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

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
They got EUAs but the point made was that even using the normal speed SOP won't necessarily give much mid and no long term data.

You are free to shake your fist at the sky as hard as you like.

Emergency authorisation does not establish safety and effectiveness.

Those who have claimed emergency authorisations as proving safety and effectiveness have had their arguments refuted.

the vaccine apologetics

The majority of your refutations depend on distrust of anything official. While there have been cases of the official narrative being incorrect, there have also been far more cases of it being true. The truth is that human beings are not perfect at the best of times, and even with the best of intent.

What you feel about the authorities, is just your feelings, and has no evidential weight at all.

the anti-vax apologetics. There are no megadeaths happening. The vast majority have no adverse reactions at all.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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.

I never used the word accelerated in that post, that is a normal Phase 3 trials that has been that way for many decades. You are a lot like v1rtu0s0 where your replies have very little to do with what I posted.

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.

I never used the term "Emergency Authorization" so once again who are you actually talking to? Did you mix up my post with another?

a reply to: Xtrozero
I was just pointing out how it seems some here are using arguments made by people they seem to disagree with, when it suits them.

"It takes 10 years" although it doesn't have to take that long.

originally posted by: McGinty

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

We used to call it the Darwin awards.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
They got EUAs but the point made was that even using the normal speed SOP won't necessarily give much mid and no long term data.

You are free to shake your fist at the sky as hard as you like.

Emergency authorisation does not establish safety and effectiveness.

Those who have claimed emergency authorisations as proving safety and effectiveness have had their arguments refuted.

the vaccine apologetics

The majority of your refutations depend on distrust of anything official. While there have been cases of the official narrative being incorrect, there have also been far more cases of it being true. The truth is that human beings are not perfect at the best of times, and even with the best of intent.

What you feel about the authorities, is just your feelings, and has no evidential weight at all.

the anti-vax apologetics. There are no megadeaths happening. The vast majority have no adverse reactions at all.

Don't try to apologise for the official narratives and on behalf of the pharmaceuticals.

You are on record for making the most unsubstantiated claims including herd immunity via vaccinations, presenting the mRNA products as safe and effective, claiming that the Cambrian Explosion disproves evolution and many other things.

the vaccine apologetics

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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.

I never used the word accelerated in that post, that is a normal Phase 3 trials that has been that way for many decades. You are a lot like v1rtu0s0 where your replies have very little to do with what I posted.

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.

I never used the term "Emergency Authorization" so once again who are you actually talking to? Did you mix up my post with another?

Yes you did.

There are no accelerated clinical phase trials.

EUA stands for Emergency Use Authorisation.

Very true. Phase 3 is typically 1 to 4 years, much is based on funds and actually having people to test on. Accelerated Phase 3 is 3 months to 1 year. Phase 4 is post-market...

You don't even remember what you are saying.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xtrozero
I was just pointing out how it seems some here are using arguments made by people they seem to disagree with, when it suits them.

"It takes 10 years" although it doesn't have to take that long.

We both agree on this. It takes 10 years, so we need to charge billions, with the little Pinkey to the mouth... But then we are both asking so what does that 10 years mean? People here think a drug company typically run a Phase 3 trial for 10+ years and that is total BS, never has happen never will. The problem is they just can't suggest the vaccine mandates were wrong and leave it at that. They need to over hype it all and say everything was some evil plot to include the guy that dumps the trash at the lab.

The actual mandates were bad enough, so there actually isn't any need for the added-on doom porn.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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.

You are correct that a very large number of people did not need the 'vaccines'. It makes a very strong case for medical and criminal negligence.

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.

I still want to see where is the link about the risks from Aspirin. You said it caused 15.3 deaths per 100,000

Imagine what the mRNA products can do...

a reply to: chr0naut

Professor Retsef Levi

By now I believe that the cumulative evidence is conclusive and confirms our concern that the mRNA vaccines indeed cause sudden cardiac arrest as a sequel of vaccine-induced myocarditis

And finally, autopsies of people that die closely after they receive the vaccine indicate that with the enlarged number of cases, there is strong evidence that the death was caused by vaccine-induced myocarditis.

So presented with all of this evidence, I think that there is no other ethical or scientific choice but to pull out of the market these medical products and stop all the mRNA vaccination programmes. This is clearly the most failing medical product in the history of medical products, both in terms of efficacy and safety. And we need to investigate and think hard: How did we end up in a situation that it’s also the most profitable medical product in the history of medical products

originally posted by: McGinty

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?

The disease which the vaccines provide an early immune response to, is significantly more dangerous than the vaccines, is highly infectious, and is widespread. The decision is about comparative risk. Even table salt and common foods pose some risks. The solution is not to stop eating, because starvation poses far greater risk to life and health.

All living things have genetic code. Viruses, which are at an arguable boundary between living and non-living things, have a genomic code, too. This is how nature functions.

In the 21st century, manipulated genomics are a fact of life and are no longer experimental. A significant number of food and medicinal products that you probably consume every day have been genetically manipulated. This is especially true in the US, where there is no requirement to provide notification that a food product has been genetically modified, and little control over GMO's:

Genetically modified food in the United States - Wikipedia

The experimental phase of the vaccines ended with phase 3 trials, which were completed prior to the emergency use authorization being granted. Since then, more than 13 billion doses have been administered. It is way past being experimental.

a reply to: Xtrozero
The 10 years is something they got from actual pharma apologists and they are now trying to argue that phase 3 takes that long because, in their minds, long term effects need to be shown before going public, when that has never been the case.

I honestly don't understand why they can't grasp that.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Yes you did.

There are no accelerated clinical phase trials.

You just do not read do you.. You addressed the "accelerated" in a prior post and I then readdressed a normal Phase 3 trials where you readdressed "accelerated" once again which had zero to do with that post you replied to.

You don't even remember what you are saying.

Please answer the actual posts you are replying to, that is all I ask.

You also seem to make hard factual statements that with a simple search disproves what you suggest over and over as facts, so I also suggest you learn how to use a search engine before you spew your so called "facts".

If there are no such thing as accelerated Phase 3 trials, then what are these and the dozen on dozen more one can easily search for.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I still want to see where is the link about the risks from Aspirin. You said it caused 15.3 deaths per 100,000

Imagine what the mRNA products can do...

Google it...see my follow-on post above...lol

Here I'll help you.... aspirin 15.3 deaths per 100,000

This information has been linked time and time again and none of us here are your personal search engine.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I still want to see where is the link about the risks from Aspirin. You said it caused 15.3 deaths per 100,000

Imagine what the mRNA products can do...

Google it...see my follow-on post above...lol

Here I'll help you.... aspirin 15.3 deaths per 100,000

This information has been linked time and time again and none of us here are your personal search engine.

I want to see where is it. I couldn't find it and since you mentioned it and you have made a comparison between Aspirin and mRNA vaccines...

If there are 15.3 deaths per 100,000 from Aspirin imagine what happens if a billion people use Aspirin. Probably there are more than a billion on the planet that use it. Do we have 153,000 or even more deaths from Aspirin every year?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Yes you did.

There are no accelerated clinical phase trials.

You just do not read do you.. You addressed the "accelerated" in a prior post and I then readdressed a normal Phase 3 trials where you readdressed "accelerated" once again which had zero to do with that post you replied to.

You don't even remember what you are saying.

Please answer the actual posts you are replying to, that is all I ask.

You also seem to make hard factual statements that with a simple search disproves what you suggest over and over as facts, so I also suggest you learn how to use a search engine before you spew your so called "facts".

If there are no such thing as accelerated Phase 3 trials, then what are these and the dozen on dozen more one can easily search for.

You said

Very true. Phase 3 is typically 1 to 4 years, much is based on funds and actually having people to test on. Accelerated Phase 3 is 3 months to 1 year. Phase 4 is post-market...

And you said above that you didn't use the word accelerated. But it is there....

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
And you said above that you didn't use the word accelerated. But it is there....

Let me help you with that, they said

I never used the word accelerated in that post...

You then went out and found one to prop up this strawman.

a reply to: Xtrozero
I will say this for once more as it hasn't been understood well.

The three clinical phase trials cannot be squeezed in a year or so.

Right there is what everyone has been saying.

It takes years to establish safety and effectiveness before you distribute the products to the general population.

Phase 3 clinical trial lasts for long where medium and long term effects are established.

You seem not get the idea of how safety and effectiveness are established. They are not established after the products are distributed into the market but before.

And there is still pharmacovigilance after the product has been released in phase 4.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
And you said above that you didn't use the word accelerated. But it is there....

Let me help you with that, they said

I never used the word accelerated in that post...

You then went out and found one to prop up this strawman.

No need for defense lawyers


the vaccine apologetics

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
They got EUAs but the point made was that even using the normal speed SOP won't necessarily give much mid and no long term data.

You are free to shake your fist at the sky as hard as you like.

Emergency authorisation does not establish safety and effectiveness.

Those who have claimed emergency authorisations as proving safety and effectiveness have had their arguments refuted.

the vaccine apologetics

The majority of your refutations depend on distrust of anything official. While there have been cases of the official narrative being incorrect, there have also been far more cases of it being true. The truth is that human beings are not perfect at the best of times, and even with the best of intent.

What you feel about the authorities, is just your feelings, and has no evidential weight at all.

the anti-vax apologetics. There are no megadeaths happening. The vast majority have no adverse reactions at all.

Don't try to apologise for the official narratives and on behalf of the pharmaceuticals.

You are on record for making the most unsubstantiated claims including herd immunity via vaccinations

Where is the alpha strain now? Why is the alpha strain now extinct? Could it be that there are now no more hosts who can carry and transmit the strain? Isn't that the operation of herd immunity, which you are denying is happening? What other reason would a successfully infectious viral strain go extinct for?

, presenting the mRNA products as safe and effective

Yes. Please read the results of the Cleveland study (What it says in the study, not nurse Campbell's reinterpretation).

, claiming that the Cambrian Explosion disproves evolution

As I have said before, the Cambrian Explosion does not disprove evolution. But evolution cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion. Even Darwin admitted to that. Therefore, there must be other things that are not evolutionary theory, that along with evolutionary theory, provide explanation. You keep misquoting me, and I must assume it is malicious and you are intentionally lying.

and many other things.

the vaccine apologetics

I am not apologizing for the vaccines.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

If there are 15.3 deaths per 100,000 from Aspirin imagine what happens if a billion people use Aspirin. Probably there are more than a billion on the planet that use it. Do we have 153,000 or even more deaths from Aspirin every year?

This goes back to my main point that ALL drugs are dangerous and so do not use a drug unless the risk of the illness is greater. If our fabulous Government used the EUA to get the vaccine to the very old and high-risk groups only, that the virus was devastating on, and didn't push some stupid mandate allowing 18+ to make their own choice, we would not be having these conversations today about the vaccine.