Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, so they know it is 95% effective? On a rushed through experimental vaccine? And they know for sure that vaccinated people will get a mild case? Give me a break.
They know it was 95% on the study groups. I'll give you a break when you can provide evidence to the contrary.
Is this proven to "prevent severe illness" in the very old, the very sick, and the obese? Because they're the ones who generally die WITH - not necessarily OF - this virus, just as they die from the flu or even the common cold. Whereas for the rest of us, it ALREADY has a 99.8% survival rate...
As I say, my risk/benefit analysis -- as well as my intuition and common sense -- tell me this isn't something I need to pursue...
In this quick a time period, I salute Big Pharma, as what was accomplished in short time is amazing.
They know it was 95% on the study groups. I'll give you a break when you can provide evidence to the contrary.
The study groups cannot be held reliable on an experimental vaccine that was rushed through and where the vaccine manufacturers are not liable for any damages. This "evidence" is completely absurd. The manufacturers would have to take a stand by their product to have any credibility. But they won't stand by their product. What does that alone tell you?
The study groups cannot be held reliable on an experimental vaccine that was rushed through and where the vaccine manufacturers are not liable for any damages. This "evidence" is completely absurd. The manufacturers would have to take a stand by their product to have any credibility. But they won't stand by their product. What does that alone tell you?
So can you provide evidence to the contrary or are you just peddling fear and uncertainty?
In this quick a time period, I salute Big Pharma, as what was accomplished in short time is amazing.
It would have been amazing, if it had been reliable and if they would have stood by their product.
In my field as a software developer, I could have rushed through a complex software product, approved it, and declared it a success. As the product bombed with many users, I would have said that I am not responsible for my work and the failure's were due to "other causes". Similar situation with this experimental vaccine.
It would have been amazing, if it had been reliable and if they would have stood by their product.
In my field as a software developer, I could have rushed through a complex software product, approved it, and declared it a success. As the product bombed with many users, I would have said that I am not responsible for my work and the failure's were due to "other causes". Similar situation with this experimental vaccine.
You act as if there is some evidence that it has bombed. If so, please provide it. If not, your analogy is not applicable.
It would have been amazing, if it had been reliable and if they would have stood by their product.
In my field as a software developer, I could have rushed through a complex software product, approved it, and declared it a success. As the product bombed with many users, I would have said that I am not responsible for my work and the failure's were due to "other causes". Similar situation with this experimental vaccine.
So can you provide evidence to the contrary or are you just peddling fear and uncertainty?
I don't peddle fear and uncertainty. Read the article. If you want to blame someone, then blame the Michigan health care professionals. Don't bother to shoot the messenger.
I simply wanted to point something out about vaccines. I don't have an agenda as many others do here.
The bottom line is that hurried "studies" during the vaccine development cannot be taken as reliable.
And the fact remains that the vaccine manufacturers don't guarantee their product since they don't stand by it and CANNOT BE SUED for any adverse reactions to their vaccines. And many life insurance companies feel that this vaccine is too dangerous and will not cover any deaths linked to the vaccine. That alone is a game-changer despite "studies".
Also note that I don't rely on attempted character assassinations when I write my posts. I stick to the facts and make no assumptions about other posters whom I know nothing about. Posters that have to rely on these character assassinations only show that they are losing the argument and have to resort to these measures to try to save their argument.
With a 99.9xx percent survival rate? Come on! At least have the vaccine manufacturers be responsible for their work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
