Posts by Megan Green72

Matthew Jackson2 said:You keep making this point that vaccines are the crowning achievement of modern medicine, but I have to disagree. There is actually an even greater achievement at play here, because it’s what allows us to develop vaccines in a way that is both safe and reliable in the first place.

What I’m talking about is the entire framework of principles we have painstakingly established over decades of research. These are the rules that dictate exactly how we must prove the efficacy and safety of any medication or vaccine.

At its core, whether you are treating a patient or administering a vaccine, you are performing a medical intervention. For that action to be ethically justifiable, we absolutely must understand the safety profile and the specific outcome we are aiming for.

That means having a reasonable assurance regarding long-term safety and a clear, demonstrable benefit. Trying to justify the benefits of an intervention by brushing aside potential unknown risks sets a dangerous precedent—one unlike anything we’ve ever seen in the history of medicine. It goes against everything we have learned from experience and flies in the face of the very standards we built based on that experience. And frankly, those rigorous standards themselves are the true crowning achievement of modern medicine.

So what's the problem with current vaccines? The CMA only approved the ones that proved they were safe and effective by following those exact principles.

And I'm definitely not agreeing with you that those principles are somehow "greater" than the discovery of vaccines themselves.

Samuel Turner2 said:So, you're just gonna dodge the whole thing regarding the CDC pulling their childhood vaccination recommendations?
How are the people who were out there campaigning for those shots feeling right about now?
And what about the parents who already went ahead and vaccinated their kids based on that advice?
👎

Nah, because it’s got nothing to do with his comment where he basically denies all medicine and science exists. ☕
Quincy:

I can't even begin to explain how much this situation sucks—it’s absolute chaos. Honestly, just looking at the data is enough to make anyone lose it. It’s all nonsense. Megan Green72 says: Tomasini's got it right—you’re looking at this through some tribal lens. Look, modern medicine is killer for certain things. But when it comes to fighting off COVID or your basic seasonal flu? It's still not quite there yet.

Read what he wrote again. Seriously.

Amanda Kim2 said:but experts will still claim they might pass it to their grandparents 🕺

Are they lying?

vivideagle91 said:There is absolutely no way I am letting my kids get hit with these experimental shots. Not under any circumstances. Honestly, all this censorship, the blatant lying, the double standards, and the constant fear-mongering? It’s just pushed me to completely question every single one of these "mandatory" vaccines they try to force on children. I've actually started joining some Facebook groups with other parents who choose not to vaccinate their kids, and now I'm learning how to navigate around these imposed requirements. I'm just done with modern Western medicine. I don't trust any of them. In my opinion, everyone needs to be their own doctor first and foremost. Healthy lifestyle habits are what actually guarantee strong, natural immunity. But they never talk about natural immunity... they only ever talk about needles, needles, and more needles.

I hope you keep all your illnesses trapped inside your own four walls so you don't end up running to the ER the second something actually goes wrong.

Tyler Garcia69 said:Do you even realize that what they’re injecting is straight-up poison that wrecks your body? Those spike proteins are proven to cause damage. Even the manufacturers are coming clean—AstraZeneca admitted their shot could lead to capillary leak syndrome and those well-known blood clots (microthrombosis), and that goes for the mRNA stuff too. You’re seriously willing to risk your life over some hyped-up version of the flu?!

Actually, it’s probably a good thing you don't have kids...

I’d consider it a massive stroke of luck if I didn't have a freaking naive parent like you looking out for me...

Just listen to this... "believes in medicine"... as if there isn't a giant Big Pharma machine pulling all the strings... gee... 🙄

Poison? Wrong topic. Science 101: every drug and vaccine has side effects, but that doesn't make them poison.

And just a quick reality check: over three billion doses administered worldwide. ☕

briskdrifter3 said:No. None of that applies to vaccines.
The Consumer Protection Act does not cover vaccines. Liability simply doesn't exist here. Vaccine manufacturers are essentially granted immunity from responsibility if their product turns out to be defective.
Do a little research on the matter.

