German nurse avoids jail after injecting thousands with saltwater shot instead COVID vaccine

originally posted by: Komodo

originally posted by: Mandroid7

originally posted by: MetalChickAmy
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I am disappointed she avoided jail. What she did was a betrayal of trust. Personal beliefs should not come in to it. The fact is she deceptively injected people with saline when they thought they were getting a vaccine. She is not a hero. I hope she never gets her license back.

So, if you weren't armchair nursing and were an actual nurse like her and saw adverse reactions to a new drug with lets admit it, a laundry list of side effects, you would just keep injecting people because you were told to?
The medical industry is at fault here for threatening her livelihood/career unless injecting people with experimental, untested and known to be dangerous "drugs"

yikes

Agreed!! I personally know of a MA of 20 years refusing to give a shot of ' medicine/painkiller ' to an elderly woman of 85yrs old, Knowingly it would kill her even though she was mentally competent and able to get around with a walker. 😔 I was there and heard the conversation!

I was shocked that home health RN's could give this shot without a Dr notice!!! 😳😔😔😔😔 and upon request of their family members!!!

Indeed!!

The nurse has the right to refuse injecting people and refuse to be part of the vaccination campaign without having to resign. All she had to do was to write to her manager and head nurse and explain her position with some evidence of serious adverse reactions as well as evidence she might have gathered/witnessed or gathered by other nurses.

I wouldn't do what she did. I would have done what I have just explained above. But I cannot condemn her either as the vaccines have been imposed into the population with authoritarian tactics, rules, and laws, and any dissent was heavily punished.

The very important part in this story is that the judges seem to have doubts. But not just doubts about the motives of the nurse, but doubts about other matters too. It's really good that more and more professionals and ordinary citizens are starting to realise there is something really wrong with the vaccination campaign and with the vaccines in general.

a reply to: Asmodeus3
So again you move the goal posts to suit your arguement.

First it was....

Indeed the vaccine is experimental at this stage and never been tested in humans before.

And now it's...

The phases were rushed. It takes years to establish all the adverse reactions from a potential vaccine and not few months.

Constant flip-flopping to suit your biased thinking.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

If she was questioned by Police and said those things over here the interview would be under PACE and would have been recorded, transcribed and put in evidence before the Court.

No expert on German law but pretty sure her interview and her comments when questioned by Police would be evidence.

So not "ridiculous stories'.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3
So again you move the goal posts to suit your arguement.

First it was....

Indeed the vaccine is experimental at this stage and never been tested in humans before.

And now it's...

The phases were rushed. It takes years to establish all the adverse reactions from a potential vaccine and not few months.

Constant flip-flopping to suit your biased thinking.

That's not shifting the goalposts. But your lack of understanding of what testing means.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

If she was questioned by Police and said those things over here the interview would be under PACE and would have been recorded, transcribed and put in evidence before the Court.

No expert on German law but pretty sure her interview and her comments when questioned by Police would be evidence.

So not "ridiculous stories'.

The 'ridiculous' applies to the explanation given by her on why she injected people with saline solutions. The judges were unable to say what her motive was. But we know what the motive was. She didn't believe the vaccines are safe and effective.


Here is the excuse she gave as recorded in the Mirror

The 39-year-old had additionally posted several social media posts where she openly emphasised her skeptical views regarding Covid-19 vaccines.

When questioned by police, she admitted to using saline solution but had said she only did it because she had accidentally broken a vial containing six shots and was ashamed to tell her colleagues.

She had also claimed that it was a one-time incident, but was immediately sacked after antibody tests that were carried out on the affected people confirmed authorities' suspicions.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I see what you mean now.

Apologies, I misunderstood your point.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3
So again you move the goal posts to suit your arguement.

First it was....

Indeed the vaccine is experimental at this stage and never been tested in humans before.

And now it's...

The phases were rushed. It takes years to establish all the adverse reactions from a potential vaccine and not few months.

Constant flip-flopping to suit your biased thinking.

That's not shifting the goalposts. But your lack of understanding of what testing means.

If you're trying to be funny, it's not working?!
You can see from my clips of your posts, you're obviously trying to fix the lies you made with your proven flip-flopping.
You stated it wasn't tested on Humans, it was and there's no getting around that no matter how hard you try.

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3
So again you move the goal posts to suit your arguement.

First it was....

Indeed the vaccine is experimental at this stage and never been tested in humans before.

