More than 150 Houston hospital workers fired or quit after refusing COVID-19 vaccine

[RestoreTheJoy]

....yea, me and 181 million Americans have taken an "experimental treatment"....gee, I wonder why that is?

I suppose we should have waited two years to fully understand all of the side effects - seriously, is this how you evaluate risk?

Let's see in 10 years....you may have done the best thing ever for your health. We all may have done the best thing.

Or not.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Go ahead. List the many assumptions.

I've noted zero reference to any law, legal case, court judgement, etc. Thus far you have talked about legal issues and precedents, but have presented precisely zero. You don't post like a lawyer, I doubt you are competent to objectively present the legal issues and precedents you claim exist. I am quite prepared to be proven wrong when you post appropriately.

It has been tested to the same extent as is typical for vaccines. The condensed time frame is a reflection of the urgency. Instead of testing 20,000 or 30,000 instances over three years it was done over a few monts.

Despite masks and PPE many medical staff died in the UK. Are you suggesting none of them inadvertently infected others?

I presented a legal question in my previous post. Instead of engage the question itself, you choose to attempt to delegitimize me personally and my post. Weird flex, but whatever. I typically don't bother to engage with those who cannot address assertions instead of mock people, but I will say only the following:

You are categorically incorrect in stating that this injection has been tested "to the same extent as is typical for vaccines."

"A typical vaccine development timeline takes 5 to 10 years, and sometimes longer, to assess whether the vaccine is safe and efficacious in clinical trials, complete the regulatory approval processes, and manufacture sufficient quantity of vaccine doses for widespread distribution."

And let's not forget this is no typical vaccine. This is a brand new, never utilized in humans new technology, which would warrant more, not less scrutiny to rational people.

 

[Aldebaran]

I presented a legal question in my previous post. Instead of engage the question itself, you choose to attempt to delegitimize me personally and my post. Weird flex, but whatever. I typically don't bother to engage with those who cannot address assertions instead of mock people, but I will say only the following:

You are categorically incorrect in stating that this injection has been tested "to the same extent as is typical for vaccines."

"A typical vaccine development timeline takes 5 to 10 years, and sometimes longer, to assess whether the vaccine is safe and efficacious in clinical trials, complete the regulatory approval processes, and manufacture sufficient quantity of vaccine doses for widespread distribution."

And let's not forget this is no typical vaccine. This is a brand new, never utilized in humans new technology, which would warrant more, not less scrutiny to rational people.

Even Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the technology behind the vaccine has concerns, and gets censored by Youtube for simply stating the risks.
'Single most qualified' mRNA expert speaks about vaccine risks after he says YouTube banned his video

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Even Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the technology behind the vaccine has concerns, and gets censored by Youtube for simply stating the risks.
'Single most qualified' mRNA expert speaks about vaccine risks after he says YouTube banned his video

Nothing should be "banned" and censored in a free society (usual exceptions for porn, crime, trafficking et. al).

Simply evidence should be presented of all kinds. People aren't stupid. Most have managed to keep themselves and their kids alive. Let's hear a free and open discussion on all issues.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

One big difference in approved/nonapproved is that when those side effects are known, they have to be disclosed, and the list is usually quite lengthy. The TV commercials that push prescription drugs (most of which appear during the evening news broadcast) which are approved by the FDA spend most of the commercial listing the side effects and warnings. All we get with the urging to "get the shot" is a short list of the things they call "rare". The actual side effects are revealed by the people who end up severely injured, and it doesn't take very long for websites to shut them down on the basis of, "This post violates our policy of making false claims about the vaccine. The vaccine is safe and we encourage everyone to be vaccinated per CDC guidelines".

Exactly. It is the "Ask forgiveness, not permission" theory upon which many industries, including pharma operates. And it's wrong. Not to mention complete shield from liability if it can be categorized a "vaccine" as opposed to other kind of medication, based on current law.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

....yea, me and 181 million Americans have taken an "experimental treatment"....gee, I wonder why that is?

I suppose we should have waited two years to fully understand all of the side effects - seriously, is this how you evaluate risk?

Most evaluate risk depending upon health.

Some things place one more at risk, others no, due to age, condition, co-mobidities etc.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I am so happy to serve my fellow poster.

In a statement, AG Schmitt said, "Today I’m pleased to announce that the Missouri Attorney General’s Office has obtained a consent judgment against Jim Bakker and Morningside Church Productions that results in $156,000 in restitution and strong safeguards to prevent the marketing of ‘silver solution’ as a cure or treatment for COVID and other medical issues. My Office will continue to work tirelessly on behalf of Missouri consumers, and will not hesitate to take action when those consumers are being defrauded."

Um, ok? Not sure about the relevance of silver here. Who is talking about Jim Bakker, the tv show guy?

I was talking about actual ER doctors and actual drugs they can prescribe?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Now, let's see.... using medications off-label is OK. Using vaccines authorized under emergency use is not.

Excuse me, but I seem to be seeing double... standard wise.

Using known, safe medications off label has been done for decades for many purposes.

Not talking about random experimental drugs here. If one is going to die, why NOT try all the tools in the shed your currently have? At least you did everything you could.

 

[Mayzoo]

What is actually happening is that people are being fired because they won't comply with an experimental treatment before it is even approved, and for which many side effects are still coming out. That seems wrong. People have the right to bodily integrity.

That IS what is happening. But the legal issue matters too. Precedents we set tend to rule...good and bad.

