Replies

In the interest of good-faith, Pfizer, Moderna and J&J should waive their legal liability protections that have been procured by using the EUA (Pfizer) in a very dubious manner. Example, Comirnaty is not available so the EUA formula, which is different from the EUA formulation and legal identification and status is different as well.

Then we should debate the safety and real-world effectiveness as this point in time.

Clinical trials carefully designed to get at the essential scientific truth show that Covid vaccines are effective for most people for medically worthwhile periods of time.

The essential truth of the clinical trials remains despite all the confusing statistics that are utilized on Free Republic and elsewhere to try to obscure it.

Almost all Americans dying of diabetes are on drugs designed to treat diabetes. The diabetes drugs aren’t perfect, but the diabetes drugs generally save and extend lives.

—”Questioning the competence and integrity of government bureaucracies like the FDA doesn't make someone a bad person or a spreader of disinformation. Government bureaucracies can be wrong, and historically the citizens of democracies have viewed it as not only their right but their duty to scrutinize public officials’ decisions. Dissent is an integral part of the sacred compact between government and governed that underpins a free society, and Americans allow the current regime of censorship to continue at their extreme peril.” Risch, Malone and Bridle...

...versus a comment by a Freeper a few days ago,

- “When the people [ CDC et al. ] who collect the data tell you what it represents, presenting it as something else is misinformation by definition.”

Quite a dissonance there, eh?

FR “frogjerk” suggests a voluntary waiver of the legal liability by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna and others, as demonstration of full faith that their products are “safe and effective.” I second the suggestion.

That would be a great expression of “trust” on the part of the FDA, CDC and the pharmaceuticals.

Who thinks these players will place their full faith in the products by stepping out from behind the legal shield?

Consider the fierce warnings issued by national medical organizations and state medical boards, threatening to strip any doctor who questions the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines of his license. If questioning vaccine safety can destroy your career and livelihood, would you create a permanent public record attaching your name and license number to a report doing precisely that?

I am convinced this is exactly what happened to my (now former) doctor. Doc's position on covid vaccines went from "It is a personal decision, I'll give a medical recommendation only." To "Everyone should get vaxxed, regardless of risk factors, regardless of prior infection or demonstrated natural immunity. Everyone should get vaxxed." I asked doc point blank is there anyone who should not. "Only if you are allergic to one of the components. Then you should look at one of the other vaccines..."

As I said, now former doctor. I can no longer trust that decisions and recommendations would be made based on what is best for the patient (ie. me). Doc is obviously bending to pressure from above.

...what if the numbers on VAERS are real – or even worse, represent substantial underreporting?

I think the numbers are "real" in that they represent events that occurred some time following a vaccination.

I don't think they're "real" in the sense that they necessarily reflect events caused by the vaccines.

They get presented as the latter all to often in these arguments.

...the latest report the rate is twice as high among the vaccinated!!!