The “vaccine hesitant” & why I am so emphatic that Fauci needs to be removed…
…..first, I like the term “vaccine hesitant” that the liberal media has started using to finally draw a distinction from the “vaccine opposed”. It is far more accurate and less hateful. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccine do represent a new category of vaccines, and it does not have FDA approval yet. It is not unreasonable for people to have concerns.
…last week, I had a long conversation with a close friend who is vaccine “hesitant”. He had various concerns about the vaccine - some impressively nuanced, and others steeped in paranoia. I went through the explanations as best that I could, and I thought that I was making real headway. But he brought up Fauci. He pointed out his multiple lies, his flip flops, his financial investments and ties to interested parties, his untruthful testimony to congress, his support of Gain of Function Research, his stifling of the real source of the virus (China), and his hypocrisy.
Why would the leader of the CDC lie about a trustworthy vaccine?
I had no answer since he knows that I also agree about all of this.
The vaccine hesitant can absolutely be convinced by a trustworthy CDC leader. They are highly intelligent, and you cannot pull off the shenanigans that Fauci has, and not gain their skepticism. At minimum, a change would remove one of the biggest roadblocks preventing the development of trust.
But this would require the Dems to give up their “yes man” in the CDC, and I am afraid that the power that they have found in the CDC is not something with which they are willing to part.
Replies to: The “vaccine hesitant” & why I am so emphatic that Fauci needs to be removed…
What are your thoughts on recommending the J&J vaccine to those hesitant about the mRNA approach of
Moderna / Pfizer ?
A few things
1 uses fetal cell cultures in production & thus not an option for me as it creates a demand for the abortion product. Many find this objectionable also and thus have a right ti know
2 less effective
3 higher risk of thromboembolic events in younger female population but still risk is low. Also a low but present thrombocytopenia risk.
4 almost assuredly will be requiring a booster
5 As with other vaccines, no deaths from COVID in trial
Abortion issue aside, it is less preferable to the Pfizer or Moderna options
I'm surprised no one has called you out on your trash lies yet.
No, the COVID-19 vaccines do not contain any aborted fetal cells.
However, Pfizer and Moderna did perform confirmation tests (to ensure the vaccines work) using fetal cell lines. And Johnson & Johnson uses fetal cell lines in vaccine development, confirmation and production.
But it's important to have the full context: Fetal cell lines are not the same as fetal tissue.
Fetal cell lines are cells that grow in a laboratory. They descend from cells taken from elective abortions in the 1970s and 1980s. Those individual cells from the 1970s and 1980s have since multiplied into many new cells over the past four or five decades, creating fetal cell lines. Current fetal cell lines are thousands of generations removed from the original fetal tissue. They do not contain any tissue from a fetus.
sigh.
(no message)
They say sighing is a typical response when caught lying. You're not alone Baron!
(no message)
Every vial of J&J is cultured in cells from an aborted baby-being several generations of cellcycles
down the line makes it no less immoral. Interestingly (and you probably didn't know this), the MRNA vaccines are not free of the taint either, but their link was the use of fetal celss in a confirmatory test , but not during the design, development, or production. By using the fetal retinal cells in production as it is in J&J, and rewarding the efforts of J&J with a finacial windfall, it encourages more cell lines ot be cultivated in the future.
I am sighing because of your lack of understanding of this as well as your belief that somehow, after a number of generations of cell lines, that the abortion is any less immoral.
Pope Benedict actually addressed this back in 2007 with other vaccines, and recently the US Catholic College of Bishops issued a position article which is in agreement with my statements. At the time of the article, the Astra Zeneca vaccine was addressed rather than the J&J because it was looking as if it would be approved, but the J&J vaccine falls into the same category as Astra Zeneca. It is felt that while neither is perfect, the benefit to lives from the vaccine makes its' use justifiable, but the J&J and Astra Zeneca vaccines should be avoided as long as there is a better moral alternative available....and there are two with a much less direct link to abortion(Pfizer and Moderna) which also fortunately happen to also be better medical alternatives as well.
I link this article because this is a moral question, and you didn't question any of my medical comments in the post above.
Link: https://www.usccb.org/moral-considerations-covid-vaccines
This too
An experimental gene modifying concoction is NOT a FDA approved vaccine
Pfizer and Moderna disclaimers state their mRNA injections do not stop transmission and have unproven studies for long term adverse affects
All four drug companies received 100% indemnification for any and all side effects including deaths
CDC VAERS reports within first 7 months, 12,000 Americans have died shortly after getting the jabs
It's not safe or effective means it's a crime against humanity to mandate these gene modifying injections
Looking forward to your lunchtime fire-Fauci update
(no message)
Just stop pretending that getting unvaxed vaccinated is your highest priority
(no message)
It is, actually. I don't want to step backwards.
I don't want to mask again in t he grocery store. I don't want my kids to wear masks at school. I don't want to lecture with a mask on, or have my gym re-institute mandates.
More importantly, I want people to stop dying.
I want this goddam plague to be over.
So yeah, Baron, it is actually a pretty high priority for me.
Dont see how simply replacing Fauci is moving backwards when it
will improve vaccination rates among people who dont think like you ( or me since I got vaccinated in March despite Fauci).
There is a group of unvaccinated that can be convinced, but that will never happen if you cram it down their throats on the advice of a guy that has zero credibility with them.
This reminds me of the owner of a poorly performing team whose coach has hopelessly lost a segment of his locker room. He is friends with the coach and has emotional attachments that prevent him from doing the right thing and replace the coach. Instead the team keeps on sucking.
As you pointed out , the stakes are much higher here.
Everything else you've tried has failed, how fucking hard is it to try someone else?
If Biden embarrasses Biden even once, you wouldn't think twice about canning him, but leadership credibility among the unvaccinated? No way!
Get down to the hood and vax the brothers.
(no message)
Fauci does not work for the CDC.
Tell your friend to get his news elsewhere.
Fauci is not the problem. The problem is Fox News, Newsmax, and the politicians who feed the disinformation monster.
I love watching CNN/MSNBC/NPR. What they report, my instinct is to believe the opposite is true.
(no message)
So, your solution to the unvaccinated is to shut down conservative free speech. Nice.
Of course, that wont affect the largely unvaccinated African American community.
Try again.
No. My advice is that Fox and Newsmax should not traffic in falsity and snake oil.
(no message)
You so want that talking point to be true. It's what keeps you going.
(no message)
Only way to keep the clicks and eyeballs on their trash product.
Right out of National Inquirer playbook. How Rupert Murdock sleeps is beyond me.