Introspection on the decline of morality.

juantoo3 said:
@TheLightWithin

Since I don't expect ye olde Snoopish one to address these questions, perhaps you might be willing?

Did you happen to notice the standard mechanism for reporting adverse incidents refused/declined/dismissed any and all adverse incident reports concerning Covid vax? Since ALL medications have a small percentage of adverse reactions, why were there no official adverse reactions to Covid vax reported? It isn't a matter of no adverse reactions, if one looks in the right places documented adverse reactions and the people they occurred to are out there...none of them were reported officially. It went so far as threatening the credentials of providers who insisted on reporting adverse reactions. At least one Military physician was fired for temporarily grounding some Air Force pilots for adverse reactions.

Further, Pfizer, J&J and Moderna all were shielded legally from any lawsuits from adverse reactions. What's up with that?

On more than one occasion, Pfizer refused Freedom of Information Act requests regarding adverse reactions...not only unethical but illegal as well, and did so with impunity. Have you tried to look up the animal studies for Covid vax development?

This to say nothing of the retractions from the Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine...retractions of the very paper that politicians were citing to dismiss and ridicule alternative treatments. https://www.science.org/content/art...onavirus-papers-over-data-integrity-questions In the world of scholarship, as I am certain you are well aware, this is unprecedented. Papers typically are peer reviewed and vetted well before publication, so a retraction is a HUGE deal. And to have politicos still quoting the paper more than a year after it was retracted tells me a great deal...that isn't conspiracy, that is fact.

Comments please?
Click to expand...
You are asking me for comments, but I don't know why, and I don't have any.
 
TheLightWithin said:
You are asking me for comments, but I don't know why, and I don't have any.
Click to expand...
Only because of your association with the medical profession. Thank you just the same.

Allow me to ask this:

In your view, is a patient who is clearly involved and informed with his/her care and happens to disagree with you, is that patient non-compliant?
 
Last edited:
juantoo3 said:
Only because of your association with the medical profession. Thank you just the same.

Allow me to ask this:

In your view, is a patient who is clearly involved and informed with his/her care and happens to disagree with you, is that patient non-compliant?
Click to expand...
So... you wanted me to answer from a professional perspective??
What should I base the answer on?

I am a mental health counselor with no medical background. Regarding our previous discussion, about transgender patients, that was one of my major complaints/biggest beefs about being asked to assess transgender client needs. We make clinical assessments about mental health, sure but I was still new at the time... and THEN being required to boldly use language like "medically necessary" for HORMONES or SURGERY was a step I myself disliked. When providing therapy we still have to use similar language on health insurance claims, but at least it's for providing therapy, something we are trained to do. It was crazy having to tell endocrinologists or surgeons that someone medically needed injections or surgical procedures with no medical or even nursing background of my own. The process I faced with that was ridiculous. Hence my wish that far more of the assessment came from various MDs regarding the needs of that particular population.

Anyway, I ALSO had 3 questions to you about how your questions about the vaccines came to be directed at me?
I just wasn't sure what your questions about the vaccines or Pfizer or big pharma had to do with either the thread, an interfaith forum, or with me.

I guess you sort of answered the question why to me ... because I am a mental health professional? Which is confusing as I don't quite understand how that would make me able to answer questions about vaccines from a -- medical? scientific? standpoint -- or policy standpoint? regarding the pharmaceutical industry. Way out of my field.

I guess maybe it wasn't clear and you might have thought I was a nurse or something. But no, I'm an LMHC (licensed mental health counselor) Not dissimilar to a social worker. At lot of my peers are social workers. But neither LMHC nor LCSWs (social workers) can prescribe medication or anything. And we don't give injections of any kind.

The other question you ask, about patient or client noncompliance, is far too broad to answer reasonably as stated. What do you mean. The patients (or client, in my case) disagrees about what. Disagrees how severely. Expresses disagreement how. Wants to do what. Wants to continue treatment despite disagreeing, or not. Wants what from me if they do wish to continue treatment despite disagreeing. Etc, etc, etc.

The only possible answer to anything that broad is: IT DEPENDS.

I mean, there are broad conversations one can have about client autonomy, but are we going pretty far afield of the topic of an interfaith forum?
 
Last edited:
TheLightWithin said:
I am a mental health counselor with no medical background. Regarding our previous discussion, about transgender patients, that was one of my major complaints/biggest beefs about being asked to assess transgender client needs. We make clinical assessments about mental health, sure but I was still new at the time... and THEN being required to boldly use language like "medically necessary" for HORMONES or SURGERY was a step I myself disliked. When providing therapy we still have to use similar language on health insurance claims, but at least it's for providing therapy, something we are trained to do. It was crazy having to tell endocrinologists or surgeons that someone medically needed injections or surgical procedures with no medical or even nursing background of my own. The process I faced with that was ridiculous. Hence my wish that far more of the assessment came from various MDs regarding the needs of that particular population.
Click to expand...
This says it all, imo it's disgraceful

Thanks for sharing
 
juantoo3 said:
Further, Pfizer, J&J and Moderna all were shielded legally from any lawsuits from adverse reactions. What's up with that?
Click to expand...
Hasn't that been normal for vax manufactureres for most of our life?

And hasn't the govt established a fund to pay folks who get adverse reactions?

And didn't this all get established for vaxes because they saw ridding the land of polio, measles, mumps etc was important to overall healthcare....you know some risk reward analysis of how many will die in one scenario vs how many in the other?
 
wil said:
Hasn't that been normal for vax manufactureres for most of our life?

