WHO Adverse Reaction Reporting site seems to challenge narrative.

originally posted by: Type1338

lol...you have no data. Get back to me 10 years from now after you have something.

Great comeback Dr. PHD in everything... Yes, please talk to me again in 10 years.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Type1338

lol...you have no data. Get back to me 10 years from now after you have something.

Great comeback Dr. PHD in everything... Yes, please talk to me again in 10 years.

Show me the data. Oh yeah...THERE IS NONE.

Move along and take your medicine.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

Technically and legally nobody has gotten the approved vaccine yet because the EUA is still in effect. If the EUA was dropped, then the only vaccine allowed would be the approved one.

It is a legal issue that is going to result in a lot of suits coming.

Unless J&J, Moderna and AstraZeneca get FDA approval before the EUA is up, they will be taken off market.

This is also the reason you still haven't seen any advertisements for the Pfizer vaccine from Pfizer at all.

Until the EUA is over, there is nobody legally getting an approved vaxx.

I'm not sure you can sue either way as approved vaccines are also protected from litigation. The bottom line is the vaccine has received approval and the machine that made the unnamed EUA vaccine is the same that makes the named approved one with no changes in the process, so basically a different label is the only difference.

If a person was saying that they will wait for the FDA to approve then we are there now unless their reason to wait is based on the chance to sue if they get the approved one which I don't think they can no matter what.

This is why we are starting to see companies mandate vaccines more. I would bet they are keeping the EUA in place to use up the billions of vaccines out there that would need to be scrapped if they stopped the EUA now just because it is not the new named vaccine. They will use them up and then remove the EUA and move on with the one with the new label.

In my other thread specifically on this matter I laid out the evidence and have proven that nobody has gotten an approved vax at this point. Not a single person. And nobody will until the EUA is lifted.

There is absolutely reason to sue. A mandate on a vaccine must follow the mandate that it is approved. Nothing being given at this time is approved. It it were then no other vaccines would be available.

It is all about the legal wording and semantics involved.

Feel free to prove me wrong. I welcome the debate.

Here is my other thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Type1338

Show me the data. Oh yeah...THERE IS NONE.

Move along and take your medicine.

For F sakes dude I didn't just make crap up...lol Go read my last 100 posts for data, or you can easily find it too. Not really sure your point in all this as people join a conversation and want a repeat of crap already posted 100 times. What data are you looking for BTW

Show me the data says jack squat. Put forth pointed question and maybe I will help, but why should I since you are a one liner and for some reason you expect me to jump through your hoops.

That is why I suggest to lets talk in 10 years...lol

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

In my other thread specifically on this matter I laid out the evidence and have proven that nobody has gotten an approved vax at this point. Not a single person. And nobody will until the EUA is lifted.

There is absolutely reason to sue. A mandate on a vaccine must follow the mandate that it is approved. Nothing being given at this time is approved. It it were then no other vaccines would be available.

It is all about the legal wording and semantics involved.

I do agree with you it is all about "legal wording and semantics" BUT I think vaccines under a EUA is as protected as approved one, so I'm not in a debate with you on this, but there will be no litigations on the EUA, especially when the SC steps in and supports it.

We also need real negative side effects and it is really all smoke and mirrors as to what bias narrative is pushing what. So I guess we sit back and let it play out, but I think your opinion is that there has been a massive number of serious side effects from the vaccine and I don't believe that is true.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

In my other thread specifically on this matter I laid out the evidence and have proven that nobody has gotten an approved vax at this point. Not a single person. And nobody will until the EUA is lifted.

There is absolutely reason to sue. A mandate on a vaccine must follow the mandate that it is approved. Nothing being given at this time is approved. It it were then no other vaccines would be available.

It is all about the legal wording and semantics involved.

I do agree with you it is all about "legal wording and semantics" BUT I think vaccines under a EUA is as protected as approved one, so I'm not in a debate with you on this, but there will be no litigations on the EUA, especially when the SC steps in and supports it.

We also need real negative side effects and it is really all smoke and mirrors as to what bias narrative is pushing what. So I guess we sit back and let it play out, but I think your opinion is that there has been a massive number of serious side effects from the vaccine and I don't believe that is true.

The only way the SC can support it is by changing the wording of the EUA. That or immediately cutting off any other vaccine besides properly labeled comirnaty.

You can sell Pepsi under a Coca-Cola label.

My argument has nothing to do with side effects.....it is the legality of it. My argument takes the "conspiracy" angle out of the issue.

While I do think we will see other problems pop up, that has nothing to do with why the mandate is not legally defensible at this point.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

The only way the SC can support it is by changing the wording of the EUA. That or immediately cutting off any other vaccine besides properly labeled comirnaty.

You can sell Pepsi under a Coca-Cola label.

My argument has nothing to do with side effects.....it is the legality of it. My argument takes the "conspiracy" angle out of the issue.

While I do think we will see other problems pop up, that has nothing to do with why the mandate is not legally defensible at this point.

OK, but are you at a level of expertise well past what they would use to get to where we are today to suggest they are wrong, and I'm not sure what you are seeing as wrong.

the basically un-named vaccine received a EUA and at a later date the same vaccine was approved and given a name. Due to the changes they can not legally use under the EUA and so most likely they will canx the EUA once the supply of the initial vaccine is used up, and at that point only the named one will be available.

So I'm not understand the issue you see here.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You have no data because the requisite time, trials, new trials, re-testing, autopsies and adjustments necessary for fine tuning a vaccine have not taken place. It doesn't exist because the time has not elapsed. No matter what you attempt to tell yourself the data does not exist.

You are literally making stuff up to support your straw man argument. Hands down the worst straw man argument I've ever read on ATS.

You have no data. Full stop.