Poll of the Day > Thousands of ANTI-VAXX Canadians don't want MRNA Vaccines..They want J&J!!!

Topic List	Page List: 1
mrduckbear 10/03/21 7:44:21 PM #1:	Do you think these people are idiots? Yes. if they actually think johnson and johnson is superior to the mrna vaccines, they are stupid to believe that No. all vaccines have great advantages and if they want J&J then give it to them They're foolish if they think J&J and Astrazenica are different when both are virtually the same I say they're foolish to even request ANY of these vaccines cause none are proven safe Do you think these people are idiots? - Results (5 votes) Yes. if they actually think johnson and johnson is superior to the mrna vaccines, they are stupid to believe that 40% (2 votes) 2 No. all vaccines have great advantages and if they want J&J then give it to them 20% (1 vote) 1 They're foolish if they think J&J and Astrazenica are different when both are virtually the same 0% (0 votes) 0 I say they're foolish to even request ANY of these vaccines cause none are proven safe 40% (2 votes) 2 Thousands of Unvaccinated Canadians are REFUSING the offering of MRNA Vaccines of Moderna and Pfizer because they do not trust the manufacturer's new technology into their bodies..nor do they trust Oxford's Astrazenica which causes rare blood clots..but now they demand Justin Trudeau offer ANOTHER choice to them after and they want the single shot vaccine JOHNSON & JOHNSON which was approved in the United States!! Columunist and past radio host and former leader of the far-right Wildrose Party, Danielle Smith says there are thousands of albertans like herself who do not trust mrna technology and claim they are not anti-vaxx but demand Justin Trudeau to offer them choice She said it was expensive and a nuisance to cross the border to get the johnson vaccine but it was worth it because she TRUSTS this one the most as do many of her followers who have now mounted an online fundraiser to challenge Trudeau to make more COVID-19 therapies available Now she may get her wish as Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan are asking them to supply 20,000 doses of the vaccine for their anti-vaxx constituents Federal Health Minister, Patty Hadju said they are working on it and has contacted provinces who are interested Rural MLA's and healthcare workers are telling them their unvaccinated want this vaccine because they believe is the SUPERIOR one and causes LESS EFFECTS. The combined provinces are demanding 50,000 J&J vaccines Thousands of these people say they are not great with needles and would rather have a "one and done" vaccine rather than continuing to have multiple shots J&J however has no scientific advantage over the others and is similar to Astrazenica which it too causes blood clots and is 66% effective against COVID-19 but 2 doses of the J&J shot provide 94% effective rate Alberta has one of the lowest vaccination rates in the country and is in turmoil with its hospitals filling up with patients and is now asking Trudeau for help Do you think these people are idiots? https://i.imgur.com/jxjKGmv.jpg https://i.imgur.com/9cu9B4p.jpg https://i.imgur.com/qm4RpNt.jpg --- The Users have Spoken. News Will Continue...For Now <cite>mrduckbear posted [p:958663694] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote> Do you think these people are idiots? Yes. if they actually think johnson and johnson is superior to the mrna vaccines, they are stupid to believe that No. all vaccines have great advantages and if they want J&J then give it to them They're foolish if they think J&J and Astrazenica are different when both are virtually the same I say they're foolish to even request ANY of these vaccines cause none are proven safe Vote View Results Do you think these people are idiots? - Results (5 votes) Yes. if they actually think johnson and johnson is superior to the mrna vaccines, they are stupid to believe that 40% (2 votes) 2 No. all vaccines have great advantages and if they want J&J then give it to them 20% (1 vote) 1 They're foolish if they think J&J and Astrazenica are different when both are virtually the same 0% (0 votes) 0 I say they're foolish to even request ANY of these vaccines cause none are proven safe 40% (2 votes) 2 Show Voting Form Thousands of Unvaccinated Canadians are REFUSING the offering of MRNA Vaccines of Moderna and Pfizer because they do not trust the manufacturer's new technology into their bodies..nor do they trust Oxford's Astrazenica which causes rare blood clots..but now they demand Justin Trudeau offer ANOTHER choice to them after and they want the single shot vaccine JOHNSON & JOHNSON which was approved in the United States!! Columunist and past radio host and former leader of the far-right Wildrose Party, Danielle Smith says there are thousands of albertans like herself who do not trust mrna technology and claim they are not anti-vaxx but demand Justin Trudeau to offer them choice She said it was expensive and a nuisance to cross the border to get the johnson vaccine but it was worth it because she TRUSTS this one the most as do many of her followers who have now mounted an online fundraiser to challenge Trudeau to make more COVID-19 therapies available Now she may get her wish as Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan are asking them to supply 20,000 doses of the vaccine for their anti-vaxx constituents Federal Health Minister, Patty Hadju said they are working on it and has contacted provinces who are interested Rural MLA's and healthcare workers are telling them their unvaccinated want this vaccine because they believe is the SUPERIOR one and causes