Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 124

Thread: France drops the hammer on anti-vaxxers

  1. #76 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    NYC & CO
    Posts
    7,120
    Thanks
    1,685
    Thanked 2,092 Times in 1,568 Posts
    Groans
    675
    Groaned 162 Times in 155 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    pffft, maybe you should learn the law better, or how it works. If you interpret my statement as threatening the military, then you should have been apoplectic about comeys word usage over hillarys emails.
    Hillary? Clinton?



    Go blow up some more tanks, fuck boi.

  2. #77 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    49,683
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diesel View Post
    Hillary? Clinton?



    Go blow up some more tanks, fuck boi.
    that's what I thought........just another pitiful and pathetic hate filled idiot
    In a combat situation it is about 16 times better to do something useful and violent right away than to wait and figure out something even more useful and violent later.
    “whenever you put your faith in big government for any reason, sooner or later you end up an apologist for mass murder.”

  3. #78 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    NYC & CO
    Posts
    7,120
    Thanks
    1,685
    Thanked 2,092 Times in 1,568 Posts
    Groans
    675
    Groaned 162 Times in 155 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    that's what I thought........just another pitiful and pathetic hate filled idiot
    That's not true, but you do you, booboo.

  4. #79 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    155
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 102 Times in 47 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 22 Times in 20 Posts

    Default



    Those vaccine guys are laughing at us that haven't taken the jab.


  5. #80 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    32,596
    Thanks
    10,790
    Thanked 6,249 Times in 5,512 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 389 Times in 379 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reagansghost View Post
    Yep. France lowers the hammer on anti-vaxxers.


    French President Emanuel Macron's statement:

    “I no longer have any intention of sacrificing my life, my time, my freedom and the adolescence of my daughters, as well as their right to study properly, for those who refuse to be vaccinated. This time you stay at home, not us. "

    In France, those who do not get vaccinated will no longer be able to go to restaurants, cafes (from the beginning of August), cinemas and museums (from July 21) and get on airplanes or trains (again from August). Alternatively, you will have to submit a negative test, which will no longer be free (49 euros for the PCR, 29 for the antigen).

    Macron then announced the vaccination obligation for medical personnel and for those who work in contact with fragile people. Since September 15, a nurse who has refused to be vaccinated will no longer be able to go to work and receive a salary. "We cannot make those who have the civic sense to get vaccinated bear the burden of inconvenience," Macron said.

    "The restrictions will weigh on others, those who for reasons incomprehensible in the country of Louis Pasteur, science and the Enlightenment still hesitate to use the only weapon available against the pandemic, the vaccine."

    I am aware of what I am asking you," he said, "and I know that you are ready for this commitment. This is, in a sense, part of your sense of duty."
    Looks like more revolt is in store for France.
    "Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
    "Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome

    Everything else debunked here

  6. #81 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    32,596
    Thanks
    10,790
    Thanked 6,249 Times in 5,512 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 389 Times in 379 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by King Kielbasa View Post
    Not really. South & East Europe are far more Right wing than Republicans.
    Lie.
    "Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
    "Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome

    Everything else debunked here

  7. #82 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    32,596
    Thanks
    10,790
    Thanked 6,249 Times in 5,512 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 389 Times in 379 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    You had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to report for duty on January 6th to attack the Federal government, but you declined this unique opportunity and sat on your ass just like any other normal day.

    I am 100 percent confident your belligerent words and threats on an obscure message board will never translate into tangible action or a violent attack on our government.
    Democrats overthrew the federal government. It is being turned into an oligarchy to implement their fascism and communism. Democrats to not recognize the Constitution of the United States nor the constitution of any State.
    "Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
    "Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome

    Everything else debunked here

  8. #83 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    12,839
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked 1,031 Times in 917 Posts
    Groans
    141
    Groaned 174 Times in 170 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Lie.
    Explain how it's a lie?

  9. #84 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    13,079
    Thanks
    847
    Thanked 7,554 Times in 4,670 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 1,331 Times in 1,262 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WalterWilson View Post

    Those vaccine guys are laughing at us that haven't taken the jab.
    So am I.

    Have fun in the ICU.


  10. #85 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    155
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 102 Times in 47 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 22 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    So am I.

    Have fun in the ICU.

