German nurse avoids jail after injecting thousands with saltwater shot instead COVID vaccine

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

So you can't see your errors or the way you've adjusted your aguement to match what ever mistakes you make in your assumptions.

Let me repost this...

Indeed the vaccine is experimental at this stage and never been tested in humans before.

Then you changed to this?

The phases were rushed. It takes years to establish all the adverse reactions from a potential vaccine and not few months.

This clearly shows your bias and denial in this subject.

Same thing. It's just your inability to recognise and understand what testing means. Indeed these vaccines are experimental and have never been tested in humans before. If they had been tested then do you know the medium and long terms effects??

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Same thing. It's just your inability to recognise and understand what testing means. Indeed these vaccines are experimental and have never been tested in humans before. If they had been tested then do you know the medium and long terms effects??

I leave this here

Indeed the vaccine is experimental at this stage and never been tested in humans before.

Then you claimed this

The phases were rushed. It takes years to establish all the adverse reactions from a potential vaccine and not few months.

This what you posted and now you're trying to infer something else again!!

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Same thing. It's just your inability to recognise and understand what testing means. Indeed these vaccines are experimental and have never been tested in humans before. If they had been tested then do you know the medium and long terms effects??

I leave this here

Indeed the vaccine is experimental at this stage and never been tested in humans before.

Then you claimed this

The phases were rushed. It takes years to establish all the adverse reactions from a potential vaccine and not few months.

This what you posted and now you're trying to infer something else again!!

And I am still correct as you clearly don't understand what testing means. The mRNA are indeed experimental and have never been tested in humans before. Testing doesn't mean injecting individuals with these products and wait to see if they have an immune response. When you rush the clinical phase trials you engage in voodoo science and you fail the testing process.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

It's you who doesn't understanding what testing is from your posts, saying it hasn't been tested on humans and then change it to suit your responses to people like in other posts.
So now it's Voodoo science?!?!? The denial is amazing.

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

It's you who doesn't understanding what testing is from your posts, saying it hasn't been tested on humans and then change it to suit your responses to people like in other posts.
So now it's Voodoo science?!?!? The denial is amazing.

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

No, I don't think so. My understanding is quite good. It's those who don't have any background in science or medicine who confuse matters.

Yes it hasn't been tested on humans. If the Covid vaccines were tested then you would have known the adverse reactions to them.

Do you know the medium and long term effects?
Did you know the short term effects?
The benefit to risk ratio in each age group?

Do you know if they prevent transmission and infection? It was proven that they didn't. Although it was claimed they did. Remember? Get vaccinated to save granny. So they didn't know about infection and transmission. Hence the testing never happened.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

"Yes it hasn't been tested on humans."

Oh dear.

Flip flop flip flop ....

That is just unbelievable.

Let me guess, more semantics?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

"Yes it hasn't been tested on humans."

Oh dear.

Flip flop flip flop ....

That is just unbelievable.

Let me guess, more semantics?

Testing on humans means something very different to just get humans injected with these products. I suppose you have to read first to understand what testing means. The products are untested.

Testing is lengthy process and doesn't just mean injecting individuals with a product that can be potentially used as a vaccine.

If the products have been tested then what are the medium and long term effects?

Do they prevent transmission and infection? The claim was that they did and we should get vaccinated to save granny. But do they? If these products were tested we would have known whether they prevent transmission and Infection.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

For goodness' sakes.

You claimed it had not been tested on humans.

Simple as.

Sorry, but you are just being pathetic.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

It's you who doesn't understanding what testing is from your posts, saying it hasn't been tested on humans and then change it to suit your responses to people like in other posts.
So now it's Voodoo science?!?!? The denial is amazing.

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

You're saying it was tested on humans?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

jamanetwork.com...

Adverse Consequences of Rushing a SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine
Implications for Public Trust

It's precisely why not many are trusting these products and why professionals such as the nurse refused to vaccinate thousands of people at her place of work. I am sure it is known these clinical phase trials were rushed and these products are not safe and effective according to the standards they establish safety and effectiveness. As a result the nurse as well as other hospital staff did know about serious adverse reactions and/or deaths from these products.


From the article

As the search for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine accelerates, physicians and scientists who wish to maintain the public’s trust must not promote a vaccine that has either bypassed established safety standards or is open to a serious charge of having done so.

