On your points 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 ...

Some of these are Technical employees some of them Managers familiar with
the internal company processes. Some you decided to disclaim their opinion
as personal opinion. Others because they are not high enough in the hierarchy
of the company. That is an acceptable attitude. However ignores the reasons
why they fundamentally would be making those statements.

These claims are just data points, but its bit like saying:
A Volkswagen sales person or Company car mechanic says their
cars are crap. I am going to ignore those data points because what
do they know about car engineering...I will listen instead to the
Chief Company Engineer...

Maybe, its because they are not that high in the hierarchy,
that they allowed themselves to make those statements.

Your argument seems to be that they dont know what they are talking about.
You ignore the fact,that one of them is clearly stating not to take their vaccine.
And you are the one misstating facts. JD says the older kids should only taking
as their "civic duty", does not say the vaccine is really required.( for kids)

> 1.6

I wont. I was reminding you upfront that I did not make the statement.

>1.7

If that is true or not the readers of this thread are welcome to decide by watching the
videos themselves and do further research. I would like to remind you, that
many facts now accepted, used to get people banned from Facebook and
YouTube months ago.

You are claiming I am posting something that does not belong to HN and I deserve to be
downvoted, as I am posting shit. If its all shit, dont worry, the downvotes will come. :-)

But you went further than that. I take your comment, that although you dont
endorse banning, you think YouTube is entitled to ban who they want from their platform,
as a veiled threat, that for some shit post here, you would also like to engage in a
similar type of scientific and political arbitrage.

The problem with that attitude is that it tends to backfire.

>2.1

You seem to forget or ignore that in many countries millions of people are
facing vaccine mandates, with no exceptions accepted, that include threat of job loss
unless they comply.

You ignore that vaccines used to have 5 to 7 years experimental trial periods.
You make a blank statement that vaccines have been shown to be safe based on what
were "warp" speed operations, on the face of unprecedented pandemic. And you make that statement
you forget or ignore the fact that all safety studies exclude the immunocompromised.

Compared to your somewhat blank statement of vaccine safety, lets see what the WHO says on
their website, for example about AstraZeneca. These are partial quotes but I think they
support my argument that you cannot make the statement you just made:

=====================================================================

"The Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine: what you need to know"

"Should pregnant women be vaccinated?"

While pregnancy puts women at higher risk of severe COVID-19, very little
data are available to assess vaccine safety in pregnancy.

"Who is the vaccine not recommended for?"

"People with a history of severe allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine should not take it."

"The vaccine is not recommended for persons younger
than 18 years of age pending the results of further studies."

"Does it prevent infection and transmission?
No substantive data are available related to impact of AZD1222 on transmission or viral shedding."

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-oxf...

=====================================================================

>2.2

Thank you for agreeing with me concerning the company claims. About Pfizer,
yes I trust them even less, as until the pandemic they had a toxic reputation:

> 2.3

About Pfizer, yes indeed, I trust them even less. Until the pandemic
they had the most toxic of the toxic reputations.

======================================================================

"Pfizer: Six Scandals to Remember"

"Pfizer is likely to make huge profits from its COVID-19 vaccine
but the greatest long-term benefit to the company may well
be the positive PR it has received as a result. That PR was
much-needed: before COVID-19, Pfizer had a toxic reputation
even compared to other pharma companies. "

"1986: Pfizer had to withdraw an artificial heart valve from
the market after defects led to it being implicated in over 300 deaths."

"2003: Pfizer has long been condemned for profiteering from AIDS drugs."

"2011: Pfizer was forced to pay compensation to families of children killed
in the controversial Trovan drug trial. During the worst meningitis epidemic
seen in Africa, in 1996, Pfizer ran a trial in Nigeria their new drug Trovan.
Five of the 100 children who took Trovan died and it caused liver damage,
while it caused lifelong disabilities in those who survived"

"2012: Pfizer had to pay around $1billion to settle lawsuits
claiming its Prempro drug caused breast cancer."

"2013: Pfizer paid out $273 million to settle over 2,000 cases in the US that
accused its smoking treatment drug Chantix of provoking suicidal and homicidal
thoughts, self harm and severe psychological disorders. Pfizer was also accused
of improperly excluding patients with a history of depression or
other mental disturbances from trials for the drug."

"2020: Pfizer reached an agreement with thousands of customers
of its depo-testosterone drug in 2018 after they sued it for increasing
the likelihood of numerous issues, including heart attacks."

https://corporatewatch.org/pfizer-six-scandals-to-remember/

======================================================================

I agree that for some, the risks of vaccine might be smaller than the
risks caused by COVID-19.

But governments and health organizations implementing obligatory legal mandates, are also
responsible for fatal outcomes like these Pfizer related examples:

"Young people’s deaths after Pfizer vaccines are new worry"

https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2021/08/24/national/soc...

"Twenty-three elderly Norwegians died within days of receiving the first dose of the COVID vaccine, local health officials say."

https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/covid-vaccin...

"Lisa Shaw: Presenter's death due to complications of Covid vaccine"

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-58330796

"New Zealand woman dies after receiving Pfizer vaccine"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58380867

"Michigan boy dies 3 days after getting Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, CDC is investigating"

https://eu.freep.com/story/news/2021/07/02/jacob-clynick-pfi...

> 3.1

I wont get sidetracked. I tried to prevent you, mentioning things like organizations
like the FDA are watching out for the health of consumers. You implied that other 3rd parties are
watching out for vaccine safety. In reality they review material presented by the
vaccine producers. Its a very similar process to Boeing and the FAA reviews.

> 3.2

I tried to respect it as you made the effort to reply to my comments.

PS...rant...shit shit..rant...rant.. :-)

The problem with rants is that they can come to bite you in a few months.But now its here for posterity.

Hopefully these virus mutations will fade to progressively less threatening flavors.
My money however is on that they wont. Infections will be back.

As everybody agreed vaccines are "safe", and it will be politically and scientifically difficult to contradict
what was stated until now, you wont escape a mandated 4th, 5th and 6th dose.

You will be mandated to take it, as the principle is accepted in spirit and in law.
When the side effects start, I am sure the argument then will be:
"Oh we never said vaccines were absolutely safe, they were always risks..."