Posted on 08/06/2021 10:06:02 AM PDT by ObozoMustGo2012
what would be an example of a “false” declaration about this vaccine? there is plenty of data now indicating that this vaccine is neither effective against getting the virus, transmitting the virus, completely safe by previous standards (i.e., vars reports etc), well tested by previous standards, durable, non-emergency approved by the cdc, and was developed and/or tested using aborted fetal cell lines.
so what possible declaration could you for instance make against this vaccine that would be false? just curious.
However, now there is a clear delineation between FDA "approved" and "unapproved" medicine. All of the covid vaccines the FDA has granted "emergency use authorization" are labeled as "unapproved."
Can the government of today, mandate their citizens take an unapproved injection? How about an unapproved medicine? Can an employer mandate their employee's take an unapproved injection or medicine?
If so, what would prevent future governments from mandating their citizens take a future, unapproved, injection or medicine because they deem it necessary? What would prevent future companies from mandating their employee's from taking unapproved injections or medicine because they deem it's in the companies best interest?
When thinking of these mandates, remember, this isn't the black plague of the middle ages (that killed ~40-50% of the European population). This isn't the Spanish Flu (an estimated 10% mortality rate).
This is a virus that has a current, alleged, mortality rate of 1.7% of those who get covid. I say alleged, because we all know darn well that their reported covid positive cases...and deaths, are inflated (i.e, died with covid vs died from covid).
The government mandating an approved injection is a different legal question than the government mandating an injection that they have not given approval of. Of course, this says nothing of the morality of such a mandate.
And that evidence is accelerating in the last few weeks/month...
When looking at stories, or data, keep in mind the timeframe. Is the data they are sharing/reporting regarding the entire vaccination timeline (from Jan), when there were far fewer variants and far fewer participating in the experimental injections? Or, is it what's happening recently, in the last week or last month with a growing pool of variants and participents in the experiments? The following are about the current surge.
No reason to go overseas to get Ivermectin. Amazon and Tractor Supply both have it as a horse paste.
He’s asking about a RELIGIOUS exemption. The examples you cite would likely be denied. Now, if your church came out with an edict saying vaccination was a sin, you could certainly present that to the employer and they could consider it valid. Claiming you belong to a religion or church (or cult) that you don’t actually belong to would obviously be a false declaration.
Now, if he thinks saying he can’t get the vax because it was tested on cells developed from the HEK293 line, it’s worth a shot, and better than making something up. But I think the odds are slim. Throwing in arguments about safety and efficacy would almost certainly hurt his case.
Personally, I don’t think anyone should have to be vaccinated. But apparently his employer does.
“For example, the government cannot legally spy on and collect data on US citizens (we know they do it anyway)”
Yesterday we watched the most disturbing movie, “Snowden”. Of course, it’s an Oliver Stone movie, so some of it may not be accurate. Still, it went into detail of how the CIA, NSA, etc., spied on American citizens via data mining of ALL text messages and emails; and remotely activating webcams. We’ve known about this for a while, but the detail shown in the movie gave chills.
COVID cases among vaccinated on the rise in Clark County
Of Covid cases:
March - 2% fully vax'd
April - 3% fully vax'd
June - 12% fully vax'd
July - 15% fully vax'd
Aug (to date) - 16% fully vax'd.
Of Covid hospitalizations since June 1, 11% were fully vax'd.
Of Covid deaths since June 1, 13% were fully vax'd.
