Johnson & Johnson Employee Caught Denouncing COVID19 Vaccine For Children (10/1/21 04:24 PST) (1 Viewer)

jon_mx said:

The assumption is most people who get discriminated against by all these dacorian policies will be white Trump supporters..  What happens when it turns out most of these people who get fired for not taking vaccinations are minorities?  

Click to expand...

apalmer said:

It disproves years of your "anti-white, anti-Trump" conspiracy nonsense and proves that SOME people really do care about the best interests of the country?

This country has had gas rationing, food (and other staples) rationing, drafts, and many other instances where people were asked to do things they didn't want to do for the good of America. Each time, people have rallied to fulfill their duties. This is the first time in my memory that a significant portion of the country have claimed that refusing to do something that will be beneficial to their neighbors, family, friends and country (not to mention themselves) somehow makes them "patriots".

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

You really don't see an anti-white anti-Trump agenda?  Lol, that is rich. 

Click to expand...

apalmer said:

By your own admission, "most of these people who get fired for not taking vaccinations are minorities". Doesn't sound like an anti-white agenda to me.  Sounds like an anti-virus agenda. You're free to argue that the Democrats/Libs are violating the rights of viruses in violation of the Constitution all you want, but it's a pretty tough sell.  As for Trump, as I've said before, when people do bad things, standing up to oppose them is a pro-American thing. Time was that "Patriots" would applaud standing up for what's right and would shout "This is a nation of laws, not of men!"  and "Our forefathers weren't afraid to sacrifice for our country, why are you?" I'm not sure when exactly that changed to "My guy can do whatever he wants no matter what the law says and don't you dare criticize him for it!" 

Click to expand...

apalmer said:

By your own admission, "most of these people who get fired for not taking vaccinations are minorities". Doesn't sound like an anti-white agenda to me.  Sounds like an anti-virus agenda. You're free to argue that the Democrats/Libs are violating the rights of viruses in violation of the Constitution all you want, but it's a pretty tough sell.  As for Trump, as I've said before, when people do bad things, standing up to oppose them is a pro-American thing. Time was that "Patriots" would applaud standing up for what's right and would shout "This is a nation of laws, not of men!"  and "Our forefathers weren't afraid to sacrifice for our country, why are you?" I'm not sure when exactly that changed to "My guy can do whatever he wants no matter what the law says and don't you dare criticize him for it!" 

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

I did not admit anything.  Just what I expect the unintended consequences will be.  

Click to expand...

BladeRunner said:

Uhm...if that is the case it by no way means that their isn't an Anti-Trump agenda.  That's absurd.  It's as plain as day.

Click to expand...

apalmer said:

It's amazing that you can recognize what the consequences will be yet you think that nobody pushing vaccine mandates is intelligent enough to do the same. Of course, that's par for the course with conspiracy theorists--they always believe that they are the only ones smart enough to see "the truth".

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

Their hatred for Trumo voters blinds them.  It never fails that their policies have unintended consequences, but yet they keep doing stupid things. 

Click to expand...

Prinefan said:

You just proved Palmer's point.  Apparently you are one of the few smart enough who can see "the truth".  

Click to expand...

(HULK) said:

I'm really unclear what this video is trying to accomplish.

It's random conversation with a logistics person at J&J and a person who does not appear to have any affiliation with J&J who has a undergraduate degree only in Bio from Kean University, which I've never heard of. I just looked Kean up, it's TIED for 126th of Universities in the Regional North group. So, it's not exactly a top end school.

So, as far as I can tell, these are just two guys who have some hesitancy about vaxing kids. Okay, so what? What exactly is that supposed to prove or expose? It feels like just another straw to grasp at for the folks who are anti-vax no matter what.

Click to expand...

(HULK) said:

The majority of states in this country are 'right to work' states, where you can be fired for ANY cause. So, refusing a vaccination falls into the "any" category.

