Welcome to the new Community design. We know there are some big changes to get used to as well some challenges and bugs. Please check out our post about New Updates To The Community as well as Outstanding Bugs. We will continue to collect feedback and bug issues and will work to make improvements.
Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Pfizer for teens?

1679111214

Replies

  • tmanfive
    tmanfive Posts: 1,365 Member
    I was just saying, I wouldn’t take it until it was approved. I’m not using that as an excuse not to get it. I just won’t.

    If a couple few rounds of e-coil, meningitis, and the many extremely unsafe things I’ve done in my lifetime hasn’t done me in this won’t.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,245 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    As far as I can tell from reading material I can find, the key differences between emergency use authorization (EUA) and full FDA approval are that:

    * The EUA process can be used only when there's an emergency (there are criteria for this), and when there is no safe/effective alternative already.

    * With an EUA process, the safety/efficacy trials and production can occur in parallel. When the trials reach a point where there's statistically significant evidence that the vaccine is safe and effective, the FDA review of the trials happens, and - if the EUA is approved - the already-manufactured vaccine can be distributed. With a full approval, it's a two stage, non-parallel process. The trials happen first, then then the company submits a Biologics License Application (BLA). The FDA reviews the trial results, and if the BLA is approved based on those results, the company can begin manufacturing the vaccine, with distribution to follow as supply becomes available.

    A very minor and probably irrelevant point, but the kind of thing that nags at my brain -- this implies that EUAs are only for biologics, but they can also be granted for other medical products, such as drugs, devices, little radioactive pellets they insert in your body near a cancer site ...
  • NVintage
    NVintage Posts: 1,346 Member
    edited June 11

    ****1:07-1:12****& 5:22+
  • ElliesDad422
    ElliesDad422 Posts: 2 Member
    We don’t need a vaccination for a 99.6% survival virus. Everyone is quick to trust and do what they are told. An MRNA is not actually a “vaccine.” It does not fit FDA guidelines to be labeled as such. Real vaccinations take 10+years to develop. Food for thought. Additionally, you won’t see the larger amount of adverse reactions on mainstream news. Check rumble.com. Also, teens are passing away from the vaccinations. Would you be willing to take that chance with your child? How about natural supplements and building the immune system. If you notice, the flue is now non-existent from 2020-2021. Apparently the flu was cured? Lol. No, just everything is being labeled as Covid. My in-laws has two good friends pass away from the Johnson-Johnson and one Pfizer vaccine. One of them I believe had diabetes and was in their 50’s. The other, in their 40’s and no pre-existing conditions. They labeled cod as Covid. This is not to banter, but to throw info out their and warn others to do your research from credible sources. Mainstream does not have your best interest, I promise. https://www.newsweek.com/13-year-old-dies-sleep-after-receiving-pfizer-covid-vaccine-cdc-investigating-1606529
  • NVintage
    NVintage Posts: 1,346 Member
    Well regardless of where you stand on this issue, I think we'd all probably agree that greed and commercialism in the medical field and pharmaceutical industries hurt everyone. I don't just automatically trust peer reviewed research without looking up the researchers and funding, etc. & it's sad.. isn't there such important research that scientists need to do, but can't simply because it's not profitable enough to be funded?
  • JessD9031
    JessD9031 Posts: 581 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »

    *the actual rate is more like 1.8%

    Sure, if you count all of the people killed in car wrecks, construction accidents, or died of other legitimate causes that were labeled as "Covid" deaths because they may have tested positive after death. Hospitals everywhere are using the "Covid" cause of death for everything they can because covid insurance claims are paying at a higher rate and are not being scrutinized as closely for fraud.

    Actual deaths caused by Covid alone are probably much lower than what @ElliesDad422 noted.
  • 33gail33
    33gail33 Posts: 1,032 Member
    JessD9031 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »

    *the actual rate is more like 1.8%

    Sure, if you count all of the people killed in car wrecks, construction accidents, or died of other legitimate causes that were labeled as "Covid" deaths because they may have tested positive after death. Hospitals everywhere are using the "Covid" cause of death for everything they can because covid insurance claims are paying at a higher rate and are not being scrutinized as closely for fraud.

    Actual deaths caused by Covid alone are probably much lower than what @ElliesDad422 noted.

    Hospitals everywhere? Our hospitals are publicly funded and non-profit so I can't imagine a scenario where a Covid death would be more beneficial to them than a death by any other cause.

    Or do you mean life insurance claims? Maybe I'm not following exactly what "covid insurance claims" you are referring to.