FDA pulls authorization for AstraZeneca’s Covid antibody drug Evusheld

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: Itisnowagain
I get perplexed by this type of post.

As do I...

People can have adverse reactions to any drugs. They can be hit by cars when crossing the road. Choke on their donut. They can fall down stairs. Get bitten by the dreaded Blandford Fly. Bite their tongue.

I agree wholeheartedly.

That is why I choose my own risk path. I will never have my children vaccinated, nor will I ever get another one, for two reasons: a) first and foremost because I simply do not trust the people running the big pharma companies - at all - PERIOD - and b) because even if my kids come down with something nasty, I generally know how to treat it - from polio to whatever.

In fact I'm looking for chicken-pox and measles parties for my young kids now. Hopefully will find some soon.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Itisnowagain
If the odds are better than him not taking it then yes, every single time.

Anything otherwise is child neglect and cowardice.

So, you are now accusing those who do not share your own personal (and imnsho flawed) opinion regarding 'risk' as child abusers.

First, wtf are you to make such a determination for other people?

Second - petty-tyrant-wanna-be much?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Itisnowagain
If the odds are better than him not taking it then yes, every single time.

Anything otherwise is child neglect and cowardice.

So, you are now accusing those who do not share your own personal (and imnsho flawed) opinion regarding 'risk' as child abusers.

First, wtf are you to make such a determination for other people?

Second - petty-tyrant-wanna-be much?

Didn't read the post I answered did you.

And yes with holding potentially life saving medical treatment is a form of child abuse.

a reply to: ScepticScot
I think you are saying that you are not sure that penicillin kills hundreds of people in the US every year.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
I think you are saying that you are not sure that penicillin kills hundreds of people in the US every year.

I think i am saying its irrelevant to the point being made.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Itisnowagain
If the odds are better than him not taking it then yes, every single time.

Anything otherwise is child neglect and cowardice.

So, you are now accusing those who do not share your own personal (and imnsho flawed) opinion regarding 'risk' as child abusers.

First, wtf are you to make such a determination for other people?

Second - petty-tyrant-wanna-be much?

The member is engaging in the usual tactic of random accusations and appealing to emotions to get his claim through which is obviously flawed as it is embedded in a sea of vaccine apologetics and denialism.

He has even admitted that if thousands of deaths are caused by the vaccines, the vaccines should still be distributed to the public and labelled safe and effective. Which is just lunacy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
I think you are saying that you are not sure that penicillin kills hundreds of people in the US every year.

I think i am saying its irrelevant to the point being made.

Semantics so to continue the vaccine apologetics.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Itisnowagain
If the odds are better than him not taking it then yes, every single time.

Anything otherwise is child neglect and cowardice.

So, you are now accusing those who do not share your own personal (and imnsho flawed) opinion regarding 'risk' as child abusers.

First, wtf are you to make such a determination for other people?

Second - petty-tyrant-wanna-be much?

The mender is engaging in the usual tactic of random accusations and appealing to emotions to get his mashed through which is obviously flawed as it embedded in a sea of vaccine apologetics and denialism.

He has even admitted that if thousands of deaths are caused by the vaccines, the vaccines should still be distributed to the public and labelled safe and effective. Which is just lunacy

A more accurate way is to say you would rather have millions die of preventable or treatable diseases.

Which sounds worse?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
I think you are saying that you are not sure that penicillin kills hundreds of people in the US every year.

I think i am saying its irrelevant to the point being made.

Semantics so to continue the vaccine apologetics.

Semantics added list of things you don't understand.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
And yes with holding potentially life saving medical treatment is a form of child abuse.

Would you also agree that giving them a potentially life-threatening medical treatment is also a form of child abuse?

Just say, "Yes, I agree," or "No, I don't agree."

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
If the official sources say 70 deaths then you can expect more.

Why? All medicines have the potential for adverse side effects. People die from aspirin, and other common drugs. In the case of vaccinations for Covid, and AZ specifically, it's no longer being administered, so people won't get blood clots because of it. Unless you are saying they will. If AZ has a health impact after the event, then where's the evidence for that. Where's the impartial research? Please not a Youtube vid.

