Covid 19 mrna Vaccines...Yes/No?

[audiohi]

70,000 NY health care workers had refused the vaccine. I wonder what percentage of NY healthcare workers that represents. Seems like a lot of people...

Among nursing home staff 92% were vaccinated, up from 71%. In adult care facilities, the vaccination rate rose from 77% to 89%, and in hospitals, 92% of staff had received their first shot, the state reported.

A spokesperson from New York-Presbyterian, a top medical center in New York (one provider), told Insider that 99% of its 48,000 employees are vaccinated.

The jump in vaccinations in the days before the deadline gave New York one of the highest rates of vaccination among health care workers nationally.

 

[TNTBudSticker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFtlK6fuVno

Australia's Totalitarian Restrictions Have Proven USELESS

 

[armedoldhippy]

more youtube, meh...

 

[Hammerhead]

imagine if your life was so boring you spent time shit posting fake info on a pot growing site...

lmao, we have that fo sho

 

[TNTBudSticker]

The Democrats’ $3.5 trillion “reconciliation” bill spans 2,465 pages. Hidden on page 168 is a provision to destroy any company that does not comply with Biden’s vax mandate.

Democrats snuck this into their bill hoping that no one would notice it before they rammed the entire package through Congress.

If Democrats succeed, the US government will fine a company SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($700,000) for each unvaxxed worker it has.

“Fully vaccinated” means booster shots every six months.

 

[gaiusmarius]

'You're a lawyer with no scientific background': Rand Paul attacks Sec. Becerra on vaccine mandates

 

[armedoldhippy]

The Democrats’ $3.5 trillion “reconciliation” bill spans 2,465 pages. Hidden on page 168 is a provision to destroy any company that does not comply with Biden’s vax mandate.

Democrats snuck this into their bill hoping that no one would notice it before they rammed the entire package through Congress.

If Democrats succeed, the US government will fine a company SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($700,000) for each unvaxxed worker it has.

“Fully vaccinated” means booster shots every six months.

$14,000 per for each unvaccinated or untested employee, not $700,000. just because Carlson makes shit up does not mean it is worth repeating. possibly up to a $700,000 fine for repeated egregious violations. do stupid shit, win stupid prizes. i got a fuckload of vaccines that i knew nothing about when i enlisted in USAF. part of the job... how many companies do you think will pay out a $700,000 fine because Bob back in the welding shop does not want to get a shot? LOL! Bob is about to get acquainted with an old lady at the unemployment office...

 

[TNTBudSticker]

i got a fuckload of vaccines that i knew nothing about when i enlisted in USAF. part of the job...

I knew a buddy who's sister joined and enlisted and then had to go thru all these shots and she got sick and even years later they were talking about suing them because,they still felt the effects from the shots.Even they didn't know what the shots were unless they didn't get them as a kid.

Why shove bills at the last minute to be all sneaky and stuff...just do your job but then who cares what your job is.

 

[armedoldhippy]

Why shove bills at the last minute to be all sneaky and stuff...just do your job but then who cares what your job is.

both sides do that, and should be horse-whipped & rolled in rock salt for it, too. needs to be a rule about amendments being offered up, and not allowing it within 24 hours (48? pick a time) before they get voted on. politics used to be about compromise & doing the publics business for the public good. now it's a damn blood sport with winners (them) and losers (us) no matter what party you identify with.

 

[mexcurandero420]

In the early 90s you had the Anthrax vaccine which made a lot of military sick, later on called the Gulf War Syndrome.

https://ptsdlawyers.com/anthrax-vaccine-presents-long-term-effects/

Since the mRNA vaccines aren’t fully researched and the military are forced to get the jabs, you will get the Covid Syndrome later on.

 

[BudToaster]

... i got a fuckload of vaccines that i knew nothing about when i enlisted in USAF. part of the job...

well, those were definitely not mRNA vaccines - besides, a few GIs dead or injured, what's the diff, you all signed up to be cannon fodder anyway.

maybe you don't understand the difference between old school vax and the mRNA jab?? and it will only be mRNA jabs going forward - cheaper and easier to make, so they say.

 

[h.h.]

In the early 90s you had the Anthrax vaccine which made a lot of military sick, later on called the Gulf War Syndrome.

https://ptsdlawyers.com/anthrax-vaccine-presents-long-term-effects/

Since the mRNA vaccines aren’t fully researched and the military are forced to get the jabs, you will get the Covid Syndrome later on.

A law firm? That cinches it. Must be the cannabis syndrome. We’re all screwed.

 

[trichrider]

Pfizermectin? Is Pfizer Rebranding Ivermectin to Use to treat Covid19

As Americans we are expected to blindly trust the government, the FDA, and the CDC in regards to COVID-19 and what does and doesn’t work in treating it.
The problem with that is that they continue lying to us about everything, and they don’t even hide it!
Want the latest example?
Look no further than Pfizer and Merck.


