Of Freedom, Country and Vaccination

[dirkfansince1998]

The mandate is unconstitutional and tyrannical and will be struck down in court.

There is a supreme court ruling on mandates on a state level (Jacobsen vs Massachusetts 1905) that was upheld through the years. Already mentioned some of the requirements for a legal mandate in previous posts. Not to mention the numerous amounts of vaccines that are required for certain groups (schools, health care workers) differing from state to state. Or the army.
So far objections to state mandates have been rejected in Indiana, New York and Maine. So mandates are clearly a legal possibility.

Question is if the federal government can enforce them. There is no precedent when it comes to vaccine mandates. Comes down to state vs federal law. In this case OSHA vs state law. Going back to the origin of OSHA in 1970 that´s why OSHA exists in the first place. To enforce worplace safety standards in all states. Going along with that the mandate should beat stat law.
Next part. Are vaccine mandates within the authority of OSHA? COVID is clearly endangering people in their workplace environment. OSHA is enforcing rules to guarantee work place safety. That´s where all previously mentioned concerns have to be adressed (necessity, alternatives, exemptions...).

And in this case we have to go into detail. What exactly is getting mandated? Per definition it is not a vaccine mandate. It is a test mandate with an exemption for vaccinated people. One important question was already answered. Who pays for vaccine related sick day leave? Per OSHA the employer. Great. That´s how it should. Next important question that probably needs to be answered to prevent courts from stopping the mandate. Who pays for the tests?

Last part. The reality of the situation is probably more about politics. Both parties are always trying to get their judges in place for a reason. I was suprised to see that a "conservative" supreme court denied the religious exemptions for health care workers in Maine.
Not suprised by the 5th circuits decision to halt the OSHA mandate. 12 judges appointed by Bush (4), Reagan(2) and Trump (6). 5 by Clinton (2) and Obama (3). But that´s how it works. So far it has been a simple stay order. Will get more interesting in the coming days. When we see the response from the federal administration. When the court has to to go into detail on potential constitutional concerns.

[Hypermav]

https://reason.com/2021/11/07/here-are-t...employers/

[dirkfansince1998]

@"Hypermav". Good summary. Complex issue with multiple questions.

Are vaccine mandates like this within OSHA authority?
Is the mandate itself adressing all important points (necessity, alternatives, exemptions)?
And rarely mentioned. Potential issue for private business. What about a potential competitive advantage for smaller business that do not fall under the mandate?

[Hypermav]

@"Hypermav". Good summary. Complex issue with multiple questions.

Are vaccine mandates like this within OSHA authority?
Is the mandate itself adressing all important points (necessity, alternatives, exemptions)?
And rarely mentioned. Potential issue for private business. What about a potential competitive advantage for smaller business that do not fall under the mandate?

I was trying to stay away from much discussion on this subject but I am very interested in the outcome of this case.  This has been an informative thread for sure. 

I did think the "underinclusive" point was interesting.  

 "The brief argues that the new ETS is "underinclusive" because weekly testing can miss COVID-19 carriers, because employees who are vaccinated can still carry the virus but don't have to be tested or wear masks, and because the rule does not apply to customers or other visitors who may transmit COVID-19 in the workplace. "

Could you imagine a workplace where the vaccinated have to test the same as the unvaccinated?  How would we even have enough tests for the unvaccinated?  I don't think there are currently enough.  

If I tell my employer I cannot test this week because there are no tests available, what is the resolution?  What is to keep me from taking a picture of my same false test every week? Not that I would...

Before the mandate, my employer was adding a surcharge for unvaccinated employees.  It is not that much, but does penalize much like tobacco use.  

The antiviral pills would be more palatable for me long term as an alternative.  Assuming they don't have any weird side effects like making me like the Lakers.

[Dahlsim]

It seems like Dahl is constantly trying to argue against the FORCED vaccination and I’m not sure if dirkfan is trying to argue against, as I’ve been keeping up with this by skimming (so I very well could have skimmed past). DF, are you for or against government mandated vaccination? That at one point was the crux of this back and forth. Is there at least not enough out there for people to have a somewhat reasonable reason to not want to be vaccinated?

I’m vaccinated and had the virus, but I would not want to make that decision for others.

Right on the money @"ItsGoTime".  The "Freedom, Country and Vaccination" topic drew me in because it addresses not only a medical and healthcare crisis but what I consider an even more fundamental crisis of the tradition of American liberties particularly those identified in the 1st Amendment. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Along with this pandemic we've seen blatant disregard for the protections guaranteed by the 1st amendment including unprecedented suppression of free speech.   

It would be hard enough to justify forcing injections on a society built on American liberties if the vaccinations were perfectly efficacious and safe with little real disagreement from the medical and scientific communities.  Even then, iron fisted tactics should not be required to force people into taking injections into their body.  

Free speech still works, without heavy handed suppression of dissenting voices.  The public could be persuaded by not only the voices of peer-reviewed science but also by their own observations, anecdotes and word of mouth. 

I've posted numerous dissenting sources not because I agree with everything they say, they don't even agree among themselves.  I post the dissenting views to point out that there is what I consider significant disagreement even among some normally considered both professionals and experts in the related fields.  Suppression of data even extends into government agencies being forced to skew the data such as adverse effect reporting.   This sort of suppression can easily lead to the corruption of data inputs and interpretations of what is reported today under the magical rubric label of science.  

