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

a reply to: Asmodeus3

We all know how vaccination trails work. It is you who seems to be struggling with the basics thinking you can speed up the process...

I don't think you do know how vaccination trials work, and with any new vaccination, understanding of long term effects are always changing.
Here's what you said previously..

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

Look, theres plenty of evidence out there that it has been tested on animals and Humans...
One of many trails
New England Journal of Medicine

In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety.

Have you had Covid, a recent study found that some have suffered long term effects of things like brain fog, maybe you're suffering this??!
Wales Online.

Many people with COVID experience a phenomenon commonly called “brain fog”, which can include problems remembering, concentrating and performing daily tasks. Brain fog can also be a symptom of long COVID, where people suffer ongoing COVID symptoms for months, or even years, after infection.

Maybe thats the reason behind all your flip-flopping??

Yes I know that you are disappointed in the decision not to jail the nurse but we can all see why this happened. The judges were not sure about her motives. That's a fact not a speculation. But do you think they have more doubts about other things maybe? Yes, no? They could be 'anti-vaxxers' by the way...

I'm not disappointed, maybe you're projecting your personal problems here? But I do believe she should have also tried for fraud, and yes, because of her defence the Judges were unsure of her motives. The rest again are just your assumptions about the case.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I don't think that the Daily Mail is generally considered to be an authority on legal matters. Let alone on foreign jurisdictions.

So as a lefty let's say you consider what the Mirror said as true or reliable but not what the Mail said? It is expectable but newspapers are not authorities in anything, generally speaking.

I don't see any reason why the Mail is wrong here. At least it hasn't been challenged and in on the main link.

What is my agenda??

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Sigh.

I am NOT a lefty.

Since you ask, both papers are rags.

If you get your opinions from the Daily Fail I'll just leave you to it.

I've said all I have to say on the matter and I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you endlessly.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Sigh.

I am NOT a lefty.

Since you ask, both papers are rags.

If you get your opinions from the Daily Fail I'll just leave you to it.

I've said all I have to say on the matter and I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you endlessly.

He can't help but want to label people to feed his cognative bias can he...

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Sigh.

I am NOT a lefty.

Since you ask, both papers are rags.

If you get your opinions from the Daily Fail I'll just leave you to it.

I've said all I have to say on the matter and I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you endlessly.

I am not reading either of these papers but they were included in the link I gave in the opening page.

www.npr.org...


From an older piece of news.

a reply to: Kurokage


You seem to have a profound inability to understand what how the phase clinical trials work and how long do they take to be completed. It takes years and not months.

I am sure the nurse knew about the very basis as well as being aware of the serious adverse reactions caused by these products and decide to do what she did. Although I would have done it differently.

By linking unrelated materials shows further your confusion on the matter of phase clinical trials... Do you know the medium and long term effects? The benefit to risk ratio in all age groups? Whether they prevent transmission and infection?

Yes you seem disappointed in the decision just as everyone else who engages in vaccine apology and denialism of reality.

a reply to: Kurokage

In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned .......

Ongoing??
Are you aware that the people that initially received the blinded placebo.......were all unblinded and offered (as well as given) the actual covid vaccine?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Kurokage

In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned .......

Ongoing??
Are you aware that the people that initially received the blinded placebo.......were all unblinded and offered (as well as given) the actual covid vaccine?

You're just plain wrong but if you have evidence of wrong doing then you should take it up with The New England Journel of Medicine.
Hows that 40% deathrate going?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: Kurokage


You seem to have a profound inability to understand what how the phase clinical trials work and how long do they take to be completed. It takes years and not months.

I am sure the nurse knew about the very basis as well as being aware of the serious adverse reactions caused by these products and decide to do what she did. Although I would have done it differently.

By linking unrelated materials shows further your confusion on the matter of phase clinical trials... Do you know the medium and long term effects? The benefit to risk ratio in all age groups? Whether they prevent transmission and infection?

Yes you seem disappointed in the decision just as everyone else who engages in vaccine apology and denialism of reality.

It's clearly you with your cognative bias, flip flopping and anti-vaccine agenda that seem to have trouble understanding what a clinical trial is here.

