Army Tries to Bring Back Soldiers Booted for Refusing the COVID Vaccine

[probinson]

Could be, but let's start with where are you getting the idea that hospitalization was required for that particular "medically important event"? I assume you understand that just because one item in a list mentions hospitalization that not everything in the list results in such.

I assume you understand what the word "serious" means, but perhaps I'm assuming too much.

This the definition used in the original phase 3 clinical trials as defined by Pfizer and Moderna. We're talking about "serious" events. "Serious" means "serious". Let's take a look at the definition again:

death; life-threatening at the time of the event; inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; persistent or significant disability/incapacity; a congenital anomaly/birth defect; medically important event​

Death. Life-threatening. Significant disability or incapacity. Congential anamolies. Birth defects. Medically important events.

These aren't the sniffles or minor problems. These are indeed "serious" events that resulted from vaccination, perhaps at the rate of 2,000+ per million doses administered. Worse, the adverse events skew toward affecting younger, healthier people at higher rates, who were mandated to take the vaccine despite no compelling evidence that there was a significant benefit to them.

If the goal is to make these posts look less like anti-vax conspiracy theories, perhaps less of this sort of nonsense and more actually addressing what I wrote would be useful to the cause.

Not sure why you think keeping data hidden from third-parties is either conspiratorial or nonsensical. There is absolutely no reason this data shouldn't be available for analysis. It's why we're having this conversation in the first place. The questions not able to be answered by the study we're discussing could easily be answered if the data were available.

If quoting from the sources the editorial references shows the claims in the piece are overstated, I think that tells us all we need to know. But I get it is tempting to try to blame the messenger rather than actually address the facts of how the sources have been misused by the editorial.

Except they haven't.

There are very real concerns with indiscriminately vaccinating people over and over (and over and over and over) again. This is almost certainly why the rest of the world has stopped recommending COVID vaccines for young, healthy people and now recommends them mostly for those ages 65+.

Why do you think that is? Do you think they are being irresponsible in keeping these vaccines from young people? Are there "anti-science" or "anti-vax" if they don't recommend vaccinating 6-month old babies every year?

 

[probinson]

Let's (try to) put an end to this back and forth over what a "Serious Adverse Event" is.

According to the FDA, this is the definition of an "Important Medical Event"

Report when the event does not fit the other outcomes, but the event may jeopardize the patient and may require medical or surgical intervention (treatment) to prevent one of the other outcomes. Examples include allergic brochospasm (a serious problem with breathing) requiring treatment in an emergency room, serious blood dyscrasias (blood disorders) or seizures/convulsions that do not result in hospitalization. The development of drug dependence or drug abuse would also be examples of important medical events.​

Whether or not such "important medical events" result in hospitalization is irrelevant. The patient is "jeopardized", might require medical or surgical intervention or might land them in the ER. They are all "serious" events.

What is a Serious Adverse Event?

describes definition of serious adverse event

www.fda.gov

 

[KCfromNC]

I assume you understand what the word "serious" means, but perhaps I'm assuming too much.

This the definition used in the original phase 3 clinical trials as defined by Pfizer and Moderna. We're talking about "serious" events. "Serious" means "serious". Let's take a look at the definition again:

death; life-threatening at the time of the event; inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; persistent or significant disability/incapacity; a congenital anomaly/birth defect; medically important event​

Death. Life-threatening. Significant disability or incapacity. Congential anamolies. Birth defects. Medically important events.

Re-posting the same quote we've already determined doesn't support your point isn't an answer to my question. Thanks for trying, but if we've gotten to the point where you're just repeating pre-canned talking points despite them being refuted there's not much more to say.

 

[KCfromNC]

Let's (try to) put an end to this back and forth over what a "Serious Adverse Event" is.

According to the FDA, this is the definition of an "Important Medical Event"

Report when the event does not fit the other outcomes, but the event may jeopardize the patient and may require medical or surgical intervention (treatment) to prevent one of the other outcomes. Examples include allergic brochospasm (a serious problem with breathing) requiring treatment in an emergency room, serious blood dyscrasias (blood disorders) or seizures/convulsions that do not result in hospitalization. The development of drug dependence or drug abuse would also be examples of important medical events.​

Lots of "may" in there. I

Whether or not such "important medical events" result in hospitalization is irrelevant.