    49 fully vaccinated people in New Jersey have died from COVID-19.
    https://www.theblaze.com/amp/forty-n...-19-2653887858

  11. #86 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    13,079
    Thanks
    847
    Thanked 7,554 Times in 4,670 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 1,331 Times in 1,262 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WalterWilson View Post
    49 fully vaccinated people in New Jersey have died from COVID-19.
    https://www.theblaze.com/amp/forty-n...-19-2653887858
    And over 8,000 unvaccinated have died SINCE JANUARY. Can you do math? That’s over 16O times more people. Good luck in the ICU.

  12. #87 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    155
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 102 Times in 47 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 22 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    And over 8,000 unvaccinated have died SINCE JANUARY. Can you do math? That’s over 16O times more people. Good luck in the ICU.
    Good luck turning into a zombie after the useless vaccine you took. But don't worry when you get violently sick with blood oozing out of your eyes, ears, nose and maybe even your anus, I'll blow your head off to put you out of your misery.


    Must See Interview With Dr. Robert Malone, mRNA Inventor.



    This is just an excerpt from the end of the hour long interview but he dropped a lot of truth bombs. If this man isn't an expert then no one is. You want to trust the science? It's right here baby.

    Dr. Robert Malone, mRNA Vaccine Inventor, on the Bioethics of Experimental Vaccines and the ‘Ultimate Gaslighting’

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/dr-rob...BTAc%2FCDheNQq

    Mr. Jekielek: Robert, on top of everything else, you’re actually a trained bioethicist. You’ve already started addressing some of the ethical questions and conundrums around what’s happening or what you see happening. Give me the scope of this as we start finishing up.

    Dr. Malone: Thank you for that, and for that lead-in. I personally think this is one of the most important topics, the bioethics of the use of an experimental medicine and experimental vaccine.

    The genesis of this whole thought thread was a two-hour conversation with a Canadian physician a number of weeks ago, where he just poured his heart out about what he was seeing with his patients and what was going on in Canada. I was left saying, “Well, thanks for sharing this, but I can’t help you. I don’t have anything.”

    I woke up that Sunday morning with an aha moment. I said, “I know what I can do for this guy. I can write a piece about bioethics, the bioethics of vaccination under emergency use authorization.”

    So, I dug into the rich literature that exists, as well as federal law that goes back to The Helsinki Accords, and The Belmont report, and looked at what are the fundamental principles of bioethics as they relate to use of an experimental product.

    So point number one, just to summarize; you can find it in The Code of Federal Regulations. It’s referred to as the Common Rule. So this is actually Federal Law. It’s not just words that academicians agree to. The first thing is that an emergency use authorization product, which is what all these vaccines are, as well as many of the drugs, is an experimental product. It’s not yet licensed. So that’s point number one. They’re all experimental products.

    Point number two; if you’re going to be administering experimental products to patients, that falls under clinical research, and medical research. And so you have to follow the guidance for medical research. I mentioned the Common Rule is codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    The first clause, importantly, in the Common Rule, is there has to be complete disclosure of risk. Intuitively, what that means is, when you buy a bottle of aspirin, you pull out this little piece of paper. You look at that, and you go, “Holy Moly, this aspirin is going to kill me.” If you read all the way through, it says it could cause heart attacks or gastric erosions. You look at that and you say, “Oh, I don’t know if I want to take that aspirin.”

    But the truth is that the ones that are common are up at the top. We all take aspirin or Tylenol or some version of that. That’s the level of disclosure of adverse event risk that must be provided to patients participating in clinical research. That level of information, as we’ve just been discussing, is censored. It’s not available. So we are not meeting the criteria for full disclosure of risk.

    Second key principle is that that full disclosure has to be comprehensible and comprehended. Earlier on, I referred to Thrombocytopenia, and you said, “What the heck was that?” And I said, “Low platelets.” That’s a great example. The first one was scientific jargon that was incomprehensible to you. The second one you could understand. So these risks have to be conveyed using language that people can comprehend.

    Third key principle; you cannot coerce. You cannot entice. The patient or the subject has to freely accept the experimental medicine of their own volition. All this messaging about, “You must take the vaccine. You must take the vaccine because otherwise Aunt Mary could get infected.” All of this messaging that the vaccine is safe, and all the peer pressure that’s happening around the vaccine is coercion.

