Has anyone cracked the code of what the significance of the name COMIRNATY is? It’s too weird to be random. I feel they’re telling us something in the name in plain sight.
The SCARIEST thing here is the automatic legal immunity they get for rolling out the vaccines for children. I had no idea. We have to have that stopped asap. All those people who have been saying all sorts of things about vaccine injuries among children even LONG BEFORE Covid and who I always thought were some Christian Scientists, were actually right. Heavens help this world.
Is this a typo? You said: [They use formula 1 for safety, get approval for formula 2 (safer, less effective), then they roll out formula 2 under EUA] Shouldn't it say: [They use formula 1 for safety, get approval for formula 1 (safer, less effective), then they roll out formula 2 under EUA]?
CanYouSpellmNRA , your sources are all wrote by some form of Big Pharma.. (ONE GROUP) .. We read from THOUSANDS of real Doctors , Nurses , Scientists that prove your BS stories wrong , but of course your sheeple following instinct will argue that the MAJORITY is wrong .. Your a waste of time for any kind of reasoning or explanation that actually holds truth !! Fascinating says , yea he's real credible ... Gates says , yea another psyco .. Pfizer, Death Dealer's now get on your knees and bow , we sure the he'll won't...
Do you see a problem with the PCR test actually testing for CO 19? Besides the problem with the high percentage of false positives, I wonder what it is measuring as I have read that we have not yet isolated the covid 19 virus?
where is the studies that say they used a higher dose in clinical trials then changed it to 1/3 dose? Is there proof or is this just one mans opinion on whats happening
The document itself is one big fat sick joke. Pfizer needed the EUA amending to include the very youngest children, thereby providing the robust liability shield spoken about here. To get that amendment they reduced the dosage to 1/10th of the original and when, surprise, surprise, it proved safe but entirely ineffective (all in this download) they 'immunobridged'. That is to say inferred efficacy based on comparing antibody production seen in the 6m-5yr group with that seen in trials in older age groups with higher (more effect, more risk) doses.
This was done despite correlation between antibody levels and protection - the underpinning assertion when immunobridging is that there IS a correlation - being as hard to pin down as correlation between viral load and infectiousness.
What I'm saying is immunobridging, when you can't get the actual trial to demonstrate positive benefit, is beyond weak; it's as corrupt as it gets. Especially when you know the endgame has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with achieving corporate immunity from liability.
I know this reply is late in the piece but you can see the date on the download should you choose to avail yourself of it; Pfizer got their EUA amendment July 2022 and guess what? As if by magic Comirnaty (now with a tris-sucrose buffer so not the original 'Comirnaty that Pfizer originally applied for a BLA for) is now orderable in the U.S.......it's almost as if some people, Steve Kirsch included, figured out the game.
So, for the vacvine lover in this thread---- please watch Vaxxed, and Vaxxed 2!
Or, watch Dr. David Ayoub's presentation entitled "Beyound Thimerasol" on Odyssey, or, listen when I say I had Throughbred Horses in Florida, for 30 years, lots of mosquitoes, lots of Encephalitis and West Nile, and with 25 equines, breeding and foaling, the only horse on the farm that dropped dead of Encephalitis was the only horse I'd vaccinated for it, on the recommended schedule! They other 24, which I never, or very, very rarely vaccinated, were fine.
Or that CDC and FDA approved and recommended vaccines almost killed my daughter. Or, read the Control Groups Litigation, showing the unvaccinated are 1000% healthier than the vaccinated, in this country.
Or, the Guinea Bissou study which proved that while the vaccines decreased the deaths in little girls from the diseases they were immunized against, it actually increased over all deaths, specifically from sepsis and pneumonia, and more girls died from those infections than the vaccines saved from common childhood illnesses which are generally not serious.
Consider that the immune system may need our childhood illnesses to develop properly, "harden off," as it were, in order to protect us from serious diseases like cancer and diabetes.
Add up the micrograms of Aluminum in the vaccines and divide by a newborn's blood volume, and you will see why babies born during the pandemic who didn't receive well baby doctor visits are now meeting milestones in development of twice their biological age...and why SIDS nearly vanished!
Once, if ever in this toxic pharmacological landscape we inhabit, we actually do the full blown vaxxed vs unvaxxed study, we will all be horrified how deeply we damaged all our kids. I know it. Just sad how many others do not.
For the few who want to get your kid "jabbed" just know this.
The FDA says that Pfizer-BioNTech and Comirnaty have the same active ingredients. The label insert for Comirnaty (a legal document) states that it "has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity or impairment of male fertility." In plain English, this means that Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines may cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity or impairment of male fertility. In the interest of honesty, please inform your child of this risk. If you know what the big words mean, have your child look them up and explain them to you. This is why they will not produce Comirnaty in the US any time soon, they would be liable for the above injuries, while they enjoy protection under EUA.
The Covid-19 vaccines were touted as "safe and effective". However, the United States Supreme Court has stated that "safe" is not the equivalent of "risk-free". Indus. Union Dept. v. Amer. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 608 (1980). Further, in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, 562 U.S. 223 (2011), the Supreme Court concluded that "vaccines are unavoidably unsafe". It is both unethical and immoral for anyone to force another human being to participate in any experimental drug program that is inherently risky and "unsafe".
Finally, there is no FDA-approved "Comirnaty". It is a federal crime to misbrand any drug. Misbranding includes any false or misleading representation. No Comirnaty has ever been distributed or administered in the United States. Yes, I can prove this. However, because this will be an issue in upcoming litigation the source will remain confidential (although savvy sincere sleuths could find it). I hope this puts an end to the nonsense.
There is not ONE SINGLE VACCINE that has been evaluated for carcinogenic potential, mutagenic potential, or impairment of fertility. Read section 13 of any package insert.
We have no idea whether or not our vaccine could potentially be causing the cancer, auto-immune diseases, and chronic issues that plague our nation.
2. You don't understand vaccines, or what effective means.
3. You don't understand not all viruses are the same.
4. You ignore the fact that conventional vaccines already require 2, 3, 4, or even 5 shots to achieve lifetime immunity. And even then, if you step on a rusty nail, the first thing you're going to get at the doctors office is another DTP booster.
