Elites Who Got Covid Policies Wrong Are Now Asking For a "Pandemic Amnesty"

[Frank Underwood]

It's like a lot of people have forgotten how serious the pandemic was. In the US alone,over 700,000 people died between 2020 and 2022. We had full hospitals and the morgues were so overwhelmed we were using refrigerated trucks to store dead bodies. To say people just "caved" in and let government "control" them implies that people had no good reason to comply with the mandates. That's just not true.

I haven't forgotten how serious Covid was, but I also haven't forgotten the damage that isolation and financial destruction did to people either.

Did the government help their citizens through it? Of course not. Unless, of course, you were a corporate ghoul who could afford to wait it out.

That said, I revise my earlier statement about people complying with government demands. Many of them didn't have a choice if they wanted to participate in society. What truly disgusted me was seeing people shame and ridicule their fellow citizens if they objected to lockdowns or mask and vaccine mandates. It's one thing if you support these policies because you think they're right. However, it's quite another if you're hateful towards people because they didn't want to lose their livelihood and bodily autonomy.

As for our medical leaders "lying" to us, from my perspective, the simply updated their guidelines as more information became available to them through studying the disease.

Then they should have only been relaying what they knew at the time as opposed to making broad, untested statements.

Finally, as Angela pointed out, vaccines don't prevent the transmission of diseases, but infection from the disease. No vaccine is 100 percent effective in every person in the world. For instance, my son is fully vaccinated against chicken pox - yet when there was a breakout at his middle school, he came down with a mild case. Also, as has already been stated, all vaccines have potential side affects - that's why the US has a vaccine injury fund program.

Fine, but they need to be made public. If they didn't know all of the potential complications when the vaccine was released, they shouldn't have overstated its effectiveness.

And as far as transmission goes, one of the main talking points in favor of getting vaccinated was that it "stopped the spread to others." Yet a Pfizer exec admitted they were unsure if the vaccine stopped the transmission of the virus when it was released. Again, I'm not saying people should or shouldn't get vaccinated. I believe that choice should be between them and their doctor (for the record, I'm vaccinated and received my last booster in March.) However, I believe it's necessary to have complete transparency.

I feel like the naysayers are holding the Covid vaccine to a different standard than all other vaccines for political purposes.

What political purposes? Lockdowns and mandates began under Trump and continued under Biden, so who in particular is the backlash aimed at?

Interestingly enough, there is a political angle:

BIDEN AND HIS ADVISORS SOWED DOUBT ABOUT THE SAFETY OF COVID-19 VACCINES

• In the months leading up to the election, Democrats repeatedly cast doubt and undermined public confidencein the safety and effectiveness of vaccines produced under the Trump administration.
  • Democrats’ dog whistling about vaccines was seized on by anti-vaxxers and led to a rise in vaccine skepticism.
• Joe Bidenquestioned whether a vaccine would be “real.”
  • In August, Biden suggested the vaccines might be unsafe, saying “if and when the vaccine comes, it’s not likely to go through all the tests…and trials that are needed to be done.”
  • In September, Biden legitimized those who were questioning the safety of the vaccines, saying, “who’s going to take the shot? Are you going to be the first one to say sign me up?”
  • Days later, then-Biden Press Secretary Symone Sanders repeatedly refused to say whether Biden would take the COVID vaccine if it was approved before election day.
  • A week later, Biden said the American people “should not have confidence” in the vaccine unless it met his campaign’s specific criteria.
• In September, Kamala Harris refused to say whether she would take a vaccine approved before Election Day: “I think that’s going to be an issue for all of us.”
  • Harris said that scientists would not have the “last word” in approving the vaccine, and suggested a vaccine may not be effective.
• Ron Klain, now White House Chief of Staff, tweeted: “When you read how Team Trump played politics with testing it makes you wonder how they will handle vaccines?”

I can't think of any other vaccine or medication that doesn't list the possible risks and side effects, so why should the Covid vaccine be any different? The only way I see it being held to a "different standard" is the lack of transparency regarding the possible complications until it became impossible to ignore them. Not surprisingly, that's led to lawsuits.

