If You Can't Question It, Don't Call It Science

[Two Wings]

Except the vacvines were properly vetted - not to your standard, perhaps, but your standard is not the standered needed to be proper.

not even close to previous efforts, Jon.

There was a brief period of trial to see what would happen to 30--40K participants over a 3 month time frame. A lot of 'em were removed from the trial as if they'd never started. IDK if we'll ever know the actual number, but it was more than a few and is apparently why Pfizer actively blocked peer review in this trial.

 

[Two Wings]

Yes. Several members have stated that the chances of dying of covid do not warrant prevention because the ratio is so low.

Your characterization that those who allegedly say this ... "don't care" about people dying. That's just beyond the scope, sir.

Take issue with what you perceive in the suggestion to treat/prevent (but it doesn't prevent, and we changed the definition of a vaccine because of this) ... but presuming to know another's heart and especially on a BBS is reckless at best.

 

[JonC]

not even close to previous efforts, Jon.

There was a brief period of trial to see what would happen to 30--40K participants over a 3 month time frame. A lot of 'em were removed from the trial as if they'd never started. IDK if we'll ever know the actual number, but it was more than a few and is apparently why Pfizer actively blocked peer review in this trial.

Looking at Pfizer's data the number of participants (a little over 40k) is typical. I am not sure where you get that people were removed (except that second shots were not given to approximately 2,000 participants).

Participants with a “history of severe adverse reaction associated with a vaccine and/or severe allergic reaction (eg, anaphylaxis) to any component of the study intervention(s)” were not included in the pool of 44,000 trial volunteers.

Anyway, what you are complaining about is time, not the actual vetting process.

 

[JonC]

Your characterization that those who allegedly say this ... "don't care" about people dying. That's just beyond the scope, sir.

Take issue with what you perceive in the suggestion to treat/prevent (but it doesn't prevent, and we changed the definition of a vaccine because of this) ... but presuming to know another's heart and especially on a BBS is reckless at best.

I disagree.

When members say that 1% loss of live is not significant enough to warrant a proactive approach to preventing a disease they are saying over 77 million lives are not significant enough to warrant intervention.

Equating the percentage the anti-covid-vaxers say don't matter enough for a vacvine to the actual number is fair.

 

[Two Wings]

Looking at Pfizer's data the number of participants (a little over 40k) is typical. I am not sure where you get that people were removed (except that second shots were not given to approximately 2,000 participants).

Participants with a “history of severe adverse reaction associated with a vaccine and/or severe allergic reaction (eg, anaphylaxis) to any component of the study intervention(s)” were not included in the pool of 44,000 trial volunteers.

Anyway, what you are complaining about is time, not the actual vetting process.

You are disregarding the testimony of those who were removed from the trial ... not simply that their participation stopped (because of the adverse reactions). 40K is less than 1.4 million, yes? the latter is the trial for the polio vaccine, which lasted 14 months, not 3 months, and was the last stage in that process in a vaccine which was NOT a new type of vaccine, not the only stage outside a beaker.

Time is literally the definition. Time IS the vetting process. You seem to disregard the objection as if were trivial. Haste makes waste, brother. Prov 21:5

This process is chock full of haste, and we're being coerced into accepting it. You wouldn't want me doing my job in this fashion, and I've done it (slipped the surlies) professionally now for over 30 years. 30 years is a little longer than 3 months, yes?

 

[JonC]

You are disregarding the testimony of those who were removed from the trial ... not simply that their participation stopped (because of the adverse reactions). 40K is less than 1.4 million, yes? the latter is the trial for the polio vaccine, which lasted 14 months, not 3 months, and was the last stage in that process in a vaccine which was NOT a new type of vaccine, not the only stage outside a beaker.

Time is literally the definition. Time IS the vetting process. You seem to disregard the objection as if were trivial. Haste makes waste, brother. Prov 21:5

This process is chock full of haste, and we're being coerced into accepting it. You wouldn't want me doing my job in this fashion, and I've done it (slipped the surlies) professionally now for over 30 years. 30 years is a little longer than 3 months, yes?

I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with those removed from the trial. Pfizer reported about 200 removed due to a history of anaphylaxis and another 2000 from the 2nd vaccination.

 

[Two Wings]

I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with those removed from the trial. Pfizer reported about 200 removed due to a history of anaphylaxis and another 2000 from the 2nd vaccination.

evidently the number removed/forgotten is far more than 200.

I don't have access to this information, just reading what was testified before a congressman's panel last month ... and knowing Pfizer actively blocked peer review fall '20 ... well, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

this slight of hand with "apparently" failing to include the covid-19 jab by Pfizer ... as it has been WIDELY known ... is just more smoke.

