Vaccine Redux - Vax up and go to Class

37,811 Views | 1320 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by bearister
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't care what vaccine you get, just get vaccinated. If you are worried about which vaccine to get then do your damn homework and read peer-reviewed information but do not let disinformation from 4 quacks that account for 65% of the disinformation on Facebook stop you from getting vaccinated. We in the medical community are freakin exhausted and seeing people who have no excuse for not being vaccinated come through the doors of the ER with that terrified look in their eyes just pisses us off. Because of your inability to discern truth from disinformation you now expose us and possibly our families to this new variant of COVID. If you don't get vaccinated, we will have a new variant that can't be stopped by the vaccines we now have. The Fall and Winter are going to be punishing. Also, wear a freakin mask.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

wraptor347 said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:



Pfizer's supply contract is insane. Full indemnification against liability. Purchaser is responsible for purchase price even if Pfizer doesn't meet supply deadlines or experimental product is no longer needed or desired, etc...
None of this was surprising. The whole point of operation warp speed was to do everything possible to get these vaccines to market. Once the money was out the door, it wasn't coming back. All of that was known from the beginning. I don't know who this tweeter is, but the fact that he mentions Ivermectin is curious and telling.

The idea that somehow Ivermectin (which is still being studied rigorously) is being suppressed because of these supply contracts is tinfoil nonsense and I think you know that.

Ivermectin is the new Forsythia after HCQ turned out to be a mirage. Maybe they will figure out a way to get some use out of Ivermectin, but as I mentioned previously the big touted Ivermectin study was a product of plagiarism and plagued with errors. If Ivermectin was the panacea that it's proponents say it is, it should be easy to demonstrate.

By comparison, no one disputes that dexamethasone has worked wonders for COVID patients and it's been widely used all over the world. It's also extremely cheap and easy to administer. Why didn't scary conspiratorial big pharma prevent dexamethasone from being used far and wide? The answer is simple and yet somehow defeats those looking for conspiracies around every turn.

At some point perhaps you will realize how far down the rabbit hole you've gone.


I am focused on the contract language that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WARP SPEED. This is not the contract for the U.S. government. This is a contract for a poorer country desperate for a vaccine.

I also have never made a comment about Ivermectin. Please stop deflecting.

Please push your biases aside and use the cognitive abilities you developed at Berkeley.
The US wasn't the only one with motivations - it was the same everywhere. The US wasn't alone in wanting to address the pandemic through vaccinations. Countries who wanted vaccines in arms had to take on financial risk to incentivize companies to invest in vaccine production.

You posted a tweet that connected ivermectin to these vaccine contracts so stop pretending like I'm the one deflecting. If you want to distance yourself from the tweet you posted, please feel free to do so. Feel free to stop posting anti-vax drivel and fear-mongering garbage like this. No one is forcing you to do so.


Here is the content lest you get distracted by other things. Look a fly!

"Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates... nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product."

"Pfizer shall decide on necessary adjustments to the number of Contracted Doses and Delivery Schedule due to the Purchaser ... based on principles to be determined by Pfizer ... Purchaser shall be deemed to agree to any revision."

"Purchaser hereby waives all rights and remedies that it may have at Law, in equity or otherwise, arising from or relating to:.. any failure by Pfizer to deliver the Contracted Doses in accordance with the Delivery Schedule."

"Under no circumstances will Pfizer be subject to or liable for any late delivery penalties."

"Pfizer will not, in any circumstances, accept any returns of Product (or any dose)...no Product returns may take place under any circumstances."

$12 per dosage for about 250K units.
Pfizer charged US taxpayers $19.50 per dose.

About payment, the country has no right "to withhold, offset, recoup or debit any amounts owed to Pfizer, whether under this Agreement or otherwise, against any other amount owed (or to become due and owing) to it by Pfizer or a Pfizer Affiliate."

"For clarity, Purchaser shall not be entitled to reject any Product based on service complaints unless a Product does not materially conform to Specifications or cGMP."
No cGMP specifications existed for mRNA vaccines.

Purchaser acknowledges...the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known."

Termination for cause:
There are clauses about termination possibility, but in fact, as you saw so far, the buyer has almost nothing that can be considered a material breach, while Pfizer can easily do so if they don't get their money or if they deem so. Please see link for language as it is in an image.

You must pay Pfizer for the dosages you ordered, no matter how much you consumed, regardless if Pfizer got it approved (it was a pre-EU approval) or if they delivered the Contracted Doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates set forth herein. See link for image.

"Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS Pfizer, BioNTech (and) their Affiliates...from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses..."

The state must defend Pfizer:
"(Pfizer) shall notify Purchaser of Losses for which it is seeking indemnification... Upon such notification, Purchaser shall promptly assume conduct and control of the defense of such Indemnified Claims on behalf of (Pfizer)"

However, "Pfizer shall have the right to assume control of such defense... and Purchaser shall pay all Losses, including, without limitation, the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred."

Pfizer is making sure the country will pay for everything:
"Costs and expenses, including... fees and disbursements of counsel, incurred by the Indemnitee(s) in connection with any Indemnified Claim shall be reimbursed on a quarterly basis by Purchaser"

Liability:
"this shall not include, nor constitute, product liability insurance to cover any third party/patients claims and such general liability insurance shall be without prejudice to Purchaser's indemnification obligation as set out in this Agreement."

There is no limit to the liability of the country in case of:
"the indemnity given by it under Section 8 (Indemnification)" or if the Purchaser failed to pay Pfizer"

The Purchaser waives any right for immunity, it give up any law that might cap the obligation to pay damages to Pfizer.
Comment: The court is in NY has the capacity to hold international assets of a country if the country failed the contract.

Condition to supply:
Purchaser must provide Pfizer protection from liability for claims and all Losses, must implement it via statutory or regulatory requirements, and the sufficiency of such efforts shall be in Pfizer's sole discretion.

"The provisions of this Section 10 (Confidential Information) shall survive the termination or expiration of the this Agreement for a period of ten (10) years"

Arbitration must be done in New York, in according to Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, govern by the laws of the State of New York, USA.




Why are you taking this string of tweets at face value? I looked at their profile and the author has been spamming anti-vax / alt-right folks trying to get themselves publicity. I can't find any information on their credentials. The website linked in their bio looks like a red-pill blog and completely irrelevant to vaccines (though there is talk about autism, so that might explain their anti-vax tilt).

I don't see why I should trust this person or any of the conclusions they draw about the contract.

Besides, is the Albanian government upset about the contract in question? Or are you getting worked up on their behalf? The delivery schedule in the contract referenced by the tweet thread has 450k+ doses scheduled for Q3/Q4 (page 40) - only ~40k were due beforehand. AFAICT Pfizer is not currently "in the red" w.r.t. vaccines they owe Albania.

If governments were not happy with the terms Pfizer laid out, they could have negotiated or pursued a different manufacturer. Albania (and many other European countries) did in fact pursue several manufacturers. From a quick search, there are several vaccines currently being offered to Albanian citizens - not just the Pfizer vaccine. Albania is also a COVAX recipient so it's not like they're completely reliant on this "problematic" Pfizer contract.


I appreciate this constructive criticism of my posts, and you have many valid points. I believe American BP has set back better vaccines for their own profit. I was hoping better safer vaccines would be available for my children and as my booster. Now, I am not so sure. So, yes, I criticize the vaccines.

By what means would you determine which vaccines are safer or better?


Safety data in the trial results for all phases as well as subsequent VAERS data, even if some is fake or clearly unrelated and only other countries have the balls to tie side effects to the mRNA vaccines.
So basically you want a bunch of other vaccines released into the wild so you can compare data, as opposed to what we have with the three currently in market.


No, have them do trials. Fund them. Don't allow BP regulatory capture over the FDA. Fauci said multiple shots on goal. Then it was only Moderna, Moderna, Moderna. Give people a vaccine with little or no side effects by allowing competition. Establish trust. Get more people vaccinated. JnJ a 450 billion dollar company got 2 billion. Moderna got 2 billion and NIH run trials (bc it is NIH patented vaccine). Others got bread crumbs or nothing. Don't declare mRNA the winner because it is effective. EUA is fine. Fund other techs. Give people a real choice. Develop a safer vaccine. Provide transparency. More people will get vaccinated.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

wraptor347 said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:



Pfizer's supply contract is insane. Full indemnification against liability. Purchaser is responsible for purchase price even if Pfizer doesn't meet supply deadlines or experimental product is no longer needed or desired, etc...
None of this was surprising. The whole point of operation warp speed was to do everything possible to get these vaccines to market. Once the money was out the door, it wasn't coming back. All of that was known from the beginning. I don't know who this tweeter is, but the fact that he mentions Ivermectin is curious and telling.

The idea that somehow Ivermectin (which is still being studied rigorously) is being suppressed because of these supply contracts is tinfoil nonsense and I think you know that.

Ivermectin is the new Forsythia after HCQ turned out to be a mirage. Maybe they will figure out a way to get some use out of Ivermectin, but as I mentioned previously the big touted Ivermectin study was a product of plagiarism and plagued with errors. If Ivermectin was the panacea that it's proponents say it is, it should be easy to demonstrate.

By comparison, no one disputes that dexamethasone has worked wonders for COVID patients and it's been widely used all over the world. It's also extremely cheap and easy to administer. Why didn't scary conspiratorial big pharma prevent dexamethasone from being used far and wide? The answer is simple and yet somehow defeats those looking for conspiracies around every turn.

At some point perhaps you will realize how far down the rabbit hole you've gone.


I am focused on the contract language that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WARP SPEED. This is not the contract for the U.S. government. This is a contract for a poorer country desperate for a vaccine.

I also have never made a comment about Ivermectin. Please stop deflecting.

Please push your biases aside and use the cognitive abilities you developed at Berkeley.
The US wasn't the only one with motivations - it was the same everywhere. The US wasn't alone in wanting to address the pandemic through vaccinations. Countries who wanted vaccines in arms had to take on financial risk to incentivize companies to invest in vaccine production.

