Full FDA Authorization Of Vaccines

PoliTalker said:
Hello Taichiliberal,


Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Let correct you on one point....the "vaccines" were authorized, NOT approved by the FDA. This means that the usual testing standards were not completed. Period.

All you are doing here is repeating yourself while side stepping/ignoring the FACTS I previously laid out that you cannot refute or logically dismiss. That is a dangerous precedent, which essentially allows big pharma via the FDA and the CDC to tell you anything they want because they know that fear and blind trust will sell it (along with a LOT of video testimonies by doctors, and a LOT of commercials).

And PLEASE do not mix patriotism in with your justification, because as we all know that is the last refuge of a scoundrel, and I don't see you as such to date.
Click to expand...



My patriotism is quite sincere. I never fought for my country, never served in the military. I do very much appreciate those who do and have. I have a fantastic life. I love my life. I owe my freedom to those who have served. Now that this War on COVID has befallen us, it occurred to me that this is a way for me to give something back, a way to do something for my country. I can take this risk of an unknown new vaccine to do my part to stop the spread of the virus.

The virus is not going to go away by itself. It's a darn good thing so many Americans have gotten the vaccines already. Otherwise our hospitals would be hopelessly overwhelmed. The vaccines, and that fact that most Americans have gotten them are the biggest reason the pandemic is not far worse right now as we speak. Somebody had to step forward and take that risk. A lot of somebodies did that. Those people are patriots. America is far better off because of those patriots.

Thanks for the correction regarding authorization vs approval. It is a good distinction that I was overlooking. The words have precise meanings in regards to how the FDA uses them.

From your earlier link to a Forbes Article:

"Why do the vaccines even need full approval?

There are many reasons why it’s better for the company—and the public—to have full approval of a vaccine. For one, full approval bolsters the public’s confidence, as it means that the vaccine has gone through an ultra-rigorous process to look at safety and effectiveness. The emergency use authorization process is rigorous as well, but full approval looks at more data over a longer period of time. There are benefits for the company as well: public health emergencies have time limits, meaning the vaccine would no longer be able to be sold once it’s over. Full FDA approval means the drug can be used at any time for as long as it is approved."

You think I am ignoring facts you have posted; so I went back and reviewed our conversation. That led me to the link you posted.

The bottom line was that people trust their doctors more than they trust the FDA. I would advise anyone who is undecided about vaccines to talk to their own doctor.
Click to expand...

Patriotism has NOTHING to do with the bad science for profit & expediency we are now seeing, so don't waste your time, my time and the readers trying to inject such into the conversation or detour down that road.

There is no proof that the vaccinations are the results of lower hospitalizations, as that trend started BEFORE mass inoculations began. The sheer stupidity of the reports of "the majority of the cases are among the un-vaccinated" boggles the mind, as the whole story of cases last year were among unvaccinated. To say such now alludes to the fact that you have a growing number of cases of vaccinated people STILL coming down with Covid, or being hospitalized with severe side effects.

And no matter how many times you repeat the meme of "world wide, ultra vigorous testing", the "vaccines" are STILL experimental...which is why the CDC and FDA are hesitant to claim full vetted approval. Add to this that this is a gene therapy included therapy that is EXPERIMENTAL (never before used as a "vaccine" among the general population, or gone through the years of clinical trials standard for the FDA).

And no, I'm not ignoring the content of the article....I posted it for the readers to see for themselves the dubious justifications for pushing this experimental therapy on the general public. To quote:

"Unfortunately, approving the vaccines isn’t just about science and evidence — the FDA also has political hurdles to overcome. ...."

and from your quote

The emergency use authorization process is rigorous as well, but full approval looks at more data over a longer period of time. There are benefits for the company as well: public health emergencies have time limits, meaning the vaccine would no longer be able to be sold once it’s over. Full FDA approval means the drug can be used at any time for as long as it is approved."


Money, politics and medicine ..... a bad combination if ever there was one. This results in relative short term vetting and testing...long term effects (more than 6 months to a year) not determined, short term bad side effects down played so long as the numbers are relatively small (or under-reported).