The fact that you never bother reading the fine print before signing your life away... well, that's your problem. That habit of blindly clicking "I agree" on every single pop-up window that appears on your screen... that is entirely your own doing. And injecting unknown, untested substances into your body based purely on blind faith? Again, that's on you. As far as I am concerned, you can inject heroin straight into your veins if you feel inclined to do so—that is your business, not mine.

I simply have no patience for having your issues forced upon me or my children. I actually read what I sign. I review the terms and conditions before I click anything—and quite often, I don't even click. I won't be injecting heroin, nor will I be injecting unknown, unverified vaccines... I simply won't. Anyone who attempts to force vaccination upon me or my children—whether through coercion or pressure—is an adversary... and I view such actions as an assault on my very persona, which inherently implies my right to self-defense.

It absolutely does. You can sue people—period. The catch is you actually have to prove it, which is a bit harder given how things work, like I said. But this isn't some new thing; it’s happened before. So yeah, there's proof it works.

The fact that you never read the fine print before signing anything is on you. Clicking "I agree" on every single pop-up window that hits your screen? Your problem. Injecting unknown, untested substances into your body just because you feel like trusting someone? Also your problem. For all I care, go shove heroin in your veins if you want—that's your business.

Just pure speculation and making stuff up. Really shows you're a serious debater whose opinion actually carries weight.

I just won't tolerate you forcing your issues on me and my kids. I read before I sign. I check the terms before I click "accept"—actually, half the time I don't even click. I'm not shoving heroin or some unvetted vaccine into my veins, period. Anyone trying to force me or my children to get vaccinated under pressure is an enemy, and I see that as an attack on my autonomy. Therefore, I have the right to defend myself.

You're way too cocky about your views without having any actual backing.

Paul Brooks54 said:I don't usually waste my time on bots, but since I genuinely feel for you (given some past history), I'll give you this one post just to offer some friendly advice: you should probably find somewhere else to hang out and stay away from my threads.😉

Just another guy who doesn't get how a forum works.☕
And could you be a little more specific? What exactly happens if I don't take your "friendly advice"?

Paul Brooks54 said:It’s interesting—based on the current poll results, there are 19 people here who are supposedly ready to take children away from their parents (assuming they even have kids, which I find hard to believe).
Either way, I’m just hoping the authorities actually do their jobs for once.☕

It's hilarious how you actually think your opinion matters. 😁

briskdrifter3 said:

Ready when you are... As requested:
This serves as a sobering illustration of how irresponsible parenting can jeopardize not only their own children's well-being but that of everyone else's—because, let's be honest, unvaccinated kids inevitably become carriers within the school system... which creates a ripple effect that affects the entire community.
.
.

An irresponsible parent? Me?!?... Truly, I am wounded.
It is actually quite the opposite, son...
I am the one carrying the weight of responsibility here—while you... well, you seem to be quite content with being utterly unaccountable.

Let me just clarify a few things...

When you purchase a vehicle, you aren't just buying metal and rubber—you are covered by consumer protection laws, which provide a certain level of security, including a warranty should anything go wrong... If a specific model line suffers from a systemic defect, the manufacturer is forced to issue a massive recall, pulling those cars in for repairs at their own expense. And if a design flaw leads to a fatality? Well, that’s when the class-action lawsuits begin, resulting in astronomical settlements... It is a heavy responsibility for them, certainly.

When you purchase a standard toaster—nothing fancy, just your everyday kitchen appliance—you aren't just buying hardware; you are actually covered by consumer protection laws, and you possess a standard manufacturer's warranty should the thing decide to quit on you prematurely. If, heaven forbid, the device malfunctions and delivers an electrical shock while you're just trying to make breakfast, you have grounds to sue the manufacturer for producing an insufficiently safe product. In such a scenario, you would be entitled to compensation, and the company would likely be forced to issue a massive product recall... there is a certain legal safety net in place. And if it turns out a whole crowd of people has been victimized by the same faulty design, the stakes rise significantly—we're talking about class-action lawsuits involving millions of dollars in damages... quite a serious matter, really.

