California Calls for Pause on Moderna Vaccines Over Reports of Allergic Reactions

Santa Clara County put a pause on administering the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine due to allergic reactions under investigation by state regulators.

More than 330,000 doses of Moderna’s 41L20A inoculation were distributed throughout California, including 21,800 to Santa Clara County.

“To the county’s knowledge, no doses from this lot of vaccine have been administered to anyone in Santa Clara County,” officials said in a news release Monday.

According to the California Department of Public Health, a “higher-than-usual” number of potential allergic reactions were reported with the Moderna vaccine. “Fewer than 10 individuals” reportedly required medical attention within a day of receiving the shot, state public health officials said.

The reactions are the subject of separate probes by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, Moderna and California’s public health division.

The state’s advice to pump the brakes on the vaccine comes out of “an abundance of caution,” according to the county’s news release.

Vaccine providers are required by law to report adverse vaccination reactions to the federal government. Santa Clara County officials say they haven’t heard of any problems with the vaccine locally, however.

“While no vaccine or medical procedure is without risk,” the state’s announcement noted, “the risk of a serious adverse reaction is very small.”

County officials say they alerted providers that received the Moderna doses. Namely, the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, Stanford. Health Care and El Camino Health.

22 Comments

  1. Your headline says, “California Calls for Pause”, but your story says, “Santa Clara County put a pause.” So which is it?

    It mustn’t be Santa Clara County, because your earlier story today quoted Sara Cody in a prepared statement, “This news underscores the need for everyone to follow all prevention measures and get vaccinated as soon as they are offered the vaccine.”

  2. EVERYONE attacks me when I keep on reminding them:

    These vaccines are NOT proven yet. They were given Emergency Use Authorization, but that means they are EXPERIMENTAL, not PRODUCTION.

    And so many people wanted to be HOPEFUL to get the vaccines out so they could “go back to normal”

    You do know only 31,000,000 doses of vaccine have been distributed and less than half have been used that means that since it is a two dose plan only 6,000,000 out of 330,000,000 have been given the EXPERIMENT. that is only 2% of the U.S.

    I hope it doesn’t become a failed experiment.

    But if only 2% of the U.S. gets a vaccine per month, we have another 50 months to go.

    Please try to be patient? We are far from out of this crisis.

  3. > You do know only 31,000,000 doses of vaccine have been distributed and less than half have been used that means that since it is a two dose plan only 6,000,000 out of 330,000,000 have been given the EXPERIMENT. that is only 2% of the U.S.

    STEVEN:

    Council Member Matt Mahan has called on all off us to fight misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.

    1. 330,000,000 people do NOT need vaccinations.
    2. Many people are naturally immune.
    3. Many people have already had COVID-19 and have gained immunity.
    4. The “herd immunity threshold” for COVID-19 is far below 100 percent.

    Because of herd immunity, the more people in a population who have immunity for whatever reason, the less risk there is that a non-immune person will be infected.

    Therefore, the chances of getting a COVID-19 infection get smaller every day.

    At some point, the health authorities need to dial back the fear level from 9+ to maybe 8 or 7.

    Or 2.

  4. SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE

    What PROOF do you have to say the following:

    “2. Many people are naturally immune.

    3. Many people have already had COVID-19 and have gained immunity.

    I never claimed 330,000,000 needed to be vaccinated like you said:

    “1. 330,000,000 people do NOT need vaccinations.

    4. The “herd immunity threshold” for COVID-19 is far below 100 percent.”

    I have said all along that at least 65% of the 330,000,000 people need to be either proven cured or vaccinated which comes to 215,000,000 and since the number of doses regarding the current vaccines would need to be twice that number you need approximately 430,000,000 doses.

    But since the vaccines are EXPERIMENTAL, STILL, and that it has not yet proven that they ACTUALLY worked, and for HOW LONG, Please provide some SCIENTIFI proof that they are?

    The facts are when this peak goes down, it will not be able to be SCIENTIFICALLY proven it was because of the vaccines, given we are still in the highest form of social isolation in most of the country again. In effect social isolation is a “VACCINE” because you don’t get infected, BUT you are NOT IMMUNE.

    To many people like Trump trying to “downplay” this crisis. Matt Mahan in fact does not disagree with me if you look at the online posting here (https://mahanforsanjose.com/coronavirus/)

    No more “fiction” please? Give us some SCIENTIFIC research to establish your claims?

  5. IF it was Matt Mahan who gave these 4 points:
    1. 330,000,000 people do NOT need vaccinations.
    2. Many people are naturally immune.
    3. Many people have already had COVID-19 and have gained immunity.
    4. The “herd immunity threshold” for COVID-19 is far below 100 percent.

    then I agree with him 100%. I talk with many nurses and healthcare people. They may not know the percentages, but they do know what they see on a daily basis.