Doesn't change the absolute fact that these "vaccines" are the most dangerous ever deployed. They have killed more people in less than 1 year than all vaccines for the last 30 years combined. 1,000s killed and almost 900,000 injured as recorded in a data base that is roundly acknowledged to only collect 10% of all cases. There are no long term safety studies, only "research". mRNA has a long spotted history of development. For a virus that has a 99.98% survival rate, and that includes me, they can shove these injections up their ass!
1. COVID does not have a 99.98% survival rate. What's your source? Maybe for some a certain population slice, but that's not accurate for general population.
2. Have you actually looked at any charts that show COVID deaths vs. VAERS-reported deaths lately? Here's the US data: https://imgur.com/gallery/rJQiSCH
3. Vaccines are not risk-free, nor will any vaccine ever be 100% risk-free.
But you are:
(a) Using incorrect/false COVID survival rate; and not also considering the "survival rate" of vaccination
(b) Using absolute VAERS-reported death numbers while ignoring COVID absolute death numbers
(c) Totally ignoring COVID "adverse effects" including hospitalization, and known long-COVID morbidities
(d) Totally ignoring unknown unknown risks around COVID infection
Did you actually read what I wrote? Let me capitalize the relevant portion for you to re-read:
1. COVID does not have a 99.98% survival rate. What's your source? MAYBE FOR A CERTAIN POPULATION SLICE, but that's not accurate for general population.
You then link to an article that has the death rate for children and young people. Are children and young people
(a) a certain population slice
(b) general population
Correct, (a) a certain population slice.
If you look at the general population, numbers are higher. Case fatality rate (CFR) depends on many, many factors:
(a) testing rates. In countries with frequent testing, you end up finding far more mild/asymptomatic cases, which pushes up the denominator [cases], which pushes down the case fatality rate (e.g., South Korea, ). In other countries, testing is done more sparsely perhaps for political or cultural reasons (e.g., Egypt, Peru, Brazil, Iran), which may lead to an under-counting of COVID cases, leading to an overestimated CFR.
(b) access to health care, and the prevailing standard of care in a particular city/county/state. In localities where health care is easier to access (cost/insurance matters here) and prevailing standards of care are higher,
(c) population age and co-morbidities distribution. Localities with older populations as well as those with greater obesity, diabetes, etc. will have higher CFR.
(d) other idiosyncratic factors affecting patient behavior. E.g., religious factors favoring praying rather than taking a sick person to a health care facility until the person is gravely ill.
(e) reporting. In some localities, especially poorer rural localities, people die from COVID without ever having professional care, and further may never have a medical examination or post-mortem COVID test. This may result in under-reporting COVID deaths (e.g., India, Bangladesh).
Given all these factors, the "true" CFR really depends on country, or even state or city-level factors.
Nonetheless, if we simply looked at major western European nations and US, we see CFRs in the range of 1-2%.
You are correct re the case fatality rate, it's not 99.98, it is likely much higher. If we listen to the "experts" who have masked and locked people down on the myth of asymptomatic spread and undetected cases, there are tens of thousands more cases that weren't detected. It's always been the elderly and those w multiple comorbidities at risk. Rampant overvaccination of the healthy is just plain stupid, especially here where there is virtually no reduction in infection or transmission, and "status" is being weaponized to persecute those w enough sense to question and reject these chemicals.
My friend, you are using information compiled with Medical Nihilism being the "standard of care" for any poor human being who is labeled "Covid Positive" with a highly inaccurate, over amplified PCR test, which cannot differentiate between Corona Viruses, Influenza Viruses, and SARS-COV-2!
If said poor human victim of the Eugenics plan we have been watching roll out, has heart disease, COPD, and Diabetes, and has the Flu, and our most expensive and corrupt medical system on Earth, sends him or her home until they turn blue from hypoxia, and then puts them in a hospital with Remdesivir and a ventilator as treatment! You can be damn sure that American will be a dead American, and listed as a Covid19 Death.
End of story.
So even with the withholding of HCQ, Zinc, and Zithromax, (Zelenko protocol,) or Ivermectin and Doxycycline and Budesonide, the FLCCC protocol, or Dr. LaTullipppe's protocol, or dozens of others which were found to reduce Covid-19 Deaths and Hospitalization by 85%+++, still, some people still get through this, under these horrifying conditions. Also, it sure does look like a Bioweapon, and now we are force Vaxxing the entire "Free World" with the Chimeric, Toxic, Spike Protien from that Bioweapon by forcing our own cells to produce it!!
Sorry for whomever takes that path willingly. It looks like a very dark road to me. Not saying the Bioweapon is good. Just saying I won't run straight into the gunfire......
2. I disagree with your casting blame wholly on the medical system and current treatment protocols for COVID patients. I think you are also overlooking some very important issues around patient behavior in all this which includes: delaying/avoiding getting tested for COVID, and delaying/avoiding seeing care providers until they're already very seriously ill.
3. I probably strongly differ with you on the efficacy of these alternative treatment protocols. Some of them probably offer some efficacy, but many of them are just placebos as far as COVID goes.
“I am a "conspiracy theorist.” I believe men and women of wealth and power conspire. If you don't think so, then you are what is called "an idiot.” If you believe stuff but fear the label, you are what is called "a coward.”
I read a great comment from a reader on Off-Guardian about not using the term "Conspircy Theorist". When someone calls you that just say that you are a"Conspircy Analylist".
Looking at all of the factors involved on a certain issue, it is very important to "analyize" the data and the sources. This is the responsible way to approach any issue. It takes more critical thinking, reading and research to arrive at this point.
Stay away from emotions....this is what the other side wants a person to do....get angry and get even. Give them some food for thought when they are finished stating their opinion.
In the end, they will be more frustrated with their point of view simply because they will not be able to defend it.
Lastly, I agree with you regarding men and women of power wanting to control the agenda of the scamdemic. We do have a pandemic but it is one of greed and fear. Stay on The Path. Peace.
"People do, on occasion, conspire. There are many theories. Some theories that appear to explain observed phemomena are plausible and supported by evidence. Some imaginative theories are not only unsupported by the evidence, but are implausible to the point of absurdity. If you regularly believe the latter kinds of theories, and further believe they involve a conspiracy, then you are indeed a conspiracy theorist and potentially you're a delusional idiot unwilling or unable to think critically and fairly assess the whole of the evidence."
