-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
GI's with no Chinesee Viurs shot - being kicked out
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
Your opinion is noted and freely offered BECAUSE of those who wear the uniform …
don’t be fooled. The military is NOT concerned with the health of its members agent orange, hearing protection, oxygen systems in the aircraft.
Anthrax.
In 96, an A 6 clipped a gondola cable killing civilians. The USAF response was to make available all HUD tapes to the media. The recorders remained off. This adversely affected mission readiness. The military was so concerned about its members it was intent to expose servicemen to liability in the course of doing their uniquely dangerous job.
EUA vice FDA Approved. It matters.
Last edited:
And what if the office is being profaned by the party in control?
My position is based on what I learned years ago in the Coast Guard. At worst, You respect the rank, not the man.
and the only one of which I'm aware one can refuse and separate with an honorable discharge.
Ah ... yeah.
... they prolly changed the term, but to be in a status to deploy was (is?) called mobility.
I'm not sure about mobility. Probably the same.
Many who refused the anthrax vaccine were discharged honorably. Others faced disciplinary actions, were dishonorable discharged, etc.
Soldiers may request administrative or medical exemptions as outlined in Army Regulation 600-20 and AR 40-562, as well as the new Army Directive 2021-33 that provides supplementary guidance on exemption requests.
Soldiers with previous COVID-19 infections are not automatically exempt from full vaccination and should consult their primary care managers. Soldiers pending exemption requests must continue to comply with all other applicable force health protection measures applicable to unvaccinated people.
Link:Army announces implementation of mandatory vaccines for Soldiers
AR 600-20 (paragraph 5-4) states that when it is determined the "threat of naturally occurring disease is reasonably possible soldiers may be involuntarily immunized" and performing this duty, unit personnel will "only use the amount of force necessary to assist medical personnel in administering the immunization."
I can't say with absolute certainty, but I think all of those who were honorably discharged had fulfilled their service commitment. I know there were a couple of A10 ANG units who lost their combat ready status due to the exodus.
... and the anthrax vax was fully FDA approved when the requirement was made. It had been out/available for a long time. Lotta State department people were getting them if they were assigned to certain locations. (Libya for one)
this cv vax mandate was far more sudden. The military was talking about the anthrax for at least 3 years before they actually DID it.
I am. the condition was DEFINITELY "mobility status" ... even the giant A2 bags were called "mobiltity bags" which had to be stuffed with all kinds of gear
The Pfizer vaccine was also fully FDA approved before it was mandated. I was serving when the Anthrax vaccine was being required (at the time for soldiers being moblized to specific areas). It was the same deal in the military as is the covid vaccine. There were reports of serious dide-effects and death (I don't know if they were true) and a lot of servicemen refused the shot.
After the anthrax vaccine things loosened up a bit with reprocessing for refusing vaccines. People have Sued and some were granted back pay, had their discharge changed, etc.
We always called the status to be deployed as "deployable" and the status restricting deployment "nondeployable".
If you became non-deployable due to a medical condition, depending on Mos, you could stay in (a friend was an insulin dependent diabetic, diagnosed after 8 years of service, and could not be deployed....he worked at WRAMC which at that time was a unit that did not deploy.
In the Army mobilization were deployments (from Sep 1991 to Sep 2014, anyway) and the reserve and national guard units were mobilized (even if not necessarily deployed).
That's my experience anyway.
copy.
AF had deployments, too, but the status to BE on deployment was "mobility." The "mobility card" which included the vaxes listed.
The Pfizer vax has a cloud hanging over it WRT the Approved status. If it's the same thing as the Comirarty (sp?) ... why didn't they just say so?
list the cv vaxes with FDA approval.
that list is one ... Comirarty ... which somehow isn't currently available in the US.
We used the DA 7425 (Readiness and Deployment Checklist).
The Pfizer-biotech covid vaccine was the actual vaccine formula approved, under the name Comirarty (per the FDA approval). The clinical trial data (all phases) submitted for approval were prior to marketing under the commercial name "Comirarty".
The idea these are different vaccines (or the FDA did not publish its approval for the pfizer-biotech formula) is just anti-covid-vaxer misinformation (I suspect you know this part).
what I have read is that there's a different legal designation.
Legal means stuff. You prob want me to avoid using non-certificated fluids in the jet on which you ride.
When we're talking about legal authority ... the legal approval of the substance itself ... matters.
There isn't. This is common with the FDA approval process. The FDA approves a drug based on a chemical name or formula. At the approval process it is renamed (or named) for commercial use.