  6. I am not saying you have to agree with me, you have the rights to your beliefs

    But I would rather get evidence to prove it before moving forward..

  7. SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE,

    I didn’t say that you have the right to spread misinformation. As I said you have the rights to your beliefs.

    If either of them flag your commentary as being questionable regarding accuracy, those platforms have the right to do so.

    And if you persist to post misinformation, it is a violation of the terms of use and they reserve the right to suspend or terminate your access to it.

  8. > I didn’t say that you have the right to spread misinformation. As I said you have the rights to your beliefs.

    Would you say that Jack Dorsey, or Facebook, FOX NEWS, or CNN has the “right” to determine what is or isn’t “misinformation”?

    How is Jack Dorsey so much smarter than you?

  9. > I didn’t say that you have the right to spread misinformation. As I said you have the rights to your beliefs.

    Do I have the right to SAY what my beliefs are?

    Or, do I just have to keep them to myself?

  10. SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE you wrote:

    “Would you say that Jack Dorsey, or Facebook, FOX NEWS, or CNN has the “right” to determine what is or isn’t “misinformation”?

    How is Jack Dorsey so much smarter than you?”

    The answer is YES actually, because not only do they have much more knowledge than me, but they also have paid experts on staff as well. Sorry I guess you expected me to claim otherwise. You wrote:

    “Do I have the right to SAY what my beliefs are?

    Or, do I just have to keep them to myself?”

    The answer is a lot more complicated. You have the right on your own platform, with your own servers, with your own software, with your own networking, and your own ISP contract stating you have no restrictions.

    But once you use any other entities systems, they do typically reserve the right to ensure that your conduct is either based on some genuine truthful content. It does not contain any language that can be considered hostile, inciting, or targeted to solely be intended to intimidate any other users. And that the content would not be construed to portray the media provider as encouraging any hostile or discriminatory practices. You wrote:

    “Go look it up.

    If you want me to do it for you, my hourly research rates are VERY steep.

    $10,000 minimum.”

    That is just an vain attempt to disregard any other research from reputable resources. You just don’t want to admit you have either little or no evidence to present. That is not a convincing “debate” strategy.

  11. > That is just an vain attempt to disregard any other research from reputable resources.

    You keep presuming your sources are “reputable”.

    “Reputable” is in your mind.

    Your sources are just sources that YOU listen to, mainly because they’re “LOUD” and in your face.

    Is the New York Times “reputable”? Is the “1619 Project” reputable? Is Walter Duranty “reputable”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involving_The_New_York_Times

    “List of controversies involving The New York Times”

    Is CNN “reputable”? How about MSNBC, or NPR?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

    “CNN controversies”

  12. > “Do I have the right to SAY what my beliefs are?

    > Or, do I just have to keep them to myself?”

    The answer is a lot more complicated.

    “Complicated” is not the same as “Yes”

    So, I DON’T have the right to say what my beliefs are?

    What about “public accommodation laws” and “equal protection laws”?

    If someone provides an “open forum” — say, the public square — can I SAY what my beliefs are?

    Why should people like you have the right to prevent me from SAYING publicly what my beliefs are?

  13. SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE you wrote:

    “You keep presuming your sources are “reputable”. “Reputable” is in your mind. Your sources are just sources that YOU listen to, mainly because they’re “LOUD” and in your face. Is the New York Times “reputable”? Is the “1619 Project” reputable? Is Walter Duranty “reputable”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involving_The_New_York_Times “List of controversies involving The New York Times”

    And

    Is CNN “reputable”? How about MSNBC, or NPR? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies “CNN controversies”

    As you should know Wikipedia is not a reputable resource, in fact it even says so itself in the article titled “Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source” found here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source#:~:text=Wikipedia%20can%20be%20edited%20by,progress%2C%20or%20just%20plain%20wrong.&text=However%2C%20because%20Wikipedia%20is%20a,every%20contribution%20all%20the%20time.). Amd it states:

    “Wikipedia is not a reliable source. WIKIPEDIA CAN BE EDITED BY ANYONE AT ANY TIME. This means that any information it contains at any particular time COULD BE VANDALISM, A WORK IN PROGRESS, OR JUST PLAIN WRONG. Biographies of living persons, SUBJECTS THAT HAPPEN TO BE IN THE NEWS, AND POLITICALLY OR CULTURALLY CONTENTIOUS TOPICS ARE ESPECIALLY VULNERABLE TO THESE ISSUES. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. HOWEVER, BECAUSE WIKIPEDIA IS A VOLUNTEER-RUN PROJECT, IT CANNOT MONITOR EVERY CONTRIBUTION ALL THE TIME. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

    The same applies to Wikipedia’s sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.