If you happen to find yourself under the care of a physician who commits a gross error—a genuine lapse in judgment, one might say—you do have the right to sue them for medical malpractice. It is... well, it is a grueling process, certainly quite lengthy and often frustratingly slow—but the legal protections do exist. It serves as a necessary, if somewhat cumbersome, safeguard to ensure that doctors maintain a certain level of diligence while treating us... after all, accountability is everything.

If you happen to find yourself at an amusement park—say, somewhere like Six Flags or Cedar Fair—and the unthinkable occurs... if a roller coaster fails because a brake malfunctioned or a rail snapped under pressure... the legal fallout is quite extensive. Depending on what the forensic investigators actually uncover, the liability falls squarely on either the park's management or the manufacturer that built the ride itself. In such a tragic scenario, the family would be entitled to significant compensation through a wrongful death suit, and those responsible for the negligence could very well face prison time... it is a sobering thought, really.

And now... regarding the vaccine...

There is simply no accountability for vaccine defects. No liability for adverse effects, nor even for death... none at all. It seems pharmaceutical giants have successfully lobbied their way into securing total immunity from any legal fallout regarding these shots. And let’s not forget—this isn't even a fully vetted product—it hasn't undergone the standard, exhaustive testing cycles—it merely received an emergency authorization. A process that, by its very design, ensures that when things inevitably go sideways, absolutely no one is held responsible...
A vaccine is, fundamentally, a product. Is it? Yes, it is. It stands alongside the same logic as a Coca-Cola, a McDonald's hamburger, a toaster, a car, a smartphone—or even a dose of Bayer...
I find myself wondering... where exactly does consumer protection step in when we are discussing vaccines? One has to ask what makes a vaccine fundamentally different from any other product on the market—those other goods mentioned earlier—that would justify such a distinction. And, if we are being truly honest... where does criminal liability reside when a product turns out to be defective or, heaven forbid, harmful? It seems to me there is a significant gap in the logic here...
It’s simply gone... vanished into thin air.
They could practically label a vial of strychnine as a vaccine—inject it straight into your arm—and kill you without facing a single shred of accountability... all because they’re shielded by those "magical" liability protection laws designed specifically for vaccines here in the States.
That is precisely why they have gone about calling this mRNA sludge a "vaccine" in the first place—even though, strictly speaking, it isn't one... It is gene therapy, plain and simple, rather than a traditional vaccine.

So, you’re essentially an irresponsible parent—because, clearly, that toaster takes precedence over your child. You’ll spend all afternoon barking at a technician just to ensure your warranty holds up and demand a brand-new unit the moment it glitches... but what happens when your kid faces actual consequences? What then? Are you going to try and demand a replacement child from a pharmaceutical giant? No—not even that would work, because, as I have already pointed out, those corporations are shielded from any real liability. If a vaccine causes a fatality, it isn't their concern. If it leaves someone disabled due to a blood clot in the brain, it isn't their concern. If a child develops myocarditis... well, it simply isn't their problem. And so on, and so forth...

It stands to reason—though perhaps it shouldn't—that if you purchase some bottom-tier, bargain-bin toaster from a place like Walmart, you actually possess significantly more legal recourse and consumer protection than one does regarding these vaccines... where manufacturers aren't even required to disclose the full ingredient list and effectively dodge any liability for adverse reactions or even death. And that is to say nothing of the fact that these products were rushed onto the market before they were even adequately tested...

So, if we are being honest here, you’re the irresponsible one—not me.
It seems you have more affection for your toaster and your car than you do for your own child.