You posted a tweet that connected ivermectin to these vaccine contracts so stop pretending like I'm the one deflecting. If you want to distance yourself from the tweet you posted, please feel free to do so. Feel free to stop posting anti-vax drivel and fear-mongering garbage like this. No one is forcing you to do so.


Here is the content lest you get distracted by other things. Look a fly!

"Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates... nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product."

"Pfizer shall decide on necessary adjustments to the number of Contracted Doses and Delivery Schedule due to the Purchaser ... based on principles to be determined by Pfizer ... Purchaser shall be deemed to agree to any revision."

"Purchaser hereby waives all rights and remedies that it may have at Law, in equity or otherwise, arising from or relating to:.. any failure by Pfizer to deliver the Contracted Doses in accordance with the Delivery Schedule."

"Under no circumstances will Pfizer be subject to or liable for any late delivery penalties."

"Pfizer will not, in any circumstances, accept any returns of Product (or any dose)...no Product returns may take place under any circumstances."

$12 per dosage for about 250K units.
Pfizer charged US taxpayers $19.50 per dose.

About payment, the country has no right "to withhold, offset, recoup or debit any amounts owed to Pfizer, whether under this Agreement or otherwise, against any other amount owed (or to become due and owing) to it by Pfizer or a Pfizer Affiliate."

"For clarity, Purchaser shall not be entitled to reject any Product based on service complaints unless a Product does not materially conform to Specifications or cGMP."
No cGMP specifications existed for mRNA vaccines.

Purchaser acknowledges...the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known."

Termination for cause:
There are clauses about termination possibility, but in fact, as you saw so far, the buyer has almost nothing that can be considered a material breach, while Pfizer can easily do so if they don't get their money or if they deem so. Please see link for language as it is in an image.

You must pay Pfizer for the dosages you ordered, no matter how much you consumed, regardless if Pfizer got it approved (it was a pre-EU approval) or if they delivered the Contracted Doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates set forth herein. See link for image.

"Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS Pfizer, BioNTech (and) their Affiliates...from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses..."

The state must defend Pfizer:
"(Pfizer) shall notify Purchaser of Losses for which it is seeking indemnification... Upon such notification, Purchaser shall promptly assume conduct and control of the defense of such Indemnified Claims on behalf of (Pfizer)"

However, "Pfizer shall have the right to assume control of such defense... and Purchaser shall pay all Losses, including, without limitation, the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred."

Pfizer is making sure the country will pay for everything:
"Costs and expenses, including... fees and disbursements of counsel, incurred by the Indemnitee(s) in connection with any Indemnified Claim shall be reimbursed on a quarterly basis by Purchaser"

Liability:
"this shall not include, nor constitute, product liability insurance to cover any third party/patients claims and such general liability insurance shall be without prejudice to Purchaser's indemnification obligation as set out in this Agreement."

There is no limit to the liability of the country in case of:
"the indemnity given by it under Section 8 (Indemnification)" or if the Purchaser failed to pay Pfizer"

The Purchaser waives any right for immunity, it give up any law that might cap the obligation to pay damages to Pfizer.
Comment: The court is in NY has the capacity to hold international assets of a country if the country failed the contract.

Condition to supply:
Purchaser must provide Pfizer protection from liability for claims and all Losses, must implement it via statutory or regulatory requirements, and the sufficiency of such efforts shall be in Pfizer's sole discretion.

"The provisions of this Section 10 (Confidential Information) shall survive the termination or expiration of the this Agreement for a period of ten (10) years"

Arbitration must be done in New York, in according to Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, govern by the laws of the State of New York, USA.




Why are you taking this string of tweets at face value? I looked at their profile and the author has been spamming anti-vax / alt-right folks trying to get themselves publicity. I can't find any information on their credentials. The website linked in their bio looks like a red-pill blog and completely irrelevant to vaccines (though there is talk about autism, so that might explain their anti-vax tilt).

I don't see why I should trust this person or any of the conclusions they draw about the contract.

Besides, is the Albanian government upset about the contract in question? Or are you getting worked up on their behalf? The delivery schedule in the contract referenced by the tweet thread has 450k+ doses scheduled for Q3/Q4 (page 40) - only ~40k were due beforehand. AFAICT Pfizer is not currently "in the red" w.r.t. vaccines they owe Albania.

If governments were not happy with the terms Pfizer laid out, they could have negotiated or pursued a different manufacturer. Albania (and many other European countries) did in fact pursue several manufacturers. From a quick search, there are several vaccines currently being offered to Albanian citizens - not just the Pfizer vaccine. Albania is also a COVAX recipient so it's not like they're completely reliant on this "problematic" Pfizer contract.


I appreciate this constructive criticism of my posts, and you have many valid points. I believe American BP has set back better vaccines for their own profit. I was hoping better safer vaccines would be available for my children and as my booster. Now, I am not so sure. So, yes, I criticize the vaccines.

By what means would you determine which vaccines are safer or better?


Safety data in the trial results for all phases as well as subsequent VAERS data, even if some is fake or clearly unrelated and only other countries have the balls to tie side effects to the mRNA vaccines.
So basically you want a bunch of other vaccines released into the wild so you can compare data, as opposed to what we have with the three currently in market.


No, have them do trials. Fund them. Don't allow BP regulatory capture over the FDA. Fauci said multiple shots on goal. Then it was only Moderna, Moderna, Moderna. Give people a vaccine with little or no side effects by allowing competition. Establish trust. Get more people vaccinated. JnJ a 450 billion dollar company got 2 billion. Moderna got 2 billion and NIH run trials (bc it is NIH patented vaccine). Others got bread crumbs or nothing. Don't declare mRNA the winner because it is effective. EUA is fine. Fund other techs. Give people a real choice. Develop a safer vaccine. Provide transparency. More people will get vaccinated.
We have three vaccines that are proven to work against COVID (not just Moderna). Why do we need to spend more money now? To what purpose?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

wraptor347 said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:



Pfizer's supply contract is insane. Full indemnification against liability. Purchaser is responsible for purchase price even if Pfizer doesn't meet supply deadlines or experimental product is no longer needed or desired, etc...
None of this was surprising. The whole point of operation warp speed was to do everything possible to get these vaccines to market. Once the money was out the door, it wasn't coming back. All of that was known from the beginning. I don't know who this tweeter is, but the fact that he mentions Ivermectin is curious and telling.

The idea that somehow Ivermectin (which is still being studied rigorously) is being suppressed because of these supply contracts is tinfoil nonsense and I think you know that.

Ivermectin is the new Forsythia after HCQ turned out to be a mirage. Maybe they will figure out a way to get some use out of Ivermectin, but as I mentioned previously the big touted Ivermectin study was a product of plagiarism and plagued with errors. If Ivermectin was the panacea that it's proponents say it is, it should be easy to demonstrate.

By comparison, no one disputes that dexamethasone has worked wonders for COVID patients and it's been widely used all over the world. It's also extremely cheap and easy to administer. Why didn't scary conspiratorial big pharma prevent dexamethasone from being used far and wide? The answer is simple and yet somehow defeats those looking for conspiracies around every turn.

At some point perhaps you will realize how far down the rabbit hole you've gone.


I am focused on the contract language that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WARP SPEED. This is not the contract for the U.S. government. This is a contract for a poorer country desperate for a vaccine.

I also have never made a comment about Ivermectin. Please stop deflecting.

Please push your biases aside and use the cognitive abilities you developed at Berkeley.
The US wasn't the only one with motivations - it was the same everywhere. The US wasn't alone in wanting to address the pandemic through vaccinations. Countries who wanted vaccines in arms had to take on financial risk to incentivize companies to invest in vaccine production.

You posted a tweet that connected ivermectin to these vaccine contracts so stop pretending like I'm the one deflecting. If you want to distance yourself from the tweet you posted, please feel free to do so. Feel free to stop posting anti-vax drivel and fear-mongering garbage like this. No one is forcing you to do so.


Here is the content lest you get distracted by other things. Look a fly!

"Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates... nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product."

"Pfizer shall decide on necessary adjustments to the number of Contracted Doses and Delivery Schedule due to the Purchaser ... based on principles to be determined by Pfizer ... Purchaser shall be deemed to agree to any revision."

"Purchaser hereby waives all rights and remedies that it may have at Law, in equity or otherwise, arising from or relating to:.. any failure by Pfizer to deliver the Contracted Doses in accordance with the Delivery Schedule."

"Under no circumstances will Pfizer be subject to or liable for any late delivery penalties."

"Pfizer will not, in any circumstances, accept any returns of Product (or any dose)...no Product returns may take place under any circumstances."

$12 per dosage for about 250K units.
Pfizer charged US taxpayers $19.50 per dose.

About payment, the country has no right "to withhold, offset, recoup or debit any amounts owed to Pfizer, whether under this Agreement or otherwise, against any other amount owed (or to become due and owing) to it by Pfizer or a Pfizer Affiliate."

"For clarity, Purchaser shall not be entitled to reject any Product based on service complaints unless a Product does not materially conform to Specifications or cGMP."
No cGMP specifications existed for mRNA vaccines.

Purchaser acknowledges...the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known."

Termination for cause:
There are clauses about termination possibility, but in fact, as you saw so far, the buyer has almost nothing that can be considered a material breach, while Pfizer can easily do so if they don't get their money or if they deem so. Please see link for language as it is in an image.

You must pay Pfizer for the dosages you ordered, no matter how much you consumed, regardless if Pfizer got it approved (it was a pre-EU approval) or if they delivered the Contracted Doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates set forth herein. See link for image.

"Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS Pfizer, BioNTech (and) their Affiliates...from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses..."

The state must defend Pfizer:
"(Pfizer) shall notify Purchaser of Losses for which it is seeking indemnification... Upon such notification, Purchaser shall promptly assume conduct and control of the defense of such Indemnified Claims on behalf of (Pfizer)"

However, "Pfizer shall have the right to assume control of such defense... and Purchaser shall pay all Losses, including, without limitation, the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred."

Pfizer is making sure the country will pay for everything:
"Costs and expenses, including... fees and disbursements of counsel, incurred by the Indemnitee(s) in connection with any Indemnified Claim shall be reimbursed on a quarterly basis by Purchaser"

Liability:
"this shall not include, nor constitute, product liability insurance to cover any third party/patients claims and such general liability insurance shall be without prejudice to Purchaser's indemnification obligation as set out in this Agreement."