I am genuinely trying to flush out the concern here.

Wow I'm truly witnessing Cognitive Dissonance . Like you are so convoluted and confused you don't know which way to look do you ?

People die from asprin? Are you joking ? Yeah people die from aspirin but ummm people were not forced to take Aspirin or else lose there Job ? People were not pressured to take Aspirin by the Media or there peers , Mate you are lost in the fog it's sad.

So now people wont get blood clots because of the AZ vaccine so everything is okay ? All the other Blood Clots , Strokes and Heart Attacks don't count because now they admit the AZ is bad ?

Christ on a cracker we are doomed .

These two accounts are trying to trivialise and dismiss the deaths from the vaccines as expectable consequences in the fight for the greater good.

The arguments presented are just terrible from their side.

Vaccine apology
Denialism
Defending pharma

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Itisnowagain
If the odds are better than him not taking it then yes, every single time.

Anything otherwise is child neglect and cowardice.

So, you are now accusing those who do not share your own personal (and imnsho flawed) opinion regarding 'risk' as child abusers.

First, wtf are you to make such a determination for other people?

Second - petty-tyrant-wanna-be much?

The mender is engaging in the usual tactic of random accusations and appealing to emotions to get his mashed through which is obviously flawed as it embedded in a sea of vaccine apologetics and denialism.

He has even admitted that if thousands of deaths are caused by the vaccines, the vaccines should still be distributed to the public and labelled safe and effective. Which is just lunacy

A more accurate way is to say you would rather have millions die of preventable or treatable diseases.

Which sounds worse?

No that's is not correct.

You are confusing what the safety standards are.
Deaths and serious adverse reactions are more than enough to take a vaccine out of the market for good.

And how many people are saved is just an assertion of yours with respect to Covid based on the same narratives that peddle vaccines are safe and effective.

a reply to: ScepticScot

You compare vaccines to viruses for fatality rates which is absurd. You need to compare vaccines to other vaccines. The standards of safety are not set by myself. A product that causes a handful of deaths (and not thousands) is usually withdrawn from the markets for safety reasons.

You are admitting that thousands of deaths that could be caused by the vaccines is an acceptable number given they 'save many more'.

Monoclonal antibodies by AZ were pulled by the FDA

The AZ vaccine seems to have been withdrawn from most markets

Your admission above shows that you are motivated ideologically and politically given that by your own admission you have no training in any scientific and medical fields. It is like blending bad science with a large doses of left wing activism

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: ScepticScot
And yes with holding potentially life saving medical treatment is a form of child abuse.

Would you also agree that giving them a potentially life-threatening medical treatment is also a form of child abuse?

Just say, "Yes, I agree," or "No, I don't agree."

Sorry you don't get to frame other posters answers.

In most countries medical treatment is based on evidence. All treatments have risks attached but if its based on best likely outcome them its clearly not abuse.

Letting children die/suffer by withholding treatment when the evidence is in favour on the other hand.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You compare vaccines to viruses for fatality rates which is absurd. You need to compare vaccines to other vaccines. The standards of safety are not set by myself. A product that causes a handful of deaths (and not thousands) is usually withdrawn from the markets for safety reasons.

You are admitting that thousands of deaths that could be caused by the vaccines is an acceptable number given they 'save many more'.

Monoclonal antibodies by AZ were pulled by the FDA

The AZ vaccine seems to have been withdrawn from most markets

Your admission above shows that you are motivated ideologically and politically given that by your own admission you have no training in any scientific and medical fields. It is like blending bad science with a large doses of left wing activism

Only person bringing politics and ideology into the thread is you. Repeatedly.

You also keep brining othes qualifications into it despite never saying what yours are. That however is ok as the answer is pretty obvious

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: ScepticScot
And yes with holding potentially life saving medical treatment is a form of child abuse.

Would you also agree that giving them a potentially life-threatening medical treatment is also a form of child abuse?

Just say, "Yes, I agree," or "No, I don't agree."

Sorry you don't get to frame other posters answers.