Given that people can and do talk to their own neighbors as well as some of their own doctors and get different interpretations and views about the vaccinations, people should make their own choices based on their own analysis and situation.   The very least that should be done whether we choose as individuals to get the vaccinations, is to absolutely resist the forced vaccination movement. 
Perhaps those that disagree with the majority media and government narrative on the vaccinations are wrong to one degree or the other, but at least you would know that you made your own choice rather than live with choices that were forced upon you. 


A Deadly Pandemic of the Fully Vaccinated – Worldwide data from 185 nations proves the highest Covid-19 Death rates are in the most vaccinated countries




https://www.europereloaded.com/worldwide...countries/

[Dahlsim]

The mandate is unconstitutional and tyrannical and will be struck down in court.

"Roundtable discussion with vaccine injured and medical experts on federal vaccine mandates and the importance of health care freedom"

https://rumble.com/vokrf7-sen.-johnson-e...K0g1lGuf-U

Thanks for sharing this @"luka_skywalker_77" 

Its almost 4 hours long so I would be surprised if many watch it although I encourage those interested in the 'other side' of the vaccine safety question to click through and watch a few of the vaccine injured which I've been referencing as those suffering adverse effects.  

Brian Dressen, Ph.D., is one of the scientists who testified during the 8-hour hearing.

Forward to about the 43:18 mark of the video and listen to a few minutes of testimony from his wife Brianne Dressen who suffered a severe adverse effect and talks about how thousands are affected.  You can also find more from her story with her husband Brian Dressen. 
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defen...-children/ 

Dressen said his family’s lives have changed forever. “The clinical trials are not appropriately evaluating the data,” he said. “The FDA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the drug companies continue to deflect the persistent and repeated cries for help and acknowledgment, leaving the injured as collateral damage.”

He added:

“Until we appropriately care for those already injured, acknowledge the full scope of injuries that are happening to adults, please do not give this to kids. You have a very clear responsibility to appropriately assess the risks and benefits to these vaccines. It is obvious that isn’t happening.

They also talk extensively about clear evidence that the government influenced science, studies and data being disseminated are being manipulated which corrupts what those placing their trust in science are actually relying on. 

Dressen said:

“Injured support groups are growing. Memberships number into at least the tens of thousands. We must do better. Those injured in a trial are a critical piece of vaccine safety data. They are being tossed aside and forgotten. The FDA has known first-hand about her case and thousands of others. The FDA has also stated that their own systems are not identifying this issue and that VAERS is not designed to identify any multi-symptom signals. The system is broken.”

This is what happens when free speech and dissenting expression is deliberately suppressed and everything on one side of an issue is labeled misinformation while the public is fed narrative driven scientific studies.

[dirkfansince1998]

Ignoring all the supression, agenda and bias talk. You are obviously free to think whatever you want and we clearly have a different understanding of evidence based science. Personally I think science denial is the biggest problem. And to go slightly off topic. COVID is just one of the areas where it is really hurting us. Maybe people aren´t feeling it right now but climate change will be the next one. Same story. Ignoring the scientific consensus because it is inconvenient. Acting when it´s already to late. Rinse and repeat.
But let´s just ignore that. Again. Personal opinions.

What I really don´t get. How can you post an article like the one that links the vaccine to death numbers around the world if you are concerned about narrative driven science, manipulated or misinterpreted data. That´s just one giant contradiction.
Do you really not see the obvious flaws and methodical nonsense or are you just willfully ignoring it. Posting it anyway because just like you like to call out in the following post. It suits your own agenda.

I am honestly losing my faith in humanity over the mentioned link. I really thought that any person that reads through the mentioned methods would immediately dismiss the article. It is that bad.

[dirkfansince1998]

For people that missed the latest data release for Texas. From November 8, 2021:

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covi...tatus.aspx

Key Findings

1. From September 4 through October 1, 2021:
   
   • Unvaccinated people were 13 times more likely to become infected with COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people.
     
   • Unvaccinated people were 20 times more likely to experience COVID-19-associated death than fully vaccinated people.
     
2. Vaccination had a strong protective effect on infections and deaths among people of all ages. The protective impact on infections was consistent across adult age groups and even greater in people ages 12 to 17 years. The protective impact on COVID-19 deaths, which was high for all age groups, varied more widely. In the September time frame, unvaccinated people in their 40s were 55 times more likely to die from COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated people of the same age. Unvaccinated people aged 75 years and older were 12 times more likely to die than their vaccinated counterparts.
   
3. Overall, regardless of vaccination status, people in Texas were four to five times more likely to become infected with COVID-19 or suffer a COVID-19-associated death while the Delta variant was prevalent in Texas (August 2021) compared with a period before the Delta variant became prevalent (April 2021).
   

Overall crude case rate (daily 7-day moving average) by vaccination status from Jan. 15, 2021 to Oct. 1, 2021

• From Jan. 15 to Oct. 1, unvaccinated people were 45 times more likely to have an infection with COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people.
  
• From Sept. 4 to Oct. 1, unvaccinated people were 13 times more likely to become infected than fully vaccinated people.
  
• For both periods, the impact was strong across all age groups with the greatest protective effect in children 12 to 17 years of age.
  

Overall crude death rate (daily 7-day moving average) by vaccination status from Jan. 15, 2021 to Oct. 1, 2021

• From Jan. 15, 2021 to Oct. 1, 2021, unvaccinated people were 40 times more likely to experience COVID-19-associated death than fully vaccinated people.
  
• From Sept. 4, 2021 to Oct. 1, 2021, unvaccinated people were 20 times more likely to experience COVID-19-associated death than fully vaccinated people.
  
