UK Government Data Shows 92.2 Percent Of All Covid Deaths Are Fully Vaccinated

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Sorry, it's the same thing. It doesn't matter if you call it Tylenol or Acetaminophen, it's the same thing. Comirnaty is not the actual name of the drug, it's the branding name for marketing purposes.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Sorry, it's the same thing. It doesn't matter if you call it Tylenol or Acetaminophen, it's the same thing. Comirnaty is not the actual name of the drug, it's the branding name for marketing purposes.

It's not the same thing. And also the reason they keep it EUA is so they don't get hit with uncountable lawsuits.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Sorry, it's the same thing. It doesn't matter if you call it Tylenol or Acetaminophen, it's the same thing. Comirnaty is not the actual name of the drug, it's the branding name for marketing purposes.

It's not the same thing. And also the reason they keep it EUA is so they don't get hit with uncountable lawsuits.

Sorry, it is, what's your background? I'm an RN, licensing exams don't even allow you to use brand names, only generic. There is no EUA, and they can't get sued anyways since vaccines have immunity anyways. You're simply wrong on every single point, the amount of ignorance is astounding.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Sorry, it's the same thing. It doesn't matter if you call it Tylenol or Acetaminophen, it's the same thing. Comirnaty is not the actual name of the drug, it's the branding name for marketing purposes.

It's not the same thing. And also the reason they keep it EUA is so they don't get hit with uncountable lawsuits.

Sorry, it is, what's your background? I'm an RN, licensing exams don't even allow you to use brand names, only generic. There is no EUA, and they can't get sued anyways since vaccines have immunity anyways. You're simply wrong on every single point, the amount of ignorance is astounding.

So you're a lawyer?

They pulled a bait and switch when they said it was approved. POTUS announced it was approved, but the technicality is that coriminaty was approved but pfizer biontech was not, it's still EUA. Why is it still to this day not available, and why wouldn't they other one be approved if it's exactly the same? This happened a while back and was already discussed. You are way behind.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
It was granted what is known as a Conditional Marketing Authorisation.... which means instead of calling it Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine they can now call it Comirnaty. The FDA had to explain the name change as people like yourself thought this meant the vaccine was now fully licensed.
Do try and keep up.

This medicine received a conditional marketing authorisation. This was granted in the interest of public health because the medicine addresses an unmet medical need and the benefit of immediate availability outweighs the risk from less comprehensive data than normally required. For more information, see Conditional marketing authorisation.

EMA link

This medicine has been given ‘conditional approval’. This means that there is more evidence to come
about this medicine. The European Medicines Agency will review new information on this medicine
at least every year and this leaflet will be updated as necessary.

Here, have at it with their pdf updated on the 3/3/22
Quote from P98

On January 3, 2022, having concluded that revising this EUA is appropriate to protect the public
health or safety under Section 564(g)(2) of the Act, FDA is reissuing the December 16, 2021
letter of authorization in its entirety with revisions incorporated to amend the EUA for
COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine

Bolded part mine. Quote from FDA pdf here page 3.
PDF P3
On 31st January, here is FDA update on EUA for Comirnaty for use on children age 12 years and older

January 31, 2022 Submission to Update the Authorized Fact Sheets for Healthcare Providers
Administering Vaccine (Vaccination Providers) – (including Full EUA Prescribing
Information) for the two formulations authorized for use in individuals 12 years of age and
older and the Authorized Vaccine Information Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers for
use in Individuals 12 Years of Age and Older.

FDA pdf P1

a reply to: angelchemuel

Your link is from Europe. Has literally nothing to do with FDA approval in the US, I already linked and sourced it's approval.

No idea how such a stupid easily disproven lie can be believed.

Pfizer-BioNTech (COMIRNATY) Name Change
Pfizer-BioNTech (COMIRNATY) received U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval on August 23, 2021, for individuals ages 16 years and older. Once vaccines are approved by the FDA, companies can market the vaccines under brand names. COMIRNATY is the brand name for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. After FDA approval, the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for individuals ages 16 years and older was marketed as COMIRNATY. No change was made to the vaccine’s formula with the name change.