LESS EFFECTS. The combined provinces are demanding 50,000 J&J vaccines Thousands of these people say they are not great with needles and would rather have a "one and done" vaccine rather than continuing to have multiple shots J&J however has no scientific advantage over the others and is similar to Astrazenica which it too causes blood clots and is 66% effective against COVID-19 but 2 doses of the J&J shot provide 94% effective rate Alberta has one of the lowest vaccination rates in the country and is in turmoil with its hospitals filling up with patients and is now asking Trudeau for help Do you think these people are idiots? https://i.imgur.com/jxjKGmv.jpg https://i.imgur.com/9cu9B4p.jpg https://i.imgur.com/qm4RpNt.jpg</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/03/21 7:47:44 PM #2:	Pretty funny since J&J was knowingly giving cancer to babies and their parents for decades with their baby powder. They're totally trustworthy! <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:958663778] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>Pretty funny since J&J was knowingly giving cancer to babies and their parents for decades with their baby powder. They're totally trustworthy! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 10/03/21 8:17:26 PM #3:	Someone was telling me that Moderna is 'the best', but I take all of that information with a grain of salt. OhhhJa does bring up a decent point about distrust re: J&J. It's very unfortunate that people are distrustful of mRNA vaccines though, they're amazing. most of the rationale behind being picky about which vaccine you want is null and void in terms of the benefit of simply getting the vaccine that is first available to you. --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:958664604] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>Someone was telling me that Moderna is 'the best', but I take all of that information with a grain of salt. OhhhJa does bring up a decent point about distrust re: J&J. It's very unfortunate that people are distrustful of mRNA vaccines though, they're amazing. most of the rationale behind being picky about which vaccine you want is null and void in terms of the benefit of simply getting the vaccine that is first available to you. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 10/03/21 8:31:28 PM #4:	Honestly, everybody should want the Janssen. It's the logical choice. As for relative efficacy, all of them now promote booster shots. So why wouldn't you want to go with the one that has the least harmful side-effects? OhhhJa posted... Pretty funny since J&J was knowingly giving cancer to babies and their parents for decades with their baby powder. They're totally trustworthy! What was the evil scheme there? --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:958664975] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>Honestly, everybody should want the Janssen. It's the logical choice. As for relative efficacy, all of them now promote booster shots. So why wouldn't you want to go with the one that has the least harmful side-effects? OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>Pretty funny since J&J was knowingly giving cancer to babies and their parents for decades with their baby powder. They're totally trustworthy!</quote> What was the evil scheme there? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/03/21 8:33:30 PM #5:	Zeus posted... Honestly, everybody should want the Janssen. It's the logical choice. As for relative efficacy, all of them now promote booster shots. So why wouldn't you want to go with the one that has the least harmful side-effects? What was the evil scheme there? Is this a serious question? It's been shown that they knew for years but kept selling it anyway... so the evil scheme is making money? <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:958665030] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>Zeus posted... </cite> <quote>Honestly, everybody should want the Janssen. It's the logical choice. As for relative efficacy, all of them now promote booster shots. So why wouldn't you want to go with the one that has the least harmful side-effects? What was the evil scheme there?</quote>Is this a serious question? It's been shown that they knew for years but kept selling it anyway... so the evil scheme is making money? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/03/21 8:34:43 PM #6:	Even with the baby powder stuff aside, I don't know how you could research the vaccine and intentionally choose the J&J shot. The mRNA ones are way more effective and trustworthy on every level <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:958665056] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>Even with the baby powder stuff aside, I don't know how you could research the vaccine and intentionally choose the J&J shot. The mRNA ones are way more effective and trustworthy on every level </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antbregante 10/04/21 3:00:37 AM #7:	They are a bunch of idiots but if it gets them vaxxed I'm for it. --- www.thebookofpdr.com. My friends site with bizarre web comics and a strange blog about the weird thoughts going on inside his head. <cite>Antbregante posted [p:958673236] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>They are a bunch of idiots but if it gets them vaxxed I'm for it. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/04/21 10:43:52 AM #8:	Zeus posted... Honestly, everybody should want the Janssen. It's the logical choice. It's the least effective one by a substantial margin and has roughly the same side effect profile as AZ. From the patient's perspective, the only benefit is needing one dose instead of two (which is a pretty minimal benefit to begin with), but if they're going to be getting a booster shot anyway, that benefit is completely negated. Janssen's great for getting the vaccine to places that don't have the infrastructure in place to distribute and handle the others, since it's vastly better than nothing, but once that infrastructure is in place, it's quite clearly the worst available option. I'm not sure why you're so bent on championing it in regions where better options are readily available. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:958679694] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>Zeus posted... </cite> <quote>Honestly, everybody should want the Janssen. It's the logical choice.</quote> It's the least effective one by a substantial margin and has roughly the same side effect profile as AZ. From the patient's perspective, the only benefit is needing one dose instead of two (which is a pretty minimal benefit to begin with), but if they're going to be getting a booster shot anyway, that benefit is completely negated. Janssen's great for getting the vaccine to places that don't have the infrastructure in place to distribute and handle the others, since it's vastly better than nothing, but once that infrastructure is in place, it's quite clearly the worst available option. I'm not sure why you're so bent on championing it in regions where better options are readily available. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SeahorseCpt89 10/04/21 10:30:53 PM #9:	I dont get Anti-Vaxer logic anymore. They dont want vaccines because theyre dangerous but when they DO decide to get a vaccine, they choose the only one of the three that is actually causing problems? --- I am the forum boy, I'm the one who posts. <cite>SeahorseCpt89 posted [p:958701357] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>I dont get Anti-Vaxer logic anymore. They dont want vaccines because theyre dangerous but when they DO decide to get a vaccine, they choose the only one of the three that is actually causing problems? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/04/21 10:37:13 PM #10:	SeahorseCpt89 posted... I dont get Anti-Vaxer logic anymore. They dont want vaccines because theyre dangerous but when they DO decide to get a vaccine, they choose the only one of the three that is actually causing problems? J&J isn't really causing any more problems than the others tbh. When, extrapolated out the percentage of real problems caused by each is pretty identical which is basically next to non existent <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:958701553] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>SeahorseCpt89 posted... </cite> <quote>I dont get Anti-Vaxer logic anymore. They dont want vaccines because theyre dangerous but when they DO decide to get a vaccine, they choose the only one of the three that is actually causing problems?</quote>J&J isn't really causing any more problems than the others tbh. When, extrapolated out the percentage of real problems caused by each is pretty identical which is basically next to non existent </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gaawa_chan 10/05/21 12:28:44 AM #11:	It's just another excuse to not get the vaccine. --- Hi <cite>Gaawa_chan posted [p:958704761] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>It's just another excuse to not get the vaccine. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/05/21 7:40:54 AM #12:	OhhhJa posted... J&J isn't really causing any more problems than the others tbh. When, extrapolated out the percentage of real problems caused by each is pretty identical which is basically next to non existent Pretty much. The side effect profile isn't worse, it's just not appreciably better. Where it is worse is in terms of efficacy. Gaawa_chan posted... It's just another excuse to not get the vaccine. Also true. I can all but guarantee that half of the people clamouring for J&J to be available wouldn't actually go get the shot if it were. They're just latching onto what seems like a valid justification for not getting the current vaccines that avoids the criticism and scrutiny that comes with being more transparently anti-vaxx. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:958710931] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>J&J isn't really causing any more problems than the others tbh. When, extrapolated out the percentage of real problems caused by each is pretty identical which is basically next to non existent</quote> Pretty much. The side effect profile isn't worse, it's just not appreciably better. Where it is worse is in terms of efficacy. Gaawa_chan posted... </cite> <quote>It's just another excuse to not get the vaccine.</quote> Also true. I can all but guarantee that half of the people clamouring for J&J to be available wouldn't actually go get the shot if it were. They're just latching onto what seems like a valid justification for not getting the current vaccines that avoids the criticism and scrutiny that comes with being more transparently anti-vaxx. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SantaKhala 10/05/21 4:37:41 PM #13:	--- 'SantaKhala is the ruler, leader, and destroyer of the SC2 boards.' - ItsaMeMarioo. 