[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

It's amazing how many times I have to post the same thing.

So to repeat from the last page:
I don't know. If they are responsible they won't. If they tested positive they are supposed to self-quarantine and wear a mask if they must go out for essentials, of which the monoclonal therapy would qualify. But if they go out "shopping, eating and drinking at Brownwood", they will go out and do that everywhere else as well. So once again, better they are treated than not.

You are not at risk because people who tested COVID positive are outdoors in the same town square. PERIOD.

Yes, "they" have ruled out the virus spreading "by air"
The virus is NOT airborne and that is NOT the reason for masks.

However, the longer we have a significant percentage of people who go unvaccinated, the more likely a mutation might make the jump to become airborne, and then we're in a whole new ballgame.

"The virus is NOT airborne"......????? We have ALL seen videos of people breathing out and moisture from breathing transporting CV from the mouth THROUGH THE AIR for a distance of about 5.5 feet. I tend to call that AIRBORNE! I do NOT have the credentials and mental capacity to challenge ANY medical Doctor - so maybe I misunderstood something about that post. Yes, the Virus is small and could not go 5.5 feet by itself, but it Can and Does while it hitchhikes on a moisture droplet. So, maybe that means ...."NOT airborne"? I am somewhat confused?????? I am only seeking clarification - not trying to be provocative! Sincerely........me

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

"The virus is NOT airborne"......????? We have ALL seen videos of people breathing out and moisture from breathing transporting CV from the mouth THROUGH THE AIR for a distance of about 5.5 feet. I tend to call that AIRBORNE! I do NOT have the credentials and mental capacity to challenge ANY medical Doctor - so maybe I misunderstood something about that post. Yes, the Virus is small and could not go 5.5 feet by itself, but it Can and Does while it hitchhikes on a moisture droplet. So, maybe that means ...."NOT airborne"? I am somewhat confused?????? I am only seeking clarification - not trying to be provocative! Sincerely........me

No problem---

Droplet and Airborne/Aerosol are different-----airborne does not need "droplets" to spread. Here's a good explanation from the Univ. Of Penn.:

"At issue is the constantly shifting interpretation of droplet size with reference to SARS-CoV-2.

Traditionally, droplets are defined as large (>5 microns) aqueous bodies. However, airborne (or aerosolized) transmission of the virus has been proposed as a source of infection almost since the inception of the COVID pandemic.

By comparison to droplets, aerosolized particles are infinitesimal. Size alone is not the only important distinction: Droplets fall to earth quickly, but aerosols can travel on air currents potentially for hours. Thus aerosolized viruses are likely to be much more infectious than viruses bound to respiratory droplets, and much more difficult to avoid."

So far the "proposal" of airborne transmission of COVID has not panned out. But with a large number of unvaccinated people and continuing mutation/variants, that jump to airborne could certainly be coming.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Penglobal

Lets face it folks, everyday you step-outside your cubicle of safety(house), you are potentially exposed to those who have been exposed to or currently have COVID. You might as well learn to live with these viruses for the coming years as COVID will mutate and continue to spread.

Medical Scientists found a SOLUTION to smallpox and polio. They did NOT accept it. Way back then people were either different or smarter than people today......they took the DAMN vaccine and magic, magic NO MORE smallpox and polio. What has gone wrong with the US people today - it hurts my head to think about that!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by tvbound

Since Florida just reached an all-time high of daily covid deaths, counting all the way back to when this damned thing started, I would think that the addition of another effective way to fight it would be encouraged. Particularly given the average age of the residents, even though it seems vaccinations (and masks?) are being more embraced in TV than in a lot of other areas of FL.

Masks......not so much.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Perhaps I am missing something, but common sense tells me it would be a much better idea to focus resources and efforts on preventing people from contracting Covid than to attempt to treat it with an experimental antibody?

I agree with the content of this post!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

How much more can be done to convince people to be vaccinated? What would that additional effort look like?

For a whole lot of people, that ship has sailed; attempts at treatment are all they have left.

The only way to get increased vaccination now is for government agencies and private companies to MANDATE vaccines. A month ago a large Houston hospital mandated that ALL EMPLOYEES MUST be vaccinated - the end result was that only .3 % of the employees QUIT. Employees will accept reality IF it is made a part of the job! How about this for a slogan sports fans .....a jab for a job!

