Jump to content

Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss


dogfish78

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Screaming "State's rights" isn't gonna get your stuff from the California ports to Texas.

Putting a mask on might. 

No, you've actually been quite helpful in demonstrating that no amount of scientific evidence or reality is going to change California's mind, so why should the rest of us suffer? In the hopes that they'll stick to whatever new reopening metric they invent and subsequently disregard?

If they fuck their ports up enough, it'll just cause new ports to spring up elsewhere. I'm sure Mexico would love the port business, and you can drive trucks from Mexico straight into Texas.

 

Remember, the business interests that made California an economic powerhouse were born of a much more conservative governance. Stray too far from that and the business will (continue to) leave. 

Edited by Lord Ratner
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

 

3 pages back you you said you'd be a contentious objector after almost 20 years of service if your religious exemption got denied.  So after almost 20 years of service, are you a contentious objector or aren't you?  Or more direct question, if you're active duty; did your commander give you a direct order to take the Pfizer shot?  And if so, did you refuse the direct order?  How deep does your dedication to your beliefs on the Constitution (and what your view as an illegal order) go? 

More importantly, after 49 pages of thrash over the COVID shot, how many active duty members on this forum have actually chosen to separate over the military COVID vaccine mandate?  Not asking Reserve or Guard, not asking waiting on a valid religious or medical exemption.  I get that BaseOps is place that some come to bitch about military matters in general; if people stop bitching, there's probably something wrong.  But I have yet to encounter an actual mass resistance on active duty to the mandate.   

I literally know of one person out of probably 500+ that has actually chosen to separate over the vaccine mandate.  That person will be civilian in a couple weeks.  I wish him the best of luck.

  I don't give a baker's fuck about the civilian side of this argument; I'm not a civilian and won't be for a couple years at least.  FWIW, I don't think on the civilian side that the government should be able to go door-to-door sticking a needle in anyone's arms.  That's not my farm and not my monkey's.  This isn't even close to the dumbest vaccine the military has made me get (JEV and Anthrax would take that trophy).

  Seriously, how many on active duty on this forum have actually directly refused the order to get vaccine?  And how many people, besides Negatory (noted exception, good for you), have actually changed their beliefs based on the dialogue on this thread? 

  

  1.  If someone were to come to me and give me a direct order to get a covid shot, I’d tell them to their face that I don’t believe it’s a lawful order and that if they really want to directly order me, then they can put it in writing.    Then, I’ll file it away for a lawsuit.   To date, there haven’t been any takers.  
 

2.  I won’t separate   That’s giving up. It does nothing to fight the situation.  
 

3.   I object to getting the vaccine.  Yes.  There is minimal risk to our demographic and definitely not one that outweighs my religious waiver.  
 

 

 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1.  If someone were to come to me and give me a direct order to get a covid shot, I’d tell them to their face that I don’t believe it’s a lawful order and that if they really want to directly order me, then they can put it in writing.    Then, I’ll file it away for a lawsuit.   To date, there haven’t been any takers.  
 
2.  I won’t separate   That’s giving up. It does nothing to fight the situation.  
 
3.   I object to getting the vaccine.  Yes.  There is minimal risk to our demographic and definitely not one that outweighs my religious waiver.  
 
 
 
 
 

1. I’m pretty sure that argument won’t hold up as the vaccine was mandated by SECAF, as he was directed to do by SECDEF.

2. You’re likely to be forcibly separated. Good luck.

3. Has your religious waiver been approved? I haven’t heard of one yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Prozac said:

That may be true, but like it or not, Texas’s and California’s economies are intertwined. You live in a country that’s half blue. You don’t have to like it, but that’s reality. I choose to take a realist’s position here and “play the game” when it comes to masking. It’s such a small sacrifice, I really fail to understand all the histrionics behind the “masks are tyranny” crowd. 

Kind of like the same rationale that requiring an ID to vote is racist…

Some people want others to mask because it’s makes them feel safer, and some people want others to show an ID because it makes them feel that the election is more secure.

So much for feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bennynova said:

  1.  If someone were to come to me and give me a direct order to get a covid shot, I’d tell them to their face that I don’t believe it’s a lawful order and that if they really want to directly order me, then they can put it in writing.    Then, I’ll file it away for a lawsuit.   To date, there haven’t been any takers.  
 

2.  I won’t separate   That’s giving up. It does nothing to fight the situation.  
 

3.   I object to getting the vaccine.  Yes.  There is minimal risk to our demographic and definitely not one that outweighs my religious waiver.  
 

 

 
 

 

Pretty sure SECDEF put that order in writing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, UPT-hopeful said:

SecDef’s order was only for FDA fully licensed shots which are currently unavailable. Service members are welcome to volunteer for EUA shots. The order cannot currently be fulfilled. The devil is in the details, as they say. 

No he just named the generic name of the shot. Its the same shot. Its like saying you wont take advil but you’ll take ibprufin because they are different.

I think people make valid points but that one seems like such a reach to me.

Edited by MCO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MCO said:

No he just named the generic name of the shot. Its the same shot. Its like saying you wont take advil but you’ll take ibprufin because they are different.