There is no limit to the liability of the country in case of:
"the indemnity given by it under Section 8 (Indemnification)" or if the Purchaser failed to pay Pfizer"

The Purchaser waives any right for immunity, it give up any law that might cap the obligation to pay damages to Pfizer.
Comment: The court is in NY has the capacity to hold international assets of a country if the country failed the contract.

Condition to supply:
Purchaser must provide Pfizer protection from liability for claims and all Losses, must implement it via statutory or regulatory requirements, and the sufficiency of such efforts shall be in Pfizer's sole discretion.

"The provisions of this Section 10 (Confidential Information) shall survive the termination or expiration of the this Agreement for a period of ten (10) years"

Arbitration must be done in New York, in according to Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, govern by the laws of the State of New York, USA.




Why are you taking this string of tweets at face value? I looked at their profile and the author has been spamming anti-vax / alt-right folks trying to get themselves publicity. I can't find any information on their credentials. The website linked in their bio looks like a red-pill blog and completely irrelevant to vaccines (though there is talk about autism, so that might explain their anti-vax tilt).

I don't see why I should trust this person or any of the conclusions they draw about the contract.

Besides, is the Albanian government upset about the contract in question? Or are you getting worked up on their behalf? The delivery schedule in the contract referenced by the tweet thread has 450k+ doses scheduled for Q3/Q4 (page 40) - only ~40k were due beforehand. AFAICT Pfizer is not currently "in the red" w.r.t. vaccines they owe Albania.

If governments were not happy with the terms Pfizer laid out, they could have negotiated or pursued a different manufacturer. Albania (and many other European countries) did in fact pursue several manufacturers. From a quick search, there are several vaccines currently being offered to Albanian citizens - not just the Pfizer vaccine. Albania is also a COVAX recipient so it's not like they're completely reliant on this "problematic" Pfizer contract.


I appreciate this constructive criticism of my posts, and you have many valid points. I believe American BP has set back better vaccines for their own profit. I was hoping better safer vaccines would be available for my children and as my booster. Now, I am not so sure. So, yes, I criticize the vaccines.

By what means would you determine which vaccines are safer or better?


Safety data in the trial results for all phases as well as subsequent VAERS data, even if some is fake or clearly unrelated and only other countries have the balls to tie side effects to the mRNA vaccines.
So basically you want a bunch of other vaccines released into the wild so you can compare data, as opposed to what we have with the three currently in market.


No, have them do trials. Fund them. Don't allow BP regulatory capture over the FDA. Fauci said multiple shots on goal. Then it was only Moderna, Moderna, Moderna. Give people a vaccine with little or no side effects by allowing competition. Establish trust. Get more people vaccinated. JnJ a 450 billion dollar company got 2 billion. Moderna got 2 billion and NIH run trials (bc it is NIH patented vaccine). Others got bread crumbs or nothing. Don't declare mRNA the winner because it is effective. EUA is fine. Fund other techs. Give people a real choice. Develop a safer vaccine. Provide transparency. More people will get vaccinated.
We have three vaccines that are proven to work against COVID (not just Moderna). Why do we need to spend more money now? To what purpose?


Not if it takes funding away from reading comprehension or scrolling up programs.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

wraptor347 said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:



Pfizer's supply contract is insane. Full indemnification against liability. Purchaser is responsible for purchase price even if Pfizer doesn't meet supply deadlines or experimental product is no longer needed or desired, etc...
None of this was surprising. The whole point of operation warp speed was to do everything possible to get these vaccines to market. Once the money was out the door, it wasn't coming back. All of that was known from the beginning. I don't know who this tweeter is, but the fact that he mentions Ivermectin is curious and telling.

The idea that somehow Ivermectin (which is still being studied rigorously) is being suppressed because of these supply contracts is tinfoil nonsense and I think you know that.

Ivermectin is the new Forsythia after HCQ turned out to be a mirage. Maybe they will figure out a way to get some use out of Ivermectin, but as I mentioned previously the big touted Ivermectin study was a product of plagiarism and plagued with errors. If Ivermectin was the panacea that it's proponents say it is, it should be easy to demonstrate.

By comparison, no one disputes that dexamethasone has worked wonders for COVID patients and it's been widely used all over the world. It's also extremely cheap and easy to administer. Why didn't scary conspiratorial big pharma prevent dexamethasone from being used far and wide? The answer is simple and yet somehow defeats those looking for conspiracies around every turn.

At some point perhaps you will realize how far down the rabbit hole you've gone.


I am focused on the contract language that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WARP SPEED. This is not the contract for the U.S. government. This is a contract for a poorer country desperate for a vaccine.

I also have never made a comment about Ivermectin. Please stop deflecting.

Please push your biases aside and use the cognitive abilities you developed at Berkeley.
The US wasn't the only one with motivations - it was the same everywhere. The US wasn't alone in wanting to address the pandemic through vaccinations. Countries who wanted vaccines in arms had to take on financial risk to incentivize companies to invest in vaccine production.

You posted a tweet that connected ivermectin to these vaccine contracts so stop pretending like I'm the one deflecting. If you want to distance yourself from the tweet you posted, please feel free to do so. Feel free to stop posting anti-vax drivel and fear-mongering garbage like this. No one is forcing you to do so.


Here is the content lest you get distracted by other things. Look a fly!

"Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates... nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product."

"Pfizer shall decide on necessary adjustments to the number of Contracted Doses and Delivery Schedule due to the Purchaser ... based on principles to be determined by Pfizer ... Purchaser shall be deemed to agree to any revision."

"Purchaser hereby waives all rights and remedies that it may have at Law, in equity or otherwise, arising from or relating to:.. any failure by Pfizer to deliver the Contracted Doses in accordance with the Delivery Schedule."

"Under no circumstances will Pfizer be subject to or liable for any late delivery penalties."

"Pfizer will not, in any circumstances, accept any returns of Product (or any dose)...no Product returns may take place under any circumstances."

$12 per dosage for about 250K units.
Pfizer charged US taxpayers $19.50 per dose.

About payment, the country has no right "to withhold, offset, recoup or debit any amounts owed to Pfizer, whether under this Agreement or otherwise, against any other amount owed (or to become due and owing) to it by Pfizer or a Pfizer Affiliate."

"For clarity, Purchaser shall not be entitled to reject any Product based on service complaints unless a Product does not materially conform to Specifications or cGMP."
No cGMP specifications existed for mRNA vaccines.

Purchaser acknowledges...the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known."

Termination for cause:
There are clauses about termination possibility, but in fact, as you saw so far, the buyer has almost nothing that can be considered a material breach, while Pfizer can easily do so if they don't get their money or if they deem so. Please see link for language as it is in an image.

You must pay Pfizer for the dosages you ordered, no matter how much you consumed, regardless if Pfizer got it approved (it was a pre-EU approval) or if they delivered the Contracted Doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates set forth herein. See link for image.

"Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS Pfizer, BioNTech (and) their Affiliates...from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses..."

The state must defend Pfizer:
"(Pfizer) shall notify Purchaser of Losses for which it is seeking indemnification... Upon such notification, Purchaser shall promptly assume conduct and control of the defense of such Indemnified Claims on behalf of (Pfizer)"

However, "Pfizer shall have the right to assume control of such defense... and Purchaser shall pay all Losses, including, without limitation, the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred."

Pfizer is making sure the country will pay for everything:
"Costs and expenses, including... fees and disbursements of counsel, incurred by the Indemnitee(s) in connection with any Indemnified Claim shall be reimbursed on a quarterly basis by Purchaser"

Liability:
"this shall not include, nor constitute, product liability insurance to cover any third party/patients claims and such general liability insurance shall be without prejudice to Purchaser's indemnification obligation as set out in this Agreement."

There is no limit to the liability of the country in case of:
"the indemnity given by it under Section 8 (Indemnification)" or if the Purchaser failed to pay Pfizer"

The Purchaser waives any right for immunity, it give up any law that might cap the obligation to pay damages to Pfizer.
Comment: The court is in NY has the capacity to hold international assets of a country if the country failed the contract.

Condition to supply:
Purchaser must provide Pfizer protection from liability for claims and all Losses, must implement it via statutory or regulatory requirements, and the sufficiency of such efforts shall be in Pfizer's sole discretion.

"The provisions of this Section 10 (Confidential Information) shall survive the termination or expiration of the this Agreement for a period of ten (10) years"

Arbitration must be done in New York, in according to Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, govern by the laws of the State of New York, USA.




Why are you taking this string of tweets at face value? I looked at their profile and the author has been spamming anti-vax / alt-right folks trying to get themselves publicity. I can't find any information on their credentials. The website linked in their bio looks like a red-pill blog and completely irrelevant to vaccines (though there is talk about autism, so that might explain their anti-vax tilt).

I don't see why I should trust this person or any of the conclusions they draw about the contract.

Besides, is the Albanian government upset about the contract in question? Or are you getting worked up on their behalf? The delivery schedule in the contract referenced by the tweet thread has 450k+ doses scheduled for Q3/Q4 (page 40) - only ~40k were due beforehand. AFAICT Pfizer is not currently "in the red" w.r.t. vaccines they owe Albania.

If governments were not happy with the terms Pfizer laid out, they could have negotiated or pursued a different manufacturer. Albania (and many other European countries) did in fact pursue several manufacturers. From a quick search, there are several vaccines currently being offered to Albanian citizens - not just the Pfizer vaccine. Albania is also a COVAX recipient so it's not like they're completely reliant on this "problematic" Pfizer contract.


I appreciate this constructive criticism of my posts, and you have many valid points. I believe American BP has set back better vaccines for their own profit. I was hoping better safer vaccines would be available for my children and as my booster. Now, I am not so sure. So, yes, I criticize the vaccines.

By what means would you determine which vaccines are safer or better?


Safety data in the trial results for all phases as well as subsequent VAERS data, even if some is fake or clearly unrelated and only other countries have the balls to tie side effects to the mRNA vaccines.
So basically you want a bunch of other vaccines released into the wild so you can compare data, as opposed to what we have with the three currently in market.


