First discharges from the military for refusing COVID vaccines . . .

[Aloha Hoosier]

that I've seen. 27 from the Air Force. Any of these yours @MrBing ?

Military Daily News

Daily updates of everything that you need know about what is going on in the military community and abroad including military gear and equipment, breaking news, international news and more.

www.military.com

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Navy will be starting discharges soon too:

The Navy Is Getting Ready to Boot Vaccine Refusers, But Is Offering an Olive Branch

You can either start getting vaccinated, weeks after the formal deadline, or get ready for separation.

www.military.com

 

[MrBing]

that I've seen. 27 from the Air Force. Any of these yours @MrBing ?

Military Daily News

Daily updates of everything that you need know about what is going on in the military community and abroad including military gear and equipment, breaking news, international news and more.

www.military.com

I haven't had to process anyone to date. I had a few reluctant to take the vaccine that finally did it and I have a couple who've submitted exemption requests. I think the exemptions will be denied and they will get one more chance to get vaccinated. If they refuse we'll have to initiate the process to separate them for disobeying a lawful order which I don't want to do but will have to do. They're both over 10 years into their careers and lifers and I hope they don't throw that away due to rampant misinformation.

 

[hoot1]

Guessing basic training accidents will kill or harm more military members than the Covid vaccines.

However, there is lots of misinformation being circulated which could cause even a Marine to be skeptical.

Afterall, it isn't always easy to separate facts from fiction. Sacrificing a career and retirement benefits has to a choice only a firmly convinced person would choose.

 

[dbmhoosier]

Guessing basic training accidents will kill or harm more military members than the Covid vaccines.

However, there is lots of misinformation being circulated which could cause even a Marine to skeptical.

Afterall, it isn't always easy to separate facts from fiction. Sacrificing a career and retirement benefits has to a choice only a firmly convinced person would choose.

Yeah I can't imagine why so many people are skeptical. Big pharma claiming the vaccines are completely safe but then insisting on having complete immunity from any potential lawsuits. Also, big tech completely censoring factually proven information.

 

[hoot1]

Yeah I can't imagine why so many people are skeptical. Big pharma claiming the vaccines are completely safe but then insisting on having complete immunity from any potential lawsuits. Also, big tech completely censoring factually proven information.

View embedded media

View embedded media

By the same token, why would anyone be skeptical about information seen on social media such as Twitter?

We all have our sources with many believing only those which support our gut feelings and/or political outlooks.

 

[outside shooter]

.. insisting on having complete immunity from any potential lawsuits.

I have discussed this ad nauseum.

They don't have "complete immunity" by any stretch of the imagination. If they committed fraud or falsified safety data, then their a$$ is grass.

Why do they have any immunity at all? Because vaccines are a highly litigious area and nobody would bother to do any biomedical research in the field, AT ALL, absent limiting liability. Same thing for pediatric medicines. Same thing for birth control medications, for women's health in general. Drugs in these classes can often get some governmental liability protection.

One historical precendent I know all of the details about was the discovery of the highly safe and effective anti-nausea drug Bendectin in the 1970s. It was made to essentisally eradicate morning sickness and it worked. It was also safe. But sometimes pregnancies result in birth defects. The rate of birth defects were exactly the same in Bendectin-treated women and those who didn't get Bendectin at all.

But if you are a woman who took Bendectin and got a birth defect, what do you do? You think "It was that bad drug!". I need to get me a lawyer. Call 1-800-BAD DRUG!

So one woman sued. She lost, because the data was clear.
Then another sued, and lost, because the data was clear.
another, and another, and another...
Repeat over a dozen times, the pharma company (Merrell Dow of Cincinnati) winning EVERY case.

What do you do as the pharma company? You lose millions of dollars in legal fees and get crappy press for a drug that doctors are afraid to prescribe anyway, since it is "in the news".

So the company says
1) Enough is enough, we'll pull this safe drug from the market because we can't afford to sell it.
2) Enough is enough, we won't work in women's health, EVER AGAIN. Too litigious.

I am familiar with the Bendectin case, since I met its inventor once. But the same crap has happened in vaccine development and in pediatric drugs.

That's why some liability is government-protected, to get research to be done, AT ALL, in those areas. We have the ambulance-chasing lawyers to thank.