P.S.
In this light, I think I finally understand why some parents forget their kids in the car...
Because, clearly, the child just isn't the priority...

Same exact thing applies to vaccines. Honestly, the oversight is even tighter.
The only real difference is how much easier it is to prove a car caused a death. That’s just how the world works—you can't change that. All you can do is lie and claim the vaccine did it without any actual proof.

P.S.
In that light, it's pretty obvious why some parents forget their kids in cars...
Clearly, the kid isn't the priority here...

Nah, you don't get it at all. Actually, after reading that, I'm starting to think you're a crappy parent too. It's that fake sense of certainty you've got going on. Luckily for you, the stats say there's a good chance your kids won't end up as casualties because of this.

Check this out
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...rmation_hr.pdf

Nancy Williams58 said:First off, his statement is basically asking the IRS to step in because he’s calling for illegal coercion—in this case, forcing vaccinations without parental consent.

The whole thing is actually dead simple, and it’s the one question almost nobody asks—especially not those high-and-mighty moralizers:

If states are facing what they describe as an unprecedented crisis—the biggest health Armageddon in a century, a mess whose fallout we won't even fully feel for years—why aren't they just making vaccination mandatory? Why isn't that even on the table for anyone?

That’s the only question that matters. And no—"not enough vaccine supply" isn't a valid answer, because let's be real, that's just plain false.

And what about all those other mandatory childhood vaccines up until now?
Parental consent doesn't carry much weight when it comes to kids' health, especially since most parents don't have the specialized training or deep knowledge required anyway.

By the way, check what the European Court of Human Rights says about this:
https://www.dw.com/en/echr-rules-obl...ary/a-57128443

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg ruled on Thursday that compulsory vaccinations would not contravene human rights law — and May be necessary in democratic societies.

The ruling came following the evaluation of a complaint brought to the court by Czech families regarding compulsory jabs for children.

"The measures could be regarded as being 'necessary in a democratic society,'" the court judgment read.

Matthew Jackson2 said:When you look at the data, measles is significantly more dangerous for children than COVID-19, and frankly, the measles vaccine has been vetted through far more rigorous testing cycles.

Oh yeah? And just how many kids was that measles vaccine actually tested on before it even got the green light?

Matthew Jackson2 said:

I honestly don't understand why people feel the need to bring up "woobies" in serious discussions, but here we are again. It’s one of those things that just seems to surface whenever a conversation starts getting a bit too heavy or nuanced, almost like a psychological defense mechanism where someone just retreats into this infantile idea of comfort to avoid dealing with the actual meat of the argument. I remember back when I was living in Chicago, I had this old, tattered fleece blanket—nothing fancy, just something I grabbed from a discount bin at Target—and I used to wrap myself in it whenever the winter wind would howl off Lake Michigan and rattle my windows, but even then, there's a massive distinction between seeking a moment of tactile solace and using such a concept as a way to derail a logical debate. It feels reductive, frankly. We should be able to tackle complex topics without everyone needing to retreat into some sort of sensory cocoon, though I suppose that's asking a lot from the modern discourse, isn't it? It's all becoming so soft, so incredibly cushioned, that I fear we're losing the ability to sit with discomfort, which is usually exactly where the truth resides. kaže:
Look, I’m going to ask you nicely—please, don't make this difficult for me, because I really don't have the patience for a headache today—but could someone actually explain to me what on earth a PCV vaccine is?

I assume you’re talking about conjugate vaccines. Generally speaking, those fall under the umbrella of classical vaccine technology, though I suppose it’s technically feasible to develop a conjugate vector or even a conjugate mRNA shot—it just seems like an absolute nightmare to pull off. You’d be asking the injected RNA to reprogram a cell to produce not just one antigen, but two simultaneously, which sounds like a logistical mess from a biological standpoint.

