if I was in the UK when I had it I would have been dead!

Thankfully the French health system kept going whilst yours closed down!

The choice wasn’t with the full details with an experimental drug.
Vaccines normally take 10 to 15 years to develop.

You know the rest!

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

It was my body and my choice before and if I was in the UK when I had it I would have been dead!

Thankfully the French health system kept going whilst yours closed down!

The choice wasn’t with the full details with an experimental drug.
Vaccines normally take 10 to 15 years to develop.

You know the rest!

mRNA research for vaccines has being going on since the 1960s

[KerrAvon]

You're right - I'm not a lawyer. However, RFK Jr. is a lawyer, and it's his website.

I suspect he's far better qualified than you to speak on this matter.

I've spotted the problem, EO.

The case that the article concerns was an appeal against a decision to strike out a court case in which it was alleged that the LA vaccines mandate was unlawful. The strike out was based on a previous decision in which it was held that mandates were lawful where the vaccine in question was a compulsory treatment for the health benefit of others.

The appellants argued that the earlier decision was based on a different factual position as the CDC had subsequently changed their definition of 'vaccine'.

The court didn't make a ruling on whether the COVID vaccines prevent transmission. They didn't need to. They simply accepted that the change in the definition of the word vaccine might take the current case out of the ambit of the earlier decision. The claim in your link was a mere sales puff or a load of bollox, if you prefer.

The decision strikes me as quite a poor one. The definition of 'vaccine' is a matter of fact, not something that is determined by what the CDC says.

It's actually quite an interesting case and one that I will watch as it progresses.

From this I have deduced that in your search for your truth, you either can't or don't distinguish between froth and fact. That's a very dangerous place to be if you are a regular visitor to rabid antivaxx sites that are heavy on froth and low on fact.

[frogmiller]

There is a video of the money that is paid to the medical profession in the UK. The guy calls it curruption yet it may be sponsorship


https://x.com/ABridgen/status/1799710085595468050

[Eternal Optimist]

I've spotted the problem, EO.

The case that the article concerns was an appeal against a decision to strike out a court case in which it was alleged that the LA vaccines mandate was unlawful. The strike out was based on a previous decision in which it was held that mandates were lawful where the vaccine in question was a compulsory treatment for the health benefit of others.

The appellants argued that the earlier decision was based on a different factual position as the CDC had subsequently changed their definition of 'vaccine'.

The court didn't make a ruling on whether the COVID vaccines prevent transmission. They didn't need to. They simply accepted that the change in the definition of the word vaccine might take the current case out of the ambit of the earlier decision. The claim in your link was a mere sales puff or a load of bollox, if you prefer.

The decision strikes me as quite a poor one. The definition of 'vaccine' is a matter of fact, not something that is determined by what the CDC says.

It's actually quite an interesting case and one that I will watch as it progresses.

From this I have deduced that in your search for your truth, you either can't or don't distinguish between froth and fact. That's a very dangerous place to be if you are a regular visitor to rabid antivaxx sites that are heavy on froth and low on fact.

With the sheer depth of your knowledge, I'm amazed you're not employed directing the lawyer RFK Jr. I suggest you email him - he may be glad to hear of your version of this.

[KerrAvon]

With the sheer depth of your knowledge, I'm amazed you're not employed directing the lawyer RFK Jr. I suggest you email him - he may be glad to hear of your version of this.

I don't think there would be much point. I suspect that his mind is as closed as yours and that he has grown to like having a little band of followers hanging on to his every pronouncement.

Some lawyers are overrated. Trust me on this.

[Eternal Optimist]

I don't think there would be much point. I suspect that his mind is as closed as yours and that he has grown to like having a little band of followers hanging on to his every pronouncement.

Some lawyers are overrated. Trust me on this.

I'm loving the irony. Keep it coming.

[KerrAvon]

It was my body and my choice before and if I was in the UK when I had it I would have been dead!

Thankfully the French health system kept going whilst yours closed down!

The choice wasn’t with the full details with an experimental drug.
Vaccines normally take 10 to 15 years to develop.

You know the rest!

Are you assuming that you were harmed by the vaccine or do you have an authorative diagnosis?

Either way, you are missing the point; every peer reviewed study that I am aware of confirms that the benefits of the vaccines outweighs the very rare occasion where they caused harm. On that basis then of course they must continue to be available to the public.

It goes back to my seat belt analogy. Seat belts can cause serious injury and death, but the extent to which they prevent serious harm and death far outweighs that risk.

I am aware that might seem harsh, but none of the above has a bearing upon the tragedy that can flow from side effects or would justify lightly imposed mandates.

[frogmiller]

Are you assuming that you were harmed by the vaccine or do you have an authorative diagnosis?

Either way, you are missing the point; every peer reviewed study that I am aware of confirms that the benefits of the vaccines outweighs the very rare occasion where they caused harm. On that basis then of course they must continue to be available to the public.

It goes back to my seat belt analogy. Seat belts can cause serious injury and death, but the extent to which they prevent serious harm and death far outweighs that risk.

I am aware that might seem harsh, but none of the above has a bearing upon the tragedy that can flow from side effects or would justify lightly imposed mandates.

Every Vaccine has casualties! I know that and I'm not saying otherwise. What I am saying that the mNRA vaccine is an experimental drug that was given emergency license.

My health issues start just after my second vaccine jab, and yes I am recognised within the French system and I do get a monthly pension until the day I retire.

There you go on about seat belts as if it is siomething remotely simular. If a car manufacturer fitted a new type of seat belt that was found to be faulty they would be forced to stop fitting them and any vehicle with the faulty ones would be recalled. It is the same reason that the ISO system works well. Any batch of faulty goods can be traced and recalled!