[Pballer]

Originally Posted by golden

The "horse deworming medicine' (the prescription is called invermectin) saved the country of India from Covid. Over 1 billion people.

Please cite your source; please tell me it wasn't Tucker Carlson. By the way, has he revealed yet whether he has been vaccinated?

[flflowers]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

FDA approves vaccine for emergency situation only:

"I ain't takin no danged vaccine, it's not even approved by the FDA! Experimentin on humans without our consent, that's what it is!"

1 week later, after the FDA gives full approval of the vaccine:

"Big pharma's gettin rich off our tax dollars on a drug they pushed through cause of politics! I ain't gettin no stankin jab!"

2 months later, after FDA approves experimental monoclonal antibody therapy:

"Martha, you go ahead to the square and enjoy yer line-dancin, I'mma git me some experimental jab, woo hoo!"

Because it just makes SO much sense.

Buried in the fine print of Monday's approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of the Pfizer Comirnaty COVID vaccine are two critical facts that affect whether the vaccine can be mandated, and whether Pfizer can be held liable for injuries

Monday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a biologics license application for the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine.

The press reported that vaccine mandates are now legal for military, healthcare workers, college students and employees in many industries. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has now required the vaccine for all teachers and school staff. The Pentagon is proceeding with its mandate for all military service members.

But there are several bizarre aspects to the FDA approval that will prove confusing to those not familiar with the pervasiveness of the FDA's regulatory capture, or the depths of the agency's cynicism.

First, the FDA acknowledges that while Pfizer has "insufficient stocks" of the newly licensed Comirnaty vaccine available, there is "a significant amount" of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine -- produced under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) -- still available for use.

The FDA decrees that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under the EUA should remain unlicensed but can be used "interchangeably" (page 2, footnote 8) with the newly licensed Comirnaty product.

Second, the FDA pointed out that the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine and the existing, EUA Pfizer vaccine are "legally distinct," but proclaims that their differences do not "impact safety or effectiveness."

There is a huge real-world difference between products approved under EUA compared with those the FDA has fully licensed.

EUA products are experimental under U.S. law. Both the Nuremberg Code and federal regulations provide that no one can force a human being to participate in this experiment. Under 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), "authorization for medical products for use in emergencies," it is unlawful to deny someone a job or an education because they refuse to be an experimental subject. Instead, potential recipients have an absolute right to refuse EUA vaccines.

U.S. laws, however, permit employers and schools to require students and workers to take licensed vaccines.

EUA-approved COVID vaccines have an extraordinary liability shield under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act. Vaccine manufacturers, distributors, providers and government planners are immune from liability. The only way an injured party can sue is if he or she can prove willful misconduct, and if the U.S. government has also brought an enforcement action against the party for willful misconduct. No such lawsuit has ever succeeded.

The government has created an extremely stingy compensation program, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, to redress injuries from all EUA products. The program's parsimonious administrators have compensated under 4% of petitioners to date -- and not a single COVID vaccine injury -- despite the fact that physicians, families and injured vaccine recipients have reported more than 600,000 COVID vaccine injuries.

At least for the moment, the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine has no liability shield. Vials of the branded product, which say "Comirnaty" on the label, are subject to the same product liability laws as other U.S. products.

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices places a vaccine on the mandatory schedule, a childhood vaccine benefits from a generous retinue of liability protections.

But licensed adult vaccines, including the new Comirnaty, do not enjoy any liability shield. Just as with Ford's exploding Pinto, or Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, people injured by the Comirnaty vaccine could potentially sue for damages.

And because adults injured by the vaccine will be able to show that the manufacturer knew of the problems with the product, jury awards could be astronomical.

Pfizer is therefore unlikely to allow any American to take a Comirnaty vaccine until it can somehow arrange immunity for this product.

Given this background, the FDA's acknowledgement in its approval letter that there are insufficient stocks of the licensed Comirnaty, but an abundant supply of the EUA Pfizer BioNTech jab, exposes the "approval" as a cynical scheme to encourage businesses and schools to impose illegal jab mandates.

