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

[JonC]

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.

No. It is an issue of you not understanding what constitutes a clinical trial. You could have said I took the vaccine under emergency authorization and had I experienced serious side effects necessitating medical care the data would have been collected. That would have been true.

But you are mistaken when you equate emergency authorizations to clinical trials. Placebos are not a component with emergency authorization, there is no control group in a study, the pharmaceutical company does not maintain data on individuals receiving shots under emergency authorization.

You simply got confused, missing up emergency authorization with clinical trials. Maybe you've been reading too much propaganda to keep things straight?

 

[AustinC]

I'm an astrophysicist at a major university. Science is my life. But when I hear somebody somberly intone, "science says" or "follow the science," I get very nervous.



Science doesn't belong to any ideology. Science is the never-ending search for new knowledge.



That's what science means in Latin, by the way—knowledge. Not wisdom. Not morality. Not social policy. Knowledge. What we do with that knowledge is where wisdom, morality, and social policy enter the picture.



Knowledge, it turns out, isn't so easy to come by. And sometimes what we think we know for certain (the earth sure does look flat when we're standing on it) turns out not to be so certain.



Of course, I trust in basic scientific truths—those things for which there is overwhelming evidence like, say, gravity; even that humans play a role in the warming of the planet.



But scientists—even the best ones—can get things wrong.…..


……..
the 20th century, some of the most respected scientists in the world, including Nobel Prize winners, believed in eugenics—the reprehensible idea that the human race could be improved by selective breeding. The National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the Rockefeller Foundation supported it. By the middle of the century, it had been thoroughly rejected as quackery. No reputable scientist would have anything to do with this idea.



So, we all need to get over this notion that just because someone—be it a politician, a bureaucrat, or even a scientist—employs the phrase "science says" means whatever they're saying is right.



It might be right. But it might also be wrong. And if it's wrong, it won't necessarily be a bunch of scientists who say it's wrong. It might be one guy…….

…….Science is never closed. If it was closed after Newton, you'd never have Einstein. Science has to be, first and always, about pursuing knowledge—not about advancing a social agenda, no matter how noble it might be. Science has no political party.……


……So let's continue to look to science for knowledge—knowledge we can use to improve the world. But let's not fool ourselves that science has all the answers to all our problems.



It doesn't.


https://www.prageru.com/if-you-cant-question-it-dont-call-it-science

Good thing I clicked the link, cause I didn't think you could possibly be an astrophysicist. I wonder if Brian Keating knows Roger Wiens.
Roger Wiens | The Planetary Society

 

[Two Wings]

No. It is an issue of you not understanding what constitutes a clinical trial. You could have said I took the vaccine under emergency authorization and had I experienced serious side effects necessitating medical care the data would have been collected. That would have been true.

But you are mistaken when you equate emergency authorizations to clinical trials. Placebos are not a component with emergency authorization, there is no control group in a study, the pharmaceutical company does not maintain data on individuals receiving shots under emergency authorization.

You simply got confused, missing up emergency authorization with clinical trials. Maybe you've been reading too much propaganda to keep things straight?

Jon ... I think you're misunderstanding me. shocker.

When I say you're in the trial now ... that is true. It's not the "certified" trial, but it's what will qualify or reject the drug/therapy long term because the "certified" effort was shallow and brief by the industry standards. The vial from which the syringe which injected you was filled has a lot number and that lot number is tracked ... closely.

From this summer's revelation of saline in South Carolina ... we know there are placebos in the distribution. Recent (Sept/Oct) analysis suggests there are at least a couple of concentrations in circulation, too.

Your closing statement is disappointing ... again. It's beneath a sincere poster who presents himself a Believer ... and shouldn't be coming from a Moderator. Even if you were right in your presumption, the delivery is less than respectful.

 

[JonC]

Jon ... I think you're misunderstanding me. shocker.

When I say you're in the trial now ... that is true. It's not the "certified" trial, but it's what will qualify or reject the drug/therapy long term because the "certified" effort was shallow and brief by the industry standards. The vial from which the syringe which injected you was filled has a lot number and that lot number is tracked ... closely.

From this summer's revelation of saline in South Carolina ... we know there are placebos in the distribution. Recent (Sept/Oct) analysis suggests there are at least a couple of concentrations in circulation, too.

Your closing statement is disappointing ... again. It's beneath a sincere poster who presents himself a Believer ... and shouldn't be coming from a Moderator. Even if you were right in your presumption, the delivery is less than respectful.

I see, and still disagree. I know we can call any vaccinene (and most medications & medical treatments) "trial" under those standards, but when every vaccine is a trial (either because the vaccine or changes in viruses) then there are no legitimate vaccines.

C.S. Lewis warned about trying to see through everything (as you essentially see nothing).

 

[Two Wings]

I see, and still disagree. I know we can call any vaccinene (and most medications & medical treatments) "trial" under those standards, but when every vaccine is a trial (either because the vaccine or changes in viruses) then there are no legitimate vaccines.

C.S. Lewis warned about trying to see through everything (as you essentially see nothing).

ah ... so now the switch is to erect an impossible standard.

convenient. I didn't make the standard for the new vaccines, Jon. The industry did. For every new type of vaccine there's been more than 5 years in trials ... a couple near 10 years.