The Nurse decided to take away a group of peoples choice to choose, which you seem to be fine with, were all over 70 and in the group that would clearly benifit from the vaccine.

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

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: Kurokage


You seem to have a profound inability to understand what how the phase clinical trials work and how long do they take to be completed. It takes years and not months.

I am sure the nurse knew about the very basis as well as being aware of the serious adverse reactions caused by these products and decide to do what she did. Although I would have done it differently.

By linking unrelated materials shows further your confusion on the matter of phase clinical trials... Do you know the medium and long term effects? The benefit to risk ratio in all age groups? Whether they prevent transmission and infection?

Yes you seem disappointed in the decision just as everyone else who engages in vaccine apology and denialism of reality.

It's clearly you with your cognative bias, flip flopping and anti-vaccine agenda that seem to have trouble understanding what a clinical trial is here.

The Nurse decided to take away a group of peoples choice to choose, which you seem to be fine with, were all over 70 and in the group that would clearly benifit from the vaccine.

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

The motive of the nurse is clear. She doesn't think the vaccines are safe and effective she has had some knowledge and experience to act this way. I round have done things in a very different way but I can see her reasoning. She isn't obliged to follow orders.

You are defending Pfizer by proxy. And you're stretching out towards infinity to deny that these experimental Covid drugs aren't the reason for massive debilitating side effects being reported on an unprecedented scale, which is also defending Pfizer and Moderna even if you didn't intend it that way, that is the bottom line.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The motive of the nurse is clear. She doesn't think the vaccines are safe and effective she has had some knowledge and experience to act this way. I round have done things in a very different way but I can see her reasoning. She isn't obliged to follow orders.

A little knowledge is dangerous and she acted without consent and without authority and is obliged to follow a code of conduct and what her job asked of her. We have both agreed that she should have declined vaccinating the elderly patients and if needed step down, none of which she did.
She was struck off by her professional body and won't ever be able to a medical professional again.

Your cognative bias is showing!!

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

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The motive of the nurse is clear. She doesn't think the vaccines are safe and effective she has had some knowledge and experience to act this way. I round have done things in a very different way but I can see her reasoning. She isn't obliged to follow orders.

A little knowledge is dangerous and she acted without consent and without authority and is obliged to follow a code of conduct and what her job asked of her. We have both agreed that she should have declined vaccinating the elderly patients and if needed step down, none of which she did.
She was struck off by her professional body and won't ever be able to a medical professional again.

Your cognative bias is showing!!

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

The very interesting aspect of her case is that the judges were not convinced of her motives. At least this is what they said. There could be more into it and they may be not convinced about the vaccination campaign altogether. Who knows?

A nurse can have much more knowledge and links from any other individuals who are outside these professions.

She isn't the only person who thinks the vaccines are not safe and effective. There seems to be many from the biomedical and nursing professions.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The very interesting aspect of her case is that the judges were not convinced of her motives. At least this is what they said. There could be more into it and they may be not convinced about the vaccination campaign altogether. Who knows?

Unless the Judges made any statements about the vaccine or motives about thie decision in the case then it's all just speculation I'm afraid...

A nurse can have much more knowledge and links from any other individuals who are outside these professions.

That still doesn't excuse what she did and was found guilty of, like I said before, to become a nursing professional she will have accepted and agreed to a code of conduct, which she did not respect as part of this is agreeing the the patients right to choose.

She isn't the only person who thinks the vaccines are not safe and effective. There seems to be many from the biomedical and nursing professions.

There are far more who disagree with here point and stance on the vaccine.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The very interesting aspect of her case is that the judges were not convinced of her motives. At least this is what they said. There could be more into it and they may be not convinced about the vaccination campaign altogether. Who knows?

Unless the Judges made any statements about the vaccine or motives about thie decision in the case then it's all just speculation I'm afraid...

A nurse can have much more knowledge and links from any other individuals who are outside these professions.

That still doesn't excuse what she did and was found guilty of, like I said before, to become a nursing professional she will have accepted and agreed to a code of conduct, which she did not respect as part of this is agreeing the the patients right to choose.

She isn't the only person who thinks the vaccines are not safe and effective. There seems to be many from the biomedical and nursing professions.

There are far more who disagree with here point and stance on the vaccine.