-CanYouEvenSpellmRNA
1. If SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon, it's a pathetic one. Far better choices existed.
2. The best available evidence is in no way compatible with the bioweapon theory, it's compatible with zoonotic origin, which is consist with past outbreaks (SARS in 2002, MERS in 2012, Zika, Ebola, West Nile, etc.).
Go do some research to learn why the lab leak theory is simply not substantiated by the genomic evidence, even if you believe the preposterous conspiracy theory idea that the Wuhan lab was a gain of function bioweapon facility. 🤨
Anyone who wants a serious discussion can read this paper about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and the genomic evidence, and respond.
A- PCR does not provide information about infection. At the 35-45 cycles of amplification being utilized by most states yields 95%+ false positives, according to many experts. It cannot differentiate between Infuenza A, Influenza B, or SARS-COV-2. And, people can receive positive PCR tests for many months post a Covid Infection. Each test is then counted as a "case" of Covid19.
Absolute fraud.
B- Ivermectin has been proven over and over again to be, actually safe and effective against SARS-COV-2, if prescribed early, as has HCQ, Zinc and Zithromax. Millions of lives have been saved worldwide by adopting early treatment strategies. Look up Dr. Tess Lawrie. Or Steve Kirsch. Or Pierre Kory. Or FLCCC. Maybe you will learn something.
C- Before mRNA Chimeric Spike Protien gene therapy injections became common, and resulted in a 1000 times the harm reported to VAERS, of any previous Biologic, the Harvard Pilgram Study concluded that between 1% and 13% of vaccine injuries are actually reported.
So while I don't know what you know, I do know that you are missing critical information about our current situation, and the absolutely atrocious, completely deadly, policies our government has subjected the citizens it is sworn to serve, to.
Read Peter Breggins book. Or listen to Dr. Peter McCullough. Try learning from Dr. Michael Yeadon, or Dr. Steven Latulippe. Or, or, or.... The whistleblowing is getting LOUD!
1. PCR testing. Have you ever done a PCR test yourself? I worked in a microbio lab, and I have. There are so many myths and preposterous assertions here ... false positive rate, cross-reactivity to influenza, it's hard to know where to begin. PCR tests are not perfect, there are false positives. But holy cow, so much nonsense.
Here's a suggestion: Try reading a couple fact-checks; and/or come back with a link to a source for your claims if you still believe any of them after reading a fact-check.
2. Ivermectin has had so much flawed/bogus research around it, I find it hard to read any new research on it, honestly. I can come back to this topic separately, but almost ever large-effect study I've looked at is hugely problematic; all the small-effect studies are so small and seem to have methological problems. And every credible study I've reviewed shows it's basically no better than placebo. HCQ w/ or w/o Azithromycin, more or less the same thing, except there were some risks for certain people with pre-existing conditions.
I have been extremely hopeful, I'll add, that any of these medications would be a silver bullet. But from the biomechanisms I've reviewed, there's just not great reasons to expect that they would work. And the reputable clinical trial research I've seen, unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be clear evidence that they work any better than placebo.
3. I've also read some of the research from Kory and the other FLCCC doctors. I also find their methods and results **extremely dubious.**
Example:
Kory's latest paper on his so-called MATH+ treatment protocol for COVID.
The paper retracted for multiple issues. First, one of the hospitals at which the MATH+ protocol being tested wrote to the editor to say the data Kory published and interpreted was wrong. The full MATH+ treatment group had higher mortality than the group that only received one of the treatments.
This is problematic for more than it first appears.
(a) First, well, it's obviously not good when the mortality rate in your full treatment protocol group is higher than the group that gets a partial protocol.
(b) The methodology is just... well, I'll say it's not what I'd call good at separating out cause from coincidence. Let me just quote the authors:
"Although the authors place immense value and importance on the need for well-conducted observational and/or randomized controlled trials, in such a novel disease syndrome, it must be recognized that not all institutions possess the necessary experience, resources, or infrastructure to design and conduct such trials, especially during a pandemic. Further, the group decided against a randomized, placebo controlled trial design given that such trials require investigators to possess “clinical equipoise,” which is the belief by the investigator that neither intervention in the control or experimental group is “better.” With respect to each of the individual “core” therapies of MATH+, all authors felt the therapies either superior to any placebo or possessed evidence of minimal risk and cost compared to potential benefit such that use was favored, with these judgements based on not only the rapidly accumulated evidence and insight into COVID-19 but also from our collective knowledge, research, and experience with each of the
component medications in critical illness and other severe
infections."
Basically, they rejected doing a double-blind randomized clinical trial because (a) it's difficult (b) they believe so much that their MATH+ protocol before they've even tested it out.
This is really, really problematic. Things really should be the other way around. If you're super confident in your protocol, it should really easy to agree to doing a double- (or triple-) blind randomized RCT because you know your treatment will work. This kind of attitude lends itself to all kinds of other potential confirmatory biases in the research.
But worst of all, if the treatment appears to "work", you can't really be sure whether it worked or you just happened to give it to the least sick people who would have gotten better at a higher rate than the more sick people even in the absence of the treatment.
As it so happened when the real data was all accounted for, they might have actually given the full protocol to the most sick patients, and perhaps that's why they died at higher rates. But again, without a full randomized/blinded methodology, you just can't really tell if the protocol still did something positive even if the mortality rate was still the highest compared to the partial protocol or untreated/control group.
(c) This is a big one. The fact that the hospital wrote to the journal editors directly to provide correct data and request a retraction is very, very, very troubling. No hospital would do this unless they had already made an effort to first reach out to Dr. Kory directly, shared the new data with him, and asked him to amend the research paper's data and conclusions and, if appropriate, retract the paper. The fact that the hospital wrote directly to the journal strongly suggests that Dr. Kory was not receptive to the data corrections; and/or was unwilling to amend his paper. That kind of intransigence suggests a lack of commitment to high standards of evidence in one's research. And if a researcher is willing to compromise his commitment to that standard, well, one has earned every bit of the very substantial amount of skepticism readers ought to reasonably to other research from himself, his co-authors, and, depending on how his affiliated institutions deal with the matter, even the affiliated institutions, as well.