They why did your previous post jump to pretending that the serious events required hospitalization.

The patient is "jeopardized", might require medical or surgical intervention or might land them in the ER.

Or it might not. Like I said, lots of "may" and "might" sort of weasel words here. But I do appreciate the back to back claims that hospitalization is irrelevant immediately followed by yet another attempt to scaremonger by bringing up hospitalization. When the facts don't work, appeal to emotions.

Not to mention the point you're dodging, which is that the opinion piece's use of this research ignored the large 95%CI and quoted the middle of that range as if it were some sort of precise estimate. Which makes it two for two for some really sketchy use of references that came out after following up by actually reading those references. I mean, maybe this random blog is right despite all of that, but if they really had a point you'd think they'd be able to make it without trying to mislead about what the sources of their opinion are saying.

 

[probinson]

Not to mention the point you're dodging, which is that the opinion piece's use of this research ignored the large 95%CI and quoted the middle of that range as if it were some sort of precise estimate

Ah. So NOW you care about the quality of the evidence. When you cite shoddy studies with questionable methodology allegedly demonstrating vaccine efficacy, you pretend as if it's rock solid, ignoring any confounders, other methodological issues or healthy-user biases But when there is a study that questions efficacy and/or safety, boy howdy you're going through that sucker with a fine-tooth comb looking for flaws.

It's a remarkable double-standard.

What the article I posted is saying is that there is cause for concern and caution. More studies are warranted. The things that "may" happen are indeed concerning. Back in the days before vaccine zealots hijacked science to indiscriminately push endless vaccines on every living breathing thing, concerns like these were addressed, not downplayed. We actually conducted real risk/benefit analyses. Not every vaccine was recommended was recommended for everyone.

 

[probinson]

Or it might not. Like I said, lots of "may" and "might" sort of weasel words here.

You do realize you're saying that the FDA's definition is full of "weasel words", right?

I get why you want to obfuscate this so you can attempt to downplay the fact that this is the definition of a:

SERIOUS adverse event as defined by the FDA.

I also get why you're trying to hyper-focus on hospitalization. That way if someone has a life-threatening adverse event to a vaccine for which they are successfully treated at home, in a doctor's office and/or in the ER but aren't actually admitted to the hospital (and thereby not "hospitalized"), you can ignore such events because they weren't "hospitalizations".

The fact is, there is very real concern with giving these vaccines to everyone regardless of age. This risk/benefit analysis is not the same for every age group. That's probably why most of the rest of the world has gone to recommending the COVID vaccines only for those 65+.

 

[KCfromNC]

Ah. So NOW you care about the quality of the evidence.

My objection was to the fact the editorial needed to play fast and loose with the data from its own sources to try and make its point.

And not NOW, it was part of my initial response when the editorial was posted last week.

Kinda weird posts need to make up stuff I never wrote rather than simply addressing what I did write. Kinda makes it look like the talking points can't stand up to actual scrutiny.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Army Tries to Bring Back Soldiers Booted for Refusing the COVID Vaccine.

Army Tries to Bring Back Soldiers Booted for Refusing the COVID Vaccine

This month, news broke that the Army has sent letters to many of the troops who were ousted due to their refusal to receive the COVID vaccine, which explains th

washingtonstand.com

In August of 2021, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin made the COVID vaccination shot a requirement for all U.S. servicemembers. President Joe Biden released a statement revealing his strong support before it went into effect. As a result, Politico reported that over “8,400 troops were kicked out of the military for refusing the vaccine.” About a year later, Biden signed a defense bill that repealed the vaccine mandate.

This month, news broke that the Army has sent letters to many of the troops who were ousted, which explains that soldiers can correct their records and reenter the service. The reversal has been met with tremendous backlash.

Retired Army Major Chase Spears wrote about the mistreatment servicemembers faced while the vaccine mandate was in effect. He shared, “The Army requires several immunizations and checkups throughout the year to maintain one’s medical readiness. Not one of those came with the coercive force of the COVID mandate. … It became the primary marker of human worth.” For Spears, the Army officials who heavily enforced the mandate seem to have no remorse for their actions. He added, “Hearkening back to biblical language, you were clean or unclean based on your shot status.”

