AZ vaccine banned in Australia for association to thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS). USA is so behind, it's embarrassing.
[media=https://youtu.be/7hm7mXkNmAk]
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
ElwoodBlues · M
View 2 more replies »
@ElwoodBlues Recommending Covid to children NOW is medical malpractice! The FDA amended emergency use authorization for mRNA vaccines at start of the pandemic.
Things have changed now, the virus is getting less and less virulent and the vaccine side affects are becoming more apparent.
Even WHO has updated their website https://www.who.int/news/item/28-03-2023-sage-updates-covid-19-vaccination-guidance
Thus the USA is sooooooooooooooo behind. Is it clear to you now?
Things have changed now, the virus is getting less and less virulent and the vaccine side affects are becoming more apparent.
Even WHO has updated their website https://www.who.int/news/item/28-03-2023-sage-updates-covid-19-vaccination-guidance
Thus the USA is sooooooooooooooo behind. Is it clear to you now?
ElwoodBlues · M
@SoulKey [quote]Recommending Covid to children NOW is medical malpractice![/quote] That is a statistical claim regarding relative rates of harm of Covid vs mRNA vaccine.
Do you have any actual data to support that statistical claim? I didn't think so.
BTW, I went to the WHO website you linked:
[quote]The low priority group includes healthy children and adolescents aged 6 months to 17 years. Primary and booster doses are safe and effective in children and adolescents. [/quote]
And more
[quote]Though low overall, the burden of severe COVID-19 in infants under 6 months is still higher than in children aged 6 months to 5 years. Vaccinating pregnant persons – including with an additional dose if more than 6 months have passed since the last dose – protects both them and the fetus, while helping to reduce the likelihood of hospitalization of infants for COVID-19.[/quote]
Yeah, they don't support your claims. Did you actually read the page you linked?
Do you have any actual data to support that statistical claim? I didn't think so.
BTW, I went to the WHO website you linked:
[quote]The low priority group includes healthy children and adolescents aged 6 months to 17 years. Primary and booster doses are safe and effective in children and adolescents. [/quote]
And more
[quote]Though low overall, the burden of severe COVID-19 in infants under 6 months is still higher than in children aged 6 months to 5 years. Vaccinating pregnant persons – including with an additional dose if more than 6 months have passed since the last dose – protects both them and the fetus, while helping to reduce the likelihood of hospitalization of infants for COVID-19.[/quote]
Yeah, they don't support your claims. Did you actually read the page you linked?
@ElwoodBlues "low priority group" = not at risk.
ElwoodBlues · M
@SoulKey says [quote] "low priority group" = not at risk.[/quote]
DEAD WRONG. Again!!
Let's count up what you've gotten DEAD WRONG so far.
(1) You claimed USA had failed to ban the Astrazeneca vaccine. In fact, we never authorized or allowed it. Your claim was DEAD WRONG - we banned it from the get-go!
(2) You cited WHO for your claim that mRNA vaccines for children "is medical malpractice!" In fact, WHO says "Primary and booster doses are safe and effective in children and adolescents." Proving your claim was DEAD WRONG.
(3) Now you say ' "low priority group" = not at risk.'
Low priority means LOWER RISK, not zero risk. You are DEAD WRONG again!!
Three strikes and you're out dude! It's been fun seeing you make a fool of yourself, but now I gotta run.
DEAD WRONG. Again!!
Let's count up what you've gotten DEAD WRONG so far.
(1) You claimed USA had failed to ban the Astrazeneca vaccine. In fact, we never authorized or allowed it. Your claim was DEAD WRONG - we banned it from the get-go!
(2) You cited WHO for your claim that mRNA vaccines for children "is medical malpractice!" In fact, WHO says "Primary and booster doses are safe and effective in children and adolescents." Proving your claim was DEAD WRONG.
(3) Now you say ' "low priority group" = not at risk.'
Low priority means LOWER RISK, not zero risk. You are DEAD WRONG again!!
Three strikes and you're out dude! It's been fun seeing you make a fool of yourself, but now I gotta run.
@ElwoodBlues [quote]You claimed USA had failed to ban the Astrazeneca vaccine. In fact, we never authorized or allowed it. [/quote]
1-You are wrong I never said that. Here's what I said:(AZ vaccine banned in Australia for association to thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS). )(USA is so behind, it's embarrassing.)
[quote]
You cited WHO for your claim that mRNA vaccines for children "is medical malpractice!" In fact, WHO says "Primary and booster doses are safe and effective in children and adolescents."[/quote]
2-You are wrong yet again. Direct quote from WHO website:
"The public health impact of vaccinating healthy children and adolescents is comparatively much lower than the established benefits of traditional essential vaccines for children – such as the rotavirus, measles, and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines – and of COVID-19 vaccines for high and medium priority groups."
[quote]Low priority means LOWER RISK, not zero risk. [/quote]
3- You are wrong all the way! I didn't say Zero. Thanks for admitting they're low risk though.
1-You are wrong I never said that. Here's what I said:(AZ vaccine banned in Australia for association to thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS). )(USA is so behind, it's embarrassing.)
[quote]
You cited WHO for your claim that mRNA vaccines for children "is medical malpractice!" In fact, WHO says "Primary and booster doses are safe and effective in children and adolescents."[/quote]
2-You are wrong yet again. Direct quote from WHO website:
"The public health impact of vaccinating healthy children and adolescents is comparatively much lower than the established benefits of traditional essential vaccines for children – such as the rotavirus, measles, and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines – and of COVID-19 vaccines for high and medium priority groups."
[quote]Low priority means LOWER RISK, not zero risk. [/quote]
3- You are wrong all the way! I didn't say Zero. Thanks for admitting they're low risk though.