@metal-brain saidYou were stupid enough to endanger your own health because the vaccine had extremely tiny amounts of formaldehyde, far less than the human body has naturally though.
Did I claim there was enough formaldehyde to kill or harm most people?
No, I did not. You must have false assumption syndrome as well.
What does that say about your level of medical expertise vis-a-vis trained professionals in the field?
@no1marauder saidI had 2 children and we had them fully vaccinated. You have false assumption syndrome as well. I will not take ANY vaccine until the vaccine makers are liable again. If you trust the safety of vaccines from pharmaceutical companies that have no liability you are just plain stupid and you should never have children.
So you risked tetanus rather than get a shot than contains a tiny amount of formaldehyde far less than what is naturally present in the human body? https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/common-ingredients-us-licensed-vaccines
Please don't ever have children.
@no1marauder saidAre you claiming I was at high risk of getting tetanus?
You were stupid enough to endanger your own health because the vaccine had extremely tiny amounts of formaldehyde, far less than the human body has naturally though.
What does that say about your level of medical expertise vis-a-vis trained professionals in the field?
They do not have to put poison in their vaccines. They choose to because it costs less so they can increase profits. You are simply too ignorant to know that.
@metal-brain said🚧🚨Moronity of Gop alert!!!🚨🚧
I had 2 children and we had them fully vaccinated. You have false assumption syndrome as well. I will not take ANY vaccine until the vaccine makers are liable again. If you trust the safety of vaccines from pharmaceutical companies that have no liability you are just plain stupid and you should never have children.
@Metal-Brain
Did you get the part where the human body ALREADY has more formaldehyde than would be delivered by ANY shot.
BESIDES THAT, you get ONE, maybe three shots, when the amount of formaldehyde would be measured in PICOgrams.
You will stop at NOTHING, STOOP to nothing in your misguided zeal to get rid of Biden.
THAT is what this is about, it has nothing to do with actual vaccines.
@sonhouse saidI have known that for a long time, but is that any excuse for continuing to put poison in the vaccine when they do not have to? They put poison in vaccines to save money to increase their profits. No other reason.
@Metal-Brain
Did you get the part where the human body ALREADY has more formaldehyde than would be delivered by ANY shot.
BESIDES THAT, you get ONE, maybe three shots, when the amount of formaldehyde would be measured in PICOgrams.
You will stop at NOTHING, STOOP to nothing in your misguided zeal to get rid of Biden.
THAT is what this is about, it has nothing to do with actual vaccines.
They do NOT have to use poison. It is a choice!
From the link below:
"The FDA differentiates between the EUA vaccine, which shields Pfizer from liability, and the approved vaccine, given the name Comirnaty. The vaccines are the same, but the approved one has not been given immunity from liability, so there is a legal difference. Pfizer is unlikely to market Comirnaty until it can obtain immunity from liability for the approved Comirnaty. In the meantime, there is a supply of the EUA authorized vaccine to be used.
The bottom line is that the vaccine currently in use and produced under EUA authorization does not have final FDA approval. For the yet to be produced approved Comirnaty, Pfizer is liable for deaths and injuries. Therefore, doses of the approved new production are not available. The corrupt FDA and its Big Pharma owner are counting on the unvaccinated as well as doctors not to notice the distinction and go for the unapproved EUA vaccine thinking that it is finally approved and thereby safe."
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-approved-pfizer-vaccine-is-not-yet-available/5754245
The Approved Pfizer Vaccine Comirnaty Is Not Yet Available
If you go to get it right now they will only have the EUA available and correctly tell you the vaccine content is the same as Comirnaty. What they will not tell you is that you still cannot get compensation from the vaccine court if you take the EUA version. It is not Comirnaty.
If you are determined to get the FDA approved jab make sure it is Comirnaty. They conveniently do not have it yet. Still think it is safe? Even Pfizer doesn't think so. That is why they are so slow to put a Comirnaty label on it.
@metal-brain saidI envisioned you having got tipped off to formaldehyde in tetanus via some anti-vax source. That may or may not be right, but I am not questioning the fact that the vaccine has formaldehyde.
