Pfizer vaccine formulation for children -- safety data

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Excuse me?... You seem to be projecting.

You specifically said that the term/process was generally understood, then you rejected a generally held definition for the optimization process and imposed your own version which is actually a part of what I provided.

...This is a fielded product. They're implementing minor design changes in order to address a different deployment environment... This is an optimization process. If you want to call it something else, go right ahead... Talk to a process engineer.

Actually, you're the one calling it something else. What you are describing is an intrinsic PART of the process (as demonstrated from two engineering publications) not the entirety of the process.

The developers of the system, that's Pfizer / BioNTech, do indeed get to choose the metrics. In consultation with their customers, of course. I note those customers appear to be satisified, given the EUA decision announced today.

Then it is NOT a generally understood process. It is UNIQUE to the participants. The problem is that 'the customers,' as you cite them, are not the end user such 'vaccines' are supposed to be optimized for.

That's an opinion. Given the realized performance of the vaccine, I'd say the countervailing opinion also merits strong consideration.

It's an opinion based on decades of process. Again, the author is no partisan hack and his opinion carries weight. As to the countervailing opinions of others, remember, this is not a strictly scientific exercise and other factors are weighing on those opinions.

But that is not why vaccines traditionally take so long to develop... The only unusual speedup... is that the trials enrolled and concluded much faster than normal because the infection rate was so high.

Meaning that they have not gone through 'normal development' and that considerations were in play other than strict science.

Compare, for instance, to old SARS, which is still stalled at Phase II because they can't get good statistics, and they can't deliberately infect people as that's highly unethical.

Once again, many of the 'statistics' or 'data' associated with COVID have also been called into question, sometimes for legitimate reasons. Your unwillingness to accept or recognize that doesn't change the reality of it. Until you can convincingly demonstrate that those responsible for the analyses of the data were effectively able to filter the irregularities and inconsistencies in the data, as reported, you are stuck with the Trial data. The problem? The Trial data is influenced by the design parameter of reduction in severity of disease rather than traditional protection from disease associated with vaccines.

The alternate way to explain how the "normal" 10 year cycle (and it is simply an inferred average, not an iron-clad law!) looked to be so foreshortened is to consider all of the bench work on AVV and mRNA vector vaccines, which did take over a decade... All that needed to be swapped was a "cassette" of the actual coding sequence... Pfizer suggests it could adapt a new batch with a different cassette (minus the trials) in under 100 days. But if you artificially shift the start point and neglect this prep work, and then claim it was too short to be safe, you're committing a naive equivocation fallacy.

Actually, you are the one proffering an appeal to hope fallacy rather than established fact. The mRNA technology took a decade (maybe a little more) to develop. However, as applied to potentially successful vaccines, it's still a relatively recent innovation. During development of the technology, the focus was on therapeutics (which these 'vaccines' arguably are), not vaccines. It's something I offered you in a previous post in that the 'breakthrough' insofar as vaccines did not come until COVID, which has only been with us just shy of two years. Thus, what you proffer as a misperception is actually historical fact and what is being claimed by Pfizer is more "we hope" than established fact...

...I'm no authority. I'm just a guy who can read papers and correlate information from different sources. You don't seem to get it after all -- there is no "hiding" behind science. There is science, and there is opinion.

Exactly. What you offer is opinion, claiming it to be based on science. Unfortunately, it is a limited knowledge as you admit. As I have pointed out to you, your view of what Science is has its limitations in that it is a partitioned, parochial view. Where you 'hide' is the same place Fauci does; i.e., you express an opinion and, when called on it, then pressed, you shout "It's the Science" and attempt to end the discussion or declare your protagonist to be intellectually incapable of understanding and, thus, the 'conversation' no longer interests you. The problem is that it may be PART of the Science, but it's not the entirety of it and, as I have also repeatedly pointed out, it's not all about just Science in this case.

This sounds like another semantic argument, but it belies unfamiliarity with the process.

And there's an example of it. Uh... You were the one who observed...

You develop a vaccine and see how it does. We do not follow different dev paths to optimize for protection vs. full immunity. Maybe the science will get to that point in the future, but we're not there yet...No previous vaccines were optimized beyond (at best) adult vs. child formulations, either, but we've instead watched several waves of development as though it were a single product line, and forgotten or never knew what the early adoption phase was like...

Yet, here we have a set of 'vaccines' which were deliberately created and optimized to help prevent a "degree" of disease; which is more specific than protection vs. full immunity. Even you create the impression that such differentiation/optimization was part of the process...

The late-stage decision point in the Pfizer vaccine development came in Stage II, where they settled on a dosing schedule on the basis of immunogenicity. The parameter optimized was production of antibodies, something they could measure, in lieu of the hidden variable of reliable immune system response. A secondary objective was to minimize the dosage on general principles -- thus finding the "knee" of immune stimulation. There was not, nor would there ever be, any conscious choice to even trade protective vs. sterilizing immunity, let alone select for the former. Which one you get has a lot more to do with the virus than the vaccine, and you don't get to choose that.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what you are describing; i.e., that they consciously made a choice with 'settling' and selecting the parameter to be optimized. This discussion has been had in relation to the rationale behind the overt change in the definitions of vaccines/vaccination. It's not about a lack of understanding of the process involved. It's about you refusing to acknowledge that choices were made which were influenced by the immediate desire to reduce pressure on the system and the speed it was desired. In the strictest sense, we may not have that level of actual control. Unfortunately, there is no denying that the outcome we have matches well against the choices made. Such is particularly notable given...