Both companies are now in the process of creating pills to treat Covid in a similar method as Ivermectin.

Follow on Telegram @WeLoveTrumpNoah​

Was the smear campaign against Ivermectin only done so that the drug could be re-branded to make more money?

Pfizer who makes one of the Covid vaccines is developing an oral therapeutic based on…..Ivermectin. pic.twitter.com/8j7GFZOeUg
— Brent Hatley (@brenthatley) September 28, 2021​

In case you were wondering how corrupt & dishonest Pfizer & the public health establishment are, Pfizer is now testing their own version of Ivermectin to treat COVID. Under this formulation Pfizer will be able to charge much for it than the very cheap generic Ivermectin. pic.twitter.com/Jja40uwNoD
— Chris Buskirk (@thechrisbuskirk) September 30, 2021​

Pfizer and Merck are both creating pills that do the exact same thing as Ivermectin but their pills will be a lot more costly.
How much more proof do we need that this is not about health?https://t.co/oKLJPOwj4k
— Cap’n Obvious (@CapnObvious3) September 30, 2021​

Here's more on Merck's claim that they've created a pill to treat Covid from Yahoo News:

Laboratory studies show that Merck & Co's experimental oral COVID-19 antiviral drug, molnupiravir, is likely to be effective against known variants of the coronavirus, including the dominant, highly transmissible Delta, the company said on Wednesday.

Since molnupiravir does not target the spike protein of the virus - the target of all current COVID-19 vaccines - which defines the differences between the variants, the drug should be equally effective as the virus continues to evolve, said Jay Grobler, head of infectious disease and vaccines at Merck.

Molnupiravir instead targets the viral polymerase, an enzyme needed for the virus to make copies of itself. It is designed to work by introducing errors into the genetic code of the virus.

Data shows that the drug is most effective when given early in the course of infection, Merck said.

The U.S. drugmaker tested its antiviral against nasal swab samples taken from participants in early trials of the drug. Delta was not in wide circulation at the time of those trials, but molnupiravir was tested against lab samples of the variant behind the latest surge in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths.​

Want to know why Merck said you shouldn't take their own drug, Ivermectin, if you have covid? Because it's generic and they are making a new antiviral pill that can treat covid and it's months away from hitting the market. It's all about the cash. https://t.co/PQ99BKbl6l
— Garret Lewis (@GarretLewis) September 30, 2021​

Dr Samadi, I just heard the Merck CEO describe the pill and how it will be administered & how it will attack Covid. Sounds exactly like Ivermectin?? Could this be “almost Ivermectin” but with an active patent to make big $$$?
— ETL (@emmythelab) September 30, 2021​

The media mocks #Ivermectin, a protease inhibitor, to prevent & treat covid. Why? Their big pharma sponsors can't make billions off of it. Meanwhile, they praise Pfizer for creating a new version of the SAME MEDICINE to treat covid. Are you awake yet?https://t.co/7AyoFQvLfb
— Michael Seeha Beezleboo (@wornouthorn) September 30, 2021​

CBS News has more on Pfizer's attempt at making an experimental at-home pill to treat Covid, one that involves a similar protein inhibitor to Ivermectin:

Pfizer said Monday that it is now testing a pill that could help people ward off COVID-19 if a close contact, such as family member, gets the virus.

The drugmaker said it is looking at the efficacy of the pill as used in combination with a low dose of the HIV drug ritonavir in people who are at least 18 years old and live in the same household with someone who has COVID-19.

Pfizer plans to enroll 2,660 people in the late-stage study. Those participating will get either the treatment combination or a fake drug orally twice a day for five to 10 days.

Pfizer in March began an early-stage clinical trial of the new antiviral therapy for the coronavirus, with the goal of rolling it out by year-end. Part of a group of medicines called protease inhibitors, which are used to treat HIV and Hepatitis C, the drug hampers production of enzymes needed for the virus to multiply in human cells.​

Pfizer announced an experimental at-home pill which will treat COVID-19 at first signs of illness – and it could be available by the end of the year. ⁰⁰Dr. Neeta Ogden tells CBSN it could be a “game changer.” pic.twitter.com/cC3ykBMEMc
— CBS News (@CBSNews) April 28, 2021​

What a coincidence. Pfizer is trialing a reinvention of Ivermectin.https://t.co/ykmKCmuTEM
— Ben Eng (@jetpen) September 30, 2021​

Pfizer is now saying their reformulated and freshly patented ivermectin pill for COVID prevention is in the works and should be mandatory soon https://t.co/Qp2Mc0m05i
— JeffCoMoMises (@JeffCoMises) September 30, 2021​

