Federalist Article by Former Cadet

[FiveByFive]

Well, obviously they are relevant to the cadet as you say because she mentioned them. And of course, since we are discussing her article these points will come up for discussion. When i say relevant, I mean in terms of we can debate the merits of natural immunity ( i believe in it up to point) and all of the other points she made, but in the end, the government/military has decided this is what they want.

I understood what you meant.

So, you are using the logical fallacy of guilt by association to discredit the author and the analysis? There is a great deal to learn from what has been written by this individual. You can fact check his analysis.

This very conclusion is part of the nature of the discussion of SARS-COV-2 in our nation at this time. We (general) choose our experts, choose our opinions, and discredit what another is saying because of association, politics or other tribe option.

This situation of natural immunity versus vaccination is much bigger than the black-and-white presentation that is often made on this site. The military and USCIS has consistently and for a significant period of time taken serology (natural immunity verification) in lieu of a vaccination.

Pfizer has said that there is NO FDA approved product in the US for the COVID vaccine - ALL of the available vaccine in the USA is EUA, meaning experimental, therefore the order is not able to be executed legally by the military according to its own regulations and the Nuremberg Code. If you want to talk about legally distinct, that is a very important topic.

If you choose to take the vaccine, that is entirely acceptable provided you have been provided all the information that you need to make an informed decision, that may be more or less depending on the person. If you determine that you are not going to take the vaccine, you cannot be coerced, retaliated against, or otherwise diminished due to that choice. Even/especially in the military.

Going back to the attack on the writer of the article...read the article. It is very clear.

It is not "guilt by association," but instead alleged "associative bias" for your author, his organization and his analysis.

Either way, the "analysis" was read and I stand by my statement.

 

[prairie full moon]

I understood what you meant.




It is not "guilt by association," but instead alleged "associative bias" for your author, his organization and his article.

Either way, the article was read and I stand by my statement.

point taken.

 

[Humey]

Humey, I agree at this point not a lot of arguing about who in the Army must get the shots. If the Army says get the shots, then you're getting the shots. I think part of the gist of her article was how she could not continue in an organization that she had trust issues with. For example:

When I raised the point that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved vaccine (Pfizer’s Comirnaty) with the proper lot numbers had yet to be distributed in the United States, that the only available vaccines were under emergency use authorization and that vaccination must be voluntary under those conditions according to the Nuremberg Code, I was told this small legal distinction didn’t matter.

If you, as the cadet, know more about the process than the chain of command and are being coerced just because "we gotta check you holdouts off our list".....probably not a feel good. Are we a professional organization or not?

Let me get this straight and see if i understand her point. Lots 1 - 1000 were created by lets say Pfizer under the emergency order and lots 1001 - 5000 were created under full approved order. Her point is that since they are still using the vaccines from lots 1-1000 they cant enforce the mandate. If this is what she is saying , then honestly that has to be the dumbest (i am censoring myself on the word choice) excuse i have ever heard. The only way that would make any difference is if the formula or manufacturing procedure had been changed. She is arguing that the paperwork is wrong and if they gathered up all the vaccines from lots 1-1000 and threw them away and only used the vaccine from lots 1001-5000 she would be okay with it? That sound insane to me.

 

[Humey]

I’m well aware. But let’s not pretend the military mandate was some reasoned decision the military came to on its own. This was a directive by the gov’t who ordered it because they could and so they could point to the military and say “see, everyone in the military is dutifully getting their shots, you should, too”. The gov’t never anticipated the pushback they received from the rank and file.

I agree, i don't think anyone thought there would be pushback from people including the military, cops, and firefighters. Honestly, if Trump had been elected I think a good chunk of those rejecting it now would have taken it and you would find people on the other side who swear by the vaccine, would be afraid of the vaccine because it was created under Trump's watch.

 

[A1Janitor]

I agree, i don't think anyone thought there would be pushback from people including the military, cops, and firefighters. Honestly, if Trump had been elected I think a good chunk of those rejecting it now would have taken it and you would find people on the other side who swear by the vaccine, would be afraid of the vaccine because it was created under Trump's watch.

I wouldn’t take it under any president.

I brought my dog to an extremely liberal city for grooming. Went to breakfast with mask on and asked if I needed to keep it on. Waitress asked if I was vaccinated. I said no. She told me she wasn’t either - and half the city didn’t want it.

I have liberals friends that won’t take it. They tend to be against modern medicine.

 

[jebdad]

Let me get this straight and see if i understand her point. Lots 1 - 1000 were created by lets say Pfizer under the emergency order and lots 1001 - 5000 were created under full approved order. Her point is that since they are still using the vaccines from lots 1-1000 they cant enforce the mandate. If this is what she is saying , then honestly that has to be the dumbest (i am censoring myself on the word choice) excuse i have ever heard. The only way that would make any difference is if the formula or manufacturing procedure had been changed. She is arguing that the paperwork is wrong and if they gathered up all the vaccines from lots 1-1000 and threw them away and only used the vaccine from lots 1001-5000 she would be okay with it? That sound insane to me.

Your understanding is incorrect. It is not about a paperwork technicality.

 

[OldRetSWO]

Your understanding is incorrect. It is not about a paperwork technicality.

What is the actual specific difference OTHER than what is marked on the vial (New Name versus old name)?
Are you saying that there are different ingredients or manufacturing processes?
If there were then the FDA & CDC approvals would be totally invalid as the studies were done with the "old" stuff with the old name on the vials.

 

[NJROTC-CC]

All I can say is that one gives up a lot of freedom when one joins the military. You will be required to take many vaccines and asked to do all kind of things that you may or may not agree with. But you are not forced to serve. Freedom to resign is what makes those who choose to stay and serve so commendable and so valuable.

 

[OldRetSWO]

This situation of natural immunity versus vaccination is much bigger than the black-and-white presentation that is often made on this site. The military and USCIS has consistently and for a significant period of time taken serology (natural immunity verification) in lieu of a vaccination.

Not sure if you ever served but in 31 years wearing the cloth of this country I was NEVER EVER tested for immunity versus given vaccines based on a timetable. Certain ones made me (and many of my friends) sick every time such as Typhoid and Yellow Fever. We were NEVER TESTED to see if our immunity had dropped, we were just injected and if we'd stepped out and requested serology, it would not have gone well for us, especially at the Service Academies.
Actually, to further illustrate the point, one thing that happened from time to time to servicepeople was that their "shot card" would get lost somehow and under your comment, you'd think that the unlucky serviceperson could just get tested for their immunities but I will let you fill in the blanks of what actually happened.
Come to think of it, I remember the threads last cycle as new cadets/midshipmen were directed to get whatever immunizations they hadn't had done and documented for the academies but if they didn't bring the documentation, they'd just get them all when they reported. Back in the day, that was how it worked for EVERYONE as we ALL got the full barrage of shots no matter what you may have had from prior international travel or whatever.

 

[Cerberi]

Not sure the basis for suing.

There was a lawful order given. She did the right thing by getting out of a situation (ie remain a cadet) where she is obligated to obey lawful orders.

We all have choices in life. She made a choice. Her principles cause her to make the decision she did. She needs to move on.

Those that chose not to be vaccinated believe how they were treated amounted to hazing.

And the hazing included cadets as well as officers.

If the courts agree, that could be the basis for a lawsuit. I do not have inside information as to what her attorneys think is the basis for a lawsuit

 

[professorm804]

"Your ego is just so distracting, free speech doesn't mean just keep yapping..."
- Confucius probably

 

[jebdad]

What is the actual specific difference OTHER than what is marked on the vial (New Name versus old name)?
Are you saying that there are different ingredients or manufacturing processes?
If there were then the FDA & CDC approvals would be totally invalid as the studies were done with the "old" stuff with the old name on the vials.