 

[bawlmer]

Guessing basic training accidents will kill or harm more military members than the Covid vaccines.

However, there is lots of misinformation being circulated which could cause even a Marine to be skeptical.

Afterall, it isn't always easy to separate facts from fiction. Sacrificing a career and retirement benefits has to a choice only a firmly convinced person would choose.

But it's an order.

 

[bawlmer]

I have discussed this ad nauseum.

They don't have "complete immunity" by any stretch of the imagination. If they committed fraud or falsified safety data, then their a$$ is grass.

Why do they have any immunity at all? Because vaccines are a highly litigious area and nobody would bother to do any biomedical research in the field, AT ALL, absent limiting liability. Same thing for pediatric medicines. Same thing for birth control medications, for women's health in general. Drugs in these classes can often get some governmental liability protection.

One historical precendent I know all of the details about was the discovery of the highly safe and effective anti-nausea drug Bendectin in the 1970s. It was made to essentisally eradicate morning sickness and it worked. It was also safe. But sometimes pregnancies result in birth defects. The rate of birth defects were exactly the same in Bendectin-treated women and those who didn't get Bendectin at all.

But if you are a woman who took Bendectin and got a birth defect, what do you do? You think "It was that bad drug!". I need to get me a lawyer. Call 1-800-BAD DRUG!

So one woman sued. She lost, because the data was clear.
Then another sued, and lost, because the data was clear.
another, and another, and another...
Repeat over a dozen times, the pharma company (Merrell Dow of Cincinnati) winning EVERY case.

What do you do as the pharma company? You lose millions of dollars in legal fees and get crappy press for a drug that doctors are afraid to prescribe anyway, since it is "in the news".

So the company says
1) Enough is enough, we'll pull this safe drug from the market because we can't afford to sell it.
2) Enough is enough, we won't work in women's health, EVER AGAIN. Too litigious.

I am familiar with the Bendectin case, since I met its inventor once. But the same crap has happened in vaccine development and in pediatric drugs.

That's why some liability is government-protected, to get research to be done, AT ALL, in those areas. We have the ambulance-chasing lawyers to thank.

People seem to forget that enterprises all around the world jumped in once the COVID virus structure was available to start developing vaccines. US policy may consider litigation protection because of our unique liability challenges, but protection was hardly a prerequisite to vaccine research.

 

[mcmurtry66]

People seem to forget that enterprises all around the world jumped in once the COVID virus structure was available to start developing vaccines. US policy may consider litigation protection because of our unique liability challenges, but protection was hardly a prerequisite to vaccine research.

They are making obscene amounts of money from the vaccines

 

[outside shooter]

protection was hardly a prerequisite to vaccine research.

USA partial legal protection was granted in 1986.

It was wildly successful in facilitating vaccine research, which was becoming non-existent at that time.

 

[bawlmer]

They are making obscene amounts of money from the vaccines

Maybe. I suspect it's no accident the companies with successful vaccines invested in the research for years to be ready in anticipation of such a pandemic (and those yet to occur).

 

[outside shooter]

a good read from 2015 on the historic unprofitability of vaccine research, which indeed appears to be changing

Vaccines Are Profitable, So What?

Yes, Big Pharma is making money from immunizations. But that doesn't mean anyone should skip the shots.

www.theatlantic.com

In fact, vaccines were so unprofitable that some companies stopped making them altogether. In 1967, there were 26 vaccine manufactures. That number dropped to 17 by 1980. Ten years ago, the financial incentives to produce vaccines were so weak that there was growing concern that pharmaceutical companies were abandoning the vaccine business for selling more-profitable daily drug treatments. Compared with drugs that require daily doses, vaccines are only administered once a year or a lifetime. The pharmaceutical company Wyeth (which has since been acquired by Pfizer) stopped making the flu vaccine because the margins were so low.

 

[NPT]

They are making obscene amounts of money from the vaccines

People gripe about paying $5 for a pill and then will go pay $5 or $7 for a darn greeting card. I would highly suspect that there's a lot more research in making the pill than the greeting card. 😁

 

[NPT]

I have discussed this ad nauseum.

They don't have "complete immunity" by any stretch of the imagination. If they committed fraud or falsified safety data, then their a$$ is grass.