The employee has the right to refuse the vaccine. The employer has the right to fire anyone without providing a reason. It is not currently illegal to fire for vaccine refusal.

As previously stated, Texas is a republican state so it is unlikely there will be changes in favor of the employee vs the corporation/employer.

 

[cow451]

Um, ok? Not sure about the relevance of silver here. Who is talking about Jim Bakker, the tv show guy?

I was talking about actual ER doctors and actual drugs they can prescribe?

I was talking about the hucksters overall.

 

[cow451]

Using known, safe medications off label has been done for decades for many purposes.

Not talking about random experimental drugs here. If one is going to die, why NOT try all the tools in the shed your currently have? At least you did everything you could.

Vaccines approved for emergency use are not experimental. The early vaccines for polio were managed similarly.

 

[FireDragon76]

People aren't stupid. Most have managed to keep themselves and their kids alive.

Yes, they often are, unfortunately. 1/4 the population has an IQ below 90.

Keeping your kids alive doesn't require alot of brainpower, necessarily. If it did, we'ld never have evolved in the first place.

Real civilization takes effort to build, it is not a given in our biology or innate in the individual.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Nothing should be "banned" and censored in a free society

If people are lying and brainwashing people. It should be banned.

(usual exceptions for porn

.Porn is none of your business .

crime, trafficking et. al).

This is none our business and should be left to law enforcement.

People aren't stupid.

People can be brained wash. And un-educated

Most have managed to keep themselves and their kids alive.

My nieces and nephew are dealing with the trauma from Conservatives Christian raising.

Let's hear a free and open discussion on all issues.

You don't truly want that at all.

 

[7thKeeper]

Simply evidence should be presented of all kinds. People aren't stupid.

This part I will have to disagree with. A person is smart. People are stupid.

There's a saying here that translates to about : "Stupidity is concentrated in a group."

 

[KCfromNC]

As the post clearly says, T.V. I am sure you don't see it, and I cant give you a link to a video from the internet. Move on nothing to see here.

So it was shut down, except you saw it on TV but can't give the slightest bit of detail about it. Seems convincing.

 

[KCfromNC]

What is actually happening is that people are being fired because they won't comply with an experimental treatment before it is even approved, and for which many side effects are still coming out. That seems wrong.

Well, as soon as you're in charge of making HR decisions for a large hospital you can put your feelings on the subject into action.

 

[KCfromNC]

Let those who choose to take it do so, and the rest can wait.

That's exactly what's happening. What's the issue? Do people really expect to be able to do whatever they want with zero consequences? What happened to the party of personal responsibility for their decisions?

 

[Bobber]

If one is going to die, why NOT try all the tools in the shed your currently have? At least you did everything you could.

But isn't that just the point? How would you respond to people when they ask if I've got a 98% chance of survival by catching the virus why should that motivate me into taking a vaccine which seems they're almost daily putting on new warning labels.

FDA adds warning of rare heart inflammation to Pfizer, Moderna vaccines (cnbc.com)

Heath Canada adds warning of rare, serious condition as potential vaccine side-effect - Canada News - Castanet.net

How can this seem fair that governments and companies can protect themselves legally by doing this for after all they did give a warning, but a warning for what! If you can't practically say no to taking it it comes across as yes we've now protected ourselves legally now hold out your arms! Does this seem in any way fair to you?

 

[KCfromNC]

But isn't that just the point? How would you respond to people when they ask if I've got a 98% chance of survival by catching the virus why should that motivate me into taking a vaccine which seems they're almost daily putting on new warning labels.

FDA adds warning of rare heart inflammation to Pfizer, Moderna vaccines (cnbc.com)

Heath Canada adds warning of rare, serious condition as potential vaccine side-effect - Canada News - Castanet.net

It seems kinda disingenuous, or at least a sign of cognitive dissonance, to hand-wave away a 2% mortality rate but play up a significantly more rare and less dangerous side effect.

 

[Ophiolite]

I presented a legal question in my previous post. Instead of engage the question itself, you choose to attempt to delegitimize me personally and my post. Weird flex, but whatever. I typically don't bother to engage with those who cannot address assertions instead of mock people, but I will say only the following:

No. You presented questions and claimed they were legal. They were not phrased in legal terminology. They did not quote apposite law. They did not refer to legal judgements. In short, you did not present a legal question. You raised a valid layman's supposition that there might be a legal issue, then self-asserted you had asked a legal question, as if that made your point legitemate.

I specifcially addressed your claim, using the routinely accepted "assertions made without support do not require support when refuted".

You are categorically incorrect in stating that this injection has been tested "to the same extent as is typical for vaccines."

"A typical vaccine development timeline takes 5 to 10 years, and sometimes longer, to assess whether the vaccine is safe and efficacious in clinical trials, complete the regulatory approval processes, and manufacture sufficient quantity of vaccine doses for widespread distribution."

Irrelevant. The time taken for a "typical vaccine" is conditioned by several factors:

1. The time to administer vaccines in a series of trials that progressively elevate the numbers and range of the test subjects. This is the most important determinant for the authenticity of the testing process.
2. How urgent the development requirement is.
3. How much money is available.
4. How many resources can be focused on its development.

Items 2 through 4 led to an unprecedented focus of money, expertise and all related resources. The stages of testing and the number of individuals involved were consistent with those for a "typical vaccine". Feel free to present data that contradicts this, but don't repeat the same trick of claiming I did not address your assertions.