No, have them do trials. Fund them. Don't allow BP regulatory capture over the FDA. Fauci said multiple shots on goal. Then it was only Moderna, Moderna, Moderna. Give people a vaccine with little or no side effects by allowing competition. Establish trust. Get more people vaccinated. JnJ a 450 billion dollar company got 2 billion. Moderna got 2 billion and NIH run trials (bc it is NIH patented vaccine). Others got bread crumbs or nothing. Don't declare mRNA the winner because it is effective. EUA is fine. Fund other techs. Give people a real choice. Develop a safer vaccine. Provide transparency. More people will get vaccinated.
We have three vaccines that are proven to work against COVID (not just Moderna). Why do we need to spend more money now? To what purpose?


Not if it takes funding away from reading comprehension or scrolling up programs.
Everything you're saying is predicated on the idea that there is some other vaccine that would be more effective. Except there is no current evidence that there are any more effective vaccines and a whole lot of evidence that we already have three good ones that are widely distributed.

So essentially you are asking that the US government keep throwing money at some unspecified chance of a better solution when they already have a perfectly good one they've already thrown a lot of money at and is already working (for those who choose to take it). How is this a prudent use of resources?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

wraptor347 said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:



Pfizer's supply contract is insane. Full indemnification against liability. Purchaser is responsible for purchase price even if Pfizer doesn't meet supply deadlines or experimental product is no longer needed or desired, etc...
None of this was surprising. The whole point of operation warp speed was to do everything possible to get these vaccines to market. Once the money was out the door, it wasn't coming back. All of that was known from the beginning. I don't know who this tweeter is, but the fact that he mentions Ivermectin is curious and telling.

The idea that somehow Ivermectin (which is still being studied rigorously) is being suppressed because of these supply contracts is tinfoil nonsense and I think you know that.

Ivermectin is the new Forsythia after HCQ turned out to be a mirage. Maybe they will figure out a way to get some use out of Ivermectin, but as I mentioned previously the big touted Ivermectin study was a product of plagiarism and plagued with errors. If Ivermectin was the panacea that it's proponents say it is, it should be easy to demonstrate.

By comparison, no one disputes that dexamethasone has worked wonders for COVID patients and it's been widely used all over the world. It's also extremely cheap and easy to administer. Why didn't scary conspiratorial big pharma prevent dexamethasone from being used far and wide? The answer is simple and yet somehow defeats those looking for conspiracies around every turn.

At some point perhaps you will realize how far down the rabbit hole you've gone.


I am focused on the contract language that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WARP SPEED. This is not the contract for the U.S. government. This is a contract for a poorer country desperate for a vaccine.

I also have never made a comment about Ivermectin. Please stop deflecting.

Please push your biases aside and use the cognitive abilities you developed at Berkeley.
The US wasn't the only one with motivations - it was the same everywhere. The US wasn't alone in wanting to address the pandemic through vaccinations. Countries who wanted vaccines in arms had to take on financial risk to incentivize companies to invest in vaccine production.

You posted a tweet that connected ivermectin to these vaccine contracts so stop pretending like I'm the one deflecting. If you want to distance yourself from the tweet you posted, please feel free to do so. Feel free to stop posting anti-vax drivel and fear-mongering garbage like this. No one is forcing you to do so.


Here is the content lest you get distracted by other things. Look a fly!

"Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates... nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product."

"Pfizer shall decide on necessary adjustments to the number of Contracted Doses and Delivery Schedule due to the Purchaser ... based on principles to be determined by Pfizer ... Purchaser shall be deemed to agree to any revision."

"Purchaser hereby waives all rights and remedies that it may have at Law, in equity or otherwise, arising from or relating to:.. any failure by Pfizer to deliver the Contracted Doses in accordance with the Delivery Schedule."

"Under no circumstances will Pfizer be subject to or liable for any late delivery penalties."

"Pfizer will not, in any circumstances, accept any returns of Product (or any dose)...no Product returns may take place under any circumstances."

$12 per dosage for about 250K units.
Pfizer charged US taxpayers $19.50 per dose.

About payment, the country has no right "to withhold, offset, recoup or debit any amounts owed to Pfizer, whether under this Agreement or otherwise, against any other amount owed (or to become due and owing) to it by Pfizer or a Pfizer Affiliate."

"For clarity, Purchaser shall not be entitled to reject any Product based on service complaints unless a Product does not materially conform to Specifications or cGMP."
No cGMP specifications existed for mRNA vaccines.

Purchaser acknowledges...the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known."

Termination for cause:
There are clauses about termination possibility, but in fact, as you saw so far, the buyer has almost nothing that can be considered a material breach, while Pfizer can easily do so if they don't get their money or if they deem so. Please see link for language as it is in an image.

You must pay Pfizer for the dosages you ordered, no matter how much you consumed, regardless if Pfizer got it approved (it was a pre-EU approval) or if they delivered the Contracted Doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates set forth herein. See link for image.

"Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS Pfizer, BioNTech (and) their Affiliates...from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses..."

The state must defend Pfizer:
"(Pfizer) shall notify Purchaser of Losses for which it is seeking indemnification... Upon such notification, Purchaser shall promptly assume conduct and control of the defense of such Indemnified Claims on behalf of (Pfizer)"

However, "Pfizer shall have the right to assume control of such defense... and Purchaser shall pay all Losses, including, without limitation, the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred."

Pfizer is making sure the country will pay for everything:
"Costs and expenses, including... fees and disbursements of counsel, incurred by the Indemnitee(s) in connection with any Indemnified Claim shall be reimbursed on a quarterly basis by Purchaser"

Liability:
"this shall not include, nor constitute, product liability insurance to cover any third party/patients claims and such general liability insurance shall be without prejudice to Purchaser's indemnification obligation as set out in this Agreement."

There is no limit to the liability of the country in case of:
"the indemnity given by it under Section 8 (Indemnification)" or if the Purchaser failed to pay Pfizer"

The Purchaser waives any right for immunity, it give up any law that might cap the obligation to pay damages to Pfizer.
Comment: The court is in NY has the capacity to hold international assets of a country if the country failed the contract.

Condition to supply:
Purchaser must provide Pfizer protection from liability for claims and all Losses, must implement it via statutory or regulatory requirements, and the sufficiency of such efforts shall be in Pfizer's sole discretion.

"The provisions of this Section 10 (Confidential Information) shall survive the termination or expiration of the this Agreement for a period of ten (10) years"

Arbitration must be done in New York, in according to Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, govern by the laws of the State of New York, USA.




Why are you taking this string of tweets at face value? I looked at their profile and the author has been spamming anti-vax / alt-right folks trying to get themselves publicity. I can't find any information on their credentials. The website linked in their bio looks like a red-pill blog and completely irrelevant to vaccines (though there is talk about autism, so that might explain their anti-vax tilt).

I don't see why I should trust this person or any of the conclusions they draw about the contract.

Besides, is the Albanian government upset about the contract in question? Or are you getting worked up on their behalf? The delivery schedule in the contract referenced by the tweet thread has 450k+ doses scheduled for Q3/Q4 (page 40) - only ~40k were due beforehand. AFAICT Pfizer is not currently "in the red" w.r.t. vaccines they owe Albania.

If governments were not happy with the terms Pfizer laid out, they could have negotiated or pursued a different manufacturer. Albania (and many other European countries) did in fact pursue several manufacturers. From a quick search, there are several vaccines currently being offered to Albanian citizens - not just the Pfizer vaccine. Albania is also a COVAX recipient so it's not like they're completely reliant on this "problematic" Pfizer contract.


I appreciate this constructive criticism of my posts, and you have many valid points. I believe American BP has set back better vaccines for their own profit. I was hoping better safer vaccines would be available for my children and as my booster. Now, I am not so sure. So, yes, I criticize the vaccines.

By what means would you determine which vaccines are safer or better?


Safety data in the trial results for all phases as well as subsequent VAERS data, even if some is fake or clearly unrelated and only other countries have the balls to tie side effects to the mRNA vaccines.
So basically you want a bunch of other vaccines released into the wild so you can compare data, as opposed to what we have with the three currently in market.


No, have them do trials. Fund them. Don't allow BP regulatory capture over the FDA. Fauci said multiple shots on goal. Then it was only Moderna, Moderna, Moderna. Give people a vaccine with little or no side effects by allowing competition. Establish trust. Get more people vaccinated. JnJ a 450 billion dollar company got 2 billion. Moderna got 2 billion and NIH run trials (bc it is NIH patented vaccine). Others got bread crumbs or nothing. Don't declare mRNA the winner because it is effective. EUA is fine. Fund other techs. Give people a real choice. Develop a safer vaccine. Provide transparency. More people will get vaccinated.
We have three vaccines that are proven to work against COVID (not just Moderna). Why do we need to spend more money now? To what purpose?


Not if it takes funding away from reading comprehension or scrolling up programs.
Everything you're saying is predicated on the idea that there is some other vaccine that would be more effective. Except there is no current evidence that there are any more effective vaccines and a whole lot of evidence that we already have three good ones that are widely distributed.

So essentially you are asking that the US government keep throwing money at some unspecified chance of a better solution when they already have a perfectly good one they've already thrown a lot of money at and is already working (for those who choose to take it). How is this a prudent use of resources?


Your first sentence is false. Carry on or actually read what I have posted.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

wraptor347 said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:



Pfizer's supply contract is insane. Full indemnification against liability. Purchaser is responsible for purchase price even if Pfizer doesn't meet supply deadlines or experimental product is no longer needed or desired, etc...
None of this was surprising. The whole point of operation warp speed was to do everything possible to get these vaccines to market. Once the money was out the door, it wasn't coming back. All of that was known from the beginning. I don't know who this tweeter is, but the fact that he mentions Ivermectin is curious and telling.

The idea that somehow Ivermectin (which is still being studied rigorously) is being suppressed because of these supply contracts is tinfoil nonsense and I think you know that.