 

[Angela Channing]

Omitting the fact that people can develop breakthrough cases and other complications while having the potential to spread the virus to others is a form of lying. You can dance around that all you want, but the percentage of people susceptible is irrelevant. All other medications have to list the risks, regardless of how many people may be affected.

You're an intelligent man so you should know it is better to base opinions on facts than on podcasts made by a washed out comedian with a liking for conspiracy theories.

About 5 billion people have been vaccinated worldwide for Covid-19. The manufacturers have said the vaccine is about 95% effective, that means it won't be effective in around 250 million of those vaccinated, which is a large number in absolute terms but still small in percentage terms. Putting those figures out is not omitting facts, it's laying them down in front of people from the outset. It's people who have no understanding of the science that are spouting nonsense to promote a bogus agenda and they should be vigorously challenged.

When I was vaccinated, I was told of the risks and how rare they were. No on is trying to hide the information but it needs to be put into context. The number who have developed myocarditis, for example, is a miniscule percentage compared with the 5 billion who have been vaccinated. Are you seriously suggesting that we should make people die of Covid and allow the virus rip through the population because a few right-wing anti-vax zealots are making more significance of a very rare side effect than is medically sound?

As for the book, I'd be willing to give it a read. My only concern is whether or not the author is truly impartial.

It's not a book or opinions, it's a factual documentation of how the scientists at Oxford University developed their vaccine, tested their vaccine and got their vaccine authorised. It will completely destroy your argument that corners were cut to get the vaccine to a point where it could be injected into arms.

 

[Frank Underwood]

You're an intelligent man so you should know it is better to base opinions on facts than on podcasts made by a washed out comedian with a liking for conspiracy theories.

About 5 billion people have been vaccinated worldwide for Covid-19. The manufacturers have said the vaccine is about 95% effective, that means it won't be effective in around 250 million of those vaccinated, which is a large number in absolute terms but still small in percentage terms. Putting those figures out is not omitting facts, it's laying them down in front of people from the outset. It's people who have no understanding of the science that are spouting nonsense to promote a bogus agenda and they should be vigorously challenged.

When I was vaccinated, I was told of the risks and how rare they were. No on is trying to hide the information but it needs to be put into context. The number who have developed myocarditis, for example, is a miniscule percentage compared with the 5 billion who have been vaccinated. Are you seriously suggesting that we should make people die of Covid and allow the virus rip through the population because a few right-wing anti-vax zealots are making more significance of a very rare side effect than is medically sound?

I was never made aware of the risks when I was vaccinated. They had me wait 15 minutes in a room and sent me on my way. They never went over possible complications.

Also, I disagree that information wasn't hidden. Imagine being a part of the "tiny percentage" that developed long Covid or other side effects after being assured by the media, politicians, and health officials that you're completely safe. "Understanding science" has nothing to do with not being made aware of the risks, no matter how small.

And for the millionth time, my opinions do not come from Dore. The information he discusses on his show come from various articles, journalists, doctors, etc. That said, it's worth noting that by Dore's own admission, he didn't become a vaccine skeptic until he became vaccine injured. Vaccine skeptics are created by people undermining the risks.

Again, I never suggested that people should or shouldn't get vaccinated. What I'm advocating for is people having all the facts so they can decide for themselves whether they feel comfortable getting it or not. I don't see how I can make that any clearer, yet you always think I'm suggesting nobody should get vaccinated. I even mentioned in this thread that I've been vaccinated and had my most recent booster in March. I probably would have still gotten vaccinated had I known the risks, but that doesn't excuse burying them.

It's not a book or opinions, it's a factual documentation of how the scientists at Oxford University developed their vaccine, tested their vaccine and got their vaccine authorised. It will completely destroy your argument that corners were cut to get the vaccine to a point where it could be injected into arms.

My "argument" is more of a concern that many people have because the vaccine was released so quickly. And as I pointed out in my response to @CeeCee72, this concern was shared by a lot of top Democrats when Trump was president. It's funny that vaccine hesitancy is considered a right-wing talking point now because it didn't start that way.

Whether corners were cut or not, it's clear by that Pfizer exec's admission that they didn't know if the vaccine stopped transmission (yet we were led to believe it did.)

 

[Angela Channing]

I was never made aware of the risks when I was vaccinated. They had me wait 15 minutes in a room and sent me on my way. They never went over possible complications.

Also, I disagree that information wasn't hidden. Imagine being a part of the "tiny percentage" that developed long Covid or other side effects after being assured by the media, politicians, and health officials that you're completely safe. "Understanding science" has nothing to do with not being made aware of the risks, no matter how small.

And for the millionth time, my opinions do not come from Dore. The information he discusses on his show come from various articles, journalists, doctors, etc. That said, it's worth noting that by Dore's own admission, he didn't become a vaccine skeptic until he became vaccine injured. Vaccine skeptics are created by people undermining the risks.

Again, I never suggested that people should or shouldn't get vaccinated. What I'm advocating for is people having all the facts so they can decide for themselves whether they feel comfortable getting it or not. I don't see how I can make that any clearer, yet you always think I'm suggesting nobody should get vaccinated. I even mentioned in this thread that I've been vaccinated and had my most recent booster in March. I probably would have still gotten vaccinated had I known the risks, but that doesn't excuse burying them.


My "argument" is more of a concern that many people have because the vaccine was released so quickly. And as I pointed out in my response to @CeeCee72, this concern was shared by a lot of top Democrats when Trump was president. It's funny that vaccine hesitancy is considered a right-wing talking point now because it didn't start that way.

Whether corners were cut or not, it's clear by that Pfizer exec's admission that they didn't know if the vaccine stopped transmission (yet we were led to believe it did.)

The information was out there if people had concerns and because there was some vaccine hesitancy, a lot more detailed information was made available about the risks and how small they were in relation to the much larger risks of getting Covid. I remember researching it myself because a member of my family was pregnant and I wanted to evaluate the risks to her and her unborn child if she had the vaccine and had no trouble finding the information I required. I don't think it's correct to suggest the information regarding risks was buried from people.

Regarding Dore. You must have posted links to about 100 of his videos on this forum, using many of them to justify your vaccine scepticism. That's why I regularly refer to him as a key source of your misinformation.

The reason why vaccine scepticism is considered to be a right-wing opinion is because that's what the data show. The more right wing people are, the more likely they are to be vaccine sceptical:

I don't know where you were getting your information from but I never heard anyone suggest that the Covid vaccine (or any vaccine for that matter) stops transmission of the virus. I suppose it can do it indirectly, but vaccines generally stop infection, not transmission. I can pass the virus on to you but the vaccine will mean you have the antibodies to fight it so you don't become infected by it and won't develop the disease. If someone said they didn't know if the vaccines stopped the transmission of Covid, that's not an unreasonable statement from a lay person because if you stop infection then you prevent that individual from passing the virus to another person, so at a stretch, you could say it stops transmission. However, I doubt very much whether a virologist would express it in those terms.

 

[Frank Underwood]

The information was out there if people had concerns and because there was some vaccine hesitancy, a lot more detailed information was made available about the risks and how small they were in relation to the much larger risks of getting Covid. I remember researching it myself because a member of my family was pregnant and I wanted to evaluate the risks to her and her unborn child if she had the vaccine and had no trouble finding the information I required. I don't think it's correct to suggest the information regarding risks was buried from people.

Regarding Dore. You must have posted links to about 100 of his videos on this forum, using many of them to justify your vaccine scepticism. That's why I regularly refer to him as a key source of your misinformation.

The reason why vaccine scepticism is considered to be a right-wing opinion is because that's what the data show. The more right wing people are, the more likely they are to be vaccine sceptical:

Funny; I didn't start hearing about side effects until Dore started covering them. I simply sought out the articles/people he cited for further information.

In contrast, I kept hearing Biden and the mainstream media pushing the narrative that the vaccinated were completely protected and safe from spreading the virus to others.

Talk about your misinformation. And that was after Biden and the Dems pushed vaccine skepticism while Trump was in office. Right-wing talking point indeed!