There is grim historical precedent for allowing expediency to rule vaccine development. In 1955, the inactivated polio vaccine developed by Jonas Salk was declared “safe, potent, and effective” following the largest public health experiment in the nation’s history, involving more than a million schoolchildren.5 Within weeks, however, the miracle vaccine intended to end the scourge of polio stood accused of causing it. Years in development, the Salk vaccine had been rigorously tested in preparation for the massive trials. But the very success of these trials led to an understandable outcry for the immediate, but premature, public release of the vaccine. Five pharmaceutical companies were given Salk’s formula and left to produce the vaccine without significant oversight. As speed took precedence over caution, serious mistakes went unreported.5 One company, Cutter Laboratories, distributed a vaccine so contaminated with live poliovirus that 70 000 children who received that vaccine developed muscle weakness, 164 were permanently paralyzed, and 10 died.6 Not surprisingly, that incident forced the federal government to directly intervene. The legacy of this event is a regulatory landscape in which vaccines undergo thousands of tests to ensure their safety and effectiveness.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0


They seem to believe that the vaccines are safe and effective and that have been tested in humans before released in the general population.

They even confuse the word testing. They think testing is the injection of human subjects with the candidate vaccine and waiting to get an immune response. They haven't realised yet what testing is and how safety and effectiveness are established.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

And I hold the same position.

Unless you think that the vaccines are safe and effective and have been tested to humans before they were released into the general population.

If they were tested then we would have known the short, medium, and long term effects. The benefit to risk ratio for all age groups and whether they prevent transmission and infection. We knew nothing as these products were untested in humans and their safety and effectiveness hasn't been established yet.

Phase 3
Clinical trials include many thousands of participants. They aim to test whether a vaccine is effective in preventing people from getting the disease – in this case COVID-19. Phase 3 trials also thoroughly assess the vaccine for safety and side effects.

None of the above happened as the clinical phase tries were rushed. The products were untested. We just start seeing the very unpleasant short term effects. The myth of stopping transmission and infection has collapsed long time ago as you can still transmit it to granny and the others around you quite easily.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Komodo

originally posted by: Mandroid7

originally posted by: MetalChickAmy
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I am disappointed she avoided jail. What she did was a betrayal of trust. Personal beliefs should not come in to it. The fact is she deceptively injected people with saline when they thought they were getting a vaccine. She is not a hero. I hope she never gets her license back.

So, if you weren't armchair nursing and were an actual nurse like her and saw adverse reactions to a new drug with lets admit it, a laundry list of side effects, you would just keep injecting people because you were told to?
The medical industry is at fault here for threatening her livelihood/career unless injecting people with experimental, untested and known to be dangerous "drugs"

yikes

Agreed!! I personally know of a MA of 20 years refusing to give a shot of ' medicine/painkiller ' to an elderly woman of 85yrs old, Knowingly it would kill her even though she was mentally competent and able to get around with a walker. 😔 I was there and heard the conversation!

I was shocked that home health RN's could give this shot without a Dr notice!!! 😳😔😔😔😔 and upon request of their family members!!!

Indeed!!

The nurse has the right to refuse injecting people and refuse to be part of the vaccination campaign without having to resign. All she had to do was to write to her manager and head nurse and explain her position with some evidence of serious adverse reactions as well as evidence she might have gathered/witnessed or gathered by other nurses.

I wouldn't do what she did. I would have done what I have just explained above. But I cannot condemn her either as the vaccines have been imposed into the population with authoritarian tactics, rules, and laws, and any dissent was heavily punished.

Don't think I was clear enough; this was a mixture of pain killer and something else mixed with it,

(sorry I can't remember the name of it) but it definitely was not The COVID-19 vax jab. This was for in-home care, at a residential home. Just heartbreaking, sad and scary.

originally posted by: Komodo

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Komodo

originally posted by: Mandroid7

originally posted by: MetalChickAmy
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I am disappointed she avoided jail. What she did was a betrayal of trust. Personal beliefs should not come in to it. The fact is she deceptively injected people with saline when they thought they were getting a vaccine. She is not a hero. I hope she never gets her license back.

So, if you weren't armchair nursing and were an actual nurse like her and saw adverse reactions to a new drug with lets admit it, a laundry list of side effects, you would just keep injecting people because you were told to?
The medical industry is at fault here for threatening her livelihood/career unless injecting people with experimental, untested and known to be dangerous "drugs"

yikes

Agreed!! I personally know of a MA of 20 years refusing to give a shot of ' medicine/painkiller ' to an elderly woman of 85yrs old, Knowingly it would kill her even though she was mentally competent and able to get around with a walker. 😔 I was there and heard the conversation!

I was shocked that home health RN's could give this shot without a Dr notice!!! 😳😔😔😔😔 and upon request of their family members!!!

Indeed!!

The nurse has the right to refuse injecting people and refuse to be part of the vaccination campaign without having to resign. All she had to do was to write to her manager and head nurse and explain her position with some evidence of serious adverse reactions as well as evidence she might have gathered/witnessed or gathered by other nurses.

I wouldn't do what she did. I would have done what I have just explained above. But I cannot condemn her either as the vaccines have been imposed into the population with authoritarian tactics, rules, and laws, and any dissent was heavily punished.

Don't think I was clear enough; this was a mixture of pain killer and something else mixed with it,

(sorry I can't remember the name of it) but it definitely was not The COVID-19 vax jab. This was for in-home care, at a residential home. Just heartbreaking, sad and scary.