Ivermectin is the new Forsythia after HCQ turned out to be a mirage. Maybe they will figure out a way to get some use out of Ivermectin, but as I mentioned previously the big touted Ivermectin study was a product of plagiarism and plagued with errors. If Ivermectin was the panacea that it's proponents say it is, it should be easy to demonstrate.

By comparison, no one disputes that dexamethasone has worked wonders for COVID patients and it's been widely used all over the world. It's also extremely cheap and easy to administer. Why didn't scary conspiratorial big pharma prevent dexamethasone from being used far and wide? The answer is simple and yet somehow defeats those looking for conspiracies around every turn.

At some point perhaps you will realize how far down the rabbit hole you've gone.


I am focused on the contract language that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WARP SPEED. This is not the contract for the U.S. government. This is a contract for a poorer country desperate for a vaccine.

I also have never made a comment about Ivermectin. Please stop deflecting.

Please push your biases aside and use the cognitive abilities you developed at Berkeley.
The US wasn't the only one with motivations - it was the same everywhere. The US wasn't alone in wanting to address the pandemic through vaccinations. Countries who wanted vaccines in arms had to take on financial risk to incentivize companies to invest in vaccine production.

You posted a tweet that connected ivermectin to these vaccine contracts so stop pretending like I'm the one deflecting. If you want to distance yourself from the tweet you posted, please feel free to do so. Feel free to stop posting anti-vax drivel and fear-mongering garbage like this. No one is forcing you to do so.


Here is the content lest you get distracted by other things. Look a fly!

"Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates... nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product."

"Pfizer shall decide on necessary adjustments to the number of Contracted Doses and Delivery Schedule due to the Purchaser ... based on principles to be determined by Pfizer ... Purchaser shall be deemed to agree to any revision."

"Purchaser hereby waives all rights and remedies that it may have at Law, in equity or otherwise, arising from or relating to:.. any failure by Pfizer to deliver the Contracted Doses in accordance with the Delivery Schedule."

"Under no circumstances will Pfizer be subject to or liable for any late delivery penalties."

"Pfizer will not, in any circumstances, accept any returns of Product (or any dose)...no Product returns may take place under any circumstances."

$12 per dosage for about 250K units.
Pfizer charged US taxpayers $19.50 per dose.

About payment, the country has no right "to withhold, offset, recoup or debit any amounts owed to Pfizer, whether under this Agreement or otherwise, against any other amount owed (or to become due and owing) to it by Pfizer or a Pfizer Affiliate."

"For clarity, Purchaser shall not be entitled to reject any Product based on service complaints unless a Product does not materially conform to Specifications or cGMP."
No cGMP specifications existed for mRNA vaccines.

Purchaser acknowledges...the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known."

Termination for cause:
There are clauses about termination possibility, but in fact, as you saw so far, the buyer has almost nothing that can be considered a material breach, while Pfizer can easily do so if they don't get their money or if they deem so. Please see link for language as it is in an image.

You must pay Pfizer for the dosages you ordered, no matter how much you consumed, regardless if Pfizer got it approved (it was a pre-EU approval) or if they delivered the Contracted Doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates set forth herein. See link for image.

"Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS Pfizer, BioNTech (and) their Affiliates...from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses..."

The state must defend Pfizer:
"(Pfizer) shall notify Purchaser of Losses for which it is seeking indemnification... Upon such notification, Purchaser shall promptly assume conduct and control of the defense of such Indemnified Claims on behalf of (Pfizer)"

However, "Pfizer shall have the right to assume control of such defense... and Purchaser shall pay all Losses, including, without limitation, the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred."

Pfizer is making sure the country will pay for everything:
"Costs and expenses, including... fees and disbursements of counsel, incurred by the Indemnitee(s) in connection with any Indemnified Claim shall be reimbursed on a quarterly basis by Purchaser"

Liability:
"this shall not include, nor constitute, product liability insurance to cover any third party/patients claims and such general liability insurance shall be without prejudice to Purchaser's indemnification obligation as set out in this Agreement."

There is no limit to the liability of the country in case of:
"the indemnity given by it under Section 8 (Indemnification)" or if the Purchaser failed to pay Pfizer"

The Purchaser waives any right for immunity, it give up any law that might cap the obligation to pay damages to Pfizer.
Comment: The court is in NY has the capacity to hold international assets of a country if the country failed the contract.

Condition to supply:
Purchaser must provide Pfizer protection from liability for claims and all Losses, must implement it via statutory or regulatory requirements, and the sufficiency of such efforts shall be in Pfizer's sole discretion.

"The provisions of this Section 10 (Confidential Information) shall survive the termination or expiration of the this Agreement for a period of ten (10) years"

Arbitration must be done in New York, in according to Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, govern by the laws of the State of New York, USA.




Why are you taking this string of tweets at face value? I looked at their profile and the author has been spamming anti-vax / alt-right folks trying to get themselves publicity. I can't find any information on their credentials. The website linked in their bio looks like a red-pill blog and completely irrelevant to vaccines (though there is talk about autism, so that might explain their anti-vax tilt).

I don't see why I should trust this person or any of the conclusions they draw about the contract.

Besides, is the Albanian government upset about the contract in question? Or are you getting worked up on their behalf? The delivery schedule in the contract referenced by the tweet thread has 450k+ doses scheduled for Q3/Q4 (page 40) - only ~40k were due beforehand. AFAICT Pfizer is not currently "in the red" w.r.t. vaccines they owe Albania.

If governments were not happy with the terms Pfizer laid out, they could have negotiated or pursued a different manufacturer. Albania (and many other European countries) did in fact pursue several manufacturers. From a quick search, there are several vaccines currently being offered to Albanian citizens - not just the Pfizer vaccine. Albania is also a COVAX recipient so it's not like they're completely reliant on this "problematic" Pfizer contract.


I appreciate this constructive criticism of my posts, and you have many valid points. I believe American BP has set back better vaccines for their own profit. I was hoping better safer vaccines would be available for my children and as my booster. Now, I am not so sure. So, yes, I criticize the vaccines.

By what means would you determine which vaccines are safer or better?


Safety data in the trial results for all phases as well as subsequent VAERS data, even if some is fake or clearly unrelated and only other countries have the balls to tie side effects to the mRNA vaccines.
So basically you want a bunch of other vaccines released into the wild so you can compare data, as opposed to what we have with the three currently in market.


No, have them do trials. Fund them. Don't allow BP regulatory capture over the FDA. Fauci said multiple shots on goal. Then it was only Moderna, Moderna, Moderna. Give people a vaccine with little or no side effects by allowing competition. Establish trust. Get more people vaccinated. JnJ a 450 billion dollar company got 2 billion. Moderna got 2 billion and NIH run trials (bc it is NIH patented vaccine). Others got bread crumbs or nothing. Don't declare mRNA the winner because it is effective. EUA is fine. Fund other techs. Give people a real choice. Develop a safer vaccine. Provide transparency. More people will get vaccinated.
We have three vaccines that are proven to work against COVID (not just Moderna). Why do we need to spend more money now? To what purpose?


Not if it takes funding away from reading comprehension or scrolling up programs.
Everything you're saying is predicated on the idea that there is some other vaccine that would be more effective. Except there is no current evidence that there are any more effective vaccines and a whole lot of evidence that we already have three good ones that are widely distributed.

So essentially you are asking that the US government keep throwing money at some unspecified chance of a better solution when they already have a perfectly good one they've already thrown a lot of money at and is already working (for those who choose to take it). How is this a prudent use of resources?


Your first sentence is false.
No, I don't think it is.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Some good news about Pfizer efficacy - it appears the Israeli data may have understated the efficacy. Doesn't mean there is no waning immunity, but it does mean we should question whether the 40% efficacy bandied about was reliable.






bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
White Evangelicals Resist Covid-19 Vaccine Most Among Religious Groups
Nearly one-quarter don't want shot, new study finds, and church leaders face hurdles persuading them. WSJ

My response: Everything happens for a reason. It's all part of God's Plan.

Suggested tombstone inscription: "He/She died doing what they loved."
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Chart: Less than 0.1% of vaccinated Americans tested positive for COVID-19 - Axios


https://www.axios.com/chart-vaccinated-americans-delta-covid-cases-b93710e3-cfc1-4248-9c33-474b00947a90.html
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just a reminder that Ivermectin still hasn't been proven effective OR safe.



I saw that tweet and thought Holy Shirtballs, are people really that gullible that they are taking farm animal medication and destroying their bodies?

Which led me to this article.

Quote:

People who use ivermectin to treat Covid-19 are waiting too long before going to hospital after falling ill, warns Dr Emmanuel Taban, a renowned pulmonologist from Midrand.

Taban also says that, during the second wave of the pandemic, many patients who arrived at Mediclinic Midstream vomiting and in liver failure admitted to having taken ivermectin syrup.

Taban says people drink this syrup in the hope that it will prevent Covid-19 or cure them of it.

"Last week I treated patients who said they had been taking ivermectin for the past six months. Then I found out about general practitioners who prescribe it to patients," he said.

"People drink this drug, which is made for injecting animals. [Last] Sunday, we treated 54 patients at Midstream, 40 of whom had used ivermectin. I asked them what kind of ivermectin they had taken and everyone had drunk the fluid [for animals]. They took it according to their weight."

This is what happens when gullible people listen to quacks advocating for the widescale use of unproven medication off-label. Just pathetic.

AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Just a reminder that Ivermectin still hasn't been proven effective OR safe.



I saw that tweet and thought Holy Shirtballs, are people really that gullible that they are taking farm animal medication and destroying their bodies?

Which led me to this article.

Quote:

People who use ivermectin to treat Covid-19 are waiting too long before going to hospital after falling ill, warns Dr Emmanuel Taban, a renowned pulmonologist from Midrand.

Taban also says that, during the second wave of the pandemic, many patients who arrived at Mediclinic Midstream vomiting and in liver failure admitted to having taken ivermectin syrup.

Taban says people drink this syrup in the hope that it will prevent Covid-19 or cure them of it.

"Last week I treated patients who said they had been taking ivermectin for the past six months. Then I found out about general practitioners who prescribe it to patients," he said.