The whole concept behind conjugate vaccines is actually quite clever, though I suppose it’s one of those things that sounds far more complicated than it needs to be when you first hear it explained. Essentially, these vaccines are designed to exploit the specific way our immune system operates—specifically how it "links" different reactions together. You see, there are certain antigens out there that are just incredibly weak; they’re basically too subtle for our immune systems to even notice, let alone mount a proper defense against. It’s like trying to signal someone in a crowded stadium by whispering; they simply aren't going to hear you. So, what scientists do is take one of those weak, ineffective antigens and physically attach it to a much stronger, more robust antigen—something our immune system is already primed to recognize and react to aggressively. By tethering them together, we essentially trick the body into paying attention. Because the immune system recognizes the strong component, it inadvertently "learns" to recognize the weak one as well, effectively bridging the gap and teaching our defenses to mount a much more powerful response against the target that would have otherwise slipped right past us unnoticed.

To be perfectly honest, I had a completely different thought swirling around in my head just a second ago, but now? Now this has caught my attention too, and I find myself genuinely curious about where this is heading. 😁

Are we really expected to sit here and play psychic because you decided to drop a single word in a post and call it a day? It’s honestly exhausting. I feel like I’m staring at a blank wall trying to decipher some deep, hidden meaning that simply isn't there, and frankly, it feels like a bit of a waste of everyone's time. One would think that if someone takes the effort to hit "submit," they might actually provide enough context for the rest of us to engage in a coherent conversation, but apparently, that's asking too much from certain people around here.

When we start talking about actual efficacy, I think the elephant in the room—the massive, looming issue that everyone seems to be glossing over—is how these vector and mRNA vaccines operate. You see, they’re essentially laser-focused on targeting one single protein. Now, if you look at how a healthy, robust immune system actually functions during a natural infection, or even when dealing with those traditional, old-school vaccines we grew up with, the body doesn't just look at one isolated marker. It learns to differentiate between a genuine pathogen and harmless debris by analyzing a whole spectrum of characteristics. It’s a sophisticated, multi-layered recognition process, not some simplistic one-track mind. Now, I’ll play devil's advocate here because I don't want to sound like I'm just shouting into the void: perhaps with SARS-CoV-2, this narrow focus isn't the absolute dealbreaker people fear it might be. My reasoning is that since the spike protein is the primary driver of the whole mess, focusing there makes sense in a vacuum. And honestly, if we run into a situation where that specific protein undergoes a significant mutation, there's a very real possibility that the virus itself loses its edge and becomes far less dangerous to the general population. But we shouldn't mistake a temporary convenience for a foolproof biological strategy.

When we start talking about security, we really have to look at this through two distinct lenses:
Let’s talk about this whole spike protein situation, because I feel like we’re just scratching the surface of what’s actually happening inside our bodies. Now, look, whether you’re talking about mRNA or viral vector vaccines, both methods essentially instruct our own cells to produce that spike protein. But here is the kicker—and this is where things get messy—this produced protein isn't physically tethered to a viral envelope like it would be during an actual infection. For the longest time, the official line from the big pharmaceutical players was that these proteins wouldn't just wander off into the bloodstream, mostly because they assumed it simply couldn't happen. Well, hold on a second, because recent studies are starting to suggest that those initial assumptions might have been dead wrong. Now, I know what the skeptics will say immediately; they’ll argue that since the spike protein shows up in the bloodstream during a natural infection anyway, there shouldn't be a massive difference. But that completely ignores the fundamental mechanics of the thing! We have to ask ourselves: does a free-floating protein behave the exact same way as one that is firmly attached to a viral shell? It’s a massive distinction. And furthermore, we really need to figure out if this happens during milder cases of the illness too. Because if this phenomenon only occurs during the most severe, life-threatening stages of the disease, then that tired old argument—you know, the one where people claim "if the vaccine caused side effects, then the actual virus would have done even worse damage"—it just falls apart. It loses all its weight. Honestly, these manufacturers owe us some straight answers on this, and they should probably start providing them sooner rather than later.

