The following debate originally took place upon my Facebook wall…
Nurse Who Tested Positive Days After Vaccine Is Reminder Protection Not Instant, 2 Doses Needed:
https://pix11.com/news/coronavirus/er-nurse-tests-positive-for-covid-19-eight-days-after-receiving-vaccine/
A California nurse tested positive for COVID-19 more than a week after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Health experts are saying this may not be completely unexpected given the time it takes for the vaccine to become protective and the fact that a second dose is needed for full efficacy.
Michael S.: Rayn, what’s your point? The article gave indications why this might be the case. Also, this isn’t going to be a perfect vaccine since its the first of its kind.
Rayn: My point was to share the article with my FB friends, so they can read it, Michael. What’s your point, in asking my point? Do you have a problem with informed consent, regarding medical experimentation?
Either way, I certainly didn’t designate you as my FB post “opinion checker,” and I’m not even remotely interested in even a single one of your efforts to justify mass human experimentation, using a product containing chemicals and genetically-modified mRNA, on the public at large, without informed consent, by a convicted corporate felon Pharmaceutical company that’s been given full legal immunity from any damages that result from their “product.”
Michael S.: Rayn, would you like to discuss this in Facebook Messenger? You seem upset and I’m not sure why because I was trying to discuss the article with you.
Rayn: I merely responded to your inquiry, in kind, Michael. “What’s your point?” is no place for you to begin a discussion on this article, with me, especially while you follow up your inquiry with the vague claim that “the article gave indications why this might be the case.” “Might,” eh? So, even as you admit that this phenomenon is taking place, and that there’s not even a scientific consensus on exactly why, and it’s all part of experimental medicines, you ask me what’s the point of sharing this article? From my perspectives, your question is disingenuous, and your comments are dismissive minimizations of the phenomenon, and the need for further research…
Michael S.: Rayn, I think that you misunderstood what I meant. First, yes, “what’s your point?” is a legitimate question to ask in this case because I have read articles, which have honestly pointed out that the vaccines weren’t going to be perfect, though they were safe enough, which is good enough in this situation. Second, it isn’t a vague claim because the article does specifically indicate why this happens. Third, regarding the medicine, it isn’t so much experimental as that the science is very new, so I’m just being a realist in terms of what we can expect. In other words, this is the best that medical science can do at this point, with the coronavirus vaccines, but it is still pretty good considering everything, and can also just be a part of life sometimes as well. In other words, I think that this is made pretty clear in the article. Fourth, I’m not being dismissive at all. I just think that, even if further research is needed, it isn’t realistic or pragmatic to not give the vaccines to people, if they are safe enough, when millions of people are dying from coronavirus infections. If they have some bad side effects, it isn’t great, but, if people will live and get through them. It is also much better than dying, particularly if the people aren’t harmed.
Rayn: To begin, Michael, your claim, “what’s your point?” is a legitimate question to ask in this case because [you] have read articles, which have honestly pointed out that the vaccines weren’t going to be perfect, though they were safe enough, which is good enough in this situation,” is meaningless, because your personal research on articles about the COVID vaccines have absolutely no bearing upon my post to my wall. Meanwhile, you are admitting your cognitive biases on the topic, which explains your lack of ability to discuss the topic without disingenuous inquiry and dismissive minimizations…
Second, it was *your* claim, here, that was vague, not the article I posted. Keep up, Captain. You said, “the article gave indications why this might be the case.” That’s a completely VAGUE statement, on your part, which holds almost no value, in this conversation.
Third, the rushed vaccines, and the science behind it, are absolutely EXPERIMENTAL. The two major vaccines being distributed were both fast-tracked around any of the usual long-term studies done on medicinal products, and were authorized not through normal licensure, but through an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).
FDA Takes Key Action in Fight Against COVID-19 By Issuing Emergency Use Authorization for First COVID-19 Vaccine:
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-key-action-fight-against-covid-19-issuing-emergency-use-authorization-first-covid-19
As you can read for yourself, in the article I just shared, “the FDA also expects manufacturers whose COVID-19 vaccines are authorized under an EUA to continue their clinical trials to obtain additional safety and effectiveness information and pursue approval (licensure).”
Apparently, with all of the articles you’ve read on the topic, so far, looking to confirm your opinion, you managed to conveniently overlook this important FACT.
Fourth, you were being dismissive of the vaccine anomaly taking place in the original article I posted, in an effort to minimize it, as though it was pointless information for me to post. Unsurprisingly, your latest comment, here, admitting your cognitive biases, reveals exactly why you felt entitled to do so…
(All original portions of this work, by Rayn Kleipe, are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, while all redistributed links, images, sounds, videos, and writings are protected under 17 U.S.C. § 107: Fair Use, or under Public Domain)