Spears described the policy reversal as “a step toward sanity,” but concluded “it is far from enough.” “The question is whether those who made such un-American policy decisions can be trusted going forward.” He believes they cannot. Those affected by the military’s course of action have insisted this is a matter of trust and warn the military is about to get a wake-up call from the soldiers who no longer have confidence in the current leadership.

Many of the soldiers affected by the vaccine mandate were deprived of pay and benefits. According to Breitbart, retired attorney Dale Saran and attorneys Andy Meyer and Brandon Johnson are representing former troops who were kicked out “in three separate lawsuits they plan to turn into a class action lawsuit.” Saran estimated roughly “80,000 to 100,000 service members — both active-duty and reservists — who were impacted by the mandate.”

Mike Berry, vice president of External Affairs, director of Military Affairs, and senior counsel for First Liberty Institute, commented to The Washington Stand, “The only way an all-volunteer military works is with trust. But these past few years, the Pentagon has done nothing but shatter the trust of our servicemembers and veterans with lies, broken promises, and incompetence.” He explained that when First Liberty first “sued the Navy over its COVID vaccine mandate,” they warned them that the “unlawful manner in which the DOD was enforcing the mandate would result in a recruiting crisis.”

On Tuesday’s episode of “Washington Watch,” Berry unpacked the mandate’s rollback more. As far as he’s concerned, the problem with the letter is that it “doesn’t say anything about accountability.” He added, “It’s not about accomplishing the mission. And in this case, it’s not about protecting religious freedom, which is one of the things that our military exists to do.” He concluded, “They know what this is all about. This is all about just trying to save face, trying to make sure that on paper, our military is meeting its recruiting and retention numbers.”

Travis Weber, vice president for Policy and Government Affairs at Family Research Council and a Navy veteran, also commented to TWS, “The military never should have coerced its servicemembers to get the vaccine to begin with.” For Weber and all those witnessing the unfolding of the military’s actions, we “are dealing with the fallout as they try to woo back the thousands that they kicked out for refusing to violate their consciences and get the vaccine.”

Weber shared that it’s not surprising that servicemembers would be hesitant to return “to an institution that so easily thrust them aside in the face of public pressure” during COVID, which “the military bowed to along with much of the rest of society.” He concluded, “May this sad episode never be repeated, and may our nation’s military and civilian leadership be on guard to ensure they actually lead and not simply follow the blowing winds of public sentiment.”

I know everyone doesn't believe the same as myself but I completely lost faith in our government after 9/11 and our willingness to go into Iraq...

At this vaccine mandate, I would never, like over my dead body never, join the US military nor would I allow, such that it was within my power to disallow, any blood of mine join up...

I would choose death before this or, at this point, any other vaccine put out because I lost any and all faith in our new fascist government who now walks hand in hand with these major corps to push their products; by force if we refuse to buy in regardless of who gets hurt.

I honestly cannot imagine why anyone would remain in the military, let alone join up now. I would take prison before I'd stand in service.

So yeah I agree, what our government did was cross every line there is and become pure evil...

And that's certainly going to affect who will join up. Let the corporations join the military, they are who the government works for. A government of, by and for the people is a time long past.

My current feelings are a complete and total 180° from what they were just a couple decades ago. It's likely I'm not alone here. I'm sure if we didn't live under fascist rule it might be different for people.

Revelation 3:17-18
You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.

 

[probinson]

My objection was to the fact the editorial needed to play fast and loose with the data from its own sources to try and make its point.

Yes, because it's easier to talk about that than it is to address the very real concern raised that the harms likely outweigh the benefits for many groups of people. That's probably why the vast majority of the world now only recommends the COVID vaccines for those over 65, something you've continually ignored every time I've posted it.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, because it's easier to talk about

If you have something better to support your opinions than an editorial which took various liberties with the actual data, we can discuss that. But for some reason you led with that. Seems kinda strange to complain about people addressing what you've posted.

than it is to address the very real concern raised that the harms likely outweigh the benefits for many groups of people.

There's nothing stopping you from addressing my discussion of the sources you listed. But for some reason instead the choice seems to be to complain about me personally, as if addressing the obvious flaws in what you've posted is somehow a flaw in me.

 

[probinson]

Does anyone want to take a stab at why much of the rest of the world only recommends vaccines for limited groups of people?