Vector-based vaccines are still relatively fresh on the scene, and we’ve only seen a handful of them successfully brought to market, whereas those COVID shots actually represented the first major win for mRNA technology—not that we hadn't seen an FDA-approved drug using that same tech before, but this was a massive leap forward. Both of these platforms are essentially cutting-edge, and if there happen to be any long-term side effects lurking in the shadows, there is a very real, very significant chance we just haven't caught them yet. I mean, think about it: you could have something like an autoimmune disorder that creeps up on you incredibly slowly, only showing its face after several years of being completely asymptomatic. It’s a legitimate concern. We might even be looking at a situation where the exact same mechanism used in conjugated vaccines could potentially trigger such a disease; when we are essentially programming our own cells to produce an antigen, we are effectively tethering that antigen to our own cellular structure, which could act as a catalyst for anyone who already has a genetic predisposition to these kinds of issues.

Now, just so we’re all on the same page and there isn't any unnecessary confusion, I am not claiming that the spike protein behaves fundamentally differently when it isn't bound to its envelope, nor am I stating that an autoimmune disorder is a guaranteed outcome. However, it remains an undeniable fact that we simply lack the depth of data required to completely rule out these two possibilities, which inherently constitutes a risk born from our own informational deficit.

There is no question that the vaccine remains safe enough that seniors and those in high-risk categories due to chronic conditions should be getting vaccinated, even when you factor in that inherent uncertainty. But when we shift the conversation toward young, healthy individuals—people whose risk of developing severe COVID-19 is roughly a thousand times lower than that of the elderly or the infirm—then that specific risk becomes a massive variable that demands serious consideration, especially if the underlying logic is that they are being vaccinated for the sake of others rather than for their own protection.

The CDC in the States actually reached a similar conclusion, recommending that children aged 12-17 only be vaccinated if they have an underlying condition that puts them at higher risk or if they live with someone vulnerable who cannot be vaccinated. It’s a shame, really, because ultimately the final call rests with politicians instead of the scientific experts...

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/child-adolescent.html

P.S. Regarding that whole "looking down from above" comment, woobie didn't actually ask about the implications of his statement; he just threw out a "So?" as a way of saying this isn't your run-of-the-mill vaccine. In response to a remark like that, one can only assume either that he's uninformed or that he's hinting at the kind of things people aren't supposed to mention under threat of losing their credentials. Given my own perspective and woobie's reputation, I opted for the safer assumption. Fine, it turns out he might have meant something else entirely, but the fact that he failed to express himself clearly is on him.

My bad, total screw-up on my end. I thought the comment about it not being a classic vaccine was referring to PCV rather than the COVID shots. Re-read the post and finally realized where I went wrong. 😁
Misread the situation, so yeah—my apologies.

Matthew Jackson2 said:Honestly, I find myself wondering if there is even any point in trying to explain the nuanced differences between traditional vaccines, viral vector platforms, and mRNA technology to someone who is clearly this deeply entrenched in this specific discussion. It feels almost redundant at this stage, doesn't it?

Give me a break—don't act clueless. What even is a PCV vaccine?
And honestly, I was thinking about something else entirely, but now you've got me curious about this too. 😁

Amanda Flores88 said:This isn't even a traditional vaccine in any real sense. People just keep ignoring that fact.

Then what is it?

Ronald Chavez2 said:No, I am simply sticking to my original point. Even a perfectly effective vaccine won't stop the virus from physically entering your body; it just ensures your immune system handles the encounter much faster and more efficiently. Or were you under the impression that a vaccine creates some kind of mystical protective aura around you that prevents a virus from ever touching you?

Maybe try actually learning how vaccines and viruses work first?
There isn't a single vaccine out there that prevents a virus from entering your system—that's just not how biology works. That goes for COVID-19, too, and pretty much every other vaccine on the planet.