And hasn't the govt established a fund to pay folks who get adverse reactions?
Click to expand...
No, it hasn't. The justification was the emergency. As you might guess I do like Trump, but that was one he got wrong, shielding the drug makers.

And nope. The bar was set so high and the payoff so little that no attorney will even consider a case. Look into it.
 
Snoopy said:
I'll stick with the overall global consensus thanks. Your hysterical idea of Nazism does at least suggest you are an American?
Click to expand...
You have no idea what science is do you? Might want to study a bit of history of scientific achievements. If we just stuck with global consensus, many of our current scientific breakthroughs would never have happened.

For example: Joseph Lister kept proving that we needed to sanitize operating rooms and hospitals. But the global consensus was that "bad air" (the Miasma theory) caused infections. But if global consensus is right, I guess we should stop sanitizing hospitals.

There are so many more examples of "global consensus" being wrong.
 
juantoo3 said:
No, it hasn't. The justification was the emergency. As you might guess I do like Trump, but that was one he got wrong, shielding the drug makers.

And nope. The bar was set so high and the payoff so little that no attorney will even consider a case. Look into it.
Click to expand...
anti vaxxers have been arguing for decades against out govt protection of manufacturers...nothing new here
..same old rhetoric I heard from homeschoolers decades ago (when froends fkrst.atarting have kids in the 70s I learned all about antivax and anti circumcision arguments..


Liability for the Production and Sale of Vaccines - Vaccine Supply and Innovation - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
wil said:
anti vaxxers have been arguing for decades against out govt protection of manufacturers...nothing new here
..same old rhetoric I heard from homeschoolers decades ago (when froends fkrst.atarting have kids in the 70s I learned all about antivax and anti circumcision arguments..


Liability for the Production and Sale of Vaccines - Vaccine Supply and Innovation - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Click to expand...
It's not a vaccine though. I'm not anti vaxx I'm against being a Guinea pig of untested technology in my body.
 
Faithfulservant said:
It's not a vaccine though. I'm not anti vaxx I'm against being a Guinea pig of untested technology in my body.
Click to expand...
What is not a.vac·cine
/vakˈsēn,ˈvakˌsēn/
noun
1.
a substance used to stimulate immunity to a particular infectious disease or pathogen, typically prepared from an inactivated or weakened form of the causative agent or from its constituents or products.
"every year the flu vaccine is modified to deal with new strains of the virus"

Or are you of the belief that vaccines provide 100% immunity?
 
wil said:
What is not a.vac·cine
/vakˈsēn,ˈvakˌsēn/
noun
1.
a substance used to stimulate immunity to a particular infectious disease or pathogen, typically prepared from an inactivated or weakened form of the causative agent or from its constituents or products.
"every year the flu vaccine is modified to deal with new strains of the virus"

Or are you of the belief that vaccines provide 100% immunity?
Click to expand...
There is no coronavirus in the shot weakened or inactivated. It's a MRNA which is a spike protein to target ALL your cells specifically to attack coronavirus but what it does is weaken your immune system to everything else. There are doctors studying this and have shown that it causes the cells to reproduce damaged cells. It's similar to cancer cells that reproduce other cancer cells.

I'm not a stupid person Wil of course no vaccine provides 100% immunity.
 
wil said:
anti vaxxers have been arguing for decades against out govt protection of manufacturers...nothing new here
..same old rhetoric I heard from homeschoolers decades ago (when froends fkrst.atarting have kids in the 70s I learned all about antivax and anti circumcision arguments..


Liability for the Production and Sale of Vaccines - Vaccine Supply and Innovation - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Click to expand...
Good ol' bait and switch. Politely, you are conflating the past with the specific issue at hand.

A rather common rhetorical device that is a logical fallacy.

Try this on for size...from Bloomberg: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/08/14/579150.htm

The countermeasures program puts a higher financial burden on people applying for compensation, and doesn’t allow for expert witnesses, hearings or appeals, said Toale, who believes coronavirus vaccine injuries should be handled through the vaccine court instead. The vaccine court also pays for victims’ lawyers while the countermeasures program doesn’t.
Click to expand...
-From the cited article.
 
Last edited:
moralorel said:
You have no idea what science is do you? Might want to study a bit of history of scientific achievements.
Click to expand...
You have no idea. Might want to avoid such ignorant assertions. I took a Bachelor of Science degree at Manchester University and was awarded a II(i) Honours. I also took a subsidiary subject called Liberal Studies in Science which was essentially based upon the Kuhn book referenced above - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - so I'm well aware of the way science advances. Not sure the book covered conspiracy theories though.
 
Thomas said:
I am much more concerned about highly processed foods, the negative impact of which I think is greater than vaccine side-effects ...
Click to expand...
I opted for the single dose J&J...not knowing at the time the increased risk of blood clots. Two plus years later I am still wary of certain pains in my legs from prolonged sitting...

That's not to diminish from concerns of processed foods, but I rather think the level of concern is a bit different for each. Gradual vs stroke or heart attack...
 
juantoo3 said:
Good ol' bait and switch. Politely, you are conflating the past with the specific issue at hand.
Click to expand...
Zero bait and switch...you claimed the protections against Vax manufacturers was new... it wasn't ..it has been in place since before we were born due to the antivaxxers during polio...and gets updated periodically because ant vaxers don't stop (as I said, I heard ll the rhetoric repeatedly when I had kids)

Like automated cars...yes they will kill people...yes they will kill lots of people and injure (side effects) a lot more...but it is the nature of the beast...auto driving cars will do a lot of damage...but less than humans...vaxxes ain't perfect...but will kill less than covid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top