I note those customers appear to be satisified...

Funny how that works.

Don't bother speculating about fraud if you're not willing to defend your speculation.

Not speculation and you don't get to deflect using my unwillingness to repost a plethora of threads, many with documented information, that you refuse to acknowledge.

Projecting again? Who even mentioned such a thing?

We had that discussion as well. It is rife throughout many of your posts via the very things which cause many here to label you 'arrogant.' As an example...

Horsefeathers. There are dozens in this subforum alone who are still deluded into the concept of "real vaccines" that "just work," and refuse to even call the Pfizer Comirnaty product a vaccine... you might want to start with that.

The criticism revolves around the idea that these 'vaccines' did NOT meet the traditional definition (one that has been out there for decades as the general understanding) of vaccine. Even the definition itself was officially changed. As I and actual experts have argued, there is a case to be made that they are more a therapeutic/treatment than an actual vaccine and, as I noted in the linked piece, such was the actual history of mRNA technology until COVID.

As another example...

Not theory vs. applied, that's a complex cause fallacy. Vaccines are one tool of many. Anyone wondering why highly vaccinated populations don't magically see their case numbers collapse will either (a) learn that behavior and other mitigations still have a role, or, more typically seen here, (b) blame the vaccines.

Your posts are replete with theory and quite often dismissive of the impacts of application as simply 'a stage' in the process or 'within acceptable parameters.' The problem is that you cannot sit back and view the world as a simple lab tech, wallowing in the theoretical aspects of Science. Not in these circumstances or these discussions. Application applies beyond the simple mixing of chemicals.

The vaccines have been deployed (applied). They are being mandated (applied). The impacts are being studied vis a vis 'optimization' of the vaccines (applied). The impacts of those mandates and the efficacy related to the lack of protection from disease (not simply severe disease) and the fear created from the studies is being felt across a broad spectrum of society (applied).

Your 'translations' of lab results and lab methods is an explanation of the theoretical. Virtually anytime you are confronted with the applied aspects, you denounce the critic as not understanding. You then claim a lack of understanding for the theoretical aspects and the sanctity of them. Such 'purity' does not exist among the decision makers or in the real world.

Thus, you are the one proffering a fallacy of composition. You continue to partition rather than accept the interaction of the variables. The problem is that the 'truth' of your assertions often rely on the segmentation, something which, in theory, is supportable, but in application, is replete with landmines.

I'm "in trouble on this site?" Do tell.

Is that an admission that you don't actually read many of the posts directed at you?

...this cannot be mistaken for anything other than gaslighting. In this very thread we have folks talking about arbitrary time periods for safety, including one alleged practicing physician.

Oh yes. Actual practitioners are gaslighting because they point to the general (traditional) parameters rather than providing you with a definitive schedule. What was that about partitioning, 'hiding' behind theory, etc.?

While you're exploring new idioms, you might spare some time for reading comprehension. I'm not entirely satisfied with these results. They're good progress. But, naturally, almost nobody wants to talk about the useful part, namely the details within... instead, we get a spectrum of dissociative behavior, everything from naked insult to ten-thousand word paeans to teleology.

Uh oh. We're back to insults? It appears you no longer wish to carry on a conversation.

While you may not be entirely satisfied, you are clearly and admittedly sufficiently satisfied to proceed. As you note, that is your opinion, not a case in fact. There are others, with, at least on paper, a greater expertise than your own who disagree with that opinion; yet, you are content to denigrate others here who don't see things as you do as 'proof' of the superiority of your opinion. (By the way, it often takes more than a bumper sticker size post to unwind things and 15,000 characters [the post size limit] is about 2,500 - 3,000 words. But, that's something you are well aware of given the size of many of your own posts.)

No amount of linguistic acrobatics will pin blame for politically driven vaccine mandates on the likes of me.

Who is blaming you? I explicitly noted that we share the same view on mandates being inappropriate.

Studies like this provide facts, and we can either choose to understand them, avoid them, or make up a bunch of stuff and deny them. Those who stubbornly insist on "alternate facts" are not doing themselves any favors.

One can also choose to extrapolate from them to a degree that is unwarranted. In the OP you declare...

...I have seen it alleged on this forum that the recommendation was made despite a total lack of safety data... We do not yet have a full reviewed publication of the trial results... we have a reasonably complete summary of the results as presented at the FDA hearing...

From there, you proffer a series of opinions on the data available and call them "instructive." Alright. But, they are facts without context, something you acknowledge with your "next steps." Despite that, you then opine...

However, and unsurprisingly, this all looks pretty good so far.

I'll credit you with consistency there.

But this isn't marketing. This is consideration of fact. It's good that we can separate fact from messaging.

It actually is marketing. Unfortunately, it hasn't stopped there and when the marketing proved to be not as successful as desired, other means began to be employed. Consideration, in this context, is far too similar to opinionating. Though not entirely a bad thing, it is akin to marketing in that you are presenting an idea, hoping others will 'buy it.'

...in science, there is no trust. There is evidence...

Trust in Science Is Not the Problem

I demand nothing, I only offer my perspective.