And let's not forget THE CORE TEST USED TO DETERMINE INFECTION IS NOT ACCURATE...it was not even designed to be used as such (so said it's inventor). Now one can do research from valid scientist who point out the flaws in trying to innovate the PCR test to detect infection (RT-PCR), and I for one wonder why there is no Noble accolade for such an innovation on a process that won it's inventor such? Bottom line, false positives and negatives determine how a malady is treated....so if you go to the hospital with old fashioned respiratory infections or pneumonia and such and get a "positive" Covid test, you don't get treated the same.

That can get you seriously messed up, if not killed.

the bottom line: you're just going to ignore or excuse all else to adhere to the mantra.....facts, critical thinking be damned. A pity.
 
Hello Taichiliberal,

Taichiliberal said:
Patriotism has NOTHING to do with the bad science for profit & expediency we are now seeing, so don't waste your time, my time and the readers trying to inject such into the conversation or detour down that road.

There is no proof that the vaccinations are the results of lower hospitalizations, as that trend started BEFORE mass inoculations began. The sheer stupidity of the reports of "the majority of the cases are among the un-vaccinated" boggles the mind, as the whole story of cases last year were among unvaccinated. To say such now alludes to the fact that you have a growing number of cases of vaccinated people STILL coming down with Covid, or being hospitalized with severe side effects.

And no matter how many times you repeat the meme of "world wide, ultra vigorous testing", the "vaccines" are STILL experimental...which is why the CDC and FDA are hesitant to claim full vetted approval. Add to this that this is a gene therapy included therapy that is EXPERIMENTAL (never before used as a "vaccine" among the general population, or gone through the years of clinical trials standard for the FDA).

And no, I'm not ignoring the content of the article....I posted it for the readers to see for themselves the dubious justifications for pushing this experimental therapy on the general public. To quote:

"Unfortunately, approving the vaccines isn’t just about science and evidence — the FDA also has political hurdles to overcome. ...."

and from your quote

The emergency use authorization process is rigorous as well, but full approval looks at more data over a longer period of time. There are benefits for the company as well: public health emergencies have time limits, meaning the vaccine would no longer be able to be sold once it’s over. Full FDA approval means the drug can be used at any time for as long as it is approved."


Money, politics and medicine ..... a bad combination if ever there was one. This results in relative short term vetting and testing...long term effects (more than 6 months to a year) not determined, short term bad side effects down played so long as the numbers are relatively small (or under-reported).

And let's not forget THE CORE TEST USED TO DETERMINE INFECTION IS NOT ACCURATE...it was not even designed to be used as such (so said it's inventor). Now one can do research from valid scientist who point out the flaws in trying to innovate the PCR test to detect infection (RT-PCR), and I for one wonder why there is no Noble accolade for such an innovation on a process that won it's inventor such? Bottom line, false positives and negatives determine how a malady is treated....so if you go to the hospital with old fashioned respiratory infections or pneumonia and such and get a "positive" Covid test, you don't get treated the same.

That can get you seriously messed up, if not killed.

the bottom line: you're just going to ignore or excuse all else to adhere to the mantra.....facts, critical thinking be damned. A pity.
Click to expand...

When there is a job which must be done, which cannot be delayed, then it must be done with the tools at hand.

Wishing for the ideal tools does not get the job done. But allowing time to seek them only makes the need for the job to be done all the more pressing.

Imagining that the job need not be done is folly.

Imagining will not cause a real and verified common threat to vanish.

ps:

Do I understand you correctly, that you believe the vaccines are having no effect at all?
 
PoliTalker said:
We need to ignore the concerns of extremists and get on with managing our country for the greater good.
Click to expand...

what the fuck is the "greater good"? Do you understand that those words are straight out of the communist manifesto? We are allowing marxism to take over our country in the name of the fricken greater good. This is stupid and could be the end of the USA as a free democratic republic. Study some history people, this is exactly what Hitler and Mao and Castro did. Wake the fuck up before its too late.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Taichiliberal,



When there is a job which must be done, which cannot be delayed, then it must be done with the tools at hand.

Wishing for the ideal tools does not get the job done. But allowing time to seek them only makes the need for the job to be done all the more pressing.

Imagining that the job need not be done is folly.

Imagining will not cause a real and verified common threat to vanish.

ps:

Do I understand you correctly, that you believe the vaccines are having no effect at all?
Click to expand...