    Now it gets even more florid with other nations. I don’t think we’ve done it here in the States, but Canada has. “We are going to give out ice cream cones to get the kiddies to come and take the jab.” That’s been done. That’s coercion and enticement.

    Then there’s the last little codicil in all this. We call it the age of consent. So we here in the States generally agree that the age of consent is 18. If you are at or below the age of consent, you need to have approval or consent from your parent or guardian to take an experimental medicine. They act as your agent because you’re not able to provide consent by definition.

    We cannot, by law, have infants, children, and adolescents receiving experimental products without authorization of their parents.

    Now, listening to this, [one] might say, “Well, we have this special case of an epidemic, and we all have to get the vaccine.” Why do we all have to get the vaccine? What’s the logic behind that? What we’re told is, “We all have to get vaccinated so we will reach herd immunity.” That’s the logic.

    The problem is that this is a fallacy. We have not even gathered the data to be able to calculate in these clinical trials what would give us herd immunity. What would herd immunity mean? It would mean that we have what’s called sterilizing immunity, or in some way, if we get infected, that we don’t spread it to somebody else. That means that we’re not producing virus and shedding virus.

    Just today, the World Health Organization made an announcement clearly and unequivocally. You’ve got to start using masks because none of these vaccines are preventing infection. They’re preventing disease. They’re not preventing transmission. They may be reducing transmission, but by how much we don’t know. So we can’t calculate what percent uptake is required to reach herd immunity, if we could reach herd immunity with these vaccines.

    There’s an underlying logic that’s been pushed out globally about why we have to take vaccine and how many of us have to take vaccine. It’s not actually supported by data. To my mind, that’s a problem. It’s gone all the way through this outbreak where key public health officials have felt comfortable substituting their opinion for evidence-based medicine.

    That always has to happen at the start of an outbreak because there’s no data. Somebody’s got to have expert opinion. We’re past that point. We have a lot of data, and it’s time we start relying on evidence to make public health decisions. We’re not doing it.

    To my eye, from bioethics, we appear to be failing to meet the Code of Federal Regulations and Federal Law, let alone fundamental precepts that go back to the end of World War II. We’re not providing full disclosure of risk. We’re not doing so in a way that’s readily comprehended by the public. And we are enticing, compelling, coercing, and otherwise not respecting the rights of the individual to choose what happens to their body.

    In my mind, the bedrock we all have in Western society is the right to choose. The State does not own our body, particularly for an experimental product.

    I argue that we’ve crossed a line. It’s a bioethical line. It may actually be Federal Law that we’ve crossed, inadvertently, I’m sure for all the best reasons. But if you go back, read the Nuremberg Code. What we’re doing is not aligned with fundamental principles. And as you know, this happens from time to time during war and crisis.

    Cultures decide that it’s okay to bend the rules on some fundamentals of ethics, whether it’s torture or internment of populations. I believe they almost universally end up regretting it. So, I’m trying to responsibly, ethically, and with the credibility that I have in my CV, and because of my role in inventing this technology, to alert people that I believe that we’re pushing and crossing some key lines here that we really should be respecting.

    Mr. Jekielek: Robert, we’re going to have to finish up shortly. I probably have about a few hours more worth of questions for you at this point. We’ll have to invite you back. Any final thoughts before we finish up for today?

    Dr. Malone: Yes. If I can speak to your audience, like I said, it’s your body. My general recommendation is, in my opinion, these vaccines are saving lives. They’re saving many lives, particularly in the elderly. I get asked the question all the time, “Should I take this vaccine or that vaccine because I have this preexisting condition or an autoimmune disease?”

    My recommendation is that you know your body best, you and your medical care provider. You have the right to accept or not accept a vaccine product, particularly an experimental one. You make your own decision. I can’t advise you, in the end, neither can your physician completely advise you.

    It’s up to you. It’s your body. It’s your choice. I strongly suggest that you take the time to get informed, do the best you can, and then make the decision that you think is right for you.

    dr-robert-malone-mrna-vaccine-inventor-s

  13. #88 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    13,079
    Thanks
    847
    Thanked 7,554 Times in 4,670 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 1,331 Times in 1,262 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WalterWilson View Post
    Good luck turning into a zombie after the useless vaccine you took. But don't worry when you get violently sick with blood oozing out of your eyes, ears, nose and maybe even your anus, I'll blow your head off to put you out of your misery.


    Must See Interview With Dr. Robert Malone, mRNA Inventor.