"People drink this drug, which is made for injecting animals. [Last] Sunday, we treated 54 patients at Midstream, 40 of whom had used ivermectin. I asked them what kind of ivermectin they had taken and everyone had drunk the fluid [for animals]. They took it according to their weight."

This is what happens when gullible people listen to quacks advocating for the widescale use of unproven medication off-label. Just pathetic.




Culling the herd
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?


A friendly reminder.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Look at this Myocarditis study that just came out.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782900
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Look at this Myocarditis study that just came out.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782900
Here's another one:

Quote:

Myocarditis is more common after covid-19 infection than vaccination


HEART inflammation triggered by some covid-19 vaccines has been a concern, especially in younger people, but a preliminary study suggests that in those most affected, it is six times more likely to occur after a coronavirus infection than after vaccination.

In the past few months, some cases of this condition, known as myocarditis, have been recorded following the use of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. This has prompted concern particularly in the US and Israel, as these two countries have led the way in vaccinating younger people.

The reaction happens most often in men and boys aged under 30 after their second dose, and is usually seen within 10 days, says Alma Iacob at Imperial College London. But many health bodies around the world say the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks for most people.

Now a study in the US has analysed how often myocarditis occurs following infection with the coronavirus. Researchers analysed the records of healthcare organisations that cover a fifth of the US population. They found that, during the first 12 months of the pandemic, males aged 12 to 17 were most likely to develop myocarditis within three months of catching covid-19, at a rate of about 450 cases per million infections.

This compares with 67 cases of myocarditis per million males of the same age following their second dose of a Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccine, according to figures from the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Researchers added together cases after first and second doses to reach a total rate of 77 cases per million in this male age group triggered by vaccination, a sixth that seen after infection.

"If you're focused on heart inflammation, the safer bet is to take the vaccine," says Mendel Singer at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, who helped carry out the study.

Obviously no one can do a clinical study on this, but I suspect there is a correlation between people who develop myocarditis post-vaccine and those who would develop post-COVID. It would be ideal if we could figure out who those people are and protect them more but right now we have no way of doing so. Given that we generally don't have a bulletproof way of reducing risk to the people most vulnerable, fear of myocarditis is a poor reason to avoid the vaccine, unless you are going to lock the subject away indefinitely.

Given that the same people who are subject to anti-vax rhetoric also tend to be anti-maskers and minimize the fear of COVID, their choice to forgo the vaccine likely increases their odds of myocarditis overall.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Look at this Myocarditis study that just came out.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782900
Here's another one:

Quote:

Myocarditis is more common after covid-19 infection than vaccination


HEART inflammation triggered by some covid-19 vaccines has been a concern, especially in younger people, but a preliminary study suggests that in those most affected, it is six times more likely to occur after a coronavirus infection than after vaccination.

In the past few months, some cases of this condition, known as myocarditis, have been recorded following the use of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. This has prompted concern particularly in the US and Israel, as these two countries have led the way in vaccinating younger people.

The reaction happens most often in men and boys aged under 30 after their second dose, and is usually seen within 10 days, says Alma Iacob at Imperial College London. But many health bodies around the world say the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks for most people.

Now a study in the US has analysed how often myocarditis occurs following infection with the coronavirus. Researchers analysed the records of healthcare organisations that cover a fifth of the US population. They found that, during the first 12 months of the pandemic, males aged 12 to 17 were most likely to develop myocarditis within three months of catching covid-19, at a rate of about 450 cases per million infections.

This compares with 67 cases of myocarditis per million males of the same age following their second dose of a Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccine, according to figures from the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Researchers added together cases after first and second doses to reach a total rate of 77 cases per million in this male age group triggered by vaccination, a sixth that seen after infection.

"If you're focused on heart inflammation, the safer bet is to take the vaccine," says Mendel Singer at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, who helped carry out the study.

Obviously no one can do a clinical study on this, but I suspect there is a correlation between people who develop myocarditis post-vaccine and those who would develop post-COVID. It would be ideal if we could figure out who those people are and protect them more but right now we have no way of doing so. Given that we generally don't have a bulletproof way of reducing risk to the people most vulnerable, fear of myocarditis is a poor reason to avoid the vaccine, unless you are going to lock the subject away indefinitely.

Given that the same people who are subject to anti-vax rhetoric also tend to be anti-maskers and minimize the fear of COVID, their choice to forgo the vaccine likely increases their odds of myocarditis overall.


Maybe this whole situation is a perfect example of why you do not want a vaccine platform that systemically biodistributes an cytotoxic protein. I am a huge fan of vaccines that do not do that. Unfortunately, the FDA isn't.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tell the superspreaders to hide out until a vaccine meets your standard. They seem to love to take advice from people like you with no expertise.

The claims that the existing vaccines are cytotoxic are extremely thin, to put it charitably and I have no doubt that anti-vaxxers would make the same claim about any COVID vaccine because they aren't bound by the obligation to tell the truth. You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting their filth.


oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Tell the superspreaders to hide out until a vaccine meets your standard. They seem to love to take advice from people like you with no expertise.

The claims that the existing vaccines are cytotoxic are extremely thin, to put it charitably and I have no doubt that anti-vaxxers would make the same claim about any COVID vaccine because they aren't bound by the obligation to tell the truth. You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting their filth.





The spike protein itself is dangerous, but it is also incredibly immunogenic. We just need a safer vaccine delivery method to truly get past covid. Sorry, 1/1750 getting periocarditis or myocarditis simply doesn't cut it.

FYI vaccines themselves arent supposed to systematically distribute anything. The antibodies should build near the injection site, not throughout the body. Do non-mrna vaccines cause heart problems near the rate of mRNA vaccines?

In the meantime, most should still get vaxxed, and we need to maintain social distancing, etc...
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Texas has a new herd thinning supplement to the Delta variant:


A West African banded cobra is loose in Grand Prairie. Is the owner allowed to have it?


https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/article253261453.html
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Tell the superspreaders to hide out until a vaccine meets your standard. They seem to love to take advice from people like you with no expertise.

The claims that the existing vaccines are cytotoxic are extremely thin, to put it charitably and I have no doubt that anti-vaxxers would make the same claim about any COVID vaccine because they aren't bound by the obligation to tell the truth. You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting their filth.





The spike protein itself is dangerous, but it is also incredibly immunogenic. We just need a safer vaccine delivery method to truly get past covid. Sorry, 1/1750 getting periocarditis or myocarditis simply doesn't cut it.

FYI vaccines themselves arent supposed to systematically distribute anything. The antibodies should build near the injection site, not throughout the body. Do non-mrna vaccines cause heart problems near the rate of mRNA vaccines?

In the meantime, most should still get vaxxed, and we need to maintain social distancing, etc...
Yes, we get it. Based on your layman opinion, the best vaccines available simply aren't good enough and we need other vaccines which are as yet unproven and may not be effective or safe either. The thing is, you have to resort to vast amounts of misinformation to make your case and the reality supports the fact that these vaccines are quite safe. Literally billion of people have been vaccinated at this point and worldwide the mRNA vaccines are considered superior. The biggest problem is probably that they are difficult to transport and store, otherwise they would be even more broadly used.

People aren't dropping dead from mRNA related myocarditis or anything else related to the vaccines. All you have is fear-mongering and big word doom porn. All of these things sound scary to people, as is your intent, but you can't show anyone that these fears are justified.

Meanwhile, more than 4 million people worldwide have died of COVID and we are in our 5th wave. More than 10k people are dying every day worldwide. In the US more than 100k are getting sick every day and we are unfortunately increasing our daily death total (above 500 per day now) in large part because far too many people have chosen not to get the vaccine due to the spread of dangerous misinformation from people like you.

I'm tired of reading stories of people on their deathbed saying that they should have gotten a vaccine. Or even worse, people who are too indoctrinated to realize the mistake they made. The fastest path out of this mess is for every unvaccinated person eligible for the vaccine to go out and get one right now. Every person who chooses not to increases their own risk of myocarditis, mortality and whatever cytotoxic fear you want to place on the vaccine. There is zero doubt that the risks of COVID are higher and it is starting to appear that every single unvaccinated man woman and child will get COVID at some point.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When I see stories like this, it makes me realize that the Evangelicals have finally convinced me that "everything happens for a reason and it's all part of God's Plan:

Sturgis bike rally revs back bigger, despite virus variant


https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-health-coronavirus-pandemic-sd-state-wire-71bb16eee8ff6f9a4540405a3c69aba3

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Some interesting points. Mrna zealots, please try to focus on countering the message and not the messenger.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/5/biden-teams-misguided-and-deadly-covid-19-vaccine-/
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not shocking at all. BP does not want Novavax here. Note that JnJ's plant at Emergent Bio nor Moderna's plant were inspected prior to EUA. Double standard much?

Reuters:
Novavax Inc on Thursday again delayed its timeline for seeking U.S. authorization for its two-dose COVID-19 vaccine, and the company now expects to file for its emergency use in the fourth quarter of 2021.

It had previously said it would seek emergency use authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the third quarter.


"It's a matter of getting validation work done" to demonstrate consistency in the vaccine's manufacturing process to the FDA, said Chief Executive Officer Stanley Erck, adding that other countries' regulators have been more aggressive in moving Novavax's vaccine through the authorization process.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Some interesting points. Mrna zealots, please try to focus on countering the message and not the messenger.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/5/biden-teams-misguided-and-deadly-covid-19-vaccine-/
Ridiculous article and you know it. The authors argue that we should accept that every single person will ultimately get COVID and that the vaccines won't stop that from occurring at this point because the virus is too widespread. I don't disagree with that: through very effective messaging and misinformation, one side of our society ensured that we would be in this position. The consistent opposition to all public health measures has prevented us from coming anywhere close to eradicating the virus and has resulted in the loss of over 600k lives so far, with tens of thousands still to come. The vaccines haven't caused any excess deaths.

What I disagree with is their complete misrepresentation of the risks associated with COVID. If you accept that you will either get the vaccine or COCID (and possibly both!), then you need to evaluate the risks of COVID with the risks of the vaccine and no credible person has said that the vaccine is riskier to any individual than COVID. Yet, Malone and Navarro state the following: "For much of the rest of the population, there's nothing to fear but fear of the virus itself."

