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

[JonC]

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.

The timeline is pretty much set. It is the time-frame that you are making up.

We cannot be stuck on a length of time. Should cars drive as slow as horses and buggies?

I gave you examples of medications which were approved in a short time frame. We can Olay pretend all day long....how long dud it take the last commercially avaliable mRNA vaccine to be approved? How long for last years flu vacvine (which is not the same as the flu vacvine the year before)?

I do not understand why you would not be thankful a vaccine has been vetted in time to address the current pandemic.

 

[percho]

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.

That all changes when you patent procedures to create a vaccine for a virus you are going to manufacture.

 

[Two Wings]

How long for last years flu vacvine (which is not the same as the flu vacvine the year before)?

red herring

same type of vaccine all that is needed is to change the modified live virus not the delivery system.

 

[percho]

time line ?

More harm than good! This is the video that reportedly got Dr Robert Malone banned off Twitter! (bitchute.com)

 

[JonC]

red herring

same type of vaccine all that is needed is to change the modified live virus not the delivery system.

So.....they can change the vaccine as long as it is the same type.....but if they change the name without changing anything else the vaccine changes?. Yea....that makes sense.

 

[Two Wings]

The timeline is pretty much set. It is the time-frame that you are making up.

We cannot be stuck on a length of time. Should cars drive as slow as horses and buggies?

I gave you examples of medications which were approved in a short time frame. We can Olay pretend all day long....how long dud it take the last commercially avaliable mRNA vaccine to be approved? How long for last years flu vacvine (which is not the same as the flu vacvine the year before)?

I do not understand why you would not be thankful a vaccine has been vetted in time to address the current pandemic.

Uhm

a timeline doesn’t contain a timeframe?

ah

well

harumph

 

[JonC]

Uhm

a timeline doesn’t contain a timeframe?

ah

well

harumph

Timeline - "a chronological arrangement of events in the order of their occurrence."

There is a timeline required. BUT timelines do not prescribe lengths of time (they record time).

Vaccine approval is conducted within a prescribed order of events. But the time required for these phases are not prescribed (they are recorded).

Dude.....the requirements from start to finish is listed on the FDA website.

When you want to know the vetting process all you have to do is go to the approving agency. You pretend you are a doctor-virologist-approving authority, but you just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

 

[Two Wings]

Timeline - "a chronological arrangement of events in the order of their occurrence."

There is a timeline required. BUT timelines do not prescribe lengths of time (they record time).

Vaccine approval is conducted within a prescribed order of events. But the time required for these phases are not prescribed (they are recorded).

Dude.....the requirements from start to finish is listed on the FDA website.

When you want to know the vetting process all you have to do is go to the approving agency. You pretend you are a doctor-virologist-approving authority, but you just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

i am pretending nothing. That you think I am is more telling of yourself.

more projection from a moderator.

the timeline I found is that of what is apparently typical in the industry for bringing a drug into prescribable use.
I had nothing to do w the values nor the breakdown of the timeline phases. All i did was share it.

If you have a problem with the chart, contact the WEF … again … we will avoid the discussion of why the WEF has such a product.

i did a search for “how long does it normally take to get a vaccine approved”. The search engine produced the WEF chart.

This one clearly blew through a couple of the steps .. unless you are going to say someone knew this was coming and began working on this very substance before we had the disease.

that might be another discussion to avoid.

I have tried to adhere as close to Matt 18 as possible regarding your title as a moderator. I don’t seek to squelch you but having done your job on other BBS, you are demonstrating an inability to carry buckets of water and instead carry buckets of gasoline.

i wanted to avoid this … but here it is.

perhaps I am the one dismissed. If so … well … I was doing ok before I arrived.

I appreciate this is a sensitive subject for you, Jon, but as long as you are going to participate as a moderator, a bit more discretion is warranted.

All the best.

 

[JonC]

i am pretending nothing. That you think I am is more telling of yourself.

more projection from a moderator.

the timeline I found is that of what is apparently typical in the industry for bringing a drug into prescribable use.
I had nothing to do w the values nor the breakdown of the timeline phases. All i did was share it.

If you have a problem with the chart, contact the WEF … again … we will avoid the discussion of why the WEF has such a product.

i did a search for “how long does it normally take to get a vaccine approved”. The search engine produced the WEF chart.

This one clearly blew through a couple of the steps .. unless you are going to say someone knew this was coming and began working on this very substance before we had the disease.

that might be another discussion to avoid.

I have tried to adhere as close to Matt 18 as possible regarding your title as a moderator. I don’t seek to squelch you but having done your job on other BBS, you are demonstrating an inability to carry buckets of water and instead carry buckets of gasoline.

i wanted to avoid this … but here it is.

perhaps I am the one dismissed. If so … well … I was doing ok before I arrived.

I appreciate this is a sensitive subject for you, Jon, but as long as you are going to participate as a moderator, a bit more discretion is warranted.

All the best.

I don't have a problem with charts. I am saying that I have not found a time requirement. That's all.

I find a series of chronological phases or steps that must be followed. I see this in the charts you provide.

But none of the past examples waited prescribed amounts of time (they are all different). I see the same steps required for all medications. But I also see clinical trials lasting under a year fir medications.

I think I missed something here -

I do not know what you are talking about more discretion being warranted. I've only expressed my opinions about the vaccine approval process.

More discretion about what??????

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about with dismissals.

Who is being dismissed?

Do you mean they are being dismissed from the forum???? If so, why????

Why would you be dismissed??? Are you saying you decided to leave the BB?

If so, I hope you reconsider. I enjoy your posts, and we agree on much (just not about covid). I enjoy arguing positions but am not emotionally tied to the topic. If you prefer not to "debate" our views on the vaccine that is fine - its not really that important and will not accomplish anything. I was unaware you were taking the topic personally.


This is far from a sensitive topic for me, but I do have opinions. I am much more interested in the comments you made that I do not understand.

They just don't make sense to me. I don't know where you are getting that stuff.

 

[JonC]

i am pretending nothing. That you think I am is more telling of yourself.

more projection from a moderator.

I also have to ask, why is it when I challenge, debate, or argue the response I get references me being a moderator?

Moderators and administrators are first and foremost members of the board. We did not join the BB to be moderators but to interact as members.

I do not mind that you believe I am projecting in my responses to you, that isn't the issue at all. The issue is you seem to believe I should not express my beliefs because I am a moderator.

There are a couple of thinks you may want to keep in mind. I consider moderating the forum snd interacting as a member to be two separate things.

I do not moderate posts where I am involved, I don't delete posts where I am involved, and (of course) as a moderator I do not ban members (that is an administrator task). As a member I am subject to the moderation of other staff members.

What I am asking of you is that you try to interact it me as a member of this forum and as a brother. I would refer that you refrain from dragging my moderator position into our arguments as this is something that I do not do. When you do this it sounds (to me) more like an insult than a counter argument.

For the record, I did mean the "Holiday Inn Express" comment tongue in cheek. I realize that neither of us are qualified to make a decision about viruses and vaccines as neither of us are experts in the field.

 

[Two Wings]

I get references me being a moderator?

it's not because you are challenging/debating/arguing that is a problem; even as a moderator. It's that you're engaging in ad hominem, (personal attacks), presumption of a person you know only from BBS posts, and some inflammatory statements. (the buckets of gasoline reference)

As a moderator, you should be able to avoid all of these. Good natured needling (so to speak) ... all well and good. The HI thing ... funny. stating (with apparent sincerity) I'm pretending to be a virologist just makes ya look silly and I expect that isn't the intent, but it IS the result.

I realize that neither of us are qualified to make a decision about viruses and vaccines as neither of us are experts in the field.

I'm not the one saying this, you are. Make all the decisions, and declarations for that matter, about viruses and vaccines you want. Knowledge is no respecter of person ... nor credential.

 

[JonC]

it's not because you are challenging/debating/arguing that is a problem; even as a moderator. It's that you're engaging in ad hominem, (personal attacks), presumption of a person you know only from BBS posts, and some inflammatory statements. (the buckets of gasoline reference)

As a moderator, you should be able to avoid all of these. Good natured needling (so to speak) ... all well and good. The HI thing ... funny. stating (with apparent sincerity) I'm pretending to be a virologist just makes ya look silly and I expect that isn't the intent, but it IS the result.