Rachel Barrett8 said:The COVID-19 vaccine doesn't stop you from catching the virus; it stops you from getting deathly ill. Like Beroš would put it, it keeps you from ending up in the ICU.
But sure, you can still get infected, and you can still pass it on to others... so calling it "protection from infection" isn't quite right.

Am I missing something here?

Yeah, you're wrong. It actually does protect against infection, and if you do end up getting hit, it'll likely be a mild case instead of the heavy stuff.☕
Plus, plenty of studies show vaccinated people slow down the spread.

Ronald Chavez2 said:What does an infection rate even mean when 99% of the population passes through it without a second thought? It means absolutely nothing. Besides, vaccines don't stop you from catching it; they just supposedly help your body handle the hit, though for certain age groups, that help seems entirely redundant, doesn't it? Isn't the only real reason they're pushing this on everyone, everywhere, just to line the pockets of Big Pharma with billions, which eventually trickles down as bribes to politicians and whatever passes for "experts" these days?

Your logic is honestly fascinating. Every vaccine works by training the body to fight an enemy so that when it actually shows up, the system knows how to crush it immediately. And that—right there—is why we say it protects against infection.
So yeah, vaccines protect you. Maybe what you were trying to get at is that they aren't 100% foolproof, or that some people won't build immunity or will only get partial protection and end up getting sick regardless.
Also, you clearly don't grasp how percentages work—0.1% of a billion is way more than 90% of a hundred, even if 90% sounds scarier to people who don't do math.

Yeah, so you’re gonna drop your sources right now? Fine. I gave mine. If they’re lying, then I'm lying too.

Anyway—does it actually matter if we're talking a billion, a billion and a half, or two when it comes to my question?
Is a billion even a small number when you're talking about unauthorized vaccines?

Scott Hall5 said:Where on earth are you getting these loaded statements? Just more pure fiction...

As of today, 18.7 million people in Germany have been vaccinated! And we're talking about a country with an incredibly high-standard healthcare system. Where else are you going to find another 1.98 billion vaccinated people?!
Just wishful thinking at this point....

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/c...-distribution/
So it's "too hard to Google" first, huh?
☕

Tyler Garcia69 said:Exactly where they need some depopulation.

The real question is—what the hell did they actually put in those shots...

Wrong thread ☕

As of yesterday, 18.7 million people in Germany have been vaccinated! That's a country with an incredibly high-quality healthcare system. Where else are you going to find 1 billion 980 million vaccinated?!
Pure fantasy....

Alright then, I'm gonna need a link for that claim.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...umber-germany/

Currently 50,541,084 coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccinations have taken place in Germany since the beginning of The campaign AT The end of December 2020. The vaccination rollout followed the approval of the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine in the EU. Vaccinations are free and voluntary in Germany. The total number

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
59 million

Scott Hall5 said:Stop lying and making things up! It definitely wasn't 2 billion people who got vaccinated...

Fair point—it’s actually 2.26 billion doses administered. That totally changes the angle of what I was saying. 🤦

mellownomad7 said:Let’s be real: none of these COVID-19 vaccines actually have valid approval.
I'm speaking up just to clear the air, but this whole push to vaccinate kids is nothing more than a desperate move by incompetent politicians.

Cheers

You aren't making any sense. How the hell did 2 billion people get vaccinated if the stuff isn't even authorized? 🤔

Rachel Barrett8 said:I’m just advocating for a certain level of safety.

The kids aren't in any immediate danger, so there's really no need to rush things.

Look, I get it, but clearly people don't grasp how long-term monitoring works once you actually get approval—that stuff happens during Phase 4.

Developing a vaccine and testing one are two totally different beasts. Yeah, the development side dragged on way longer for a ton of reasons, but that wasn't because of the testing phase itself.

Also, you have to realize that the number of participants in Phase 3 for typical drugs and vaccines used to be about ten times smaller than what we're seeing with these new shots.