Do you trust the co-vid19 vaccine ?

[tvbcof]

...
doctors/nurses care more about their patients than themselves and want there to be less people getting sick. however the vaccine co-ordinators are saying the doctors/nurses need to have it first so they dont get sick thus able to treat patients.
...

I know how it is.  I'm the same way too!

I wish to donate all of my and my family's share to the politicians, bureaucrats, and bankers so they can have extra doses and get extra protection.

Of course these are all good and caring people who just want the best for humanity so they will probably also refuse.  But my respect for them is so great that I think it is us common people's duty to, as a means of displaying our utmost gratitude for all of their great work, hold them down and give them 'the love'.

...just shoot 'em right into the vein!

[Gyfts]

They simply don't trust big pharma.

They know better than anyone else how big pharma can fuck your body up and still can get away with it.

You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects. The government likely won’t compensate you for damages either

If you experience severe side effects after getting a Covid vaccine, lawyers tell CNBC there is basically no one to blame in a U.S. court of law.

The federal government has granted companies like Pfizer and Moderna immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines.

Turns out you can't even sue them.

Why would anybody accept to become a test subject for big pharma is beyond me.

This was for liability reasons (obviously), not because the vaccine is rushed and completely unsafe. You're not going to have a single company produce a COVID vaccine if it means you vaccinated millions of people and are held liable if one of them ends up dying from some unrelated, or even related, reaction from the vaccine.

Example - Imagine if you have an allergic reaction after taking the vaccine. Doesn't mean the vaccine is unsafe, but the companies is now on the hook for a potential lawsuit. Multiply that by how ever many adverse reactions. By the way, I'm not arguing that the vaccine is 100 percent safe. That would be disingenuous. Some people are going to have some adverse reaction.

[franky1]

mindrust and gyfts. you have been told a couple times now that the compensation scheme is via the government and that process via the government is much more straight forward and less delayed and less problematic compared to suing a corporation.(if you have a genuine injury claim)

your both pretending that lack of suing a corp means lack of process

will you just do your friggen research and stop crying at things you dont know
it takes less time to research the facts on google then it does to go searching for a conspiracy site and copy their stupidity

many greedy people without injury like to fake injury and make claim hoping for auto-payouts under settlement agreements thats its cheaper to pay out rather then investigate the claim..
but sorry you SLAPP happy greedy ambulance chancing con artists. no free money for you..

but for those with genuine disability due to vaccine the government compensation scheme is better and faster and more straight forward.

so i see the only reason why conspiracy nutters cry about not suing a company is because they are the greedy injury fakers that just want money. so take your cries elsewhere.
if you genuinely cared about anyone that was injured/disabled due to a vaccine you would have actually researched the government scheme and seen the benefits of it and known that the government behind the scenes then done the bigger punishment towards pharma. thus a win.
but if your still crying. then you are just money hungry fakers with no clue what your talking about

[franky1]

This was for liability reasons (obviously), not because the vaccine is rushed and completely unsafe. You're not going to have a single company produce a COVID vaccine if it means you vaccinated millions of people and are held liable if one of them ends up dying from some unrelated, or even related, reaction from the vaccine.

Example - Imagine if you have an allergic reaction after taking the vaccine. Doesn't mean the vaccine is unsafe, but the companies is now on the hook for a potential lawsuit. Multiply that by how ever many adverse reactions. By the way, I'm not arguing that the vaccine is 100 percent safe. That would be disingenuous. Some people are going to have some adverse reaction.

to correct you.
vaccine companies for decades are never personally liable. as thats what liability insurance is for.
however in past decades to underwrite a policy took alot of bureaucracy and high premiums..
yep to do each phase of trials took months of insurance paperwork just to get approval to do trials.

now the government is basically the insurance company holding liability over vaccines they gave pharma companies approval to do phased trials earlier this year quickly. hense why the trials progressed to ne phases without 6-12 month 'bureaucracy' delays per phase

all that has changed is instead of charging say $500 premium per phase trial participant which would then reflect as a $550 vaccine price pharma comp charges. the government take liability and so they get the vaccine for under $50 and they put funds aside into a 'compensation trust' to cover any liabilities.

and because its the government. and done via a government scheme that is more straight forward they dont have to go through the expense of fake claims expenses.

[Gyfts]

This was for liability reasons (obviously), not because the vaccine is rushed and completely unsafe. You're not going to have a single company produce a COVID vaccine if it means you vaccinated millions of people and are held liable if one of them ends up dying from some unrelated, or even related, reaction from the vaccine.

