US military troops not yet fully obeying vaccine mandates

OK, so, there is the health issue. More troops died of Covid-19 in September than in all of 2020, and every single one of the dead ones was not fully vaccinated.

There is also the concept of obeying superior orders, a key feature of a proficient armed force.

People may be against mandates and I'm actually against them too (with some exceptions, such as, I'm for them for healthcare workers), but it's hard to defend the idea that a soldier should disobey orders.

Regardless of whether or not the orders are fair, soldiers are still supposed to obey. They do have the option of getting discharged from service, but if they remain, they must obey.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hundreds-thousands-u-troops-not-132625893.html

Hopefully by the deadlines, the vast majority of them will comply (which is what military leaders are saying, in this article). But those who won't, I see as a problem. You can't be found fit for duty if you deliberately disobey your superiors' orders. That goes against military hierarchy.

Opinions?

 

The do not have follow unlawful orders.. They do not have to take an experimental drug after the Anthrax fall out.

 

My opinion is it’s their body. They’re willing to take a bullet for their country and that should grant them the right to decide what they inject into it. My guess is you will see less military personnel in a year from now. This may make the draft come back in a bad scenario

 

But the military forces have ALWAYS had vaccine mandates. The servicemen/women did use to just obey the mandates. I think this is because Covid became a political hot potato; not because of mandates in themselves. While I hear you when you say they took bullets for us and should be given a pass, it's not how military hierarchy works. Undisciplined forces are a national security issue.

 

And the Anthrax fiasco is exactly why no one was ordered to get the vaccine until the Pfizer vaccine was given FDA approval. But...now that it has, there really isn't a legal leg to stand on. Troops have to get the vaccine.

 

The BioNTech which is the one Pfizer is using did not get FDA approval.. One that is not "widely available" did...

its how the Moderna and J&J jabs are still being used...

 

So you are saying the Pfizer vaccine does NOT have FDA approval?

 

Furthermore, many people know understand what 10 months of data shows: THE SHOTS DON'T WORK and they are dangerous as hell.

The troops understand that the virus is benign, with a survival rate greater than 99%, and the shots kill many and maim many more, and DO NOT PROVIDE IMMUNITY.

The Pentagon forcing soldiers and sailors to take the shots is a blatant violation of the Nuremberg Principles.

 

I am saying the one being pushed is not.. There are two.. What do you not understand?

Comirnaty was approved.. Good luck getting it.

https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download

 

"COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is the same formulation as the Pfizer-BioNTech
COVID-19 Vaccine and can be used interchangeably with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19
Vaccine to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series."

 

You might want to read a tad more then that.. That is if you actually want to know what you are discussing....

On December 11, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use

Authorization (EUA) for emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine for the
prevention of COVID-19 for individuals 16 years of age and older pursuant to Section 564 of the
Act. FDA reissued the letter of authorization on: December 23, 2020,3 February 25, 2021,4 May 10, 2021,5 June 25, 2021,6 August 12, 2021,7 and on August 23, 2021, FDA approved
COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA)8 and reissued the letter in its entirety for both
Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine and certain uses of COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine,
mRNA).


Key part of this is "
FDA approved
COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA)8 and reissued the letter in its entirety for both
Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine and certain uses of COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine,"


Just as i have stated.. The "letter" in context is the EUA... Not approval.


Now since COMIRNATY is not widely available it allows the EUA for the BioTech vaccine to remain along with the Moderna and J&J shots.. IF the BioTech one actually was approved then the Moderna and J&J shots would lose the EUA as their would be an "approved" shot in use.

Basic stuff here...

 

My son just got off of quarantine from having covid. 4 days later, he was ordered to get a vaccine by the end of the day or face a dishonorable discharge. The vaccine provided no benefit for him and only risk. A risk that the government and Pfizer will not take responsibility for. My son still has Constitutional rights, just like you or I.

 

Yep under EUA use they have no liability... Its why they have an "approved" shot that you can not get while making people believe the one they are receiving is the same thing.

 

First of all, thank your son for his service on my behalf, please, and I hope he can get this worked out without getting dishonorably discharged.

Well, four days later is early. But studies show that people who have had the natural infection with Covid-19 + the vaccine, fared better in terms of immunity against possible re-infection in the future, than people who only had the natural infection but not the added vaccine. While people with the natural infection in one study (not in all studies; some show the opposite) fared better than the people who had the vaccine but not the natural infection in terms of avoiding either a breakthrough infection for the latter or re-infection for the former, the group with the highest benefit was the group that got the natural infection PLUS the vaccine (this study, often quoted by anti-vaxxers, actually looked into the 3 situations, not just 2 like the anti-vaxxers say; so they conveniently omit the fact that the 3rd arm of the study, those with the natural infection plus the vaccine, was the one where people got the best protection, and the study concluded by recommending the vaccine even to people who have had the natural infection). So, no, the vaccine did provide a benefit for him (although a small one as he is probably sufficiently protected by now).

Not to forget, it's been shown that people who had the natural infection plus the vaccine were less likely to develop long-term consequences ("long covid") than those who had the disease but not the vaccine. The vaccines are even being suggested as a treatment for "long covid" as some people with "long covid" have reported the end of symptoms once they got vaccinated.