Who ever HEARD of comirarty before this fall? Certainly not as many who were familiar with "Pfizer Covid-19" It matters ... presentation to the public. It's why there's literally law on legal recognition of DBA --- Doing Business As.

If the intention was noble, there is NO reason to have omitted the label available in the U.S. by Pfizer/BionTech/Comirarty ... M O U S E.

 

[JonC]

evidently the number removed/forgotten is far more than 200.

I don't have access to this information, just reading what was testified before a congressman's panel last month ... and knowing Pfizer actively blocked peer review fall '20 ... well, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

this slight of hand with "apparently" failing to include the covid-19 jab by Pfizer ... as it has been WIDELY known ... is just more smoke.

Who ever HEARD of comirarty before this fall? Certainly not as many who were familiar with "Pfizer Covid-19" It matters ... presentation to the public. It's why there's literally law on legal recognition of DBA --- Doing Business As.

If the intention was noble, there is NO reason to have omitted the label available in the U.S. by Pfizer/BionTech/Comirarty ... M O U S E.

Looks like 200 were removed prior to the trial and approximately 2,000 prior to the 2nd shot. The reasons are stated in the Pfizer documents.

Anyway, the issue is the vaccine has been vetted, just not to your satisfaction.

 

[Two Wings]

Anyway, the issue is the vaccine has been vetted, just not to your satisfaction.

no the issue is you accept shortcuts when it meets with your preferences. There is no objective analysis which renders an equal vetting process for this injection to any previous medicine, nevermind a completely new technology.

And to reiterate ... only 1 of the 3 is arguably FDA approved, the other 2 are definitely NOT FDA approved. Another of the 3 has been discouraged (again). the 3rd ranks #1 for cardiac issues among the 3.

So ... round and round we go. You have the Moderator title in this medium, but not the most credibility on this matter regardless of the number of posts declaring (whatever) in this regard.

 

[JonC]

no the issue is you accept shortcuts when it meets with your preferences. There is no objective analysis which renders an equal vetting process for this injection to any previous medicine, nevermind a completely new technology.

And to reiterate ... only 1 of the 3 is arguably FDA approved, the other 2 are definitely NOT FDA approved. Another of the 3 has been discouraged (again). the 3rd ranks #1 for cardiac issues among the 3.

So ... round and round we go. You have the Moderator title in this medium, but not the most credibility on this matter regardless of the number of posts declaring (whatever) in this regard.

I have not accepted shortcuts in the vetting process.

The vaccine was vetted. If there are vetting procedures in place that were omitted then let's look at them.

 

[Two Wings]

I have not accepted shortcuts in the vetting process.

The vaccine was vetted. If there are vetting procedures in place that were omitted then let's look at them.

you have participated in the human trial ... the real one ... though you're rejecting that idea and that's fine, but in doing so you've accepted the shortcuts in the process.

Some of the red tape cutting was legitimate, but being less than 12 months from prototype to public release with this vaccine type is just crazy. Especially knowing the track record of this type against this very "family" of viruses for animal inoculation.

Brave or crazy ... but certainly not as informed as one might like to think of himself. The FAA has even overturned its own policy of no new drugs for pilots inside 12 months public release ... so pilots shouldn't have been taking these things before this month ... but have. some because they are chomping at the bit like you are ... some because they were incentivized (bribed) ... and some because they have been threatened with their job. (coercion)

Sounds like a great product huh! Oh, and now to be fully cv vaxed, will need to have 6 month boosters ... mix/match, doesn't matter ... just go on an get a cocktail!

Mercy.

 

[JonC]

you have participated in the human trial ... the real one ... though you're rejecting that idea and that's fine, but in doing so you've accepted the shortcuts in the process.

Some of the red tape cutting was legitimate, but being less than 12 months from prototype to public release with this vaccine type is just crazy. Especially knowing the track record of this type against this very "family" of viruses for animal inoculation.

Brave or crazy ... but certainly not as informed as one might like to think of himself. The FAA has even overturned its own policy of no new drugs for pilots inside 12 months public release ... so pilots shouldn't have been taking these things before this month ... but have. some because they are chomping at the bit like you are ... some because they were incentivized (bribed) ... and some because they have been threatened with their job. (coercion)

Sounds like a great product huh! Oh, and now to be fully cv vaxed, will need to have 6 month boosters ... mix/match, doesn't matter ... just go on an get a cocktail!

Mercy.

No. I did not participate in the trials. A church member volunteered but did not get the opportunity (they had already been selected). The clinical trials consisted of a little over 40k people.

You keep mentioning time - NOT vetting process. It sounds like you are disappointed the vaccine was vetted quickly (without providing an official tome requirement for the vetting process) or you are disappointed it worked.

But you are wrong. The vetting process was completed (not prior to emergency authorization, but prior to FDA full approval).

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Guess you can look at it however you want to. Looks to me like natural immunity works.