For example, Pfizer developed and submitted the chemical sildenafil as a medicine to treat cardiovascular disease. The FDA approved the medication, but it was named Revatio (later marketed as Viagra).
From the FDA - "The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older."
The legal issue of the company name vs the name the vaccine is marketed under is just anti-covid-vax misinformation. It is things like this....and the photo of Wembley Wingman posted....that make me dismiss anti-covid-vaccine information so quickly.
The influenza vaccines are also approved by vaccine, not the name under which they are marketed. The "Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine" was approved and marketed as "Flublok".
The Pfizer-Biotech Covid vaccine is the established name while Comirnaty is the trade name (and they are listed as "established name" and "trade name" at the FDA).
I may dismiss legitimate information, but if so it is because it's so deep in a cesspool of misinformation it isn't worth the trouble.
(Approval document us attached....note the information that they may market the vacvine under the name "Comirnaty"....but it is the actual vaccine...the formula....that is approved). I've also included the decision memorandum for the booster.
Last edited:
OK ... let's stipulate for a bit ...
Pfizer = Comirarty.
one of the 3 which has been used for over a year, now. The onus is upon the individual to determine if risk on a mandated EUA is acceptable. who bears the risk there? Isn't Moderna is it?
I think this name deal is more smoke to confuse the issue. Pfizer isn't some garage band deal ... why can't the cv jab have carried the name under which it was given EUA? There's no legitimate reason other than obsfucation ... smoke and deceit.
Pfizer = Comirarty.
one of the 3 which has been used for over a year, now. The onus is upon the individual to determine if risk on a mandated EUA is acceptable. who bears the risk there? Isn't Moderna is it?
I think this name deal is more smoke to confuse the issue. Pfizer isn't some garage band deal ... why can't the cv jab have carried the name under which it was given EUA? There's no legitimate reason other than obsfucation ... smoke and deceit.
No. Pfizer is a company. The established name is Pfizer-BioNTech Covid Vaccine. The Trade name is Comirnaty.
Pfizer also developed sildenafil citrate. It was approved to treat cardiovascular disease under the established name sildenafil citrate but the trade name Revatio (and later to treat a different disorder under the trade name Viagra).
One flu shot was approved under the established name Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine, trade name Flublok.
The Pfizer covid shot was approved under the established name Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and the trade name Comirnaty.
Do you know of ANY vaccine that has a trade name BEFORE it is FDA approved....or any vaccine that goes by its established name AFTER it is FDA aporoved?
Of course not, because this whole "Pfizer-BioNTech vs Comirnaty" issue is anti-vax misinformation and it discredits (or exposes) the anti-vax agenda.
I don't really know why you ate arguing this one. I really think you know better.
Jon ... in my work ... arguably EXCESSIVELY regulated. these things matter.
engine oil, hydraulic fluid, fuel ... all of it. FAA-PMA approved is the requirement and just because the Mobil oil, the substance, is exactly the same used in turbine generators ... it is a violation to use the turbine generator oil in the Jet engines ... because only the certification number is legal --- and therefore authorized ... for use in jet engines.
If this isn't a valid comparison ... show me how/why.
... and for something which is presumably injected into a person's body, (in this case, millions of people) i'd consider that slightly more important that what lubes a jet engine. Actually in this case, approximately 75K pilots flying for scheduled air carriers ... responsible for the lives of how many daily passengers? A failed engine isn't NEARLY the problem of a failed pilot, yes?
No. this isn't my wheelhouse ... but how many times does a substance engage this process with this much visibility where IDENTIFICATION is as important? If the only issue is a marketing name, why is there no apparent availability of the Comirarty as labeled in the US? Why is it the Pfizer CV jab the only label available?
... and we're still dancing around the issue of who's liable. only the injected. If these things are as safe as advertised, why no liability to any one but the injected? Ford Motor Company is liable for a lot of stuff in their vehicles which at worst results in inconvenience or poor performance (my son's F150 just had a recall for cam phasers, worst thing that happens in the failure ... the fancy timing adjustment stops working and he burns 10 miles per gallon empty rather than 25 but it's getting redesigned phasers right now. Comped.) I mean ... it's already established since there are so few adverse reports, having some liability would assuage a lot of concern about these things.
I think we're about to start learning just how safe they are ... and I am having to adjust my level of alertness when my FO is flying the jet. We've already had evidence of these things being less than good for folks in an airplane ... but anyhow.
If the parallel wasn't so close to things I know, it'd probably not bother me as much ... but it does ... so it does.
Last edited: