Pfizer..We delivered the fraud the government ordered.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JBurns
Oh, and not everyone who refuses or resists this "vaccine" is "anti-vax." That term historically means one who is opposed to all (or at least most) vaccines. Please stop trying to broad-brush people who do not belong to that group into it. This is a discussion about one specific vaccine type targeting one specific pathogen, not about all vaccines.

The recent application of the "anti-vax" label is just a repurposing of irrational left-wing identity politics.

I have been told not to mention vaccine injury because I'm "not a doctor" and it will cause hesitancy, or that I'm an "anti-vaxxer"...enough times now that it doesn't bother me. I don't even get feisty any more, in fact nowadays I just smile at the thought of being driven to mass compliance by such lack of scepticism and naivete. If the sham isn't obvious to people by now, it might never be.

I got vaccinated because I look after someone in their 90's and would do whatever I could to avoid passing covid on. A mistake as I see it now, but you live and learn...I now see it as similar to flu shot on a bad year (when it basically doesn't work). Only far more dangerous and one that ultimately makes you more likely to be infected (negative efficacy).

Unfortunately I know people who have been shunned by family for mentioning their vaccine injury, some of them quite concerning injuries too. They are now conspiracy loving "anti-vaxxers". Inferior humans to be looked down on or something.

It doesn't seem to dawn on these people that they actually took this vaccine, often in good faith with confidence in the public health system (which I doubt is ever likely to happen again)...Not to mention those basically forced to take it.

There is something very strange going on where a small (but still large enough) number of the population have lost their humanity and sense of compassion. Surely the mainstream narrative itself would point to vax injured people as those that should be looked up to and well looked after, as they risked their health for the good of others?

I think Prof. Desmett and his "mass formation" hypothesis/theory has nailed it.

This has been like a mass Asch/Milgram experiment...

a reply to: Quintilian

It is to do with a dichotomy. Which are Science and $cience. The person who does a job they like hasn't got to work a day in their lives. They are already rich Those that do it for the money protect their income no matter what the moral complications.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Asmodeus3

How about you describe the difference between mRNA, RNA and DNA since you have the advantage of a science degree from Twitter.

Once they have evidence and proof we will have a look at it. I doubt they will ever do.

What more do you need? 13 billion doses given worldwide. Where are the piles of bodies? I see no professionals screeching about this. Even Trump and his oversized mouth knew it was a loseing argument.

Terrible argument which has been debunked long time ago. The pile of bodies has been used as an argument several times and has been refuted whenever it was used.

Everyday there are hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide from all causes and still most of us probably know nobody who has died. There would be piles of dead literally after a few days but still we probably don't know anyone who has died...

Your argument fails magnificently.

a reply to: Quintilian

Something I wanted to point out.
It looks like these products could cause serious conditions to young and healthy people but the same is true for those who have for example a range of conditions. For example you may have a heart condition. You have to think seriously whether to get these products as it could lead to heart failure or heart attacks.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Justoneman

Sorry for your loss. And it certainly could have been the vaccine, side effects are extremely rare but they do happen. Everyone should be able to do their own risk assessment without having knowingly false and inaccurate information like the assertions throughout this post.

Once they have evidence and proof we will have a look at it. I doubt they will ever do.

Pfizer never said this.

We cannot listen to people who believe all pharmaceuticals are bad or who made blind assertions of fact while quoting joke resources like Twitter or other personal homepages.

Vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. Defending the Pharmaceuticals for once more and trying to peddle official narratives of 'safe and effective' vaccines as well as 'extremely rare' adverse reactions.

You are not very convincing I am afraid.
The more you try the more you expose these arguments of yours.

a reply to: JBurns

I will use one of the paragraphs from TheRedneck

Put all together, the "vaccine" is likely the largest fraud perpetrated on the people ever. Pfizer has made out like a bandit; Pfizer executives have made out like bandits; the politicians who pushed this "vaccine" and proposed mandates have made out like bandits; the people are now suffering the side effects, whether rare or common.

