I Know That Everyday I Wake Up There Will Be Scores Of New Sudden And Unexpected Deaths

a reply to: Xtrozero

To be honest I really don't care what they are named, but we kind of need something to identify them.

Oh good...from now on they shall be known to me as my "ex-wife"!

Does nothing good...causes unexplainable death and destruction everywhere...everyone dim wit on the planet supports her...most everyone thinks she's good for something...the list is endless...

Yes from now on it'll be the "ex-wife" jab...I like it!!!

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You keep repeating that I am unqualified, without revealing any of your own qualifications, and accusing me, repeatedly and groundlessly, of engaging in "vaccine apologetics", "defending of the pharmaceuticals and denialism".

Without being able to refer to a single post of mine where I have ever done that.

Because, of course, I haven't.

As for my "unqualified" opinions, as part of my Law Degree, I took a wildcard course in Pseudoscience. So I know it when I see it.

Then, I spent many years as a practicing lawyer specialising in the field of Clinical Negligence, representing Claimants. So, I have decades of experience of interpreting medical notes and records, dealing with top medical experts and their reports and in particular, dealing with issues relating to causation.

You see, it is one thing proving negligence, but the key thing is to go on to be able to prove that the negligent act or acts caused the injurious result, ie, causation.

So, I do know a thing or two whereof I speak.

How about you?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

These are nonsensical arguments for once more.
You are engaging in denialism of the reality again.

Jesus, you two are impossible to discuss anything with.

There are a bunch of vaccines like COVID vaccine that are not what we would call pure vaccines, but they were all called vaccines since forever. You all suggested they changed the definition of vaccines to allow the COVID vaccine to be called a vaccine when in fact they didn't need to change anything to do that by the fact that they called all these other drugs vaccines that are not pure vaccines.

IF the definition was more focused in the past to where the COVID vaccine would not be in that group then what about the other vaccines that are the same as the COVID vaccine that have been called vaccines for 100 years?

This is not a big point to most of us. This is your logical argument that you all seem to bring up over and over and it makes zero sense, but it makes you all feel good to say the COVID vaccine is not a "real" vaccine.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

These are nonsensical arguments for once more.
You are engaging in denialism of the reality again.

It's your damn argument not mine. I'm not the one that keeps bring up some stupid statement that the COVID vaccine is not a real vaccine...

As I said, what would you like to call all the non-pure vaccines then. I'm open to suggestions as this is your issue not mine.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You keep repeating that I am unqualified, without revealing any of your own qualifications, and accusing me, repeatedly and groundlessly, of engaging in "vaccine apologetics", "defending of the pharmaceuticals and denialism".

Without being able to refer to a single post of mine where I have ever done that.

Because, of course, I haven't.

As for my "unqualified" opinions, as part of my Law Degree, I took a wildcard course in Pseudoscience. So I know it when I see it.

Then, I spent many years as a practicing lawyer specialising in the field of Clinical Negligence. So, I have decades of experience of interpreting medical notes and records, dealing with top medical experts and their reports and in particular, dealing with issues relating to causation.

You see, it is one thing proving negligence, but the key thing is to go on to be able to prove that the negligent act or acts caused the injurious result, ie, causation.

So, I do know a thing or two whereof I speak.

How about you?

Bingo!

If you want to take a look at pseudoscience, and it doesn't matter you are a lawyer, then what a better place to look at than the pseudoscience of lockdowns, of mass and mandatory vaccinations, of products that the definition of the vaccine had to change so they can now be called vaccines, of the phase clinical trials that happened at the 'speed of science' according to Pfizer, and of the 'safe and effective' vaccines that we now have...

Take a look first at what happened in your country and I'm most other countries that have used the Astrazeneca vaccine as well as the J & J vaccine. They are withdrawn. Not just criminal negligence but a massive scandal has unfolded.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

These are nonsensical arguments for once more.
You are engaging in denialism of the reality again.

Jesus, you two are impossible to discuss anything with.

There are a bunch of vaccines like COVID vaccine that are not what we would call pure vaccines, but they were all called vaccines since forever. You all suggested they changed the definition of vaccines to allow the COVID vaccine to be called a vaccine when in fact they didn't need to change anything to do that by the fact that they called all these other drugs vaccines that are not pure vaccines.

IF the definition was more focused in the past to where the COVID vaccine would not be in that group then what about the other vaccines that are the same as the COVID vaccine that have been called vaccines for 100 years?

This is not a big point to most of us. This is your logical argument that you all seem to bring up over and over and it makes zero sense, but it makes you all feel good to say the COVID vaccine is not a "real" vaccine.

What should I discuss?!

That it's ok to change the scientific definition of a vaccine so to that the mRNA products can fit the definition?! That's absurd and ludicrous.

No they are vaccines according to the definition.
And scientific definitions don't change unless there is debate and agreement between scientists.

Of course they changed the definition.
Unless you want to engage in denialism again.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Well, you just ignore what I posted and carry on regardless.

Criminal negligence?!!!!

I know all about that.


Do you?


Kindly address the points that I made in my last post.

If you can?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

These are nonsensical arguments for once more.
You are engaging in denialism of the reality again.