Example - Imagine if you have an allergic reaction after taking the vaccine. Doesn't mean the vaccine is unsafe, but the companies is now on the hook for a potential lawsuit. Multiply that by how ever many adverse reactions. By the way, I'm not arguing that the vaccine is 100 percent safe. That would be disingenuous. Some people are going to have some adverse reaction.

to correct you.
vaccine companies for decades are never personally liable. as thats what liability insurance is for.
however in past decades to underwire an insurance took alot of bureucracy and high premiums..
yep to do each phase of trials took 6 months of paperwork just for insurance just to get approval.

now the government is basically the insurance company holding liability over vaccines they gave pharma companies approval to do phased trials earlier this year quickly.

all thats changed is instead of charging say $500 premium per phase trial participant which would then reflect as a $550 vaccine. the government take liability and so they get the vaccine for under $50 and they put funds aside into a 'compensation trust' to cover any liabilities.

and because its the government. and done via a government scheme that is more straight forward they dont have to go through the expense of fake claims expenses.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html

The government won't give you shit either so don't rely on them to give you compensation if something bad happens. That's what emergency authorization is. You rush out the therapeutic because the potential risks do not outweigh the benefits. There were clinical trials, but it's unreasonable to say that this vaccine is universally safe with no side effects.

https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/prepact/Pages/default.aspx

You voluntarily take the vaccine, you assume the risk of taking it. You have no recourse if shit goes sour.

[mindrust]

This was for liability reasons (obviously), not because the vaccine is rushed and completely unsafe. You're not going to have a single company produce a COVID vaccine if it means you vaccinated millions of people and are held liable if one of them ends up dying from some unrelated, or even related, reaction from the vaccine.

Example - Imagine if you have an allergic reaction after taking the vaccine. Doesn't mean the vaccine is unsafe, but the companies is now on the hook for a potential lawsuit. Multiply that by how ever many adverse reactions. By the way, I'm not arguing that the vaccine is 100 percent safe. That would be disingenuous. Some people are going to have some adverse reaction.

I think the big pharma lawyers can prove it if the patient dies from an allergic reaction. That shouldn't be a problem for a big company like moderna or pfizer. Why do they have lawyers on a payroll if they are not going to use them?  

Right now, they are not responsible either way. It makes no difference anymore if the patient dies from the vaxx or from the allergic reaction.

And I think that's a problem.

That reminds me of that shitty ToS of Livecoin somehow. If it is written in the ToS, you must obey it kinda situation.   Why? Because you accepted Pfizer's ToS before you had the vaxx and now you have no rights to complain if you get injured by it.

[Twinkledoe]

This was for liability reasons (obviously), not because the vaccine is rushed and completely unsafe. You're not going to have a single company produce a COVID vaccine if it means you vaccinated millions of people and are held liable if one of them ends up dying from some unrelated, or even related, reaction from the vaccine.

Example - Imagine if you have an allergic reaction after taking the vaccine. Doesn't mean the vaccine is unsafe, but the companies is now on the hook for a potential lawsuit. Multiply that by how ever many adverse reactions. By the way, I'm not arguing that the vaccine is 100 percent safe. That would be disingenuous. Some people are going to have some adverse reaction.

I think the big pharma lawyers can prove it if the patient dies from an allergic reaction. That shouldn't be a problem for a big company like moderna or pfizer. Why do they have lawyers on a payroll if they are not going to use them? 

Right now, they are not responsible either way. It makes no difference anymore if the patient dies from the vaxx or from the allergic reaction.

And I think that's a problem.

Everyone is different so really expect that the reaction will be different on each person and allergic reaction may be one of them. Since the study for this vaccine is not yet intensive, like having a lot of data of various people about their reactions to this vaccine. They  will always encounter some hiccup on this implementation. But I believe, they are ready for whatever they will embark here. They are in the medical field, so they know what they are doing. But for me, as much as possible, I will get the vaccine shot not this soon.

[franky1]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html

The government won't give you shit either so don't rely on them to give you compensation if something bad happens. That's what emergency authorization is. You rush out the therapeutic because the potential risks do not outweigh the benefits. There were clinical trials, but it's unreasonable to say that this vaccine is universally safe with no side effects.

https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/prepact/Pages/default.aspx

You voluntarily take the vaccine, you assume the risk of taking it. You have no recourse if shit goes sour.

your links are about the pharma not being liable.. congratulations you just found out something that every other smart person knew for a long time.. welldone

now you have to look at the GOVERNMENTS compensation scheme.

so without you spinning in circles crying about not being able to be SLAPP happy with pharma. go try to catch up with the info about the government scheme.
yep i said it. stop circle jerking the 'cant sue pharma' links. as your just going in outdated info

try to catch up
ill give you a little hint... VICP
What are VICP's objectives?
    ensure an adequate supply of vaccines;
    stabilize vaccine costs; and
    establish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines.