Uh... Whatever you say.

[Rottentofu]

I think Rocketman has met his match. Is it just me or is he starting to sound more and more desperate after every post because Trapped is beating him at his own game?

[LBDamned]

I think Rocketman has met his match. Is it just me or is he starting to sound more and more desperate after every post because Trapped is beating him at his own game?

Do actually read all that chit? (From either of them)

[as_rocketman]

You specifically said that the term/process was generally understood, then you rejected a generally held definition for the optimization process and imposed your own version which is actually a part of what I provided.

Actually, you're the one calling it something else. What you are describing is an intrinsic PART of the process (as demonstrated from two engineering publications) not the entirety of the process.

Then it is NOT a generally understood process. It is UNIQUE to the participants. The problem is that 'the customers,' as you cite them, are not the end user such 'vaccines' are supposed to be optimized for.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone deconstruct a single word so breathlessly, and you're only doing it to justify accusing me of being "misleading."

Moving on:

It's an opinion based on decades of process. Again, the author is no partisan hack and his opinion carries weight. As to the countervailing opinions of others, remember, this is not a strictly scientific exercise and other factors are weighing on those opinions.

No, you brought his opinion. I'm fine with it. He's entitled to it and I think it deserves to be heard. I only mean to point out that, with the benefit of hindsight, the penalty for "rushed" deployment of the Pfizer vaccine has been pretty damn small. There were and are other valid opinions.

Once again, many of the 'statistics' or 'data' associated with COVID have also been called into question, sometimes for legitimate reasons. Your unwillingness to accept or recognize that doesn't change the reality of it. Until you can convincingly demonstrate that those responsible for the analyses of the data were effectively able to filter the irregularities and inconsistencies in the data, as reported, you are stuck with the Trial data. The problem? The Trial data is influenced by the design parameter of reduction in severity of disease rather than traditional protection from disease associated with vaccines.

If the bolded sentence made sense, you might actually be trying to make a point, but it doesn't. There is no "Design Parameter" as you describe -- vaccine performance is an empirical result, not a specified input, and "reduction in severity of disease" is not actually distinct from "traditional protection from disease." You simply misunderstood the vaccine development process, and are now attempting to rescue your previous position with rhetoric.

Again, if you want to allege fraud, please do so, but you need to be specific.

Actually, you are the one proffering an appeal to hope fallacy rather than established fact. The mRNA technology took a decade (maybe a little more) to develop. However, as applied to potentially successful vaccines, it's still a relatively recent innovation. During development of the technology, the focus was on therapeutics (which these 'vaccines' arguably are), not vaccines.

No, the mRNA vector technology was envisioned as dual use almost from the start. The technique was demonstrated by Malone in 1988, and Merck started studying it for use in vaccination in 1991. Not sure just what the heck that means anyway -- this is "relatively" recent compared to inactivated virus methods, sure, but it's been 30 years! Quite long even compared to the "classic" ten year period for vaccine development. The interval between now and the start of mRNA study is longer than the interval between then and the discovery of mRNA in the first place.

There is no "Appeal to Hope" here. I described historical fact. And the bottom line is, you have no basis for calling this vaccine rushed with respect to safety. That stems from an incomplete understanding of past processes and durations.

Exactly. What you offer is opinion, claiming it to be based on science. Unfortunately, it is a limited knowledge as you admit. As I have pointed out to you, your view of what Science is has its limitations in that it is a partitioned, parochial view. Where you 'hide' is the same place Fauci does; i.e., you express an opinion and, when called on it, then pressed, you shout "It's the Science" and attempt to end the discussion or declare your protagonist to be intellectually incapable of understanding and, thus, the 'conversation' no longer interests you.

That's a bold accusation, and I don't agree at all.

I started this thread to talk about the evidence in the trial and its implications. For you, I guess that's too "parochial" or whatever. Oh well.

Yet, here we have a set of 'vaccines' which were deliberately created and optimized to help prevent a "degree" of disease; which is more specific than protection vs. full immunity.

No. Totally wrong. Try to support this claim and watch it fall apart.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what you are describing; i.e., that they consciously made a choice with 'settling' and selecting the parameter to be optimized. This discussion has been had in relation to the rationale behind the overt change in the definitions of vaccines/vaccination. It's not about a lack of understanding of the process involved. It's about you refusing to acknowledge that choices were made which were influenced by the immediate desire to reduce pressure on the system and the speed it was desired. In the strictest sense, we may not have that level of actual control.

"In the strictest sense" indeed -- in that sentence, you invalidate your whole bizarre line of reasoning. You are completely mischaracterizing the development process, possibly in some weird attempt to deflect from your misunderstanding of the safety process.

Not speculation and you don't get to deflect using my unwillingness to repost a plethora of threads, many with documented information, that you refuse to acknowledge.

Claims without evidence get rejected out of hand. Such are the rules of science.

We had that discussion as well. It is rife throughout many of your posts via the very things which cause many here to label you 'arrogant.'

Does labeling others become a valid rhetorical tactic if more than one person does it? That's news to me.

The criticism revolves around the idea that these 'vaccines' did NOT meet the traditional definition (one that has been out there for decades as the general understanding) of vaccine.

Oh, the "traditional" definition. I'm glad you qualified that, setting up another semantic argument, according to whatever tradition you follow.