I personally think it SHOULD be mandated. There are mountains of evidence at this point showing that whatever risks remain with the vaccines, they are far, far smaller than the risks that exist with Covid.

Click to expand...

apalmer said:

By your own admission, "most of these people who get fired for not taking vaccinations are minorities". Doesn't sound like an anti-white agenda to me.  Sounds like an anti-virus agenda. You're free to argue that the Democrats/Libs are violating the rights of viruses in violation of the Constitution all you want, but it's a pretty tough sell.  As for Trump, as I've said before, when people do bad things, standing up to oppose them is a pro-American thing. Time was that "Patriots" would applaud standing up for what's right and would shout "This is a nation of laws, not of men!"  and "Our forefathers weren't afraid to sacrifice for our country, why are you?" I'm not sure when exactly that changed to "My guy can do whatever he wants no matter what the law says and don't you dare criticize him for it!" 

Click to expand...

(HULK) said:

I mean, they keep referring to Justin Durrant as "Scientist at Johnson and Johnson" but he doesn't work there per LinkedIn and referring to a guy who has only a bachelor's degree and then work experience as a Pharmacy Technician and Lab Assistant/Technician and Self Employed feels like a huge stretch.

Click to expand...

-fish- said:

It's Project Veritas.   Really nothing more that needs to be said.

Click to expand...

(HULK) said:

I'm really unclear what this video is trying to accomplish.

It's random conversation with a logistics person at J&J and a person who does not appear to have any affiliation with J&J who has a undergraduate degree only in Bio from Kean University, which I've never heard of. I just looked Kean up, it's TIED for 126th of Universities in the Regional North group. So, it's not exactly a top end school.

So, as far as I can tell, these are just two guys who have some hesitancy about vaxing kids. Okay, so what? What exactly is that supposed to prove or expose? It feels like just another straw to grasp at for the folks who are anti-vax no matter what.

Click to expand...

GordonGekko said:

I posted the Linkin profiles for full context so people could make their own assessment.

It's unclear what role Durrant plays or played at J&J. He could have been a contractor, he could have worked somewhere that listed him as a contractor under their umbrella, maybe he was fired from somewhere and didn't list it on his Linkin profile or omitted it for another reason.

Matt Walsh was a low level employee for the Patriots. Did his sparse credentials and resume stop him from being the center of controversy in SpyGate?

You want to attack Durrant's credentials but are refusing to see these are two insiders to some varying degree.

There is not really a public candid discussion from internal employee(s) of these Big Three pharma companies during the pandemic timeline, so this is all more than interesting. Well, it is to me. It doesn't have to be for you. But Thank You for attempting to silence me.

Schadt has worked for J&J for THIRTEEN YEARS. I would say it's safe bet he has some idea of the internal work culture/internal politics culture there.

I consider it a big deal that a long standing internal employee of one of the Big Three pharma companies involved in the vaccine is basically saying don't believe anything the MSM tells you, that kids shouldn't take the vaccine and indicates the long term possible risks of the vaccine.

A larger overall problem is there is clearly only one type of "acceptable narrative"  regarding the vaccine lest people be doxxed, demonetized, vilified and have their livelihoods threatened.

Part of actual freedom is the ability to say things that others might disagree with and not fear widespread impactful punitive action against you for it.  So if that no longer becomes true, what does that say about the presence or absence of actual freedom overall?

I am not Malcolm Reynolds, but you can't stop the signal. What's "accomplished" is actual discussion. Diversity of thought. Diversity of opinion. Defiance of "group think". Defense of free speech. The practice of actual freedom.

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

Being legal and being the right thing to do are not always the same thing.  There is not mountains of evidence on these vaccines. 

Click to expand...

GordonGekko said:

I posted the Linkin profiles for full context so people could make their own assessment.

It's unclear what role Durrant plays or played at J&J. He could have been a contractor, he could have worked somewhere that listed him as a contractor under their umbrella, maybe he was fired from somewhere and didn't list it on his Linkin profile or omitted it for another reason.

Matt Walsh was a low level employee for the Patriots. Did his sparse credentials and resume stop him from being the center of controversy in SpyGate?

You want to attack Durrant's credentials but are refusing to see these are two insiders to some varying degree.

There is not really a public candid discussion from internal employee(s) of these Big Three pharma companies during the pandemic timeline, so this is all more than interesting. Well, it is to me. It doesn't have to be for you. But Thank You for attempting to silence me.

Schadt has worked for J&J for THIRTEEN YEARS. I would say it's safe bet he has some idea of the internal work culture/internal politics culture there.

I consider it a big deal that a long standing internal employee of one of the Big Three pharma companies involved in the vaccine is basically saying don't believe anything the MSM tells you, that kids shouldn't take the vaccine and indicates the long term possible risks of the vaccine.

A larger overall problem is there is clearly only one type of "acceptable narrative"  regarding the vaccine lest people be doxxed, demonetized, vilified and have their livelihoods threatened.

Part of actual freedom is the ability to say things that others might disagree with and not fear widespread impactful punitive action against you for it.  So if that no longer becomes true, what does that say about the presence or absence of actual freedom overall?

I am not Malcolm Reynolds, but you can't stop the signal. What's "accomplished" is actual discussion. Diversity of thought. Diversity of opinion. Defiance of "group think". Defense of free speech. The practice of actual freedom.

Click to expand...

(HULK) said:

There have been 6.2 BILLION doses of Covid vaccine administered worldwide. Only 2.3 billion people have caught Covid (that we know of).

4.5 million people have died from Covid. How many have died from the vaccines?

If you think the vaccines are more dangerous than Covid, you are willfully burying your head in the sand. It is cut and dry and the debate is settled.

Click to expand...

GordonGekko said:

I posted the Linkin profiles for full context so people could make their own assessment.

It's unclear what role Durrant plays or played at J&J. He could have been a contractor, he could have worked somewhere that listed him as a contractor under their umbrella, maybe he was fired from somewhere and didn't list it on his Linkin profile or omitted it for another reason.

Matt Walsh was a low level employee for the Patriots. Did his sparse credentials and resume stop him from being the center of controversy in SpyGate?

You want to attack Durrant's credentials but are refusing to see these are two insiders to some varying degree.

There is not really a public candid discussion from internal employee(s) of these Big Three pharma companies during the pandemic timeline, so this is all more than interesting. Well, it is to me. It doesn't have to be for you. But Thank You for attempting to silence me.

Schadt has worked for J&J for THIRTEEN YEARS. I would say it's safe bet he has some idea of the internal work culture/internal politics culture there.

I consider it a big deal that a long standing internal employee of one of the Big Three pharma companies involved in the vaccine is basically saying don't believe anything the MSM tells you, that kids shouldn't take the vaccine and indicates the long term possible risks of the vaccine.

A larger overall problem is there is clearly only one type of "acceptable narrative"  regarding the vaccine lest people be doxxed, demonetized, vilified and have their livelihoods threatened.

Part of actual freedom is the ability to say things that others might disagree with and not fear widespread impactful punitive action against you for it.  So if that no longer becomes true, what does that say about the presence or absence of actual freedom overall?

I am not Malcolm Reynolds, but you can't stop the signal. What's "accomplished" is actual discussion. Diversity of thought. Diversity of opinion. Defiance of "group think". Defense of free speech. The practice of actual freedom.

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

Being legal and being the right thing to do are not always the same thing

Click to expand...

dkp993 said:

I find this statement endlessly fascinating coming from you considering it’s the exact opposite argument you used with your boy Kyle and his shootings.  My whole argument was about what the right thing for him to do vs of the legality ( and ultimately his self defense argument).  You?  You leaded (still do I assume) hard into the legality angle.  Funny how that works.  

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

It is the same argument.  You have an odd memory.  I never said he was right in what he did.  But it was clearly legal and justified inder the law and it is nothing but a malicious prosecution by the blood sucking liberals who think conservatives are subhuman and do not deserve equal treatment under the law.