The FDA labels them legally distinct. 
They may be chemically similar (or even the same), but there is more to full FDA licensure than chemicals: manufacture, storage, transportation. 
 

Legally distinct. 

Edited by UPT-hopeful
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, UPT-hopeful said:

The FDA labels them legally distinct. 
They may be chemically similar (or even the same), but there is more to fill FDA licensure than chemicals: manufacture, storage, transportation. 
 

Legally distinct. 

Good luck fighting that one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MCO said:

Good luck fighting that one

That’s the whole point. Who can legally order that service members receive EUA shots?

Hint: it’s not SecDef. 

The person that legally can, hasn’t, because the events that are required for that order haven’t happened. 
 

Once FDA fully licensed shots become available in the US, EUA shots can no longer be provided (that’s a lot of money, I mean doses). Do you see where this trail leads?

Edited by UPT-hopeful
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, UPT-hopeful said:

That’s the whole point. Who can legally order that service members receive EUA shots?

Hint: it’s not SecDef. 

The person that legally can, hasn’t, because the events that are required for that order haven’t happened. 
 

Once FDA fully licensed shots become available in the US, EUA shots can no longer be provided (that’s a lot of money, I mean doses). Do you see where this trail leads?

It leads to semantics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, UPT-hopeful said:

Words mean things. Semantics are important when dealing with legal ramifications of volunteering for a shot vs being legally ordered to receive a shot. 
 

Like I’ve said, people have made decent arguments against the shot, but the Pfizer vs generic argument seems like it’s grasping for any loophole and lacks understanding of how they name vaccines and drugs. Good luck to the guys that make that their hill though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Words mean things. Semantics are important when dealing with legal ramifications of volunteering for a shot vs being legally ordered to receive a shot. 
 

You want to press to test? I guarantee your “words mean things” argument won’t stop your admin discharge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MCO said:

Like I’ve said, people have made decent arguments against the shot, but the Pfizer vs generic argument seems like it’s grasping for any loophole and lacks understanding of how they name vaccines and drugs. Good luck to the guys that make that their hill though.

Except this isn’t a generic vs name brand battle. You’re misunderstanding, which is okay. 
 

Emergency Use Authorization vs FDA Fully Licensed 

The SecDef memo isn’t just words on a sheet, the actual instruction piece is only one sentence. Summarized: “mandatory vaccinations will use FDA fully licensed shots”

”SMs can volunteer to take EUA shots”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CaptainMorgan said:


You want to press to test? I guarantee your “words mean things” argument won’t stop your admin discharge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Standing by for discharge papers, but just like a fully FDA licensed shot, they haven’t appeared. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FDA labels them legally distinct. 
They may be chemically similar (or even the same), but there is more to full FDA licensure than chemicals: manufacture, storage, transportation. 
 
Legally distinct. 

No they don’t. From the FDA website:
“On August 23, 2021, FDA announced the first approval of a COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty, for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, CaptainMorgan said:


No they don’t. From the FDA website:
“On August 23, 2021, FDA announced the first approval of a COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty, for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is Comirnaty interchangeable with other COVID-19 vaccines?

Comirnaty has the same formulation as the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.
 

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/qa-comirnaty-covid-19-vaccine-mrna
 

current as of 10/20/21

 

“safety and effectiveness the same” but still “legally distinct”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, pawnman said:

Less than 8000 are active duty. 

You sound happy about it.

8,000 decided not to follow this order.  It may or may not be legal.  That aspect is still TBD.

But 8,000 refused this order.  From only one of the services.

Think about that.

I'm sure senior DoD and USAF are not.

It's not their money and they are in the twilight of their careers, soon to be on various boards, etc.  

Screw the destruction of morale and faith in the military system.

8,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UPT-hopeful said:

Is Comirnaty interchangeable with other COVID-19 vaccines?

Comirnaty has the same formulation as the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness.
 

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/qa-comirnaty-covid-19-vaccine-mrna
 

current as of 10/20/21

 

“safety and effectiveness the same” but still “legally distinct”

So if the DOD produced some vials with the “right” label on them, would you roll up your sleeve? I’m guessing for most who have refused the vax, the answer is no….they’ll just then focus on some other nonsensical reason they shouldn’t have to take the shot. I find this whole Comirnaty argument, along with the “religious” objections to be disingenuous and inconsistent with coherent thought.
 

In fact, that’s a true statement for almost all of the objections I’ve heard, military or otherwise. It’s a vaccine. It’s not gene therapy (not even close). Comirnaty is the “same formulation” as the EUA shot. It was developed with research used by many other pharmaceutical and consumer products that have not caused religious uproar in the past. It works. It’s not 100% effective but it still makes it far less likely that you will contract, spread, or be hospitalized by Covid. Finally, due to the nature of how vaccines work (yes, including this one), it is out of your system within the matter of a few days, which makes long term issues exceedingly unlikely. 
 

Some may have legitimate religious or medical concerns. If your doctor is recommending you avoid vaccination for whatever reason, I feel for you. If you have strong religious objections, well, maybe a horse and buggy in PA, avoiding the pitfalls of modern day life is more your style. For the vast majority though, sorry, I’m waving the bullshit flag. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • M2 locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...