The FDA's clear motivation is to enable Pfizer to quickly unload inventories of a vaccine that science and the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System have exposed as unreasonably dangerous, and that the Delta variant has rendered obsolete.



Americans, told that the Pfizer COVID vaccine is now licensed, will understandably assume COVID vaccine mandates are lawful. But only EUA-authorized vaccines, for which no one has any real liability, will be available during the next few weeks when many school mandate deadlines occur.

The FDA appears to be purposefully tricking American citizens into giving up their right to refuse an experimental product.

While the media has trumpeted that the FDA has approved COVID vaccines, the FDA has not approved the Pfizer BioNTech vaccines, nor any COVID vaccines for the 12- to 15-year age group, nor any booster doses for anyone.

And the FDA has not licensed any Moderna vaccine, nor any vaccine from Johnson & Johnson -- so the vast majority, if not all, of vaccines available in the U.S. remain unlicensed EUA products.

Here's what you need to know when somebody orders you to get the vaccine: Ask to see the vial. If it says "Comirnaty," it's a licensed product.

If it says "Pfizer-BioNTech," it's an experimental product, and under 21 U.S. Code 360bbb, you have the right to refuse.

If it comes from Moderna or Johnson & Johnson (marketed as Janssen), you have the right to refuse.

The FDA is playing bait and switch with the American public -- but we don't have to play along. If it doesn't say Comirnaty, you have not been offered an approved vaccine.

[tvbound]

Originally Posted by flflowers

Buried in the fine print of Monday's approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of the Pfizer Comirnaty COVID vaccine are two critical facts that affect whether the vaccine can be mandated, and whether Pfizer can be held liable for injuries

Monday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a biologics license application for the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine.

YADA, YADA, YADA.

Do you have a link or source, for that obvious cut & paste?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Maybe, but think it through:

If they are coming for an infusion, they are either COVID positive or recently exposed. In that case they are supposed to self quarantine and wear a mask when out for essentials such as the grocery store. If they stop for coffee or go shopping, they are just plain selfish and are disregarding the risk they pose to others. HOWEVER, those with that mindset will also be out and about everywhere, they might be next to you in line at the hardware store, or sitting next to you at a bar, or anxious to share a golf cart with you. And you wouldn't know it. So if anyone wants to avoid Brownwood, they might as well avoid everyplace.

I agree with the contents of this post because it represents REALITY - unfortunately, it is a reality that I wish HAD been avoided back about Apr 2021 when it COULD have been avoided.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by charmed59

The part that confuses me is according to the Florida official website, last week Sumter county had 539 new cases. This site is serving 300 cases a day. Where are these cases coming from?

That IS a very interesting post!

[tvbound]

Originally Posted by drducat

We are fortunate to have this treatment available at all................

Other States are seeing a health care catastrophe occurring by vaccine mandates. Around 50% of workers are quitting and relocating to States that are not unvaccinated predators. Not looking good and is going to be a huge issue going forward.

"Around 50% of workers are quitting and relocating to States that are not unvaccinated predators."

"Around 50%?" Do you have a legitimate source or link for that assertion?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by dalejiw25

So can those of us that don’t want to participate in a major Covid spreader at the square get a refund on our amenities fee because we can no longer enjoy the entertainment at the squares. I was there last night and could not believe how many people were there and not a mask one. DeSatin is trying his best to kill us all. Good luck out there everyone and be safe.

I agree with the contents of this post.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by flflowers

Buried in the fine print of Monday's approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of the Pfizer Comirnaty COVID vaccine are two critical facts that affect whether the vaccine can be mandated, and whether Pfizer can be held liable for injuries

Monday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a biologics license application for the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine.

The press reported that vaccine mandates are now legal for military, healthcare workers, college students and employees in many industries. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has now required the vaccine for all teachers and school staff. The Pentagon is proceeding with its mandate for all military service members.

But there are several bizarre aspects to the FDA approval that will prove confusing to those not familiar with the pervasiveness of the FDA's regulatory capture, or the depths of the agency's cynicism.

First, the FDA acknowledges that while Pfizer has "insufficient stocks" of the newly licensed Comirnaty vaccine available, there is "a significant amount" of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine -- produced under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) -- still available for use.