Click to expand...

dkp993 said:

Exactly, you’re making my point.  And as the law stands right now at will employment is the law.  So I’d expect you to defend the at will and thus the ability of a employer to fire their employees for the vaccine mandate with the same fervor you defend Kyle.  

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

I do not believe in using the right to work laws to fire people based on some political ogenda.  I find people disgusting who use laws to abuse people's rights.   And these days, that is mostly Democrats.  

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

Why?  I believe self-defense laws are good and just.  Kyle should not have taking a gun to a rally.  But he is 100 percent right to use self-defense to defend himself against the thug who attacked him and the resulting mob.  I do not believe in using the right to work laws to fire people based on some political ogenda.  I find people disgusting who use laws to abuse people's rights.   And these days, that is mostly Democrats.  

Click to expand...

bigbottom said:

Right to work laws don’t have anything to do with at will employment. And at will employment is based on the general principle that two parties can choose to enter into a contractual arrangement (employment) and similarly each can choose to end that contractual arrangement. Surely you believe that an employee should be free to quit a job if he or she objects to the employer’s behavior, no? In most jurisdictions, that same principle applies to an employer’s rights, except with respect to a limited number of statutorily prescribed classes. Now if you want to advocate for laws that make it illegal for employers to fire their employees for political reasons, we can certainly have that discussion. You’d be siding with mostly liberals on that one, though. (I believe California and Washington, D.C. are the only jurisdictions with those laws. Efforts to enact employment protections along these lines are generally opposed by conservative legislators.)

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

No, I don't believe people should be able to fire people based on a political or religious issue.  

Click to expand...

dkp993 said:

Got it.  So you’re all about the law and rule of it as long as it agrees with your opinion. Sounds about right

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

I think there are laws which are unjustly used and need to be fixed.  I think unequally applying laws is wrong.  I think politicians finding ways to subvert our Constitution by using corporate surrogates to make quasi laws to advance a political agenda is wrong.  And that applies to laws to the left and the right and agendas I agree with. So stop putting words and motives in my mouth.  I don't support how the right in Texas is advancing the pro-life agenda.  I don't support how the left is eliminating free speech using big tech. And I don't support how the left is coercing people to get this vaccine.  I don't support how the left is attacking self-defense laws with their malicious prosecutions.  

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

I never even remotely made the claim vaccines are more dangerous or even suggested that.  That is why censorship is so dangerous.  You completely mischaracterize the argument so you can cancel that.  But yet you get likes by like-minded posters who don't care if you lied.  There are good legitimate arguments to be made which question these blanket totalitarian mandates of these vaccines but debate is muted by censorship.  The left's love affair with their new censorship power is the most dangerous threat against our freedoms.   Real liberals should be raising this flag, but I am not seeing it except by a few like Bill Maher.  

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

I think there are laws which are unjustly used and need to be fixed.  I think unequally applying laws is wrong.  I think politicians finding ways to subvert our Constitution by using corporate surrogates to make quasi laws to advance a political agenda is wrong.  And that applies to laws to the left and the right and agendas I agree with. So stop putting words and motives in my mouth.  I don't support how the right in Texas is advancing the pro-life agenda.  I don't support how the left is eliminating free speech using big tech. And I don't support how the left is coercing people to get this vaccine.  I don't support how the left is attacking self-defense laws with their malicious prosecutions.  

Click to expand...

(HULK) said:

To zero in on one item there that I think about is extra fascinating is the big tech comment.

Take Twitter banning Trump. Trump is free to say whatever he wants, just not on Twitter. So, in theory, his free speech is not impinged upon... that's the argument. What I find fascinating is comparing that to a baker not wanting to make the wedding cake for a gay marriage. The gay couple are free to get a cake somewhere else, so really, their right to buy a product isn't impinged upon. It's the ~90% same thing, and depending on which one of the two we're talking about, most people are arguing the opposite side of it. Yes, now with Trump there are larger issues, if he's posting health misinformation or literal calls to treason. But, if you ignore that, it's almost the same issue.

