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

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
No need for defense lawyers

the vaccine apologetics

That implies no need for prosecutors but, here you are.

You should also think about the use of that lame ad hom fallacy you keep whipping out.

It has already been shown that just disagreeing with you doesn't make someone a vaccine apologist. I'm not here defending pfizer or any other pharma corp. I am here denying the ignorance you keep posting.

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

Herd immunity is a debunked claim which is made by vaccine apologists and those who want to argue in favour of mass vaccinations.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

It reminds me in another thread where another vaccine apologist claimed that Covid-19 has come from SARS-CoV-2, both being virus.

And another one who has said that the Spanish Flu Pandemic lasted for a decade and was ended by the use of vaccines...


The other claims were made in my other thread

BREAKING: MIT Professor calls for the immediate suspension of all mRNA vaccines

I wonder why the good Professor wants the suspension of all mRNA products. He must be an 'anti-vaxxer'

a reply to: Xtrozero


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?

Are you comparing Aspirin to the mRNA products?

a reply to: chr0naut

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?

All RNA viruses mutate over time, some more than others..

Variants of viruses occur when there is a change — or mutation — to the virus's genes.

Taken from JohnHopkinsmedicine.org
(Covid variants: What you should know)

Basically......they don't change because of herd immunity.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Basically......they don't change because of herd immunity.

I think the point was that they die out because of it.

Just saying.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Basically......they don't change because of herd immunity.

I think the point was that they die out because of it.

Just saying.

The member has been claiming that herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 can be achieved via vaccination. But that is not true.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
The member has been claiming that herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 can be achieved via vaccination. But that is not true.

That wasn't what I was replying to.

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?

Are you comparing Aspirin to the mRNA products?

If we look at the group that uses the 87mg for (very small amount) for blood thinning, we see around 4000 deaths in America and 20,000 serious cases of bleeding.

My point is if we DID mandate aspirin, we could easily see 153,000 deaths, but 330 million people are not using aspirin every day. If we look at the group that actually uses aspirin as a treatment it comes out to 15.7 per 100,000 deaths.

This wasn't really a topic I was looking at debating other than to say that ALL drugs to include aspirin that has been around for like 4000 years are dangerous at some level. and something like 1 per 100,000 is actually considered safe.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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?

Are you comparing Aspirin to the mRNA products?

If we look at the group that uses the 87mg for (very small amount) for blood thinning, we see around 4000 deaths in America and 20,000 serious cases of bleeding.

My point is if we DID mandate aspirin, we could easily see 153,000 deaths, but 330 million people are not using aspirin every day. If we look at the group that actually uses aspirin as a treatment it comes out to 15.7 per 100,000 deaths.

This wasn't really a topic I was looking at debating other than to say that ALL drugs to include aspirin that has been around for like 4000 years are dangerous at some level. and something like 1 per 100,000 is actually considered safe.

Still I don't know where you got the figure from as you wanted to make comparisons between aspirin and the mRNA products.

You said 15.3 deaths per 100,000
Is this a global average?

If it is then we will have more than 153,000 as that amount of deaths applied to 1 billion users. But there could be many more than a billion users on the planet.

Imagine you have 15.3 fatalities per 100,000 vaccinees?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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

As I said you already addressed my use of the term accelerated in a previous post. I then just talked about phase 3 trials being 1+ years long as a "normal" time frame, and you went back to talking about accelerated once again and in that follow-on post I wasn't talking about accelerated. In the post you replied to I never used the word accelerated IN THAT POST and wasn't what THAT POST was about... hence my statement that the word accelerated is not in THIS POST...

Accelerated is 3 to 9 months, normal is 1 to 4 years...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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

As I said you already addressed my use of the term accelerated in a previous post. I then just talked about phase 3 trials being 1+ years long as a "normal" time frame, and you went back to talking about accelerated once again and in that follow-on post I wasn't talking about accelerated. In the post you replied to I never used the word accelerated IN THAT POST and wasn't what THAT POST was about... hence my statement that the word accelerated is not in THIS POST...

Accelerated is 3 to 9 months, normal is 1 to 4 years...

You used it on the other post of yours. But there is no such thing as accelerated clinical phase trials. It is scandalous and deceptive to squeeze three clinical phase trials in one year or so.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
You used it on the other post of yours.

Derp:

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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

But there is no such thing as accelerated clinical phase trials.

They provided proof that there is.

It is scandalous and deceptive to squeeze three clinical phase trials in one year or so.

Well, that is basically what your complaint seems to be, stated over, and over, and over and over again.