Why do they have any immunity at all? Because vaccines are a highly litigious area and nobody would bother to do any biomedical research in the field, AT ALL, absent limiting liability. Same thing for pediatric medicines. Same thing for birth control medications, for women's health in general. Drugs in these classes can often get some governmental liability protection.

One historical precendent I know all of the details about was the discovery of the highly safe and effective anti-nausea drug Bendectin in the 1970s. It was made to essentisally eradicate morning sickness and it worked. It was also safe. But sometimes pregnancies result in birth defects. The rate of birth defects were exactly the same in Bendectin-treated women and those who didn't get Bendectin at all.

But if you are a woman who took Bendectin and got a birth defect, what do you do? You think "It was that bad drug!". I need to get me a lawyer. Call 1-800-BAD DRUG!

So one woman sued. She lost, because the data was clear.
Then another sued, and lost, because the data was clear.
another, and another, and another...
Repeat over a dozen times, the pharma company (Merrell Dow of Cincinnati) winning EVERY case.

What do you do as the pharma company? You lose millions of dollars in legal fees and get crappy press for a drug that doctors are afraid to prescribe anyway, since it is "in the news".

So the company says
1) Enough is enough, we'll pull this safe drug from the market because we can't afford to sell it.
2) Enough is enough, we won't work in women's health, EVER AGAIN. Too litigious.

I am familiar with the Bendectin case, since I met its inventor once. But the same crap has happened in vaccine development and in pediatric drugs.

That's why some liability is government-protected, to get research to be done, AT ALL, in those areas. We have the ambulance-chasing lawyers to thank.

Unless they falsify or hide data I think they should be exempt since a government agency has to look at the data and determine whether it's safe. Clinical trials are good but giving a medicine/vaccine to several thousand is not the same as giving it to millions because maybe only one in a million may react to a medicine in a certain way.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

They are making obscene amounts of money from the vaccines

If you Google monoclonal antibodies it will be clear drug companies make far more from them. If profit were the motivation would they not be sabotaging their vaccines to up the antibody sales?

 

[mcmurtry66]

If you Google monoclonal antibodies it will be clear drug companies make far more from them. If profit were the motivation would they not be sabotaging their vaccines to up the antibody sales?

The Pfizer vaccine sales are the largest single year sales ever for a medical product. More than 60 percent of the company's total sales. They are making obscene amounts of money off vaccines

 

[NPT]

If you Google monoclonal antibodies it will be clear drug companies make far more from them. If profit were the motivation would they not be sabotaging their vaccines to up the antibody sales?

When most people look at something like the vaccine they only look at what it cost and never at what it saves. If the vaccine keeps someone out of the hospital (which they do) then what did that vaccine actually cost since a hospital stay would pay for many vaccines? For example, Medicare paying for the vaccine is just a good business decision since they would have to pay for many more hospital stays without the vaccine.

 

[NPT]

The Pfizer vaccine sales are the largest single year sales ever for a medical product. More than 60 percent of the company's total sales. They are making obscene amounts of money off vaccines

That is because of volume because Medicare pays less that $50 per vaccine which to me is a very good deal even if I had had to pay out of pocket.

 

[mcmurtry66]

When most people look at something like the vaccine they only look at what it cost and never at what it saves. If the vaccine keeps someone out of the hospital (which they do) then what did that vaccine actually cost since a hospital stay would pay for many vaccines? For example, Medicare paying for the vaccine is just a good business decision since they would have to pay for many more hospital stays without the vaccine.

That is because of volume because Medicare pays less that $50 per vaccine which to me is a very good deal even if I had had to pay out of pocket.

That's not the topic. The topic is affording immunity (by implication subsidy), risk, and the profits from the vaccines. The companies together are making a $1,000 a second. Billions and billions in profit.

Every last thing Shooter writes about this stuff is wrong. Any immunity stats are a product of lobbyists not to induce product development. He cited birth control. There have been tens of thousands of suits over birth control settled because the makers are liable. But so what. They don't care. It's a business cost. If you profit 20 bil after paying 2 bil in settlements or verdicts in a decade who cares. It was worth it.