Just a question w regarding to point b, wasn't the overall mortality rate in the pfizer trial higher in the experimental group? Yes it was. Also, you state '
But worst of all, if the treatment appears to "work", you can't really be sure whether it worked or you just happened to give it to the least sick people who would have gotten better at a higher rate than the more sick people even in the absence of the treatment." All of the vaccine makers developed the jabs using healthy test subjects who were unlimely to experience severe disease in the first place. Why do you devalue alternative treatments for this reason, while advocating for the effectiveness of the jabs??
I couldn't tell for sure but they added tromethsmine after the children's trials right? As in, they never did any trials whatsoever w the tromethamine added.
Although you are in the ball park, even Dr. Malone(inventor of mRNA) agrees is not enough to cause concern. I agree it's concerning they decided to use this as a stabilizer, but in sure the alternatives were worse. Not vaccinated and looking at getting separated from the military after 22 years, and I agree, the data just doesn't support giving children a vaccine with a ridiculously high injury rate.
1. Tris is an alkaline buffer used in mRNA vaccines to stabilize the pH+ so the mRNA doesn't degrade as fast. There's no way the teeny-tiny amount of Tris in a vaccine dose is going to do a damn thing if have a heart attack.
2. I'm fairly sure you're pulling those "vaccine-related myocarditis" death rates from a bad source or out of thin air; COVID vaccines haven't even been around that long. And those rates are wildly at odds with other reporting I've seen. Please provide a link to a reputable source, if you believe these rates are real.
3. Here are some stats to consider:
US, 2021 calendar year to date, < 29 years old only:
US, 2021 calendar year to date, < 29 years old only:
1. 27,053,310 fully vaccinated (55.3% of group)
2. COVID deaths: 3186 (378 among <=18 years old)
3. VAERS-reported deaths related to COVID vaccination: 83 (13 among 12-18 age bracket)
Dr. Fauci??? Is that you? You belong behind bars for crimes against humanity where you can become some big fat greasy guy's buttery cornhole! Seriously dud you are a big fat liar! Comirnaty is NOT available in the US! I have called many pharmacies and clinics and no one has it. It's easy to see that they are doing the bait and switch with the child's vaccine by checking to see if it has to be kept at the same storage temperatures as their adult EUA vaccine. Stop your libtard lies!!!!
0.07 mg dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and 6 mg sucrose ready to dilute with 1.8 mL of sterile 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection available to give out in 0.3 ml doses.
When they answer in the affirmative, it's the same stuff in the same amount going into the arm of someone age 12 and older whether it says Comirnaty or Pfizer BioNTech on the label. It's covered by the same EUA liability protections and CICP program for people who suffer serious adverse effects.
3. You're incoherent, ranting and raving, and not making any sense. The child's vaccine is using Tris buffer instead of phosphate buffered saline (PBS). This choice enables better mRNA stability at warmer temperatures than the adult Pfizer BioNTech/Comirnaty, so the medicines don't lose potency as fast in ordinary freezer temperatures.
What kind of absurd nonsense are you even trying to argue here? That Pfizer "snuck" a secret (totally harmless) ingredient into the kid's vaccine? Or that the original adult formula with PBS buffer is "so toxic" that Pfizer had to correct their errors by swapping the buffer they used in the kid's formula? What's your conspiracy theory?
I would think Richard's concern is that, if tromethamine was needed, why didn't they add it prior to the children's trial to test the actual affect and prove its safety before asking for an eua? It's completely untested, and unproven. Claiming it's safe and will do nothing is a theory not proof. Bleach on its own isn't horrible, but mixed w ammonia u have a problem. How can you conclusively say there won't be some strange unintended reaction by adding tromethamine to the solution, then into a child's body? It's interesting that now thst the jabs are out, and rhe elderly are still dying, it's explained away as 'well they're old w comorbidities'. The opposite happened to hype the danger of covid, age and comorbidities were just ignored and everyone was thrown into a panic. Now the jabs are proven to not prevent infection or transmission, and you and your pharma friends say 'well we never said you wouldn't get infected'. It's no wonder people are confused, they want to believe your type of rhetoric so badly, they simply do without question. They want things back to normal so badly, they'll continue to boost up w the same shit that didn't work the first two times, getting sick and spreading covid themselves on occasion, while they point what's left of their fingers at the unvaccinated as the cause of all their problems. It doesn't matter what you say, or what you post in relation to your pharma science, or what our govt officials say on a given day, they are corrupted and unreliable, to put it nicely, and they are not to be trusted.
Has anyone cracked the code of what the significance of the name COMIRNATY is? It’s too weird to be random. I feel they’re telling us something in the name in plain sight.
The SCARIEST thing here is the automatic legal immunity they get for rolling out the vaccines for children. I had no idea. We have to have that stopped asap. All those people who have been saying all sorts of things about vaccine injuries among children even LONG BEFORE Covid and who I always thought were some Christian Scientists, were actually right. Heavens help this world.
Steve, did the Comirnaty issues come up before the Supreme Court?
Not entirely OT: How can we help jabbed loved ones who are experiencing left shoulder and/or chest pain?
Is this a typo? You said: [They use formula 1 for safety, get approval for formula 2 (safer, less effective), then they roll out formula 2 under EUA] Shouldn't it say: [They use formula 1 for safety, get approval for formula 1 (safer, less effective), then they roll out formula 2 under EUA]?
CanYouSpellmNRA , your sources are all wrote by some form of Big Pharma.. (ONE GROUP) .. We read from THOUSANDS of real Doctors , Nurses , Scientists that prove your BS stories wrong , but of course your sheeple following instinct will argue that the MAJORITY is wrong .. Your a waste of time for any kind of reasoning or explanation that actually holds truth !! Fascinating says , yea he's real credible ... Gates says , yea another psyco .. Pfizer, Death Dealer's now get on your knees and bow , we sure the he'll won't...
Do you see a problem with the PCR test actually testing for CO 19? Besides the problem with the high percentage of false positives, I wonder what it is measuring as I have read that we have not yet isolated the covid 19 virus?
where is the studies that say they used a higher dose in clinical trials then changed it to 1/3 dose? Is there proof or is this just one mans opinion on whats happening
https://www.fda.gov/media/159195/download
All in this download.
30ug mRNA dose (12+ years of age)
10ug mRNA doses (5-11 yrs)
3ug mRNA dose (6m - 4 years)
The document itself is one big fat sick joke. Pfizer needed the EUA amending to include the very youngest children, thereby providing the robust liability shield spoken about here. To get that amendment they reduced the dosage to 1/10th of the original and when, surprise, surprise, it proved safe but entirely ineffective (all in this download) they 'immunobridged'. That is to say inferred efficacy based on comparing antibody production seen in the 6m-5yr group with that seen in trials in older age groups with higher (more effect, more risk) doses.
This was done despite correlation between antibody levels and protection - the underpinning assertion when immunobridging is that there IS a correlation - being as hard to pin down as correlation between viral load and infectiousness.
What I'm saying is immunobridging, when you can't get the actual trial to demonstrate positive benefit, is beyond weak; it's as corrupt as it gets. Especially when you know the endgame has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with achieving corporate immunity from liability.
I know this reply is late in the piece but you can see the date on the download should you choose to avail yourself of it; Pfizer got their EUA amendment July 2022 and guess what? As if by magic Comirnaty (now with a tris-sucrose buffer so not the original 'Comirnaty that Pfizer originally applied for a BLA for) is now orderable in the U.S.......it's almost as if some people, Steve Kirsch included, figured out the game.
So, for the vacvine lover in this thread---- please watch Vaxxed, and Vaxxed 2!
Or, watch Dr. David Ayoub's presentation entitled "Beyound Thimerasol" on Odyssey, or, listen when I say I had Throughbred Horses in Florida, for 30 years, lots of mosquitoes, lots of Encephalitis and West Nile, and with 25 equines, breeding and foaling, the only horse on the farm that dropped dead of Encephalitis was the only horse I'd vaccinated for it, on the recommended schedule! They other 24, which I never, or very, very rarely vaccinated, were fine.
Or that CDC and FDA approved and recommended vaccines almost killed my daughter. Or, read the Control Groups Litigation, showing the unvaccinated are 1000% healthier than the vaccinated, in this country.
Or, the Guinea Bissou study which proved that while the vaccines decreased the deaths in little girls from the diseases they were immunized against, it actually increased over all deaths, specifically from sepsis and pneumonia, and more girls died from those infections than the vaccines saved from common childhood illnesses which are generally not serious.
Consider that the immune system may need our childhood illnesses to develop properly, "harden off," as it were, in order to protect us from serious diseases like cancer and diabetes.
Add up the micrograms of Aluminum in the vaccines and divide by a newborn's blood volume, and you will see why babies born during the pandemic who didn't receive well baby doctor visits are now meeting milestones in development of twice their biological age...and why SIDS nearly vanished!
Once, if ever in this toxic pharmacological landscape we inhabit, we actually do the full blown vaxxed vs unvaxxed study, we will all be horrified how deeply we damaged all our kids. I know it. Just sad how many others do not.
This is what should be happening to Pfizer and FDA.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/tulare-county-man-indicted-falsely-marketing-herbal-mixtures-fda-approved-treatment
For the few who want to get your kid "jabbed" just know this.
The FDA says that Pfizer-BioNTech and Comirnaty have the same active ingredients. The label insert for Comirnaty (a legal document) states that it "has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity or impairment of male fertility." In plain English, this means that Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines may cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity or impairment of male fertility. In the interest of honesty, please inform your child of this risk. If you know what the big words mean, have your child look them up and explain them to you. This is why they will not produce Comirnaty in the US any time soon, they would be liable for the above injuries, while they enjoy protection under EUA.
The Covid-19 vaccines were touted as "safe and effective". However, the United States Supreme Court has stated that "safe" is not the equivalent of "risk-free". Indus. Union Dept. v. Amer. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 608 (1980). Further, in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, 562 U.S. 223 (2011), the Supreme Court concluded that "vaccines are unavoidably unsafe". It is both unethical and immoral for anyone to force another human being to participate in any experimental drug program that is inherently risky and "unsafe".
Finally, there is no FDA-approved "Comirnaty". It is a federal crime to misbrand any drug. Misbranding includes any false or misleading representation. No Comirnaty has ever been distributed or administered in the United States. Yes, I can prove this. However, because this will be an issue in upcoming litigation the source will remain confidential (although savvy sincere sleuths could find it). I hope this puts an end to the nonsense.
https://www.fda.gov/media/151707/download
There is not ONE SINGLE VACCINE that has been evaluated for carcinogenic potential, mutagenic potential, or impairment of fertility. Read section 13 of any package insert.
We have no idea whether or not our vaccine could potentially be causing the cancer, auto-immune diseases, and chronic issues that plague our nation.
It's criminal.
Love it when someone is seeing the elephant in the room!
Not effective, period! Otherwise booster shots in perpetuity would not be needed.
1. You don't understand the immune system.
2. You don't understand vaccines, or what effective means.
3. You don't understand not all viruses are the same.
4. You ignore the fact that conventional vaccines already require 2, 3, 4, or even 5 shots to achieve lifetime immunity. And even then, if you step on a rusty nail, the first thing you're going to get at the doctors office is another DTP booster.
jaja, welcome to our brigade 77 friends
Also:
5. You also ignore that "natural" immunity does not mean lifetime immunity either.
Your #1 comment is stupid, hyperbolic, and unprovable. Why should anyone believe anything else you wrote? You have lost the ability to think clearly.
Doesn't change the absolute fact that these "vaccines" are the most dangerous ever deployed. They have killed more people in less than 1 year than all vaccines for the last 30 years combined. 1,000s killed and almost 900,000 injured as recorded in a data base that is roundly acknowledged to only collect 10% of all cases. There are no long term safety studies, only "research". mRNA has a long spotted history of development. For a virus that has a 99.98% survival rate, and that includes me, they can shove these injections up their ass!
1. COVID does not have a 99.98% survival rate. What's your source? Maybe for some a certain population slice, but that's not accurate for general population.
2. Have you actually looked at any charts that show COVID deaths vs. VAERS-reported deaths lately? Here's the US data: https://imgur.com/gallery/rJQiSCH
3. Vaccines are not risk-free, nor will any vaccine ever be 100% risk-free.
But you are:
(a) Using incorrect/false COVID survival rate; and not also considering the "survival rate" of vaccination
(b) Using absolute VAERS-reported death numbers while ignoring COVID absolute death numbers
(c) Totally ignoring COVID "adverse effects" including hospitalization, and known long-COVID morbidities
(d) Totally ignoring unknown unknown risks around COVID infection
That's not reasonable, and it's not smart.
If I were you, I'd just leave. What you are writing is simply SHAMEFUL. Go on your merry, Big Pharma marketing, PR way...
Your #1 is wrong again, as always. All I have to reply to is your #1. You are an easy target because you are so consistently wrong.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-689684/v1
Did you actually read what I wrote? Let me capitalize the relevant portion for you to re-read:
1. COVID does not have a 99.98% survival rate. What's your source? MAYBE FOR A CERTAIN POPULATION SLICE, but that's not accurate for general population.
You then link to an article that has the death rate for children and young people. Are children and young people
(a) a certain population slice
(b) general population
Correct, (a) a certain population slice.
If you look at the general population, numbers are higher. Case fatality rate (CFR) depends on many, many factors:
(a) testing rates. In countries with frequent testing, you end up finding far more mild/asymptomatic cases, which pushes up the denominator [cases], which pushes down the case fatality rate (e.g., South Korea, ). In other countries, testing is done more sparsely perhaps for political or cultural reasons (e.g., Egypt, Peru, Brazil, Iran), which may lead to an under-counting of COVID cases, leading to an overestimated CFR.
(b) access to health care, and the prevailing standard of care in a particular city/county/state. In localities where health care is easier to access (cost/insurance matters here) and prevailing standards of care are higher,
(c) population age and co-morbidities distribution. Localities with older populations as well as those with greater obesity, diabetes, etc. will have higher CFR.
(d) other idiosyncratic factors affecting patient behavior. E.g., religious factors favoring praying rather than taking a sick person to a health care facility until the person is gravely ill.
(e) reporting. In some localities, especially poorer rural localities, people die from COVID without ever having professional care, and further may never have a medical examination or post-mortem COVID test. This may result in under-reporting COVID deaths (e.g., India, Bangladesh).
Given all these factors, the "true" CFR really depends on country, or even state or city-level factors.
Nonetheless, if we simply looked at major western European nations and US, we see CFRs in the range of 1-2%.
References:
1. https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid
2. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-19-cumulative-confirmed-cases-vs-confirmed-deaths?minPopulationFilter=1000000
just a concerned brigade 77 citizen, trying to help us all not be fooled by our lying eyes.
You are correct re the case fatality rate, it's not 99.98, it is likely much higher. If we listen to the "experts" who have masked and locked people down on the myth of asymptomatic spread and undetected cases, there are tens of thousands more cases that weren't detected. It's always been the elderly and those w multiple comorbidities at risk. Rampant overvaccination of the healthy is just plain stupid, especially here where there is virtually no reduction in infection or transmission, and "status" is being weaponized to persecute those w enough sense to question and reject these chemicals.
My friend, you are using information compiled with Medical Nihilism being the "standard of care" for any poor human being who is labeled "Covid Positive" with a highly inaccurate, over amplified PCR test, which cannot differentiate between Corona Viruses, Influenza Viruses, and SARS-COV-2!
If said poor human victim of the Eugenics plan we have been watching roll out, has heart disease, COPD, and Diabetes, and has the Flu, and our most expensive and corrupt medical system on Earth, sends him or her home until they turn blue from hypoxia, and then puts them in a hospital with Remdesivir and a ventilator as treatment! You can be damn sure that American will be a dead American, and listed as a Covid19 Death.
End of story.
So even with the withholding of HCQ, Zinc, and Zithromax, (Zelenko protocol,) or Ivermectin and Doxycycline and Budesonide, the FLCCC protocol, or Dr. LaTullipppe's protocol, or dozens of others which were found to reduce Covid-19 Deaths and Hospitalization by 85%+++, still, some people still get through this, under these horrifying conditions. Also, it sure does look like a Bioweapon, and now we are force Vaxxing the entire "Free World" with the Chimeric, Toxic, Spike Protien from that Bioweapon by forcing our own cells to produce it!!
Sorry for whomever takes that path willingly. It looks like a very dark road to me. Not saying the Bioweapon is good. Just saying I won't run straight into the gunfire......
1. I don't think you really understand PCR testing, it's specificity, or the real causes of false positives. If you want to learn more, please go read: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7934325/
2. I disagree with your casting blame wholly on the medical system and current treatment protocols for COVID patients. I think you are also overlooking some very important issues around patient behavior in all this which includes: delaying/avoiding getting tested for COVID, and delaying/avoiding seeing care providers until they're already very seriously ill.
3. I probably strongly differ with you on the efficacy of these alternative treatment protocols. Some of them probably offer some efficacy, but many of them are just placebos as far as COVID goes.
4. The "bioweapon" stuff is conspiracy nonsense.
“I am a "conspiracy theorist.” I believe men and women of wealth and power conspire. If you don't think so, then you are what is called "an idiot.” If you believe stuff but fear the label, you are what is called "a coward.”
-- David B. Collum
That statement is perfect! And made me laugh, as well!
I read a great comment from a reader on Off-Guardian about not using the term "Conspircy Theorist". When someone calls you that just say that you are a"Conspircy Analylist".
Looking at all of the factors involved on a certain issue, it is very important to "analyize" the data and the sources. This is the responsible way to approach any issue. It takes more critical thinking, reading and research to arrive at this point.
Stay away from emotions....this is what the other side wants a person to do....get angry and get even. Give them some food for thought when they are finished stating their opinion.
In the end, they will be more frustrated with their point of view simply because they will not be able to defend it.
Lastly, I agree with you regarding men and women of power wanting to control the agenda of the scamdemic. We do have a pandemic but it is one of greed and fear. Stay on The Path. Peace.
"People do, on occasion, conspire. There are many theories. Some theories that appear to explain observed phemomena are plausible and supported by evidence. Some imaginative theories are not only unsupported by the evidence, but are implausible to the point of absurdity. If you regularly believe the latter kinds of theories, and further believe they involve a conspiracy, then you are indeed a conspiracy theorist and potentially you're a delusional idiot unwilling or unable to think critically and fairly assess the whole of the evidence."
-CanYouEvenSpellmRNA
1. If SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon, it's a pathetic one. Far better choices existed.
2. The best available evidence is in no way compatible with the bioweapon theory, it's compatible with zoonotic origin, which is consist with past outbreaks (SARS in 2002, MERS in 2012, Zika, Ebola, West Nile, etc.).
Go do some research to learn why the lab leak theory is simply not substantiated by the genomic evidence, even if you believe the preposterous conspiracy theory idea that the Wuhan lab was a gain of function bioweapon facility. 🤨
Anyone who wants a serious discussion can read this paper about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and the genomic evidence, and respond.
https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(21)00991-0.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjHwJr0kpL0AhWFNX0KHT9AD8Q4ChAWegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw0iEsZ7x3_MUNV63LEutmTs
Correct link: https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(21)00991-0.pdf
A- PCR does not provide information about infection. At the 35-45 cycles of amplification being utilized by most states yields 95%+ false positives, according to many experts. It cannot differentiate between Infuenza A, Influenza B, or SARS-COV-2. And, people can receive positive PCR tests for many months post a Covid Infection. Each test is then counted as a "case" of Covid19.
Absolute fraud.
B- Ivermectin has been proven over and over again to be, actually safe and effective against SARS-COV-2, if prescribed early, as has HCQ, Zinc and Zithromax. Millions of lives have been saved worldwide by adopting early treatment strategies. Look up Dr. Tess Lawrie. Or Steve Kirsch. Or Pierre Kory. Or FLCCC. Maybe you will learn something.
C- Before mRNA Chimeric Spike Protien gene therapy injections became common, and resulted in a 1000 times the harm reported to VAERS, of any previous Biologic, the Harvard Pilgram Study concluded that between 1% and 13% of vaccine injuries are actually reported.
So while I don't know what you know, I do know that you are missing critical information about our current situation, and the absolutely atrocious, completely deadly, policies our government has subjected the citizens it is sworn to serve, to.
Read Peter Breggins book. Or listen to Dr. Peter McCullough. Try learning from Dr. Michael Yeadon, or Dr. Steven Latulippe. Or, or, or.... The whistleblowing is getting LOUD!
1. PCR testing. Have you ever done a PCR test yourself? I worked in a microbio lab, and I have. There are so many myths and preposterous assertions here ... false positive rate, cross-reactivity to influenza, it's hard to know where to begin. PCR tests are not perfect, there are false positives. But holy cow, so much nonsense.
Here's a suggestion: Try reading a couple fact-checks; and/or come back with a link to a source for your claims if you still believe any of them after reading a fact-check.
2. Ivermectin has had so much flawed/bogus research around it, I find it hard to read any new research on it, honestly. I can come back to this topic separately, but almost ever large-effect study I've looked at is hugely problematic; all the small-effect studies are so small and seem to have methological problems. And every credible study I've reviewed shows it's basically no better than placebo. HCQ w/ or w/o Azithromycin, more or less the same thing, except there were some risks for certain people with pre-existing conditions.
I have been extremely hopeful, I'll add, that any of these medications would be a silver bullet. But from the biomechanisms I've reviewed, there's just not great reasons to expect that they would work. And the reputable clinical trial research I've seen, unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be clear evidence that they work any better than placebo.
3. I've also read some of the research from Kory and the other FLCCC doctors. I also find their methods and results **extremely dubious.**
Example:
Kory's latest paper on his so-called MATH+ treatment protocol for COVID.
The paper retracted for multiple issues. First, one of the hospitals at which the MATH+ protocol being tested wrote to the editor to say the data Kory published and interpreted was wrong. The full MATH+ treatment group had higher mortality than the group that only received one of the treatments.
This is problematic for more than it first appears.
(a) First, well, it's obviously not good when the mortality rate in your full treatment protocol group is higher than the group that gets a partial protocol.
(b) The methodology is just... well, I'll say it's not what I'd call good at separating out cause from coincidence. Let me just quote the authors:
"Although the authors place immense value and importance on the need for well-conducted observational and/or randomized controlled trials, in such a novel disease syndrome, it must be recognized that not all institutions possess the necessary experience, resources, or infrastructure to design and conduct such trials, especially during a pandemic. Further, the group decided against a randomized, placebo controlled trial design given that such trials require investigators to possess “clinical equipoise,” which is the belief by the investigator that neither intervention in the control or experimental group is “better.” With respect to each of the individual “core” therapies of MATH+, all authors felt the therapies either superior to any placebo or possessed evidence of minimal risk and cost compared to potential benefit such that use was favored, with these judgements based on not only the rapidly accumulated evidence and insight into COVID-19 but also from our collective knowledge, research, and experience with each of the
component medications in critical illness and other severe
infections."
Basically, they rejected doing a double-blind randomized clinical trial because (a) it's difficult (b) they believe so much that their MATH+ protocol before they've even tested it out.
This is really, really problematic. Things really should be the other way around. If you're super confident in your protocol, it should really easy to agree to doing a double- (or triple-) blind randomized RCT because you know your treatment will work. This kind of attitude lends itself to all kinds of other potential confirmatory biases in the research.
But worst of all, if the treatment appears to "work", you can't really be sure whether it worked or you just happened to give it to the least sick people who would have gotten better at a higher rate than the more sick people even in the absence of the treatment.
As it so happened when the real data was all accounted for, they might have actually given the full protocol to the most sick patients, and perhaps that's why they died at higher rates. But again, without a full randomized/blinded methodology, you just can't really tell if the protocol still did something positive even if the mortality rate was still the highest compared to the partial protocol or untreated/control group.
(c) This is a big one. The fact that the hospital wrote to the journal editors directly to provide correct data and request a retraction is very, very, very troubling. No hospital would do this unless they had already made an effort to first reach out to Dr. Kory directly, shared the new data with him, and asked him to amend the research paper's data and conclusions and, if appropriate, retract the paper. The fact that the hospital wrote directly to the journal strongly suggests that Dr. Kory was not receptive to the data corrections; and/or was unwilling to amend his paper. That kind of intransigence suggests a lack of commitment to high standards of evidence in one's research. And if a researcher is willing to compromise his commitment to that standard, well, one has earned every bit of the very substantial amount of skepticism readers ought to reasonably to other research from himself, his co-authors, and, depending on how his affiliated institutions deal with the matter, even the affiliated institutions, as well.
Go read the article yourself: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0885066620973585
Just a question w regarding to point b, wasn't the overall mortality rate in the pfizer trial higher in the experimental group? Yes it was. Also, you state '
But worst of all, if the treatment appears to "work", you can't really be sure whether it worked or you just happened to give it to the least sick people who would have gotten better at a higher rate than the more sick people even in the absence of the treatment." All of the vaccine makers developed the jabs using healthy test subjects who were unlimely to experience severe disease in the first place. Why do you devalue alternative treatments for this reason, while advocating for the effectiveness of the jabs??
Troll
They have added Tromethamine to the child COVID poison. This is a blood acid reducer which is used to stabilize people with heart attacks.
This tidbit is buried on page 14 in the Pfizer paperwork submitted to the FDA.
What is acceptable about giving a vaccine to children that you anticipate is going to cause heart attacks?
Vaccine related myocarditis has a 20 percent fatality rate in children after two years, and a 50 percent fatality rate in five years.
This is premeditated murder.
I couldn't tell for sure but they added tromethsmine after the children's trials right? As in, they never did any trials whatsoever w the tromethamine added.
Although you are in the ball park, even Dr. Malone(inventor of mRNA) agrees is not enough to cause concern. I agree it's concerning they decided to use this as a stabilizer, but in sure the alternatives were worse. Not vaccinated and looking at getting separated from the military after 22 years, and I agree, the data just doesn't support giving children a vaccine with a ridiculously high injury rate.
1. Tris is an alkaline buffer used in mRNA vaccines to stabilize the pH+ so the mRNA doesn't degrade as fast. There's no way the teeny-tiny amount of Tris in a vaccine dose is going to do a damn thing if have a heart attack.
2. I'm fairly sure you're pulling those "vaccine-related myocarditis" death rates from a bad source or out of thin air; COVID vaccines haven't even been around that long. And those rates are wildly at odds with other reporting I've seen. Please provide a link to a reputable source, if you believe these rates are real.
3. Here are some stats to consider:
US, 2021 calendar year to date, < 29 years old only:
US, 2021 calendar year to date, < 29 years old only:
1. 27,053,310 fully vaccinated (55.3% of group)
2. COVID deaths: 3186 (378 among <=18 years old)
3. VAERS-reported deaths related to COVID vaccination: 83 (13 among 12-18 age bracket)
Sources:
1. https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex-and-Age/9bhg-hcku
2. https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html
3. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-total-admin-rate-total
Dr. Fauci??? Is that you? You belong behind bars for crimes against humanity where you can become some big fat greasy guy's buttery cornhole! Seriously dud you are a big fat liar! Comirnaty is NOT available in the US! I have called many pharmacies and clinics and no one has it. It's easy to see that they are doing the bait and switch with the child's vaccine by checking to see if it has to be kept at the same storage temperatures as their adult EUA vaccine. Stop your libtard lies!!!!
1. You might need a chill pill, bro. You seem stressed.
2. OK, deep breath, now pick up the phone again. Call your pharmacy or doctor's office and ask them if they have any vials containing the following:
30 mcg of a nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (mRNA) encoding the viral spike (S) glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, along with lipids (0.43 mg
((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate), 0.05 mg 2-(polyethylene glycol 2000)-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide, 0.09 mg 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, and 0.2 mg cholesterol), 0.01 mg potassium chloride, 0.01 mg monobasic potassium phosphate, 0.36 mg sodium chloride,
0.07 mg dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and 6 mg sucrose ready to dilute with 1.8 mL of sterile 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection available to give out in 0.3 ml doses.
When they answer in the affirmative, it's the same stuff in the same amount going into the arm of someone age 12 and older whether it says Comirnaty or Pfizer BioNTech on the label. It's covered by the same EUA liability protections and CICP program for people who suffer serious adverse effects.
3. You're incoherent, ranting and raving, and not making any sense. The child's vaccine is using Tris buffer instead of phosphate buffered saline (PBS). This choice enables better mRNA stability at warmer temperatures than the adult Pfizer BioNTech/Comirnaty, so the medicines don't lose potency as fast in ordinary freezer temperatures.
What kind of absurd nonsense are you even trying to argue here? That Pfizer "snuck" a secret (totally harmless) ingredient into the kid's vaccine? Or that the original adult formula with PBS buffer is "so toxic" that Pfizer had to correct their errors by swapping the buffer they used in the kid's formula? What's your conspiracy theory?
I would think Richard's concern is that, if tromethamine was needed, why didn't they add it prior to the children's trial to test the actual affect and prove its safety before asking for an eua? It's completely untested, and unproven. Claiming it's safe and will do nothing is a theory not proof. Bleach on its own isn't horrible, but mixed w ammonia u have a problem. How can you conclusively say there won't be some strange unintended reaction by adding tromethamine to the solution, then into a child's body? It's interesting that now thst the jabs are out, and rhe elderly are still dying, it's explained away as 'well they're old w comorbidities'. The opposite happened to hype the danger of covid, age and comorbidities were just ignored and everyone was thrown into a panic. Now the jabs are proven to not prevent infection or transmission, and you and your pharma friends say 'well we never said you wouldn't get infected'. It's no wonder people are confused, they want to believe your type of rhetoric so badly, they simply do without question. They want things back to normal so badly, they'll continue to boost up w the same shit that didn't work the first two times, getting sick and spreading covid themselves on occasion, while they point what's left of their fingers at the unvaccinated as the cause of all their problems. It doesn't matter what you say, or what you post in relation to your pharma science, or what our govt officials say on a given day, they are corrupted and unreliable, to put it nicely, and they are not to be trusted.
or, he's just a troll
Is this what we use in Australia?
Yes, and NZ
Please read this, Comirnaty has liability protection
They have immunity for Comirnaty.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/14/2021-19790/ninth-amendment-to-declaration-under-the-public-readiness-and-emergency-preparedness-act-for-medical
I thought Steve was saying the liability will be only for kids due to a specific rule.
no, Steve was saying that once it's approved for children, they will have liability protection for all age groups, due to a specific rule.
That might have been what Steve was trying to say.
Steve is not correct.
haha, not even smart enough to read Steve's writing where what he was trying to say was very clear.
But of course he's not as smart as an anonymous troll, for sure.