The VICP was established after lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and healthcare providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce vaccination rates. The Program began accepting petitions (also called claims) in 1988.

welcome to 2021. and i hope you have now caught up with 33 years of understandings about vaccine makers liability actually being the governments held liable
yep. its been this way for 33 years

[BADecker]

^^^ But would you really have known if he hadn't posted it?

[Gyfts]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html

The government won't give you shit either so don't rely on them to give you compensation if something bad happens. That's what emergency authorization is. You rush out the therapeutic because the potential risks do not outweigh the benefits. There were clinical trials, but it's unreasonable to say that this vaccine is universally safe with no side effects.

https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/prepact/Pages/default.aspx

You voluntarily take the vaccine, you assume the risk of taking it. You have no recourse if shit goes sour.

your links are about the pharma not being liable.. congratulations you just found out something that every other smart person knew for a long time.. welldone

now you have to look at the GOVERNMENTS compensation scheme.

so without you spinning in circles crying about not being able to be SLAPP happy with pharma. go try to catch up with the info about the government scheme.
yep i said it. stop circle jerking the 'cant sue pharma' links. as your just going in outdated info

try to catch up
ill give you a little hint... VICP
What are VICP's objectives?
    ensure an adequate supply of vaccines;
    stabilize vaccine costs; and
    establish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines.

The VICP was established after lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and healthcare providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce vaccination rates. The Program began accepting petitions (also called claims) in 1988.

welcome to 2021. and i hope you have now caught up with 33 years of understandings about vaccine makers liability actually being the governments held liable
yep. its been this way for 33 years

What are you talking about?

The only entity liable are the companies or enterprises that create a therapeutic agent. If the government waives off liability on their end, the company nor the government will compensate you for any adverse reaction. The article I linked talk about this clearly.

Article mentions the only compensation you can get for vaccines is 50k per year for certain vaccines which do not include Pfizer's COVID vaccine. Good luck trying to get the US government to pay for a vaccine you voluntarily took.

[BADecker]

^^^ That's why there is a formal push to get people to will themselves to be cremated when they die. They are hoping the vaccine in dead people will be burned up rather than getting into nature. In nature it might destroy everything.

[franky1]

What are you talking about?

The only entity liable are the companies or enterprises that create a therapeutic agent. If the government waives off liability on their end, the company nor the government will compensate you for any adverse reaction. The article I linked talk about this clearly.

Article mentions the only compensation you can get for vaccines is 50k per year for certain vaccines which do not include Pfizer's COVID vaccine. Good luck trying to get the US government to pay for a vaccine you voluntarily took.

no where in any time of pharma or any corporation has the corporation been liable. they have insurance companies for that.

when you crash your car. its your insurance company that handles the claim and pays out compensation.. right. as thats what insurance companies do. they take on the liability.
its not a new thing for 2020. its been around since 1988

atleast try to do your research.
again for emphasis people have car insurance so that the insurance company take liability. same things for other business stuff and even for hospital stuff.

this way people dont have to go through the crazy/lengthy/delayed process of suing people. yep insurance takes the hassle out of things. and things like vicp and cocp is the government liability scheme

[Mauser]

I just read an article about the new Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, it seems that is much cheaper than the other two vaccines out there yet. It's supposed to be 80% cheaper than the one from Pfizer and doesn't need to be stored at such a cold temperature. This really makes me question why is there such a big difference between the vaccines? And why are not all countries just focusing on the cheapest one? It seems there are still so many things unknown with the vaccines. We need more information to make up our mind which one to choose.

[tvbcof]

What are you talking about?

The only entity liable are the companies or enterprises that create a therapeutic agent. If the government waives off liability on their end, the company nor the government will compensate you for any adverse reaction. The article I linked talk about this clearly.
...

Right-O!

Even though the mRNA genetic modification agent is clearly a therapeutic since it does not  either stop infection with the virus or stop transmission they call it a 'vaccine' to get the liability protection when it maims people.

Drug-makers are still liable for drugs other than vaccines (which are legally considered 'unavoidably unsafe' under U.S. law.)  Pfizer has paid billions in civil and criminal penalties for malfeasance associated with their non-vaccine drugs.  Often for off-label marketing.  But there is a reason why 10 years of development is typical for drugs other than vaccines while vaccines are considered good to go after DAYS of victim observation.  That reason is because the makers are off-the-hook legally.  They could literally inject rat poison and face no legal penalties as long as their revolving door cronies in the bureaucracy call it a 'vaccine'.

Until so-called 'covid-19' there were a lot of countries which would NOT offer this vaccine-only legal immunity.  Now, as far as I can tell, all countries have been strong-armed into adopting the U.S. policy with respect to legal immunity for the manufacturer/marketer for 'vaccines'.