You need to qualify the claim about the numbers involved. Who says there are far more who disagree? Did you count them? Or do you have any evidence for it?

There is nothing wrong with taking an educated guess. But not many will accept the excuse given by the nurse. The judges are not stupid either. They just didn't want to jail her.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You need to qualify the claim about the numbers involved. Who says there are far more who disagree? Did you count them? Or do you have any evidence for it?

Why do I? You made the claim that there seems to be many from the biomedical and nursing professions. How many is many?

There is nothing wrong with taking an educated guess. But not many will accept the excuse given by the nurse. The judges are not stupid either. They just didn't want to jail her.

Is it an educated guess? what makes it educated rather than just an assumption?
There's no evidence here to back up the "they just didn't want to jail her?" Was she a first time offender, How much evidence was there that she did replaced the vaccine more than once? Those things aren't in the article.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You need to qualify the claim about the numbers involved. Who says there are far more who disagree? Did you count them? Or do you have any evidence for it?

Why do I? You made the claim that there seems to be many from the biomedical and nursing professions. How many is many?

There is nothing wrong with taking an educated guess. But not many will accept the excuse given by the nurse. The judges are not stupid either. They just didn't want to jail her.

Is it an educated guess? what makes it educated rather than just an assumption?
There's no evidence here to back up the "they just didn't want to jail her?" Was she a first time offender, How much evidence was there that she did replaced the vaccine more than once? Those things aren't in the article.

I said many but didn't specify whether it's a majority of not.

You have no evidence in what you are saying. All its vaccine apologetics and denialism.

You are defending Pfizer by proxy. And you're stretching out towards infinity to deny that these experimental Covid drugs aren't the reason for massive debilitating side effects being reported on an unprecedented scale, which is also defending Pfizer and Moderna even if you didn't intend it that way, that is the bottom line.

And recently plenty of frustration as your arguments are not going through.

I am sure the judges have had a good reason not to jail her. And they did the right thing. You can't jail someone over an experimental, untested and potentially hazardous vaccine.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I said many but didn't specify whether it's a majority of not.

So it's ok for you to make assumptions and then demand people specify numbers?!?! Hypocrisy comes to mind!!

You have no evidence in what you are saying. All its vaccine apologetics and denialism.

All I put forward was mutiple possible reason instead off just one based on cognative bias.
Oh, and you have tons of evidence on the Judges decission making process, do you?

And recently plenty of frustration as your arguments are not going through.

I am sure the judges have had a good reason not to jail her. And they did the right thing. You can't jail someone over an experimental, untested and potentially hazardous vaccine.

I think you'll find that it's you arguements that are stuck at a repeating dead end, and the frustration is clearly from you, you shouldn't get so upset.
Please point out the evidence of experimental and untested as this is plainly untrue, or are you as usual makling assumptions again.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I said many but didn't specify whether it's a majority of not.

So it's ok for you to make assumptions and then demand people specify numbers?!?! Hypocrisy comes to mind!!

You have no evidence in what you are saying. All its vaccine apologetics and denialism.

All I put forward was mutiple possible reason instead off just one based on cognative bias.
Oh, and you have tons of evidence on the Judges decission making process, do you?

And recently plenty of frustration as your arguments are not going through.

I am sure the judges have had a good reason not to jail her. And they did the right thing. You can't jail someone over an experimental, untested and potentially hazardous vaccine.

I think you'll find that it's you arguements that are stuck at a repeating dead end, and the frustration is clearly from you, you shouldn't get so upset.
Please point out the evidence of experimental and untested as this is plainly untrue, or are you as usual makling assumptions again.

These products are experimental and untested. That is not a claim.

It's the Pharmaceuticals that need to prove their products are safe and effective. No proof exists and the Phase3 clinical trial doesn't exist.

Do you know the medium and long term effects?
The benefit to risk ratio in all age groups?
How can you say the products are safe and effective?

If you don't know the above then the products are not safe and effective.

Neither we knew the short term effects. We are just started seeing them and they are very unpleasant.

Do these products prevent transmission and infection? No. So the claim that we should get vaccinated to protect granny was false and fraudulent.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

These products are experimental and untested. That is not a claim.

Again with the thread drift to try and back up your asinine claims.