'But all hail He, who destroyed the SC2 boards for some time.' - The_niblet. <cite>SantaKhala posted [p:958732656] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 10/05/21 4:59:42 PM #14:	oh golly, lots of missing information in that one :) --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:958733452] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>oh golly, lots of missing information in that one :) </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/05/21 5:29:38 PM #15:	ReturnOfFa posted... oh golly, lots of missing information in that one :) Whaaat? Anti-vaxxers spreading incomplete, misleading, and outright incorrect information without context in an effort to support their position? That can't be right... --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:958734671] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>ReturnOfFa posted... </cite> <quote>oh golly, lots of missing information in that one :)</quote> Whaaat? Anti-vaxxers spreading incomplete, misleading, and outright incorrect information without context in an effort to support their position? That can't be right... </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ArvTheGreat 10/05/21 5:39:06 PM #16:	they want jimmy johns? so does arv! --- Things are about to get arvified <cite>ArvTheGreat posted [p:958735044] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>they want jimmy johns? so does arv! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BEERandWEED 10/05/21 8:20:43 PM #17:	ReturnOfFa posted... oh golly, lots of missing information in that one :) Thanks sharing the missing info. <cite>BEERandWEED posted [p:958740770] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>ReturnOfFa posted... </cite> <quote>oh golly, lots of missing information in that one :)</quote>Thanks sharing the missing info. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/05/21 8:38:55 PM #18:	BEERandWEED posted... Thanks sharing the missing info. Yeah there isn't missing info there lol. It's okay to be supportive of the vaccine and still admit that these companies have a shady history. I know it doesn't help your argument when trying to encourage vaccination but it's always best to be intellectually honest when debating <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:958741391] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>BEERandWEED posted... </cite> <quote>Thanks sharing the missing info.</quote>Yeah there isn't missing info there lol. It's okay to be supportive of the vaccine and still admit that these companies have a shady history. I know it doesn't help your argument when trying to encourage vaccination but it's always best to be intellectually honest when debating </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/05/21 9:04:40 PM #19:	I mean, most glaringly, it leaves out that you're two orders of magnitude less likely to develop the AZ blood clot side effect at all - let alone die from them - than you are to die of Covid simply by being a US citizen (~0.001% chance of blood clots, ~0.21% of the US population has been killed). Leaving out quantitative data when stating a risk is a pretty common fearmongering strategy. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:958742289] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>I mean, most glaringly, it leaves out that you're two orders of magnitude less likely to develop the AZ blood clot side effect at all - let alone die from them - than you are to die of Covid simply by being a US citizen (~0.001% chance of blood clots, ~0.21% of the US population has been killed). Leaving out quantitative data when stating a risk is a pretty common fearmongering strategy. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 10/05/21 9:29:10 PM #20:	^ --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:958743169] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>^ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/05/21 9:32:12 PM #21:	Well, I guess I was mainly referring to the info on the other 3 companies since nobody in my country gets the astrazeneca vax anyway. But yeah, there's not really much risk for any of them <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:958743280] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>Well, I guess I was mainly referring to the info on the other 3 companies since nobody in my country gets the astrazeneca vax anyway. But yeah, there's not really much risk for any of them </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Arcturusisnow 10/05/21 10:03:39 PM #22:	Antbregante posted... They are a bunch of idiots but if it gets them vaxxed I'm for it. As much as I want to be a good person I'm really not for it. They have had every opportunity to get vaxxed. Multiple people including other non-vaxxers in the hospital have told them to get vaxxed. If they haven't at this point then they deserve to get Covid and suffer for it. <cite>Arcturusisnow posted [p:958744424] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>Antbregante posted... </cite> <quote>They are a bunch of idiots but if it gets them vaxxed I'm for it.</quote>As much as I want to be a good person I'm really not for it. They have had every opportunity to get vaxxed. Multiple people including other non-vaxxers in the hospital have told them to get vaxxed. If they haven't at this point then they deserve to get Covid and suffer for it. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BEERandWEED 10/05/21 10:09:49 PM #23:	OhhhJa posted... Yeah there isn't missing info there lol. It's okay to be supportive of the vaccine and still admit that these companies have a shady history. I know it doesn't help your argument when trying to encourage vaccination but it's always best to be intellectually honest when debating Trusting shady companies seems unwise. <cite>BEERandWEED posted [p:958744734] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>Yeah there isn't missing info there lol. It's okay to be supportive of the vaccine and still admit that these companies have a shady history. I know it doesn't help your argument when trying to encourage vaccination but it's always best to be intellectually honest when debating</quote>Trusting shady companies seems unwise. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/05/21 11:39:07 PM #24:	OhhhJa posted... Well, I guess I was mainly referring to the info on the other 3 companies since nobody in my country gets the astrazeneca vax anyway. But yeah, there's not really much risk for any of them The other three are also really vague about the exact risk factors they're citing (which, again, is common to fearmongering propaganda). If nothing else, a time/market scale is important for all three claims: Pfizer has been around for over 150 years and released countless products in that time frame (meaning those fines represent a pretty small minority of their products). Moderna has been around for just 11 years and trying to enter a pretty crowded market with novel technology that really hasn't had a chance to shine before now (such that pulling one off so early in their life is actually pretty good). J&J has been around for over 120 years and also released countless products (so their lawsuits are, again, associated with a small minority of their products). That's not to say scrutiny is unwarranted, but taking those figures out of context like that is a blatant effort to make them seem scarier than they are. It's also really a variant of ad hominem: attacking the companies behind the vaccines in the absence of the author's ability to form plausible criticisms of the vaccines themselves. There are plenty of data and publications available on these vaccines that can be scrutinized if somebody doesn't trust them and wants to see results and evaluate methodologies for themselves. Attacking the companies instead of doing that is just lazy and suggests a considerable lack of confidence in one's position. BEERandWEED posted... Trusting shady companies seems unwise. That really depends what the alternative is. It also depends a lot on the context, particularly how easily you can verify whatever they're claiming and what evidence exists that might suggest that they're lying. Don't blindly trust them, certainly, but also don't blindly assume that everything they say is a lie. Neither is a good idea. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:958747510] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>Well, I guess I was mainly referring to the info on the other 3 companies since nobody in my country gets the astrazeneca vax anyway. But yeah, there's not really much risk for any of them</quote> The other three are also really vague about the exact risk factors they're citing (which, again, is common to fearmongering propaganda). If nothing else, a time/market scale is important for all three claims: Pfizer has been around for over 150 years and released countless products in that time frame (meaning those fines represent a pretty small minority of their products). Moderna has been around for just 11 years and trying to enter a pretty crowded market with novel technology that really hasn't had a chance to shine before now (such that pulling one off so early in their life is actually pretty good). J&J has been around for over 120 years and also released countless products (so their lawsuits are, again, associated with a small minority of their products). That's not to say scrutiny is unwarranted, but taking those figures out of context like that is a blatant effort to make them seem scarier than they are. It's also really a variant of ad hominem: attacking the companies behind the vaccines in the absence of the author's ability to form plausible criticisms of the vaccines themselves. There are plenty of data and publications available on these vaccines that can be scrutinized if somebody doesn't trust them and wants to see results and evaluate methodologies for themselves. Attacking the companies instead of doing that is just lazy and suggests a considerable lack of confidence in one's position. BEERandWEED posted... </cite> <quote>Trusting shady companies seems unwise.</quote> That really depends what the alternative is. It also depends a lot on the context, particularly how easily you can verify whatever they're claiming and what evidence exists that might suggest that they're lying. Don't blindly trust them, certainly, but also don't blindly assume that everything they say is a lie. Neither is a good idea. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SaltyAndSweet 10/05/21 11:40:27 PM #25:	Just vaccinate them whether they like it or not. --- Hey its me ur Mead <cite>SaltyAndSweet posted [p:958747544] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>Just vaccinate them whether they like it or not. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 10/06/21 12:18:55 AM #26:	It's funny when people trust shady companies telling them not to trust shady companies. Nice. --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:958748459] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>It's funny when people trust shady companies telling them not to trust shady companies. Nice. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/06/21 11:12:29 AM #27:	adjl posted... Pfizer has been around for over 150 years and released countless products in that time frame (meaning those fines represent a pretty small minority of their products) I think the major lawsuits referenced by that post are within the last couple decades though adjl posted... Moderna has been around for just 11 years and trying to enter a pretty crowded market with novel technology that really hasn't had a chance to shine before now (such that pulling one off so early in their life is actually pretty good) Yeah, I don't really have any issue with Moderna as a company adjl posted... J&J has been around for over 120 years and also released countless products (so their lawsuits are, again, associated with a small minority of their products). But again, what's referenced is stuff that's very recent <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:958759385] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Pfizer has been around for over 150 years and released countless products in that time frame (meaning those fines represent a pretty small minority of their products)</quote>I think the major lawsuits referenced by that post are within the last couple decades though adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Moderna has been around for just 11 years and trying to enter a pretty crowded market with novel technology that really hasn't had a chance to shine before now (such that pulling one off so early in their life is actually pretty good)</quote>Yeah, I don't really have any issue with Moderna as a company adjl posted... </cite> <quote>J&J has been around for over 120 years and also released countless products (so their lawsuits are, again, associated with a small minority of their products).</quote>But again, what's referenced is stuff that's very recent </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/06/21 11:31:45 AM #28:	OhhhJa posted... I think the major lawsuits referenced by that post are within the last couple decades though They are, but in many cases, they're based on things that have happened throughout their history but have only come to light in recent years. Asbestos in baby powder, for example is not a new decision. It's a very old decision whose impact (and subsequent lawsuits over that impact) has only been noticed relatively recently. That doesn't excuse it, certainly, and it's absolutely true that these companies have gone to considerable lengths to keep such issues from coming to light and/or deny responsibility for them, but it's not like they've made all of these shady decisions recently, nor are they representative of the safety of their many other products. It's a long-standing issue, and representing it witout a time scale like that misrepresents its intensity. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:958759801] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>I think the major lawsuits referenced by that post are within the last couple decades though</quote> They are, but in many cases, they're based on things that have happened throughout their history but have only come to light in recent years. Asbestos in baby powder, for example is not a new decision. It's a very old decision whose impact (and subsequent lawsuits over that impact) has only been noticed relatively recently. That doesn't excuse it, certainly, and it's absolutely true that these companies have gone to considerable lengths to keep such issues from coming to light and/or deny responsibility for them, but it's not like they've made all of these shady decisions recently, nor are they representative of the safety of their many other products. It's a long-standing issue, and representing it witout a time scale like that misrepresents its intensity. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/06/21 11:39:01 AM #29:	adjl posted... Asbestos in baby powder, for example is not a new decision. It's a very old decision whose impact (and subsequent lawsuits over that impact) has only been noticed relatively recently. They've known about it for years and yet only recently pulled it from shelves <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:958759974] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Asbestos in baby powder, for example is not a new decision. It's a very old decision whose impact (and subsequent lawsuits over that impact) has only been noticed relatively recently.</quote>They've known about it for years and yet only recently pulled it from shelves </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
zebatov 10/06/21 1:30:40 PM #30:	OhhhJa posted... Pretty funny since J&J was knowingly giving cancer to babies and their parents for decades with their baby powder. They're totally trustworthy! Pfizers been convicted of fraud, bribery and racketeering (fraud). I just dont trust any of them. --- If the truth is bothersome, then change what's true. <cite>zebatov posted [p:958763385] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>Pretty funny since J&J was knowingly giving cancer to babies and their parents for decades with their baby powder. They're totally trustworthy!</quote> Pfizers been convicted of fraud, bribery and racketeering (fraud). I just dont trust any of them. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 10/06/21 1:32:46 PM #31:	zebatov posted... Pfizers been convicted of fraud, bribery and racketeering (fraud). I just dont trust any of them. If that's your metric for not trusting anything, you're going to have an extremely difficult time eating any food whatsoever. This is the hypocrisy I see. The lack of trust is completely selective and only informed by the information that has broken through on media, as opposed to being based on a rational and informed viewpoint. --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:958763457] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>zebatov posted... </cite> <quote>Pfizers been convicted of fraud, bribery and racketeering (fraud). I just dont trust any of them.