slug.com slug.com

4 5

Did I hear right that in the US, the COVID vaccine rollout has been allowed without thorough testing and clinical approval/authorisation?

Naomi 8 Mar 10
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

4 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

Howdy @Naomi,

The Food and Drug Administration regulates formulations of prescription drugs. The rules they force pharmaceutical companies to undertake are, rigorous, exhaustive and time consuming. They include testing for purpose, dosage, side effects, patient tolerances. They do save lives, but a lot of them are for CYA, to prevent embarrassing the FDA. The FDA test regime was designed in the early to mid 20th century. Half a century later, they're out of date. So yes, the normal test regime was waived for the COVID emergency.

The knowledge base we had for developing Salk's polio vaccine was primitive by today's standards. That inherently improves safety.

According to what I read, each vaccine was tested on approximately ten thousand people before being approved.

Hello. The UK tested the vaccines on some 10,000 people.

And followed up for less than 30 days.

4

For what it's worth, the vaccine isn't what people hoped for in the sense that it doesn't necessarily keep you from getting covid. I got this today in an email from the govt, which essentially confirms this.

"Older adults are at a higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19, so if you're 65 or older, it's especially important for you to get the COVID-19 vaccine. The current authorized and recommended COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in preventing severe illness from COVID-19."

Hello. I wonder how many people think that vaccines are a cure, which they are not.

From what I hear (I haven't seen it myself), the info-sheet that comes with the shot says that it won't keep you from catching COVID-19, and it won't keep you from spreading COVID-19.
...which is what vaccines are for.

So, first of all........ what does it do?
And second, what's the point of getting the shot?
It's being reported that it "reduces the severity of symptoms," but that's easy to claim and impossible to disprove...

@rway Generally speaking, by vaccination, a mild form of a virus is introduced into your body, i.e., your body is artificially exposed to the virus, so that your body can build resistance against it. Vaccination aids your body to produce immunity against the disease that virus causes.

@rway They are not vaccines, they are Experimental Biological Agent Injections.

@Naomi I think when people hear the word "vaccine" they understandably think it prevents the virus. I understand the misconception. It would be more accurate to call it a treatment, mitigant, or some similar term.

@coalburned Education is so important.

@warminster100 And this is why life insurances will not pay out if u die from the vaccine.

@warminster100 @coalburned
Exactly... a vaccine is a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease (CDC's definition.)
Meaning, it pre-exposes you the disease so your immune system develops the ability to recognize/destroy it before you catch the disease and it flourishes to the point that you exhibit symptoms and that you become contagious.
This experimental cocktail doesn't do that. It doesn't even contain SARS-CoV-2.

And, there's no proof that this treatment prevents anything.
From Pfizer's fact sheet, for example (in which they still insist on calling it a vaccine):
"The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is a vaccine and may prevent you from getting COVID-19. There is no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19."

@Naomi They also make this claim about their ongoing clinical trials:
In an ongoing clinical trial, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine has been shown to prevent COVID-19 following 2 doses given 3 weeks apart. The duration of protection against COVID-19 is currently unknown.

[fda.gov]

4

Thorough testing takes time. They literally have no idea if there are any long-term effects, because it hasn't even been "long-term" yet.
That's not only in the U.S., that's everywhere.
This rollout is the experiment. The results will reveal themselves over time among the lab rats who are presently lining up for the shots.

Hello, Haven't they done any human trials before the rollout in the US?

@Naomi as far as I know... they fulfilled some of the normal requirements, waived some others. Either way, you know they haven't done any tests for long-term health consequences, because that necessarily takes time for those consequences to appear. see: Thalidomide Babies (link below.)
The previous record was 4-years for the Mumps back in the 1960's.
They were only able to "fast-track" this vaccine (which isn't technically even a vaccine) because they were able to first manufacture a sense of global panic, and use it to funnel resources and dissolve red-tape.
And since that worked... to the tune of Billions (if not Trillions) of dollars/pounds/etc., you can be assured that this is now their "new-normal" process. Stay tuned for the next emergency plague, just as soon as the profit-curve from this one starts to wind down.

[bbc.com]

@rway Thalidomide is a compound in medicine, not a vaccine, though.
I wonder how those drug companies managed to convince so many people to die for their profits... Lol

@Naomi this isn't a vaccine, either.
mRNA treatment is a whole new approach to immunology... what could go wrong?

@rway It's not according to CDC (Do you know this American institution? I've only just found this website. ):
Researchers have been studying and working with mRNA vaccines for decades.
[cdc.gov]
I'm not an expert in this area and I don't feel qualified to have an opinion on mRNA vaccines. So I just leave this information here. Nice chatting with you. 🙂

@Naomi You mean animal trials? Animals refused to participate until the human trials are complete!

@Naomi This article starts with "New Approach to Vaccines"
They've been fiddling with the idea for some time, but it's never been used/approved/or even tested on humans (as far as I know.) ...they just needed a good excuse.
So they manufactured one. Turns out that's actually the easy part of the process, these days.

4

It was a shortened and abbreviated testing process. AND the companies have been protected from liability.

No wonder half the US population are sceptical...

@Naomi They are sceptical anyway. What has the UK done?

@Naomi I never planned on taking the vaccine, so it's pedigree was of no concern to me - but my daughter wants it and she at least is going to wait until 'version 2.0' comes out.

Hello ScottforKing. It is said that 9 in 10 people are keen to have a jab in the UK. We have independent/non-partisan bodies to carry out analyses, examinations, etc. followed by approvals and finally authorisation by the government. With regard to COVID, they carried out human trials, too.

@Naomi I calculated that my risk from covid was .0006%. The current death rate from the vaccine is .003%. Five times greater than my risk from the virus.

@tracycoyle Fair enough. It's not mandatory in the UK.

@Naomi Not half, just the 20% who voted for JB!

@tracycoyle Correct why would someone that is healthy take a vaccine for a virus that has a 99.9% survival rate

@Thefallenangel 99.9% survival rate? Where? In the US? In the world? Reference, please.

@Naomi Given the assumption asymptomatic cases (and possible transmission), we may be undercounting the cases by 50-70%. The current death rate among confirmed (HA!) case in the US is 1.8%. In the World the # is 2.2%. If the case rate is twice the confirmed cases, then the overall death rate in the US is .89% - ie, 99.11% survivable. So, not 99.9, but statistically, irrelevant.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:196553
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.