• For both periods, the impact was strong across all age groups with a somewhat smaller protective effect in older adults at least 75 years old.
  

[Dahlsim]

 Personally I think science denial is the biggest problem.

In the interest of time, let's take one point at a time.  I'm going to start with my own view on this since you identify it as the biggest problem. 

http://www.luminousgroup.net/2013/05/on-...ience.html
the word science, It comes from the Latin scientia, from sciens, which means having knowledge, from the present participle of scire, meaning to know,

What you're calling science denial is really challenging a particular methodology or reports based on it in the interest of validating knowledge, which is the root meaning from which we derive the word and idea behind science.  If you follow a certain path to validating, authenticating the accuracy of your knowledge and others do not agree with the conclusions and you and others agree to then you call that science denial.  

In plain language, science is about the pursuit of knowledge and reaching some degree of accuracy in knowing something, authenticating and validating what we think we know.  Here is where I think you and really millions of this generation have erred.  
The 'Scientific Method' a methodology which has undergone some refinement and evolution itself over the years, is not the be all end all one-size-fits-all process that can accurately validate every area of knowledge, all by itself.  Its applies much better to some inquiries than it does to others.  Sometimes the data is simply insufficient for example.  It may be incomplete or unavailable at the present, or aspects of of it simply unobtainable.  
Similarly the related peer-review process as I've said is great, but is not flawless as I've referenced others pointing out and providing examples of earlier.  

You criticized me earlier for not being consistent in the references and methods I consider and share. 
There is more than one form of inquiry into science/knowledge that can and should be used alongside or at times alternatively to the formal scientific method.  It depends on what exactly are validating.  
Consistency is fine when we can apply it, but the end goal is accuracy, not simple consistency for consistency sake. 

Look at fields like Archeology, Jurisprudence, History and my own favorite Theology. In this case with Covid and natural immune systems, we come to an area in medical science where for various reasons some of the real facts and numbers are contestable and murky. 
You tried to say it should all yield to studies and peer review but I showed your own link where the Harvard piece you referenced stated the issue around the immune system and the effect of supplements and herbs etc. was in their words complicated. and not something science knows right now. 

This requires that you first grasp that not every inquiry into knowledge/science will yield to the one method and process you appear to place most of your trust in. 
The devil it is said, is in the details.

[Dahlsim]

Ignoring all the supression, agenda and bias talk. ... 

and why should we ignore all possibility of suppression of data, agenda based corruption and bias influence on the reported science?   In your mind, should it be dismissed because you find no evidence that its real?  

Did you watch any of public hearing shared by @"luka_skywalker_77"?  I can't imagine you did since they offer tons of testimony and evidence as to the problems with the science that is being reported and what is not being adequately reported.   

Here's a shorter excerpt from that much longer video which includes a sample I thinking relevant to this point you raise, or rather fail to raise. 

Brianne Dressen vaccine injury testimony.

[dirkfansince1998]

In the interest of time, let's take one point at a time.  I'm going to start with my own view on this since you identify it as the biggest problem. 

What you're calling science denial is really challenging a particular methodology or reports based on it in the interest of validating knowledge, which is the root meaning from which we derive the word and idea behind science.  If you follow a certain path to validating, authenticating the accuracy of your knowledge and others do not agree with the conclusions and you and others agree to then you call that science denial.  

In plain language, science is about the pursuit of knowledge and reaching some degree of accuracy in knowing something, authenticating and validating what we think we know.  Here is where I think you and really millions of this generation have erred.  
The 'Scientific Method' a methodology which has undergone some refinement and evolution itself over the years, is not the be all end all one-size-fits-all process that can accurately validate every area of knowledge, all by itself.  Its applies much better to some inquiries than it does to others.  Sometimes the data is simply insufficient for example.  It may be incomplete or unavailable at the present, or aspects of of it simply unobtainable.  
Similarly the related peer-review process as I've said is great, but is not flawless as I've referenced others pointing out and providing examples of earlier.  

You criticized me earlier for not being consistent in the references and methods I consider and share. 
There is more than one form of inquiry into science/knowledge that can and should be used alongside or at times alternatively to the formal scientific method.  It depends on what exactly are validating.  
Consistency is fine when we can apply it, but the end goal is accuracy, not simple consistency for consistency sake. 

Look at fields like Archeology, Jurisprudence, History and my own favorite Theology. In this case with Covid and natural immune systems, we come to an area in medical science where for various reasons some of the real facts and numbers are contestable and murky. 
You tried to say it should all yield to studies and peer review but I showed your own link where the Harvard piece you referenced stated the issue around the immune system and the effect of supplements and herbs etc. was in their words complicated. and not something science knows right now. 

This requires that you first grasp that not every inquiry into knowledge/science will yield to the one method and process you appear to place most of your trust in. 
The devil it is said, is in the details.

I am not even opposing anything you said right now. It just exposes your own contradicitons and hypocrisy. Nothing you are doing is in the interest of acquiring knowledge.If that was the case you would have the decency to verify or at least look at some of your sources.

And no we don´t know everything but that´s not what you are trying to sell us. You are simply using the "we don´t know excuse" when the findings don´t fit your narrative. When the science doesn´t fit your believes it´s a big conspiracy. When it does you are happy to go along. That´s not the point of scientific enquiry. Start with an open mind and come to a conclusion. Don´t start with the conclusion and try to justify it.

And know the important part. I just want to know why you posted the mentioned article. What was your motivation. Agenda driven like you are complaining about in every post or once again not even checking your own sources.

