M
Yo
@sparkuri can I keep a hummingbird as a pet or is it legal tender?
Businesses have asked to add to their burdens at the risk of severe penalty if there's any issues? Yeah, that seems very likely.
It would feel better if gov't would respect property rights and mind their own fucking business. If "Filthy's House of Ivermectin" wants to have a vaccine requirement, no problem. If the government wants to force Filthy to have one and by extension force his customers to receive a vaccine then I have an issue as the government should not be threatening Filthy, or his customers with violence because they've decided to enact a policy that (by everyone's acknowledgment) will not have the described affect.
effect.
You're welcome.
M
member 1013
Guest
Skill testing question: "What product did Moderna sell prior to the covid vaccine?"
Nothing. This is their first product to market, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that their stock would go up that much.
Right.
Or the "Delta" variant does what every other mutation in history does.
Become more transmissive & less deadly.
"Vaccines" during a pandemic has NEVER occurred, for the fear variants will bloom that normally wouldn't have.
This is an established fact, as is the statement before it.
Every single pathologist, immunologist, & epidemiologist knows both.
We're half a year into the 3 phases of a vaccine, accute, subaccute & long-term.
If Trump were still our figurehead, the VAERS & Eudraviligence data would be posted on every MSM outlet, blaming Trump for going too fast, and we'd be in the middle of more hearings to have him deposed for it, with new contracts for new "effective vaccines" being rolled out.
This is political, socioeconomic, and completely tyrannical, from the beginning.
There is no coronavirus "vaccine", and there never has been.
It's a Luciferian push after a populist president. There's literally "luciferase" in them,
it couldn't be anymore blatant.
It's no different than rolling out mandatory hamburgers on a population with an ingredient called "heartclogisol" in it.
Half the world is running to it, the other half is adamantly running for their lives.
Whatever names that half is being called isn't going to change their minds, and it's no way for governments to act.
Makes sense
Took a EUA to get to market
I still think they are dirty dirty and even a bit slimy slimy
EUA's aren't really all they're cracked up to be. They got bumped up in the testing cue, but that doesn't move you up the bureaucratic paperwork cue.
You should look into the company. The establishment has worked very hard to cripple them and their lead scientist. Big Pharma fought tooth and nail to stop mrna from ever coming to market because there's no long term money in it.
Oh really
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Also, considering that there is early data showing better long-term antibody response than Pfizer.
Even if we move to second generation vaccines, on this first onslaught there's reason to think their team is ahead of the competition.
Nuremberg code was established post WW2 for exactly this reason.
Nothing can be forced on anyone by code.
Nothing treatable requires a vaccine.
These are facts, have been, and what's occurring is several clear violations of the Nuremberg code.
Anyone pushing vaccines and ignoring the data, or believing "their" data outweighs the code or man's innate right to liberty is either tyrannical or brainwashed.
Consider there has been ine lockdown in human history for a disease.
One country, ever.
The black plague (both times) didn't lock anyone down.
I'd say the half world needs a history lesson, but it's far too late.
The "pro-vax" crowd needs a lobotomy.
There is nothing anyone can say to these people.
They're benevolent misinformation will have catastrophic consequences, and they can tell their grandkids, "never think you couldn't be a nazi or a slavedriver, because it will happen to you and you won't even know it until long afterwards".
Anyone worth their weight in salt who really believes this horseshit, for the sake of human liberty, should grant equal rights to all and wait a year.
The notion that "unjabbed people" are 'creating variants' is so scientifically stupid it's beyond logic.
This is mass psychosis.
M
member 1013
Guest
I don’t actually play stocks
Yes, sir. There's a reason Pfizer had nothing to do with the development.
I actually wanted Moderna initially because they're the actual originators of the tech, but after the side effects, ehhhhnn.
Oh, for fucks sake.
www.reuters.com
EU looking into new possible side-effects of mRNA COVID-19 shots
Three new conditions reported by a small number of people after vaccination with COVID-19 shots from Pfizer (PFE.N) and Moderna (MRNA.O) are being studied to assess if they may be possible side-effects, Europe's drugs regulator said on Wednesday.
Yeah, they are.
Fetal male lung tissue.
This was information released a year ago.
@Splinty is this true?
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
Please ignore
@sparkuri and get your pneumonia vaccine if you are at risk or 65+.
Please ignore @Splinty and everything he says about vaccines.Please ignore
@Lars , at some point commiepedia will take this down.
These are a list of key points of the Nuremberg Code.
From my view, all are being broken.
I'd take screenshots or download the pdf on thumb drives.
- The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.[13]
- The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
- The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
- The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
- No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
- The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
- Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
- The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
- During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
- During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
By your definition which vaccines are appropriate?Please ignore @@Splinty and everything he says about vaccines.