Fauci 2.0? Aborted Fetal Tissue Research. Sandwich? Fauci takes the fifth.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Lightbeamrider said:
Assuming Big Pharma did not enjoy liability protection thru both the PREP Act and National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (VICP), pharma would need liability protection from insurance companies for damage claims from their product. How likely would insurance companies be to provide broad and affordable coverage for the COVID shots and the Hep B shots at birth? Not likely, meaning pharma would not be able to sell their for-profit products.
Click to expand...
When you agree to take an experimental vaccine you wave your rights to sue. However, the law concerning informed consent in making a decision to take an experimental vaccine requires that they provided you access to all the research. If they didn't they violated the law and that is where you can prosecute them.

Now as long as everyone who watched the Whitehouse press conference that Fauci gave understood that his term "red flags" was being used in the very narrow sense that the FDA uses it with regards to data, and as long as they were all aware that Phase 3 trials did not include pregnant women and that is why there was no data that would be a "red flag" then he was being honest.

He was essentially saying "There are no [We excluded pregnant women from out study] red flags [since we didn't have pregnant women in the study we have no data that would indicate this is harmful to pregnant women]." As long as everyone understood the things not said (in brackets) his statement was true even if it seems idiotic and irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not pregnant women should be concerned.
 
ZNP said:
When you agree to take an experimental vaccine you wave your rights to sue. However, the law concerning informed consent in making a decision to take an experimental vaccine requires that they provided you access to all the research. If they didn't they violated the law and that is where you can prosecute them.
Click to expand...
GROK says neither statement is true.


No, neither statement is true. First statementU.S. law on informed consent for experimental (investigational) vaccines or drugs—primarily FDA regulations at 21 CFR Part 50 and the Common Rule at 45 CFR Part 46—does not require providing access to “all the research.”

law.cornell.edu
Investigators must obtain legally effective informed consent before involving someone as a research subject. This means disclosing specific, material information in language the person can understand, under conditions that allow voluntary decision-making without coercion. The required basic elements (21 CFR 50.25) are:.....
ZNP said:
Now as long as everyone who watched the Whitehouse press conference that Fauci gave understood that his term "red flags" was being used in the very narrow sense that the FDA uses it with regards to data, and as long as they were all aware that Phase 3 trials did not include pregnant women and that is why there was no data that would be a "red flag" then he was being honest.

He was essentially saying "There are no [We excluded pregnant women from out study] red flags [since we didn't have pregnant women in the study we have no data that would indicate this is harmful to pregnant women]." As long as everyone understood the things not said (in brackets) his statement was true even if it seems idiotic and irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not pregnant women should be concerned.
Click to expand...
Pregnant women were research subjects as stated earlier.
 
Lightbeamrider said:

Pregnant women were research subjects as stated earlier.
Click to expand...
Looks like GROK also gives this statement a thumbs down. Looks like they used rats. Not bunnies, not pigs...rats. GROK sides with Pharma overall. (opinion)



If data is accumulated through observation and registries after pregnant women received the COVID vaccine, doesn't that effectively make them research subjects? What studies in animal reproduction showed no signals of concern?

No. Accumulating observational data through registries and surveillance systems after pregnant women received COVID-19 vaccines does not make them research subjects under the regulatory definition.

Nonclinical DART studies were conducted for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (and others) in accordance with regulatory guidelines (e.g., ICH). These are the studies referenced when agencies noted no signals of concern prior to broader use.Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (rats)
Female rats received the full human dose (30 µg mRNA) intramuscularly on two occasions before mating and again on gestation days 9 and 20 (a dose >300 times the human dose on a mg/kg basis). Key findings:
 
Lightbeamrider said:
GROK says neither statement is true.


No, neither statement is true. First statementU.S. law on informed consent for experimental (investigational) vaccines or drugs—primarily FDA regulations at 21 CFR Part 50 and the Common Rule at 45 CFR Part 46—does not require providing access to “all the research.”

law.cornell.edu
Investigators must obtain legally effective informed consent before involving someone as a research subject. This means disclosing specific, material information in language the person can understand, under conditions that allow voluntary decision-making without coercion. The required basic elements (21 CFR 50.25) are:.....

Pregnant women were research subjects as stated earlier.
Click to expand...
Law concering Informed consent

That subsection is 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A) — the informed-consent/disclosure provision within the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) statute of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (added in 2004).

  1. "To the extent practicable"     — the whole subsection (e)(1)(A) is qualified by "to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances."
  2. The "unknown risks" clause is distinctive — clause (II) doesn't just require disclosure of known risks; it separately requires disclosure of the extent to which risks and benefits are unknown. This is the textual basis for the "experimental" framing — the statute itself contemplates that an EUA product's risk/benefit profile is incompletely characterized, and requires that gap be disclosed, not just the known data.

As for Pregnant women being excluded prior to the vaccine being recommended for pregnant women:

Yes, pregnant women were excluded from the initial Phase 3 randomized controlled trials for the major COVID-19 vaccines. This was standard practice at the time, following a long-standing convention in vaccine and drug trials of excluding pregnant and breastfeeding women from initial testing due to the ethical and legal complexities of testing on a fetus, which cannot consent and could theoretically be harmed by an intervention with unknown effects.


Here's how it played out with the major vaccines:


Pfizer-BioNTech: The Phase 3 trial (which enrolled over 40,000 participants) explicitly excluded pregnant and breastfeeding women. A small number of participants became pregnant during the trial (either unknowingly at enrollment or afterward), and those pregnancies were tracked, but pregnant women were not deliberately or systematically enrolled.