Your last sentence is either a complete misunderstanding of my point (s) or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what I've written to the readers. I'll assume the former and try this more simplistic approach:

The "vaccines" are not vaccines in the traditional sense, but experimental gene therapy to artificially stimulate the immune response system. NO LONG TERM VETTING OF SUCH HAS BEEN DONE. So the claims of the medical establishment that a year of direct distribution proves a low chance of negative side effects is dubious at best....especially when you have all types of conflicting reports that essentially throw the rule book regarding vaccine capability right out the window (you're still possibly contagious, still possibly susceptible to infection after whatever company shot you get), much less determining even if you are infected with a test kit that WAS NOT DESIGNED TO DO SO, and has proven less than what, 60-40 accuracy? So let's start listening to the pedigreed doctors and medical scientists who over alternative treatments or a better vetting process by the FDA and CDC, sans the bet-hedging content of their published reviews.

Your first four sentences are just a rehash of your position that has already been addressed....repeating them in various forms won't make them any more valid.

So if this is all you've got ( stubborn repetition), I'd say we're done here. Good luck, stay safe and see you on the next thread.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Your last sentence is either a complete misunderstanding of my point (s) or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what I've written to the readers. I'll assume the former and try this more simplistic approach:

The "vaccines" are not vaccines in the traditional sense, but experimental gene therapy to artificially stimulate the immune response system. NO LONG TERM VETTING OF SUCH HAS BEEN DONE. So the claims of the medical establishment that a year of direct distribution proves a low chance of negative side effects is dubious at best....especially when you have all types of conflicting reports that essentially throw the rule book regarding vaccine capability right out the window (you're still possibly contagious, still possibly susceptible to infection after whatever company shot you get), much less determining even if you are infected with a test kit that WAS NOT DESIGNED TO DO SO, and has proven less than what, 60-40 accuracy? So let's start listening to the pedigreed doctors and medical scientists who over alternative treatments or a better vetting process by the FDA and CDC, sans the bet-hedging content of their published reviews.

Your first four sentences are just a rehash of your position that has already been addressed....repeating them in various forms won't make them any more valid.

So if this is all you've got ( stubborn repetition), I'd say we're done here. Good luck, stay safe and see you on the next thread.
Click to expand...

I’ve been saying what’s in the big paragraph for months and months and have gotten nowhere with it. Even though every bit of it is true.
 
Hello Taichiliberal,

Taichiliberal said:
Your last sentence is either a complete misunderstanding of my point (s) or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what I've written to the readers. I'll assume the former and try this more simplistic approach:

The "vaccines" are not vaccines in the traditional sense, but experimental gene therapy to artificially stimulate the immune response system. NO LONG TERM VETTING OF SUCH HAS BEEN DONE. So the claims of the medical establishment that a year of direct distribution proves a low chance of negative side effects is dubious at best....especially when you have all types of conflicting reports that essentially throw the rule book regarding vaccine capability right out the window (you're still possibly contagious, still possibly susceptible to infection after whatever company shot you get), much less determining even if you are infected with a test kit that WAS NOT DESIGNED TO DO SO, and has proven less than what, 60-40 accuracy? So let's start listening to the pedigreed doctors and medical scientists who over alternative treatments or a better vetting process by the FDA and CDC, sans the bet-hedging content of their published reviews.

Your first four sentences are just a rehash of your position that has already been addressed....repeating them in various forms won't make them any more valid.

So if this is all you've got ( stubborn repetition), I'd say we're done here. Good luck, stay safe and see you on the next thread.
Click to expand...

If you think I am going to change my position it is as likely as you changing yours. I do think exploring different aspects of our positions is actually covering new ground.

You are under no obligation to continue this conversation, of course. That is your prerogative. I began this thread, so I intend to continue the discussion with whomever is interested. I am at once fascinated and horrified by your position, so I would hope you'd like to continue, but I certainly understand if you want to break off.

The last sentence of my previous post was neither of your interpretations. It was a straight up question which could have been answered either 'yes' or 'no.'

You gave a great answer, however, if I had asked the question: "What is your understanding of the vaccines and PCR testing?"

I still do not know the answer to the question I actually did ask. I can only assume you avoided my actual question because the answer is something you don't wish to admit.

And that really doesn't matter. You've made yourself very clear that you object to the use of the vaccines.

It's great that we have a free country which allows individuals to resist something that shows such promise for society, but we pay a heavy price for that freedom. In this case, it is increasing the numbers of the pandemic, and prolonging the duration.