[dirkfansince1998]

and why should we ignore all possibility of suppression of data, agenda based corruption and bias influence on the reported science?   In your mind, should it be dismissed because you find no evidence that its real?  

Did you watch any of public hearing shared by @"luka_skywalker_77"?  I can't imagine you did since they offer tons of testimony and evidence as to the problems with the science that is being reported and what is not being adequately reported.   

Here's a shorter excerpt from that much longer video which includes a sample I thinking relevant to this point you raise, or rather fail to raise. 

Brianne Dressen vaccine injury testimony.

Because I don´t want to waste my time. Your entire case is build around a big conspiracy. Without the conspiracy there wouldn´t even be a case. I wasted my time listening to all of the things you posted. Based on your posts you didn´t even do that yourself. You certainly denied any knowledge about them.
I think this is from the Ron Johnson hearing. I saw parts of it.
No one is denying that adverse reactions happen. There is no conspiracy to hide them. Terrible things can happen. For example anaphylaxis, blod clots, myocarditis, perycarditis and sadly even death. I was actually the first one in this thread to bring up the majority of them.
But and here is the big but. The benefit outweighs the risk. And the evidence for that is as clear as it gets.

[Dahlsim]

I am not even opposing anything you said right now. It just exposes your own contradicitons and hypocracy. Nothing you are doing is in the interest of acquiring knowledge. 

@"dirkfansince1998" do you even realize when you are descending and resorting to Ad Hominem?  I defined it earlier so I assume you understand the point.  Is it your desire to be rude or condescending, I'm curious.  

I don't think I've ever called you a hypocrite for example.  The problem with such debate tactics is that even if you are a hypocrite, that wouldn't necessarily invalidate every or any point that you make.  Get it?  
How for example do you possess the ability to read my intentions and motivations so well that you can confidently say I have no real interest in acquiring knowledge?  

I'm really just trying to get you to look in the mirror a bit my friend.  

I noticed a direct tonal nastiness came into your diatribes after I cited the Democratic state representative several pages back that stated in own words that her life was saved by HCQ.  She credited Trump for at least bringing it up but you're showing signs of being one of those people that turn completely   at the mention of Trumps name.   You completely ignore the fact that I didn't make the reference to promote Trump or Republicans or any such political point.  My point was that the woman felt her life was saved whether the studies have proven that to be impossible in your eyes or not.  For her, it was anecdotal and it was life saving.  That stands as a statement of fact, even if she was given a placebo, perhaps her faith in it cured her    but the fact that it happened stands without need for further interpretation.  
Seriously, this issue has been tied to politics so its impossible to completely ignore it but I try to stick to the point I'm making. 
You seriously seem to struggle with concept or you have no desire to tamp the politics down, which is it? 

I just want to know why you posted the mentioned article. What was your motivation. Agenda driven

Of course we all come in with ideas and positions but we can also be open minded during debate right?  I stated my agenda repeatedly from the beginning. 

1) Against forced vaccinations. 
2) I post mostly references and information on the side that I consider is having their information suppressed and attacked because

A) The dominant narrative already has plenty of visibility, resources and the most powerful people in the world driving it.   Digging up the dissent provides some balance to the information under consideration.  

B) In general I find it undeniable that there is plenty of evidence indicating that the benefit/risk calculations of the vaccinations which affects every one us are being skewed so that the real numbers are murky at best. You can keep calling it "my view" but the fact is I keep showing you many, many other people that make it clear deliberate efforts are being taken to distort the science the public gets to hear. 

Because I don´t want to waste my time. Your entire case is build around a big conspiracy.

Of course since you didn't listen to even the much shorter video excerpt I gave you, you didn't hear the clear public testimony of the woman affected and the thousands she says are in groups telling you that the data suppression not just a conspiracy.  You also didn't see the charts or hear the statistics Senator Johnson offered providing evidence of government influence on skewing the data.  

You couldn't waste your time to hear multiple peoples testimonies of not only their injuries but of the problems they face just trying to exercise their first amendment rights and get their stories out to fellow citizens. 

No one is denying that adverse reactions happen. There is no conspiracy to hide them.

A many people in those videos from all walks of life are providing evidence that you are wrong on that point. 

 Conspiracy is a broad word, meant to sound outlandish and spooky.  All you need are a few powerful people, or even one powerful person with financial and political powerful to force and influence those under them.  It doesn't require this widespread conspiracy you treat as a red herring. Something real is distorting the scientific numbers that get to most of the public according these people.  Brianne Dressen, Senator Johnson and others personally showed up to point out numerous scientists saying their data and studies are being rejected without consideration if they go against the favored narrative. 

Its all stated very clearly in the little video clip you can't bothered to find time to watch.  Is it because someone appears from the wrong political party for you?  I'm purple really so I don't relate to that sort of don't listen to the bad guys approach to "science".    https://www.bitchute.com/video/3eFKbhfgbntV/ 

 Numerous very credible professionals in the appropriate fields also give their data analysis and some disagree with many other very credible professionals.  Both sides provide evidence to prove their cases, whether you cover your eyes and ignore one side or not. 

So again, my point, agenda if you want to hoist that label is to not to say that the vaccine is bad. Not at all. The entire pandemic starts with something very bad.  The question at hand is how to best handle it.  The risk is not one size fits all so why is the solution one size fits all. The vaccine is one way. 

The benefit outweighs the risk. And the evidence for that is as clear as it gets.