No, a vocal and meme-susceptible segment of the public got scared, that's all. Nobody got riled up and refused to call AVV vaccines what they were, even though they weren't "traditional" either. Doesn't matter, it is and always was a vaccine.

Even the definition itself was officially changed. As I and actual experts have argued, there is a case to be made that they are more a therapeutic/treatment than an actual vaccine and, as I noted in the linked piece, such was the actual history of mRNA technology until COVID.

No, you have no case. I guess you could change the definition of therapeutic/treatment as well to suit, but it doesn't make any difference. The function of Pfizer's product is unchanged by whatever you call it. It provides a protective immune response to a specific pathogen through inoculation. It is a vaccine.

Your posts are replete with theory and quite often dismissive of the impacts of application as simply 'a stage' in the process or 'within acceptable parameters.' The problem is that you cannot sit back and view the world as a simple lab tech, wallowing in the theoretical aspects of Science. Not in these circumstances or these discussions. Application applies beyond the simple mixing of chemicals.

I don't even know what you mean by this, but I remain amused by your attempts to tell me who I am and what I can or cannot do. Upthread, it seemed like you disliked arrogance, but consistency is your problem.

The vaccines have been deployed (applied). They are being mandated (applied). The impacts are being studied vis a vis 'optimization' of the vaccines (applied). The impacts of those mandates and the efficacy related to the lack of protection from disease (not simply severe disease) and the fear created from the studies is being felt across a broad spectrum of society (applied).

Vaccine performance is separable from vaccination policy. Putting "(applied)" awkwardly in a disjoint series of declaratives doesn't change that fact.

Your 'translations' of lab results and lab methods is an explanation of the theoretical. Virtually anytime you are confronted with the applied aspects, you denounce the critic as not understanding. You then claim a lack of understanding for the theoretical aspects and the sanctity of them. Such 'purity' does not exist among the decision makers or in the real world.

No. I try to stick to facts, such as your incorrect claim of minimum vaccine development timelines for safety. I also try to separate fact-based discussions, e.g., science, from those based on opinion, notably policy. You can, too, if you're interested.

Thus, you are the one proffering a fallacy of composition. You continue to partition rather than accept the interaction of the variables. The problem is that the 'truth' of your assertions often rely on the segmentation, something which, in theory, is supportable, but in application, is replete with landmines.

No. The study results have no dependence on any of your "interaction of the variables." This is patently obvious.

Oh yes. Actual practitioners are gaslighting because they point to the general (traditional) parameters rather than providing you with a definitive schedule. What was that about partitioning, 'hiding' behind theory, etc.?

Misdirection. You gaslit, not "actual practitioners," by claiming that no one is asking for an arbitrary length of time for vaccine safety data -- obviously, they are; you see it in this thread. You're doing it again by mischaracterizing my statement, pretending I was accusing "actual practitioners." It's all very tiresome.

Uh oh. We're back to insults? It appears you no longer wish to carry on a conversation.

Apparently we need to add "insult" to the list of words that you have a unique definition for... but I do wish you'd make a valid point soon. This is a lot of words to wade through for a payoff.

While you may not be entirely satisfied, you are clearly and admittedly sufficiently satisfied to proceed. As you note, that is your opinion, not a case in fact. There are others, with, at least on paper, a greater expertise than your own who disagree with that opinion; yet, you are content to denigrate others here who don't see things as you do as 'proof' of the superiority of your opinion.

Another foolish accusation. No, I'm actually interested in different, reasoned opinions. Those are few.

For instance, your own opinion -- to the extent I can figure out what it is, buried in such labyrinthe pedantry -- appears to be that the vaccines are unsafe, based on a fractured understanding of the development timeline, oblique references to selected opinions, and a general sense of institutional distrust that you resolutely refuse to elaborate.

That hasn't led to any kind of productive discussion. Strangely, if you felt they were unsafe, you might actually be interested in the study results -- but you aren't. So, naturally, I'm not terribly impressed. Several other posters have raised some good points for discussion, though.

Uh... Whatever you say.

If you can't accept that, well... it explains a lot. What am I in a position to demand, after all?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone deconstruct a single word so breathlessly, and you're only doing it to justify accusing me of being "misleading."

I don't have to 'justify' it. I've demonstrated it via links to what process optimization is and via your own statements.

No, you brought his opinion.

No... what? Yes. I noted his opinion as he is a qualified immunologist. Which means he's more than...

...entitled to it and I think it deserves to be heard. I only mean to point out that... the penalty for "rushed" deployment of the Pfizer vaccine has been pretty damn small. There were and are other valid opinions.

Thus far. Again, we don't know the long-term implications as the long-term has yet to transpire. We do know that one of the 'penalties' is a progressing series of shots. Bear in mind, that multiple shot vaccines typically top out at three. In some cases, we are now up to four or even five. There's also the fact that Pfizer is proving less efficacious than Moderna, especially against the variants; yet, it has been on the fast track with Government approvals and, therefore, is the more readily available, despite its comparatively lower efficacy.

In one sense, that may be 'small.' In another, we don't know what the 'end result' will be. That very uncertainty is a major part of what is feeding the 'hesitancy' and that's without even going down the rabbit hole of the other, negative effects which, while comparatively small in number, fit exactly what I have pointed out underlies your 'defense' of it... "It sucks to be you if you're on the wrong side of immune tolerance and/or sensitive to the side-effects, but rest assured you are part of the minority." (You may not have explicitly stated it, but it is persistently implicit and others have noted it as well.)

