This site is so annoying, as one has to go back and forth to retrieve whatever was responded to, if the person fails to include the information in the post, so his post is stand-alone. As here.
1. You know NOTHING about what medical decisions other people are making and why. And you demonstrate that ignorance here blatantly, even with your first dismissive, mocking statement.
I know at least SOMETHING about what medical decisions other people are making and why. Not everything - nobody knows everything - but most people know SOMETHING about others' decisions. All anyone has to do is look at statistics and reports. And I didn't say anything dismissive or mocking, like your "ignorance" comment directed at me, which is both wrong and derisive.
2. The bolded was this: Those who have a susceptibility to a complication from the vaccine have far, far greater risks of both contracting Covid and suffering far worse effects and death from it.
And no, your cites do not address the risks to individuals. Just widespread platitudes, as if there are no exceptions, no individuals who will be harmed and/or killed. We already have enough information to know that is not true. Geez, there are warnings on Advil, not to take it at all if you have this or that condition.
But somehow this heavily promoted injection gets a complete pass and is supposedly safe for all people, and if there are casualties, so what....(unless they are your family members).
Yes, my references certainly did address the fact that while the vaccines are not perfect and pose a level of risk the risk involved is far, far less than the risks posed by Covid. It is in the written and video portions of the first link, in fact.
You speak about there being "no exceptions" and that "this heavily promoted injection gets a complete pass and is supposedly safe for all people" when in fact nobody has said that. I have not said that and nobody in this thread or anywhere in the world has said that. If I'm wrong, reference it and prove me wrong. But you won't be able to. The concept that people are saying the vaccine is perfectly safe for every person is something that's in your mind but not a fact in the real world.
And since you brought up the fact that Advil is not safe either, do you therefore not take Advil? Or aspirin? Or any medication at all, ever? They all have some kind of problem, you know.
Think about how illogical this is.
Yes it's illogical, but it's your story which is your own and not the reality. The reality is far more logical than the story you're telling here.
3. My point with my first hand observation on site was that the protocols are NOT being followed. If you think my site was the singular exception in the world - or the states - you are dreaming. The derisive "even if you remembered it accurately (and there is a very good chance you did not)" is absurd. I was right there. I most decidedly did remember it (and the following few) quite accurately. Obviously, I can only be at one site, but I'm willing to bet it is happening all over.
My point about your (or anyone's, including mine) first-hand observation is that it is not reliable. And it's not derisive in any way to point out that fact. Anyone can make mistakes. There are plenty of factors you completely leave out. You say you listened in (so you were eavesdropping to begin with on the private medical dealings of people you don't even know) and didn't hear the questions. How do you know they weren't on a form that the patients filled out? How do you know they didn't submit answers for the questions when making the appointment? How do you know they weren't asked the questions when they checked in?
When I got my vaccine I had to answer the questions online and send back in an email and then again when I checked in I was asked the questions, checked them off on a form and signed it. When I went in back to actually get the shot there was no need for any questions.
You weren't there with these people from the start to very end of the process leading up to the shot, so there is a lot of room for error on your part. On top of that you could be mistaken anyway.
Did you believe my anecdotal evidence when I told you that I know from first-hand observation that NOBODY I know has had any side effects at all from the vaccine so it's not harming anyone? It seems you didn't. Why do you expect your anecdote to be treated as hard evidence while you dismiss mine as false? See, that's why anecdotal evidence is not strong evidence and not proof.
4. Are you really attempting to seriously suggest that because this cite was earlier on in the process that it is no longer valid to be concerned or cautious with those with significant allergies? Seriously? Posting below what you intentionally left out when responding:
"In the meantime, the Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has said people should not received the vaccine if they have had a significant allergic reaction to a vaccine, medicine or food, such as those who have been told to carry an adrenaline shot — sometimes called EpiPens — or others who have had potentially fatal allergic reactions. The medical regulator also said vaccinations should be carried out only in facilities that have resuscitation equipment."
re you really attempting to seriously suggest that there have been no updates or new information found at all since your reference was released last year before hardly anyone even received the vaccine??? Seriously?
The CDC website is updated and the distributors of the vaccine are asking the necessary questions and providing the necessary information. I can't and don't take into account your anecdote as it is full of holes and contradicts my experience completely. And that's not derisive, that's just being factual and honest. Disagreement is not the same as derision.
