Willfully putting healthy people at risk of severe injury or death with an experimental, untested drug is a violation of the Nuremburg Code, and everyone administering the Covid vaccines will be held to account.
See this scientific study regarding the vaccines:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/study-electromagnetism-vaccina...
This isn't logic, this is an emotional statement. You know, propaganda.
So as you can state your position clearly, are you actually threatening "everyone administering the Covid vaccines" with Nuremburg-style courts?
Giving experimental vaccines to healthy people not in the vulnerable population is a violation of their rights.
Hundreds of thousands of people protesting Paris and other regions of the world seem to agree.
The cable MSM isn't covering it obviously.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/protesters-against-covi...
Hundreds of thousands of people protesting in Paris right now agree with me and the number is growing.
You keep repeating about the Paris demo as if it means something, it does not. We had the same kooks behaving badly in London and in Australia. I mean ranting about 5G mind control and wanting to hang nurses. Proper paranoid extremist crazies.
Their numbers would not make them correct, and they are not correct; but they are just a small and loud fringe, and there is no reason to accept their delusions.
I wouldn't be proud of proud of them, unless you're also proud of "patriotic spirit defending democracy" the "hang Mike Pence" crowd in Washington on 6 Jan.
Only three developed countries in the world have a full vaccination count above 50%(barely) despite wide availablity. Not a single undeveloped country does. Only 13.8% of the world is fully vaccinated.
The majority don't want the vaccine.
Most people are not buying into the fringe extremist crazy kook Covid cult pseudoscience where people use opinion pieces as scientific citations to back up injecting experimental kool aid into their bodies.
If the experimental mRNA vaccine starts giving people adverse effects like cancer in a few years, it will be easier to make the connection with the vaccine at least since so few people have taken it.
Keep in mind, this venerated scientific establishment gave Lobotomies the Nobel Prize in the 40s'.
Boy what a mistake that was!
However, the majority of those were so small (under a million people) it warranted the original source I was looking at to limit them from it's data.
That fact still remains, despite being free and widely available, a minority of people in developed countries have taken advantage of that.
Looking at the front page of that site, yes, it seems a total batshit-factory, right down to the mention of 'Great Reset' and "Governments Are Lying to You the People".
Banned from Wikipedia: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch
It is a loony tunes experiment that ANYONE can reproduce. Even on themselves. What do you think people will wonder when they test it out and find out that magnets stick to them? AND -
The thought I had today on the way to work was a what if: If the vaccinated are really becoming electromagnetic, how would they be affected by an EMP burst?
(... and, unfortunately, it's already been written. I believe "Diamond Age" makes use of the idea of nanomachines that are usually harmless but when triggered by an external signal spin into microscopic daisy-cutters and perforate the victim in a million places).
If I'm magnetic, does that mean I'm a cyborg?
I was thinking more of "Tetsuo: The Iron Man".
Grandparent poster is likely going to think it's a documentary.
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/when-will-the-fda-giv...
Hep C is an mRNA virus that causes liver cancer.
Why aren't vaccine makers allowing themselves to be liable for the vaccine if they're so safe? Shouldn't be an issue right?
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effec...
If a bunch of people with the mRNA virus get malignent terminal cancer in a few years....the companies just throw up their hands and say "Our bad" and there's nothing you can do.
And the incentives seem self-evident: given a global pandemic with a known high fatality and infectivity rate, Congress provided the power to "clear the runway" for potential mitigators to a pandemic by limiting civil liability. Lacking that power, there's a risk that manufacturers would decide the liability potential of administering a drug to >99% of the population (regardless of its efficacy) would be too high to justify being the ones to assume the risk, which could slow development or deployment of a preventative treatment during a crisis. If only 1 in 100,000 Americans suffered an adverse effect from a COVID-19 vaccine, that would stack up to a class-action lawsuit that could top a billion dollars.
Injured parties (as per https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10443) may still be eligible for direct compensation from the US federal government under https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/.
No medical procedure is zero-risk. The relevant question is whether the risk of long-term complications from a COVID-19 vaccine is higher than risk from COVID-19 itself. Since the long-term complication of COVID-19 is "death," the risk-tradeoff curve for long-term consequences from a vaccine is pretty steep.
Why should companies be any different?
If the world was certain of the vaccine's safety then it should be no big deal for them to stand behind their product.
It's crazy how people are just shrugging their shoulders at this.
If a few doctors decide the liability tradeoff doesn't work for them, a few patients that could have been saved might die. If Pfizer decides the liability tradeoff isn't worth developing a COVID-19 vaccine... Well, we're already past 600,000 dead in the US alone.
> If the world was certain of the vaccine's safety
Define "certain." The preponderance of evidence is that it's safer than catching COVID-19. Long-term effects are by definition unknown. The PREP act allows HHS to basically say to a private company "We will assume the unknown risk of long-term vaccine consequences by shielding your company from direct civil liability" (and Uncle Sam will foot the bill for treating long-term effects of the vaccine in the population).
> It's crazy how people are just shrugging their shoulders at this
I think few people who understand medical risk profiles are shrugging their shoulders at this (note: I don't consider most of the public to be in that category; this stuff requires college math to really grasp and the average American tops out around a 6th-grade level). The decisions government officials are making are literally life-or-death. But the regular risk / reward profile goes out the window during a pandemic and is replaced with "apparent best course of action" tradeoffs, because society lacks the luxury of doing nothing. Do nothing, and a lot of people definitely die (back-of-the-napkin math suggests the US would look down the barrel of 5.9 million dead at the end of the pandemic). Deploy a vaccine with possible (but low-probability) side-effects, and far fewer people die unless there's an extremely unlikely set of unknown-unknowns.
To give a (bad) software development analogy: unit, integration, and functional tests are best practice. But at a startup company, there are occasional instances of "we need a demo by 6:30 tomorrow or the company will run out of money and die." In those circumstances, regular best practices go out the window because the company lacks the luxury of time. Project managers in such circumstances will declare that if the quick hacks result in pain down the road, they'll cover the team's ass (and devote resources later to fixing any pain caused by less-than-best practice).
Pandemic time is risk tradeoff time.
You're trying to justify something totally insane.
Also your back of the napkin calculations for total deaths are way off. Under 50% of the country is vaccinated and we're not even at a fraction of that. 5 million is very sensational.
> Back of the napkin
I used an approximately 1.8% fatality rate for infected individuals at present, and extrapolated to eventual 100% infection of the population assuming a hypothetical scenario where no major company had stepped up to build a vaccine and so the only immune protection available would be natural. You are quite correct and that it is not great math... certainly epidemiologists tend to use a more conservative approach under the assumption that somebody will develop countermeasures. But honestly, with no vaccine it's probably in the ballpark unless we had done something drastic like a sufficient quarantine of infected individuals to zero out the spread (which never seemed in the cards based on behavior I observed among my fellow Americans).