If the bolded sentence made sense, you might actually be trying to make a point, but it doesn't. There is no "Design Parameter" as you describe -- vaccine performance is an empirical result, not a specified input, and "reduction in severity of disease" is not actually distinct from "traditional protection from disease." You simply misunderstood the vaccine development process, and are now attempting to rescue your previous position with rhetoric.

Once again falling back on the "you don't understand" rhubarb and being dismissive? Tsk, tsk. We had this specific discussion and it doesn't matter that you 'missed' the documentation and refuse to accept it. I'll repeat...

Desired functionality is a crucial component in the discussion of these vaccines. As has been, repeatedly, noted, in various ways and via various perceptions, the desired functionality of these 'vaccines' was NOT in the vein of how vaccines have been traditionally understood. It's something which cannot be dismissed or 'hidden' with... 'vaccines are never 100% effective.' As has been well established, the concept behind these 'treatments' was mitigation of severe disease, not prevention (immunity).

It was a conclusion I came to using the definitions as they existed at that time and it came out several days later in the media in similar fashion. From the Miami Herald... ...

did not test whether the vaccines prevented infection in participants. It tested how well the vaccines prevented the development of symptom-causing disease...

In other words, the public is only hearing about the worst cases that make up the minority, not the majority of the mild ones that result after vaccination.

As was brought out in our previous go 'round about this, you never even saw that discussion. Is the Miami Herald a peer reviewed journal or the author an 'expert' in immunology? No. Thus, if you are consistent, you will likely dismiss that piece, despite the author's qualifications being that she is "" Does she just not understand as well?

Again, if you want to allege fraud, please do so, but you need to be specific.

Did I say "fraud" or did I say...

...as has been extensively discussed and documented, GIGO is the operative term related to the COVID vaccines. So much of the data has been corrupted by various means (some intentionally, much unintentionally), the aggregation of the data is questionable, at best...

Again, whether you, personally, accept that doesn't alter the reality or moot the documentation that has been provided in various threads.

No, the mRNA vector technology was envisioned as dual use almost from the start.

What it was envisioned as is decidedly different than what it has been used for up until COVID.

...I described historical fact.

Yep. But, not in relation to mRNA as a functional method for vaccines. As was noted in the title of the piece from Nature... The tangled history of mRNA vaccines. As has been pointed out, repeatedly, up until the COVID vaccines...

That's hardly a lengthy history of mRNA use in vaccines to point to as definitive proof of its effectiveness or long-term safety. As I said, mRNA insofar as vaccines is a relatively recent innovation in terms of being an usable vaccine. Prior to that, the focus was on mRNA in therapeutics and treatments, an argument I have made insofar as these 'vaccines' being more closely aligned with by way of how the definitions have been commonly understood and projected by the public health community.

And the bottom line is, you have no basis for calling this vaccine rushed with respect to safety. That stems from an incomplete understanding of past processes and durations.

Again with - "you don't understand?" Gimme a break. Remember, you are no longer just arguing with me. You are arguing with documentation from actual experts that I have provided. In essence, you are saying that actual experts just don't understand, but you do and your take should be given more weight? Or, are you arguing that you agree with the differing opinions and, therefore, any differing opinion is not credible?

That's a bold accusation, and I don't agree at all.

You don't have to agree. Yet, it is something readily observed throughout many of your posts.

I started this thread to talk about the evidence in the trial and its implications. For you, I guess that's too "parochial" or whatever. Oh well.

It's called "topic drift" by TPTB on this site. How you started the thread and how the conversation has progressed is not necessarily a linear evolution. As I have noted, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with discussing things in isolation. The limitation is when you attempt to partition the broader discourse into parochial segments and dismiss the influence each segment has on the other. That is precisely what you have done in many of these threads.

No. Totally wrong. Try to support this claim and watch it fall apart.

Already have. It has yet to 'fall apart.' In fact, the more that has come to light, the greater the reinforcement. Your lack of acceptance is not the same as a lack of validity.

"In the strictest sense" indeed -- in that sentence, you invalidate your whole bizarre line of reasoning. You are completely mischaracterizing the development process, possibly in some weird attempt to deflect from your misunderstanding of the safety process.

Again with the accusation of a lack of understanding? My, you are repetitive. Actually, you are the one demonstrating a lack of understanding. In the strictest sense, when sitting at the lab counter, we may not be able to create a finite discrimination. Yet, by your own acknowledgements, we do have the capability to direct the process in development and, conveniently, the current 'vaccines' have met the very choices made. Happenstance? Coincidence? Other? Remember, "the clinical trials did not test whether the vaccines prevented infection in participants. It tested how well the vaccines prevented the development of symptom-causing disease."

Claims without evidence get rejected out of hand. Such are the rules of science.

Yep. The problem you have is that the evidence has been abundantly posted on this site. You don't want "lengthy" replies? Don't demand I reproduce all those threads and, when you don't want to put the 'work' in to read them for yourself, accuse me of being 'unscientific' and therefore a 'hack.' It kinda smacks of projection...

Does labeling others become a valid rhetorical tactic if more than one person does it? That's news to me.

cont'd...

