Originally Posted by macawlaw (Post 2014814)

Except this is not true. J&J tested the vaccine using a line originally started in the 70s from aborted cells. No aborted cells are in the vaccine.

Neither Pfizer nor Moderna used aborted cells in the vaccine or tested the vaccine on a cell line from an aborted fetus.

Thus, 2/3 of the vaccines available have no ties to abortion.

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 2014817)

Hmm, so it is okay to use drugs off-label if you want it, but not okay to use vaccines actually approved for emergency use.

I understand.

Originally Posted by tvbound (Post 2014941)

"I understand."

I certainly agree with what you say as the truth, but due to it making no sense and is so hypocritical, I can't honestly say that - " I understand."

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 2014708)

Explanation of "fetal cells" used in COVID vaccination testing - the following was copied from a state health department website:
----
Historical fetal cell lines were derived in the 1960’s and 1970’s from two elective abortions and have been
used to create vaccines for diseases such as hepatitis A, rubella, and rabies. Abortions from which fetal
cells were obtained were elective and were not done for the purpose of vaccine development.

Any vaccine that relies on these historic cell lines will not require nor solicit new abortions."
----
And the hospital's decision is not "lame". There is a policy of no transplants for un-vaccinated to give the donated organ the best chance of surviving. If they make exceptions, they will enter into a quagmire of having to spend time and money making decisions on every case.

There are not enough organs to supply all patients that need them. The patient made the decision to NOT be vaccinated and they were aware that would disqualify them from receiving a transplant to save their life. If we had a plethora of organs sitting on the shelves waiting, then I would say you have a point. But we don't. And your position is that somehow this person is more worthy to receive the transplant than the other people who may die because this one wants to risk the organ by not following doctors' advice.

I completely disagree with that rationale. The doctors have to make decisions to ration organs every day. This is not new, other than COVID is involved and so suddenly anti-vaxxers want to take the decision out of the doctor's hands and put it in the hands of the courts.

Just like the case a couple of weeks ago of forcing a hospital to provide horse de-wormer medication and using hospital resources and beds and personnel to provide a treatment that is not recommended. So, again, they went to court.

Originally Posted by Velvet (Post 2014862)

You know that an anti-vaccer is not likely to be interested in FACTS. They make up their own.

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 2014730)

I will hang my hat on the drug that is NOT approved for use in treating COVID in humans. Seems "not approved" was a regular comment against vaccinations recently. I guess NOT APPROVED only applies when someone disagrees with it. If THEY want it, then it doesn't matter.

I make NO claims on whether it is effective or not.

I will hang my hat on it is WRONG for a judge to decide medical treatment over doctors.

Originally Posted by lkagele (Post 2015036)

Let me guess. But school boards over doctors and parents is OK?

Originally Posted by MDLNB (Post 2014875)

From what I read (right or wrong) J&J was produced from infected monkey excrement. :clap2:

Originally Posted by lkagele (Post 2015036)

Let me guess. But school boards over doctors and parents is OK?

Originally Posted by retiredguy123 (Post 2014088)

There is a story in the news today about a woman who needs a kidney transplant. She has a friend who will provide the kidney, but the hospital will not perform the surgery unless both women get the COVID vaccine. They both refuse to get the vaccine because of their religion, so the woman is prepared to die because she cannot get the surgery. I am not an expert on religion or medicine, but, apparently the woman's religion will allow her to undergo major surgery, involving multiple drugs and medical intervention, to remove her kidney and replace it with another person's kidney, and then take anti-rejection drugs forever. But, the religion will not allow her to be vaccinated for the COVID virus. Can someone please explain how this makes any sense?

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 2014818)

I apologize, my mistake. It was certainly a common complaint and I should have checked.

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 2015322)

Watching those idiots running their mouths, in protest, at school board meetings is good entertainment .

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2015360)

That's no way to talk about school board members...

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2015360)

That's no way to talk about school board members...

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 2015322)

Watching those idiots running their mouths, in protest, towards school board members, at board meetings is good entertainment .

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 2014164)

Ignorance is displayed in many different ways….

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 2015387)

I fixed that for you…….

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 2014164)

Ignorance is displayed in many different ways….

Originally Posted by frose (Post 2019517)

we all needed to be vaccinated to start school back in the sixties. you get jabbed with everything you can think of before going overseas in the military, get flu shots(vaccines) every year, what the hell is the problem..

Originally Posted by lkagele (Post 2014541)

The religious objection is due to using fetal parts from aborted babies used in the development of the vaccine. Also, recipient has recovered from CV previously and tests positive for antibodies. Both donor and recipient were willing to sign waivers releasing the hospital from any liability if either one was to die of CV.


This has nothing to do with CV or risk or science. This is a Woke hospital that doesn't care if patients of a perceived political belief receive proper treatment or not.

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 2014182)

If she would rather die than get the vaccination, then I guess that is her right.

Originally Posted by SkBlogW (Post 2019667)

Hmmmm Why is the fact that the woman is a covid survivor and tests positive for antibodies missing from most press reports and 99% of the comments in this thread?

This lady could easily prove that as a covid survivor, she is much less likely to be reinfected than a fully vaccinated person is likely to get a breakthrough case.

The data shows that reinfections are less than 1% of cases and very rare. The CDC and numerous states have reported breakthrough cases running at 25% during the delta surge.

Originally Posted by coffeebean (Post 2020164)

Last I checked cruise lines do not accept Covid survivors for embarkation on ships. Maybe in the future, that may change. Cruise lines accept proof of vaccination or a negative Covid test for embarkation.

Originally Posted by MDLNB (Post 2020380)

Cruise lines are desperate for passengers, and will practically pay you to ride with them.

Originally Posted by Ben Franklin (Post 2020641)

If a person doesn't want to accept science, then all science should be denied to them, including hospitalization, should they get COVID. How would you ever justify being against science trying to prevent you from getting COVID and then accepting science trying to save you? It doesn't make sense, rationally.

Originally Posted by SkBlogW (Post 2020658)

Since the CDC says that 78% of covid deaths are obese people, and since the USA is the most obese nation on earth which is one of the main reasons we have the world's highest death total, I'm going to rewrite your comment.

If an obese person doesn't want to accept science, then all science should be denied to them, including hospitalization, should they get COVID. How would you ever justify being against science trying to prevent you from dying from COVID and then accepting science trying to save you? It doesn't make sense, rationally.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2020668)

Not only is your rewrite foolish, it is based on a faulty analysis. You misunderstand the numbers presented in a study that acknowledged it's own limitations. I explained this before yet here it is again.

Two common errors: using bad data and using data badly.

Originally Posted by Villageswimmer (Post 2020646)

What? Have you checked cruise fares lately?