"the new branding of an Ivermectin-like product by Pfizer" pic.twitter.com/LYqp5gbyzo
— 文德 (台灣寶島農場) GETTR @dching (@DCAtomy) September 30, 2021​

Pfizer and Merck aren’t even subtle in their bare-faced manipulation of the drugs markets and pricing. They should be shut down, taken over and their profits seized. This is evil. In plain sight. Roll out Ivermectin now. With the highest recommendation.
— John Bowe (@JohnBoweActor) September 29, 2021​

 

[armedoldhippy]

well, those were definitely not mRNA vaccines - besides, a few GIs dead or injured, what's the diff, you all signed up to be cannon fodder anyway.

maybe you don't understand the difference between old school vax and the mRNA jab?? and it will only be mRNA jabs going forward - cheaper and easier to make, so they say.

i understand quite well, and don't care. you use what you have, not what you wish you had. if that is all that there is, guess what? if there is adequate demand ($) there will be options.
nobody i knew signed up to be cannon fodder. we DID know that we were potential guinea pigs, made clear before you signed. your attitude toward those who served is pretty dismal. you're welcome...

 

[trichrider]

https://rumble.com/embed/ve00qx/?pub=4

 

[trichrider]

Lawyers & Scientists Are Building A Case For Why Natural Immunity Should Be Treated Same As Vaccination


by Tyler Durden
Tuesday, Sep 28, 2021 - 09:44 AM

Now that at least one employer in the health-care field - Michigan's Spectrum Health - has decided to accept proof of natural immunity from prior infection as reason to waive its vaccination mandate for all employees, legal expert (and the reporters who love to quote them) are wondering: will the legality of proving natural immunity potentially win out in court?
The answer to that question, they say, will depend - as all things COVID-related do - on "the science", that nebulous and frequently shifting concept of how prior infection impacts immunity to new variants (and whether vaccine's do as well).

According to a report in Yahoo Finance, the notion that natural immunity is superior is already gaining support in the legal world. Presently, a handful of studies from different countries offer a conflicting view of whether natural immunity actually is superior to vaccinated immunity, or a combination of prior infection and vaccination
Since it's likely the federal government's aim to roll out vaccine mandates that cover practically every US worker (they're not too far off already), the issue of natural vs. vaccine immunity and whether some individuals should receive exemptions based on their antibody levels almost certainly be adjudicated in the federal courts.
At least one attorney quoted by Yahoo agrees:

"I think that a judge might reject a rule that's been issued by a body, like the U.S. Department of Labor or by a state, that has not been sufficiently thought through as it relates to the science," Erik Eisenmann, a labor and employment attorney with Husch Blackwell, told Yahoo Finance.​

As we reported when it was first published, a report out of Israel suggests that natural immunity could be many times more effective than the Pfizer vaccine at preventing infection with the delta variant. That study has yet to be peer-reviewed, however, and the world is anxiously awaiting the results.
However, another peer-reviewed study cited by the CDC looks at dozens of cases in the US where certain people who tested positive for COVID never ended up generating the antibodies, which, science dictates, are necessary to fend off future infection.
The CDC also published a study of 246 Kentucky residents, concluding that vaccination offers higher protection than a previous COVID infection. The CDC said the study went through a "rigorous multi-level clearance process" before submission, but now some are concerned it's slightly out of date since it pre-dates the rise of delta.


But as far as supporting natural vs. vaccinated immunity goes, this study is another big one: A C A June study by the Cleveland Clinic and Washington University tracked 52,238 Cleveland Clinic employees found that within 1,359 previously infected and unvaccinated people, none contracted a subsequent COVID-19 infection over the five-month study. The findings led authors to conclude that prior infection makes a person "unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination."
Then there's this:

In a smaller study conducted by Washington University School of Medicine and published in Nature, senior author Ali Ellebedy, PhD, an associate professor of medicine and of molecular microbiology, found antibody-producing cells in the bone marrow of 15 of 19 study subjects 11 months after their first COVID-19 symptoms. "These cells will live and produce antibodies for the rest of people’s lives. That’s strong evidence for long-lasting immunity,” Ellebedy said.​

The legal and scientific standards are intertwined here, but as more data develops that appears to validate the argument that natural immunity is at least as effective as vaccinated immunity, it's more likely that lawyers will succeed in convincing judges that the standard should be "immunity by any means."

 

[Absolem]

When people post an article and are too afraid to post the link where it came from.................it pretty much sums up what they are posting is misleading.

 

[armedoldhippy]

"gaining support in the legal world", LOL! yeah, and i'll start taking my doctors legal advice right after that. LMFAO!

 

[Switcher56]

... after a while, everyone knows which side of the fence we sit on

 

[armedoldhippy]

... after a while, everyone knows whcih side of the fence we shit on

hard to straddle a fence AND shit without getting it all over you...LOL!