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Oh, the "traditional" definition. I'm glad you qualified that, setting up another semantic argument, according to whatever tradition you follow.

This isn't a 'denominational' issue within Science. This is using the CDC definitions. But, you then exhibit exactly what you call "labeling" by others...

No, a vocal and meme-susceptible segment of the public got scared, that's all.

I believe I've asked this before... Project much do you?

No, you have no case. I guess you could change the definition of therapeutic/treatment as well to suit, but it doesn't make any difference. The function of Pfizer's product is unchanged by whatever you call it. It provides a protective immune response to a specific pathogen through inoculation. It is a vaccine.

Nope. It does not provide a protective, immune response. It provides mitigation of the disease, not prevention of infection or illness. The degree of mitigation is dependent upon the individual, just as the actual effects of the virus on the unvaccinated have been dependent upon the individual. The difference is the likelihood of severe disease between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, not 'immunity.' That would appear to be the essential reason the CDC altered the definition of vaccine and vaccination. As I said in the linked to post, mitigation is more consistent with the medical definition of treatment than it was with the CDC's previous definition of vaccine.

I don't even know what you mean by this, but I remain amused by your attempts to tell me who I am and what I can or cannot do. Upthread, it seemed like you disliked arrogance, but consistency is your problem.

You wanted observable data. All anyone has to do is read your posts. That's not about telling you what you can/can't do. It's about attempting to get you to comprehend how you are coming across. But, again, you go with the insult as a way to project.

Vaccine performance is separable from vaccination policy. Putting "(applied)" awkwardly in a disjoint series of declaratives doesn't change that fact.

Talk about misunderstanding. Vaccine performance is separable... in the theoretical abstract. As it is applied, vaccine performance is supposed to underlie policy.

...public trust in COVID‑19 vaccines and vaccination will be as essential as the effectiveness of the vaccines themselves...

Trust in vaccination, and in the ability of governments to communicate, and to successfully deliver a vaccination programme, is critically dependent on:

• the extent to which the government can instil and maintain public confidence in the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines...

What's the point of mandating a vaccine which doesn't perform? It's a question being asked by many individuals outside this forum. It's a question which has been punted on by the Judiciary up to this point, prioritizing deference over 'getting involved' in public policy.

No. I try to stick to facts, such as your incorrect claim of minimum vaccine development timelines for safety. I also try to separate fact-based discussions, e.g., science, from those based on opinion, notably policy.

Thank you for highlighting that you do not grasp the difference (and the 'tension') between theoretical and applied. It's a common problem and source of debate in the Sciences.

No. The study results have no dependence on any of your "interaction of the variables." This is patently obvious.

What is patently obvious is your refusal to accept the obvious. What was that about partitioning and refusing to accept the inevitable interactions?

Misdirection. You gaslit, not "actual practitioners," by claiming that no one is asking for an arbitrary length of time for vaccine safety data -- obviously, they are; you see it in this thread. You're doing it again by mischaracterizing my statement, pretending I was accusing "actual practitioners." It's all very tiresome.

Nope. You may deem 'traditional' timelines as now being 'arbitrary' based on the new technology, but they are hardly that; particularly in the public's mind. Those timelines are inherently broad and are presented by the pharmaceutical companies, academia, and public health officials; i.e., actual practitioners. As an example...



What gets tiresome is your projection, accusing me of what you are actually doing.

Apparently we need to add "insult" to the list of words that you have a unique definition for... but I do wish you'd make a valid point soon.

As I said, your lack of recognition and acceptance does not alter reality or mean the point hasn't been made and near continuously reinforced by yourself. For instance...

Another foolish accusation. No, I'm actually interested in different, reasoned opinions. Those are few.

For instance, your own opinion -- to the extent I can figure out what it is, buried in such labyrinthe pedantry -- appears to be that the vaccines are unsafe, based on a fractured understanding of the development timeline, oblique references to selected opinions, and a general sense of institutional distrust that you resolutely refuse to elaborate.

That hasn't led to any kind of productive discussion. Strangely, if you felt they were unsafe, you might actually be interested in the study results -- but you aren't. So, naturally, I'm not terribly impressed. Several other posters have raised some good points for discussion, though.

As I've observed before, you have a tendency to denigrate any discussion which does not adhere to the parameters you wish to impose and largely ignore any you don't find, personally, interesting where that interest is based, primarily, on the parameters you wish participants to adhere to. The problem, as noted, is that you have a limited view regarding what those parameters are supposed to be. When pressed on that and other things, you fall back on insults you refuse to acknowledge as insults.

As you have admitted, you are not an authority. As I have reminded you, your base of knowledge is not the only, legitimate, source of knowledge or proper way to discuss it. It pretty much calls for the refrain... Physician, heal thyself... Or, perhaps, "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." As you say...

If you can't accept that, well... it explains a lot.

[as_rocketman]

Good Lord.

Rather than facilitate an argumentum ad nauseum, I'm directing you to three of the more serious problems in your position first.

1. Real-world costs of "rushed" vaccination

I only mean to point out that, with the benefit of hindsight, the penalty for "rushed" deployment of the Pfizer vaccine has been pretty damn small. There were and are other valid opinions.

Thus far. Again, we don't know the long-term implications as the long-term has yet to transpire. We do know that one of the 'penalties' is a progressing series of shots. Bear in mind, that multiple shot vaccines typically top out at three. In some cases, we are now up to four or even five.