If you are still discussing this story the nurse used a saline solution and not a Covid-19 vaccine. In a few words she used saltwater to inject the people who thought they were vaccinated with the Covid vaccines.

I wouldn't have done what she did as explained a few times in this thread.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Adverse Consequences of Rushing a SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine
Implications for Public Trust

But I thought you said it wasn't tested on Humans, so that link must be a lie or was it tested on Humans? could you be Flip flopping?

Indeed the vaccine is experimental at this stage and never been tested in humans before.

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Adverse Consequences of Rushing a SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine
Implications for Public Trust

But I thought you said it wasn't tested on Humans, so that link must be a lie or was it tested on Humans? could you be Flip flopping?

Indeed the vaccine is experimental at this stage and never been tested in humans before.

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

That is precisely what not tested in humans means. The clinical phase trials were rushed and as a result the safety and effectiveness was not established. Far from it. Nothing was known. Nobody knew if they prevent transmission and infection or the short, medium, and long term effects of these products and the benefit to risk ratio for all age groups. This is what testing in humans means. Unless you think testing is injecting humans and waiting to see their immune response.

Do you really think that these products were tested in humans and their safety and effectiveness was established?!

This is one of the main reasons the nurse and other professionals have had several doubts about the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines.

By the way do you know the medium and long term effects?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I can hear something?
Flip flop....flip flop....flip flop
What was it you said?

Indeed the vaccine is experimental at this stage and never been tested in humans before.

Or was it this???

The phases were rushed. It takes years to establish all the adverse reactions from a potential vaccine and not few months.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I can hear something?
Flip flop....flip flop....flip flop
What was it you said?

Indeed the vaccine is experimental at this stage and never been tested in humans before.

Or was it this???

The phases were rushed. It takes years to establish all the adverse reactions from a potential vaccine and not few months.

Both statements are compatible with each other.
If you can't understand them or can't understand or don't want to understand what testing means then that's your problem and not mine.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Both statements are compatible with each other.

They are not and are just your incorrect opinion on this matter, your attempts at trying to cover your tracks so to speak is just preposterous.
Like in many other threads you cause the subject matter to drift because your opinion on these matters means more to you than the thread subject.

I have linked to proven data showing that the vaccine has been test on humans..
More info from the BBC
BBC

How do we know a vaccine is safe?
Safety trials begin in the lab, with tests and research on cells and animals, before moving on to human studies.

The principle is to start small and only move to the next stage of testing if there are no outstanding safety concerns.

What role do trials have?
If the safety data from the labs is good, scientists can check the vaccine or treatment is effective.

That means tests on large numbers of volunteers - about 40,000 in the case of Pfizer-BioNTech, the first to be approved in the UK.

Half are given the vaccine and the other half a placebo jab. The researchers and participants are not told which group is which, until after the results, to avoid bias.

All of the work and findings are checked and verified independently.

The Covid vaccine trials happened at breakneck speed, but they didn't skip any steps - they were able to move faster because so many people were involved and other projects were put aside.

Australia Health dept' Testing Results

University of Maryland Covid vaccine testing

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Both statements are compatible with each other.

They are not and are just your incorrect opinion on this matter, your attempts at trying to cover your tracks so to speak is just preposterous.
Like in many other threads you cause the subject matter to drift because your opinion on these matters means more to you than the thread subject.

I have linked to proven data showing that the vaccine has been test on humans..
More info from the BBC
BBC

How do we know a vaccine is safe?
Safety trials begin in the lab, with tests and research on cells and animals, before moving on to human studies.

The principle is to start small and only move to the next stage of testing if there are no outstanding safety concerns.

What role do trials have?
If the safety data from the labs is good, scientists can check the vaccine or treatment is effective.

That means tests on large numbers of volunteers - about 40,000 in the case of Pfizer-BioNTech, the first to be approved in the UK.

Half are given the vaccine and the other half a placebo jab. The researchers and participants are not told which group is which, until after the results, to avoid bias.

All of the work and findings are checked and verified independently.

The Covid vaccine trials happened at breakneck speed, but they didn't skip any steps - they were able to move faster because so many people were involved and other projects were put aside.

Australia Health dept' Testing Results

University of Maryland Covid vaccine testing

Yes they are.
You are just unable to understand what testing means or unwilling to understand it.

One thin it's correct though from your above reply

The Covid vaccine trials happened at breakneck speed

Yes! Absolutely! Vaccine clinical trials moved at the speed of 'science' just as the Pfizer representative said a few weeks ago. It doesn't matter they forgot to test about pretty much everything. Aaaah that what she said after all!! They couldn't check for transmission as they were moving so fast....

It did harm the narrative though as it relied on saving the granny argument which I think was dismantled long time before this admission.
No testing for transmission. Criminal.