My personal take on this is down at the root question: is a company obligated to serve all customers? And that is tricky question, if you say YES, then Twitter shouldn't ban Trump and that baker better make the gayest rainbowiest cake of all time for that couple. And if you say NO, then, can a restaurant decide to be "whites only"? I don't like either of those outcomes, and I suspect most wouldn't... so we've got a gray area issue, and where do you draw the line? Wherever you draw it, some people will be upset. Where is the morally correct point to draw that line? I honestly do not know. Which is why I find that topic fascinating.

Click to expand...

(HULK) said:

If you think the vaccines are more dangerous than Covid, you are willfully burying your head in the sand. It is cut and dry and the debate is settled.

Click to expand...

(HULK) said:

To zero in on one item there that I think about is extra fascinating is the big tech comment.

Take Twitter banning Trump. Trump is free to say whatever he wants, just not on Twitter. So, in theory, his free speech is not impinged upon... that's the argument. What I find fascinating is comparing that to a baker not wanting to make the wedding cake for a gay marriage. The gay couple are free to get a cake somewhere else, so really, their right to buy a product isn't impinged upon. It's the ~90% same thing, and depending on which one of the two we're talking about, most people are arguing the opposite side of it. Yes, now with Trump there are larger issues, if he's posting health misinformation or literal calls to treason. But, if you ignore that, it's almost the same issue.

My personal take on this is down at the root question: is a company obligated to serve all customers? And that is tricky question, if you say YES, then Twitter shouldn't ban Trump and that baker better make the gayest rainbowiest cake of all time for that couple. And if you say NO, then, can a restaurant decide to be "whites only"? I don't like either of those outcomes, and I suspect most wouldn't... so we've got a gray area issue, and where do you draw the line? Wherever you draw it, some people will be upset. Where is the morally correct point to draw that line? I honestly do not know. Which is why I find that topic fascinating.

Click to expand...

GordonGekko said:

DIRECT HEADLINE: Seattle mother who died from blood clots got J&J vaccine to be child's 'room mom'

The Washington State Department of Health (WSDH) confirmed she is the first blood clot death in the state after getting the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

by Kara Kostanich, Tuesday, October 5th 2021

https://kpic.com/news/local/king-county-woman-dies-from-blood-clots-after-getting-johnson-johnson-vaccine

********

No one here is saying taking the vaccines are more dangerous than getting COVID19. That's a cheap and lazy narrative to push.

There are inherent risks to taking the vaccine. There are inherent risks to taking ANY vaccine.

However if you talk about those risks in public, you will have some people try to doxx you, silence you, shout you down and try to get you fired from your job and/or career.

What no one wants to talk about is the basic math problem here. Let's use a rough number, there are about 75 million children in America. If you vaccinate them all, some are going to die. If you roll out large scale mass vaccinations, some people, including children, will react badly to it and die.  That's a functional reality of the situation. Now some will argue fewer will die from taking the vaccine than from COVID19. And that's a fair argument to be made in some cases.

But there is something troubling and disturbing about the issue that it can't be discussed in public without it triggering an immediate attack. It's not being "anti-vaxx" in most cases, it's usually people weighing out the risk versus reward in terms of the safety of their children.

You don't win hearts and minds by steam rolling over people. It will however silence dissent. Which is the point of all this. Silence dissent even if you have to steamroll over people to do it. It's not about hearts and minds and finding common ground, its about punitive action to demand compliance.

Click to expand...

Chaz McNulty said:

Completely different.  One case is a human or civil rights issue and the other isn't.  The baker that wouldn't make the cake for the gay couple tried to use freedom of religion to get around the Civil Rights Act.  But there have already been cases where Religious beliefs did not justify discrimination.

If Twitter was banning Trump because he was black, gay, or a Mormon, then the two cases would be similar.

Click to expand...