User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 12:06:50 AM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 12:16:28 AM EDT
[#2]
My date is feb1. I submitted my exemption request today. It was short and to the point and sincere I believe. It was 100% honest.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 12:20:32 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some testing of acetaminophen has been done on the same cell lines used for the vaccines. It's to see if your belief against aborted fetal cell testing extends farther than just this vaccine. The problem is that their little "gotcha" tactic is bullshit because it is a false equivalency. Acetaminophen predates the stem cells by decades and was not developed or isolated using them, unlike the vaccine development which used them for testing (or in the case of J&J, production) all along. By their "logic", any drug developed since the beginning of time can be tainted simply by testing it on stem cells at some point. It's amazing that we live in a world where companies are allowed to interrogate and threaten people based on their religious (or other) beliefs, while accommodating pretty much any other belief that happens to be en vogue |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 12:26:37 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1853 for aspirin, acetaminophen prior to 1900. The question was a red herring as neither aspirin nor acetaminophen was developed or made with fetal cell lines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 1:35:15 AM EDT
[#5]
Great job OP. Hold the line brothers and sisters.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 1:56:36 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly correct. The problem is that their little "gotcha" tactic is bullshit because it is a false equivalency. Acetaminophen predates the stem cells by decades and was not developed or isolated using them, unlike the vaccine development which used them for testing (or in the case of J&J, production) all along. By their "logic", any drug developed since the beginning of time can be tainted simply by testing it on stem cells at some point. It's amazing that we live in a world where companies are allowed to interrogate and threaten people based on their religious (or other) beliefs, while accommodating pretty much any other belief that happens to be en vogue Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Some testing of acetaminophen has been done on the same cell lines used for the vaccines. It's to see if your belief against aborted fetal cell testing extends farther than just this vaccine. The problem is that their little "gotcha" tactic is bullshit because it is a false equivalency. Acetaminophen predates the stem cells by decades and was not developed or isolated using them, unlike the vaccine development which used them for testing (or in the case of J&J, production) all along. By their "logic", any drug developed since the beginning of time can be tainted simply by testing it on stem cells at some point. It's amazing that we live in a world where companies are allowed to interrogate and threaten people based on their religious (or other) beliefs, while accommodating pretty much any other belief that happens to be en vogue It’s not a “false equivalency” because the formulations that we take today were tested using the lines. It’s somewhat irrelevant that there were prior formulations. But it’s a silly thing to argue over. Arfcom would find a way to argue if someone said the sky was blue. The important point is simply not to fall for the “gotcha”. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 2:26:18 AM EDT
[#7]
We’re at a point that we have to ask daddy .gov permission to NOT be injected with something. And in order to have that permission granted we have to have our beliefs and values approved as valid by the same government that wants to inject us. This is a VERY dangerous position for everyone to be in
ETA, I too may soon be out of work over this BS, a number of us at my employer are standing firm. We’re already very short staffed. It’s going to get worse, and we’re a major part of the local supply chain for thousands of people... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 2:41:44 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, acetaminophen, albuterol, aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, Preparation H, Claritin, Prilosec, and Zoloft were all developed using the fetal cell lines. So anyone who takes them but not the Covid vaxx and cites the fetal cell lines is lying. It’s kind of a “gotcha”. Op was smart to answer the way he did. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Does anyone understand what the question about acetaminophen had to do with religious exemption? Yes, acetaminophen, albuterol, aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, Preparation H, Claritin, Prilosec, and Zoloft were all developed using the fetal cell lines. So anyone who takes them but not the Covid vaxx and cites the fetal cell lines is lying. It’s kind of a “gotcha”. Op was smart to answer the way he did. Not necessarily as they may be unaware. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 3:03:34 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not necessarily as they may be unaware. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Does anyone understand what the question about acetaminophen had to do with religious exemption? Yes, acetaminophen, albuterol, aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, Preparation H, Claritin, Prilosec, and Zoloft were all developed using the fetal cell lines. So anyone who takes them but not the Covid vaxx and cites the fetal cell lines is lying. It’s kind of a “gotcha”. Op was smart to answer the way he did. Not necessarily as they may be unaware. Very good point. Plus I reserve the right to change my opinions as more information becomes available. Any rational person does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 4:29:22 AM EDT
[#10]
Thanks for the report OP. Good luck. Please keep us posted.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 4:35:10 AM EDT
[#11]
Hang in there OP.
When I read these threads, it's amazing how all these companies/agencies/whatever seem to be following the same timelines and playbooks. I'm going to make it really difficult for them at my work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:03:08 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s not a “false equivalency” because the formulations that we take today were tested using the lines. It’s somewhat irrelevant that there were prior formulations. But it’s a silly thing to argue over. Arfcom would find a way to argue if someone said the sky was blue. The important point is simply not to fall for the “gotcha”. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some testing of acetaminophen has been done on the same cell lines used for the vaccines. It's to see if your belief against aborted fetal cell testing extends farther than just this vaccine. The problem is that their little "gotcha" tactic is bullshit because it is a false equivalency. Acetaminophen predates the stem cells by decades and was not developed or isolated using them, unlike the vaccine development which used them for testing (or in the case of J&J, production) all along. By their "logic", any drug developed since the beginning of time can be tainted simply by testing it on stem cells at some point. It's amazing that we live in a world where companies are allowed to interrogate and threaten people based on their religious (or other) beliefs, while accommodating pretty much any other belief that happens to be en vogue It’s not a “false equivalency” because the formulations that we take today were tested using the lines. It’s somewhat irrelevant that there were prior formulations. But it’s a silly thing to argue over. Arfcom would find a way to argue if someone said the sky was blue. The important point is simply not to fall for the “gotcha”. No, they were not. You can keep spouting that nonsense or admit you are just plain wrong. Precisely NONE of the existing formulations, which have existed for, in some cases, over a century, were tested in that way. Did researchers unaffiliated with the drug maker do some tests? Probably. Doesn't change the fact that none of those drugs were developed, tested, or produced via fetal cell tissue. Period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:19:47 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Socialism hates religion. Socialism is Communism, Fascism and Marxism rolled into one big atheist all of fuck! Socialism wants to have total control of the population and right now has control over the weak minded, weak willed and poor. The Middle class is being raped and this vaccine mandate BS is another blow to the Middle Class working family. The jab is the prophetic mark of the beast! It is my sincerely held belief that this is so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:21:17 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I dont understand how you need to justify your "sincerely held religious beliefs" to ANYONE let alone your employer. Fuck these commies. This. Can you imagine this type of questioning? "Mr. employee, you take off for [insert religious holiday here]. We're questioning whether or not your beliefs are real and sincere regarding your following of [insert religion here]. We just want to make sure you're not taking days off just to take days off. When was the last time you visited [insert religious place] during these dates?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:21:25 AM EDT
[#15]
My attitude is that I'm not asking permission, I'm telling them why.
Seriously, they can go fuck themselves if they think I'm begging for shit. And for the pay...I'll work 2 part time jobs if I have to, this place isn't paying me that much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:25:11 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, they were not. You can keep spouting that nonsense or admit you are just plain wrong. Precisely NONE of the existing formulations, which have existed for, in some cases, over a century, were tested in that way. Did researchers unaffiliated with the drug maker do some tests? Probably. Doesn't change the fact that none of those drugs were developed, tested, or produced via fetal cell tissue. Period. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some testing of acetaminophen has been done on the same cell lines used for the vaccines. It's to see if your belief against aborted fetal cell testing extends farther than just this vaccine. The problem is that their little "gotcha" tactic is bullshit because it is a false equivalency. Acetaminophen predates the stem cells by decades and was not developed or isolated using them, unlike the vaccine development which used them for testing (or in the case of J&J, production) all along. By their "logic", any drug developed since the beginning of time can be tainted simply by testing it on stem cells at some point. It's amazing that we live in a world where companies are allowed to interrogate and threaten people based on their religious (or other) beliefs, while accommodating pretty much any other belief that happens to be en vogue It’s not a “false equivalency” because the formulations that we take today were tested using the lines. It’s somewhat irrelevant that there were prior formulations. But it’s a silly thing to argue over. Arfcom would find a way to argue if someone said the sky was blue. The important point is simply not to fall for the “gotcha”. No, they were not. You can keep spouting that nonsense or admit you are just plain wrong. Precisely NONE of the existing formulations, which have existed for, in some cases, over a century, were tested in that way. Did researchers unaffiliated with the drug maker do some tests? Probably. Doesn't change the fact that none of those drugs were developed, tested, or produced via fetal cell tissue. Period. Lol, as I said, some people here would argue if you said the sky was blue. I’m not here to argue or convince you. I stand nothing to gain from correcting a random guy on the Internet. My post was 100% to help people not fall for the “gotcha”, though I suspect most people already have it figured out and don’t actually need any help. But arguing about a tangent like this is missing the forest for the trees. My personal opinion is that OP handled it in the best way possible. You might have a different opinion on how to handle it, and that might actually be worth discussing. Because that would be useful to folks who end up facing similar situations. Hearing your suggestions would be valuable. Wasting time arguing a weird tangent is not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:28:30 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: I work for a state government and the governor declared that all executive branch employees have until October 17th to get the clot shot. The state police are suing over this mandate and I am in touch with a lawyer and if fired will be joining a class action lawsuit. If I am not approved by October 17 I face a 5 day suspension, unpaid. Ten 10 days, then "further disciplinary action", up to and including termination. I accept this and don't really want to hear any stupid assed GD level bullshit here. I'm posting this to share my experience and hope that others will know that they are not alone in standing up to this tyranny. I had a scheduled conference call last week and it was cancelled less than 24 hours prior. I received a new notice yesterday for todays meeting. Nice lady with hyphenated last name calls me and starts by letting me know that she is essentially checking on my "sincerely held religious beliefs" to see if I qualify. I suppose that means if I convince her that I sincerely hold my beliefs, which I do. Quite obviously reading from a script, she asked about why I felt the way that I did, I gave her a brief but I hope thorough list of the vaxx makers and aborted baby cell lines used in the development thereof. I also quoted the bible regarding life beginning in the womb. She asked if I had taken acetaminophen and I responded that under advice of counsel I declined to answer questions regarding my medical history and due to HIPAA I would need a signed statement of confidentiality before I spoke to anyone about my personal healthcare choices. She asked several other questions along the same vein and replied in the same way- Counsel advised me not to reply/HIPAA. She asked if I had ever been vaccinated, I replied that not after I was aware of the aborted baby tissue issue. She asked for info about my church/pastor, I declined, stating again that it was on the advice of counsel. The whole thing took about 15 minutes. As we closed she said that they would be getting back to me without a firm idea of when that would be. I hope before OCB Friday, but I expect that I may log in on Monday and find my access revoked if the decision does not go in my favor. I think you handled it well. The overlooked little trick here is that the process enacted by XidenCo turns every little leftist into someone who perceives they have authority over the lives of others. That ends poorly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:33:15 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't mean to piddle on your parade, but HIPPA has nothing to do with employers asking about medical information. If your attorney said otherwise, you should take that as a clue. Declining to answer a question on the advice of counsel is the same as giving the worst possible answer (unless you are being interrogated by the Po Po). In general, declining to answer questions raises doubts about the sincerity of your alleged beliefs. You should compare the percentage of unvaccinated people in ICUs with covid to the percentage of people who are unvaccinated in the population. Perhaps choosing to get vaccinated based upon the merits of the vaccine is an appropriate choice. Just because something is mandated (like child car seats and driving on the right side of the road) doesn't mean it is automatically evil. Nor are you bending a knee by driving on the right side of the road. If not, I hope the next job works out better. You don't even know what HIPAA is, yet you're tacitly suggesting that an anti-vaccination stance is bad while simultaneously giving out legal advice. That's an impressive level of self-aggrandizement while being wrong. Does it ever get embarassing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:35:50 AM EDT
[#19]
Their "gotcha" is a lie regarding aspirin and tylenol.
There is NO truth to it. That is the answer...period. Warn about the lie, but don't give validity to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:36:11 AM EDT
[#20]
Best of luck Tim. I'm pulling for you!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:38:52 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We’re at a point that we have to ask daddy .gov permission to NOT be injected with something. And in order to have that permission granted we have to have our beliefs and values approved as valid by the same government that wants to inject us. This is a VERY dangerous position for everyone to be in ETA, I too may soon be out of work over this BS, a number of us at my employer are standing firm. We’re already very short staffed. It’s going to get worse, and we’re a major part of the local supply chain for thousands of people... This is why people should just say "fuck you" and walk. They can't see that they are being trained and conditioned, even if granted a temporary "win" via a successful religious objection. That will last about 5 seconds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:49:30 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is my sincerely held belief that this is so. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Socialism hates religion. Socialism is Communism, Fascism and Marxism rolled into one big atheist all of fuck! Socialism wants to have total control of the population and right now has control over the weak minded, weak willed and poor. The Middle class is being raped and this vaccine mandate BS is another blow to the Middle Class working family. The jab is the prophetic mark of the beast! It is my sincerely held belief that this is so. I disagree. However, if anyone has ever read the book of revelation and said, man, how would they even get the whole world to comply with some olive that…….well, you’ve got your answer. The mark IS coming and many, many, many people will proudly jump in line for it. ETA: back to the Shanghai Shivers |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:52:10 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol, as I said, some people here would argue if you said the sky was blue. I’m not here to argue or convince you. I stand nothing to gain from correcting a random guy on the Internet. My post was 100% to help people not fall for the “gotcha”, though I suspect most people already have it figured out and don’t actually need any help. But arguing about a tangent like this is missing the forest for the trees. My personal opinion is that OP handled it in the best way possible. You might have a different opinion on how to handle it, and that might actually be worth discussing. Because that would be useful to folks who end up facing similar situations. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some testing of acetaminophen has been done on the same cell lines used for the vaccines. It's to see if your belief against aborted fetal cell testing extends farther than just this vaccine. The problem is that their little "gotcha" tactic is bullshit because it is a false equivalency. Acetaminophen predates the stem cells by decades and was not developed or isolated using them, unlike the vaccine development which used them for testing (or in the case of J&J, production) all along. By their "logic", any drug developed since the beginning of time can be tainted simply by testing it on stem cells at some point. It's amazing that we live in a world where companies are allowed to interrogate and threaten people based on their religious (or other) beliefs, while accommodating pretty much any other belief that happens to be en vogue It’s not a “false equivalency” because the formulations that we take today were tested using the lines. It’s somewhat irrelevant that there were prior formulations. But it’s a silly thing to argue over. Arfcom would find a way to argue if someone said the sky was blue. The important point is simply not to fall for the “gotcha”. No, they were not. You can keep spouting that nonsense or admit you are just plain wrong. Precisely NONE of the existing formulations, which have existed for, in some cases, over a century, were tested in that way. Did researchers unaffiliated with the drug maker do some tests? Probably. Doesn't change the fact that none of those drugs were developed, tested, or produced via fetal cell tissue. Period. Lol, as I said, some people here would argue if you said the sky was blue. I’m not here to argue or convince you. I stand nothing to gain from correcting a random guy on the Internet. My post was 100% to help people not fall for the “gotcha”, though I suspect most people already have it figured out and don’t actually need any help. But arguing about a tangent like this is missing the forest for the trees. My personal opinion is that OP handled it in the best way possible. You might have a different opinion on how to handle it, and that might actually be worth discussing. Because that would be useful to folks who end up facing similar situations. I think the OP handled it as well as can be expected - by following his attorney's advice. As for the using fetal cells in modern formulations of the drug, which is quite wrong, you've offered nothing other than your opinion as evidence. I've called you on it and now you're trying to change the subject. The drugs on that list were not developed, tested, or manufactured using fetal cell tissue. Period, full stop. If you can't understand that, then perhaps you should simply refrain from spouting falsehoods. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:57:23 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think the OP handled it as well as can be expected - by following his attorney's advice. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some testing of acetaminophen has been done on the same cell lines used for the vaccines. It's to see if your belief against aborted fetal cell testing extends farther than just this vaccine. The problem is that their little "gotcha" tactic is bullshit because it is a false equivalency. Acetaminophen predates the stem cells by decades and was not developed or isolated using them, unlike the vaccine development which used them for testing (or in the case of J&J, production) all along. By their "logic", any drug developed since the beginning of time can be tainted simply by testing it on stem cells at some point. It's amazing that we live in a world where companies are allowed to interrogate and threaten people based on their religious (or other) beliefs, while accommodating pretty much any other belief that happens to be en vogue It’s not a “false equivalency” because the formulations that we take today were tested using the lines. It’s somewhat irrelevant that there were prior formulations. But it’s a silly thing to argue over. Arfcom would find a way to argue if someone said the sky was blue. The important point is simply not to fall for the “gotcha”. No, they were not. You can keep spouting that nonsense or admit you are just plain wrong. Precisely NONE of the existing formulations, which have existed for, in some cases, over a century, were tested in that way. Did researchers unaffiliated with the drug maker do some tests? Probably. Doesn't change the fact that none of those drugs were developed, tested, or produced via fetal cell tissue. Period. Lol, as I said, some people here would argue if you said the sky was blue. I’m not here to argue or convince you. I stand nothing to gain from correcting a random guy on the Internet. My post was 100% to help people not fall for the “gotcha”, though I suspect most people already have it figured out and don’t actually need any help. But arguing about a tangent like this is missing the forest for the trees. My personal opinion is that OP handled it in the best way possible. You might have a different opinion on how to handle it, and that might actually be worth discussing. Because that would be useful to folks who end up facing similar situations. I think the OP handled it as well as can be expected - by following his attorney's advice. Cool. This is relevant. Hopefully OP’s example on how to handle it ends up being useful for other folks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 8:59:48 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cool. This is valuable. Hopefully OP’s example on how to handle it ends up being useful for other folks. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some testing of acetaminophen has been done on the same cell lines used for the vaccines. It's to see if your belief against aborted fetal cell testing extends farther than just this vaccine. The problem is that their little "gotcha" tactic is bullshit because it is a false equivalency. Acetaminophen predates the stem cells by decades and was not developed or isolated using them, unlike the vaccine development which used them for testing (or in the case of J&J, production) all along. By their "logic", any drug developed since the beginning of time can be tainted simply by testing it on stem cells at some point. It's amazing that we live in a world where companies are allowed to interrogate and threaten people based on their religious (or other) beliefs, while accommodating pretty much any other belief that happens to be en vogue It’s not a “false equivalency” because the formulations that we take today were tested using the lines. It’s somewhat irrelevant that there were prior formulations. But it’s a silly thing to argue over. Arfcom would find a way to argue if someone said the sky was blue. The important point is simply not to fall for the “gotcha”. No, they were not. You can keep spouting that nonsense or admit you are just plain wrong. Precisely NONE of the existing formulations, which have existed for, in some cases, over a century, were tested in that way. Did researchers unaffiliated with the drug maker do some tests? Probably. Doesn't change the fact that none of those drugs were developed, tested, or produced via fetal cell tissue. Period. Lol, as I said, some people here would argue if you said the sky was blue. I’m not here to argue or convince you. I stand nothing to gain from correcting a random guy on the Internet. My post was 100% to help people not fall for the “gotcha”, though I suspect most people already have it figured out and don’t actually need any help. But arguing about a tangent like this is missing the forest for the trees. My personal opinion is that OP handled it in the best way possible. You might have a different opinion on how to handle it, and that might actually be worth discussing. Because that would be useful to folks who end up facing similar situations. I think the OP handled it as well as can be expected - by following his attorney's advice. Cool. This is valuable. Hopefully OP’s example on how to handle it ends up being useful for other folks. This is just a guess on my part but the fact that he indicated he was acting on advice of counsel may have been a trigger to the company that they should grant his request without a lot of BS. I could be wrong. Companies in general are risk averse, especially when it comes to potential legal liability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:06:59 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is just a guess on my part but the fact that he indicated he was acting on advice of counsel may have been a trigger to the company that they should grant his request without a lot of BS. I could be wrong. Companies in general are risk averse, especially when it comes to potential legal liability. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some testing of acetaminophen has been done on the same cell lines used for the vaccines. It's to see if your belief against aborted fetal cell testing extends farther than just this vaccine. The problem is that their little "gotcha" tactic is bullshit because it is a false equivalency. Acetaminophen predates the stem cells by decades and was not developed or isolated using them, unlike the vaccine development which used them for testing (or in the case of J&J, production) all along. By their "logic", any drug developed since the beginning of time can be tainted simply by testing it on stem cells at some point. It's amazing that we live in a world where companies are allowed to interrogate and threaten people based on their religious (or other) beliefs, while accommodating pretty much any other belief that happens to be en vogue It’s not a “false equivalency” because the formulations that we take today were tested using the lines. It’s somewhat irrelevant that there were prior formulations. But it’s a silly thing to argue over. Arfcom would find a way to argue if someone said the sky was blue. The important point is simply not to fall for the “gotcha”. No, they were not. You can keep spouting that nonsense or admit you are just plain wrong. Precisely NONE of the existing formulations, which have existed for, in some cases, over a century, were tested in that way. Did researchers unaffiliated with the drug maker do some tests? Probably. Doesn't change the fact that none of those drugs were developed, tested, or produced via fetal cell tissue. Period. Lol, as I said, some people here would argue if you said the sky was blue. I’m not here to argue or convince you. I stand nothing to gain from correcting a random guy on the Internet. My post was 100% to help people not fall for the “gotcha”, though I suspect most people already have it figured out and don’t actually need any help. But arguing about a tangent like this is missing the forest for the trees. My personal opinion is that OP handled it in the best way possible. You might have a different opinion on how to handle it, and that might actually be worth discussing. Because that would be useful to folks who end up facing similar situations. I think the OP handled it as well as can be expected - by following his attorney's advice. Cool. This is valuable. Hopefully OP’s example on how to handle it ends up being useful for other folks. This is just a guess on my part but the fact that he indicated he was acting on advice of counsel may have been a trigger to the company that they should grant his request without a lot of BS. I could be wrong. Companies in general are risk averse, especially when it comes to potential legal liability. Yeah, I can see merit in saying something like “I’ve spoken to my lawyer about this and he has advised me that I’m under no obligation to answer questions that appear to be testing or questioning the strength of my faith” or something like that. Op - you’ll have to update us on how it goes. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:11:50 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s not a “false equivalency” because the formulations that we take today were tested using the lines. It’s somewhat irrelevant that there were prior formulations. But it’s a silly thing to argue over. Arfcom would find a way to argue if someone said the sky was blue. The important point is simply not to fall for the “gotcha”. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some testing of acetaminophen has been done on the same cell lines used for the vaccines. It's to see if your belief against aborted fetal cell testing extends farther than just this vaccine. The problem is that their little "gotcha" tactic is bullshit because it is a false equivalency. Acetaminophen predates the stem cells by decades and was not developed or isolated using them, unlike the vaccine development which used them for testing (or in the case of J&J, production) all along. By their "logic", any drug developed since the beginning of time can be tainted simply by testing it on stem cells at some point. It's amazing that we live in a world where companies are allowed to interrogate and threaten people based on their religious (or other) beliefs, while accommodating pretty much any other belief that happens to be en vogue It’s not a “false equivalency” because the formulations that we take today were tested using the lines. It’s somewhat irrelevant that there were prior formulations. But it’s a silly thing to argue over. Arfcom would find a way to argue if someone said the sky was blue. The important point is simply not to fall for the “gotcha”. On its face its irrelevant. Taking previous vaccines id irrelevant. Why? Because they cannot fucking interrogate you on your religious beliefs. It does not matter. When you found out about certain lies by companies on how they produce medications does not absolve you of your religious convictions or exemptions. These fucking people are losing their shit and they are going to get wacked bigly in lawsuits. IT IS COMING. ETA: Not a personal attack. Im just fired up 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:12:09 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some testing of acetaminophen has been done on the same cell lines used for the vaccines. It's to see if your belief against aborted fetal cell testing extends farther than just this vaccine. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Does anyone understand what the question about acetaminophen had to do with religious exemption? The ridiculous thing is that aborted cells were not used in making acetaminophen nor is it required to. Are tests done with acetaminophen on aborted cells? Yes. So is water I’m sure. If anyone asks you that question they’re a dumbass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:14:15 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My attitude is that I'm not asking permission, I'm telling them why. Seriously, they can go fuck themselves if they think I'm begging for shit. And for the pay...I'll work 2 part time jobs if I have to, this place isn't paying me that much. YES! This is exactly what we are doing. Putting these fuckers on notice and forcing them to continue violating our rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:23:11 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: On its face its irrelevant. Taking previous vaccines id irrelevant. Why? Because they cannot fucking interrogate you on your religious beliefs. It does not matter. When you found out about certain lies by companies on how they produce medications does not absolve you of your religious convictions or exemptions. These fucking people are losing their shit and they are going to get wacked bigly in lawsuits. IT IS COMING. ETA: Not a personal attack. Im just fired up Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some testing of acetaminophen has been done on the same cell lines used for the vaccines. It's to see if your belief against aborted fetal cell testing extends farther than just this vaccine. The problem is that their little "gotcha" tactic is bullshit because it is a false equivalency. Acetaminophen predates the stem cells by decades and was not developed or isolated using them, unlike the vaccine development which used them for testing (or in the case of J&J, production) all along. By their "logic", any drug developed since the beginning of time can be tainted simply by testing it on stem cells at some point. It's amazing that we live in a world where companies are allowed to interrogate and threaten people based on their religious (or other) beliefs, while accommodating pretty much any other belief that happens to be en vogue It’s not a “false equivalency” because the formulations that we take today were tested using the lines. It’s somewhat irrelevant that there were prior formulations. But it’s a silly thing to argue over. Arfcom would find a way to argue if someone said the sky was blue. The important point is simply not to fall for the “gotcha”. On its face its irrelevant. Taking previous vaccines id irrelevant. Why? Because they cannot fucking interrogate you on your religious beliefs. It does not matter. When you found out about certain lies by companies on how they produce medications does not absolve you of your religious convictions or exemptions. These fucking people are losing their shit and they are going to get wacked bigly in lawsuits. IT IS COMING. ETA: Not a personal attack. Im just fired up I’m with you. I don’t see it as an attack at all. No one has the right to question or somehow test your faith. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:26:15 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The ridiculous thing is that aborted cells were not used in making acetaminophen nor is it required to. Are tests done with acetaminophen on aborted cells? Yes. So is water I’m sure. If anyone asks you that question they’re a dumbass. I think it needs to be sticky or something. Everyone who has been frequenting this subforum for the last week or two knows this, including the fellow freedom enthusiasts that keep posting it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:26:36 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: On its face its irrelevant. Taking previous vaccines id irrelevant. Why? Because they cannot fucking interrogate you on your religious beliefs. It does not matter. When you found out about certain lies by companies on how they produce medications does not absolve you of your religious convictions or exemptions. These fucking people are losing their shit and they are going to get wacked bigly in lawsuits. IT IS COMING. ETA: Not a personal attack. Im just fired up Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some testing of acetaminophen has been done on the same cell lines used for the vaccines. It's to see if your belief against aborted fetal cell testing extends farther than just this vaccine. The problem is that their little "gotcha" tactic is bullshit because it is a false equivalency. Acetaminophen predates the stem cells by decades and was not developed or isolated using them, unlike the vaccine development which used them for testing (or in the case of J&J, production) all along. By their "logic", any drug developed since the beginning of time can be tainted simply by testing it on stem cells at some point. It's amazing that we live in a world where companies are allowed to interrogate and threaten people based on their religious (or other) beliefs, while accommodating pretty much any other belief that happens to be en vogue It's not a "false equivalency" because the formulations that we take today were tested using the lines. It's somewhat irrelevant that there were prior formulations. But it's a silly thing to argue over. Arfcom would find a way to argue if someone said the sky was blue. The important point is simply not to fall for the "gotcha". On its face its irrelevant. Taking previous vaccines id irrelevant. Why? Because they cannot fucking interrogate you on your religious beliefs. It does not matter. When you found out about certain lies by companies on how they produce medications does not absolve you of your religious convictions or exemptions. These fucking people are losing their shit and they are going to get wacked bigly in lawsuits. IT IS COMING. ETA: Not a personal attack. Im just fired up I wouldn't answer a thing if placed in that situation, and make it abundantly clear that I was uncomfortable and feeling discriminated against. Imagine a company interrogating homosexuals. Imagine them interrogating people over their race. It's no different. They're protected just the same in this country from the same abuses from companies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:30:07 AM EDT
[#33]
Also the fetal cell issue isn't the biggest point from a religious standpoint. It's the whole violation of your conscience thing...