This is indeed the largest fraud perpetrated on the people ever. Just as one of the Italian member of the European Parliament said a fee months ago: This is the greatest medical scandal in history.

a reply to: JBurns

You really need better arguments rather than trying to engage in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality.

You have argued that there was informed consent and freedom of choice but from all the replies you have got I don't think anyone agrees with you given the coercion, pressure, intimidation, and threats of dismissal by employers.

Mandates and vaccine passports just prove how absurd the entire campaign was. The most absurd and ludicrous campaign ever.

JBurns
The fraud is the anti-vax arguments.

Somewhere around 10% are based in fact, and out of those a small number may even be true.

The rest is peddled by armchair scientists repeating disinfo from Facebook.

Have been enjoying your little tete-a-tete (really) and although I don't want to get directly involved in such an argument (I have no real wish to change your mind), I am curious.

I'm guessing your study for the first (underlined italicised) claim of "10%" must be quite thorough for you to hold such certainty. At any rate I'm impressed by how staunchly it seems to have convinced you. If it was someone elses study I guess you must have looked into it quite well to be so satisfied. Any chance of putting it up for us to have a look at (to get an idea of original data, sources, methods and so on)?

Any chance you put an actual figure on the second one? "A small number" seems a bit vague. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

If you can that would be great, if you don't want to, that's fine also.

As to the original heading "Pfizer..We delivered the fraud the government ordered." that is obviously employing some licence for effect. I have doubts Pfizer said any such thing, or that anyone said it on their behalf.

Perhaps it should say that the FDA knowingly accepted a shoddy study from Pfizer that included data fraud and rolled out the products regardless. At least that does seem to be the defence being used by Pfizer.

They aren't claiming the allegations are wrong, they are literally claiming they didn't defraud the American people because the FDA were aware of it. Using a precedent from a strange law known as "materiality".

The claims were well enough supported for the BMJ to publish them. So there would be little point in Pfizer denying them. Instead they took a different direction which possibly will have the fraud claims thrown out.

People can quibble over semantics all they like. Pfizer has a criminal rap sheet longer than both of your arms and this wouldn't be unexpected, but it certainly doesn't put the FDA in a favourable light. If people had any confidence left in them that is.

www.theepochtimes.com...

originally posted by: Quintilian
As to the original heading "Pfizer..We delivered the fraud the government ordered." that is obviously employing some licence for effect. I have doubts Pfizer said any such thing, or that anyone said it on their behalf.

Perhaps it should say that the FDA knowingly accepted a shoddy study from Pfizer that included data fraud and rolled out the products regardless. At least that does seem to be the defence being used by Pfizer.

They aren't claiming the allegations are wrong, they are literally claiming they didn't defraud the American people because the FDA were aware of it. Using a precedent from a strange law known as "materiality".

The claims were well enough supported for the BMJ to publish them. So there would be little point in Pfizer denying them. Instead they took a different direction which possibly will have the fraud claims thrown out.

People can quibble over semantics all they like. Pfizer has a criminal rap sheet longer than both of your arms and this wouldn't be unexpected, but it certainly doesn't put the FDA in a favourable light. If people had any confidence left in them that is.

www.theepochtimes.com...

They should be indicted and convicted for their crimes. In addition, Pfizer and the rest of the saviours of humanity must be dismantled as they don't serve the public interest. Far from it.

Their excuses are unbelievable. It reminds me of some vaccine apologists and defenders of the Pharmaceuticals.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3


Informed consent?!

When I got vaccinated I was asked to stay around for 5 minutes to rule out anaphylaxis before I left (after first dose, second dose they didn't bother), that was the extent of the discussion of vaccine risks. I actually asked a couple of quick basic questions and got silence after and a blank stare. I doubt this fella had any f@#%s to give lol. Anyway I filled out a couple of pages worth of forms relating to personal health with a disclaimer at the "sign here" part. That was it.

