"Another statement in the bill’s preamble asserts that the “safety and efficacy of Covid vaccines have been confirmed through evaluation by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA).” But vaccine safety also depends on any given patient’s clinical circumstances. For example, there is an elevated risk of myocarditis in young men taki…
"Another statement in the bill’s preamble asserts that the “safety and efficacy of Covid vaccines have been confirmed through evaluation by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA).” But vaccine safety also depends on any given patient’s clinical circumstances. For example, there is an elevated risk of myocarditis in young men taking the vaccine, especially with the booster."
That is a weak, or at least woefully incomplete, rebuttal, IMO.
Vaccines would typically undergo 3-5 YEARS of testing before the decision on whether to approve would be made. These jabs have been around for 15 months, and, were made available after about 90 DAYS of (rigged) testing, after which the control group was jabbed!!
This statement: the “safety and efficacy of Covid vaccines have been confirmed through evaluation by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA)" is patently and completely false, a g/d LIE, because there exists exactly ZERO long-term data about the jabs' "safety and efficacy". No such "safety and efficacy" can possibly be "confirmed" in the short time the jabs have been available...and I might add, STILL only available under an EUA. If in fact the “safety and efficacy of Covid vaccines have been confirmed through evaluation by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA)", then there would be no more need for the EUA and it could and would be rescinded.
THAT kind of rebuttal is needed against the POS human beings in the CA legislature who are advancing this bill. That kind of rebuttal, not the milquetoast "oh, but myocarditis".
Reject the premise, dammit. Don't argue it. REJECT IT.
"Another statement in the bill’s preamble asserts that the “safety and efficacy of Covid vaccines have been confirmed through evaluation by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA).” But vaccine safety also depends on any given patient’s clinical circumstances. For example, there is an elevated risk of myocarditis in young men taking the vaccine, especially with the booster."
That is a weak, or at least woefully incomplete, rebuttal, IMO.
Vaccines would typically undergo 3-5 YEARS of testing before the decision on whether to approve would be made. These jabs have been around for 15 months, and, were made available after about 90 DAYS of (rigged) testing, after which the control group was jabbed!!
This statement: the “safety and efficacy of Covid vaccines have been confirmed through evaluation by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA)" is patently and completely false, a g/d LIE, because there exists exactly ZERO long-term data about the jabs' "safety and efficacy". No such "safety and efficacy" can possibly be "confirmed" in the short time the jabs have been available...and I might add, STILL only available under an EUA. If in fact the “safety and efficacy of Covid vaccines have been confirmed through evaluation by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA)", then there would be no more need for the EUA and it could and would be rescinded.
THAT kind of rebuttal is needed against the POS human beings in the CA legislature who are advancing this bill. That kind of rebuttal, not the milquetoast "oh, but myocarditis".
Reject the premise, dammit. Don't argue it. REJECT IT.