I know I'm going to try to be first in line, but what about the rest of you? I'm not sure if the death count is where the science community wants it to be, plus Birdbrain hasn't been sworn in, so I expect there will be delays, but that's beside the point.
Always? Does this include areas you and I have agreed in the past? If you're using always, seems to be so. That makes you one too. Is this why you are projecting right now or are you now prone to hyperbole?
What makes what I said even remotely a "conspiracy" when I base my position on past results of former vaccine that was rushed?
Even though you sound like the left right now, that question is not rhetorical.
Originally Posted by :
I will trust my eldest daughters opinion who is a senior scientist with "Big Pharma" over a bunch of conspiracy propaganda.
That's the last person I would trust, especially when we have had whistleblowers who work for BigPharma too.
At least you called it an "opinion." But if she is paid by such a company she has a conflict of interest and bias. Gate's money is in her pocket. There's is nothing I have stated that is not untrue—that it's a rushed vaccine; that no one knows the long term results or safety. There is also factual data about the deaths, injuries and side-effects.
Your daughter's claims are contradicted even by a former CEO of Pfizer who issued warnings for those who wanted to get pregnant.
Originally Posted by :
The technology and effort that went into developing these solutions is not even comprehensible to most of us.
Yeah so, how many times have these companies been successfully sued, even criminally about their products in the past?
How effective have past coronavirus vaccines such as the flu vaccines been? Not very.
FACT: It's a rushed vaccine. Fact: It only has emergency use authorization because it is only in a trial phase.
So none of this falls under "conspiracy" which must be a crime by more than one. It was done legally. Only part would be the motives of Bill Gates but even that isn't even a secret. He openly admits what I said. His past results are facts.
I will trust certain medical doctors and the fact that nearly 45% of health professionals won't even take it yet, because no one really knows what is in it fully, if it works, if any immunity is lasting and so far we know it does have safety issues. Only paid Pharma folks and their PR firms claim otherwise. [Reply]
Pfizer made itself the largest pharmaceutical company in the world in large part by purchasing its competitors
Pfizer has also grown through aggressive marketing—a practice it pioneered back in the 1950s by purchasing unprecedented advertising spreads in medical journals. In 2009 the company had to pay a record $2.3 billion to settle federal charges that one of its subsidiaries had illegally marketed a painkiller called Bextra.
In the area of product safety, Pfizer’s biggest scandal involved defective heart valves sold by its Shiley subsidiary that led to the deaths of more than 100 people. During the investigation of the matter, information came to light suggesting that the company had deliberately misled regulators about the hazards. Pfizer also inherited safety and other legal controversies through its big acquisitions, including a class action suit over Warner-Lambert’s Rezulin diabetes medication, a big settlement over PCB dumping by Pharmacia, and thousands of lawsuits brought by users of Wyeth’s diet drugs.
Also on Pfizer’s list of scandals are a 2012 bribery settlement; massive tax avoidance; and lawsuits alleging that during a meningitis epidemic in Nigeria in the 1990s the company tested a risky new drug on children without consent from their parents.
During the mid-1980s, watchdog organizations such as the Public Citizen Health Research Group charged that Pfizer’s widely prescribed arthritis drug Feldene created a high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding among the elderly, but the federal government, despite reports of scores of fatalities, declined to put restrictions on the medication.
n 1991 an FDA task force charged that Shiley had withheld information about safety problems from regulators in order to get initial approval for its valves and that the company continued to keep the FDA in the dark. A November 7, 1991 investigation in the Wall Street Journal asserted that Shiley had been deliberately falsifying manufacturing records relating to valve fractures.
In 2004 Pfizer announced that it had reached a $60 million settlement of a class-action suit brought by users of Rezulin, a diabetes medication developed by Warner-Lambert, which had withdrawn it from the market shortly before the company was acquired by Pfizer in 2000. The withdrawal came after scores of patients died from acute liver failure said to be caused by the drug.
In August 2012 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it had reached a $45 million settlement with Pfizer to resolve charges that its subsidiaries, especially Wyeth, had bribed overseas doctors and other healthcare professionals to increase foreign sales.