If anyone is worried about any side effects from the mRNA vaccines, they should be absolutely terrified of COVID because it's much worse.

Bonus points that they continue to advocate for HCQ and Ivermectin despite the fact that there has been more evidence of fraud in promoting those drugs than there has been in their effectiveness in fighting COVID, particularly as a propyhlactic. The Ivermectin research in particular is garbage - the flagship study was pretty much a cut and paste affair from other work, with execrable methodologies, and has since been withdrawn. There is no way Robert Malone would ever take Ivermectin and you can bet your bottom dollar that Lindsay Graham is on monoclonal antibodies and dexamethasone and hasn't come anywhere close to HCQ or Ivermectin, nor has any other prominent Republican, pillow retailer, Fox News host or any other prominent person when dealing with COVID. The best therapeutic for COVID for most people has been dexamethasone (a cheap and readily available steroid) but for whatever reason you have a number of hucksters fixated on these other unproven and potentially dangerous medications.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

When I see stories like this, it makes me realize that the Evangelicals have finally convinced me that "everything happens for a reason and it's all part of God's Plan:

Sturgis bike rally revs back bigger, despite virus variant


https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-health-coronavirus-pandemic-sd-state-wire-71bb16eee8ff6f9a4540405a3c69aba3



LOL, I had just been wondering if it was almost Sturgis Time again! Wait, you don't think those bikers are worried about the Delta variant?!?


South Dakota, population about 900,000, 2000+ COVID deaths so far.

Alameda County, population about 1,700,000 (and far denser, with homeless camps, etc), 1,290 COVID deaths so far.

And look which governor is facing recall*! It's a crazy world.



* no idea if they have "recall" in SD, likely not, but still
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Some interesting points. Mrna zealots, please try to focus on countering the message and not the messenger.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/5/biden-teams-misguided-and-deadly-covid-19-vaccine-/
Ridiculous article and you know it. The authors argue that we should accept that every single person will ultimately get COVID and that the vaccines won't stop that from occurring at this point because the virus is too widespread. I don't disagree with that: through very effective messaging and misinformation, one side of our society ensured that we would be in this position. The consistent opposition to all public health measures has prevented us from coming anywhere close to eradicating the virus and has resulted in the loss of over 600k lives so far, with tens of thousands still to come. The vaccines haven't caused any excess deaths.

What I disagree with is their complete misrepresentation of the risks associated with COVID. If you accept that you will either get the vaccine or COCID (and possibly both!), then you need to evaluate the risks of COVID with the risks of the vaccine and no credible person has said that the vaccine is riskier to any individual than COVID. Yet, Malone and Navarro state the following: "For much of the rest of the population, there's nothing to fear but fear of the virus itself."

If anyone is worried about any side effects from the mRNA vaccines, they should be absolutely terrified of COVID because it's much worse.

Bonus points that they continue to advocate for HCQ and Ivermectin despite the fact that there has been more evidence of fraud in promoting those drugs than there has been in their effectiveness in fighting COVID, particularly as a propyhlactic. The Ivermectin research in particular is garbage - the flagship study was pretty much a cut and paste affair from other work, with execrable methodologies, and has since been withdrawn. There is no way Robert Malone would ever take Ivermectin and you can bet your bottom dollar that Lindsay Graham is on monoclonal antibodies and dexamethasone and hasn't come anywhere close to HCQ or Ivermectin, nor has any other prominent Republican, pillow retailer, Fox News host or any other prominent person when dealing with COVID. The best therapeutic for COVID for most people has been dexamethasone (a cheap and readily available steroid) but for whatever reason you have a number of hucksters fixated on these other unproven and potentially dangerous medications.



Your arguments here and elsewhere run on the premise that covid has the same side effects as the vaccines but worse. If this is true, why does JnJ cause different side effects than Moderna and Pfizer?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Inscription on the tombstone of that fat f@uck:
"He died doing what he loved, riding bikes, drinking beer, f'ing biker wh@res, not getting vaxed and not wearing no damn mask. YOU CAN'T LIVE YOUR LIFE IN FEAR!"


Depository for All Things Sturgis Motorcycle Rally 2020 - Page 2 | Bear Insider


https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/96993/2
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/96993/0
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Inscription on the tombstone of that fat f@uck:
"He died doing what he loved, riding bikes, drinking beer, f'ing biker wh@res, not getting vaxed and not wearing no damn mask. YOU CAN'T LIVE YOUR LIFE IN FEAR!"


Depository for All Things Sturgis Motorcycle Rally 2020 - Page 2 | Bear Insider


https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/96993/2
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/96993/0

A buddy of mine from Cal went to the Sturgis rally about 30 years ago... on his BMW bike (and no beard!). He said he caught unending s*** for his bike, but it was mostly good-natured s***.

I guess there is some unwritten law that bikers have to be either overweight or "meth skinny"? Or maybe that is just a representative cross-section of the US population these days.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Some interesting points. Mrna zealots, please try to focus on countering the message and not the messenger.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/5/biden-teams-misguided-and-deadly-covid-19-vaccine-/
Ridiculous article and you know it. The authors argue that we should accept that every single person will ultimately get COVID and that the vaccines won't stop that from occurring at this point because the virus is too widespread. I don't disagree with that: through very effective messaging and misinformation, one side of our society ensured that we would be in this position. The consistent opposition to all public health measures has prevented us from coming anywhere close to eradicating the virus and has resulted in the loss of over 600k lives so far, with tens of thousands still to come. The vaccines haven't caused any excess deaths.

What I disagree with is their complete misrepresentation of the risks associated with COVID. If you accept that you will either get the vaccine or COCID (and possibly both!), then you need to evaluate the risks of COVID with the risks of the vaccine and no credible person has said that the vaccine is riskier to any individual than COVID. Yet, Malone and Navarro state the following: "For much of the rest of the population, there's nothing to fear but fear of the virus itself."

If anyone is worried about any side effects from the mRNA vaccines, they should be absolutely terrified of COVID because it's much worse.

Bonus points that they continue to advocate for HCQ and Ivermectin despite the fact that there has been more evidence of fraud in promoting those drugs than there has been in their effectiveness in fighting COVID, particularly as a propyhlactic. The Ivermectin research in particular is garbage - the flagship study was pretty much a cut and paste affair from other work, with execrable methodologies, and has since been withdrawn. There is no way Robert Malone would ever take Ivermectin and you can bet your bottom dollar that Lindsay Graham is on monoclonal antibodies and dexamethasone and hasn't come anywhere close to HCQ or Ivermectin, nor has any other prominent Republican, pillow retailer, Fox News host or any other prominent person when dealing with COVID. The best therapeutic for COVID for most people has been dexamethasone (a cheap and readily available steroid) but for whatever reason you have a number of hucksters fixated on these other unproven and potentially dangerous medications.



Your arguments here and elsewhere run on the premise that covid has the same side effects as the vaccines but worse. If this is true, why does JnJ cause different side effects than Moderna and Pfizer?


False. COVID causes damage to a variety of different organs and causes a variety of different conditions so it's not just about severity and rates. Blood clots are far more common with COVID than AZ and J&J vaccines. Myocarditis is far more common with COVID then mRNA vaccines. The concerns with the vaccines are far more limited than the concerns with COVID itself. The problem is that anti-vaxxers have convinced vaccine hesitant people to pay attention to the relatively rare and less severe problems potentially associated with vaccines and to ignore the more common and more severe conditions associated with COVID.

Literally killing people with misinformation.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Some interesting points. Mrna zealots, please try to focus on countering the message and not the messenger.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/5/biden-teams-misguided-and-deadly-covid-19-vaccine-/
Ridiculous article and you know it. The authors argue that we should accept that every single person will ultimately get COVID and that the vaccines won't stop that from occurring at this point because the virus is too widespread. I don't disagree with that: through very effective messaging and misinformation, one side of our society ensured that we would be in this position. The consistent opposition to all public health measures has prevented us from coming anywhere close to eradicating the virus and has resulted in the loss of over 600k lives so far, with tens of thousands still to come. The vaccines haven't caused any excess deaths.

What I disagree with is their complete misrepresentation of the risks associated with COVID. If you accept that you will either get the vaccine or COCID (and possibly both!), then you need to evaluate the risks of COVID with the risks of the vaccine and no credible person has said that the vaccine is riskier to any individual than COVID. Yet, Malone and Navarro state the following: "For much of the rest of the population, there's nothing to fear but fear of the virus itself."

If anyone is worried about any side effects from the mRNA vaccines, they should be absolutely terrified of COVID because it's much worse.

Bonus points that they continue to advocate for HCQ and Ivermectin despite the fact that there has been more evidence of fraud in promoting those drugs than there has been in their effectiveness in fighting COVID, particularly as a propyhlactic. The Ivermectin research in particular is garbage - the flagship study was pretty much a cut and paste affair from other work, with execrable methodologies, and has since been withdrawn. There is no way Robert Malone would ever take Ivermectin and you can bet your bottom dollar that Lindsay Graham is on monoclonal antibodies and dexamethasone and hasn't come anywhere close to HCQ or Ivermectin, nor has any other prominent Republican, pillow retailer, Fox News host or any other prominent person when dealing with COVID. The best therapeutic for COVID for most people has been dexamethasone (a cheap and readily available steroid) but for whatever reason you have a number of hucksters fixated on these other unproven and potentially dangerous medications.



Your arguments here and elsewhere run on the premise that covid has the same side effects as the vaccines but worse. If this is true, why does JnJ cause different side effects than Moderna and Pfizer?


False. COVID causes damage to a variety of different organs and causes a variety of different conditions so it's not just about severity and rates. Blood clots are far more common with COVID than AZ and J&J vaccines. Myocarditis is far more common with COVID then mRNA vaccines. The concerns with the vaccines are far more limited than the concerns with COVID itself. The problem is that anti-vaxxers have convinced vaccine hesitant people to pay attention to the relatively rare and less severe problems potentially associated with vaccines and to ignore the more common and more severe conditions associated with COVID.

Literally killing people with misinformation.


What is more dangerous to a healthy 12 year old boy?

