The approved versions of the vaccines are chemically identical to the vaccines administered under the EUA.  As I understand it, if the vaccine was manufactured before FDA approval was granted, it has to be administered under the EUA, even if it’s exactly the same stuff that got approved.  I believe use in young children is still under the EUA because the process is not yet complete to grant full approval for use in children.  Use in adults has been fully approved.

You originally said the vaccine was spreading through “b[reast] milk, blood, saliva, etc.”. Now it’s just through breast milk to nursing infants?  That’s not what Dr. McCullough said in the video; he said you can get the spike protein through kissing and sex.  Where’s the evidence of that?  Is there any evidence of harm to nursing infants who’s mothers have been vaccinated?  Any evidence that anyone, anywhere got the spike protein from somebody who was vaccinated, other than nursing infants?

Identical is not equal.  You are also basing this off of what they tell you.  And why would they lie to you... 
Also if you find the spike protein in the blood you are going to find it in other excretions as well.  They are finding it in organs months after and that is not in question.  Of course i can't find any papers on it saying one way or the other if they are present.  But remember these papers are also the ones that told you it would break down and leave the body in 72 hours.  There is a salviatory response but i couldn't tell you if that would be the same as passing the original spike protein.

Salivary and serum IgA and IgG responses to SARS-CoV-2-spike protein following SARS-CoV-2 infection and after immunization with COVID-19 vaccines
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36065108/

In reproductive material there is all different bits of genetic material.  It is possible though it could transfer because semen is not strictly your little swimmers but also sugars and other things that they need to do their job.  Plus whatever it may pick up on the way out, the pipe carries other things like waste.
You can keep going round and round not doing any thinking for yourself too you klnow.

I didn’t make it through all 150 entries in the first link, but the sample I looked at (about 30%) seemed focused on how well a mask protects the wearer.  It’s been a couple of years now that they’ve been saying the mask is to reduce the amount of respiratory droplets an infected individual (who may not even know they’re infected) puts out into the environment.  Also, he included one of his own papers (red flag), and an article from zerohedge, which I’m pretty sure isn’t a medical journal.

Second link also focuses on how well masks protect the wearer, not how well they reduce the spread when worn by infected people.

Third link also primarily about how well masks protect the wearer, not the other way around, and includes the sentence “Wearing a cloth mask or face covering could be better than doing nothing, but we simply don’t know at this point.”  That was April of 2020.  I think we’ve probably learned a bit about the virus and how it spreads in the last two years.

thank you for your soyentific opinion.

Mayo Clinic: “Can face masks help slow the spread of the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Yes. Face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as getting vaccinated, frequent hand-washing and physical distancing, can help slow the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19.” https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449

Published on CDC.gov: “Effectiveness of Face Mask or Respirator Use in Indoor Public Settings for Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 Infection — California, February–December 2021
Kristin L. Andrejko1,2,*; Jake M. Pry, PhD2,*; Jennifer F. Myers, MPH2; Nozomi Fukui2; Jennifer L. DeGuzman, MPH2; John Openshaw, MD2; James P. Watt, MD2; Joseph A. Lewnard, PhD1,3,4; Seema Jain, MD2; California COVID-19 Case-Control Study Team

Author affiliations: 1Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California; 2California Department of Public Health; 3Division of Infectious Diseases & Vaccinology, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California; 4Center for Computational Biology, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California.

What is added by this report?

Consistent use of a face mask or respirator in indoor public settings was associated with lower odds of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result (adjusted odds ratio = 0.44). Use of respirators with higher filtration capacity was associated with the most protection, compared with no mask use.“ https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm

Johns Hopkins Medicine, from Lisa Lockerd Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H.: “ Can wearing a face mask prevent coronavirus from spreading?

Yes. Since the coronavirus can spread through droplets and particles released into the air by speaking, singing, coughing or sneezing, masks are very helpful to prevent the virus from spreading in crowded indoor public places, especially those that contain a mixture of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

Cloth Masks

In non-health care settings, multiple-layer fabric cloth masks are excellent barriers for containing respiratory droplets and interrupting viral transmission if they are worn consistently and properly, covering the nose and mouth.“ https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-face-masks-what-you-need-to-know

And there are a bunch more where those came from, all from medical doctors and/or public health experts, none filtered through the MSM.

I’m not saying you do this, FJ, but I’m amazed by how people will latch on to one source and ignore hundreds of others… because the one conforms to their political beliefs the hundreds don’t.

Person A: “This one doctor on bitchute/rumble/truth social with no background in immunology or infectious diseases, who also happens to be selling a book and/or miracle cure, says the vaccine makes you magnetic!” (DISCLAIMER: I haven’t actually seen anybody on this forum say that; I’m trying to illustrate a thought process.  Although, I haven’t read through all 496 pages of this thread…)

Person B: “Sure, but hundreds, if not thousands, of doctors who have studied infectious diseases and vaccines for years, from prestigious medical schools and public health organizations throughout the world, say that’s not possible, and there are no documented cases of it actually happening.”