Moderna: Same approach — pregnant and breastfeeding women were excluded from the primary efficacy/safety trial.


AstraZeneca/Oxford: Also excluded pregnant women from its Phase 3 trials.


Johnson & Johnson: Excluded pregnant women as well.


What happened after authorization: Because pregnant women weren't included in the trials that supported Emergency Use Authorization, safety and efficacy data specific to pregnancy came later, through:


  • Animal reproductive toxicity studies (conducted in parallel or before human trials)
  • Pregnancy registries and observational studies after rollout (e.g., the CDC's v-safe registry)
  • Later Phase 2/3 trials specifically designed for pregnant populations, which began in early-to-mid 2021, well after general EUA

This meant that when public health agencies initially recommended the vaccines for pregnant women, that recommendation was based on limited direct trial data — it relied more heavily on real-world/observational data gathered after the vaccines were already in use, plus theoretical reasoning from how mRNA and viral vector vaccines work. That timeline was a legitimate point of contention and discussion during the rollout, since guidance for pregnant women shifted over time as more data accumulated.
 
Lightbeamrider said:
Looks like GROK also gives this statement a thumbs down. Looks like they used rats. Not bunnies, not pigs...rats. GROK sides with Pharma overall. (opinion)



If data is accumulated through observation and registries after pregnant women received the COVID vaccine, doesn't that effectively make them research subjects? What studies in animal reproduction showed no signals of concern?

No. Accumulating observational data through registries and surveillance systems after pregnant women received COVID-19 vaccines does not make them research subjects under the regulatory definition.

Nonclinical DART studies were conducted for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (and others) in accordance with regulatory guidelines (e.g., ICH). These are the studies referenced when agencies noted no signals of concern prior to broader use.Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (rats)
Female rats received the full human dose (30 µg mRNA) intramuscularly on two occasions before mating and again on gestation days 9 and 20 (a dose >300 times the human dose on a mg/kg basis). Key findings:
Click to expand...
Speaking of rats and going down memory lane. Naomi Wolf

GROK


  • Most people had completed a primary series (usually two doses).
  • Many had already received at least one monovalent booster (often making that their third dose overall).

The bivalent was authorized as an updated booster. For someone who already had a prior booster, receiving the bivalent typically meant a fourth dose (or second booster).

Yale’s policy required students to get the bivalent by the start of the spring 2023 semester regardless of how many previous monovalent boosters they had received. That is the point she is emphasizing: the mandate applied even to those who were already “boosted.”
Wow
https://twitter.com/x/status/1600580350048092207
 
Lightbeamrider said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2092291922526343522
Click to expand...
That is the blatant lie from a deeply twisted mind(s)!

Scrapings from worm ovaries.
🤐

Dawn Michael is a relationship expert and certified clinical sexologist. She is the co-owner of The Sexual Health and Wellness Center in Southern California!

She says in that Tweet, "...read the package inserts. Look at the CDC excipient lists."
Link them!
No? Because they don't exist!

And Gavin de Becker is a known fraud,who writes books and continually misleads the public.

Whoever put that list of so called vaccine ingredients together is a twisted psychopath straight from the pit of Hell.

That lie shouldn't see the l ght of day online. Because gullible people believe it without doing the research.

Responses I'm sure: "Really,OK,where's the research? Post it! Prove it!"

No!

The one who shared it didn't bother to do that.

Their priority was to post that and lead people to read and believe.

I did the research after reading it and found the truth.

If you'll read that trash and take it as truth,any one of you,shame on you!
Especially if you have children and believe what you read!

It's a lie!
Rogan is a trash peddler. He'll promote near anything on his podcast.

If you can read that trash Tweet,you can take the time to see if it's reporting truth.

Or,you can believe the lie because it isn't worth your time to find out the truth and so,go forward believing the lie. And spreading it around if you tell others about it.

Worm ovary scrapings.🪱🪱🪱🪱🪱Somewhere there's a worm saying, I feel so violated!🤣🤣🤣🤣


Jesus,save us from the anti-medicine demons on X.
 


This is an interesting case study on how authorities and news media collaborate and release selective and slanted information for political purposes. In this case, to promote panic so they (Democrats) can push through a type of coerced vaccine program, including exclusion and possibly punishments, under the guise of public safety.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2092422724085809651
Important information about the measles press conference today: Today Governor Shapiro, members of Penn Medicine LGH, and members of the PA Department of Health (DOH) held a press conference announcing two “measles-associated deaths” in Lancaster County.

Officials provided virtually no background information about these “measles-associated” deaths. DOH said to “protect the privacy of the individuals and their families, DOH will not release any additional details that could personally identify these individuals and their families,” however, they did release the medical information that the two were unvaccinated.

Thus, they did not release age, background, or comorbidity information, but did release vaccination information. It is important to know whether these two people died OF measles or WITH measles.

The Coroner’s office indicates that it currently has ZERO reported cases where measles is the immediate cause of death. They have one case where a person died WITH measles, but not FROM measles. Measles was definitely NOT the cause of death in that case. Given this information, it appears at least on the surface that incorrect information was provided to the public today. That information set off significant media interest in Lancaster County, both locally and nationally.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Bible_Locket
Remember this?
Fauci awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Now,after all that he did during Covid, immunity makes sense.
How could they prosecute after this bit of history?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back