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine label remains for individuals ages 5–15 years since the vaccine is authorized but not yet approved for this age group.

www.cdc.gov...#:~:text=Pfizer%2DBioNTech%20(COMIRNATY,COVID%2D19%20Vaccine .

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Me:

It was granted what is known as a Conditional Marketing Authorisation.... which means instead of calling it Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine they can now call it Comirnaty.

You:

COMIRNATY is the brand name for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. After FDA approval, the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for individuals ages 16 years and older was marketed as COMIRNATY.

So we are clear about the branding.
As to my EU link, that was to show that Comirnaty is not just a FDA 'thing'.
Didn't bother looking at the rest of my links which are FDA updated pdfs including the most recent from 3rd March.
I will only say this one more time, Comirnaty has only Emergency Use Authorisation either by your wonderful FDA and our just as useless EMA for EU and MHRA in the UK

a reply to: angelchemuel

Your FDA links say it's fully authorized for adults 16+. YOUR link.

On January 3, 2022, having concluded that revising this EUA is appropriate to protect the public
health or safety under Section 564(g)(2) of the Act, FDA is reissuing the December 16, 2021
letter of authorization in its entirety with revisions incorporated to amend the EUA for
COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to: (i)
authorize the use of the vaccine as a single booster dose in individuals 12 through 15 years of
age;

It's EUA for those under 16.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
It's gene therapy, it modifies DNA via reverse transcriptase. There were multiple threads about a study that showed exactly how within 6 hours the mRNA vaccines are modifying nuclear DNA.

Ya ya I read it in the past. That is not what gene therapy is about or what actual mDNA does as part of gene therapy, which is real. The mRNA is the virus RNA with the switches turned off to reproduce viruses. Nothing more or less. The difference is the virus RNA goes into the cell and triggers the reproduction of the virus by making proteins by actually using reverse transcriptase to force the cell to make the proteins it needs. This basically kills the cell as the new virus leaves it to restart the process in a new cell and that is what we see as billions of Virus RNA gets into the cells. The air sac cells are the most vulnerable, and in serious cases the virus kills off so many of those cells a person does not have enough to push O2 into the blood stream and the person dies.

What you are suggesting is that for some reason the mRNA is worst than the virus even though it has a limited half life of 8 hours while the virus has no half life as it continually reproduces over a long period of time, not just 8 hours. That reproduction means a massive amount of RNA is flooded into a body for weeks at times. The mRNA is mainly isolated in the arm and the body does what it does and attacks it as it should.

Here is the key.... Reverse transcriptase allows the virus to insert its DNA to the host cell's DNA, forcing the cell to make more viruses by mass producing the proteins the virus needs to reproduce. This is good for the virus but bad for the host, but in the case of mRNA no virus is reproduced. Pretty much all RNA does the same thing, but once again it is not what we call gene therapy, and in the case of mRNA its not only a dead end, but a very limited amount of time it can do this. Reverse transcriptase whether its the body's RNA, virus RNA or mRNA is what it uses to make the proteins, its a normal process.

I agree there are issues with vaccines, we have seen it, but how do you suggest the vaccine is extremely bad while also saying the virus itself is nothing while being a million times worst in its RNA process than the vaccine...lol

Somewhere in the middle we could meet, but it seems there is no middle for people like you sorry to say.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

But none of that is happening to the people around me. And all the people around me are vaccinated.
But two of the people around that were not vaccinated did die from covid.
So yes I for one am paying attention to what is going on around me and that's why I too have been vaccinated.

I do also question people at times about their so called "people are dying all around me" scenario. The only people I know who have died were unvacced, the vast majority of people I know who went to the hospital were unvacced. Even the ones who didn't end up in the hospital said it was the worst flu they have ever seen were unvacced. I know of no one with much of anything from the vaccine and I'm talking a few 1000 people. Everyone that have been vacced and still caught it said it was no big deal.