I am sympathetic to what the recognition does to the argument about safe ... but none of these 3 available in the U.S. were vetted like previous new vaccines were vetted. Why not?

I fully admit I see through a mirror dimly. Part of that is my own biases, part of it is simply lacking the expertise ... but sometimes the experts are so close they can't see the forest for the trees, either.

I'm taking a look at this from Flight Level 350 ... and it doesn't look good overall.

 

[JonC]

ah ... so now the switch is to erect an impossible standard.

convenient. I didn't make the standard for the new vaccines, Jon. The industry did. For every new type of vaccine there's been more than 5 years in trials ... a couple near 10 years.

I am sympathetic to what the recognition does to the argument about safe ... but none of these 3 available in the U.S. were vetted like previous new vaccines were vetted. Why not?

I fully admit I see through a mirror dimly. Part of that is my own biases, part of it is simply lacking the expertise ... but sometimes the experts are so close they can't see the forest for the trees, either.

I'm taking a look at this from Flight Level 350 ... and it doesn't look good overall.

I asked you the vetting standard (with documentation of that standard) you feel the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine failed or skipped. So far you have beat around the bush.

Please list the official vetting steps bypassed.

 

[Revmitchell]

Jon ... I think you're misunderstanding me. shocker.

When I say you're in the trial now ... that is true. It's not the "certified" trial, but it's what will qualify or reject the drug/therapy long term because the "certified" effort was shallow and brief by the industry standards. The vial from which the syringe which injected you was filled has a lot number and that lot number is tracked ... closely.

From this summer's revelation of saline in South Carolina ... we know there are placebos in the distribution. Recent (Sept/Oct) analysis suggests there are at least a couple of concentrations in circulation, too.

Your closing statement is disappointing ... again. It's beneath a sincere poster who presents himself a Believer ... and shouldn't be coming from a Moderator. Even if you were right in your presumption, the delivery is less than respectful.

Yep there is a trial and everyone who gets the shot right niw are participants. No it has not been fully and reasonably vetted out yet. They say it has because it makes them money. Right now none of this is actually about caring gor peoples lives its all about power and money.

The dems dont want it to end it has been a boondoggle of both power and monet. Its been a personal source of money gor those who have invested in those companies and since government agencies place patents just prior to their releases , then magucally a new varient pops up right after it becomes a money source for government agencies.

History will look back on the abuse of power, money, at the expense of fearful Americans duped into rushing out abd getting a vax that we still do not know the ling term effects, has killed thousands atound the world, has caused serious damage to others, the press refuses to report, has caused greater division and will continue to kead to mire turmoil and finally has provoked many into compromising their integrity trying to defend this indefensible vax and its agenda.

All of this vax and its agenda will be shown just how evil it really is by history. May God have mercy on their souls.

 

[agedman]

I’m a vaccinated dandy,
I’m vaccinated, do or die.
A real live vaccinate for Uncle Sam,
One in each arm would be fine..

I’ve got a vaccinated sweet heart,
She got three, now I do, too.
I went to town and got the vax,
Was told, “it was the best for that,”
And now I am a vaccinated guy.

to the tune of Yankee Doodle Dandy
by George Cohan.

 

[Two Wings]

I asked you the vetting standard (with documentation of that standard) you feel the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine failed or skipped. So far you have beat around the bush.

Please list the official vetting steps bypassed.

the industry standard of

T
I
M
E

the FAA took longer to certify the 737 MAX than the FDA took to authorize this injection.

We know how the Max’s history don’t we? … and the Max was just another variant of a very successful airplane. Same TYPE rating.

 

[JonC]

the industry standard of

T
I
M
E

the FAA took longer to certify the 737 MAX than the FDA took to authorize this injection.

We know how the Max’s history don’t we? … and the Max was just another variant of a very successful airplane. Same TYPE rating.

What is the time a company is required to wait?

I understand you like to wait a decade or so begone approving vacvines, but I am not asking your opinion (I believe vaccines should be vetted as quickly as possible without compromising the process).

I am asking the specific time limit that is required before a vaccine is authorized and for the reference stating tge requirement.

If the requirement is a year it was met. If the requirement is 5 years, or 10 years, it wasn't met (with several vacvines).

What is the time period we are required to wait before authorizing a vaccine?

 

[Two Wings]

What is the time a company is required to wait?

I understand you like to wait a decade or so begone approving vacvines, but I am not asking your opinion (I believe vaccines should be vetted as quickly as possible without compromising the process).

I am asking the specific time limit that is required before a vaccine is authorized and for the reference stating tge requirement.

If the requirement is a year it was met. If the requirement is 5 years, or 10 years, it wasn't met (with several vacvines).

What is the time period we are required to wait before authorizing a vaccine?

is this a bait post?

i have given you my answer.

Once more:

industry standard for a new drug. It is certainly a lot longer than 12 months from prototype to public release.

i await the next declaration of what i know or want or wish.

 

[JonC]

is this a bait post?

i have given you my answer.

