Why would someone

[JonC]

I guess you just get to say stuff, because you keep doing it. In fact, in fact, in fact. In fact maybe people who get the vax are causing covid, you know, like the pneumonia shot you referenced. The last shot that was pulled…….wait for it…..was the swine flu vax, in ‘76, after 53 deaths the entire program was cancelled.

Yes, and I even provided the evidence. The flu shot, the pneumonia vaccine, the measles vaccine....none of these have been pulled.

It is impossible for the covid vaccination to cause covid (one advantage of mRNA....but I suspect you know this).

The vaccinated can get and spread covid (although this remains a popular anti-covid-vax straw man). They are less likely to do so, but they can.

 

[Reformed1689]

No.

The technology is not new even if it has not been used.

Suppose I spend 20 years developing a new rocket engine - I design it taking into account how it will be used in the future. I test it by simulation. Then I build an engine and test it in the lab. And I refine and rework it based on the results.

One would have to be deliberately obtuse to argue that this is a new technology simply because it has never been strapped on to a real rocket and sent into space.

Like almost all your colleagues, you are bending the truth.

It is untested technology. 100% fact. You can try and twist it how you want but the FACT is it is new to use in the medical field for ACTUAL use. Yes, it is new technology that has been untested and unproven.

 

[Reformed1689]

The technology has been used for quite some time. The vaccine is fairly new (it has been around for about a year).

If we never used a new vaccine we would never have a vaccine.

That's the dumbest comment ever. I am not arguing AGAINST the vaccine. Something you can't seem to understand. I am saying we do not yet know enough about the long-term effects of this new technology that has never been used in a vaccine before now.

 

[JonC]

That's the dumbest comment ever. I am not arguing AGAINST the vaccine. Something you can't seem to understand. I am saying we do not yet know enough about the long-term effects of this new technology that has never been used in a vaccine before now.

I understand what you are saying, bro.

I'm saying the technology is not new (ModeRNA Technologies has already used the technology (but not released commercially).

I'm just saying this is always a concern when something new comes out. I couldn't imagine being the 1st with a pig heart valve!

I understand and agree with your concerns for waiting. I thought about it myself.

 

[Reformed1689]

I understand what you are saying, bro.

I'm saying the technology is not new (ModeRNA Technologies has already used the technology (but not released commercially).

I'm just saying this is always a concern when something new comes out. I couldn't imagine being the 1st with a pig heart valve!

I understand and agree with your concerns for waiting. I thought about it myself.

So do you agree that it is morally wrong for the President to attack the unvaccinated as he has been doing?

 

[JonC]

So do you agree that it is morally wrong for the President to attack the unvaccinated as he has been doing?

I can't agree because I do not know what he is doing (I do not watch Biden and don't watch the news).

IMHO the only vaccine that should be mandated (for those under the authority of the federal government in an employment context) is the Pfizer vaccine as it is FDA approved.

The FDA is the determining factor. Individuals will have different opinions about the length of time for a vaccine to be out before they trust it. Some may say 6 months. Others 1 year. Others 5 years. But the governing authority regarding the safety of vaccines is the FDA.

And the FDA does not take its matching orders from the WH (as evidenced by their disapproving booster shots for the general public based on Israel's study that the two shots given early this year ate still effective). The FDA nixed Biden's booster plan.

 

[Reformed1689]

I can't agree because I do not know what he is doing (I do not watch Biden and don't watch the news).

IMHO the only vaccine that should be mandated (for those under the authority of the federal government in an employment context) is the Pfizer vaccine as it is FDA approved.

The FDA is the determining factor. Individuals will have different opinions about the length of time for a vaccine to be out before they trust it. Some may say 6 months. Others 1 year. Others 5 years. But the governing authority regarding the safety of vaccines is the FDA.

And the FDA does not take its matching orders from the WH (as evidenced by their disapproving booster shots for the general public based on Israel's study that the two shots given early this year ate still effective). The FDA nixed Biden's booster plan.

No vaccine should ever be mandated.

 

[JonC]

No vaccine should ever be mandated.

For the general population, I agree.

But for specific employments I disagree.

I am retired Army. The Army mandates vaccines (17, if I recall correctly....and now 18 with the Pfizer vacvine). And they mandate more depending on where you are going.

Granted...this is not forcing a vaccine (we have an all voluntary military).

 

[Reformed1689]

For the general population, I agree.

But for specific employments I disagree.

I am retired Army. The Army mandates vaccines (17, if I recall correctly....and now 18 with the Pfizer vacvine). And they mandate more depending on where you are going.

Granted...this is not forcing a vaccine (we have an all voluntary military).

I do not think military should either.

 

[JonC]

I do not think military should either.

They always have. The issue is it is about tge ability to accomplish the mission.

If somebody is red-green color blind they cannot join the infantry. This is discrimination based on a medical condition. But the way the Army sees it, those people cannot distinguish between red and green smoke.