No. We don't know that. Not one bit. As I noted before, there is quite a lot of pushback on all of the booster ideas already floated, and the reason -- salient to this thread, despite what you've done to it -- is that we don't have the science. Booster recommendations have been based on antibody titers, not actual protectivity, and that's a problem. It is premature to recommend boosters for that reason, and it is surely premature to claim we will be stuck with a series of them, as you have done.

Before you seize on minutiae, yes, there is a different schedule recommended for immunocompromised individuals, backed by actual protectivity studies, but we're not speaking of them here; this is about general usage. Even in those cases, there is yet to be any firm evidence or guidance for regular boosts.

You also called them a "progressive series," which is hard to interpret (is there a regressive series?), but I should point out that even the boosters that are being recommended are lower dosage than the primaries.

You also claim that multi-shot vaccines "typically" top out at three. I have to wonder what you consider typical, as DTaP, perhaps the most common in this country, is a series of five. Common vaccines such as tetanus are recommended on a decadal schedule, and there is of course influenza, which is yearly.

So your claim is wrong coming and going. I don't know what the final recommended schedule for COVID-19 vaccines will be, but you are simply spouting nonsense to say it's out of family with other vaccines, let alone that it represents an unusual cost, and even further removed from associating that with the speed of development.

Your other objection was the following:

There's also the fact that Pfizer is proving less efficacious than Moderna, especially against the variants; yet, it has been on the fast track with Government approvals and, therefore, is the more readily available, despite its comparatively lower efficacy.

While that is accurate, lower efficacy than hoped is not a cost, it's at best a diminished benefit compared to expectations. Both vaccines are still providing a measurable net benefit. This, too, shows no signs of correctibility had the vaccine been delayed.

The burden of proof is upon you, and you could meet it. You would have to suggest a scenario where vaccine rollout was delayed further, perhaps as a result of being held to an even higher safety standard, that resulted in some overall improvement. You have not. Instead, all we have is a much wordier and more irritating version of the appeal to ignorance that some hypothetical future effect will invert the trade. Like the others, you've brought no credible hypothesis, so this is only idle fear -- what we call a "worry bead" in risk management. You can bring it up, but don't expect action.

My point stands. The opinion to study more before deployment out of safety concerns was valid. So was the opinion that we had enough to proceed. The evidence in hand supported the latter opinion. The evidence to date affirms that opinion.

2. Denying the classification of Pfizer Comirnaty / BNT162-b2 as a vaccine

The function of Pfizer's product is unchanged by whatever you call it. It provides a protective immune response to a specific pathogen through inoculation. It is a vaccine.

Nope. It does not provide a protective, immune response. It provides mitigation of the disease, not prevention of infection or illness. The degree of mitigation is dependent upon the individual, just as the actual effects of the virus on the unvaccinated have been dependent upon the individual. The difference is the likelihood of severe disease between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, not 'immunity.'

So even taking your own words as gospel, you have equivocated the word "protective" with the word "prevention." Dirty pool. Anyone so aggressively specific about word definitions, who then substitutes words in his rebuttal, is not arguing in good faith, and that's that.

I will assume that you accept the Pfizer product does provide an immune response, since you focused solely on the word "protective." Whether I am right therefore depends on whether the vaccine's effects can be considered protective. I leave a definition search of second-grade vocabulary words to the reader as an exercise. You will also find that precise verbiage dominant in scholarly papers on performance of the Pfizer product (but, crazy as it might seem, they also to a one fix on the use of the word "vaccine").

Interestingly, as hung up as you are on specific definitions, you seem perfectly happy to ignore specific definitions, even those provided by authorities, so long as they have been recently changed -- apparently, while "optimization" and "thread drift" are concepts you're happy with, "clarification" and evolution of language are bugbears of yours:

That would appear to be the essential reason the CDC altered the definition of vaccine and vaccination. As I said in the linked to post, mitigation is more consistent with the medical definition of treatment than it was with the CDC's previous definition of vaccine.

Since we're here, let's look into this. Taken from a reference you seem to hold in esteem, the Miami Herald:

Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.” The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

Some people have speculated that the unannounced changes were the CDC’s attempt to hide the fact COVID-19 vaccines are not 100% effective at preventing coronavirus infection. U.S. Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky said in a popular tweet the CDC has “been busy at the Ministry of Truth.”

So you are insisting on the older definition, and you apparently feel what these vaccines provide is inconsistent with "immunity." Never mind that it stimulates a function of the immune system, or that re-infection among previous COVID-19 survivors compares poorly with vaccinated performance. But let's go with that.

Let's accept the extremist position that only a 100% effective vaccine can be legitimately considered a vaccine.

Are there any?

The answer is "no." So -- if I were to accept your logic, I would have to retire the word "vaccine" from my lexicon entirely.

This is absurd. There is no advantage to this particular bit of linguistic stubbornness apart from interfering with the conversation.

For someone who is so hell-bent on "public perception," I fail to see how such a contrarian position helps things. It is better to simply explain how all vaccines are probabilistic in nature than to say there never was such a thing in the first place, or worse, to delude them into thinking the performance of the COVID-19 vaccines is somehow qualitatively different from vaccines of the past.