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea: Bill Gates got into vaccines because as he said it inflated his profit levels massively. His wealth has soared upwards to $200 billion with this vaccine. If anything, it's a huge money-grab. Create a problem with exaggerated date from bought experts who also own patents with the remedies and be the saviors with their solution they intended all along. The merger of the state with corporations=textbook fascism. ( now including medical experimentation just like the fascists of Germany circa 1930 and the eugenics movement)
Proof? Conspiracy?
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
[INDENT]5 Ways They’re Trying to Trick You Into Taking the Covid Vaccine”
Conspiracy
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
Meanwhile, Merk abandoned their vaccine noting we're better off getting Covid.
Proof?
Oh and I did not share what my daughter has shared with us, it is proprietary information, but she has been a godsend all the way through this pandemic for us.
Yes, we agree on some politics, but that does not mean I agree with you on this. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
There you go making a strawman argument again. I didn't say the abandoned "vaccines" plural but Merk abandoned
May I ask what part of the word "their" you do not understand? I think you simply cannot read.
Merck abandoned THEIR vaccine. Because they couldn't get to the desired immune response. So they ditched THEIR vaccine. Their partnership with JNJ to produce someone else's vaccine is obvious proof that they believe in a vaccine. Just not theirs. It is a misleading statement. [Reply]
Originally Posted by :
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea
"5 Ways They’re Trying to Trick You Into Taking the Covid Vaccine”
Conspiracy
That's not a conspiracy. None of it is illegal or a crime. It's marketing and can be seen out in the open. It's definitely an agenda—one trying to get more to take the vaccine. Nor does it fit your hyperbolic statement of "always."
May I ask what part of the word "conspiracy" you do not understand? [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Merck abandoned THEIR vaccine. Because they couldn't get to the desired immune response. So they ditched THEIR vaccine. Their partnership with JNJ to produce someone else's vaccine is obvious proof that they believe in a vaccine. Just not theirs. It is a misleading statement.
Why let facts get in the way of a good Facebook lie?
“This decision follows Merck’s review of findings from Phase 1 clinical studies for the vaccines. In these studies, both V590 and V591 were generally well tolerated, but the immune responses were inferior to those seen following natural infection and those reported for other SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccines.” [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Merck abandoned THEIR vaccine. Because they couldn't get to the desired immune response. So they ditched THEIR vaccine. Their partnership with JNJ to produce someone else's vaccine is obvious proof that they believe in a vaccine. Just not theirs. It is a misleading statement.
No it's not. What that is called is a statement that can be taken more than one way. It does not have other clarifying info. You take it that way. I don't because it can be construed my way just as much. It still can be read as better off getting covid in general. [Reply]
Originally Posted by :
A wide range of symptoms and severity makes the evaluation of Covid-19 vaccines tricky. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said that to be approved, vaccines should cut the number of symptomatic cases by half. Yet documents released by the drugmakers show each has its own approach to defining which symptoms count, and when to count them.
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
Always a conspiracy. I will trust my eldest daughters opinion who is a senior scientist with "Big Pharma" over a bunch of conspiracy propaganda.
The technology and effort that went into developing these solutions is not even comprehensible to most of us.
Originally Posted by vailpass: :-) You must be proud, and rightly so.
Proud of what? People dying just after getting an experimental covid vaccine, or having convulsions aftewards? Or would that be permanent Guillian-Barre syndrome? [Reply]
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
No it's not. What that is called is a statement that can be taken more than one way. It does not have other clarifying info. You take it that way. I don't because it can be construed my way just as much. It still can be read as better off getting covid in general.
Wut? They made a statement about their own vaccine. The only thing that can be construed is that they evaluated their own vaccine and thought it was less effective than a natural immune response. That. Is. It. You cannot generalize what they think about other vaccines. They never said anything about them. You're putting words in their mouth. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
Proud of what? People dying just after getting an experimental covid vaccine, or having convulsions aftewards? Or would that be permanent Guillian-Barre syndrome?
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Wut? They made a statement about their own vaccine. The only thing that can be construed is that they evaluated their own vaccine and thought it was less effective than a natural immune response. That. Is. It. You cannot generalize what they think about other vaccines. They never said anything about them. You're putting words in their mouth.
