Texas Sues Pfizer For Fraud

[ArcticCrusher]

6 minutes ago, SkisNH said:

Inset big pharma instead of govt.

Big pharma didn't force anything on the people, their governments did.

[NaturallyAspirated]

17 hours ago, SkisNH said:

Haha....efficacy implies you don't get the virus. 

Look at the efficacy rate of other vaccines.  They actual stop transmission. 

Look at the efficacy rate of the vaccine against the first couple strains.  It was very effective. 

Neal

[ArcticCrusher]

19 minutes ago, akvanden said:

You know all vaccines help prevent transmission, right smarty? The lower the viral load the lower the chance your shedding the virus. Someone deathly sick is more apt to spread a virus that someone with no symptoms. Or are you telling me that no vaccines - covid or other - don't help prevent?



 

 

Oh really? I bet we could count the amount of times they said stop and then find how that same person said prevents. I wonder which one might be said more prevalently? and like I already stated, "Those who did misspeak **should** have corrected themselves."

Not sure if you used really good examples there. "preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community,” Fauci said.
"Covid-19 vaccinations will not only help stop the virus from spreading

 

Wow, the brainwashing runs deep in you.

[NaturallyAspirated]

17 hours ago, EvilBird said:

This was Fun. 

Stay stupid Neal. 

 

But still 3 steps ahead of you... 

Neal

[akvanden]

5 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Count the times they said stop.     Dude it was daily for months and months. 

Sounds like an easy compare then. 

The FDA from day one when the vaccine was approved stated it does not stop transmission. Anyone who said it did in absolute terms should have corrected themselves. 

[ArcticCrusher]

Just now, NaturallyAspirated said:

Look at the efficacy rate of the vaccine against the first couple strains.  It was very effective. 

Neal

No it wasn't, its all bullshit.  That vaccine saved no lives.

[NaturallyAspirated]

2 hours ago, Highmark said:

I really don't think they were across all ages and ranges of pre-existing conditions.

Also what are you calling efficacy?   Stopping infection?

You are simply wrong.

Do a little research, I did.

Neal

[NaturallyAspirated]

Just now, ArcticCrusher said:

No it wasn't, its all bullshit.  That vaccine saved no lives.

You are full of bullshit... 

What a complete fucking dumbass.

Neal

[ArcticCrusher]

Just now, akvanden said:

Sounds like an easy compare then. 

The FDA from day one when the vaccine was approved stated it does not stop transmission. Anyone who said it did in absolute terms should have corrected themselves. 

Bullshit, please provide a link.

 

Now look at the contracts signed by Pfizer, Moderna etc.

Efficacy unknown, adverse harms unknown, long term harms unknown.

Lets roll it out and force people to take it.  Lets even fire them for saying no.

Fucking idiot

 

 

[ArcticCrusher]

2 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

You are simply wrong.

Do a little research, I did.

Neal

 

2 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

You are full of bullshit... 

What a complete fucking dumbass.

Neal

Yah you went all in for a booster blowout.

 

[akvanden]

29 minutes ago, SkisNH said:

People who never got sick spread covid...

https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/most-covid-19-cases-are-spread-by-people-without-symptoms

 

yup

14 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

 

Wow, the brainwashing runs deep in you.

So you do know that vaccines help prevent transmission - good. 

[akvanden]

17 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Bullshit, please provide a link.

Dec 11, 2020. Have at it, dummy. 

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-key-action-fight-against-covid-19-issuing-emergency-use-authorization-first-covid-19

[Jimmy Snacks]

1 hour ago, akvanden said:

95%+ of the messaging did not say is stopped transmission, rather helps prevent. I feel sad for someone who thought it might have stopped transmission 100% when it didn't even 100% prevent infection. But then again, no vaccines stop transmission. 

Those who did misspeak **should** have corrected themselves. 

Ahhh no….the messaging clearly said get the vaccine to stop the transmission/spread. That’s why I got it…to protect my wife and MIL. I was lied to but carry on with your revisionism.

[SkisNH]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Ahhh no….the messaging clearly said get the vaccine to stop the transmission/spread. That’s why I got it…to protect my wife and MIL. I was lied to but carry on with your revisionism.

True statement....remember the gaslighting about how compassionate it was to get the vaccine to protect the people you love.

[akvanden]

Just now, Jimmy Snacks said:

Ahhh no….the messaging clearly said get the vaccine to stop the transmission/spread. That’s why I got it…to protect my wife and MIL. I was lied to but carry on with your revisionism.

First vaccine in history.

And you did get it to protect your wife/MIL, just the same as you give your kids chickenpox vaccines to protect them from that, even though it's 90% effective and doesn't stop transmission either.

So you knew it was ~90% efficacy rate but thought it was a 100% stop transmission rate? Honest question. 

[Jimmy Snacks]

Just now, SkisNH said:

True statement....remember the gaslighting about how compassionate it was to get the vaccine to protect the people you love.

Sure do….they lied like motherfuckers and fuck those here defending it.

[Jimmy Snacks]

3 minutes ago, akvanden said:

First vaccine in history.

And you did get it to protect your wife/MIL, just the same as you give your kids chickenpox vaccines to protect them from that, even though it's 90% effective and doesn't stop transmission either.

So you knew it was ~90% efficacy rate but thought it was a 100% stop transmission rate? Honest question. 

Quit comparing it to chickenpox. This was new territory and something none of us had ever experienced so I believed the lies. If you want to sit here now and delve into the numbers and research have at it but the messaging then was get the vaccine  and stop Covid. 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Jimmy Snacks

[Highmark]

32 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

You are simply wrong.

Do a little research, I did.

Neal

Again what are you calling efficacy?   Prevention of severe disease?   Preventing infection?   Preventing transmission?

[Highmark]

36 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Sounds like an easy compare then. 

The FDA from day one when the vaccine was approved stated it does not stop transmission. Anyone who said it did in absolute terms should have corrected themselves. 

FDA but dude the claims were ALL OVER the news by almost anyone pro jab.   It went on for months and months.   You have to be really pro vaccine bias to not remember what they were saying about the vaccine.  The phrase get vaccinated for others was everywhere. 

 

As for you laughing at my post that they admitted they never tested for transmission and spread.

The posts cite remarks by Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, while testifying on behalf of Bourla before the European Parliament’s COVID-19 committee on Oct. 10. 

During the session, a conservative Dutch member of the Parliament, Rob Roos, asked Small if Pfizer had tested the vaccine for transmission prevention before the vaccine entered the market (see the 15:23:00 mark of the video). Small said: “No. We had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market” (see the 15:31:45 mark).

Following the hearing, Roos posted a two-minute video statement on Twitter that included his exchange with Small. 

“BREAKING: In COVID hearing, #Pfizer director admits: #vaccine was never tested on preventing transmission. ‘Get vaccinated for others’ was always a lie. The only purpose of the #COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated. The world needs to know. Share this video!” said the post, which got 232,600 likes and 138,500 shares in less than two days.

“I find this to be shocking, even criminal,” Roos said in his video statement. 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Highmark

[NaturallyAspirated]

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

Again what are you calling efficacy?   Prevention of severe disease?   Preventing infection?   Preventing transmission?

The standard definition of producing the desire result.  The vaccine was intended to prevent the disease.

Neal

[akvanden]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Quit comparing it to chickenpox.

Well I have to give SkidNH credit for that.

Use the flu vaccine then. There's a reason why the parents of newborn babies are recommended to get the flu shot, even though we all know you can still get it and transmit it. By lowering your risk, it helps lower the risk of those around you. 

I don't get this bizzaro 100% absolute requirements people keep using. I mean I do get it and why some are trying to use it, but it's retarded. 

[Highmark]

8 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

The standard definition of producing the desire result.  The vaccine was intended to prevent the disease.

Neal

Ah yes prevent the disease but that's not what we are talking about.   The question is just because you are infected do you have the covid-19 disease or is that only if you develop severe symptoms.

In any case they were still pushing the same message on later variants which prevention decreased significantly.     

Edited December 4, 2023 by Highmark

[NaturallyAspirated]

14 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Ahhh no….the messaging clearly said get the vaccine to stop the transmission/spread. That’s why I got it…to protect my wife and MIL. I was lied to but carry on with your revisionism.

I think many people were using stop transmission in the colloquial way.  The vaccine did a fairly good job at early disease contraction, thus reducing the ability of infected people to harbor the virus and become virus generation and spreading points.  Obviously if one is vaccinated and grabs a shared hand rail with the virus on it, then licks their hand, then put their hand back on the rail they will be transmitting the disease.  The vaccines helped reduce the transmission secondarily, but not eliminate all instances, i.e. by preventing the body from being as contagious as unvaccinated, and then spreading the virus by contact transmission.

Ben and I went round and round on this because I was trying to describe how the transmission is limited under the second case of usage, he would declare the first case of usage to be the definitive usage.  

You were lied to if you were told you could not transmit the virus after being vaccinated (under the first usage).  Proper communication would have been to engage the second usage, and as you said, the reason you got the shot, to protect or minimize your chances of spreading to others.

No vaccine in history is 100% effective at it's job, and many are not nearly as good as the COVID vaccine was against the first couple strains, it was very good.  It was not very good with subsequent strains.

Neal

[NaturallyAspirated]

8 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Ah yes prevent the disease but that's not what we are talking about.   The question is just because you are infected do you have the covid-19 disease or is that only if you develop severe symptoms.

In any case they were still pushing the same message on later variants which prevention decreased significantly.     

That's indeed what I am talking about.

Developing of symptoms is the the best way to describe something as a disease.  If you have the virus, but zero symptoms that would be better described as a virus carrier than a sufferer of the disease, do you not agree?

I totally agree that the vaccines were being  push with data showing minimal impact of later strains.  It was however very good at early strain efficacy, you agree, correct?

Neal

 

[Crnr2Crnr]

49 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

No it wasn't, its all bullshit.  That vaccine saved no lives.

Donald disagrees with you, but he is known to lie quite often.

 

 

 

Are you calling Donny a liar?