France doesn't even recommend PRIMARY vaccination for the general population:

Covid-19: Primary vaccination for general population no longer recommended by the French health authority

'Almost all of the population not at risk of severe disease has already come into contact with the virus at least once,' said the French National Authority for Health.

www.lemonde.fr

Germany only recommends the annual booster for those aged 60 and over

Current information on coronavirus vaccination

Here you can find answers to the most important questions on COVID-19 vaccination.

www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de

The UK only recommends seasonal COVID vaccines if you have a "health condition" or due to your age.

COVID-19 vaccine

NHS information about the COVID-19 vaccine, including what the vaccine helps protect against, who should have it and when, how to get it and side effects.

www.nhs.uk

Australia recommends the COVID booster if you're 65 years and over.

https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/covid-19-vaccines/getting-your-vaccination/booster-doses

Sweden only recommends COVID vaccines for those people aged 65 and older.

Vaccinations - The Public Health Agency of Sweden

Vaccinations are of great importance to public health. In Sweden, there are national vaccination programmes against several infectious diseases.

www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se

Why are all of these countries no longer recommending the annual COVID vaccine (and in some cases, ANY vaccine) for everyone? Are they all anti-vax, anti-science countries? Or perhaps they've come to the realization that the potential harms outweigh any modest benefits in certain populations?

Thoughts?

 

[KCfromNC]

Why are all of these countries no longer recommending the annual COVID vaccine (and in some cases, ANY vaccine) for everyone?

I'm hoping they didn't do it just to provide ammo to distract from the failed anti-vaxx opinions presented through the last few pages of the thread, and using it as such now is just a (hopefully not medically serious) side effect.

 

[johansen]

I'm hoping they didn't do it just to provide ammo to distract from the failed anti-vaxx opinions presented through the last few pages of the thread, and using it as such now is just a (hopefully not medically serious) side effect.

Well, they have to pay 10$ or so per vaccine. And it isnt worth it.

 

[Vambram]

True of False:

The majority of Americans did not get any Covid 19 booster shots in 2023.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I know everyone doesn't believe the same as myself but I completely lost faith in our government after 9/11 and our willingness to go into Iraq...

At this vaccine mandate, I would never, like over my dead body never, join the US military nor would I allow, such that it was within my power to disallow, any blood of mine join up...

I would choose death before this or, at this point, any other vaccine put out because I lost any and all faith in our new fascist government who now walks hand in hand with these major corps to push their products; by force if we refuse to buy in regardless of who gets hurt.

I honestly cannot imagine why anyone would remain in the military, let alone join up now. I would take prison before I'd stand in service.

So yeah I agree, what our government did was cross every line there is and become pure evil...

And that's certainly going to affect who will join up. Let the corporations join the military, they are who the government works for. A government of, by and for the people is a time long past.

My current feelings are a complete and total 180° from what they were just a couple decades ago. It's likely I'm not alone here. I'm sure if we didn't live under fascist rule it might be different for people.

Revelation 3:17-18
You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.

I’m happy to know our military isn’t mostly made up of people who think like you do or if it is, they’re being weeded out.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I’m happy to know our military isn’t mostly made up of people who think like you do or if it is, they’re being weeded out.

You'll be happy to know they looked and couldn't find any like me within the US military then.

Not that any of the uniparty controlled media would tell you that particular report came out... It turns them into liars.

People who lost faith in the government stop joining. It's just that simple. You don't fight for something you don't believe in, or should I say, you don't fight under the direction of those whose motives you don't trust.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

People who lost faith in the government stop joining. It's just that simple. You don't fight for something you don't believe in, or should I say, you don't fight under the direction of those whose motives you don't trust.

They don’t seem to stop voting though.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

We can delete these now.

Well that’s a nice update to the site!

Thanks!

 

[Vambram]

I’m happy to know our military isn’t mostly made up of people who think like you do or if it is, they’re being weeded out.

As someone who is still in the US Military and also agree with a lot of Hazelelponi's point of view, I can tell you that there are still millions of Americans who are in the military who are not in the service in order to serve the US government. Most of us joined and stayed in the military because we have patriotic values and we want to serve the citizens of this great nation, but not necessarily the corrupt politicians ruling in the government.

 

[probinson]

I'm hoping they didn't do it just to provide ammo to distract from the failed anti-vaxx opinions presented through the last few pages of the thread

So why do you think most countries don't recommend the COVID vaccines for everyone any more? Let's see if you can reply without using the term anti-vaxx or other pejoratives.