Outweighs the risk for who exactly?  For an 80 year old?  For a 5 year old?  For a healthy 25 year old the same as for an immuno-compromised 68 year old?  What exactly is the vaccination risk for each of these groups to compare with?  Who exactly did you do this calculation for Mr. scientific method. 

The point is that there is more than one side to the story on the vaccinations.  Risks are different for different people.  Each person and family should be free to analyze all sides and make their own decision, not to have life and death decisions forced on them, especially with a vaccination that has so many question marks pending around it.

[dirkfansince1998]

@dirkfansince1998 do you even realize when you are descending and resorting to Ad Hominem?  I defined it earlier so I assume you understand the point.  Is it your desire to be rude or condescending, I'm curious.  

I don't think I've ever called you a hypocrite for example.  The problem with such debate tactics is that even if you are a hypocrite, that wouldn't necessarily invalidate every or any point that you make.  Get it?  
How for example do you possess the ability to read my intentions and motivations so well that you can confidently say I have no real interest in acquiring knowledge?  

I'm really just trying to get you to look in the mirror a bit my friend.  

I read and listened to all the stuff that you claim not to know about even though you posted it. That´s why I am questioning your intentions. If this was all about knowledge you should have done that yourself. And I absolutely changed my tone because I am angry. Not to mention that it takes two to get to the point where we are right now.  I don´t think you are trying to argue in good faith. You are cherry picking whatever you want.

I noticed a direct tonal nastiness came into your diatribes after I cited the Democratic state representative several pages back that stated in own words that her life was saved by HCQ.  She credited Trump for at least bringing it up but you're showing signs of being one of those people that turn completely   at the mention of Trumps name.   You completely ignore the fact that I didn't make the reference to promote Trump or Republicans or any such political point.  My point was that the woman felt her life was saved whether the studies have proven that to be impossible in your eyes or not.  For her, it was anecdotal and it was life saving.  That stands as a statement of fact, even if she was given a placebo, perhaps her faith in it cured her    but the fact that it happened stands without need for further interpretation.  
Seriously, this issue has been tied to politics so its impossible to completely ignore it but I try to stick to the point I'm making. 
You seriously seem to struggle with concept or you have no desire to tamp the politics down, which is it? 

For all I care we could call it the "Trump is great vaccine". I am not happy about the exact same thing you are posting in this thread. Claims that have been debunked. Don´t care about the source. Promoting unproven treatments or in this case treatments that aren´t working is dangerous. And it gets more dangerous if the one that is doing has a large social platform to do it. In this case we are talking about the largest possible stage. Misinformation from the president himself. Cannot get much worse. How many people demanded HCQ because of his words? Or refused other treatments? How many of them died? That´s my problem with Trump´s comments on HCQ.

If you think that her believing in it makes it a fact I really don´t know what to tell you. I guess we just hand out random drugs and if the person recovers they get approved. Who cares if they actually work.
For all we know she would have recovered without any treatment. She described a mild case.

I wasn´t the one that made this about politics. The whole point is that your entire argument is based on politics. Outside of the larger than life story about bias, suppression and government influence there really isn´t anything that supports whatever case you are trying to make. Tell me who do you mean when you talk about the mentioned points. Certain agencies, parties, the government. It´s not me that brought political tribalism into this. Not me that is constantly attacking the credibility of "mainstream" media (is this supposed to be a slur?).

Not to mention that you forgot the most important part of your argument. The one thing where the scientific consensus is acceptable. Natural immunity or to highlight what this is really about "god given" natural immunity.

Of course we all come in with ideas and positions but we can also be open minded during debate right?  I stated my agenda repeatedly from the beginning. 

1) Against forced vaccinations. 
2) I post mostly references and information on the side that I consider is having their information suppressed and attacked because

A) The dominant narrative already has plenty of visibility, resources and the most powerful people in the world driving it.   Digging up the dissent provides some balance to the information under consideration.  

And you really don´t see any problems with the reliability of the mentioned article or the used methods? As mentioned it fits a certain point of view it´s good. Rest doesn´t matter. Who cares about the content. Please take another look at it and tell me why a person like me with in your opinion a more narrow view might have some concerns about it or to be honest thinks that the entire article is complete nonsense.

And with point 2) you are already showing a clear bias. You picked a side based on your own views. In this case probably political. That´s the whole point I am trying to make. You think that one side is dominating the discussion. Others think that based on the scientific evidence we are we are seeing a clear disbalance in reporting to the other side. All I can say is. Take a look outside your bubble. The political landscape is divided. The media landscape is divided. Doesn´t meant that all sides of the discussion aren´t represented.

And to come back to this thread. I just don´t think what you are doing is helping either side. We spent hours talking about thinks like fertility or cancer because of some of the things that were posted. Could have spent the time talking about real adverse reactions like myocarditis or blood clots. Critical thinking includes more than just questioning the mainstream. No one is against scepticism. It´s important to challenge existing beliefs and even the scientific consensus. Problem starts when the same standard isn´t applied to other sources.
And no claiming that you didn´t know about it even though you posted it yourself isn´t getting you out of that contradiction.

A many people in those videos from all walks of life are providing evidence that you are wrong on that point. 

I mean I can literally look at the vaccine information page of every single state or existing health agencies and get information on adverse reactions.