[mindrust]

I just read an article about the new Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, it seems that is much cheaper than the other two vaccines out there yet. It's supposed to be 80% cheaper than the one from Pfizer and doesn't need to be stored at such a cold temperature. This really makes me question why is there such a big difference between the vaccines? And why are not all countries just focusing on the cheapest one? It seems there are still so many things unknown with the vaccines. We need more information to make up our mind which one to choose.

Good question.

At least one of these companies are lying.

China declared that their vaxx is 90%+ (they said 95% if my memory serves me right) effective just like Russia. Pfizer/Moderna said 95%+. If all those vaccines are nearly 100% perfect... why bother with m-rna at all?

And If one them is a liar, all of them can be liars.

[franky1]

the oxford vaccine is cheaper for british people because it was made in britain and insured by the british government, so for british people they dont have to pay all the logistics of lengthy deliveries or insurance premiums or licences.
however importing germanys pfizer vaccine is where the UK/US government have to pay extra for logistics and create a UK/US insurance policy(behind the scenes the government does sue/penalise pharma. but without having the citizens do all the leg work of personally suing pharma)

america have a deal with the oxford vaccine via astra zenica. which means america can create and distribute the vaccine within american borders(under licence) which makes it cheaper then pfizer for many reasons.. but still not as cheap as oxford vaccine is for british people(due to the US government insurance trust and licence).

basically this is the countries where the vaccine is the cheapest for that country
EU: biontec(pfizer)
UK: oxford(astra zenika)
US: moderna

if they need to import or share resource for production then there are other costs added on

[Natsuu]

I just read an article about the new Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, it seems that is much cheaper than the other two vaccines out there yet. It's supposed to be 80% cheaper than the one from Pfizer and doesn't need to be stored at such a cold temperature. This really makes me question why is there such a big difference between the vaccines? And why are not all countries just focusing on the cheapest one? It seems there are still so many things unknown with the vaccines. We need more information to make up our mind which one to choose.

Good question.

At least one of these companies are lying.

China declared that their vaxx is 90%+ (they said 95% if my memory serves me right) effective just like Russia. Pfizer/Moderna said 95%+. If all those vaccines are nearly 100% perfect... why bother with m-rna at all?

And If one them is a liar, all of them can be liars.

They talk about effectivity of the vaccine. And the vaccine is M-RNA in the first place.

I can't understand your questions, because you question why they bother using M-RNA when all of them are using it, while they have different researches, and ways on how they manifested the m-rna. Thats why there is the difference between the effectivity of the vaccines.

Your are questioning it wrong. The question can be is, why the oxford vaccine can be stored in a not so cold temperature, without destroying the rna in the first place? Why is it cheaper than the rest, when the same concept is being used?

[o_e_l_e_o]

The question can be is, why the oxford vaccine can be stored in a not so cold temperature, without destroying the rna in the first place? Why is it cheaper than the rest, when the same concept is being used?

Pfizer vaccine uses free mRNA strands, which requires cold storage to stay stable.
Oxford vaccine uses an adenovirus carrier for DNA, which means cold storage is not required.
Both the mRNA in the Pfizer and the DNA in the Oxford encode the same spike protein.

[BADecker]

May they rest in peace.

Get your shot and die!


Swiss Patient and Israeli Man Die Shortly after Receiving COVID Vaccine

Earlier this month [last month], Israeli news reported that a 75-year old man with a history of heart attacks died from cardiac arrest two hours after receiving the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine. Authorities in the Swiss Canton of Lucerne reported that one of the first people in the country to receive the vaccine has died. Whether his death was caused by the inoculation hasn’t been disclosed. -GEG

After an Israeli man reportedly died just 2 hours after receiving his first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, authorities in the Swiss Canton of Lucerne said on Wednesday that one of the first people in the country to receive the vaccine has died, though whether his death had anything to do with the inoculation hasn’t yet been determined.

The canton has yet to release any additional details about the exact amount of time that passed between the inoculation and the man’s death.

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

In a truly shocking turn of events, BADecker has discovered that high risk elderly people with pre-existing conditions who are most likely to die from COVID are also pretty likely to die from other things too!

The 75 year old Israeli man had a heart attack, on a background of coronary heart disease and multiple previous heart attacks. No link with the vaccine was found.

The Swiss patient was 91 and died from her pre-existing conditions. No link with the vaccine was found.

This is just as stupid as tvbcof thinking that someone developing Bell's Palsy, which affects 5 in 10,000 people every year, MUST have been caused by the vaccine.

We are going to vaccinate over a billion people this year. If you are going to post a story about every vaccinated person who then develops any medical condition, then you are even more dense than I thought.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc