You Either Keep Getting Your Booster Shots Or Admit You Were Wrong

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Those who have claimed emergency authorisations as proving safety and effectiveness have had their arguments refuted.

I don't recall anyone making that argument, so that is a moot point.

You are battling windmills.

You are agreeing that in one year you cannot establish safety and effectiveness. Excellent!!!

Hence the products were distributed without being safe and effective. And a safe and effective vaccine is one that has been proven to be safe and effective.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
But that wasn't the point being made, what was said was that phase 3 can be short and long term effects are not known until after things are made publically available. You even said you agree.

You can't release a product into the market if it is not safe and effective. For this to happen you need to know short, medium, and long term effects as well as the benefit to risk ratio in all age groups. They didn't. Hence the product was not safe and effective.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Would you have taken it if you knew that the trial before the rollout showed 1 in 800 serious adverse events?

I'd take it now, if I felt there was a benefit, because I don't share the clinical picture of the people that resulted in those numbers.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: daskakik
Would you have taken it if you knew that the trial before the rollout showed 1 in 800 serious adverse events?

That is a very good question!!

Or if you knew

A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial.

a reply to: Asmodeus3
Actually you can, that was the point.

Obviously they did and the EUAs just made it a bit easier/quicker.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
Actually you can, that was the point.

Obviously they did and the EUAs just make it a bit easier.

You cannot release a product in the market that is not safe and effective and assert that it is. This is deceptive and scandalous.

Good that you agree that these products were not safe and effective but we're released in the general population.

a reply to: Asmodeus3
If and when you can prove that you will have them dead to rights.

Until then...

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Would you have taken it if you knew that the trial before the rollout showed 1 in 800 serious adverse events?

I'd take it now, if I felt there was a benefit, because I don't share the clinical picture of the people that resulted in those numbers.

Don't you feel there's a benefit now?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Don't you feel there's a benefit now?

I never actually took any mRNA jab. The ones I did get I got to give my daughter peace of mind. That was the benefit I saw.

She is no longer worried so there is no longer any benefit in me getting more boosters.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

There is no such thing as accelerated clinical phase trials.

Nobody can conclude if the product is safe and effective in a year or so. If you don't know the short, medium, and long term effects,

You can keep saying this and still be incorrect. Phase 3 trials is 300+ people for about 1 to 4 years, and most are closer to 1 than 4, so how do you get med long-range information from that? If they are using about 1000 people, how do you get much of anything outside of issues that may impact larger percentages of the people using it. Anything that hits a smaller percentage is typically not found until Phase 4 when they monitor the use of the drug within the general population. This is where they can have any size they want and monitor for many years.

This is how all drugs are done all over the world. Your idea there is some massive testing for many years once they get to Phase 3 is just not there and that level of observations can only happen once the drug is actually being sold to the public. Hell EU is even quicker than our FDA.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

There is no such thing as accelerated clinical phase trials.

Nobody can conclude if the product is safe and effective in a year or so. If you don't know the short, medium, and long term effects,

You can keep saying this and still be incorrect. Phase 3 trials is 300+ people for about 1 to 4 years, and most are closer to 1 than 4, so how do you get med long-range information from that? If they are using about 1000 people, how do you get much of anything outside of issues that may impact larger percentages of the people using it. Anything that hits a smaller percentage is typically not found until Phase 4 when they monitor the use of the drug within the general population. This is where they can have any size they want and monitor for many years.

This is how all drugs are done all over the world. Your idea there is some massive testing for many years once they get to Phase 3 is just not there and that level of observations can only happen once the drug is actually being sold to the public. Hell EU is even quicker than our FDA.

Yep, it normally takes 10 years for a "vaccine" to make it to market, but 1 year is normal. Right.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Do you go and hope that it will have much less serious adverse reactions in the real world??!!

No matter the drug, you base the risk of the illness to the risk of the drug. As I have said you would not want to mandate even aspirin across 6 billion people when 95%+ do not even need it. You will, even with aspirin, be serious effects, like dangerous bleeding and deaths while they really do not need the drug in the first place. We can also say you would not want to mandate chemo for the same reason though chemo is extremely bad for anyone, but cancer is worst.

If you use a drug/procedure correctly no matter how dangerous it is (chemo) then it is still good. If you use a drug incorrectly (opioids) then it can be bad, but it is all based on the use and not the drug itself.