DESPITE the formulation of the vaccines and their possible but here-to-fore unknown maybe some time in the future side effects, they are absolutely reducing the intensity of the pandemic. That is why millions of Americans and most of our leaders have accepted the risk without fear; and taken the vaccines.

We would like to know all of the variables before making a decision, just as mathematical equations cannot be solved without them, but we can make reasonable assumptions and calculate answers based on those assumptions. In this case, we are assuming the side effects will be minimal or non-existent, because we simply cannot wait until all of the variables are known.

Vaccine objectors are assuming the worst unknown future outcome; and thus willing to let the pandemic run it's terrible current course of destruction and misery. That allows the worst to become reality now in exchange for preventing another possible worst from becoming a reality at some point in the future.
 
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
I’ve been saying what’s in the big paragraph for months and months and have gotten nowhere with it. Even though every bit of it is true.
Click to expand...

There is a very huge reason that argument goes nowhere.

That is because it ignores another more pressing argument.

Please see my response to Taichiliberal.

We can muse all we like about the future.

We have to live in the present.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth,



There is a very huge reason that argument goes nowhere.

That is because it ignores another more pressing argument.

Please see my response to Taichiliberal.

We can muse all we like about the future.

We have to live in the present.
Click to expand...

Nonetheless, those were all facts.

And you’re mistaken if you think I’m anti-Trump vax because I’m not. I’m a Vax *realist*. I’m glad we have vaccines I just don’t think it’s necessary for everyone to be vaccinated against the Bat Lady’s virus because it makes no sense from a risk/benefit perspective for young healthy people [for ex.] to take them. Especially, kids. Kids shouldn’t even be on the table.
 
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
Nonetheless, those were all facts.

And you’re mistaken if you think I’m anti-Trump vax because I’m not. I’m a Vax *realist*. I’m glad we have vaccines I just don’t think it’s necessary for everyone to be vaccinated against the Bat Lady’s virus because it makes no sense from a risk/benefit perspective for young healthy people [for ex.] to take them. Especially, kids. Kids shouldn’t even be on the table.
Click to expand...

That's because you're only considering the risk to those particular people, not the risk to society.

You always avoid any consideration for country, always pivot to the individual.

Sometimes we have to think beyond the concerns for a person and consider the implications for everyone else.

We want to get control of this pandemic so we can get our old lives back. People want to feel safe to go to work again.

There's a lot of people who would like to have jobs back but are reluctant to take them because it could result in death.

They are weighing out two considerations: "Money or life?" They are thinking: "Which one is really more important?"
 
1629225309037-png.803469
 
"Vaccine mandates are nothing new. All fifty states require children to have their measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine before entering public school."

Full FDA approval could lead to COVID-19 vaccine mandates | Here's why

"“Individuals will sue,” says Joseph Watson, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a Professor of Public Affairs at the University of Georgia’s College of Journalism. “They’re going to say it violates their constitutional rights.”

A 1905 Supreme Court decision that said mandatory vaccinations are appropriate as long as they don’t go beyond what is “reasonably required for the safety of the public.”"

"Watson emphasizes the word “reasonably.” The question is whether that applies to the COVID vaccines used under emergency authorization and not full FDA approval.

It’s all an issue of timing.

He and other legal experts say mandating a fully approved vaccine would place states and local jurisdictions on more solid legal ground."
 
SmarterthanYou said:
after 46 years of testing, yes. how many were adversely affected during it's test phase?

see, you people push 'science', but science takes years to accomplish safety. in 1 year of the emergency phase testing of the covid vaccines, all you've determined is that people can still get infected, still spread it, MIGHT get less sick and MIGHT not need hospitalized, but it's all the unvaccinated folks fault.................

seriously, why are you pushing this vaccine so hard? you obviously don't fucking care about those who won't get it. you don't fucking care about anyone who does suffer bad reactions from it. so what is the ulterior motive from you evil fucks?
Click to expand...
Sad, but it is party line bullshit. Conservatards are just as bad.
 
Cypress said:
I remember in first grade getting lined up in the school cafeteria with all the other kids to get vaxxed for measels and mumps.

Looking back in hindsight, it never struck me as a communist plot to take away our precious freedoms.
Click to expand...
It wasn't.
You don't see any differences?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top