    WIKIPEDIA GENERALLY USES RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES, WHICH VET DATA FROM PRIMARY SOURCES. IF THE INFORMATION ON ANOTHER WIKIPEDIA PAGE (WHICH YOU WANT TO CITE AS THE SOURCE) HAS A PRIMARY OR SECONDARY SOURCE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO CITE THAT PRIMARY OR SECONDARY SOURCE AND ELIMINATE THE MIDDLEMAN (OR “MIDDLE-PAGE” IN THIS CASE).
    Always be careful of what you read: IT MIGHT NOT BE CONSISTENTLY ACCURATE.

    NEITHER ARTICLES ON WIKIPEDIA NOR WEBSITES THAT MIRROR WIKIPEDIA CAN BE USED AS SOURCES, BECAUSE THIS IS CIRCULAR SOURCING.

    An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia’s role or views, and inappropriate self-reference).

    Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, education and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject matter may allow. SINCE THE VAST MAJORITY OF EDITORS ARE ANONYMOUS, YOU HAVE ONLY THEIR EDITING HISTORY AND THEIR USER PAGES AS BENCHMARKS. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth. Further, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or many contributors over varying periods. Articles vary in quality and content, widely and unevenly, and also depending on the quality of sources (and their writers, editors and publishers) that are referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the edits were added.

    It also helps to look at the article’s editing history (it may have changed drastically over time; you can identify individual contributions and their contributors by user name), and the article’s talk page (to see controversies and development).

    TO BE SURE, WIKIPEDIA IS A GOOD SPRINGBOARD FROM WHICH TO LAUNCH YOUR OWN RESEARCH, BUT … CAVEAT LECTOR.”

    You will notice I try never to use Wikipedia except for “well-known” definitions. I try my best to find “Primary Sources” with research because it is APA writing standard. So I am not perfect. You wrote:

    “The answer is a lot more complicated.

    “Complicated” is not the same as “Yes” So, I DON’T have the right to say what my beliefs are? What about “public accommodation laws” and “equal protection laws”? If someone provides an “open forum” — say, the public square — can I SAY what my beliefs are? Why should people like you have the right to prevent me from SAYING publicly what my beliefs are?”

    The San Jose Inside is hosted by GoDaddy as a CLOUD server and it must be in compliance with the GoDaddy Terms of Use, just like Parler had to with Amazon, by the way Parler lost the case to try to get Amazon to restore its services, BADLY.. So what does GoDaddy’s terms of use say?:

    “5. GENERAL RULES OF CONDUCT

    You acknowledge and agree that:

    YOUR USE OF THIS SITE AND THE SERVICES , INCLUDING ANY CONTENT YOU SUBMIT, WILL COMPLY WITH THIS AGREEMENT, ANY APPLICABLE SERVICES AGREEMENT OR POLICY THAT MAY APPLY TO YOUR SERVICES AND ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS.

    YOU WILL NOT USE THIS SITE OR THE SERVICES IN A MANNER (AS DETERMINED BY GODADDY IN ITS SOLE AND ABSOLUTE DISCRETION) THAT:

    PROMOTES, ENCOURAGES OR ENGAGES IN TERRORISM, VIOLENCE AGAINST PEOPLE, ANIMALS, OR PROPERTY; “

    The fact that many like yourself have used this “PRIVATE” forum, since it is owned by a PRIVATE entity to personally attack others that disagree with you. And given that you do so under a “fake name” versus I that doesn’t, it makes me vulnerable for my safety given that there are public resources to locate where I live. When you conduct yourself in such a way, you are promoting, or encouraging violence against me or my property, and you should be well aware of it. GoDaddy also saya:

    “10. MONITORING OF CONTENT; ACCOUNT TERMINATION POLICY

    GoDaddy generally does not pre-screen User Content (whether posted to a website hosted by GoDaddy or posted to this Site). However, GoDaddy reserves the right (but undertakes no duty) to do so and decide whether any item of User Content is appropriate and/or complies with this Agreement. GODADDY MAY REMOVE ANY ITEM OF USER CONTENT (WHETHER POSTED TO A WEBSITE HOSTED BY GODADDY OR POSTED TO THIS SITE) AND/OR TERMINATE A USER’S ACCESS TO THIS SITE OR THE SERVICES FOUND AT THIS SITE FOR POSTING OR PUBLISHING ANY MATERIAL IN VIOLATION OF THIS AGREEMENT, OR FOR OTHERWISE VIOLATING THIS AGREEMENT (AS DETERMINED BY GODADDY IN ITS SOLE AND ABSOLUTE DISCRETION), AT ANY TIME AND WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE. GoDaddy may also terminate a User’s access to this Site or the Services found at this Site if GoDaddy has reason to believe the User is a repeat offender. If GoDaddy terminates your access to this Site or the Services found at this Site, GoDaddy may, in its sole and absolute discretion, remove and destroy any data and files stored by you on its servers.”