I'm not the one saying this, you are. Make all the decisions, and declarations for that matter, about viruses and vaccines you want. Knowledge is no respecter of person ... nor credential.

Ultimately this is about a legitimate disagreement you are taking as an insult.

My saying that neither of us are qualified when it comes to viruses and vaccines is not an insult but my sincerely held belief.

Your comment that knowledge is not a respecter of persons is silly.

God is not a respecter of persons. But knowledge is obtained.

How can you be qualified without having acquired the qualifications?

Having never studied to pilot an aircraft, why would I be on par with you concerning piloting an airplane???

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one, brother. But it goes back to what I have been saying. We each choose our sources, even if you are your own.

For me, I do trust the conclusion of those who are academically qualified, those virologists who have worked with viruses for decades, the scientists who have developed effective vaccines in the past, and the analysts who have tracked viruses and varients as an occupation.

I just see no reason to rely on my own understanding here just as I would not rely on my own understanding when it comes to flying a commercial airplane.

That said, if you hear me knocking at the cockpit door please feel free to let me in. I'll give it a try. I know up from down and have a fairly decent grasp on physics. Just ignore the objections of the passengers and let me land that sucker.

 

[Two Wings]

Your comment that knowledge is not a respecter of persons is silly.

this was supposed to illustrate that just because a person isn't credentialed in a given field, that person CAN have knowledge in that field.

You don't need my expertise of flying to know anything about flying. That if you offer knowledge about flying, it's knowledge. your credential doesn't qualify it ... it qualifies YOU. Your statement may be challenged, but that challenge doesn't change what you know.

I've already used the gasoline/water analogy ... another I try to keep at the conscious level is a Mark Twain quote (or at least I've heard it attributed to him) ... ~ "it isn't so much what you don't know that gets ya in trouble, it's what you know that t'aint so."

We need to be real careful about attributing too much to a person because of a credential these days. Just because Fauci says it doesn't make it so. Deception is the rule of the day, and the order of our immediate future.

... and you're welcome to enter my cockpit anytime ... landing is easy ... just close your eyes and wait until the first officer gasps, then pull back and select idle.

 

[JonC]

this was supposed to illustrate that just because a person isn't credentialed in a given field, that person CAN have knowledge in that field.

You don't need my expertise of flying to know anything about flying. That if you offer knowledge about flying, it's knowledge. your credential doesn't qualify it ... it qualifies YOU. Your statement may be challenged, but that challenge doesn't change what you know.

I've already used the gasoline/water analogy ... another I try to keep at the conscious level is a Mark Twain quote (or at least I've heard it attributed to him) ... ~ "it isn't so much what you don't know that gets ya in trouble, it's what you know that t'aint so."

We need to be real careful about attributing too much to a person because of a credential these days. Just because Fauci says it doesn't make it so. Deception is the rule of the day, and the order of our immediate future.

... and you're welcome to enter my cockpit anytime ... landing is easy ... just close your eyes and wait until the first officer gasps, then pull back and select idle.

A knowledge OF that field, I agree....but that is dependent on the knowledge of others who are experts IN that field.

The funny thing is I really do not care.

I joined in the vaccine debate because members were complaining about misinformation being posted by a few members. My interest is theology and fishing.

 

[Two Wings]

A knowledge OF that field, I agree....but that is dependent on the knowledge of others who are experts IN that field.

no it isn't.

You can have a thorough understanding of Bernoulli's principal without being 30 plus year professional pilot ... and that experienced pilot's knowledge of Bernoulli isn't more credible than yours if you have that understanding ... and you can.

The funny thing is I really do not care.

wow, really? You sure engage consistently for someone who doesn't care!

I joined in the vaccine debate because members were complaining about misinformation being posted by a few members

So the task is determining who's liar/thief sources are lying/stealing the least?

 

[JonC]

wow, really? You sure engage consistently for someone who doesn't care!

Yea....elsewhere I was in a heated argument t about how teams are chosen in the SEC, arguing that Georgia and Alabama should play.

Guess what I don't watch. Yep. Football. I couldn't care less. But it was an interesting debate.

So the task is determining who's liar/thief sources are lying/stealing the least?

No. The data is there. The difference is the conclusions (once you get past those with agendas).