Doesn't change the fact that it is done and has been for some time.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Still I don't know where you got the figure from as you wanted to make comparisons between aspirin and the mRNA products.


If it is then we will have more than 153,000 as that amount of deaths applied to 1 billion users. But there could be many more than a billion users on the planet.

Imagine you have 15.3 fatalities per 100,000 vaccinees?

Are you being obtuse on purpose, I think so.

here is one link...

Death rate attributed to NSAID/aspirin use was between 21.0 and 24.8 cases/million people, respectively, or 15.3 deaths/100,000 NSAID/aspirin users. Up to one-third of all NSAID/aspirin deaths can be attributed to low-dose aspirin use.

Obtuse

As I type in "aspirin 15.3 deaths per 100,000"

I see this on line 1



Why are you trying to be so difficult in all this?

Let me blow your mind even more...

Using Vioxx for arthritis pain carried a risk of 76 deaths per 100,000 people per year.
Using Tysabri, known generically as natalizumab, to treat multiple sclerosis raises the death rate by 65 per 100,000 people a year.

Want me to go on with a 100 more common drugs on the market? 15.3 is very safe...BTW so your BS 1 per 100,000 being super dangerous is something you need to rethink about.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
You used it on the other post of yours.

Derp:

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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

But there is no such thing as accelerated clinical phase trials.

They provided proof that there is.

It is scandalous and deceptive to squeeze three clinical phase trials in one year or so.

Well, that is basically what your complaint seems to be, stated over, and over, and over and over again.

Doesn't change the fact that it is done and has been for some time.

I don't remember such accelerated procedures in the past. And I can't remember all three clinical phase trials to be squeezed in one year or so.

And I can't remember anyone postulating that this process is safe and effective.

You really have to try hard argue that three different clinical phase trails can be squeezed in one year and this can determine a safe and effective product.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

You used it on the other post of yours. But there is no such thing as accelerated clinical phase trials. It is scandalous and deceptive to squeeze three clinical phase trials in one year or so.

As I asked of you... reply to the post at hand you are actually replying to, not one in the past... Makes it easier to follow you.

How can you say "there is no such thing as accelerated clinical phase trials" when an easy search shows dozens upon dozens going on right now? You can call them all scandalous, but it doesn't mean they do not exist or have never existed.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
I don't remember such accelerated procedures in the past. And I can't remember all three clinical phase trials to be squeezed in one year or so.

And I can't remember anyone postulating that this process is safe and effective.

What you do and don't remember doesn't dictate reality.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
I don't remember such accelerated procedures in the past. And I can't remember all three clinical phase trials to be squeezed in one year or so.

And I can't remember anyone postulating that this process is safe and effective.

What you do and don't remember doesn't dictate reality.

But still three different clinical phase trials to be squeezed in one year or so looks like a very 'accelerated' process that can have very damaging effects, as it has had already

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
But still three different clinical phase trials to be squeezed in one year or so looks like a very 'accelerated' process that can have very damaging effects, as it has had already

Can't your read?

One phase (phase 3) can last as little as 1 year.

When a company has done research for years, maybe even decades, on something and they have phase 1 and 2 done but can't move forward because there is no way to move on to phase 3, then when the opportunity is there it can take as little as 1 year. Less if it is considered an emergency situation.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

You used it on the other post of yours. But there is no such thing as accelerated clinical phase trials. It is scandalous and deceptive to squeeze three clinical phase trials in one year or so.

As I asked of you... reply to the post at hand you are actually replying to, not one in the past... Makes it easier to follow you.

How can you say "there is no such thing as accelerated clinical phase trials" when an easy search shows dozens upon dozens going on right now? You can call them all scandalous, but it doesn't mean they do not exist or have never existed.

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

If the rate of deaths is anywhere near to 15.3 deaths or 100,000 can you make the maths in hoe many deaths you will have in 5.5 to 6 billion vaccinees?

You have 153,000 in every billion and around 765,000 in 5 billion vaccinated individuals.

Without counting the serious adverse reactions that are multiples of this number.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
But still three different clinical phase trials to be squeezed in one year or so looks like a very 'accelerated' process that can have very damaging effects, as it has had already

Can't your read?

One phase (phase 3) can last as little as 1 year.

When a company has done research for years, maybe even decades, on something and they have phase 1 and 2 done but can't move forward because there is no way to move on to phase 3, then when the opportunity is there it can take as little as 1 year. Less if it is considered an emergency situation.

This is an official narrative that you try to peddle. There has been no other 'approved' mRNA vaccines in the past. And no vaccines exist for any other coronaviruses.

Emergency authorisation bypasses safety and effectiveness. It's that simple.