Person B: “Fake news!  I can’t believe you believe those quacks!”

Could it be, as I said, that the entire discussion has been so politicized by the Liberal Media in order to scare everyone into compliance that nobody knows who to trust?

This is the same opinion a prominent Liberal concluded a year ago...

Identical is not equal.  You are also basing this off of what they tell you.  And why would they lie to you... 
Also if you find the spike protein in the blood you are going to find it in other excretions as well.  They are finding it in organs months after and that is not in question.  Of course i can't find any papers on it saying one way or the other if they are present.  But remember these papers are also the ones that told you it would break down and leave the body in 72 hours.  There is a salviatory response but i couldn't tell you if that would be the same as passing the original spike protein.

Salivary and serum IgA and IgG responses to SARS-CoV-2-spike protein following SARS-CoV-2 infection and after immunization with COVID-19 vaccines
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36065108/

In reproductive material there is all different bits of genetic material.  It is possible though it could transfer because semen is not strictly your little swimmers but also sugars and other things that they need to do their job.  Plus whatever it may pick up on the way out, the pipe carries other things like waste.
You can keep going round and round not doing any thinking for yourself too you klnow.

Identical IS equal.  Literally.

Once you decide to go with the “well, they’re lying!” defense for your argument, there’s no point in continuing that line of discussion.  You can simply meet any evidence you don’t like with “Yeah, but they’re lying!”  How do you know Dr. McCullough isn’t lying to you?

If you’ve got any evidence that the spike proteins show up in any bodily fluids other than breast milk, or in any body fluids including breast milk after 48 hours from being vaccinated, I’d be happy to look at it.  Also interested in any evidence that spike proteins, if transferred, cause any harm.

thank you for your soyentific opinion.

Oooh, ouch.  That one really got me.   

Could it be, as I said, that the entire discussion has been so politicized by the Liberal Media in order to scare everyone into compliance that nobody knows who to trust?

This is the same opinion a prominent Liberal concluded a year ago...

And the liberal media are the ONLY ones who politicized the discussion?  And the liberal media are the ONLY ones trying to scare people? (Spike protein shedding!  Mass die-offs! COVID concentration camps!) 🤨

immaterial
"cominarty" is approved
"cominarty" is not available anywhere
they are throwing away the expired EUA vaccine (BNT162b2) and producing more vaccine that  is not covered in the EUA (bivalent booster), and are going to claim that the EUA liability protections are still in place

AND the EUA was supposed to go away once was an APPROVED treatment
so it should have expired the minute that monoclonal antibodies were approved, and certainly when remdesivir was approved

The approved versions of the vaccines are chemically identical to the vaccines administered under the EUA.  As I understand it, if the vaccine was manufactured before FDA approval was granted, it has to be administered under the EUA, even if it’s exactly the same stuff that got approved.  I believe use in young children is still under the EUA because the process is not yet complete to grant full approval for use in children.  Use in adults has been fully approved.

You originally said the vaccine was spreading through “b[reast] milk, blood, saliva, etc.”. Now it’s just through breast milk to nursing infants?  That’s not what Dr. McCullough said in the video; he said you can get the spike protein through kissing and sex.  Where’s the evidence of that?  Is there any evidence of harm to nursing infants who’s mothers have been vaccinated?  Any evidence that anyone, anywhere got the spike protein from somebody who was vaccinated, other than nursing infants?

Identical IS equal.  Literally.

Once you decide to go with the “well, they’re lying!” defense for your argument, there’s no point in continuing that line of discussion.  You can simply meet any evidence you don’t like with “Yeah, but they’re lying!”  How do you know Dr. McCullough isn’t lying to you?

If you’ve got any evidence that the spike proteins show up in any bodily fluids other than breast milk, or in any body fluids including breast milk after 48 hours from being vaccinated, I’d be happy to look at it.  Also interested in any evidence that spike proteins, if transferred, cause any harm.