Once more:

industry standard for a new drug. It is certainly a lot longer than 12 months from prototype to public release.

i await the next declaration of what i know or want or wish.

I disagree the vetting process should take over a year (or with Pfizer, over a year and a half).

I am asking you what procedure you are referencing that states the vetting process should take a long time.

 

[Two Wings]

I disagree the vetting process should take over a year (or with Pfizer, over a year and a half).

I am asking you what procedure you are referencing that states the vetting process should take a long time.

What is the industry standard for bringing a new drug to market?

 

[Two Wings]

Here is what the WEF says about it ...

5 charts that tell the story of vaccines today



Pfizer’s clinical trials were in the summer of 20 ... lasted about 3 months.

Industry standard just for the clinical trial is 1-2 years. So if the industry standard is applied, Pfizer’s jab is just now completing its clinical trial. Assuming the clinical trial started somewhere close to the timeline as listed ... IOW ... that discovery and pre-clinical stages were completed correctly and the clinical trial started last summer as it would have. We don’t have to discuss whether it did or didn’t ... let’s just assuming it did and proceed from there.

The cv vax is about 6 years ahead of schedule ... per the industry standard.

 

[JonC]

What is the industry standard for bringing a new drug to market?

The standard consists of several stages ( an exploratory stage, pre-clinical stage, clinical development and regulatory review and approval).

What we are talking about, however, is one aspect of bringing a new drug to market (clinical development).

Clinical development is a three-phase process. During Phase I, small groups of people receive the trial vaccine. In Phase II, the clinical study is expanded and vaccine is given to people who have characteristics (such as age and physical health) similar to those for whom the new vaccine is intended. In Phase III, the vaccine is given to thousands of people and tested for efficacy and safety.

There is no industry standard insofar as a time-frame (only a timeline). For example, sildenafil was approved within 2 years based on clinical trials lasting 4 weeks.

 

[Two Wings]

We don’t have to discuss why the WEF has anything to say about a medical process, either.

 

[JonC]

Here is what the WEF says about it ...

5 charts that tell the story of vaccines today

View attachment 5728

Pfizer’s clinical trials were in the summer of 20 ... lasted about 3 months.

Industry standard just for the clinical trial is 1-2 years. So if the industry standard is applied, Pfizer’s jab is just now completing its clinical trial. Assuming the clinical trial started somewhere close to the timeline as listed ... IOW ... that discovery and pre-clinical stages were completed correctly and the clinical trial started last summer as it would have. We don’t have to discuss whether it did or didn’t ... let’s just assuming it did and proceed from there.

The cv vax is about 6 years ahead of schedule ... per the industry standard.

This tells us how long certain drugs took to be developed. It does not tell us what time is required.

You are avoiding the issue. I suspect 50 years from now you'd be saying "we need ten more years".

 

[Two Wings]

This tells us how long certain drugs took to be developed. It does not tell us what time is required.

You are avoiding the issue. I suspect 50 years from now you'd be saying "we need ten more years".

There we go ... back to more projection.

Past development is relevant as it literally establishes the standard. I’ll grant ya some are sooner while others can be later.

But the pre clinical trial period as applied, would have to have started long before anyone had heard of covid 19, right?

it’s the only mRNA vaccine against corona viruses which has been released for use in the general public ... and while work in veterinarian circles are 10 plus years old ... mRNA corona viruses vaccines for humans are not.

 

[JonC]

There we go ... back to more projection.

Past development is relevant as it literally establishes the standard. I’ll grant ya some are sooner while others can be later.

But the pre clinical trial period as applied, would have to have started long before anyone had heard of covid 19, right?

it’s the only mRNA vaccine against corona viruses which has been released for use in the general public ... and while work in veterinarian circles are 10 plus years old ... mRNA corona viruses vaccines for humans are not.

No. The industry standard is a timeline, not a time frame.

You have medications that had a 4 week clinical trials over less than 2 years. Yet you 7gnore that to say the time it takes for clinical trials should never be shorter than what?....5 years....10 years?

You are making stuff up now because YOU do not want to take a vaccine that has been vetted, has been approved, but did not meet YOUR time-frame.

That is fine. Don't take it. BUT you have no right to demand a medication is not approved simply because YOU want it to take longer.

You should just wait. But YOU are not the standard for vaccine approval.

 

[Two Wings]

No. The industry standard is a timeline, not a time frame.

You have medications that had a 4 week clinical trials over less than 2 years. Yet you 7gnore that to say the time it takes for clinical trials should never be shorter than what?....5 years....10 years?

You are making stuff up now because YOU do not want to take a vaccine that has been vetted, has been approved, but did not meet YOUR time-frame.

That is fine. Don't take it. BUT you have no right to demand a medication is not approved simply because YOU want it to take longer.

You should just wait. But YOU are not the standard for vaccine approval.

Ah. More projection. You’re getting proficient Jon

i didnt make the timeline. It clearly shows the standard of the time.

u keep referring to some oral drug … ok. Cool. How many new vaccine types went from zero to 60 in less than 12 months?

you keep insisting this is all done properly

i wont presume why you keep saying this … but u do.

i am secure in my decision for myself you should consider that your advocacy removes that decision for millions.