</quote>If that's your metric for not trusting anything, you're going to have an extremely difficult time eating any food whatsoever. This is the hypocrisy I see. The lack of trust is completely selective and only informed by the information that has broken through on media, as opposed to being based on a rational and informed viewpoint. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/06/21 1:54:07 PM #32:	OhhhJa posted... They've known about it for years and yet only recently pulled it from shelves And it's still only one of thousands of products they offer. It highlights the need for scrutiny and oversight, absolutely, but you can exercise that scrutiny without categorically distrusting everything they do. ReturnOfFa posted... If that's your metric for not trusting anything, you're going to have an extremely difficult time eating any food whatsoever. This is the hypocrisy I see. The lack of trust is completely selective and only informed by the information that has broken through on media, as opposed to being based on a rational and informed viewpoint. More than that, information that's broken through in the media that you've already decided you're going to agree with. It's an alarmist reaction to legitimate problems that have been taken out of context for the purposes of fearmongering. Nobody's saying that they aren't legitimate problems, just that previous convictions of fraud for the company shouldn't make you afraid of one of the most heavily scrutinized products in medical history. You don't have to blindly trust them: the data is available and has been reviewed by countless agencies that have plenty of incentive to call Pfizer (or whoever) out if their vaccine is actually harmful. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:958764150] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>They've known about it for years and yet only recently pulled it from shelves</quote> And it's still only one of thousands of products they offer. It highlights the need for scrutiny and oversight, absolutely, but you can exercise that scrutiny without categorically distrusting everything they do. ReturnOfFa posted... </cite> <quote>If that's your metric for not trusting anything, you're going to have an extremely difficult time eating any food whatsoever. This is the hypocrisy I see. The lack of trust is completely selective and only informed by the information that has broken through on media, as opposed to being based on a rational and informed viewpoint.</quote> More than that, information that's broken through in the media that you've already decided you're going to agree with. It's an alarmist reaction to legitimate problems that have been taken out of context for the purposes of fearmongering. Nobody's saying that they aren't legitimate problems, just that previous convictions of fraud for the company shouldn't make you afraid of one of the most heavily scrutinized products in medical history. You don't have to blindly trust them: the data is available and has been reviewed by countless agencies that have plenty of incentive to call Pfizer (or whoever) out if their vaccine is actually harmful. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 10/06/21 2:25:10 PM #33:	adjl posted... And it's still only one of thousands of products they offer. It highlights the need for scrutiny and oversight, absolutely, but you can exercise that scrutiny without categorically distrusting everything they do. More than that, information that's broken through in the media that you've already decided you're going to agree with. It's an alarmist reaction to legitimate problems that have been taken out of context for the purposes of fearmongering. Nobody's saying that they aren't legitimate problems, just that previous convictions of fraud for the company shouldn't make you afraid of one of the most heavily scrutinized products in medical history. You don't have to blindly trust them: the data is available and has been reviewed by countless agencies that have plenty of incentive to call Pfizer (or whoever) out if their vaccine is actually harmful. so well put --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:958765133] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>And it's still only one of thousands of products they offer. It highlights the need for scrutiny and oversight, absolutely, but you can exercise that scrutiny without categorically distrusting everything they do. More than that, information that's broken through in the media that you've already decided you're going to agree with. It's an alarmist reaction to legitimate problems that have been taken out of context for the purposes of fearmongering. Nobody's saying that they aren't legitimate problems, just that previous convictions of fraud for the company shouldn't make you afraid of one of the most heavily scrutinized products in medical history. You don't have to blindly trust them: the data is available and has been reviewed by countless agencies that have plenty of incentive to call Pfizer (or whoever) out if their vaccine is actually harmful.