The PH messaging was simply "safe and effective". I wasn't eligible for anything other that AZ. The govt here had stopped recommending it for people under 60 (a confidence booster if ever there was one lol) and so had a glut of it. Had to get rid of it somehow I suppose, so might as well offload it to the oldies. lol

There is a specific govt. PH page for potential risk of adverse events for each of the vaccines, but it doesn't have a very exhaustive list to say the least. I think it has been updated to include some dangerous adverse effects that weren't really considered until people started dying anyway (certain thrombolic injuries from memory). Not sure how people before this had any possibility of being genuinely informed of risk.

It certainly doesn't list the adverse effects I suffered (which seems common). It seems unreasonable to expect people to look online for manufacturer documentation or results of studies and the like anyway. I know plenty of people my age and older that have neither a computer or a mobile phone to begin with, let alone know how to use one to navigate something like that.

I sincerely doubt all of those people in old folks homes could have looked up the documentation on line, especially those already in palliative care, with dementia and so forth. Also doubt anyone tried to relay the possible risk to them or whether their family was consulted, especially if they didn't have enduring guardianship.

ps. No need anyway..."safe and effective".

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Quintilian
As to the original heading "Pfizer..We delivered the fraud the government ordered." that is obviously employing some licence for effect. I have doubts Pfizer said any such thing, or that anyone said it on their behalf.

Perhaps it should say that the FDA knowingly accepted a shoddy study from Pfizer that included data fraud and rolled out the products regardless. At least that does seem to be the defence being used by Pfizer.

They aren't claiming the allegations are wrong, they are literally claiming they didn't defraud the American people because the FDA were aware of it. Using a precedent from a strange law known as "materiality".

The claims were well enough supported for the BMJ to publish them. So there would be little point in Pfizer denying them. Instead they took a different direction which possibly will have the fraud claims thrown out.

People can quibble over semantics all they like. Pfizer has a criminal rap sheet longer than both of your arms and this wouldn't be unexpected, but it certainly doesn't put the FDA in a favourable light. If people had any confidence left in them that is.

www.theepochtimes.com...

They should be indicted and convicted for their crimes. In addition, Pfizer and the rest of the saviours of humanity must be dismantled as they don't serve the public interest. Far from it.

Their excuses are unbelievable. It reminds me of some vaccine apologists and defenders of the Pharmaceuticals.

There should be more than fines for criminal activity Pfizer has been known to indulge. Perhaps they should open Spandau again.

Though it would be expected of drug companies, the financial system means they are geared towards whatever makes money.

The regulators are far worse. They are public servants, their job is to protect the public from drug company shenanigans. A breach of that trust should be dealt with quite strongly. Likewise corruption.

originally posted by: Quintilian

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JBurns
Oh, and not everyone who refuses or resists this "vaccine" is "anti-vax." That term historically means one who is opposed to all (or at least most) vaccines. Please stop trying to broad-brush people who do not belong to that group into it. This is a discussion about one specific vaccine type targeting one specific pathogen, not about all vaccines.

The recent application of the "anti-vax" label is just a repurposing of irrational left-wing identity politics.

I got vaccinated because I look after someone in their 90's and would do whatever I could to avoid passing covid on. A mistake as I see it now, but you live and learn...I now see it as similar to flu shot on a bad year (when it basically doesn't work). Only far more dangerous and one that ultimately makes you more likely to be infected (negative efficacy).

This is a very rational take.

The good news is that though the vaccine was worthless, it seems that many people received mostly inert injections that offered no protection but also didn't have any significant additional risk. This is probably because of the absence of rigorous QA/QC, failure to properly titrate and administer, or some other combination of factors.

It is yet to be seen if there is truly any dosage that would be considered "safe and effective" by any conventional standards prior to 2020. Absent a real study of the vaccines as they leave the production line and right before they enter the body this will remain unclear to anybody being intellectually honest, especially for such an environmentally sensitive concoction. Right now it is only clear that they are far more dangerous than any prior standards have allowed for approval and with far less benefit in the populations recommended to receive it.

