Debates
10 Sep 21
15 Sep 21
1 edit
@metal-brain saidThere is absolutely no difference. Your crank sites are, as usual, feeding you misinformation:
I think you will find this interesting.
Here is an excerpt from the link below:
"The press reported that vaccine mandates are now legal for military, healthcare workers, college students and employees in many industries. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has now required the vaccine for all teachers and school staff. The Pentagon is proceeding with its mandate for al ...[text shortened]... Comirnaty is available.
Their bait and switch tactic created the loophole. We should exploit it.
"David Bowman, a spokesperson for the Health Resources and Services Administration — the federal agency that oversees compensation programs for those who allege injuries following vaccination — told us in an email that there “are no liability or compensation differences between a countermeasure approved under an EUA or one that has received full FDA approval.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/scicheck-researcher-distorts-facts-on-covid-19-vaccine-approval-liability/
15 Sep 21
3 edits
@no1marauder saidThere is absolutely a legal difference. Your crank opinion piece sites are, as usual, feeding you misinformation. Do you know how many self proclaimed fact checkers I have proven wrong? Remember all those fact checkers who falsely claimed gene therapy had to change DNA? Remember all those fact checkers who falsely claimed SARS2 could not have possibly leaked from a lab?
There is absolutely no difference. Your crank sites are, as usual, feeding you misinformation:
"David Bowman, a spokesperson for the Health Resources and Services Administration — the federal agency that oversees compensation programs for those who allege injuries following vaccination — told us in an email that there “are no liability or compensation differences betwe ...[text shortened]... www.factcheck.org/2021/08/scicheck-researcher-distorts-facts-on-covid-19-vaccine-approval-liability/
Get a life. Fact checkers are just opinion pieces. They are wrong all of the time. That one is wrong too.
edit:
FactCheck.org angered Democrats. In June 2012, the Obama campaign charged that while Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney worked for Bain Capital the company was heavily involved in outsourcing jobs to other countries. The Obama ad called Romney the “outsourcer-in-chief.” Yet FactCheck.org “found no evidence to support the claim that Romney—while he was still running Bain Capital— shipped American jobs overseas.” That’s because Romney wasn’t working at Bain when the outsourcing occurred; he was off running the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. Unaccustomed to being challenged by mainstream media gatekeepers, the miffed Obama re-election campaign wrote a six-page letter denouncing the website. “The statement that Gov. Romney ‘left’ Bain in February 1999—a statement central to your fact-check—is not accurate,” Obama campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter wrote. “Romney took an informal leave of absence but remained in full legal control of Bain and continued to be paid by Bain as such” (ABC News, July 2, 2012).
PolitiFact and FactCheck.org among those who were forced to add editor's notes to original lab leak theory fact checks.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/realclearpolitics-fact-checkers-practice-caution-lab-leak-about-face
15 Sep 21
1 edit
@no1marauder saidThere is a lot written in media, and in this forum, about the vaccine, and taking the vaccine.
There is absolutely no difference. Your crank sites are, as usual, feeding you misinformation:
"David Bowman, a spokesperson for the Health Resources and Services Administration — the federal agency that oversees compensation programs for those who allege injuries following vaccination — told us in an email that there “are no liability or compensation differences betwe ...[text shortened]... www.factcheck.org/2021/08/scicheck-researcher-distorts-facts-on-covid-19-vaccine-approval-liability/
Do you think that deciding whether to take a jab in your arm with vaccine should be a decision made only by the person getting the shot, or do YOU think that the govt should decide, meaning the citizen must follow the rule of government?
We’ve all read the pros and cons. Just yes or no, since we already have heard the reasons from every corner.
15 Sep 21
@metal-brain saidThere is nothing in the statute mentioned in the article that says products under an EUA are "experimental".
I think you will find this interesting.
Here is an excerpt from the link below:
"The press reported that vaccine mandates are now legal for military, healthcare workers, college students and employees in many industries. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has now required the vaccine for all teachers and school staff. The Pentagon is proceeding with its mandate for al ...[text shortened]... Comirnaty is available.
Their bait and switch tactic created the loophole. We should exploit it.
21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), states:
"(ii)Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed—
"(III)of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3
In this case, IF OSHA follows through on the President's proposal, unvaccinated employees in companies with more than 100 workers would only have to be informed that the consequences of refusing the vaccine would be that they have to be tested for COVID on a weekly basis or if they refused to either vaccinate or be tested they could forfeit their job. The law specifically states that there could be consequences for such refusal, so the "analysis" in the crank article is obviously deficient.
15 Sep 21
@averagejoe1 saidYou don't get to demand "yes or no" answers on a Debates Forum.
There is a lot written in media, and in this forum, about the vaccine, and taking the vaccine.
Do you think that deciding whether to take a jab in your arm with vaccine should be a decision made only by the person getting the shot, or do YOU think that the govt should decide, meaning the citizen must follow the rule of government?