You said this:
"You think that since you went to a conspiracy website and found out a tetanus vaccine has formaldehyde make you more qualified to perform risk management than a doctor?"
I didn't get it from a conspiracy website, I got it from the CDC website. I also never claimed doctors were less qualified to perform risk management. You seem to be making false assumptions. Stop assuming stuff I never said.
So you're telling me that out of your own initiative, with no prior concern for the safety of a vaccine, that instead of listening to tunes that you were just browsing ingredients on the CDC website and suddenly said "Wow! I wasn't expecting this. Formaldehyde!". What, may I ask, made you decide to browse vaccine ingredients? And where, my I ask, did you find information telling you how much formaldehyde is dangerous? I know for sure the CDC website didn't tell you the tetanus vaccine has enough of it to be dangerous. You must have got that from somewhere else.
It has been my observation that most anti-vaxers first learn about formaldehyde from other anti-vaxers. Although that may not be the case with you, do you realize what the norm is?
And I'm not talking about you specifically, but I'll tell you. When I see a high school drop-out refusing to take a vaccine with 0.1 pico-grams of some dangerous substance because they read on the Internet something bad about the ingredient, that, to me, looks like the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
It may turn out that I'm wrong, but at least I'm smart enough to know I can't evaluate vaccine safety based on a list of ingredients.
1 edit
@metal-brain saidUnsurprisingly, your conspiracy website is giving you false information:
From the link below:
"The FDA differentiates between the EUA vaccine, which shields Pfizer from liability, and the approved vaccine, given the name Comirnaty. The vaccines are the same, but the approved one has not been given immunity from liability, so there is a legal difference. Pfizer is unlikely to market Comirnaty until it can obtain immunity from liability for ...[text shortened]... is safe? Even Pfizer doesn't think so. That is why they are so slow to put a Comirnaty label on it.
"In February, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. The 2005 law empowers the HHS secretary to provide legal protection to companies making or distributing critical medical supplies, such as vaccines and treatments, unless there’s “willful misconduct” by the company. The protection lasts until 2024.
That means that for the next four years, these companies “cannot be sued for money damages in court” over injuries related to the administration or use of products to treat or protect against Covid. "
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html
Needless to say your article doesn't make any sense; the vaccine given the EUA is the exact same one now given full approval. That Pfizer is marketing it under a different name has no legal effect whatsoever.
@techsouth saidDanger of known poisons depends on dosage and other factors. Here are the ingredients.
I envisioned you having got tipped off to formaldehyde in tetanus via some anti-vax source. That may or may not be right, but I am not questioning the fact that the vaccine has formaldehyde.
So you're telling me that out of your own initiative, with no prior concern for the safety of a vaccine, that instead of listening to tunes that you were just browsing ingredients ...[text shortened]... ut at least I'm smart enough to know I can't evaluate vaccine safety based on a list of ingredients.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf
@no1marauder saidAll you did is confirm what I said. Here is the title to your article:
Unsurprisingly, your conspiracy website is giving you false information:
"In February, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. The 2005 law empowers the HHS secretary to provide legal protection to companies making or distributing critical medical supplies, such as vaccines and treatments, unless there’ ...[text shortened]... en full approval. That Pfizer is marketing it under a different name has no legal effect whatsoever.
"You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects. The government likely won’t compensate you for damages either"
That is exactly what I said. Note that the article was written last year before FDA approval of Pfizer's gene vaccine.
"Needless to say your article doesn't make any sense; the vaccine given the EUA is the exact same one now given full approval. That Pfizer is marketing it under a different name has no legal effect whatsoever."
It is not needless to say you habitually assuming moron!
What is your source of information?
@metal-brain said[Metal-Brain]
Danger of known poisons depends on dosage and other factors. Here are the ingredients.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf
Danger of known poisons depends on dosage and other factors.
Thanks. I think that's the key piece of information that the rest of us were missing. Always good to come to RHP debate forum and find intellectually stimulating information. And for the life of me, I wouldn't been able to figure out how to google a list of ingredients myself.