Yes, that graph shows that by May, the vaxxed and unvaxxed had roughly equal COVID-19 mortality rates.

What else would one reasonably conclude than that either COVID-19 is getting weaker or herd immunity is succeeding as well as the vax? Were other treatments introduced that made the vax an unnecessary risk?

 

[Two Wings]

No. I did not participate in the trials. A church member volunteered but did not get the opportunity (they had already been selected). The clinical trials consisted of a little over 40k people.

You keep mentioning time - NOT vetting process. It sounds like you are disappointed the vaccine was vetted quickly (without providing an official tome requirement for the vetting process) or you are disappointed it worked.

But you are wrong. The vetting process was completed (not prior to emergency authorization, but prior to FDA full approval).

you are participating NOW.

This is why there are vials of saline labelled CV jab from the different manufacturers. Evidently there are different strengths/concentration of the nucleid acids in the various manufacturers product, too. lot number tracked.

why is it so difficult to understand time is needed to complete the trial? 90days was significantly too brief ... according to doctors with whom I've spoken about this. The standard is several years.

it's irrelevant what my expectation is ... my disappointment or excitement.

The vetting process was extremely abbreviated and it "went to press" before it passed by the editor. That never results in a win even if the story was right. this is going to be eventually seen as the bane on human existence. OR ... contracting omicron may be the best thing to happen. erase the mRNA jab and instill natural immunity with very weak symptoms. win-win.

but it seems like you'd rather have a needle stuck in your arm. You're not like Fauci are ya? financially incentivized by the production of vaccine?

 

[JonC]

Yes, that graph shows that by May, the vaxxed and unvaxxed had roughly equal COVID-19 mortality rates.

What else would one reasonably conclude than that either COVID-19 is getting weaker or herd immunity is succeeding as well as the vax? Were other treatments introduced that made the vax an unnecessary risk?

Not too far off. The unvacvinated only died at a rate 15.2 times that of the unvaccinated.

 

[Two Wings]

Not too far off. The unvacvinated only died at a rate 15.2 times that of the unvaccinated.

and void from any source I've seen which delineates those who were treated early vice those who followed the "accepted protocol" and waited to need a ventilator.

 

[JonC]

you are participating NOW.

This is why there are vials of saline labelled CV jab from the different manufacturers. Evidently there are different strengths/concentration of the nucleid acids in the various manufacturers product, too. lot number tracked.

why is it so difficult to understand time is needed to complete the trial? 90days was significantly too brief ... according to doctors with whom I've spoken about this. The standard is several years.

it's irrelevant what my expectation is ... my disappointment or excitement.

The vetting process was extremely abbreviated and it "went to press" before it passed by the editor. That never results in a win even if the story was right. this is going to be eventually seen as the bane on human existence. OR ... contracting omicron may be the best thing to happen. erase the mRNA jab and instill natural immunity with very weak symptoms. win-win.

but it seems like you'd rather have a needle stuck in your arm. You're not like Fauci are ya? financially incentivized by the production of vaccine?

No. Clinical trials have set parameters. Had I participated I would have been required to divulge medical conditions and experienced sude-effects (even if mild). Participants were not just given shots and sent their way.

I am surprised you are ignorant of what is involved with clinical trials. Trials do involve a control group and yes, a placebo is used for a specific set of people who are also monitored.

But vaccination under emergency authorization is not the same as a clinical trial. The strengths do not vary (actually, they didn't with the clinical trials either....except the placebo).

 

[Two Wings]

No. Clinical trials have set parameters. Had I participated I would have been required to divulge medical conditions and experienced sude-effects (even if mild). Participants were not just given shots and sent their way.

I am surprised you ate ignorant of what is involved with clinical trials.

A) this isn't about the detail of working knowledge of a clinical trial
B) you're still refusing to understand you are in the effective trial now as the EUA mandates for the release of the injections.
C) I've shared what was told to me by legitimately credentialed/experienced folks ... they disagree with your assessment of clinical trial, evidently, and recognize the real trial started just over a year ago ... in both time and NUMBERs of participants.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Not too far off. The unvacvinated only died at a rate 15.2 times that of the unvaccinated.

Perhaps it's not too late to edit that post. And while you're at it specify exactly what it is supposed to be referring to.

 

[Two Wings]

Perhaps it's not too late to edit that post. And while you're at it specify exactly what it is supposed to be referring to.

even if the 15.2 number is accurate ... the fact folks weren't/aren't considered cv vaxed until day 15 post series is problematic, too.

A lot of folks have experienced serious injury/death from the cv jabs inside 2 weeks ... and a lot of folks have contracted the disease while in this period, too ... following the approved treatment protocol is a liability, not an asset. Folks have survived it, but they'd have done MUCH better with early treatment.