We’ve all read the pros and cons. Just yes or no, since we already have heard the reasons from every corner.
There is a right to bodily sovereignty (one anti-abortion laws violate) but in the circumstances of deadly, contagious diseases mandatory vaccination laws have been used before. However, at this point, no jurisdiction in the US has put into place general mandatory vaccination laws.
15 Sep 21
1 edit
@metal-brain saidYou're an imbecile; the article I cited to gave authoritative quotes from the government officials in charge of the relevant agencies.
There is absolutely a legal difference. Your crank opinion piece sites are, as usual, feeding you misinformation. Do you know how many self proclaimed fact checkers I have proven wrong? Remember all those fact checkers who falsely claimed gene therapy had to change DNA? Remember all those fact checkers who falsely claimed SARS2 could not have possibly leaked from a lab? ...[text shortened]...
https://www.foxnews.com/media/realclearpolitics-fact-checkers-practice-caution-lab-leak-about-face
Your crank site offered nothing but the baseless claims of non-experts in the field. Moreover, it was incredibly, stupidly wrong about the law regarding EUAs as I pointed out in my last post.
You really need to stop being so gullible.
15 Sep 21
@no1marauder saidFederal law provides that at least until a vaccine is fully approved by the FDA, individuals must have the option to accept or decline.
There is nothing in the statute mentioned in the article that says products under an EUA are "experimental".
21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), states:
"(ii)Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed—
"(III)of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, [b]of the conseque ...[text shortened]... uld be consequences for such refusal, so the "analysis" in the crank article is obviously deficient.
15 Sep 21
1 edit
@metal-brain saidAnd it also accepts that there might be "consequences" for declining. All that law requires regarding that is that the person be informed of the "consequences" "of refusing administration of the product."
Federal law provides that at least until a vaccine is fully approved by the FDA, individuals must have the option to accept or decline.
15 Sep 21
@no1marauder saidYou're an imbecile.
You're an imbecile; the article I cited to gave authoritative quotes from the government officials in charge of the relevant agencies.
Your crank site offered nothing but the baseless claims of non-experts in the field.
It said right in your source we have the right to accept or decline.
Your attack the source tactics are just leading you to embarrassment again. You are insane. No matter how many times I prove you wrong after attacking my sources you keep doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
15 Sep 21
@no1marauder saidYou are wrong.
And it also accepts that there might be "consequences" for doing so.
I am willing to bet you I am right. The usual terms.
15 Sep 21
@metal-brain saidJesus, read the sentence rather than relying on what the crank site told you. I bet you never bothered to actually use the link to the law, did you?
You are wrong.
I am willing to bet you I am right. The usual terms.
15 Sep 21
@metal-brain saidHere's what the article you posted claimed:
You are wrong.
I am willing to bet you I am right. The usual terms.
" Under 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), “authorization for medical products for use in emergencies,” it is unlawful to deny someone a job or an education because they refuse to be an experimental subject. Instead, potential recipients have an absolute right to refuse EUA vaccines."
Do you admit, after having looked at the provision in the law referenced, that the article is completely and utterly wrong on this point?
15 Sep 21
@metal-brain saidYou're squirming and trying to goalpost move.
You're an imbecile.
It said right in your source we have the right to accept or decline.
Your attack the source tactics are just leading you to embarrassment again. You are insane. No matter how many times I prove you wrong after attacking my sources you keep doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
Your article didn't merely say that a patient could accept or decline the vaccine - it said, relying on 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), that it was "unlawful to deny someone a job or an education because they refuse to be an experimental subject." and thus "potential recipients have an absolute right to refuse EUA vaccines." But instead that provision of the law clearly states that there might be "consequences" for "refusing administration of the product" directly contradicting the above claim.
Go ahead, admit it.
15 Sep 21
@no1marauder said"You're squirming and trying to goalpost move."
You're squirming and trying to goalpost move.
Your article didn't merely say that a patient could accept or decline the vaccine - it said, relying on 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), that it was "unlawful to deny someone a job or an education because they refuse to be an experimental subject." and thus "potential recipients have an absolute right to refus ...[text shortened]... fusing administration of the product" directly contradicting the above claim.
Go ahead, admit it.
LOL!
If that is not psychological projection I don't know what is.
You are squirming because I challenged you to a bet.
You moved the goal post, not me. You were trying to claim Cominarty was not legally different than the EUA Pfizer BioNTech, then you moved the goal post to saying EUA can be mandated.
Is it a coincidence that Biden waited for FDA approval to change his mind about vaccine mandates? You know better.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mainstream-media-fda-approval-pfizer-vaccine/
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a lawyer.
Accept the bet or move on.
The usual terms with end of month deadline.
15 Sep 21
@Metal-Brain
God, your lists of Phd's grows by the WEEK! Now it is political science but another post shows you with a Phd in microbiology, virology and the like. WOW, AM I IMPRESSED.