I just noticed that this "it takes 10 years" claim thrown around is the same one used by some people, who they would probably consider big pharma apologists, for the high prices of medications.

Guess politics isn't the only thing that makes for strange bedfellows.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

Yep, it normally takes 10 years for a "vaccine" to make it to market, but 1 year is normal. Right.

You actually have a reading problem, I think. I used Phase 3 and Phase 4 a number of times, so I didn't imply maybe the whole life cycle of a drug from start to finish.

I’m a RN in my late 50s, got J&J and Moderna booster (required by my job). I’ve been exposed to Covid and never contracted it. However, I'm not boosting again due to a lack of evidence of safety or efficacy. I know at least 1000 people that have gotten C19 vax and had ZERO adverse effects, however few are boosting unless they’re over 70 a reply to: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: McGinty

originally posted by: chr0naut

There are numerous far more deadly causes of death (and probably preventable, too, if there was sufficient political will to stop these deaths) that are tolerated in the US.

How many die in traffic accidents?
How many die from misuse of firearms?
How many die from crime?
How many die from poisonings and overdoses?
How many die from simply taking stupid risks?
How many die from cancers caused by exposure to environmental carcinogens (because alternative chemicals are too expensive).

So if more people die in traffic accidents than from falling from a building, is it then safer to fall from a building?

These are both highly likely causes of death. Safety comes from reducing the overall risk of death...

Like not having an experimental genetic vaccine?

originally posted by: daskakik
I just noticed that this "it takes 10 years" claim thrown around is the same one used by some people, who they would probably consider big pharma apologists, for the high prices of medications.

Guess politics isn't the only thing that makes for strange bedfellows.

"It takes 10 years" is also a very generalized statement. First testing of mRNA on humans was around 2013, maybe before, so that would be around Phase 1. We also have some issues like yearly flu vaccines that are created every year for that year's flu season. When someone says it takes 10 years what do they mean by it. Some drugs can be tricky to test since the illness is rarer than others. The flu is not rare, and they used a massive number of people to test, something like rabies is rare, so kind of hard to test new rabies drugs if you do not have people with rabies to test on.

There are a good number of non-mRNA COVID vaccines out there too, and a main point to all this is mRNA technology is a game changer in time needed. They sequenced the COVID RNA used in the vaccine in a day and not many years, as example. So, how does that play into the whole "it takes 10 years" statement.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

There is no such thing as accelerated clinical phase trials.

Nobody can conclude if the product is safe and effective in a year or so. If you don't know the short, medium, and long term effects,

You can keep saying this and still be incorrect. Phase 3 trials is 300+ people for about 1 to 4 years, and most are closer to 1 than 4, so how do you get med long-range information from that? If they are using about 1000 people, how do you get much of anything outside of issues that may impact larger percentages of the people using it. Anything that hits a smaller percentage is typically not found until Phase 4 when they monitor the use of the drug within the general population. This is where they can have any size they want and monitor for many years.

This is how all drugs are done all over the world. Your idea there is some massive testing for many years once they get to Phase 3 is just not there and that level of observations can only happen once the drug is actually being sold to the public. Hell EU is even quicker than our FDA.

This is just word salad and as I said earlier there is no such thing as accelerated clinical phase trials. This term is only true in the minds of vaccine apologists and defenders of the pharmaceuticals.

The Emergency Authorisation by no means prices safety and effectiveness and the products approved under the Emergency Authorisation are not safe and effective.

You cannot release a product in the market that is not safe and effective and assert that it is. This is deceptive and scandalous.

originally posted by: McGinty

Like not having an experimental genetic vaccine?

At what point does one stop calling something extramental after first human testing? 5 years, 10 years, 50 years? Would 10 years form first human testing and 13 billion doses given still be experimental?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: McGinty

Indeed! But it's still a wacky logic to say you should risk something just because there are other risks in life. Best to measure things on their own merits imo

I been a pilot for 40+ years and every flight we did a risk assessment work sheet to compare the risk to the need of the flight, or in generic terms the reward. I have done this so much that it is imbedded in me in everything I do, so it's a part of my life.

Glad to hear it. It's Common Sense that everyone should utilise in every choice, even if often times it's without us aware we're doing it. Sadly far too many folk seem to lack this from birth, or it gets neutralised by the msm - they're talked out of using it