I don't know where you were getting your information from but I never heard anyone suggest that the Covid vaccine (or any vaccine for that matter) stops transmission of the virus. I suppose it can do it indirectly, but vaccines generally stop infection, not transmission. I can pass the virus on to you but the vaccine will mean you have the antibodies to fight it so you don't become infected by it and won't develop the disease. If someone said they didn't know if the vaccines stopped the transmission of Covid, that's not an unreasonable statement from a lay person because if you stop infection then you prevent that individual from passing the virus to another person, so at a stretch, you could say it stops transmission. However, I doubt very much whether a virologist would express it in those terms.

One would expect the mainstream media to have the correct information to give. On March 29, 2021, Rachel Maddow stated on her show "A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus, the virus does not infect them, the virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else. It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to get more people.”

 

[Angela Channing]

Funny; I didn't start hearing about side effects until Dore started covering them. I simply sought out the articles/people he cited for further information.

I wouldn't look at articles recommended by a comedian, I would look at articles in peer reviewed scientific journals that were recommended by medics and scientists.

On March 29, 2021, Rachel Maddow stated on her show "A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus, the virus does not infect them, the virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else. It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to get more people.”

What is wrong with that? And don't say 'what about break through infections" or the minute risk of certain side effects. Both are statistically insignificant so what she was saying would have been broadly correct.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I wouldn't look at articles recommended by a comedian, I would look at articles in peer reviewed scientific journals that were recommended by medics and scientists.

Did they contain the same information being promoted on corporate-owned mainstream media, which ran ads such as "Brought to you by Pfizer?"

That's enough of a reason for me to take the word of corporate pundits with a grain of salt. They also ruthlessly attacked vaccine skeptics and lied about people taking "horse dewormer" (a reference to Ivermectin, which they knew was also available for humans.) Their lies and smears helped push people into the vaccine skeptic camp. If you want to know why anybody would rather get their news and information from a podcaster than the mainstream media, it's because the latter no longer pretends to be impartial.

What is wrong with that? And don't say 'what about break through infections" or the minute risk of certain side effects. Both are statistically insignificant so what she was saying would have been broadly correct.

Being "broadly correct" isn't good enough for the millions falsely led to believe they could neither contract nor transmit the virus if they were vaccinated.

Funny how people will fight for the rights of minorities unless that minority happens to be among the vaccine injured.

 

[Frank Underwood]

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just made a ruling that I believe is a step in the right direction. Funny how the claims made by the plaintiffs in the case sound so familiar:

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Acknowledges Plaintiffs’ Claim that COVID-19 mRNA Jab is NOT a Vaccine, But a Therapeutic​

In a contentious case involving the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs versus the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the court acknowledged the plaintiffs’ claim that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines do not meet the traditional definition of vaccines because they do not prevent the spread of the virus but only mitigate symptoms.

The case revolved around the LAUSD’s COVID-19 vaccination policy, which required all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by a specified deadline.

The case, brought by the Health Freedom Defense Fund and several individuals, argues that the LAUSD’s vaccination mandate interferes with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. The plaintiffs assert that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines merely mitigate symptoms rather than prevent infection or transmission, which they claim does not align with the traditional definition of a vaccine.

In its decision, the 9th Circuit highlighted that the district court had misapplied the precedent set by Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld mandatory smallpox vaccinations due to their effectiveness in preventing disease spread. The court noted that the plaintiffs’ claims, taken as true at this stage, suggest that the COVID-19 vaccines do not effectively “prevent the spread” of COVID-19, thereby warranting further consideration of their allegations.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had modified the definition of “vaccine” to include the mRNA shots.

So, look at what the CDC did. Here’s the definition the CDC used on 26 August 2021:

• Vaccine– “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease.”
• Vaccination– “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”

Rather than admit the COVID-19 vaccine is not working as advertised, the CDC took a page out of Orwell’s 1984 and opted for new spin language.

Here is the new definition:

• Vaccine– “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

It can be recalled that Pfizer’s President of International Developed Markets, Janine Small, admitted in an EU hearing that the vaccine had never been tested on its ability to prevent transmission, contrary to what was previously advertised.