    In effect, this website is subject to the same controls as Parler was with Amazon Web Services, and I am certain tthat if I chose to copy the postings directed at me as being hostile, which there is quite a bit to Go Daddy, they may require either such content be properly moderated, or if not done properly they can suspend the San Jose Inside website.

    The choice is yours. But I strongly urge you to focus your discussion on topic and not use insulting or hostile language. If you look you will see my conduct is discussing the topic without regard to your personal “beliefs”

  14. SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE you wrote:

    “You keep presuming your sources are “reputable”. “Reputable” is in your mind. Your sources are just sources that YOU listen to, mainly because they’re “LOUD” and in your face. Is the New York Times “reputable”? Is the “1619 Project” reputable? Is Walter Duranty “reputable”. You referred to a wikipedia page titled “List of controversies involving The New York Times”

    And

    Is CNN “reputable”? How about MSNBC, or NPR? You referenced another Wikipedia page titled: “CNN controversies”

    As you should know Wikipedia is not a reputable resource, in fact it even says so itself in the article titled “Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source” found here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source#:~:text=Wikipedia%20can%20be%20edited%20by,progress%2C%20or%20just%20plain%20wrong.&text=However%2C%20because%20Wikipedia%20is%20a,every%20contribution%20all%20the%20time.). Amd it states:

    “Wikipedia is not a reliable source. WIKIPEDIA CAN BE EDITED BY ANYONE AT ANY TIME. This means that any information it contains at any particular time COULD BE VANDALISM, A WORK IN PROGRESS, OR JUST PLAIN WRONG. Biographies of living persons, SUBJECTS THAT HAPPEN TO BE IN THE NEWS, AND POLITICALLY OR CULTURALLY CONTENTIOUS TOPICS ARE ESPECIALLY VULNERABLE TO THESE ISSUES. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. HOWEVER, BECAUSE WIKIPEDIA IS A VOLUNTEER-RUN PROJECT, IT CANNOT MONITOR EVERY CONTRIBUTION ALL THE TIME. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

    The same applies to Wikipedia’s sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.

    WIKIPEDIA GENERALLY USES RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES, WHICH VET DATA FROM PRIMARY SOURCES. IF THE INFORMATION ON ANOTHER WIKIPEDIA PAGE (WHICH YOU WANT TO CITE AS THE SOURCE) HAS A PRIMARY OR SECONDARY SOURCE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO CITE THAT PRIMARY OR SECONDARY SOURCE AND ELIMINATE THE MIDDLEMAN (OR “MIDDLE-PAGE” IN THIS CASE).

    Always be careful of what you read: IT MIGHT NOT BE CONSISTENTLY ACCURATE.

    NEITHER ARTICLES ON WIKIPEDIA NOR WEBSITES THAT MIRROR WIKIPEDIA CAN BE USED AS SOURCES, BECAUSE THIS IS CIRCULAR SOURCING.

    An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia’s role or views, and inappropriate self-reference).

    Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, education and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject matter may allow. SINCE THE VAST MAJORITY OF EDITORS ARE ANONYMOUS, YOU HAVE ONLY THEIR EDITING HISTORY AND THEIR USER PAGES AS BENCHMARKS. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth. Further, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or many contributors over varying periods. Articles vary in quality and content, widely and unevenly, and also depending on the quality of sources (and their writers, editors and publishers) that are referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the edits were added.

    It also helps to look at the article’s editing history (it may have changed drastically over time; you can identify individual contributions and their contributors by user name), and the article’s talk page (to see controversies and development).

    TO BE SURE, WIKIPEDIA IS A GOOD SPRINGBOARD FROM WHICH TO LAUNCH YOUR OWN RESEARCH, BUT … CAVEAT LECTOR.”

    You will notice I try never to use Wikipedia except for “well-known” definitions. I try my best to find “Primary Sources” with research because it is APA writing standard. So I am not perfect.

  15. SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE you wrote:

    “The answer is a lot more complicated.

    “Complicated” is not the same as “Yes” So, I DON’T have the right to say what my beliefs are? What about “public accommodation laws” and “equal protection laws”? If someone provides an “open forum” — say, the public square — can I SAY what my beliefs are? Why should people like you have the right to prevent me from SAYING publicly what my beliefs are?”

    The San Jose Inside is NOT a “public square” because it is operating by a PRIVATE group or subcontracted on PRIVATE equipment. The Internet so far has not been legally recognized as a “public square” and it never will be unless all servers are owned by the PUBLIC. The San Jose Inside is hosted by GoDaddy as a CLOUD server and it must be in compliance with the GoDaddy Terms of Use, just like Parler had to with Amazon, by the way Parler lost the case, you can see “Parler Loses! Court Denies Injunction Against Amazon (VL395)” on youtube to try to get Amazon to restore its services, BADLY.. So what does GoDaddy’s terms of use say? They are found here (https://www.godaddy.com/legal/agreements/website-builder-service-agreement):

    “GoDaddy – Website Services Agreement Last Revised: 11/2/2020

    OVERVIEW

    The Universal Terms of Service Agreement sets forth the general terms and conditions of your use of the Site and the Services. This Website Service Agreement (this “Service Agreement”) governs your use of GoDaddy’s website and website marketing related services (“Website Services”). Capitalized terms used in this Service Agreement, but not defined, are defined in the Universal Terms of Service Agreement.

    Account Termination; Limitations

    Your Obligations; Representations and Warranties

    YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING YOUR WEBSITE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, FEDERAL, AND INTERNATIONAL LAWS.

    Limits on Content. You acknowledge and agree that:

    Your use of the Services, including any Customer Content you submit, will comply with these Terms and ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS.

    You will not use the Services in a manner (as determined by GoDaddy in its sole and absolute discretion) that: … PROMOTES, ENCOURAGES OR ENGAGES IN TERRORISM, VIOLENCE AGAINST PEOPLE, ANIMALS, OR PROPERTY,

    WE RESERVE THE RIGHT, BUT ARE NOT OBLIGATED, TO REMOVE OR DISABLE ACCESS TO ANY CONTENT, AT ANY TIME AND WITHOUT NOTICE, IF WE, AT OUR SOLE DISCRETION, CONSIDER ANY CONTENT TO BE OBJECTIONABLE OR IN VIOLATION OF THESE TERMS. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE VIOLATIONS OF THESE TERMS OR CONDUCT THAT AFFECTS THE SERVICES. WE MAY ALSO CONSULT AND COOPERATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES TO PROSECUTE USERS WHO VIOLATE THE LAW.”

    In effect, if your CONDUCT is determined to be OBJECTIONABLE by GoDaddy, you can cause the San Jose Inside website to be suspended or terminated. So, when I say it is complicated, this is how it is. You really don’t want the SJI to become another Parler, do you?

    I can demonstrate that those using “fake names” expressing hostile or insulting language to one that is using a real name can be responsible for any possible harm done to them. Especially if the public identity can be further discovered to be located in any particular location, or visual records. In effect, if any criminal or civil wrong is done to me, and it is determined it was in any way promoted or encouraged by your conduct, you can find both SJI and yourself in serious trouble.

  16. SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE,

    I made a mistake, the servers hosting the San Jose Inside are:

    “Name Server: ATHENA.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM

    Name Server: RODNEY.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM”

    Both are “cloud” servers operated by the Cloudflare Solutions. This is public information because all you need to do is use the “whois” command and the domain to get this information, it is NOT private.

    Cloudflare has the same terms of use just in a different contract the text is here ( ):

    “2.7 Acceptable Use

    By using the Cloud Services you are agreeing, among other things, that you will not use the Cloud Services to (a) falsely imply any sponsorship or association with Cloudflare; (b) post, transmit, store or link to any files, materials, data, text, audio, video, images or other content that infringe on any person’s intellectual property rights or THAT ARE OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL; or (c) ENGAGE IN ANY ACTIVITIES THAT ARE ILLEGAL, including disseminating, promoting or facilitating child sexual abuse material or engaging in human trafficking.”

    The persistent insults and intimidation done by many on this website can be defined as cyberstalking. Cyberstalking has been defined under Federal law as:

    “C. Cyberstalking

    Stalking is a pattern of repeated and unwanted attention, harassment, contact, or any other course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear. Department of Justice, Office of Victims of Crime.

    Stalking can include:

    Harassing the victim through the Internet

    And

    Posting information or spreading rumors about the victim on the Internet, in a public place, or by word of mouth”

    California also has a similar law.

    So Cloudflare can also suspend or terminate the San Jose Inside services.

    Again, please be careful

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *