It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: VinMan
originally posted by: MDDoxs
originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
a reply to: MDDoxs
Of course that's your opinion. I literally guessed that's what you were gonna say the second I saw you replied. How could I possibly have predicted that?
Vaccines are the leading causes of coincidences these days. The thing is, just because an old person dies, doesn't mean it's natural causes.
Correlation is not necessarily causation.
Edit to soften my response. We need to wait for more facts to appear if in fact Ms. a white recently had the booster and that the cause of death was specifically from known vaccine side effect and not from her failing health. This is a theory and it will either prove out or not.
Like you, they will never admit it.
But you already knew that.
originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: MDDoxs
The tweet that said she had been boosted turned out to be from a fake account. It's been deleted now.
originally posted by: igloo
originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: gortex
In general, I'm against censorship and against companies deleting online content simply because it's dishonest, but there is so much fake content out there from anti-vaxxers and from people who just plain want to make mischief that it looks like a purge is inevitable if we're ever going to get out of these constant lockdowns.
Problem is, where I live, many pro vax are not going to be content with just a media purge to get out of constant lockdowns but are seeking something a little more extreme. Their stance has become dangerous. At least people on ats are exposed to alternate points of view and understand the necessity of debate and community to arrive at common ground.
originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: MDDoxs
They're trying to sell a doom porn agenda, and they don't care who they hurt when they do it.
originally posted by: BrujaRebooted
a reply to: MDDoxs
Could it be that the elderly who already have major health challenges are overtaxed by the vaccine doing its work in the body? Seems there are many of these coincidences. Perhaps in these cases it should be reduced to the childrens strength?
originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Lumenari
You can sue them, it's just easier to use government compensation scheme. Their immunity is only at the federal level.
In 2005, the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) was created to protect from liability pharmaceutical companies that make or distribute vaccines unless there is "willful misconduct" by the company.
HHS Secretary Alex Azar invoked PREP in February in response to the pandemic, declaring COVID-19 to be "a public health emergency warranting liability protections for covered countermeasures."
This means that companies like Moderna and Pfizer are protected from lawsuits regarding their COVID-19 vaccines until 2024.
According to CNBC, "You also can't sue the Food and Drug Administration for authorizing a vaccine for emergency use, nor can you hold your employer accountable if they mandate inoculation as a condition of employment."
However, the PREP Act also created the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which provides benefits to people who claim that they suffered injuries from vaccines under emergency authorization.
There are a few key differences between VICP and CICP.
The Associated Press reported that VICP has paid much more in compensation than CICP has. Only 29 out of 499 people who made claims under CICP received compensation.
Since the late 1980s, VICP has provided $4.4 billion in total compensation, with an average of $570,000 per claim. Since 2005, CICP has provided petitioners, who mostly made claims about the H1N1 swine flu vaccine, $6 million in compensation, with an average of $200,000 per claim. According to the Associated Press, "payments in most death cases are capped at $370,376" for CICP.
VICP allows individuals to make claims within three years of their first symptom. CICP, on the other hand, allows petitioners only one year from the date of vaccination.
CICP doesn't pay fees for lawyers or expert witnesses or provide awards for suffering or damages; VICP does. VICP also permits appeals all the way to the Supreme Court.
In other words, people who make claims about injuries or allergic reactions to either of the COVID-19 vaccines have less time to make their petitions than people who have filed claims for injuries from vaccines related to the measles or the flu. They also are less likely to receive compensation for injuries from COVID-19 vaccines, and if they do receive compensation, it likely will be a smaller amount.edit on 2-1-2022 by putnam6 because: (no reason given)