Judge R. Nelson, writing for the court, pointed out that the Jacobson ruling was based on the public health rationale of preventing disease spread, a criterion the plaintiffs allege the COVID-19 vaccines do not meet.

Judge Collins, in a concurring opinion, emphasized that compulsory medical treatments for individual health benefits infringe upon the fundamental right to refuse such treatments, aligning with constitutional principles protecting personal liberty.

The Appeals Court’s decision sends the case back to the district court, requiring further proceedings that adhere to the higher scrutiny applicable to the plaintiffs’ claims.

Source: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Acknowledges Plaintiffs’ Claim that COVID-19 mRNA Jab is NOT a Vaccine, But a Therapeutic

Judges revive lawsuit against L.A. Unified

The plaintiffs alleged that the vaccines do not prevent someone from becoming infected with COVID-19 and characterized it as a treatment rather than a “traditional vaccine.”

They argued that by requiring employees to get the COVID shot, the school district was interfering with workers’ rights to refuse medical treatment.

“No one with any credibility would tell you that the vaccine prevented COVID or stopped the spread,” said John Howard, a San Diego attorney who argued the case on behalf of a handful of Los Angeles Unified employees and an Idaho-based group called the Health Freedom Defense Fund that’s filed several other COVID vaccine lawsuits.

“But when the hysteria was going on, that’s exactly what pharmaceutical companies and others said,” Howard said. “It was false.”

​

The CDC says: “COVID-19 vaccines are effective at protecting people from getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying.”

A 2022 study published in the medical journal Lancet found COVID vaccines reduced symptoms in infected people, but did not necessarily slow transmission, although previous research indicated vaccines were effective in slowing the spread of early COVID variants. The Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center states that COVID vaccines likely “reduce the risk of virus transmission but probably not completely in everyone.”

The school district can appeal the ruling to a larger panel of judges on the 9th Circuit, which covers nine states and has been considered the most liberal of the nation’s appellate circuits. If the new ruling stands, the lawsuit would return to the U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles for further arguments.

“We are reviewing the 9th Circuit ruling and assessing the district’s options,” a spokesperson for the district said late Friday.

Full article here: Vaccine Mandate Lawsuit (laist.com)

 

[CeeCee72]

I am doubtful this lawsuit stands for many reasons. First, it was a 2-1 decision by Trump appointed justices to allow it to go forward. The school district can appeal to the wider court, and the 9th district is one of the most liberal in the country.

As to the arguments about the effectiveness of the vaccine in stopping the spread, as I have said before, no vaccine is one hundred percent effective at that.

I also feel the issue is moot since the district has withdrawn the policy.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out going forward.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Yes, the decision was made along partisan lines (the lone dissenting justice was appointed by Bill Clinton.) And yes, it will likely be struck down by the wider liberal court.

That said, I think the plaintiffs' claims have merit. They're based on the shifting narratives around the Covid vaccine. The initial claim made by health and government officials was that the Covid vaccine was 100% effective at stopping the contraction and spread of Covid. This was the basis for vaccine mandates. The CDC moved the goal post later on by altering its definition of a vaccine. The admission by a Pfizer exec that the vaccine wasn't tested on its ability to prevent transmission is a big deal, yet it received little to no coverage outside of independent media. The appeals court took all that into consideration and concluded the Covid vaccine functions differently than traditional vaccines.

Again, while the lawsuit likely won't stand, I believe the basis for it is legit. And while the policy may no longer be in effect, the consequences of it are retroactive.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Another lawsuit has been filed. The state of Kansas is accusing Pfizer of misleading the public and working with social media companies to censor their critics:

Kansas sues Pfizer over ‘misleading statements’ about COVID vaccine

 

[CeeCee72]

Oh, I have no doubt there will be tons of lawsuits. My prediction is that you will get conflicting rulings across the nation (depending on the make up of each district court) and that SCOTUS will decline to get involved.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Oh, I have no doubt there will be tons of lawsuits. My prediction is that you will get conflicting rulings across the nation (depending on the make up of each district court) and that SCOTUS will decline to get involved.

You're probably right, but it's the basis for these lawsuits that I'm most intrigued by (for obvious reasons.)