And in a decade people will use delayed discovery to sue over heart issues related to the vaccines. The second the govs said don't give Moderna to people under 30 the writing was on the wall. By that point they will have made so much they will barely care. Just a business cost

This is all business.

 

[NPT]

That's not the topic. The topic is affording immunity (by implication subsidy), risk, and the profits from the vaccines. The companies together are making a $1,000 a second. Billions and billions in profit.

There is no topic in this thread. It started out to be one about being discharged from the military but has changed directions more than once.

 

[mcmurtry66]

There is no topic in this thread. It started out to be one about being discharged from the military but has changed directions more than once.

Fair enough.

 

[NPT]

Fair enough.

I get what you are saying but had to razz you a little. But all those lawsuits do add to the cost of drugs. They are in business to make money so if they have to pay out for lawsuits they add that to the cost.

However, personally I look at most everything as to what it would cost me if I had to pay for it and then say that's a pretty good deal or not.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The Pfizer vaccine sales are the largest single year sales ever for a medical product. More than 60 percent of the company's total sales. They are making obscene amounts of money off vaccines

Yes, but for example Glaxo makes $2100 per dose of monoclonal antibodies. Now imagine all those people getting vaccines at $19.50 a pop getting 7 rounds of antibodies instead. Pfizer would make FAR more money making the antibodies and not vaccines.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Yes, but for example Glaxo makes $2100 per dose of monoclonal antibodies. Now imagine all those people getting vaccines at $19.50 a pop getting 7 rounds of antibodies instead. Pfizer would make FAR more money making the antibodies and not vaccines.

And maybe they will transition to that, but the fact remains it was their largest selling medical product ever. That's a known commodity. I don't know what variables went into the consideration, timing etc.

My larger point is that Big Pharma is raking in the bucks. I am totally fine with that. But there is no altruism involved. There's never altruism involved. What's more the idea that immunity is a product of anything other than lobbying is absurd and would only come from someone not in the real world. Lawsuits are built into the costs of everything they do - no different than the cost of shipping.

I'm for these companies making as much as they can - but the false pretenses are naive

 

[Marvin the Martian]

And maybe they will transition to that, but the fact remains it was their largest selling medical product ever. That's a known commodity. I don't know what variables went into the consideration, timing etc.

My larger point is that Big Pharma is raking in the bucks. I am totally fine with that. But there is no altruism involved. There's never altruism involved. What's more the idea that immunity is a product of anything other than lobbying is absurd and would only come from someone not in the real world. Lawsuits are built into the costs of everything they do - no different than the cost of shipping.

I'm for these companies making as much as they can - but the false pretenses are naive

I actually do not disagree with you on the general point. But when I suggest pharma makes too much or pharma CEOs make too much, it is not liberals who tell me I am an idiot.

But to be fair, Ranger has softened my stance somewhat.

 

[hoosboot]

I actually do not disagree with you on the general point. But when I suggest pharma makes too much or pharma CEOs make too much, it is not liberals who tell me I am an idiot.

But to be fair, Ranger has softened my stance somewhat.

To really understand this thread, it's crucial to know Shooter's and mcm's career paths. That tells you a lot about their perspective on the information. Ditto with Ranger.

That's not to say that their perspectives aren't valid. They each offer great insights into the topic, particularly Ranger because his tends to lack the finger-pointing invective. However, the bluster of

Every last thing Shooter writes about this stuff is wrong.

and

We have the ambulance-chasing lawyers to thank.

is just silly personal acrimony. There actually are some good points beneath it all. One of the things that is hard to keep in mind amidst all of this "sides' fighting is that both people arguing can be right about points they are making.

 

[mcmurtry66]

To really understand this thread, it's crucial to know Shooter's and mcm's career paths. That tells you a lot about their perspective on the information. Ditto with Ranger.

That's not to say that their perspectives aren't valid. They each offer great insights into the topic, particularly Ranger because his tends to lack the finger-pointing invective. However, the bluster of

and

is just silly personal acrimony. There actually are some good points beneath it all. One of the things that is hard to keep in mind amidst all of this "sides' fighting is that both people arguing can be right about parts of it.

True Hoosboot. Well said. And I shouldn't write hyperbolic "every last thing" because the history of vaccines is accurate as well as some of the immunity, including what transpired in 2005 re same that I don't think he noted. And yes career paths definitely impact same. Having done a ton of those MDLs from knee replacement systems, to birth control, to vaginal mesh, and reviewing the discovery and financials involved has shaped, perhaps colored, my opinions.

