- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 16,581
- Reaction score
- 2,337
- Country
Look it up, the answers are all out there.
MHRA Vaccine Figures. **LInks are required for claims**
Look it up, the answers are all out there.
Sponsored Links
Define 'over many years'...
Oh but I forgot, you make things up as you go along
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 16,581
- Reaction score
- 2,337
- Country
Lots and lots of years....
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,775
- Reaction score
- 702
- Country
The techniology is only part of what's relevant.
You can't claim that's the most important part, without some evidence.
Injections are technology..
What's INSIDE the vaccine at codon level rather that its administration method, also matters significantly.
To me it's indisputably true that these vaccines didn't get the normal phase 3 testing because there simply wasn't the time normally allowed. But by now, significant time has passed so that criticism is less valid. Monitoring is certainly occurring.
True, there may some problem 20 years down the line, but that could apply to a lot of things so it's the monitoring that's relied on, as normal.
.
My criticism with the boosters is that it's the same vaccine; I expected modifications by now to help stop people catching the disease, which is still happening too much. "They know" something of where tweaks can be made from in-silico (computer) and in-vitro (cultures) trials, and the natural-infection antibodies have been analysed for quite a while. I don't know what the delay is. Anyone seen that?
You can't claim that's the most important part, without some evidence.
Injections are technology..
What's INSIDE the vaccine at codon level rather that its administration method, also matters significantly.
To me it's indisputably true that these vaccines didn't get the normal phase 3 testing because there simply wasn't the time normally allowed. But by now, significant time has passed so that criticism is less valid. Monitoring is certainly occurring.
True, there may some problem 20 years down the line, but that could apply to a lot of things so it's the monitoring that's relied on, as normal.
.
My criticism with the boosters is that it's the same vaccine; I expected modifications by now to help stop people catching the disease, which is still happening too much. "They know" something of where tweaks can be made from in-silico (computer) and in-vitro (cultures) trials, and the natural-infection antibodies have been analysed for quite a while. I don't know what the delay is. Anyone seen that?
Sponsored Links
the monitoring phase is standard for any vaccine however long it took to develop.
This was clearly true, although I’ve found it pretty difficult to find much in the way of detail on this point.
There has been a lack of transparency by the pharmas and government medical agencies, which has left too much space for conspiracies.
Are you admitting there are conspiracies?
Hmm...
Sounds like notchy may be admitting another error in judgement...
What 'conspiracies' exactly?
That the 'virus' doesn't exist, or that it isn't as virulent as stated?
Or that governments are using the 'virus' as an excuse to implement draconian laws for control purposes?
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,775
- Reaction score
- 702
- Country
that's why I wrote "...as normal." It's usually called phase 4, but timings vary.
Detail is there if you look hard. Search engines offer press reports before original documents so the detail gets buried. Relatively few (compared with a normal procedure) tests were done in several cases. Some Euro countries didn't want to trust AZ for older people if you remember. That was because enough people-testing simply hadn't been done. The numbers were very small so there wasn't much to go on. Yes we were led to believe it was more tested than it was.
Vaccinologists etc have experience so were/are able to make informed assessments of what was/wasn't likely, but that wasn't enough for random noisy plumbers and builders, for example. It seems to me the mainstream experts have turned out about right, and so far few or none of the predictions of the oddball "experts" I can remember, whom the conspiracists latched on to, have come to much.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,775
- Reaction score
- 702
- Country
Lack of understanding by lay people gets conflated with their imagined conspiracy notions. When faced with one's own lack of understanding, it's easier to claim someone's pulling the wool over one's eyes than learn about the subject or look into their or experts' motives.
Several on here don't seem to be able to believe that they might not be able to understand absolutely everything, so imply some deeper wisdom they don't have, so they can decry the experts in the field who understand a lot more, and anyone else they fancy. True, some experts have axes to grind, but most don't, most of the time. (No, I have no figures for that!).
Governments are always keen to give the populus a line to believe in (like the hand-washing fiasco, when there weren't enough masks) so they'll Keep Calm and Carry On. Get the vaccine the vaccine the vaccine and all will be ok? Not entirely honest, but when there's nowt else and it should help, they have to say that.
If you want to call that a conspiracy you can, but sneering at everything you're told just makes you a tw@t, jerk, moron, simpleton, to55er or similar. Once you've tarred yourself with that, you may as well STFU. Forum Jerk Category 1? I could name a few of those on here, bet you could too.
One of the other dumb practices is to take the píss out of things you don't understand or don't choose to believe in. Some on here fall flat into that category FJC2.
Next, picking on one little bit of what someone writes for rubbishing, in order to discredit the rest of what someone's saying, or that person entirely. Those can be FJC3, and FJC4 (which can contain the ad-hominem jerks).
FJC3 a different dumbness from FJC1 because it saves bothering to sneer at the important bits, which might inconveniently for you turn out to be about right.
Then there's FJC5 , those who pick on one small linked fact as evidence that something is great or rubbish, aligned with the story they want to push. Usually it's a misquote, or only partially a fact at all. We know who those are.
Many of the above make the character appear to be a bit thick, because it's pathetic and repeated, transparent behaviour. It often seems to go along with an unexplained link or reference which the dullard is stupid enough to expect the reader to waste his/her time on. That can be FJC6.
l'm sure there are more, and you can invent something to apply to me. Get it right though, or you'll just be an FJC0 - a general waste of space sort of jerk incapable of rational thought and of no value to anyone.
Several on here don't seem to be able to believe that they might not be able to understand absolutely everything, so imply some deeper wisdom they don't have, so they can decry the experts in the field who understand a lot more, and anyone else they fancy. True, some experts have axes to grind, but most don't, most of the time. (No, I have no figures for that!).
Governments are always keen to give the populus a line to believe in (like the hand-washing fiasco, when there weren't enough masks) so they'll Keep Calm and Carry On. Get the vaccine the vaccine the vaccine and all will be ok? Not entirely honest, but when there's nowt else and it should help, they have to say that.
If you want to call that a conspiracy you can, but sneering at everything you're told just makes you a tw@t, jerk, moron, simpleton, to55er or similar. Once you've tarred yourself with that, you may as well STFU. Forum Jerk Category 1? I could name a few of those on here, bet you could too.
One of the other dumb practices is to take the píss out of things you don't understand or don't choose to believe in. Some on here fall flat into that category FJC2.
Next, picking on one little bit of what someone writes for rubbishing, in order to discredit the rest of what someone's saying, or that person entirely. Those can be FJC3, and FJC4 (which can contain the ad-hominem jerks).
FJC3 a different dumbness from FJC1 because it saves bothering to sneer at the important bits, which might inconveniently for you turn out to be about right.
Then there's FJC5 , those who pick on one small linked fact as evidence that something is great or rubbish, aligned with the story they want to push. Usually it's a misquote, or only partially a fact at all. We know who those are.
Many of the above make the character appear to be a bit thick, because it's pathetic and repeated, transparent behaviour. It often seems to go along with an unexplained link or reference which the dullard is stupid enough to expect the reader to waste his/her time on. That can be FJC6.
l'm sure there are more, and you can invent something to apply to me. Get it right though, or you'll just be an FJC0 - a general waste of space sort of jerk incapable of rational thought and of no value to anyone.
Sponsored Links