    This is just an excerpt from the end of the hour long interview but he dropped a lot of truth bombs. If this man isn't an expert then no one is. You want to trust the science? It's right here baby.

    Dr. Robert Malone, mRNA Vaccine Inventor, on the Bioethics of Experimental Vaccines and the ‘Ultimate Gaslighting’

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/dr-rob...BTAc%2FCDheNQq

    Mr. Jekielek: Robert, on top of everything else, you’re actually a trained bioethicist. You’ve already started addressing some of the ethical questions and conundrums around what’s happening or what you see happening. Give me the scope of this as we start finishing up.

    Dr. Malone: Thank you for that, and for that lead-in. I personally think this is one of the most important topics, the bioethics of the use of an experimental medicine and experimental vaccine.

    The genesis of this whole thought thread was a two-hour conversation with a Canadian physician a number of weeks ago, where he just poured his heart out about what he was seeing with his patients and what was going on in Canada. I was left saying, “Well, thanks for sharing this, but I can’t help you. I don’t have anything.”

    I woke up that Sunday morning with an aha moment. I said, “I know what I can do for this guy. I can write a piece about bioethics, the bioethics of vaccination under emergency use authorization.”

    So, I dug into the rich literature that exists, as well as federal law that goes back to The Helsinki Accords, and The Belmont report, and looked at what are the fundamental principles of bioethics as they relate to use of an experimental product.

    So point number one, just to summarize; you can find it in The Code of Federal Regulations. It’s referred to as the Common Rule. So this is actually Federal Law. It’s not just words that academicians agree to. The first thing is that an emergency use authorization product, which is what all these vaccines are, as well as many of the drugs, is an experimental product. It’s not yet licensed. So that’s point number one. They’re all experimental products.

    Point number two; if you’re going to be administering experimental products to patients, that falls under clinical research, and medical research. And so you have to follow the guidance for medical research. I mentioned the Common Rule is codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    The first clause, importantly, in the Common Rule, is there has to be complete disclosure of risk. Intuitively, what that means is, when you buy a bottle of aspirin, you pull out this little piece of paper. You look at that, and you go, “Holy Moly, this aspirin is going to kill me.” If you read all the way through, it says it could cause heart attacks or gastric erosions. You look at that and you say, “Oh, I don’t know if I want to take that aspirin.”

    But the truth is that the ones that are common are up at the top. We all take aspirin or Tylenol or some version of that. That’s the level of disclosure of adverse event risk that must be provided to patients participating in clinical research. That level of information, as we’ve just been discussing, is censored. It’s not available. So we are not meeting the criteria for full disclosure of risk.

    Second key principle is that that full disclosure has to be comprehensible and comprehended. Earlier on, I referred to Thrombocytopenia, and you said, “What the heck was that?” And I said, “Low platelets.” That’s a great example. The first one was scientific jargon that was incomprehensible to you. The second one you could understand. So these risks have to be conveyed using language that people can comprehend.

    Third key principle; you cannot coerce. You cannot entice. The patient or the subject has to freely accept the experimental medicine of their own volition. All this messaging about, “You must take the vaccine. You must take the vaccine because otherwise Aunt Mary could get infected.” All of this messaging that the vaccine is safe, and all the peer pressure that’s happening around the vaccine is coercion.

    Now it gets even more florid with other nations. I don’t think we’ve done it here in the States, but Canada has. “We are going to give out ice cream cones to get the kiddies to come and take the jab.” That’s been done. That’s coercion and enticement.

    Then there’s the last little codicil in all this. We call it the age of consent. So we here in the States generally agree that the age of consent is 18. If you are at or below the age of consent, you need to have approval or consent from your parent or guardian to take an experimental medicine. They act as your agent because you’re not able to provide consent by definition.

    We cannot, by law, have infants, children, and adolescents receiving experimental products without authorization of their parents.

    Now, listening to this, [one] might say, “Well, we have this special case of an epidemic, and we all have to get the vaccine.” Why do we all have to get the vaccine? What’s the logic behind that? What we’re told is, “We all have to get vaccinated so we will reach herd immunity.” That’s the logic.

    The problem is that this is a fallacy. We have not even gathered the data to be able to calculate in these clinical trials what would give us herd immunity. What would herd immunity mean? It would mean that we have what’s called sterilizing immunity, or in some way, if we get infected, that we don’t spread it to somebody else. That means that we’re not producing virus and shedding virus.

    Just today, the World Health Organization made an announcement clearly and unequivocally. You’ve got to start using masks because none of these vaccines are preventing infection. They’re preventing disease. They’re not preventing transmission. They may be reducing transmission, but by how much we don’t know. So we can’t calculate what percent uptake is required to reach herd immunity, if we could reach herd immunity with these vaccines.

    There’s an underlying logic that’s been pushed out globally about why we have to take vaccine and how many of us have to take vaccine. It’s not actually supported by data. To my mind, that’s a problem. It’s gone all the way through this outbreak where key public health officials have felt comfortable substituting their opinion for evidence-based medicine.

    That always has to happen at the start of an outbreak because there’s no data. Somebody’s got to have expert opinion. We’re past that point. We have a lot of data, and it’s time we start relying on evidence to make public health decisions. We’re not doing it.

    To my eye, from bioethics, we appear to be failing to meet the Code of Federal Regulations and Federal Law, let alone fundamental precepts that go back to the end of World War II. We’re not providing full disclosure of risk. We’re not doing so in a way that’s readily comprehended by the public. And we are enticing, compelling, coercing, and otherwise not respecting the rights of the individual to choose what happens to their body.

    In my mind, the bedrock we all have in Western society is the right to choose. The State does not own our body, particularly for an experimental product.

    I argue that we’ve crossed a line. It’s a bioethical line. It may actually be Federal Law that we’ve crossed, inadvertently, I’m sure for all the best reasons. But if you go back, read the Nuremberg Code. What we’re doing is not aligned with fundamental principles. And as you know, this happens from time to time during war and crisis.

    Cultures decide that it’s okay to bend the rules on some fundamentals of ethics, whether it’s torture or internment of populations. I believe they almost universally end up regretting it. So, I’m trying to responsibly, ethically, and with the credibility that I have in my CV, and because of my role in inventing this technology, to alert people that I believe that we’re pushing and crossing some key lines here that we really should be respecting.

    Mr. Jekielek: Robert, we’re going to have to finish up shortly. I probably have about a few hours more worth of questions for you at this point. We’ll have to invite you back. Any final thoughts before we finish up for today?

    Dr. Malone: Yes. If I can speak to your audience, like I said, it’s your body. My general recommendation is, in my opinion, these vaccines are saving lives. They’re saving many lives, particularly in the elderly. I get asked the question all the time, “Should I take this vaccine or that vaccine because I have this preexisting condition or an autoimmune disease?”

    My recommendation is that you know your body best, you and your medical care provider. You have the right to accept or not accept a vaccine product, particularly an experimental one. You make your own decision. I can’t advise you, in the end, neither can your physician completely advise you.

    It’s up to you. It’s your body. It’s your choice. I strongly suggest that you take the time to get informed, do the best you can, and then make the decision that you think is right for you.

    dr-robert-malone-mrna-vaccine-inventor-s
    unread

  14. #89 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    32,596
    Thanks
    10,790
    Thanked 6,249 Times in 5,512 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 389 Times in 379 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    And over 8,000 unvaccinated have died SINCE JANUARY. Can you do math? That’s over 16O times more people. Good luck in the ICU.
    No one has died from covid19. This is a Covid/SARS series virus. None of them kill.
    Covid19 is an unusually mild variant of this series.
    "Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
    "Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome

    Everything else debunked here

  15. #90 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    33,564
    Thanks
    5,539
    Thanked 14,672 Times in 10,211 Posts
    Groans
    99
    Groaned 2,949 Times in 2,715 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    You have the right to be typhoid Mary to your own family, not mine.

Similar Threads

  1. W.Va Governor: MAGA anti-vaxxers are in a 'death lottery
    By reagansghost in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 07-08-2021, 11:09 AM
  2. It won't be long until ONLY anti-vaxxers are dying from COVID
    By reagansghost in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: 05-07-2021, 01:00 PM
  3. Kamala drops the hammer on Atty Gen Blob
    By reagansghost in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-27-2019, 09:44 PM
  4. How Conspiracies Changed (Flat Earth, Anti-Vaxxers)
    By StoneByStone in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-14-2019, 04:51 PM
  5. Anti Vaxxers
    By Yurt in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-13-2019, 11:14 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •