Should military members be separated/discharged for refusing the COVID vaccinations?

Exactly.

SFC Howard Holmes - what? no witty comeback, I guess this liberal boob is waiting to here what other uneducated nonsense you can push on the internet.

TSgt James Sutton - TSgt. James, just because you may be right of AOC doesn't make you a conservative. I get it, you must be a RINO, a Romney conservative. I provided you with factual articles from left leaning entities, and yet you keep the personal attacks. That's how I know you are a liberal, you come back with personal attacks, but don't counter with anything with substance. Go ahead and let the establishment spoon feed you and don't research anything on your own. Don't have an open mind because Fauci may get angry. Let's try some common sense here Mr. Educated - If you get a vaccine that still allows you to get the disease, AND spread the disease, is it truly a vaccine? Just because Lord Fauci says it's so, doesn't make it so. Besides, if you are following any of the things that were being hidden, and kept from the public concerning the disease, you'd figure it out. Oh wait, I forgot, they don't cover that stuff on MSNBC. I'm so happy you think I'm uneducated when you are the one with the closed mind.

What's amazing is you said I was misinformed and should go educate myself. I provided you documentation from left leaning articles to support my claim, and you only want to push personal attacks - you are NO Conservative. In general, Conservatives have discussions based on facts, and provide substantiative proof to support claims. You have done none of that. You personally attack people you obviously have ZERO idea of who they are. You don't debate, you don't discuss points, and you obviously get irritated with somebody who may have a different viewpoint than you. Based on those things, it is very difficult to conceive that you are a conservative. You may be a Adam Kinzinger, Mitt Romney, or Liz Cheney Republican (ALL RINOs) but conservative - no way.

Laughing at "In general, Conservatives have discussions based on facts, and provide substantiative proof to support claims." So, injecting yourself with clorine is good enough?? rlmao...

SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - Wrong again! A person can have a sincerely held religious belief against taking this particular vaccine, but not others because of the dynamics involved. I'm one of these people. You are basically trying to tell me that my beliefs are invalid because you don't agree with them. That's a very dangerous situation when you or anyone else gets to decide what religious beliefs others are allowed to hold. I'm done with you Kelly, get away from me!

Too right!

15 approved out of 16,000 submitted, 6 marines and 9 USAF

These cases remain the exception. The active duty military, composed of more than 1.3 million service members, is more than 97% vaccinated, while the total force, including reserves and the National Guard, is approximately 90% vaccinated.
Marines have requested a total of 3,595 religious exemptions, according to the latest data from the Marine Corps. As of this week, 640 Marines have been separated from the service for refusing the lawful order to receive a vaccine.
The Air Force has approved a total of nine exemptions and rejected 3,381. Another 2,664 requests are still pending. The Air Force has separated 160 service members for refusing the vaccine.
The Navy has received 3,369 religious exemption requests, but none have been approved, according to data released by the service. A total of 247 active duty sailors and one reserve sailor have been separated for refusing the vaccine. There were another 22 entry-level separations for those refusing the vaccine within their first 180 days of active duty.
The Army has received 3,088 religious exemptions requests and granted zero of them. The Army only recently put into place its separation policy and has not yet discharged anyone for refusing the vaccine, according to the latest data.

SFC Kelly Fuerhoff
Per FDA: . "The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness." (From your NebraskaMed article.)

As I said, Comirnaty is LEGALLY different from Pfizer-BionTech. It is a technicality, but when it comes to legalities, those legal technicalities matter.

I never said the Pfizer-Biotech vaccine was medically different or less safe or anything like that.

And your USA Today Fact check completely ignores that legal technicality but saying that the existing Pfizer-BionTech vaccine is the same. That same USA Today ALSO spreads misinformation stating that the exact same thing is in the vials. But again, per the FDA the products have "certain differences."

So, again, there is a LEGAL difference between the two vaccines, even if there is no MEDICAL difference. Which means the law must address whether the bona fide Comirnaty shots are available, not the medically interchangeable but LEGALLY DISTINCT Pfizer-BionTech.

I understand a spokesperson for Pfizer says they are available. But this is the same spokesperson who says there is no difference between the two, so his assurance is tainted.

CMSgt Al Nall Please read the FULL post. Never said it wasn't.

SFC Kelly Fuerhoff Cominarty is approved. Cominarty is not what Soldiers are getting (to my knowledge). Pfizer-BionTech is medically interchangeable.

Motrin is FDA approved. If the Army wants to issue generic Ibuprofen, that Ibuprofen ALSO has to be FDA approved. They are medically interchangeable, but the alternate must STILL be FDA approved. Just like Pfizer-BionTech and Cominarty there are minor formulaic differences that make no medical difference, but have a legal distinction.

I am saying that a mandate for a vaccine that is not available is obviously not a feasible mandate. And a mandate for an EUA vaccine needs a waiver from Biden, which he has not done.

Is it really a lawful order
Wake up and find out
Don’t be a sheep

If they re-enlisted and then refused orders for no good reason then no....they should not get an honorable discharge.....works the same if their Sgt put a gun in their hand and said shoot at the enemy and they cried they might get hurt or die, what about their solemn oaths they took? Do they mean nothing? Giving honorable discharges to weakminded fools is not the answer.

TSgt James Sutton - You're adding what-if's. If they re-enlisted prior to the COVID requirements then I have to disagree. Even then, besides this one issue you have to evaluate the entirety of their career when determining characterization of service not just one event unless that event is so criminal or so immoral that it justifies other characterization.

I can tell you right here, this, all of this is not the thing to worry or get flustered about. COVID is just a speed bump in the way of other things.

I have seen some of the worst the military has produced in packet after packet of excrement then stems from toxic leadership that think they're right because of their shiny brass and failures who pretend to be NCO's just because they wear stripes. The assaults, the rapes, the murders, the attempted cover ups, the blatant abuse of junior service members, and the ostracization of their peers by service members trying to do the right thing.

No, COVID is not worthy of our attention. The characterization of discharge for those who don't want the vaccine for whatever reason that quite frankly isn't any of our business is not worthy of our attention. America's fighting force as a whole has much bigger things to worry about.

COVID? It can fuck off expeditiously at the earliest convenience. Politics surrounding it? That can fuck off even further, because this whole thing is just a side show to real issues.

America's fighting force, America itself, can ill afford anymore distractions. Quickest solution - admin separation, honorable or general characterization as warranted, thanks for your service, we've got stuff to do carry on.

SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - "Feurhoffsplaining" the explanation of something by SFC Feurhoff, in a manner that completely alters the meaning to a false narrative that she feels better equipped to rebut.

I'll repeat. I ***NEVER*** said any of the vaccines ***contain*** fetal cells from an aborted fetus. So, all you've done is address a point I ***never*** made and ***do not believe to be true.*** They do contain cells cultured [(of tissue cells originally harvested from two elective abortions.) grown or propagated in an artificial medium.]

"propogated" (of a plant or animal) reproduce by natural processes. You know, like your daughter is derived from you.

It might help if you took a class in basic biology, pay particular attention of the use of petrie dishes and growth medium in microbiology.

https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/COVID%20Vaccine%20Page/COVID-19_Vaccine_Fetal_Cell_Handout.pdf

SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - Sorry misspelled the name. Is it beyond your mental capacity to make the connection? I don't typically like to insult people but if you are going to walk right into it...

Are you saying that there is no connection between the fetal cell line HEK 293 and an aborted fetus? That those fetal cell lines would exist if a fetus had not been aborted and tissue from it had not been harvested. I have to ask, are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just that scientifically illiterate? Same for Fetal Stem Cell Line PER.C6.

From the link you provided
"When it comes to the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, fetal cell line HEK 293 was used during the research and development phase. All HEK 293 cells are descended from tissue taken from a 1973 abortion that took place in the Netherlands. Using fetal cell lines to test the effectiveness and safety of medications is common practice, because they provide a consistent and well-documented standard."

"For the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, fetal cell lines were used in the production and manufacturing stage. To make the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, scientists infect PER.C6 fetal cell lines to grow the adenovirus vector. (Learn more about how viral vector vaccines work.) All PER.C6 cells used to manufacture the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are descended from tissue taken from a 1985 abortion that took place in the Netherlands."

I and other don't care that it isn't the actual cells from the abortion. We care that it is self-benefit from the killing of a child.

SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - No response to the questions about the continuity of fetal cell lines? When did I say once, let alone repeatedly, that the vaccines contain cells of an aborted fetus? Provide the quote vis cut and paste please.

Horribly spelled? The transposition of two letters. Your sense of proportion is non-existent.

it isn't experimential when the FDA approves it for use, it isn't on emergency orders anymore...has been for well over a year, 11.2 billion doses show it is safe, stop with the factless politics.

TSgt James Sutton
From:
https://ca.childrenshealthdefense.org/uncategorized/2-things-mainstream-media-didnt-tell-you-about-fdas-approval-of-pfizer-vaccine/
"The FDA decrees that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under the EUA should remain unlicensed but can be used “interchangeably” (page 2, footnote 8) with the newly licensed Comirnaty product.

Second, the FDA pointed out that the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine and the existing, EUA Pfizer vaccine are “legally distinct,” but proclaims that their differences do not “impact safety or effectiveness.”"

So just changing the name doesn't make it the same vaccine.

you are reading into it too much, and the article you just quoted is so biased it is unbelievable...to think that you would even use it as a source.

When the article starts off with attacking the "mainstream" press we know for sure it is a right wing news media hack job article in the work.

Furthermore, they get their references and footnotes wrong and the actual footnote they refer to doesn't say what they imply.

The FDA decrees that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under the EUA should remain unlicensed but can be used “interchangeably” (page 2, footnote 8) with the newly licensed Comirnaty product. However, page 2 footnote 8 says nothing about interchangeably (8 COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) was approved for active immunization to prevent COVID-19 caused
by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in individuals 16 years of age and older)

Footnote 9 does but it doesn't, it says (In the August 23, 2021 revision, FDA clarified that, subsequent to the FDA approval of COMIRNATY (COVID19 Vaccine, mRNA) for the prevention of COVID-19 for individuals 16 years of age and older, this EUA would
remain in place for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for the previously-authorized indication and uses. It
also authorized COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) under this EUA for certain uses that are not included
in the approved biologics license application (BLA). In addition, the Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers
Administering Vaccine (Vaccination Providers) was revised to provide updates on expiration dating of the
authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and updated language regarding warnings and precautions related
to myocarditis and pericarditis. The Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers was updated as the Vaccine
Information Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers, which comprises the Fact Sheet for the authorized PfizerBioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and information about the FDA-licensed vaccine, COMIRNATY (COVID-19
Vaccine, mRNA).)

So basically their argument is moot because all the order does it allow Pfizer to continue using for what the FDA said was previous uses, since it isn't licensed it isn't part of the mandate that states and the federal government have made, because doing so would be in violation of federal law. Making a mountain of a molehill here, and the writers are quite clear with their partisanship writing style that we all know who they represent.

And yes, the CDC and FDA have said that changing the name is the still the same vaccine, they are allowed to do that and market it under a different name, drug companies do this all the time, wake up to the actual facts instead of the partisan crap they keep shoveling which doesn't tell the whole story. In their article they state the EUA vaccine is still available for use, but leave out the important caveat that it is only available for previous indications and uses, so it can't be used for mandates.

Where the article really goes off the rails is when it stars referencing VAERS data and then links to another article, coincidentally that they themselves wrote. Claiming VAERS data somehow proves the vaccines are not safe, have you even read the VAERS data because they provide a link and every single patient is either at endstage diseases or died from something else, the actual numbers of people who have any connection to dying from a vaccine is around 40 people....out of hundreds of millions of shots given, more likely to get hit by lightning than die or get sick from a vaccination.

The guy who created the website you linked is considered a quack by his peers and every single fact checking organization out there because of his wild antivax conspiracies and repeatedly posting misinformation like using VAERS data to try and prove that vaccines are unsafe. You really want to be linked to a madman like that?

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-health-pseudoscience/anti-vaccine-propaganda-robert-f-kennedy-jr

TSgt James Sutton Actually I'm not. There are several lawsuits pending regarding this very subject.

LTC Trent Klug - please post a link to the lawsuits, would love to read them