As for the risk for the Pfizer vaccine, it is very very negligible. Most of the risk for the Covid-19 vaccines has occurred to the AstraZeneca shot which is not even approved in the United States. The risk for the Pfizer is very small. In young males, though, there is a risk of myocarditis for about 1 in 4,000 recipients. It does tend to be mild and transient, and to go away leaving no consequences behind. Cases of death from the Pfizer shot, the real ones with established causality (not the fake ones touted by conspiracy theorists) have been literally a handful among by now more than a billion doses.

It is incorrect that the government doesn't take responsibility for the risk. There is a governmental fund to compensate people/families for damage/death from vaccine risks.

It is true that Pfizer will not take responsibility. Many people feel very irritated by that and I can understand them, but frankly, it is standard practice and has always been, and if you're interested in learning why, I'll explain.

Regular medications are given to a few million people who are sick with a disease that the medication is meant to treat. A small percentage of them may experience an adverse reaction. Given that this is a small percentage of a relatively small pool of people (a few million), the liability risk is tolerable for the medication's maker. Also, in a lawsuit, the company's legal team will benefit from saying "the person was sick, we had to do something." Also, the profit margin as opposed to liability risk is favorable, since the people who are sick with the disease being treated by the medication, typically continue to take the medication daily, getting refills in ongoing bases.

Vaccines on the other hand are given to BILLIONS of people (literally) so even a very tiny percentage of adverse reactions results in a sizable number of people who suffer the reaction. If they were all to sue, the company would be in trouble even if their product is very good and not defective (tiny percentages of risk will exist for everything; nothing is 100% safe). Also, it is given to a previously healthy person. This is much less palatable in a court of law, where a plaintiff's lawyer would be able to say "see, members of the jury, this person was perfectly healthy; took this company's product, and now look at what happened to him!" Also, the profit margin as opposed to liability risk is unfavorable, given that vaccines are given once or twice and maybe there is a yearly booster, as opposed to a medication being used (and paid for) every day.

So, the potential for liability is such, that it would discourage a company from getting into the vaccine-making business to start with. What CEO would want the added risk for the company of having profits wiped out by large settlements, if they could instead only make medications rather than vaccines? Pfizer makes billions from Zoloft, Viagra, etc., if they were to incur a huge liability risk for vaccines, they wouldn't be making vaccines.

So, the solution that's been devised and is standard for ALL countries in the world, is to grant to vaccine makers, liability protection (with the government picking up the bill). The alternative would be a world without vaccines. In that world, your children would be dying of polio, measles, pertussis, etc. Thanks, but no thanks. Give me a world WITH vaccines any day.

 

So the FDA is lying here?

"Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older. The vaccine also continues to be available under emergency use authorization (EUA), including for individuals 12 through 15 years of age and for the administration of a third dose in certain immunocompromised individuals."

 

They are playing word games as again Comirnaty IS NOT WIDELY AVAILABLE... How many times does this have to be said?

I gave you the timeline from THEM FFS.

 

Comirnaty is Pfizer. You are saying Pfizer is not widely available.

I think you've been mislead, if you are arguing there are two separate Pfizer vaccines, one that is FDA approved and one that isn't. Your own link that you provided in post #9 said that it was the same thing, as I quoted from in post #10. The EUA applies to it's use...once again, "...The vaccine also continues to be available under emergency use authorization (EUA), including for individuals 12 through 15 years of age and for the administration of a third dose in certain immunocompromised individuals."

Age 12-15 and immunocompromised individuals doesn't describe the US military.

 

Maybe you're new to this country. Sad to report sir, the FDA has been mendacious and dishonest for decades now.

FDA is not here to serve or protect public health, it is here to further pharmaceutical interests. Public Health is the very last thing on its mind.

 

I'm afraid your comments don't help to move the topic along.

 

That is funny guy again.
Asking for opinion, and ignores everyone who's opinion he does not like.

 

Pfizer.. Developed.. Two.. Different.. Vaccines.... Comirnaty AND BioNTech.. Comirnaty was the one that was FDA approved as i showed with my post to you giving you the FDA time line FROM THE FDA.. What are you missing?

 

He doesnt mention that 67 people died in the Armed Services SINCE the start of the Pandemic...

Strangely enough the "spike" in military deaths started around the same time as the rush to meet the new mandate started.. I am sure that is a coincidence right?

 

Vaccination is not going to help.
In fact it is more dangerous to vaccinate everyone, because people mistakenly will think that they are immune.

 

I'm not missing anything. You are. The two separate vaccines are the same vaccine, they are just marketed differently, one FDA approved for 16 years old and up, and one EUA approved for "12 through 15 years of age and for the administration of a third dose in certain immunocompromised individuals." So I've already given you this information. What's relevant to this topic is that you seem to be claiming that the one being issued to military personnel is not the Pfizer vaccine?

 

Yes two separate vaccines like i have been saying for awhile now.. Then you go off the rails trying to defend your claims when again i have you the approval schedule per the FDA..

Your last sentence is worthy of a Progressive asking me a stupid question i never hinted at.. I have been consistent the entire time.. The one the military is using as for that matter the vast majority of the country is the BioNTech Vaccine WHICH has EUA not Approved status.. The one that the FDA approved is Comirnaty If you want to buy the spin that its just a marketing gimmick and they are the same but they are not then you be you.