And now it's...

The phases were rushed. It takes years to establish all the adverse reactions from a potential vaccine and not few months.

Constant flip-flopping to suit your biased thinking.

That's not shifting the goalposts. But your lack of understanding of what testing means.

If you're trying to be funny, it's not working?!
You can see from my clips of your posts, you're obviously trying to fix the lies you made with your proven flip-flopping.
You stated it wasn't tested on Humans, it was and there's no getting around that no matter how hard you try.

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

It's obvious you don't understand what testing means when it comes to vaccines.Testing involves checking for transmission and infection.Testing involves establishing the short, medium, and long terms effects. Testing isn't just injecting individuals and see whether they have an immune response.
But it's obvious you don't know yet what testing is.

From your own post at another page

Phase 3
Clinical trials include many thousands of participants. They aim to test whether a vaccine is effective in preventing people from getting the disease – in this case COVID-19. Phase 3 trials also thoroughly assess the vaccine for safety and side effects.

None of the above happened.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The obvious thing here is that you will say anything to back up your posts.

At first you said it wasn't tested and you've said the same in multiple threads but then change it to rushed testing. You can't have it both ways.

Educate yourself....
clinicaltrials.gov...

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The obvious thing here is that you will say anything to back up your posts.

At first you said it wasn't tested and you've said the same in multiple threads but then change it to rushed testing. You can't have it both ways.

Educate yourself....
clinicaltrials.gov...

Yes it wasn't tested. As 'testing' means something very different when it comes to clinical trials. It doesn't mean injecting individuals and see if they have an immune response. It takes years to establish every bit of information needed before you make available vaccines to the wider population. Not just months. They didn't have the time and we all know this, even you.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You changed what you've stated from untested on Humnas to rushed testing on Humans to something else entirely now, I don't think you could move the goal posts any further.

I bet you haven't even read the previous link because it goes against your biased opinion.

BHF

1. Discovery research
Discovery research means that laboratory scientists look into ways to achieve the desired effect in the body at a molecular level. In the case of a vaccine, that means they are looking for ways to create an immune response to the virus without the person having to be exposed to the virus itself

2. Pre-clinical testing
Pre-clinical testing is when the safety and effectiveness of the potential vaccine or drug is tested in animals.

3. Clinical testing
Phase I – testing to assess safety and effectiveness in a small number of healthy volunteers.
Phase II – testing in a larger number of volunteers to get a better idea of how the vaccine or drug works in different groups of people and the best dose to use. From this stage onwards, a proportion of volunteers in the study will usually be given an inactive placebo to give a comparison to judge the new product against.
Phase III – wider testing to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine or drug in a much larger number of people (often many thousands) of different ages, ethnicities, and with different health conditions. In this stage, researchers hope to confirm the best way of giving the vaccine (including the size of dose and how many doses are needed) and identify any side effects, or if there are any groups of people it is not suitable for.

4. Regulatory review and approval
Before the new drug or vaccine can be approve, the results of each phase and other information are submitted to regulators, who decide whether or not it is safe and effective enough to be used outside trials. In the UK, the regulator is the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Your denial is rediculous.

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You changed what you've stated from untested on Humnas to rushed testing on Humans to something else entirely now, I don't think you could move the goal posts any further.

I bet you haven't even read the previous link link because it goes against your biased opinion.

www.bhf.org.uk... tested

1. Discovery research
Discovery research means that laboratory scientists look into ways to achieve the desired effect in the body at a molecular level. In the case of a vaccine, that means they are looking for ways to create an immune response to the virus without the person having to be exposed to the virus itself

2. Pre-clinical testing
Pre-clinical testing is when the safety and effectiveness of the potential vaccine or drug is tested in animals.

3. Clinical testing
Phase I – testing to assess safety and effectiveness in a small number of healthy volunteers.
Phase II – testing in a larger number of volunteers to get a better idea of how the vaccine or drug works in different groups of people and the best dose to use. From this stage onwards, a proportion of volunteers in the study will usually be given an inactive placebo to give a comparison to judge the new product against.
Phase III – wider testing to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine or drug in a much larger number of people (often many thousands) of different ages, ethnicities, and with different health conditions. In this stage, researchers hope to confirm the best way of giving the vaccine (including the size of dose and how many doses are needed) and identify any side effects, or if there are any groups of people it is not suitable for.

4. Regulatory review and approval
Before the new drug or vaccine can be approve, the results of each phase and other information are submitted to regulators, who decide whether or not it is safe and effective enough to be used outside trials. In the UK, the regulator is the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Your denial is rediculous.

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

This is precisely what is meant by untested. You cannot rush the clinical phase trials to make the product available into the market. It's negligence and can result in several serious adverse reactions.

The moving of goalposts is nothing more than your own false interpretation given that you don't understand what testing means. But let me clear this for you.

When the clinical phase trials are rushed then the product is by definition untested.

I thought you have understood this a few pages ago but apparently still you have a problem. But on the other hand it is somehow understood when individuals are emotionally invested in the vaccines and have no scientific and medical background.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

And again you're trying to defend your moving of the goal posts to suit you bias and denial here, nothing more.
The covid vaccine aswell as other vaccines have followed the same standards as I've posted.
Just because you claim it was rushed proves nothing other than your misunderstanding of the subject and attempts at trying to bend the facts to fit your agenda.
And as always you cause the thread to drift because your assumptions fail and it's your way of moving the goal posts like in many other threads.

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

And again you're trying to defend your moving of the goal posts to suit you bias and denial here, nothing more.
The covid vaccine aswell as other vaccines have followed the same standards as I've posted.
Just because you claim it was rushed proves nothing other than your misunderstanding of the subject and attempts at trying to bend the facts to fit your agenda.
And as awlays you cause the thread to drift because your assumptions fail and it's your way of moving the goal posts like in many threads.

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

You clearly don't understand what testing means although it has been explained to you several times.

I think you are very confused if you still claim that the Covid vaccines followed the same standards as other vaccines. If they did then we would have known whether they prevent transmission and infection. It was claimed they did but that turned out not to be true. You cannot protect granny by getting vaccinated. Neither they reduce transmission and infection significantly.

If they have been tested then what are the short, medium and long term effects? Especially the last two. What is the benefit to risk ratio for all age groups?

They are unknown. Hence no testing has happened. They were rushed into the market.

This is what happens when you get emotionally invested with these products and if you don't have a background to understand what is going on.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You claimed that there was no testing on humans then changed to this.

I admitted I was mistaken in my earlier post.

You see, I can admit to being wrong.

Apparently, you can't?

The mark of a keyboard warrior, sadly.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You claimed that there was no testing on humans then changed to this.

I admitted I was mistaken in my earlier post.

You see, I can admit to being wrong.

Apparently, you can't?

The mark of a keyboard warrior, sadly.

Yes. Testing on humans means something very different that you both seem not to understand or don't want to understand.

Testing doesn't mean injecting individuals and trying to see if they have an immune response. That's not testing. I think my position is very clear from the beginning.

If the products are tested on humans then the clinical phase trials are not rushed. You need to test for transmission, infection, short, medium and long term effects. They wer unknown and still the medium and long terms effects are unknown.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

So you can't see your errors or the way you've adjusted your aguement to match what ever mistakes you make in your assumptions.

Let me repost this...

Indeed the vaccine is experimental at this stage and never been tested in humans before.

Then you changed to this?

The phases were rushed. It takes years to establish all the adverse reactions from a potential vaccine and not few months.

This clearly shows your bias and denial in this subject.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

If you had read the BHF website, you would have caught the last part ( I purposely left this out to see if you read it)

6. How has the coronavirus vaccine been developed so quickly?
In the past, these steps have been carried out one after another. This process could take up to 10 years – not because it takes that long to safely bring a vaccine to market, but because of pauses between steps, the possibility of failure at any one of those steps, and as under normal circumstances it can be difficult to bring together the amount of people, effort and money involved. In the case of the coronavirus vaccine, all of the same steps have happened, so the vaccine is as safe as any other, but some of them have happened at the same time.

Get answers to common questions about the coronavirus vaccine
For the coronavirus vaccine, no corners have been cut, but the work has been done over tighter timescales. That makes it much more expensive - the Wellcome Foundation estimated that the faster development of a Covid-19 vaccine would cost around $3 billion (£2.25 billion), compared to $500 million (£380 million) for a conventionally developed vaccine. Given the global scale of the problem, for Covid-19 almost unlimited funding has been made available by governments and other funders to get all these steps done faster than ever before.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

No testing on humans means no testing on humans.

Your claim, false.

No matter how you try and spin it.