I dismiss the conclusions of Revmitchell's sources because his sources, beyond not being experts in the field, have a stated agenda to discredit vaccinations. I ignore Fauci's as a source because I believe he is too much a politician. But I believe most in the field (even if they hold different opinions) are working to help mankind without a political agenda. I see this in the nuclear industry (which has its own politicians, but also its own scientists).

 

[Two Wings]

But I believe most in the field (even if they hold different opinions) are working to help mankind without a political agenda

this is the part where it's a challenge to discern for the typical/average "layperson."

There is a lot of credential on both sides. I find "follow the money" usually is the best sort. Given Fauci has been the primary proponent of the current narrative, even those with honorable intent are sullied by association with him ... because the narrative is the same.

There are also those who started pro cv jab (because of their interest/profession) and have changed their minds.

 

[JonC]

this is the part where it's a challenge to discern for the typical/average "layperson."

There is a lot of credential on both sides. I find "follow the money" usually is the best sort. Given Fauci has been the primary proponent of the current narrative, even those with honorable intent are sullied by association with him ... because the narrative is the same.

There are also those who started pro cv jab (because of their interest/profession) and have changed their minds.

I disagree about the "follow the money" part....well....to an extent.

In my industry you can follow the money to the federal contract company. These change (normally a 10 year contract). But the scientists do not change. They do not make more money to ensure results are favorable to the company. And the company itself reports issues, even if it results in fines. There is more integrity out there than you are allowing.

The fact that Fauci, Biden, and Trump follow the pro-vaccine narrative does not mean that narrative is incorrect.

 

[Two Wings]

I disagree about the "follow the money" part....well....to an extent.

In my industry you can follow the money to the federal contract company. These change (normally a 10 year contract). But the scientists do not change. They do not make more money to ensure results are favorable to the company. And the company itself reports issues, even if it results in fines. There is more integrity out there than you are allowing.

The fact that Fauci, Biden, and Trump follow the pro-vaccine narrative does not mean that narrative is incorrect.

most of those who I've encountered/read/heard who are institutional ... are corrupted.

No, the results to wit have made the narrative incorrect ... starting with masks on planes through this deal with bribed/coerced cv jabs.

Because what isn't accounted is the natural immunity in the reduction of the spread ... it necessarily increases over time if there's any such thing as more folks acquire it. Natural immunity hasn't been shown nor theorized to adversely affect the ability of the immune system to combat pathogens other than Sarscov2 ... covid19 IS causing myocarditis, but that condition is temporary with the existence of the disease. The occurrences of this effect by the cv jabs endure as long as the cv jab is "current." ... which appears to be settling-in at every 6 months ... so the risk factor increases with every cv jab and if the condition is already present, gets extended ... for a disease which is exceedingly survivable. what's the current survivability rate of those basically healthy and younger than 75?

 

[JonC]

most of those who I've encountered/read/heard who are institutional ... are corrupted.

No, the results to wit have made the narrative incorrect ... starting with masks on planes through this deal with bribed/coerced cv jabs.

Because what isn't accounted is the natural immunity in the reduction of the spread ... it necessarily increases over time if there's any such thing as more folks acquire it. Natural immunity hasn't been shown nor theorized to adversely affect the ability of the immune system to combat pathogens other than Sarscov2 ... covid19 IS causing myocarditis, but that condition is temporary with the existence of the disease. The occurrences of this effect by the cv jabs endure as long as the cv jab is "current." ... which appears to be settling-in at every 6 months ... so the risk factor increases with every cv jab and if the condition is already present, gets extended ... for a disease which is exceedingly survivable. what's the current survivability rate of those basically healthy and younger than 75?

The risk of death (on average) for a 60 year old us 1% and this decreases with age. Unfortunately the risk of death has increased among a younger population, but it is still under 1%. The risk of death post-vaccine for a medical reason (regardless of the cause) is less than .02%

So he risks are very low when it comes to covid and vaccines.

Here is where I believe numbers matter. 1% is 79,000,000 human beings. .02% is 1,580,000 human beings (this is post-vaccine deaths from a medical cause regardless of whether related to a vaccine).


It boils down to whether a less than .02% risk is worth saving 67,150,000 human lives.