In most countries medical treatment is based on evidence. All treatments have risks attached but if its based on best likely outcome them its clearly not abuse.

Letting children die/suffer by withholding treatment when the evidence is in favour on the other hand.

Yes the evidence that emanates from the Covid establishment and their cronies.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: ScepticScot
And yes with holding potentially life saving medical treatment is a form of child abuse.

Would you also agree that giving them a potentially life-threatening medical treatment is also a form of child abuse?

Just say, "Yes, I agree," or "No, I don't agree."

Sorry you don't get to frame other posters answers.

In most countries medical treatment is based on evidence. All treatments have risks attached but if its based on best likely outcome them its clearly not abuse.

Letting children die/suffer by withholding treatment when the evidence is in favour on the other hand.

Yes the evidence that emanates from the Covid establishment and their cronies.

As opposed to anonymous posts on a conspiracy site.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You compare vaccines to viruses for fatality rates which is absurd. You need to compare vaccines to other vaccines. The standards of safety are not set by myself. A product that causes a handful of deaths (and not thousands) is usually withdrawn from the markets for safety reasons.

You are admitting that thousands of deaths that could be caused by the vaccines is an acceptable number given they 'save many more'.

Monoclonal antibodies by AZ were pulled by the FDA

The AZ vaccine seems to have been withdrawn from most markets

Your admission above shows that you are motivated ideologically and politically given that by your own admission you have no training in any scientific and medical fields. It is like blending bad science with a large doses of left wing activism

Only person bringing politics and ideology into the thread is you. Repeatedly.

You also keep brining othes qualifications into it despite never saying what yours are. That however is ok as the answer is pretty obvious

What qualifications? By your own admission you have no formal qualifications and no knowledge or experience in any medical and scientific field. Yet you still try to argue as if you have knowledge by engaging in vaccine apologetics and peddle the narratives.

You can't admit that

Monoclonal antibodies by AZ were pulled by the FDA

The AZ vaccine seems to have been withdrawn from most markets

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

You compare vaccines to viruses for fatality rates which is absurd. You need to compare vaccines to other vaccines. The standards of safety are not set by myself. A product that causes a handful of deaths (and not thousands) is usually withdrawn from the markets for safety reasons.

You are admitting that thousands of deaths that could be caused by the vaccines is an acceptable number given they 'save many more'.

Monoclonal antibodies by AZ were pulled by the FDA

The AZ vaccine seems to have been withdrawn from most markets

Your admission above shows that you are motivated ideologically and politically given that by your own admission you have no training in any scientific and medical fields. It is like blending bad science with a large doses of left wing activism

Only person bringing politics and ideology into the thread is you. Repeatedly.

You also keep brining othes qualifications into it despite never saying what yours are. That however is ok as the answer is pretty obvious

What qualifications? By your own admission you have no formal qualifications and no knowledge or experience in any medical and scientific field. Yet you still try to argue as if you have knowledge by engaging in vaccine apologetics and peddle the narratives.

You can't admit that

Monoclonal antibodies by AZ were pulled by the FDA

The AZ vaccine seems to have been withdrawn from most markets

Unlike your PhD in? Oh sorry I forgot you didn't know the difference between a medical doctor and a PhD.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ScepticScot
"And yes with holding potentially life saving medical treatment is a form of child abuse."

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind
"Would you also agree that giving them a potentially life-threatening medical treatment is also a form of child abuse?

Just say, "Yes, I agree," or "No, I don't agree." "


Sorry you don't get to frame other posters answers.

In most countries medical treatment is based on evidence. All treatments have risks attached but if its based on best likely outcome them its clearly not abuse.

Letting children die/suffer by withholding treatment when the evidence is in favour on the other hand.

So, you're just going to deflect and not answer the question. Why do you want to participate in a discussion, but only demand others answer while you won't answer a simple question yourself?

I'll ask you a question you can answer in any way you like. But, you must answer it or you're just trolling.

Authorizing covid shots for children was first based on what "evidence?"

And please provide a link that backs up your answer so that we know you're sincere. Pretty Please?