I can tune in any of the major news networks and get your point of view, all paid for with revenue from Pfizer. 
McCullough isn't the one with a history of lying. So why should i believe a company with a known history of scandals? It's a trust issue.
When you can buy your studies and research and bury the ones you don't like (that is provable) who is to say otherwise?
Profits over people.  100% safe and effective.
https://corporatewatch.org/pfizer-six-scandals-to-remember/
https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/pfizer

In the current study, we employed a human liver cell line for in vitro investigation. It is worth investigating if the liver cells also present the vaccine-derived SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which could potentially make the liver cells targets for previously primed spike protein reactive cytotoxic T cells. There has been case reports on individuals who developed autoimmune hepatitis [39] after BNT162b2 vaccination. To obtain better understanding of the potential effects of BNT162b2 on liver function, in vivo models are desired for future studies.
https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73

immaterial
"cominarty" is approved
"cominarty" is not available anywhere
they are throwing away the expired EUA vaccine (BNT162b2) and producing more vaccine that  is not covered in the EUA (bivalent booster), and are going to claim that the EUA liability protections are still in place

AND the EUA was supposed to go away once was an APPROVED treatment
so it should have expired the minute that monoclonal antibodies were approved, and certainly when remdesivir was approved

How is it immaterial?  It’s the same stuff with a different name, so the original EUA vaccine can’t have any effects that the fully approved vaccine doesn’t have, because they’re the same stuff.  The distinction is legal, not physical.  The bivalent booster is a new formulation, and so it will take some time to get full approval… so it’s on the EUA.

I don’t recall them saying the EUA would go away once there was an approved treatment; do you have a link I could look at?

And because I have undiagnosed mild OCD, it’s “Comirnaty,” not “cominarty.”

I can tune in any of the major news networks and get your point of view, all paid for with revenue from Pfizer. 
McCullough isn't the one with a history of lying. So why should i believe a company with a known history of scandals? It's a trust issue.
When you can buy your studies and research and bury the ones you don't like (that is provable) who is to say otherwise?
Profits over people.  100% safe and effective.
https://corporatewatch.org/pfizer-six-scandals-to-remember/
https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/pfizer

In the current study, we employed a human liver cell line for in vitro investigation. It is worth investigating if the liver cells also present the vaccine-derived SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which could potentially make the liver cells targets for previously primed spike protein reactive cytotoxic T cells. There has been case reports on individuals who developed autoimmune hepatitis [39] after BNT162b2 vaccination. To obtain better understanding of the potential effects of BNT162b2 on liver function, in vivo models are desired for future studies.
https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73

“It is worth investigating if the liver cells also present the vaccine-derived SARS-CoV-2 spike protein…” Translation: we didn’t find the spike protein in the liver cells, but we think it’s worth looking for.  That’s not proof that the spike protein has been found in organs; it’s not even a claim that the spike protein has been found in organs.

And the liberal media are the ONLY ones who politicized the discussion?  And the liberal media are the ONLY ones trying to scare people? (Spike protein shedding!  Mass die-offs! COVID concentration camps!) 🤨

So, you think the people wanting to give people a choice are as bad as the people wanting to force everyone into compliance with policies that are not founded in science?

You need to look at the bigger picture instead of trying to defend what we know now were failed policies and mandates.

it is immaterial
you said it yourself, the distinction is legal
approved comirnarty is not available EUA bnt162b2/bivalent is

https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/emergency-use-authorization-medical-products-and-related-authorities#A2

d. No Alternatives

For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition.  A potential alternative product may be considered “unavailable” if there are insufficient supplies of the approved alternative to fully meet the emergency need.  A potential alternative product may be considered "inadequate" if, for example, there are contraindicating data for special circumstances or populations (e.g., children, immunocompromised individuals, or individuals with a drug allergy), if a dosage form of an approved product is inappropriate for use in a special population (e.g., a tablet for individuals who cannot swallow pills), or if the agent is or may be resistant to approved and available alternative products.

How is it immaterial?  It’s the same stuff with a different name, so the original EUA vaccine can’t have any effects that the fully approved vaccine doesn’t have, because they’re the same stuff.  The distinction is legal, not physical.  The bivalent booster is a new formulation, and so it will take some time to get full approval… so it’s on the EUA.

I don’t recall them saying the EUA would go away once there was an approved treatment; do you have a link I could look at?

And because I have undiagnosed mild OCD, it’s “Comirnaty,” not “cominarty.”

https://premierconsulting.com/resources/blog/emergency-use-authorizations-what-is-an-eua-and-does-your-product-qualify/#:~:text=The%20FDA%20may%20then%20issue%20an%20EUA%20for,year%29.%20What%20are%20the%20criteria%20for%20EUA%20issuance%3F

What are the criteria for EUA issuance?
A product may be granted an EUA if the following criteria are met:

1- Evidence of a serious or life-threatening condition: The CBRN agent must be capable of causing a serious or life-threatening disease or condition.

2-Evidence of effectiveness: There must be a reasonable belief, after consideration of all available scientific evidence, that the product will be effective for its intended use. The product can be used to diagnose, treat, mitigate, or prevent conditions caused by (a) the CBRN agent or (b) another FDA-licensed product (including those authorized under Section 564), used to diagnose, treat, or prevent a disease or condition caused by the CBRN agent.The guidance states that MCM products that may be considered for an EUA are those that “may be effective” to prevent, diagnose, or treat serious or life-threatening diseases caused by the CBRN agent. The phrase “may be effective” allows for a lower level of evidence than the efficacy standards typically required for FDA approvals.