The FDA decrees that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under the EUA should remain unlicensed but can be used "interchangeably" (page 2, footnote 8) with the newly licensed Comirnaty product.

Second, the FDA pointed out that the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine and the existing, EUA Pfizer vaccine are "legally distinct," but proclaims that their differences do not "impact safety or effectiveness."

There is a huge real-world difference between products approved under EUA compared with those the FDA has fully licensed.

EUA products are experimental under U.S. law. Both the Nuremberg Code and federal regulations provide that no one can force a human being to participate in this experiment. Under 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), "authorization for medical products for use in emergencies," it is unlawful to deny someone a job or an education because they refuse to be an experimental subject. Instead, potential recipients have an absolute right to refuse EUA vaccines.

U.S. laws, however, permit employers and schools to require students and workers to take licensed vaccines.

EUA-approved COVID vaccines have an extraordinary liability shield under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act. Vaccine manufacturers, distributors, providers and government planners are immune from liability. The only way an injured party can sue is if he or she can prove willful misconduct, and if the U.S. government has also brought an enforcement action against the party for willful misconduct. No such lawsuit has ever succeeded.

The government has created an extremely stingy compensation program, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, to redress injuries from all EUA products. The program's parsimonious administrators have compensated under 4% of petitioners to date -- and not a single COVID vaccine injury -- despite the fact that physicians, families and injured vaccine recipients have reported more than 600,000 COVID vaccine injuries.

At least for the moment, the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine has no liability shield. Vials of the branded product, which say "Comirnaty" on the label, are subject to the same product liability laws as other U.S. products.

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices places a vaccine on the mandatory schedule, a childhood vaccine benefits from a generous retinue of liability protections.

But licensed adult vaccines, including the new Comirnaty, do not enjoy any liability shield. Just as with Ford's exploding Pinto, or Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, people injured by the Comirnaty vaccine could potentially sue for damages.

And because adults injured by the vaccine will be able to show that the manufacturer knew of the problems with the product, jury awards could be astronomical.

Pfizer is therefore unlikely to allow any American to take a Comirnaty vaccine until it can somehow arrange immunity for this product.

Given this background, the FDA's acknowledgement in its approval letter that there are insufficient stocks of the licensed Comirnaty, but an abundant supply of the EUA Pfizer BioNTech jab, exposes the "approval" as a cynical scheme to encourage businesses and schools to impose illegal jab mandates.

The FDA's clear motivation is to enable Pfizer to quickly unload inventories of a vaccine that science and the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System have exposed as unreasonably dangerous, and that the Delta variant has rendered obsolete.



Americans, told that the Pfizer COVID vaccine is now licensed, will understandably assume COVID vaccine mandates are lawful. But only EUA-authorized vaccines, for which no one has any real liability, will be available during the next few weeks when many school mandate deadlines occur.

The FDA appears to be purposefully tricking American citizens into giving up their right to refuse an experimental product.

While the media has trumpeted that the FDA has approved COVID vaccines, the FDA has not approved the Pfizer BioNTech vaccines, nor any COVID vaccines for the 12- to 15-year age group, nor any booster doses for anyone.

And the FDA has not licensed any Moderna vaccine, nor any vaccine from Johnson & Johnson -- so the vast majority, if not all, of vaccines available in the U.S. remain unlicensed EUA products.

Here's what you need to know when somebody orders you to get the vaccine: Ask to see the vial. If it says "Comirnaty," it's a licensed product.

If it says "Pfizer-BioNTech," it's an experimental product, and under 21 U.S. Code 360bbb, you have the right to refuse.

If it comes from Moderna or Johnson & Johnson (marketed as Janssen), you have the right to refuse.

The FDA is playing bait and switch with the American public -- but we don't have to play along. If it doesn't say Comirnaty, you have not been offered an approved vaccine.

Only a lawyer could have written so much

[PennBF]

It is reality the Monoclonal Antibodies treatment is intended for the more contagious Delta Variant. It is best used 10 days of first symptoms and those who are high risk for severe Covid illness. These are the groups who will be going for the Monoclonal Antibodies the Theater in Brownwood. These are the patients who allegedly will be visiting and gathering in the Brownwood square in Restaurants, Stores, etc. This does not mean they shouldn't be treated it means the medical center should be in a non populated area.