I would add that I don't mean anything I write as an indictment on medical products. They have without question made our lives far better.

 

[hoosboot]

Angry
True Hoosboot. Well said. And I shouldn't write hyperbolic "every last thing" because the history of vaccines is accurate as well as some of the immunity, including what transpired in 2005 re same that I don't think he noted. And yes career paths definitely impact same. Having done a ton of those MDLs from knee replacement systems, to birth control, to vaginal mesh, and reviewing the discovery and financials involved has shaped, perhaps colored, my opinions.

I would add that I don't mean anything I write as an indictment on medical products. They have without question made our lives far better.

I actually like what you wrote, but I gave it the thumbs down in solidarity with bulk. 🤣

 

[mcmurtry66]

I actually like what you wrote, but I gave it the thumbs down in solidarity with bulk. 🤣

@Cavanagh

Second and final request:

Kindly permit this post to advise you that there are a group of posters who are actively trying to sabotage my Reaction Score by posting angry faces in response to my posts. I have already demanded @Bulk VanderHuge limit all replies to my posts to Likes or Loves. As you know, and as Dan C has advised, a poster's Reaction Score is a vital measure in weighing the value of posts. It's not unthinkable that rankings will resume at some point on this board; I can only imagine the impact a low Reaction Score will have on same.

As board moderator, I again request that you take action.

Final request....

 

[Cavanagh]

@Cavanagh

Second and final request:

Kindly permit this post to advise you that there are a group of posters who are actively trying to sabotage my Reaction Score by posting angry faces in response to my posts. I have already demanded @Bulk VanderHuge limit all replies to my posts to Likes or Loves. As you know, and as Dan C has advised, a poster's Reaction Score is a vital measure in weighing the value of posts. It's not unthinkable that rankings will resume at some point on this board; I can only imagine the impact a low Reaction Score will have on same.

As board moderator, I again request that you take action.

Final request....

The angry faces are help build your resume, counts the same as a heart! Keep fighting the good fight!

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

The angry faces are help build your resume, counts the same as a heart! Keep fighting the good fight!

Gave you an angry face just for the heck of it.

 

[dbmhoosier]

🧐

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Guessing basic training accidents will kill or harm more military members than the Covid vaccines.

However, there is lots of misinformation being circulated which could cause even a Marine to be skeptical.

Afterall, it isn't always easy to separate facts from fiction. Sacrificing a career and retirement benefits has to a choice only a firmly convinced person would choose.

What misinformation is being circulated?

 

[hoosboot]

What misinformation is being circulated?

That the vaccine includes a microchip, that the vaccine alters your DNA, that people taking the vaccine can shed virus and infect their loved ones, that Pfizer employs a different vaccine in the U.S. than in Europe, that a bunch of steps were skipped in the vaccine approval process, mRNA vaccines are untested, getting the covid vaccine actually gives you covid, vaccines are causing variants, covid vaccines make you infertile.

I'm sure I'm missing some. Truth be told, it would have been a lot easier for Mas to answer this.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

That the vaccine includes a microchip, that the vaccine alters your DNA, that people taking the vaccine can shed virus and infect their loved ones, that Pfizer employs a different vaccine in the U.S. than in Europe, that a bunch of steps were skipped in the vaccine approval process, mRNA vaccines are untested, getting the covid vaccine actually gives you covid, vaccines are causing variants, covid vaccines make you infertile.

I'm sure I'm missing some. Truth be told, it would have been a lot easier for Mas to answer this.

I mean-does anybody believe this?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I mean-does anybody believe this?

Yes. I know someone who won't get vaccinated because his doctor told him it wasn't a real vaccine, but some kind of secret population control scheme.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Unless they falsify or hide data I think they should be exempt

We should know this answer in 2075. Just stand by a little longer. Nothing to see here, please move along.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Yes. I know someone who won't get vaccinated because his doctor told him it wasn't a real vaccine, but some kind of secret population control scheme.

That’s awesome.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That’s awesome.

Told him that 100% of his patients who got vaccinated had strokes exactly six months later.