I would not be so sure, well, at least according to one viewpoint:
"Additionally, states cannot refuse an exemption to those whose interpretation differs from their religion’s doctrine regarding vaccination. It’s not the state job to enforce a religion’s rules on its believers, the state is tasked simply with assessing whether the religious objection is sincere. This too makes sense, but again, makes it harder to challenge religious exemption claims by members of religions that support vaccines. Assessing sincerity is tricky grounds"
- see https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2021/07/16/religious-exemptions-to-vaccines-and-the-anti-vax-movement/
Of course, the comment above specifically refers to the State
Again, it comes down to sincerity and honesty. Lacking either is asking for trouble with an employer.
ok i got it. you and me are on completely different tacks here. you’re actually taking the enemy at his word. i’m not.
you’re missing the point completely. there are no “odds” here. the game is rigged. the odds are 1 you lose, 0 you win.
the point is to resist with an honest reason. the Christian is part of the body of Christ. the point of any exemption is to site why Christ Himself would support it. period. if any cult, denomination, physical local church goes along with it. fine. Christ says whomever is not against us is for us.
the ***point*** is to push back with legitimate reasoning. the point is to delay, to resist, evil in any moral way you can. the point is to set yourself up to counter attack with a law suit or some other future defense.
One of the many problems with making anything mandatory, a condition of employment, etc.
In the military, we were pretty strict in applying religious exemptions, even when the person seemed sincere. The vast majority were denied.
“In the military, we were pretty strict in applying religious exemptions, even when the person seemed sincere. The vast majority were denied.”
Yes, and agreed. That is undoubtedly due to the unique nature of the military mission.
A good overview of COVID-19 and vaccinations is here at Section K:
A more thorough history with case rulings.
I didn’t see where the op indicated that they were not sincere. Religion is a very personal experience and one could easily conceive that following an immoral edict would be immoral in itself. Evil thrives when good men do not resist. I believe most of us have subverted immoral policies when it is in our power to do so. Not overly concerned about the bruised ego of the policy maker. Those types generally don’t keep the best employees who know their value.
This letter from a Catholic site is excellent. If you are not Catholic, you can adapt and use “Christian.”
https://www.ncbcenter.org/ncbc-news/vaccineletter
What the CDC ACTUALLY said is, “CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.”
This is unclear double-speak.
I get your argument, and — in a perfect world — I’d buy it.
As-is, I don’t.
Because whatever it is that they actually MEANT, what they WROTE doesn’t exclude my claim being the actual truth.
The ever-veiled CDC here, again, COULD have cleared the air with a simple “because...,” but chose to be less verbose, and therefore less conclusive.
So, here WE are out here with just their muddled verbiage for reference trying to discern which they mean:
“..., because the existing PCR DETECTS both COVID and influenza, but doesn’t DIFFERENTIATE between them, so a positive result doesn’t tell you which you have.”
OR
“..., because the existing PCR ONLY DETECTS COVID, which limits its utility during flu season.”
DON’T forget that we still have The Missing 2020 Flu Season to account for; a test that flips positive for BOTH COVID and at least some strains of flu would absolutely account for all
the flus that weren’t.
So, color me skeptical.
Galatians 6:7-9
King James Version
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
A number of people are pointing out a “problem” with Religious Exemptions being that many who actually are NOT opposed to vaccination for actual Religious reasons are using Religious Exemptions to skirt vaccination requirements.
Granted. But this dynamic isn’t a damnation of Religious Exemptions; it is a damnation of the vaccination requirements that are driving people to seek exemption by whatever possible means they can.
What is most clearly revealed in all of this is the need for a “Because I Do Not Want To” Exemption, and the legal teeth to be able to tell employers both public and private to F@#% OFF!
THAT is what REAL Americans want.
PROVE me wrong!
I’m not even sure it would be possible to create an RT-PCR test that didn’t distinguish between Influenza and SARS-CoV-2. The two viruses are so radically different (again, not even the same phylum) that I think you’d have a hard time finding enough similarity in nucleotide sequences.
In other words, it would be vastly more complicated to create a test that can’t distinguish between flu and SARS-CoV-2 than it would to create one that does. They’re just completely different animals. It would be like creating a camera AI program that watches surveillance footage and identifies what it sees. Creating camera AI that can distinguish between a human and a snail is easier than creating one that sees them as the same thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.