This is my observation not a point to debate. I know people might have different personal observations, but for me the the sheer number of people I have access to I just do not see it.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Sorry, it's the same thing. It doesn't matter if you call it Tylenol or Acetaminophen, it's the same thing. Comirnaty is not the actual name of the drug, it's the branding name for marketing purposes.

It's not the same thing. And also the reason they keep it EUA is so they don't get hit with uncountable lawsuits.

OK, then please explain the difference, don't worry about blinding us with science, some of us are pretty hot when it comes to chemistry.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Vaccines already have immunity from lawsuits, so it really makes no sense.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The question here isn't whether or not they can be sued, its whether or not "you personally" are able to demonstrate that there are any differences.

You are asserting that there is a difference and I'm asking you to explain to use what it is. Go on, and please don't spare the details. Don't feel the need to simplify things, a full chemical breakdown would be nice.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The biggest problem you have is knowing if someone has had a sars-cov-2 infection.
Pre-vaccine it was told to be 80% or more asymptomatic cases. This was the reason for masks, isolations, & lockdowns, you could spread it without being sick.

The reason for so many asymptomatic cases has not been determined, so how do you prove the need to inject everyone with a trial man-made chemical that was tested by asking did you get symptoms?

Perhaps all those that had a bad immune response were already suffering from a parasitic infection or another immune stressor like cancer, diabetes, insulin resistance, etc. As there doesn't seem to be many deaths in people without something else stressing them first. Where is the research on this?

When there is a ship load of people with the virus onboard and some get symptoms, some don't.
Early on they had the cruise ships, merchant ships with people sharing cabins 1 is sick the other not.
Why don't they report on those with no symptoms - what is their health profile?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
My post was removed for being off topic, but it actually wasn't, so let me rewrite it a different way.

The charts in the article is pulling data to create sensationalism and understanding what the report is actually reporting is the key and totally different than what the article is suggesting.

If I said that cars older than 5 years breakdown more than cars under 5 years and showed a chart would you all think boy repair centers are failing?

If I said people die a lot more over the age of 50 than under the age of 50 and showed some 95% to 5% chart is that a failure of our medical system?

lol... this is where understanding simple math comes into play.

Close to 90% of the population is vaccinated over the age of 12
About 99%+ of those not vaccinated are under the age of 40
99%+ of people under the age of 40 and healthy and are not vaccinated have no issues with COVID being young and healthy.

Are you people following me so far????

So can you all see how the fear porn charts can be correct, but really do not say anything important? If 10% of the population is unvacced and 99%+ of them are young and healthy then it is actually concerning that 20% of the overall hospital totals come from the unvacced group and 10% of the death totals are from an extremely small percentage of the population while most are young and healthy. The reality is that the charts show that if you are unvacced you have a higher chance to end up in the hospital or die, and if you are over 50 and/or not in good health...good luck, you will need it.

One last note. If the population was 100% vacced and the chart said 100% of the people in the hospital and dying are vacced would you freak out or just say, No Sh!t!

Well the charts the OP have are basically that, BUT if you really look at the numbers the unvacced is very concerning to what they represent on the charts...

Obviously that makes sense, but you're just pulling numbers like 99% vaccinated out of your ass. So yes, in your hypothetical country that has a 99% vaccination rate that would be true. Maybe try and provide some real data next time.

a reply to: Tekner

Actually that is the OP job. I already outlined what data is required to make these figures meaningful. In past posts I have provided them. The OP and people in his camp NEVER provide them, they lie about statistics and then run away when it's shown a real analysis of their numbers shows the opposite of what they claim.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

I think you replied to the wrong person. I already stated there is no difference.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Once again you are shown to be nothing but a doom porn clown...

I'm seeing a pattern here....

Why are you so obsessed with proving the vaccines are killing people, when they are clearly saving people...

Your recent posts have been a joke..

Please take alook at yourself...

PA

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Were, not are. The vaccines were saving people, now with Omicron they are likely doing much more harm than good.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

Were, not are. The vaccines were saving people, now with Omicron they are likely doing much more harm than good.

The chances of being harmed by the vaccine are significantly lower than being harmed by Omicron by an order of magnitude.