Messaging between the Houses

[Homesteaded]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why aren't you demanding years of peer-reviewed study for it for covid like you are the mRNA technology invented in 2003? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Because it's safety has nothing to do with covid. It is a drug that has been dosed in the billions of times to humans. It's one of the safest drugs out there. Ask yourself why you have an issue with people taking something that is incredibly safe.

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why aren't you demanding years of peer-reviewed study for it for covid like you are the mRNA technology invented in 2003? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is this a serious question?

The unique thing about the covid vaccines is the fact that they are NEW, period. Not that they are only being *used* newly.

IE: Ivermectin has decades of clinical data with regard to safety in humans. Meaning, if you take it you don't die or suffer any long term side effects based on decades of monitoring and research. The covid vaccines have about... 1 year of monitoring and research? You don't see any difference between these two things?

So the question of safety, and the question of efficacy are separate questions. I have an issue with people who claim that ivermectin is somehow dangerous. You can claim it's ineffective for covid all you want (although there's evidence to the contrary), you just can't claim it's dangerous to humans because it's not.

[robayon]

Because then the precious horsies don't get their meds

[Reiwa]

OK that was fun but he's done.

[Ooloo]

The fact that mRNA tech was developed in 2013 is totally irrelevant to the covid question. It would be like saying "Hey, this atomic energy technology was developed way back in the 1910s and 1920s, what's all this fuss about radioactive fallout??".

The *ONLY* relevant question is: "Are mandatory covid vaccines sensible given the risk of the disease itself and the potential risks of the vaccine for it?".

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The *ONLY* relevant question is: "Does OSHA have the legal authority to make workplace vaccinations mandatory under its health and safety powers?"

ftfy

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

ftfy

No, it doesn't. It's completely unconstitutional to grant that much life-altering power to a single body. OSHA could only regulate conditions within a workplace, it can't dictate life for workers outside of that workplace, and these vaccines which already have many well documented side effects could continue to effect worker's lives after they are off the clock.

[Jibartik]

Finally we can wall the workers back up in the coke ovens again.

[Homesteaded]

mRNA is fine, but ivermectin is untested so let's not use it. The logic flows and it glows with these demons.

[robayon]

Originally Posted by Homesteaded [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

mRNA is fine, but ivermectin is untested so let's not use it. The logic flows and it glows with these demons.

If we are demons why are you expecting our logic to match your perfect reasoning, gramps