And it really isn´t changing my opinion. The point that other health experts and agencies are making as well. Adverse reactions happen. It´s tragic but they are rare. I absolutely think that affected need more help but that´s more about the broken health care system.  If Ron Johnson wants to make it his job to make sure that those people aren´t forgotten I am all for it.
I only watched the short segment but I think I watched something similar at some point in the last couple of weeks. Basically the same setup. Ron Johnson and people that suffered from adverse reactions.
Again. I absolutely think that those stories need to be heard but I am also pretty confident that they are heard. Otherwise we wouldn´t have seen some of the adjustments in vaccine recommendations. We even saw a halted vaccine program because of adverse reactions. People are watching and listening.
We just have to go into detail again. There are severe adverse reactions. By now we have mentioned them so many times that I probably don´t need to repeat all of them. They are extremly rare. And there are initial vaccine reactions. The typical flu/feeling under the weather like symptoms in the following days.
One is more likely to get underreported than the other.

And the last part. We need to stop talking about vaccine reactions as a whole. One vaccine is not like the other. Not a women below 50. No need to be afraid of blood clots after a J&J or in other countries AstraZenica vaccine. Or the most recent example of some countries in europe halting the Moderna vaccine for young men. The Pfizer vaccine offers similar efficacy with a lower risk to suffer from myocarditis or pericarditis.

People need to be aware of the benefit the vaccine provides compared to those risks. Personally (Danger. Anecdote incoming) I tend to that with comparisations to other common drugs/treatments. For example some contraceptive pills compared to J&J when it comes to blood clots. I think people struggle to grasp the concept of 1-10:100000 or even 1-10:1000000 concepts. And it really helps to give them a baseline.
Going back to the birth control pill example many women are taking drugs with a 10:10000 risk for thrombosis. So far the CDC confirmed 50 TTS cases among 15.7m vaccinated. That´s somewhere in the 3 per million range. Even if you want to account for potentially missed cases. Double, triple or even add 10x more. Still not close to the thrombosis risk of some birth control pills.
It really helps to make people understand that severe adverse reactions are extremly rare.

Is it because someone appears from the wrong political party for you?  I'm purple really so I don't relate to that sort of don't listen to the bad guys approach to "science".    

You are making this extremly easy for yourself. Cannot be bothered to watch his one links or just doesn´t want to to talk about the content. Tell me what the real issue is. Asks me to watch a four hour long video. I watched the shorter clip you provided.

By the way I can openly talk about my political opinion. I am probably more left leaning than the majority of the democratic party. Would be great if you could do the same. But I already called it out multiple times. If you think of yourself as a neutral/bipartisan person. Feel free to do it. Because your posts are anything but. It´s hilarious that you are even coming up with this. Because this issue isn´t even about my political views (maybe my stance on mandates). As of now I am not even living in the US.
I wasn´t happy when the Dems questioned the vaccine safety because Trump supposingly rushed the development. I wasn´t happy when they celebrated a premature victory earlier this year. I am even less happy about the current GOP trying to spread misinformation about COVID, vaccines and treatments.
To sum it up. I am not a fan of the majority of political leaders in this country.

For me it is about the best possible way to limit the damage and "end" (it´s not going to be back to normal) the pandemic. And for the most part that is about the science behind the virus, the vaccine and treatment options. Also includes even less popular policies like masks or even lockdowns.
Right now the vaccine is by far the best and safest option in the fight against COVID. I just provided the recently released data for Texas. To quote you. That looks like a slam dunk.
I am open for all other ideas and options. Including other treatment options (not debunked stuff like HCQ). Early treatment with monoclonal antibodies is a good option. But not available for all people.
Maybe another off-label drug provides a benefit. Maybe the newly developed drugs will make the difference. Trial data certainly looks good but they are working with the best case scenario. Early treatment at the first sight of infection/symptoms. That´s not a real world scenario.

Outweighs the risk for who exactly?  For an 80 year old?  For a 5 year old?  For a healthy 25 year old the same as for an immuno-compromised 68 year old?  What exactly is the vaccination risk for each of these groups to compare with?  Who exactly did you do this calculation for Mr. scientific method. 

The point is that there is more than one side to the story on the vaccinations.  Risks are different for different people.  Each person and family should be free to analyze all sides and make their own decision, not to have life and death decisions forced on them, especially with a vaccination that has so many question marks pending around it.

At least for the majority of people over 12. And to a lesser degree for children aged 5-11. Individual benefit for them is not nearly as big. if I could prevent it from popping up (I like the qoute system but that can be really annoying) I would add the link but the data is easy to find on CDC, NHS or similar websites.

Common sense. I thought that me mentioning the need to look at individual risk factors in numerous previous posts was enough. Is anyone here arguing that people with medical issues that lead to a high risk fo adverse reactions should get the vaccine? Haven´t seen it. Plenty of reasons (for example certain pre existing conditions, diseases, allergies) not to take it but we are talking about a small part of the population.

And we absolutely should consider the adverse reactions. That´s why many countries. Including the US (even though they tend to be a bit slow) are adjusting the recommendations for certain age groups or genders. And to make this clear not because they are halting the entire vaccine roll out. No. Simply would be unethical to give a person a jab with a higher risk of severe adverse reactions when a better option is available. That´s the luxury situation we have. Multiple vaccines. That can help because to quote you again it is not a one size fits all.
I expect the situation to get even better in the coming year. Some countries have already approved the first inactivated vaccine. We will probably see something similar in the US as well.


At the end of this my overall question is still unanswered. How is misinformation helping those persons and families to make the right decision for themself. Are you sure that your approach is really the right way to adress those concerns. Picking anything that can be considered critical and just posting it. True or not.
As mentioned. Wouldn´t it be better to talk about real concerns instead of wasting time on random claims about cancer, fertility or unknown longterm risks that would be a novelty in the history of vaccines.

That´s at least what the majority of scientists and medical workers around the globe are trying to do. They aren´t part of a big conspiracy. They simply don´t have time for outlandish claims and conspiracy talk.
And yes I am calling it a conspiracy. And it is nothing new. Same process for every single vaccine in history. Same methods. When the evidence is overwhelming the only available option to keep the thought construct alife is to add to it. Research isn´t providing the prefered results. It´s obviously manipulated.
People that used VAERS events to fabricate some kind of correlation between MMR vaccines and autism are doing it again. This time it is cancer caused by mRNA vaccines. Adverse reactions are rare. That cannot be the case. Here are a few people from all over the country (330m) that suffered from severe adverse reactions.

Rinse and repeat. Times are changing. Anti vax arguments aren´t. Only difference is that the modern era with social media platforms makes it easier to spread those talking points.

[ItsGoTime]

No one is denying that adverse reactions happen. There is no conspiracy to hide them. Terrible things can happen. For example anaphylaxis, blod clots, myocarditis, perycarditis and sadly even death. I was actually the first one in this thread to bring up the majority of them.
But and here is the big but. The benefit outweighs the risk. And the evidence for that is as clear as it gets.

Someone stated earlier that for those that get those problems, it's 100%. For those family and friends surrounding that 100% person, it's a bad thing to be feared. The benefit outweighs the risk, for those that risk it and come out the other side unharmed. Why in the world would we require a survivor of one of those tragic incidents to take that risk?

[dirkfansince1998]

Someone stated earlier that for those that get those problems, it's 100%. For those family and friends surrounding that 100% person, it's a bad thing to be feared. The benefit outweighs the risk, for those that risk it and come out the other side unharmed. Why in the world would we require a survivor of one of those tragic incidents to take that risk?

Where did I say that. I highlighted the the need for clearly defined exemptions in previous posts. I even mentioned this weakness when we talked about the OSHA mandate (But also think that the test option could make up for the lack of exemptions, it offers an alternative. As far as I can tell legal experts are torn when it comes to this small but important detail)

Thread has been going on for a long time. From nearly three weeks ago.

"Vaccine choice. For example. If a close family member suffered from an adverse reaction. Let´s say the first Moderna shot lead to a myocarditis case (cousin or brother). Maybe another brother/cousin should consider a different vaccine (not MRNA)."

I guess that is the scenario you are refering to. Also a great example for a medical exemption. Others would be for example an adverse reaction to other vaccines in the past or known allergies and pre existing conditions. And obviously a previous infection in the last lets say 6-12 month. Just to name a few.


The main difference is that I am not ruling out vaccine mandates as a last resort whereas other posters are strictly against any kind of mandate. I think I gave a detailed explanation for my thoughts on that matter. People can disagree but that´s not an outlandish position. We have seen situations in the past where a similar thought process lead to mandates that were upheld by the supreme court.

[ItsGoTime]

Less than 1% of infected people are dying.  Recognize that...so couching this as "well, you get it and die or get over it" posits that these two options are similar in outcome, but they are NOT...and it's a very biased presentation.

If YOU are the one who catches Covid and dies, that's 100% as pertains to YOU. What if it's a loved one? Are you OK with them dying? Who are you comfortable with dying of Covid?

Dirkfan, I found the post here that I was referring to. I think the "bubble" of people (not just family) surrounding a person who has any adverse reaction to any shot has a viable reason to not want to get any shot (not just the one the person had an adverse reaction to). Should that be forced on them? I wonder what the mental health bill would be to those that are forced to take something they actually believe will harm them?

[dirkfansince1998]

Dirkfan, I found the post here that I was referring to. I think the "bubble" of people (not just family) surrounding a person who has any adverse reaction to any shot has a viable reason to not want to get any shot (not just the one the person had an adverse reaction to). Should that be forced on them? I wonder what the mental health bill would be to those that are forced to take something they actually believe will harm them?

First of all. It´s obviously not only the person. A close relative could be at risk for a similar adverse reaction. That should be an automatic medical exemption.

For the most part medical exemptions ignore mental health aspects. In my opinion a big problem. Based on the standards that were used in the past they aren´t an option for this scenario.
That´s where it gets shaky. Where to stop. Where to draw the line? Friends, neighbours, co-workers?
That´s why I think that exemptions and the clear definition of them is so important.

Personally I am once again torn. On the one hand I absolutely understand why traumatic experiences like this would lead to the rejection of any kind of treatment. But on the other hand I am concerned about potential ways to abuse an exemption like this. If a situation really calls for a vaccine mandate that´s not acceptable.

And to bring this back into the real world. There are states that only allow medical exemptions for existing mandates in schools or for specific vaccines in certain field of work. No religious, philosophical or personal belief exemptions. That´s not quite the same but it might give us an idea. It looks like the majority of states that have mandated COVID vaccines for certain groups are following a similar approach.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/sch...-laws.aspx



Not to mention that as pointed out in previous posts we have to differentiate between soft and hard mandates. If the mandate offers another option like testing that´s probably a good alternative.

Mind you that this is not exactly my field of expertise. Reading stuff and listening to smarter people can only get one so far. Would love to hear more from a legal expert.
(That is the moment were another poster reveals himself as an attorney and offers a detailed explanation. Or not because the majority of posters simply moved on from this thread and started to ignore my lengthy rambles)

[ItsGoTime]

First of all. It´s obviously not only the person. A close relative could be at risk for a similar adverse reaction. That should be an automatic medical exemption.

For the most part medical exemptions ignore mental health aspects. In my opinion a big problem. Based on the standards that were used in the past they aren´t an option for this scenario.
That´s where it gets shaky. Where to stop. Where to draw the line? Friends, neighbours, co-workers?
That´s why I think that exemptions and the clear definition of them is so important.

Personally I am once again torn. On the one hand I absolutely understand why traumatic experiences like this would lead to the rejection of any kind of treatment. But on the other hand I am concerned about potential ways to abuse an exemption like this. If a situation really calls for a vaccine mandate that´s not acceptable.

I think the fact you're torn on this is where I myself am and is why I am against the mandate. Don't really care about precedent, laws, politicians views. IMO, the government shouldn't make someone do something to their body that they don't want to do (isn't this some kind of extension to "my body, my choice" and why are they not in on this? More tongue-in-cheek, not a serious thought. However, imagine the government requiring abortion cause the population is at a detrimental-to-society high, but, I digress). That is the crux to my argument. Now, how to live in a society that isn't careful AND is unvaccinated? That is tough. I just live worrying about what comes as it comes, not what might come.

[Dahlsim]

 Cannot be bothered to watch his one links or just doesn´t want to to talk about the content. Tell me what the real issue is. Asks me to watch a four hour long video. I watched the shorter clip you provided.
...

Here's what you don't grasp and/or don't want to grasp.  I've provided numerous evidence to support my point which is that there is not this overwhelming consensus in the scientific community or medical community that confirm the data you repeatedly regurgitate as "crystal clear data" or other such hyperbole.  

I have read over ever link I have posted.  My point to you is that the notion of validating the studies and laps of all of these Doctors, Scientists and Researchers is not only beyond the time and scope of this discussion but it is in fact foolish that you even think you can do it with accuracy from the comfort of your easy chair or wherever you are passing judgements on the validity of all of these people many of which are far more qualified than you are. 

Its a fools errand because the fact that so much dissent exists among so many well credentialed sources proves the point I set out to make.  There is far to much concern about the validity of studies and there are far too many other studies which as you heard in the video if you paid attention that are being suppressed and neither you nor I get to see.  

Here's another well credentialed and experienced Professor and Scientist making all the same points I've made to you repeatedly.  The studies you are treating like the Bible of your faith are NOT without major concerns coming from many qualified professionals who give very, very credible rationale and evidence for their concerns. 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/ursYk9BaBHWW/ - Professor Robert M Kaplan Lists 3 Covid Vaccine Science Analysis Concerns 

 Professor Robert M. Kaplan from UCLA is again, NOT anti-vaccine. He is vaccinated himself but he explains why the research you seem to worship is not as pure as you confidently assert to the world.  In fact many of the sources I've posted including the vaccine victims have made it clear they are not anti-vax so your accusations of cherry picking are flatly false unless you want to apply it to your selection of sources.  

1) "Trust the science." one of your mantras?   - He says as I said scientists don't all agree n this matter.  So whose science are we supposed to be trusting?  
  
2) He states as I have repeatedly, dissenting views are critical to advancing science.  What you are subscribing to is very possibly bad science and you double down by advocating that it should be forced into people, or at least some of them.  

3) The Professor says the data you and others regurgitate so often reporting that death rates are dramatically reduced by the vaccines are contradicted by other evidence.  He further states that some of the reported data would not accepted as causal evidence under normal circumstances. 

4)  He states concerns that serious scholars and scientists have not been able examine the FDA and CDC evidence for their positions. He claims the information being released comes mostly from highly curated industry controlled press releases.  Unacceptable for good science. 

5) Vaccine manufacturers have not been honoring requests for raw data.  

6) For speed, relaxed standards were implemented and along with the lower standards vaccine studies have not made much of their results publicly. 

7) He says legitimate scientific challenges have been set aside and labeled as misinformation.  Scientists are being labeled as anti-vaxxer further compromising young scientists objectivity. 

To be clear, this is not only about the vaccine injuries and adverse reactions.  Those number as pointed out in an earlier video are clearly magnitudes higher than other vaccines or a normal flu shot but the issue is WHY are there tens of thousands of vaccine adverse reactions and even deaths?  

Its because of rushed bad science, the very type of corrupted scientific process you're advocating should be forced upon (some) people at least until after they or one of their loved ones have already suffered some debilitating injury or death.   So examining closely the type of logic you're using e.g. acknowledging that many people are being seriously harmed but still you want to cherry pick some groups and force inject them. 

So yes in the end after listening more and more, I find your views as objectionable or more than you evidently find mine. Your failed logic and faith parading under the title of science is hurting people and what's worse is you can't even bother to listen to them publicly express their pain. 

https://nomoresilence.world 

No More Silence

We are a fast-growing group who have been affected in many different ways by the Covid-19 Vaccine implementation. We are NOT anti-vax and we are NOT conspiracy theorists. 

In fact, all the victims represented within this platform took the Vaccine thinking they were doing the right thing within the fight against Covid-19. We are however pro informed-choice, pro consent, pro science and strongly anti-coercion. 

We also wish to bring into question the reasoning and strategy behind the inordinate levels of censorship surrounding ANY factually correct negative Covid-19 Vaccine news, especially within the mainstream media and social media platforms.

We Want To Be Heard!

https://www.bitchute.com/video/ursYk9BaBHWW/ - Professor Robert M Kaplan Lists 3 Covid Vaccine Science Analysis Concerns