The CDC and FDA are both under the influence of the pharmaceutical lobby, more transparently than any other time in history. I have made it policy to not take drugs without 5 years of real world deployment, but now I will be refusing to take any new vaccine formulations and will only take old vaccines if there is a significant risk of serious illness from the disease. There are very few that will ever meet those requirements at this stage of my life. They can't be trusted to be honest about them and it's simply no longer worth the risk for me. They made their priorities clear and public safety wasn't on the list.

do the basis math

you need to do the math correctly

You don't have the numbers and statistics to make comparisons

basic arithmetic/math

You clearly don't have the slightest idea of the number of vaccines administered

Do the maths first before trying to debate

It is you that can't provide the numbers

You don't have the numbers and statistics to make comparisons.

Do the maths first before trying to debate.

I took his advice. Done. www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: JBurns

do the basis math

you need to do the math correctly

You don't have the numbers and statistics to make comparisons

basic arithmetic/math

You clearly don't have the slightest idea of the number of vaccines administered

Do the maths first before trying to debate

It is you that can't provide the numbers

You don't have the numbers and statistics to make comparisons.

Do the maths first before trying to debate.

I took his advice. Done. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well done that you finally realised how many doses have been given. It's not 13 million by the way.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The 'extremely rare' is part of the official narrative and hence not accepted.

It doesn't matter what you accept, you don't set reality.

No one is forcing anyone to take a vaccine. No one is going to, either.

So, you are claiming that no one lost their job because they refused to take the COVID "vaccine"? No one was threatened with losing their job if they refused the vaccine? Seriously? How narrowly do YOU define "forcing anyone to take a vaccine"?

originally posted by: JBurns

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Informed Consent, correct, where they explain the risks and side effects and you make a decision whether the benefit outweighs the risks. And for most people, it does. This is representative of reality. Its posted in public and you have to sign a consent form when you get each shot. IE: Informed Consent.

.

Informed consent?! Prove it.

It looks like propaganda to me and vaccine apologetics.

I sent you the MFG'ers warning.

They don't hide the risks. That's informed consent. They won't allow you to have one unless you sign the form.

Interesting slant on definitions that you have. Those consent forms, in many cases, were signed under duress. The options were to either take the shot, or they lost their job, source of income, career, etc.. Sorry, but a decision made while under duress is in no way shape or form "informed consent". I would wager that most people didn't even bother to read the consent forms because it was a fruitless effort, since they HAD NO CHOICE but to take the shot, no matter what was printed on that form. IMHO.

originally posted by: Rich Z

originally posted by: JBurns

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Informed Consent, correct, where they explain the risks and side effects and you make a decision whether the benefit outweighs the risks. And for most people, it does. This is representative of reality. Its posted in public and you have to sign a consent form when you get each shot. IE: Informed Consent.

.

Informed consent?! Prove it.

It looks like propaganda to me and vaccine apologetics.

I sent you the MFG'ers warning.

They don't hide the risks. That's informed consent. They won't allow you to have one unless you sign the form.

Interesting slant on definitions that you have. Those consent forms, in many cases, were signed under duress. The options were to either take the shot, or they lost their job, source of income, career, etc.. Sorry, but a decision made while under duress is in no way shape or form "informed consent". I would wager that most people didn't even bother to read the consent forms because it was a fruitless effort, since they HAD NO CHOICE but to take the shot, no matter what was printed on that form. IMHO.

The member above has a very strange definition of what informed consent is as it seems.

a reply to: Rich Z

Nonsense, they had the choice and chose to take it. If it meant that much to them, they should have had the courage to stand up for their beliefs.

If they won't stand up to their employer, we know they will bend the knee to big daddy government on cue and I still don't feel sorry for their character flaws.

most people didn't even bother to read the consent forms

Explains why most people seem to think these rare but possible side effects are a shocker.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Informed consent: Where you're given an accurate (to the best of their knowledge) reading of the risks and make your own choice whether to sign or not.

You could write "coerced"
You could refuse to sign

People need to own their choice and take responsibility for their own actions (or lack thereof) and not blame others, or compensate by spreading tons of intentionally misleading information.