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

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.

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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).

 

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.

 

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.