There is one "vaccine" that is quite safe, and that is a course of quercetin, zinc, and vitamin D during which I get exposed to the virus. The supplements help my immune system while the zinc prevents the virus from doing anything other than making me immune to it in the future. At worst, I get a small cold. Which is way better than all the auto-immune problems the official vaccines are designed to cause.
Nurses are unwilling to take the COVID-19 Vaccine
Do we force people to take a flu jab?
Heathcare workers here are required to take the "flu shot".
Apples and oranges. Are you “forced” to wear a seat belt? No, because if you don’t want to wear one you simply don’t drive. The same applies to the flu jab. If you don’t want it you will work somewhere else.
read the clinical trials is not conspiracy theory
Of course it isn’t conspiracy theory to read about clinical trials,it’s entirely sensible, but the sort of people who refuse vaccines don’t read about the many, many trials NOR the process that NiCE, MHRA etc goes through.
What on earth has Harold Shipman (or Beverley Allit , John Bodkin Adams etc etc for that matter) got to do with vaccines?!! 🤣🤣🙄
There are psychopaths in all walks of life and (I’ve met sadistic nurses, thieves and even rapists who work in medicine) but that’s nothing to do with how well the MHRA (our system for monitoring medicines and patient safety) works here in the UK.!
Why isn’t the government strongly promoting vitamin D?
Well they are now saying they are going to provide 2.7 million vulnerable individuals with a free supply of vitamin D over winter but yes, it’s taken forever for them to finally take it seriously!! I also think the recommended daily dose the UK promotes is far too low.
The government is now sending out 400 IU daily doses, which is totally useless. There is no evidence that this is nearly enough to rectify vitamin D deficiency or protect against viral infection. They might as well not have bothered.
Meanmrmustard you again falsely represent facts with your claims . You claim a high rate of anaphylactic reaction due to vaccine. I get so tired of the Bs spouted by science deniers such as you. The facts are the following.
Among those who participated in the Pfizer trials, a very small number of people had allergic reactions. A document published by the F.D.A. on Tuesday said that 0.63 percent of participants who received the vaccine reported potential allergic reactions, compared to 0.51 percent of people who received a placebo.
In Pfizer’s late-stage clinical trial, one of the 18,801 participants who received the vaccine had an anaphylactic reaction, according to safety data published by the F.D.A. on Tuesday. None in the placebo group did.
Edit: for comparison purposes here are.The rates for aspirin stated by the NIH
In five studies with reasonably well-specified methods, the reported sensitivity rates to aspirin were lowest (0.3% to 0.9%)
Does anyone know, is it true that the companies who have developed the vaccines are protected from compensations claims if it goes wrong? If that’s a false rumour then it would be good to clear that up! But if it’s true, then how can we take them seriously when they say it’s safe if they’re not willing to put their money where their mouth is, while expecting us to take the risk?
Anyone who thinks the experts can’t get really important stuff wrong wasn’t paying much attention in the spring when the experts told us there is no evidence that masks are protective and in fact might be dangerous. How many lives were lost because of those authoritative, yet erroneous statements?
In the United States drug manufacturers can not be sued for.any vaccines , However the Federal government did set up a compensation fund. Please read the following article.
When most drugs cause harm, the pharmaceutical companies that make them can be sued in product liability lawsuits. But that isn't the case with vaccines. In 1986, Congress passed a law that protects vaccine manufacturers from being sued in civil personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits resulting from vaccine injuries.
Both drugmakers and federal government officials admit that although vaccines are created with the purpose of keeping the public safe, they can cause rare but serious, and sometimes fatal, side effects.
In the 1970s and 80s, drugmakers paid out millions to plaintiffs in hundreds of vaccine-related injury lawsuits. The litigation was complex and expensive because of how difficult it is to show epidemiological cause and effect in these cases.
Eventually, some drugmakers decided to stop making vaccines altogether. This drew alarm from public health officials, who worried about sustaining existing vaccines and also the development of new vaccines.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
Congress stepped in with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (the Vaccine Act) as a way to ensure that the injured would receive compensation, but also to protect drugmakers from open-ended liability.
In 2011, an important United States Supreme Court ruling clarified the type of lawsuits vaccine manufacturers are protected from under the Vaccine Act. In a 6-2 decision, the Court ruled that the federal law protects drugmakers from design-defect claims as long as the vaccine was properly manufactured and carried adequate warnings labels.
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
When Congress granted drug companies immunity in regular court with the Vaccine Act, it established the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The no-fault compensation program was created as its own "court" to compensate those who claim to have suffered side effects caused by vaccines.
Since the program was created in the late 1980s, it has paid out more than $4 billion to those who said they were harmed by vaccines. The average payment per injured party from 2013 to 2017 was about $430,000, with an average of $229 million per year in total.
I have no desire to take it. I will refuse at risk to my job.
It’s all very well to say litigation was complicated and liability was difficult to prove.
But if there is no financial cost directly related to the manufacture of what turns out to be a harmful vaccine, then what is the incentive not to rush out a new vaccine before making sure it is safe? If it turns out safe then you got there first and can make a lot of money. But if you rush it out quickly and it turns out to have serious adverse consequences a year or so down the line, what’s the penalty for that? If there’s no penalty then rationally the incentive would be to push ahead regardless.
I firmly believe that pharmaceutical medicines, including vaccines, should be developed using public money for the public good. The perverse incentives in a free market approach to medicine produces wildly inadequate and unfair outcomes, including a proliferation of drugs we don’t need and/or that are harmful, combined with an ever growing list of “old” drugs that are worthless as commercial products, and therefore neglected as possible new treatments for illnesses. Not to mention the informal networks of patronage and promotion between pharmaceutical companies and politicians that ensure a small number of people get very rich while adding no value whatever in terms of public health. A moment’s thought is enough to convince any rational person that a market oriented system for drug development is suboptimal, to put it mildly. What, apart from sheer capitalist ideology, and self interest for those politicians and businessmen who benefit financially, would impel us to persist with such an inequitable and inefficient system?