The literature indicates they are biologically the same, but legally distinct . My guess is that has something to do with legal liability but getting outside my expertise on that one. Maybe someone with better knowledge can chime in.

 

[kinnem]

 

[Capt MJ]

No sleeping on watch! One eye on the simmering pot, the other on the kill switch for the thread!

 

[Supersix00]

Got done early today. Cheers for now. See you on Monday, crew.

 

[Impulsive]

WOW, What good statements on both sides. I watched the Hannity segment (our one son sent it to my wife and I) and thought that all three of the young women were intelligent, thoughtful, and would have probably made GREAT leaders. That being said, when one joins the military, certain rights are mitigated or given up, and anyone joining either knows that or is just someone who does not research what they intend to do. We have a son currently at WP and he related the hell the entire Corps and WP community went through in regards to Covid. The fact that those who took the shot (even if it was not their choice) deserve the recognition that they followed orders and also tried to protect themselves and their classmates as best they could. The time the Corps spent living at home (2020 Spring) because WP did not want to have 4000 (or more) possible infections was not good mentally for any of the Cadets (or parents). Everyone lost training, education, and military activities, not to mention their freedoms. Even when they returned to WP, movement was restricted, training was restricted, and life was anything but normal.

As far as the "Hazing" or "Harassment", I do not think ANYONE associated with WP, the Army, or The Corps would have instituted the measures they did for the abject purpose of singling out people or harassing anyone. I am not privy to Army decisions, I can fully understand the reasons behind what was done. Those individuals who decided (on their own) to refuse or reject getting vaccinated were kept separate from the vaccinated Cadets for the SOLE REASON of protecting the force, NOT for making ANYONE look bad or causing resentment. And as for "not having liberty that was the same as the vaccinated Cadets", again, that was a known consequence, and a personal choice. To come back and then go on national TV and complain they were "mistreated" is not a good point to make. It is not just WP, but Armed Forces wide that vaccinated members are allowed more freedoms than unvaccinated members, because the percentages of different status' of members and the resultant infections does make a difference. If we just sit back and allow life as normal without precautions imagine what a military with multiple "USS Roosevelt" incidents (in every branch) would do to National Readiness?

I am not for vaccine mandates, but the military, because they protect us, are very different from the truck driver, construction worker, or other civilian worker who should have freedom of choice if they desire and are tested to make sure they do not spread any disease. I remember, "shot day" when I joined. I could not tell you what shots or how many I go, but you did not have a say, either you got the shots or your were "out processed". What is different with COVID? And those who referenced that when you contract COVID there is a possibility (however remote) that you may end up with permanent and life changing residuals is fact, not fiction. As for suing WP or the Army over COVID vaccines, or harassment, I can only say "Good Luck". Usually the government settles such suits and makes them go away, but in this case they may actually fight because of the precedence, and I think no matter the publicity, that these three young women will lose, because it was policy that effected many and they seem to be the only ones going National.

 

[Cerberi]

You mi

WOW, What good statements on both sides. I watched the Hannity segment (our one son sent it to my wife and I) and thought that all three of the young women were intelligent, thoughtful, and would have probably made GREAT leaders. That being said, when one joins the military, certain rights are mitigated or given up, and anyone joining either knows that or is just someone who does not research what they intend to do. We have a son currently at WP and he related the hell the entire Corps and WP community went through in regards to Covid. The fact that those who took the shot (even if it was not their choice) deserve the recognition that they followed orders and also tried to protect themselves and their classmates as best they could. The time the Corps spent living at home (2020 Spring) because WP did not want to have 4000 (or more) possible infections was not good mentally for any of the Cadets (or parents). Everyone lost training, education, and military activities, not to mention their freedoms. Even when they returned to WP, movement was restricted, training was restricted, and life was anything but normal.

As far as the "Hazing" or "Harassment", I do not think ANYONE associated with WP, the Army, or The Corps would have instituted the measures they did for the abject purpose of singling out people or harassing anyone. I am not privy to Army decisions, I can fully understand the reasons behind what was done. Those individuals who decided (on their own) to refuse or reject getting vaccinated were kept separate from the vaccinated Cadets for the SOLE REASON of protecting the force, NOT for making ANYONE look bad or causing resentment. And as for "not having liberty that was the same as the vaccinated Cadets", again, that was a known consequence, and a personal choice. To come back and then go on national TV and complain they were "mistreated" is not a good point to make. It is not just WP, but Armed Forces wide that vaccinated members are allowed more freedoms than unvaccinated members, because the percentages of different status' of members and the resultant infections does make a difference. If we just sit back and allow life as normal without precautions imagine what a military with multiple "USS Roosevelt" incidents (in every branch) would do to National Readiness?

I am not for vaccine mandates, but the military, because they protect us, are very different from the truck driver, construction worker, or other civilian worker who should have freedom of choice if they desire and are tested to make sure they do not spread any disease. I remember, "shot day" when I joined. I could not tell you what shots or how many I go, but you did not have a say, either you got the shots or your were "out processed". What is different with COVID? And those who referenced that when you contract COVID there is a possibility (however remote) that you may end up with permanent and life changing residuals is fact, not fiction. As for suing WP or the Army over COVID vaccines, or harassment, I can only say "Good Luck". Usually the government settles such suits and makes them go away, but in this case they may actually fight because of the precedence, and I think no matter the publicity, that these three young women will lose, because it was policy that effected many and they seem to be the only ones going National.

 

[Cerberi]

You must be living in a cave if you think these are the only military members pushing back on the vaccine and the woke agenda being pushed.

Up to 25% of the SEAL community alone was reported unvaccinated just a few weeks ago. There are numerous lawsuits filed on behalf of military members and cadets all working there way through the courts

the mainstream media may not be reporting it, but there is legitimate concern about the number of unvaccinated military members and what that means to readiness if they remain unvaccinated.

and remember for these three women in particular, there first six months at West Point, the current civilian leadership was outwardly skeptical of any vaccine created under the Trump administration and publicly stated mandates were not the proper policy.

they have never explained why they think differently now.

I am vaccinated, had classmates resign from active duty over the anthrax vaccine - they weren’t anti vaxers but they felt leadership was lying to them.

These women gave up their dreams of graduating from USMA and serving on active duty.

agree or disagree with their choice but respect their decision as they gave up a lot. They at least had the courage of their convictions while many of us would simply get vaccinated to avoid the hassle

 

[prairie full moon]

Not sure if you ever served but in 31 years wearing the cloth of this country I was NEVER EVER tested for immunity versus given vaccines based on a timetable. Certain ones made me (and many of my friends) sick every time such as Typhoid and Yellow Fever. We were NEVER TESTED to see if our immunity had dropped, we were just injected and if we'd stepped out and requested serology, it would not have gone well for us, especially at the Service Academies.
Actually, to further illustrate the point, one thing that happened from time to time to servicepeople was that their "shot card" would get lost somehow and under your comment, you'd think that the unlucky serviceperson could just get tested for their immunities but I will let you fill in the blanks of what actually happened.
Come to think of it, I remember the threads last cycle as new cadets/midshipmen were directed to get whatever immunizations they hadn't had done and documented for the academies but if they didn't bring the documentation, they'd just get them all when they reported. Back in the day, that was how it worked for EVERYONE as we ALL got the full barrage of shots no matter what you may have had from prior international travel or whatever.

When the paperwork arrived for intake, there were 2 columns for ALL required immunities, serology results and vaccination date. You only had to provide one for each of the diseases.

Things are different now than when I started working too.

 

[prairie full moon]

When the paperwork arrived for intake, there were 2 columns for ALL required immunities, serology results and vaccination date. You only had to provide one for each of the diseases.

Things are different now than when I started working too.

Also, per the AR, you can request serology before you take a vaccination at this point in time (apart from the SARS-COV-2). If you choose not to do so because you fear reprisal, that is a problem in and of itself.