3- Satisfactory risk-benefit analysis (evidence of safety): The FDA will weigh the known and potential benefits of the product against its known and potential risks. The Agency will consider all available scientific evidence to make a risk-benefit determination, considering the threat level posed by the CBRN agent.

4- Lack of alternatives: There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product.

it is immaterial
you said it yourself, the distinction is legal
approved comirnarty is not available EUA bnt162b2/bivalent is

https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/emergency-use-authorization-medical-products-and-related-authorities#A2

d. No Alternatives

For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition.  A potential alternative product may be considered “unavailable” if there are insufficient supplies of the approved alternative to fully meet the emergency need.  A potential alternative product may be considered "inadequate" if, for example, there are contraindicating data for special circumstances or populations (e.g., children, immunocompromised individuals, or individuals with a drug allergy), if a dosage form of an approved product is inappropriate for use in a special population (e.g., a tablet for individuals who cannot swallow pills), or if the agent is or may be resistant to approved and available alternative products.

https://premierconsulting.com/resources/blog/emergency-use-authorizations-what-is-an-eua-and-does-your-product-qualify/#:~:text=The%20FDA%20may%20then%20issue%20an%20EUA%20for,year%29.%20What%20are%20the%20criteria%20for%20EUA%20issuance%3F

What are the criteria for EUA issuance?
A product may be granted an EUA if the following criteria are met:

1- Evidence of a serious or life-threatening condition: The CBRN agent must be capable of causing a serious or life-threatening disease or condition.

2-Evidence of effectiveness: There must be a reasonable belief, after consideration of all available scientific evidence, that the product will be effective for its intended use. The product can be used to diagnose, treat, mitigate, or prevent conditions caused by (a) the CBRN agent or (b) another FDA-licensed product (including those authorized under Section 564), used to diagnose, treat, or prevent a disease or condition caused by the CBRN agent.The guidance states that MCM products that may be considered for an EUA are those that “may be effective” to prevent, diagnose, or treat serious or life-threatening diseases caused by the CBRN agent. The phrase “may be effective” allows for a lower level of evidence than the efficacy standards typically required for FDA approvals.

3- Satisfactory risk-benefit analysis (evidence of safety): The FDA will weigh the known and potential benefits of the product against its known and potential risks. The Agency will consider all available scientific evidence to make a risk-benefit determination, considering the threat level posed by the CBRN agent.

4- Lack of alternatives: There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product.

Interesting point.  I think it may have to do with the interpretation of the rule as to why they didn’t rescind the EUA when they came up with a dedicated treatment.  The FDA website says:

“ For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition.”

They may be reading it to say “you can get an EUA for a diagnostic test if there’s no alternative method of diagnosis available; you can get an EUA for a preventative (like a vaccine) if there’s no alternative preventative available; you can get an EUA for a treatment if there’s no alternative treatment available.”

For example, it wouldn’t make sense to rescind an EUA for a diagnostic test because a treatment became available. 

So, you think the people wanting to give people a choice are as bad as the people wanting to force everyone into compliance with policies that are not founded in science?

You need to look at the bigger picture instead of trying to defend what we know now were failed policies and mandates.

Once again, I’m taking no position on whether the mask mandates were good policy or bad policy.  I’m saying that the assertion that masks are “totally useless,” that wearing a mask indicates you “make bad decisions,” and that wearing a mask is a reliable indicator that you are politically liberal are neither supported by available evidence nor helpful in having a productive conversation about COVID and how to reduce risk.

This could prove shedding. Just sayin...

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Once again, I’m taking no position on whether the mask mandates were good policy or bad policy.  I’m saying that the assertion that masks are “totally useless,” that wearing a mask indicates you “make bad decisions,” and that wearing a mask is a reliable indicator that you are politically liberal are neither supported by available evidence nor helpful in having a productive conversation about COVID and how to reduce risk.

If you can't take a position on the mandates, then why are we even discussing this?  The fundamental issue is whether or not the mask policies are grounded in science or a total lack of it.  Surely you can make a comment about your feelings on that as it relates to good science versus bad psuedo-science.

You might not want to admit it, but if people are still contracting COVID wearing masks properly and having been vaccinated and boosted, and a study shows no real difference in the rate of infection between that protected  group and unmasked, unvaccinated people, are you really unable to concede that maybe masks really are useless?

If i told you rubbers prevented 98.2% of disease, and not using one avoids 97.8% of disease, are you really going to take the position that rubbers are better than nothing at all?

#Statistically_insignificant

This could prove shedding. Just sayin...

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Are you suggesting they lied even more about the thing that never worked like it was supposed to?

Conspiracy theorist