Vaccine or not?

#19,851
#19,851
hog88 said:
Why would they count an adverse reaction to the vaccine as a WC issue?



Protecting Workers: Guidance on Mitigating and Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace | Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Click to expand...
Because it was mandatory. Had it not been required by the employer the carrier would’ve denied the claims.

Disclaimer: This is TN only as WC laws are state by state and only one insurance carrier took this approach. I’d think other carriers would do the same but I haven’t seen evidence one way or the other as most clients have not mandated the vaccine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#19,852
#19,852
hUTch2002 said:
Because it was mandatory. Had it not been required by the employer the carrier would’ve denied the claims.

Disclaimer: This is TN only as WC laws are state by state and only one insurance carrier took this approach. I’d think other carriers would do the same but I haven’t seen evidence one way or the other as most clients have not mandated the vaccine.
Click to expand...

I kept hearing about how OSHA was going to consider adverse reactions as WC issues if you required it but I don't think it was ever implemented. Once the one client we have that was considering making it mandatory for all vendors dropped that idiocy I quit paying attention so I don't know what TOSHA did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hUTch2002
#19,853
#19,853
DC_Vol said:
It’s really difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from most COVID studies simply based on unknowns of how data is collected and categorized. Largely unknown definitions and rarely standardized across datasets. And not clear on populations and sampling techniques. All basic stuff that’s fundamental to drawing meaningful conclusions.
Click to expand...
So it is working as intended.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, hUTch2002 and kiddiedoc
#19,855
#19,855
  • Like
Reactions: lukeneyland and davethevol
#19,857
#19,857
hog88 said:
Why would they count an adverse reaction to the vaccine as a WC issue?



Protecting Workers: Guidance on Mitigating and Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace | Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Click to expand...
How convenient that OSHA, given most known side effects occur within 2 weeks of the shot, choose to ignore a rule on reporting until may of 2022. It’s how you alleviate employers concerns about legal liability involving being sued for mandating a shot. Most mandatory shot periods included Nov to February. It’s meant to be less of a paper trail for liability.
 
#19,859
#19,859
I'm still trying to figure out why there is so little coverage of the first Phyzer documents that they have just released that they wanted to hide from the public for 70 years. It's absolutely insane that they documented 9 pages of adverse reactions and we heard nothing about it.


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher and lukeneyland
#19,861
#19,861
VolinWayne said:
I'm still trying to figure out why there is so little coverage of the first Phyzer documents that they have just released that they wanted to hide from the public for 70 years. It's absolutely insane that they documented 9 pages of adverse reactions and we heard nothing about it.


Click to expand...
Notice also that you haven't seen Fauci's weasely face or heard much of anything about pushing shots, seemingly right about the time this first report was released.

Isn't that convenient???
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, Big Orange#1, davethevol and 3 others
#19,863
#19,863
VolinWayne said:
I have not seen a lot of coverage on this. There are 9 pages of adverse reactions and they planned on hiding this for 50 years.

Here is the full list of Pfizer Vaccine adverse side effects and the list is horrible, even more horrible than the Russian Army invasion in Ukraine.
Taken from: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/...oc-5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf#page=30

View attachment 437344View attachment 437345View attachment 437346View attachment 437347View attachment 437349View attachment 437350View attachment 437352View attachment 437353View attachment 437354
Click to expand...
1223 deaths reported. 40k+ incidents.

About 50% recovered no long term issues, and about 25% were still pending at the time of the report. Most of the rest of the remaining 25% are "unknown" separate from the pending.

@kiddiedoc and others who look at this stuff, that 25% unknown seems like a really high rate of "inconpleteness". Is that normal for these medical testing/tracking. 5-10% seems acceptable, but 25% seems like it would through results enough to want to tighten it down.

Also when I looked the total number of cases were redacted. Or at least not provided, they have a reference, but dont include it.

And this is all just for the Pfizer vaccine. Not the others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolinWayne
#19,864
#19,864
Considering they have given out at minimum hundreds of millions of doses to several hundred million people the rate of incident is low. But that's if you assume the pfizer study included all of their cases, but because its redacted we cant know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolinWayne
#19,865
#19,865
Florida's top health official said on Monday the state would recommend against the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children, breaking with guidance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In announcing the move during press briefing convened by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, the state's surgeon general Dr. Joseph Lapado cited studies that showed few COVID fatalities among healthy children and elevated risk among young boys receiving the vaccine of side effects such as myocarditis.

"The Florida Department of Health is going to be first state to officially recommend against the use of COVID 19 vaccines for healthy children," Lapado said during the more than 90-minute panel discussion.

Florida breaks with CDC, recommends no COVID vaccine for healthy children
 
  • Like
Reactions: lukeneyland and kiddiedoc
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top