The mere existence of covid in his community which he may have already been lightly exposed to, fought it off, and not even realized?

or

Being injected with 100 ug mRNA spike protein vaccine?

One must consider that many healthy people can fight off the virus without symptoms. Young healthy people, such as athletes, are getting myocarditis. I don't believe the same people that get myocarditis from injected mRNA spike protein vaccines are necessarily the same people that would get sick from the virus.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree with this article.

It you choose not to get vaccinated, either your insurance should cost more or covid illness should not be covered.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dont-want-the-covid-19-vaccine-then-pay-the-full-cost-if-you-land-in-the-hospital-11628206594?siteid=yhoof2
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Some interesting points. Mrna zealots, please try to focus on countering the message and not the messenger.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/5/biden-teams-misguided-and-deadly-covid-19-vaccine-/
Ridiculous article and you know it. The authors argue that we should accept that every single person will ultimately get COVID and that the vaccines won't stop that from occurring at this point because the virus is too widespread. I don't disagree with that: through very effective messaging and misinformation, one side of our society ensured that we would be in this position. The consistent opposition to all public health measures has prevented us from coming anywhere close to eradicating the virus and has resulted in the loss of over 600k lives so far, with tens of thousands still to come. The vaccines haven't caused any excess deaths.

What I disagree with is their complete misrepresentation of the risks associated with COVID. If you accept that you will either get the vaccine or COCID (and possibly both!), then you need to evaluate the risks of COVID with the risks of the vaccine and no credible person has said that the vaccine is riskier to any individual than COVID. Yet, Malone and Navarro state the following: "For much of the rest of the population, there's nothing to fear but fear of the virus itself."

If anyone is worried about any side effects from the mRNA vaccines, they should be absolutely terrified of COVID because it's much worse.

Bonus points that they continue to advocate for HCQ and Ivermectin despite the fact that there has been more evidence of fraud in promoting those drugs than there has been in their effectiveness in fighting COVID, particularly as a propyhlactic. The Ivermectin research in particular is garbage - the flagship study was pretty much a cut and paste affair from other work, with execrable methodologies, and has since been withdrawn. There is no way Robert Malone would ever take Ivermectin and you can bet your bottom dollar that Lindsay Graham is on monoclonal antibodies and dexamethasone and hasn't come anywhere close to HCQ or Ivermectin, nor has any other prominent Republican, pillow retailer, Fox News host or any other prominent person when dealing with COVID. The best therapeutic for COVID for most people has been dexamethasone (a cheap and readily available steroid) but for whatever reason you have a number of hucksters fixated on these other unproven and potentially dangerous medications.



Your arguments here and elsewhere run on the premise that covid has the same side effects as the vaccines but worse. If this is true, why does JnJ cause different side effects than Moderna and Pfizer?


False. COVID causes damage to a variety of different organs and causes a variety of different conditions so it's not just about severity and rates. Blood clots are far more common with COVID than AZ and J&J vaccines. Myocarditis is far more common with COVID then mRNA vaccines. The concerns with the vaccines are far more limited than the concerns with COVID itself. The problem is that anti-vaxxers have convinced vaccine hesitant people to pay attention to the relatively rare and less severe problems potentially associated with vaccines and to ignore the more common and more severe conditions associated with COVID.

Literally killing people with misinformation.


What is more dangerous to a healthy 12 year old boy?

The mere existence of covid in his community which he may have already been lightly exposed to, fought it off, and not even realized?

or

Being injected with 100 ug mRNA spike protein vaccine?

One must consider that many healthy people can fight off the virus without symptoms. Young healthy people, such as athletes, are getting myocarditis. I don't believe the same people that get myocarditis from injected mRNA spike protein vaccines are necessarily the same people that would get sick from the virus.
Myocarditis can occur even in asymptomatic COVID infections and we know that it's far more common forllowing COVID infections than the mRNA vaccines. So you are dissembling here but the answer is that at the population level COVID is more dangerous than the vaccines. It's more dangerous for healthy people, for unhealthy people, for people susceptible to myocarditis and other heart problems, and to those who aren't. You just don't want to acknowledge reality.

The NYT reported on this 2 days ago as well.

Quote:

Heart problems following vaccination in the U.S. are uncommon and short-lived, researchers reported.

For every one million Americans immunized with a coronavirus vaccine, about 60 develop temporary heart problems, according to a study published on Wednesday in the journal JAMA.

The complications were all short-lived, the researchers found. And these heart problems are far more common among patients who develop Covid-19, outside experts noted.
...
"We see that these adverse events are leading to very short and unremarkable hospital stays," said Dr. Jeremy Faust, an emergency medicine physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston who was not involved in the study. "The same can't be said of hospitalizations for Covid-19 in this or any age group so far."

"When people are hospitalized for Covid, the consequences are far more severe," added Dr. Faust, who has compared rates of myocarditis following vaccination to those among Covid-19 patients.

There was a study released last May showing how common myocarditis was among Big-10 athletes when tested for it, so this is nothing new. Fortunately, in the vast majority of cases people fully recover from myocarditis, whether it's post-COVID or post-vaccine. And it appears that following vaccination, cases that do occur tend to be milder. This is something that people should pay attention to but people like you are blowing it way out of proportion because it's one of the few tangible things you can point to in order to wage your war against vaccines.



oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Some interesting points. Mrna zealots, please try to focus on countering the message and not the messenger.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/5/biden-teams-misguided-and-deadly-covid-19-vaccine-/
Ridiculous article and you know it. The authors argue that we should accept that every single person will ultimately get COVID and that the vaccines won't stop that from occurring at this point because the virus is too widespread. I don't disagree with that: through very effective messaging and misinformation, one side of our society ensured that we would be in this position. The consistent opposition to all public health measures has prevented us from coming anywhere close to eradicating the virus and has resulted in the loss of over 600k lives so far, with tens of thousands still to come. The vaccines haven't caused any excess deaths.

What I disagree with is their complete misrepresentation of the risks associated with COVID. If you accept that you will either get the vaccine or COCID (and possibly both!), then you need to evaluate the risks of COVID with the risks of the vaccine and no credible person has said that the vaccine is riskier to any individual than COVID. Yet, Malone and Navarro state the following: "For much of the rest of the population, there's nothing to fear but fear of the virus itself."

If anyone is worried about any side effects from the mRNA vaccines, they should be absolutely terrified of COVID because it's much worse.

Bonus points that they continue to advocate for HCQ and Ivermectin despite the fact that there has been more evidence of fraud in promoting those drugs than there has been in their effectiveness in fighting COVID, particularly as a propyhlactic. The Ivermectin research in particular is garbage - the flagship study was pretty much a cut and paste affair from other work, with execrable methodologies, and has since been withdrawn. There is no way Robert Malone would ever take Ivermectin and you can bet your bottom dollar that Lindsay Graham is on monoclonal antibodies and dexamethasone and hasn't come anywhere close to HCQ or Ivermectin, nor has any other prominent Republican, pillow retailer, Fox News host or any other prominent person when dealing with COVID. The best therapeutic for COVID for most people has been dexamethasone (a cheap and readily available steroid) but for whatever reason you have a number of hucksters fixated on these other unproven and potentially dangerous medications.



Your arguments here and elsewhere run on the premise that covid has the same side effects as the vaccines but worse. If this is true, why does JnJ cause different side effects than Moderna and Pfizer?


False. COVID causes damage to a variety of different organs and causes a variety of different conditions so it's not just about severity and rates. Blood clots are far more common with COVID than AZ and J&J vaccines. Myocarditis is far more common with COVID then mRNA vaccines. The concerns with the vaccines are far more limited than the concerns with COVID itself. The problem is that anti-vaxxers have convinced vaccine hesitant people to pay attention to the relatively rare and less severe problems potentially associated with vaccines and to ignore the more common and more severe conditions associated with COVID.

Literally killing people with misinformation.


What is more dangerous to a healthy 12 year old boy?

The mere existence of covid in his community which he may have already been lightly exposed to, fought it off, and not even realized?

or

Being injected with 100 ug mRNA spike protein vaccine?

One must consider that many healthy people can fight off the virus without symptoms. Young healthy people, such as athletes, are getting myocarditis. I don't believe the same people that get myocarditis from injected mRNA spike protein vaccines are necessarily the same people that would get sick from the virus.
Myocarditis can occur even in asymptomatic COVID infections and we know that it's far more common forllowing COVID infections than the mRNA vaccines. So you are dissembling here but the answer is that at the population level COVID is more dangerous than the vaccines. It's more dangerous for healthy people, for unhealthy people, for people susceptible to myocarditis and other heart problems, and to those who aren't. You just don't want to acknowledge reality.

The NYT reported on this 2 days ago as well.

Quote:

Heart problems following vaccination in the U.S. are uncommon and short-lived, researchers reported.

For every one million Americans immunized with a coronavirus vaccine, about 60 develop temporary heart problems, according to a study published on Wednesday in the journal JAMA.

The complications were all short-lived, the researchers found. And these heart problems are far more common among patients who develop Covid-19, outside experts noted.
...
"We see that these adverse events are leading to very short and unremarkable hospital stays," said Dr. Jeremy Faust, an emergency medicine physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston who was not involved in the study. "The same can't be said of hospitalizations for Covid-19 in this or any age group so far."

"When people are hospitalized for Covid, the consequences are far more severe," added Dr. Faust, who has compared rates of myocarditis following vaccination to those among Covid-19 patients.

There was a study released last May showing how common myocarditis was among Big-10 athletes when tested for it, so this is nothing new. Fortunately, in the vast majority of cases people fully recover from myocarditis, whether it's post-COVID or post-vaccine. And it appears that following vaccination, cases that do occur tend to be milder. This is something that people should pay attention to but people like you are blowing it way out of proportion because it's one of the few tangible things you can point to in order to wage your war against vaccines.




Before I read the nyt article, which I will, I just want to clarify that I am not waging a war against vaccines. I am not sure why you would think that way. I am "waging a war" against lack of covid 19 vaccine choice and stifling of covid 19 vaccine development in the U.S. I think BP is trying to develop their own safer vaccines while holding back other techs.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.