It's your damn argument not mine. I'm not the one that keeps bring up some stupid statement that the COVID vaccine is not a real vaccine...

As I said, what would you like to call all the non-pure vaccines then. I'm open to suggestions as this is your issue not mine.

I am not open to suggestions or interpretations.

Scientific definitions don't change politically.
There has to be debate and agreement among the scientists not just what the CDC or any other organizations come up with whenever they want to justify using the mRNA products as vaccines.

So no for once more.

The mRNA products don't fit the definition of the vaccine.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Well, you just ignore what I posted and carry on regardless.

Criminal negligence?!!!!

I know all about that.


Do you?


Kindly address the points that I made in my last post.

If you can?

I have addressed everything.

I repeat:

Take a look first at what happened in your country and I'm most other countries that have used the Astrazeneca vaccine as well as the J & J vaccine. They are withdrawn. Not just criminal negligence but a massive scandal has unfolded.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

No, you have not addressed a word that I actually posted.

You have repeatedly asked others what their qualifications are.

You have mine.

What is your (unqualified) definition of "criminal negligence"?

You could always take out a private prosecution if you feel so strongly.

I am sure that you might find lots of folk of your ilk who would happily crowd fund you.

Off you go, good luck.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

What should I discuss?!

Start with this...

IF the definition was more focused in the past to where the COVID vaccine would not be in that group then what about the other vaccines that are the same as the COVID vaccine as not being a pure vaccine that have been called vaccines for 100 years?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

No, you have not addressed a word that I actually posted.

You have repeatedly asked others what their qualifications are.

You have mine.

What is your (unqualified) definition of "criminal negligence"?

You could always take out a private prosecution if you feel so strongly.

I am sure that you might find lots of folk of your ilk who would happily crowd fund you.

Off you go, good luck.

It's better if tit start searching why the AZ and J&J vaccines were withdrawn from most countries they have ever used them.

I am not here to discuss what is criminal or medical negligence and what isn't. You may want to take a look at some of threads that I have made where the families have taken legal action for a variety not reasons including the one above mentioned, after the family member has died because of the vaccines.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

The mRNA products don't fit the definition of the vaccine.

Not this?

plural vaccines
A preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease

How about the Rabies vaccine, and about 25 others? Do they fit?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

What should I discuss?!

Start with this...

IF the definition was more focused in the past to where the COVID vaccine would not be in that group then what about the other vaccines that are the same as the COVID vaccine as not being a pure vaccine that have been called vaccines for 100 years?

For once more

I am not open to suggestions or interpretations.

Scientific definitions don't change politically.
There has to be debate and agreement among the scientists not just what the CDC or any other organizations come up with whenever they want to justify using the mRNA products as vaccines.

The rest of your text is just word salad.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I am not open to suggestions or interpretations.

Scientific definitions don't change politically.
There has to be debate and agreement among the scientists not just what the CDC or any other organizations come up with whenever they want to justify using the mRNA products as vaccines.

The rest of your text is just word salad.

Is the rabies vaccine a vaccine and if not, why? You do not want to answer anything directly and just post the same thing.

How about this... Does a drug need to be a pure vaccine to qualify?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You made a claim about "criminal negligence" so you are here to discuss that.

If you cannot debate what I posted and choose to wriggle and deflect, then I am afraid that I have no further interest in this conversation.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You made a claim about "criminal negligence" so you are here to discuss that.

If you cannot debate what I posted and choose to wriggle and deflect, then I am afraid that I have no further interest in this conversation.

Have a look at my threads and you will see what you are asking for. But I am not here to discuss criminal negligence. Some cases I have linked are discussing about medical and criminal negligence.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I am not open to suggestions or interpretations.

Scientific definitions don't change politically.
There has to be debate and agreement among the scientists not just what the CDC or any other organizations come up with whenever they want to justify using the mRNA products as vaccines.

The rest of your text is just word salad.

Is the rabies vaccine a vaccine and if not, why? You do not want to answer anything directly and just post the same thing.

How about this... Does a drug need to be a pure vaccine to qualify?

I will have the repeat again that

Scientific definitions don't change politically.
There has to be debate and agreement among the scientists not just what the CDC or any other organizations come up with whenever they want to justify using the mRNA products as vaccines.

Has the definition of the vaccine changed?
The answer is yes. Why did it change? So the mRNA products can be solved as vaccines.

That's scandalous.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

The mRNA products don't fit the definition of the vaccine.

Not this?

plural vaccines
A preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease

How about the Rabies vaccine, and about 25 others? Do they fit?

If you change the definition of a vaccine then you can have PEPSI MAX that can be solved as a vaccine. All you have to do is keep changing the definition until it fits the properties of the product you want to sell.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I am not open to suggestions or interpretations.

Scientific definitions don't change politically.
There has to be debate and agreement among the scientists not just what the CDC or any other organizations come up with whenever they want to justify using the mRNA products as vaccines.

The rest of your text is just word salad.

Is the rabies vaccine a vaccine and if not, why? You do not want to answer anything directly and just post the same thing.

How about this... Does a drug need to be a pure vaccine to qualify?

What is this word salad and denialism of reality?!
What Rabies are you talking about??

Has the definition of the vaccine changed recently so the mRNA products can be sold as vaccines?