</quote>so well put </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa 10/06/21 2:25:40 PM #34:	Like, if you're so principled...why are you using tech lmao --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:958765148] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>Like, if you're so principled...why are you using tech lmao </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/06/21 2:48:06 PM #35:	ReturnOfFa posted... Like, if you're so principled...why are you using tech lmao I'm fully vaccinated with pfizer but I can still acknowledge that they are a shady company. And tech companies, especially Facebook, are really scummy too. People probably would be better off not using social media <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:958765840] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>ReturnOfFa posted... </cite> <quote>Like, if you're so principled...why are you using tech lmao</quote>I'm fully vaccinated with pfizer but I can still acknowledge that they are a shady company. And tech companies, especially Facebook, are really scummy too. People probably would be better off not using social media </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/06/21 3:05:22 PM #36:	OhhhJa posted... I'm fully vaccinated with pfizer but I can still acknowledge that they are a shady company. Really, this is fine. Pharmaceutical companies (most big companies, really), by and large, are indeed terrible. Using that to justify categorically distrusting everything they do, however, isn't reasonable, and that becomes a major problem when such fearmongering is used to undermine the best chance we have of solving the greatest public health crisis in a century (as is the case with that image). --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:958766380] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>I'm fully vaccinated with pfizer but I can still acknowledge that they are a shady company.</quote> Really, this is fine. Pharmaceutical companies (most big companies, really), by and large, are indeed terrible. Using that to justify categorically distrusting everything they do, however, isn't reasonable, and that becomes a major problem when such fearmongering is used to undermine the best chance we have of solving the greatest public health crisis in a century (as is the case with that image). </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
zebatov 10/10/21 12:55:19 AM #37:	ReturnOfFa posted... If that's your metric for not trusting anything, you're going to have an extremely difficult time eating any food whatsoever. This is the hypocrisy I see. The lack of trust is completely selective and only informed by the information that has broken through on media, as opposed to being based on a rational and informed viewpoint. Ill keep responding to these posts the same way. I need food to live. I cant hunt with my crossbow when I need to eat because (my) society wants to regulate that. I do not need any vaccine to live (survive). My moms neighbour is fully-vaxxed (two no booster) and shes in the hospital on a ventilator right now with Delta. Non-smoker. No negative health history that I know of. --- If the truth is bothersome, then change what's true. <cite>zebatov posted [p:958882106] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>ReturnOfFa posted... </cite> <quote>If that's your metric for not trusting anything, you're going to have an extremely difficult time eating any food whatsoever. This is the hypocrisy I see. The lack of trust is completely selective and only informed by the information that has broken through on media, as opposed to being based on a rational and informed viewpoint.</quote> Ill keep responding to these posts the same way. I need food to live. I cant hunt with my crossbow when I need to eat because (my) society wants to regulate that. I do not need any vaccine to live (survive). My moms neighbour is fully-vaxxed (two no booster) and shes in the hospital on a ventilator right now with Delta. Non-smoker. No negative health history that I know of. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
likehelly 10/10/21 12:57:39 AM #38:	there are actually several vaccines to get if you want to live i'd bet money that you have them already --- have you ever had buttered toast before have you ever had buttered toast before <cite>likehelly posted [p:958882163] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>there are actually several vaccines to get if you want to live i'd bet money that you have them already </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
zebatov 10/10/21 1:12:27 AM #39:	likehelly posted... there are actually several vaccines to get if you want to live i'd bet money that you have them already Youd be right. not anti-vax. --- If the truth is bothersome, then change what's true. <cite>zebatov posted [p:958882499] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>likehelly posted... </cite> <quote>there are actually several vaccines to get if you want to live i'd bet money that you have them already</quote> Youd be right. not anti-vax. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zedonra 10/10/21 1:21:52 AM #40:	Poll choices are never good enough for all opinions, where's the choice for 'Yes, they're idiots. But even so if J&J is the only vaccine they will take it is better for society for people to be vaccinated with SOMETHING rather than nothing'. --- Playing: TotA; ToV: DE, SM Odyssey, MH:R, MHW: IB \| MR329+/HR 561+ \| LS/CB/GS/BOW "The imagination is a weapon, those who don't use it, die first" <cite>Zedonra posted [p:958882706] in Thousands ... [t:79692104]...</cite> <quote>Poll choices are never good enough for all opinions, where's the choice for 'Yes, they're idiots. But even so if J&J is the only vaccine they will take it is better for society for people to be vaccinated with SOMETHING rather than nothing'. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Poll of the Day > Thousands of ANTI-VAXX Canadians don't want MRNA Vaccines..They want J&J!!! (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Thousands of ANTI-VAXX Canadians don't want MRNA Vaccines..They want J&J!!!