The same applies to FDA approved vaccinations that help with viruses which could affect military readiness.

 

[Andre]

It is untested technology. 100% fact. You can try and twist it how you want but the FACT is it is new to use in the medical field for ACTUAL use. Yes, it is new technology that has been untested and unproven.

Not true. From the American Academy of Family Physicians:

the original research on messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines is decades old

You say that mRNA technology is untested, but I suggest you are speculating and have no evidence to support such an assertion; what we all agree on is that mRNA has not been tested in a vaccine, but what evidence do you offer that the technology has not been tested in other ways in the course of the research.

You are trying to blur that distinction, and this misleads readers.

It is not new technology in any reasonable sense of the term. Period.

Is it a coincidence that while I provide quotes from qualified experts attesting to the fact that the , your posts are your own words? Why is that? Can you not provide a citation from a qualified expert to the effect that mRNA technology is new, untested technology?

 

[Reformed1689]

They always have. The issue is it is about tge ability to accomplish the mission.

If somebody is red-green color blind they cannot join the infantry. This is discrimination based on a medical condition. But the way the Army sees it, those people cannot distinguish between red and green smoke.

The same applies to FDA approved vaccinations that help with viruses which could affect military readiness.

The first is not discrimination. It is the inability to actually perform a job function. That's apples and oranges.

 

[Reformed1689]

Not true. From the American Academy of Family Physicians:

the original research on messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines is decades old

You say that mRNA technology is untested, but I suggest you are speculating and have no evidence to support such an assertion; what we all agree on is that mRNA has not been tested in a vaccine, but what evidence do you offer that the technology has not been tested in other ways in the course of the research.

You are trying to blur that distinction, and this misleads readers.

It is not new technology in any reasonable sense of the term. Period.

Is it a coincidence that while I provide quotes from qualified experts attesting to the fact that the , your posts are your own words? Why is that? Can you not provide a citation from a qualified expert to the effect that mRNA technology is new, untested technology?

Ok I'm tired of your self-righteous attitude. You can't grasp basic concepts. I have been 100% correct you just are being ridiculous. Welcome to my block list. Go away.

 

[JonC]

The first is not discrimination. It is the inability to actually perform a job function. That's apples and oranges.

No. It is discrimination by definition. Same with the old policy of allowing women (regardless of ability) into the infantry.

It has to do with military readiness. If there is a virus that has the ability to cripple a platoon and there is also a FDA approved vaccine then it is responsible to mandate the vaccine.

 

[Reformed1689]

No. It is discrimination by definition. Same with the old policy of allowing women (regardless of ability) into the infantry.

It has to do with military readiness. If there is a virus that has the ability to cripple a platoon and there is also a FDA approved vaccine then it is responsible to mandate the vaccine.

It is never responsible to force someone to put a foreign substance in their body. Now, one can argue they consent by joining the military, but no vaccine, no medicine of any kind, should ever be mandated by government or employer. It is a personal health choice.

 

[JonC]

It is never responsible to force someone to put a foreign substance in their body. Now, one can argue they consent by joining the military, but no vaccine, no medicine of any kind, should ever be mandated by government or employer. It is a personal health choice.

I disagree. The military should look after it's members and the mission even above individual rights.

Same with getting a job. You do not lose your rights but you have to decide if you are going to meet the requirements of employment or not.

People need to stop demanding employers meet the desires of employees. If you want to work for me then you will meet my conditions (I will not meet your demands for me to employee you....I'll just hire someone else).

The whole thing about employees deciding how a company is ran over the interests of the employer is socialistic.


So we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Reformed1689]

I disagree. The military should look after it's members and the mission even above individual rights.

Same with getting a job. You do not lose your rights but you have to decide if you are going to meet the requirements of employment or not.

People need to stop demanding employers meet the desires of employees. If you want to work for me then you will meet my conditions (I will not meet your demands for me to employee you....I'll just hire someone else).

The whole thing about employees deciding how a company is ran over the interests of the employer is socialistic.


So we will just have to agree to disagree.

And no employer should ever have the right to make a health decision for its employee. Ever. Or even make a healthcare procedure a requirement. That should never even have been entertained.

 

[JonC]

And no employer should ever have the right to make a health decision for its employee. Ever. Or even make a healthcare procedure a requirement. That should never even have been entertained.

I agree. An employer should have the right to make decisions about conditions of employment but not be able to force another human being into compliance.

 

[Reformed1689]

I agree. An employer should have the right to make decisions about conditions of employment but not be able to force another human being into compliance.

I don't even think whether or not someone has had a vaccine should be a considerable position on whether they hire someone. It is none of the employer's business.

 

[JonC]

I don't even think whether or not someone has had a vaccine should be a considerable position on whether they hire someone. It is none of the employer's business.

It has to be a concern since OSHA has identified covid as a workplace hazard (this was in 2000) and the FDA approved the Pfizer vaccine.

That said, from my understanding the idea was to have proof of vacvine OR weekly covid tests.