In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life.It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:31:15 AM EDT
[#34]
State?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:32:01 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The ridiculous thing is that aborted cells were not used in making acetaminophen nor is it required to. Are tests done with acetaminophen on aborted cells? Yes. So is water I’m sure. If anyone asks you that question they’re a dumbass. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Does anyone understand what the question about acetaminophen had to do with religious exemption? The ridiculous thing is that aborted cells were not used in making acetaminophen nor is it required to. Are tests done with acetaminophen on aborted cells? Yes. So is water I’m sure. If anyone asks you that question they’re a dumbass. The Covid vaccine does not “require” the aborted cells either. It’s not like they are an active ingredient. One of the manufacturers could produce the exact same vaccine and just simply not test it on aborted cells. That would kill this exemption altogether. But for now, it seems accepted, and that is what is actually important. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:34:29 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m with you. I don’t see it as an attack at all. No one has the right to question or somehow test your faith. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some testing of acetaminophen has been done on the same cell lines used for the vaccines. It's to see if your belief against aborted fetal cell testing extends farther than just this vaccine. The problem is that their little "gotcha" tactic is bullshit because it is a false equivalency. Acetaminophen predates the stem cells by decades and was not developed or isolated using them, unlike the vaccine development which used them for testing (or in the case of J&J, production) all along. By their "logic", any drug developed since the beginning of time can be tainted simply by testing it on stem cells at some point. It's amazing that we live in a world where companies are allowed to interrogate and threaten people based on their religious (or other) beliefs, while accommodating pretty much any other belief that happens to be en vogue It’s not a “false equivalency” because the formulations that we take today were tested using the lines. It’s somewhat irrelevant that there were prior formulations. But it’s a silly thing to argue over. Arfcom would find a way to argue if someone said the sky was blue. The important point is simply not to fall for the “gotcha”. On its face its irrelevant. Taking previous vaccines id irrelevant. Why? Because they cannot fucking interrogate you on your religious beliefs. It does not matter. When you found out about certain lies by companies on how they produce medications does not absolve you of your religious convictions or exemptions. These fucking people are losing their shit and they are going to get wacked bigly in lawsuits. IT IS COMING. ETA: Not a personal attack. Im just fired up I’m with you. I don’t see it as an attack at all. No one has the right to question or somehow test your faith. Can you imagine the REEEEE if these exemptions were gender, sexual, race based?  Oh wait. There is no difference since religion falls under the same protections.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:35:29 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Id argue that interrogating someone on their religious beliefs is discrimination by itself. I wouldn't answer a thing if placed in that situation, and make it abundantly clear that I was uncomfortable and feeling discriminated against. Imagine a company interrogating homosexuals. Imagine them interrogating people over their race. It's no different. They're protected just the same in this country from the same abuses from companies. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some testing of acetaminophen has been done on the same cell lines used for the vaccines. It's to see if your belief against aborted fetal cell testing extends farther than just this vaccine. The problem is that their little "gotcha" tactic is bullshit because it is a false equivalency. Acetaminophen predates the stem cells by decades and was not developed or isolated using them, unlike the vaccine development which used them for testing (or in the case of J&J, production) all along. By their "logic", any drug developed since the beginning of time can be tainted simply by testing it on stem cells at some point. It's amazing that we live in a world where companies are allowed to interrogate and threaten people based on their religious (or other) beliefs, while accommodating pretty much any other belief that happens to be en vogue It's not a "false equivalency" because the formulations that we take today were tested using the lines. It's somewhat irrelevant that there were prior formulations. But it's a silly thing to argue over. Arfcom would find a way to argue if someone said the sky was blue. The important point is simply not to fall for the "gotcha". On its face its irrelevant. Taking previous vaccines id irrelevant. Why? Because they cannot fucking interrogate you on your religious beliefs. It does not matter. When you found out about certain lies by companies on how they produce medications does not absolve you of your religious convictions or exemptions. These fucking people are losing their shit and they are going to get wacked bigly in lawsuits. IT IS COMING. ETA: Not a personal attack. Im just fired up I wouldn't answer a thing if placed in that situation, and make it abundantly clear that I was uncomfortable and feeling discriminated against. Imagine a company interrogating homosexuals. Imagine them interrogating people over their race. It's no different. They're protected just the same in this country from the same abuses from companies. All good points |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:39:45 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Id argue that interrogating someone on their religious beliefs is discrimination by itself. I wouldn't answer a thing if placed in that situation, and make it abundantly clear that I was uncomfortable and feeling discriminated against. Imagine a company interrogating homosexuals. Imagine them interrogating people over their race. It's no different. They're protected just the same in this country from the same abuses from companies. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some testing of acetaminophen has been done on the same cell lines used for the vaccines. It's to see if your belief against aborted fetal cell testing extends farther than just this vaccine. The problem is that their little "gotcha" tactic is bullshit because it is a false equivalency. Acetaminophen predates the stem cells by decades and was not developed or isolated using them, unlike the vaccine development which used them for testing (or in the case of J&J, production) all along. By their "logic", any drug developed since the beginning of time can be tainted simply by testing it on stem cells at some point. It's amazing that we live in a world where companies are allowed to interrogate and threaten people based on their religious (or other) beliefs, while accommodating pretty much any other belief that happens to be en vogue It's not a "false equivalency" because the formulations that we take today were tested using the lines. It's somewhat irrelevant that there were prior formulations. But it's a silly thing to argue over. Arfcom would find a way to argue if someone said the sky was blue. The important point is simply not to fall for the "gotcha". On its face its irrelevant. Taking previous vaccines id irrelevant. Why? Because they cannot fucking interrogate you on your religious beliefs. It does not matter. When you found out about certain lies by companies on how they produce medications does not absolve you of your religious convictions or exemptions. These fucking people are losing their shit and they are going to get wacked bigly in lawsuits. IT IS COMING. ETA: Not a personal attack. Im just fired up I wouldn't answer a thing if placed in that situation, and make it abundantly clear that I was uncomfortable and feeling discriminated against. Imagine a company interrogating homosexuals. Imagine them interrogating people over their race. It's no different. They're protected just the same in this country from the same abuses from companies. 100% we are not asking for exemption. We are asserting our rights for exemption. Anything beyond that is retaliation or discrimination. Not to mention now these companies are placing testing mandates on those who have the exemptions but all those vaxed do not have to mask or test, which its now proven they can get and spread covid. Therefore they are actively discriminating AND creating a hostile and unsafe work place. They truly are fucked no matter what they do except for stand down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:41:26 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Stupid Human Tricks is the perfect phrase to describe what is going on and on so many levels. The people asking for religious exemptions are primarily people who have never raised it in the past. Stupid Human Trick #1 - Obviously and openly pretend to have an actual religious exemption. Hmmm.... Stupid Human Trick #2 - Employers now need to go through the formality of "investigating" these exemptions. Stupid Human Trick #3 - Employers also decide to ask questions just to point out to you that they know this is bullshit. Maybe scare a few into quitting or getting vaxxed. Stupid Human Trick #4 - Think there is a civil right claim for getting fired for not getting vaxxed. Private employers do not need to respect employees' civil rights except as required by law (like race or sex discrimination). Stupid Human Trick #5 - Think they are actually going to fire you for claiming a religious exemption. Unless there is an embarrassing number of the newly religious, the company will probably keep most of the new faithful. Of course, anyone who failed to cooperate with the "investigation" is a good candidate to get rid of. "Failed to provide required information to evaluate the claim." None of this applies to people in healthcare. Stupid Human Trick #6 - Turn a health care decision into a political statement. That applies to everyone from government, business, and individuals. The real question is why are those who refuse to bend a knee have a newfound religious zeal.  The government, employers, and individuals are digging deep into the playbook of laws in order for each of them to enforce their will. Witness the government's "workaround" to get OSHA to enforce vaccine mandates. Live by the law, die by the law. And there are a shit-ton of laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:47:04 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not necessarily as they may be unaware. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Does anyone understand what the question about acetaminophen had to do with religious exemption? Yes, acetaminophen, albuterol, aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, Preparation H, Claritin, Prilosec, and Zoloft were all developed using the fetal cell lines. So anyone who takes them but not the Covid vaxx and cites the fetal cell lines is lying. It’s kind of a “gotcha”. Op was smart to answer the way he did. Not necessarily as they may be unaware. That is true. I did not know that so many common OTC drugs were tested using fetal cell lines. I was raised a Catholic and based on what the Pope said, I don’t have a problem using them. I was vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine but didn’t have an objection to any vaccine based on using fetal cell lines for testing. I don’t see a direct connection between abortion and the drugs. It would be different if someone was murdered to produce the vaccines or drugs. I plan on taking aspirin and any other OTC or prescription drugs as required. If someone objects to the vaccines because of the fetal cell line use, they should also refuse to take any OTC or prescription drugs once they learn of the same connection. Doing anything else would be showing that you do not have a sincere religious belief about the vaccine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:52:10 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The ridiculous thing is that aborted cells were not used in making acetaminophen nor is it required to. Are tests done with acetaminophen on aborted cells? Yes. So is water I’m sure. If anyone asks you that question they’re a dumbass. Than you don’t have a problem with the mRNA vaccines since they do not use fetal cell lines in their production? They were used in testing, nothing else. The J&J vaccine did make use of the fetal cell lines but Catholics are allowed to use it because the connection is so remote. Catholics are encouraged to use the mRNA vaccines if they are both readily available to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:56:35 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-coffee-and-covid-monday-october-4e1 Good info. I hope he is right. Good read. Seems something like this would be a good way to cut off a lot of the bullshit from the start: "I hold a sincere moral belief that compulsory medical treatments are evil. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that sincerely held beliefs need not stem from the dogma of a particular religious organization (Frazee v. Illinois Department of Employment Security) nor are they subject to any restrictions based on when said beliefs were adopted (Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida)." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:57:15 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly correct. The problem is that their little "gotcha" tactic is bullshit because it is a false equivalency. Acetaminophen predates the stem cells by decades and was not developed or isolated using them, unlike the vaccine development which used them for testing (or in the case of J&J, production) all along. By their "logic", any drug developed since the beginning of time can be tainted simply by testing it on stem cells at some point. It's amazing that we live in a world where companies are allowed to interrogate and threaten people based on their religious (or other) beliefs, while accommodating pretty much any other belief that happens to be en vogue |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 9:59:46 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s not a “false equivalency” because the formulations that we take today were tested using the lines. It’s somewhat irrelevant that there were prior formulations. But it’s a silly thing to argue over. Arfcom would find a way to argue if someone said the sky was blue. The important point is simply not to fall for the “gotcha”. OK smart guy. How exactly has the formulation changed. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:05:32 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Covid vaccine does not “require” the aborted cells either. It’s not like they are an active ingredient. One of the manufacturers could produce the exact same vaccine and just simply not test it on aborted cells. That would kill this exemption altogether. But for now, it seems accepted, and that is what is actually important. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Does anyone understand what the question about acetaminophen had to do with religious exemption? The ridiculous thing is that aborted cells were not used in making acetaminophen nor is it required to. Are tests done with acetaminophen on aborted cells? Yes. So is water I’m sure. If anyone asks you that question they’re a dumbass. The Covid vaccine does not “require” the aborted cells either. It’s not like they are an active ingredient. One of the manufacturers could produce the exact same vaccine and just simply not test it on aborted cells. That would kill this exemption altogether. But for now, it seems accepted, and that is what is actually important. For all three US vaccines? Are you certain? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:06:31 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Than you don't have a problem with the mRNA vaccines since they do not use fetal cell lines in their production? They were used in testing, nothing else. The J&J vaccine did make use of the fetal cell lines but Catholics are allowed to use it because the connection is so remote. Catholics are encouraged to use the mRNA vaccines if they are both readily available to them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The ridiculous thing is that aborted cells were not used in making acetaminophen nor is it required to. Are tests done with acetaminophen on aborted cells? Yes. So is water I'm sure. If anyone asks you that question they're a dumbass. Than you don't have a problem with the mRNA vaccines since they do not use fetal cell lines in their production? They were used in testing, nothing else. The J&J vaccine did make use of the fetal cell lines but Catholics are allowed to use it because the connection is so remote. Catholics are encouraged to use the mRNA vaccines if they are both readily available to them. Wrong. Flat out wrong. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html The Pope stated it is morally permissible: "it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process." Note, he said it is "morally acceptable", not that they are encouraged. There is a massive difference. As a matter of fact, no where in the entire statement from the head of the Roman Catholic church did he state it was encouraged. Instead he gave guidance on why it was considered acceptable (permissible) for a Catholic to receive the vaccine. Now what he did say with the words "encourage" is: "Both pharmaceutical companies and governmental health agencies are therefore encouraged to produce, approve, distribute and offer ethically acceptable vaccines that do not create problems of conscience for either health care providers or the people to be vaccinated." Funny note on that "conscience" part... The catholic church takes the position that one's conscience cannot be violated, and one must not be coerced into violating said conscience: https://files.milarch.org/archbishop/abp-statement-on-covid19-vaccines-and-conscience-12oct2021.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1EfGFIe-ZsPlRQfjiOX8t7ms6q7ZnLHVknr6q2ByjIP2DYEMTCz0ZAIno Notwithstanding the moral permissibility of these vaccines, the Church treasures her teaching on the sanctity of conscience. "Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths." St. Paul VI wrote: In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious.5 Accordingly, no one should be forced to receive a COVID-19 vaccine if it would violate the sanctity of his or her conscience. Furthermore: The denial of religious accommodations, or punitive or adverse personnel actions taken against those who raise earnest, conscience-based objections, would be contrary to federal law and morally reprehensible. I'd suggest the next time you try speaking on behalf of the Catholic church, you do a little research first. The way you've posted here and in other threads shows you're not a Catholic either, so why bother trying to speak for them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:14:46 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For all three US vaccines? Are you certain? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Does anyone understand what the question about acetaminophen had to do with religious exemption? The ridiculous thing is that aborted cells were not used in making acetaminophen nor is it required to. Are tests done with acetaminophen on aborted cells? Yes. So is water I’m sure. If anyone asks you that question they’re a dumbass. The Covid vaccine does not “require” the aborted cells either. It’s not like they are an active ingredient. One of the manufacturers could produce the exact same vaccine and just simply not test it on aborted cells. That would kill this exemption altogether. But for now, it seems accepted, and that is what is actually important. For all three US vaccines? Are you certain? Sorry, I am not sure what you are asking. Are you referring to J&J? I am not a scientist, but it is my understanding that they could choose to use cells other than fetal cells, but they typically don’t because it is not as efficient, would be more expensive, etc. But once again, and most importantly, I’m not saying don’t make the fetal cell objection. It seems to work, so go for it. Whatever works is great in my book. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:21:00 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No BUT they were used in their development They were tested against fetal cell lines which are not aborted but mostly unused fertilized eggs. If that's your obkrction dont take aspirin. I'm wondering who is not getting MMR for the same reasons. Again, I respect those who want to choose not to get it. It's just the aborted baby material isn't gonna hold up if it isn't used in the development. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:24:44 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They were tested against fetal cell lines which are not aborted but mostly unused fertilized eggs. If that's your obkrction dont take aspirin. I'm wondering who is not getting MMR for the same reasons. Again, I respect those who want to choose not to get it. It's just the aborted baby material isn't gonna hold up if it isn't used in the development. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No BUT they were used in their development They were tested against fetal cell lines which are not aborted but mostly unused fertilized eggs. If that's your obkrction dont take aspirin. I'm wondering who is not getting MMR for the same reasons. Again, I respect those who want to choose not to get it. It's just the aborted baby material isn't gonna hold up if it isn't used in the development. Testing isn't part of development? Interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2021 10:27:29 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Testing isn't part of development? Interesting. My point isnits a week argument and thus the OP wouldn't answer the question on taking aspirin. Most OTCs are tested against fetal cell lines. It's not the same as using aborted fetal tissue and thus has been approved by many Christian leaders including the Pope. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