3. Timeline of past vaccine development compared to COVID-19 vaccines

No, the mRNA vector technology was envisioned as dual use almost from the start. The technique was demonstrated by Malone in 1988, and Merck started studying it for use in vaccination in 1991. Not sure just what the heck that means anyway -- this is "relatively" recent compared to inactivated virus methods, sure, but it's been 30 years! Quite long even compared to the "classic" ten year period for vaccine development. The interval between now and the start of mRNA study is longer than the interval between then and the discovery of mRNA in the first place.

[...] the bottom line is, you have no basis for calling this vaccine rushed with respect to safety. That stems from an incomplete understanding of past processes and durations.

Nope. You may deem 'traditional' timelines as now being 'arbitrary' based on the new technology, but they are hardly that; particularly in the public's mind. Those timelines are inherently broad and are presented by the pharmaceutical companies, academia, and public health officials; i.e., actual practitioners. As an example...

Before we actually put the chart you brought to good use, you've made another equivocation here -- very, very poor showing for someone as obsessive as you are about infinitessimal details of argument. The "arbitrary" timelines I refer to are those raised by the non-technical objectors (I include you in that grouping), those with sentiments such as "these vaccines are UNSAFE for males under age 30 until they are ACTUALLY PROVEN SAFE, and with large, long-term (at LEAST 5 year) studies" or more extreme variants like "When someone can explain to me how you can condense 15 to 20 years worth of long term safety research into less than 2 years" and so on. Such excuses are legion.

Those demands are not coming from practitioners. I suppose you will find a stray opinion to that effect, but your own chart belies the fact that the "10 year" timeline is just an average. In that chart, we have three out of eight examples of successful, past vaccines whose safety period -- the gap between large clinical trials and rollout, however crisply that may be defined -- is the same or even shorter.

So the idea that this vaccine must be unsafe by analogy, even if we overlook the dissimilarity of method to past vaccines, on the basis of timing as shown in the graph... it just isn't there, friend. The "inherent broadness" you insist upon is not inherent at all. Typical, perhaps, even ordinary, but not essential. And it has to be for your claim to be valid.

Again, I recommend that, since you're obviously interested, you should look into it. Research what the standards are for safety and work out how long it takes to get them, under normal conditions as well as more permissive ones like we just established. You may find yourself wanting to issue a retraction.


So that's it, I think that's more than enough for a next salvo. You may squawk about my "control" of the conversation, but as a participant, I have that right. If we can make some progress on these items, maybe we can move on to something else. Pick one and dwell on it if you find your posts growing too long.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Rather than facilitate an argumentum ad nauseum, I'm directing you to three of the more serious problems in your position first.

Oh... Let's hold a discussion based on what you are interested in and playing by your rules. We haven't seen that before?

As I've observed before, you have a tendency to denigrate any discussion which does not adhere to the parameters you wish to impose and largely ignore any you don't find, personally, interesting where that interest is based, primarily, on the parameters you wish participants to adhere to.

Let's clear something up...

1. Real-world costs of "rushed" vaccination

You have, repeatedly, mischaracterized what I have said. I have said they were 'truncated' in that, at best, they have met the bare minimum testing time, evaluation periods were 'expedited,' and they have certainly not addressed the long-term. If that qualifies as "rushed," then so be it. I would characterize it more as... 'incomplete' compared to traditional vaccine development/deployment.

No. We don't know that. Not one bit. As I noted before, there is quite a lot of pushback on all of the booster ideas already floated, and the reason -- salient to this thread, despite what you've done to it -- is that we don't have the science. Booster recommendations have been based on antibody titers, not actual protectivity, and that's a problem. It is premature to recommend boosters for that reason, and it is surely premature to claim we will be stuck with a series of them, as you have done.

Before you seize on minutiae...

Uh... As I've asked previously... Project much do you? Your posts are almost nothing but arguing, touting, or pushing minutiae. My posts tend to be broader in scope.

First, there is a debate over calling them "boosters." Instead, it is being argued by many experts that they are simply a continuation of the 'vaccine' doses in terms of reaching/maintaining full efficiency... The debate over Covid-19 vaccine boosters, what to call them, and whether they’re needed.

U.S. health officials want you to get another shot of Covid-19 vaccine. But some experts in the vaccine world don’t think we should be using the “B” word to describe that extra jab.

Don’t call it a booster, they insist.

Instead they argue an additional dose of one of the messenger RNA vaccines should be termed a third dose, a part of the primary series of shots that awaken and arm immune systems to deal with the threat of the SARS-CoV-2 virus...

The jury’s still out on fourth shots, fifth shots, etc.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has publicly raised the prospect that annual Covid shots may be required. The company’s official line is that annual jabs may be needed, but there aren’t enough data yet to say one way or the other...

That addresses a subsequent comment you made...

...You also called them a "progressive series," which is hard to interpret (is there a regressive series?), but I should point out that even the boosters that are being recommended are lower dosage than the primaries.

We'll get to the rest of that in a minute. But, the short of it is that they are, at this time, uncertain as to what ultimate dosage is going to be required for effectiveness beyond a few weeks/months and are, progressively, adding more; reduced dosage size or not. In other words, it's something that doesn't require 'interpretation.' Simple English will do.

Second, it's refreshing to see you acknowledge that "we don't have the science," even if it is restricted to discussion of the 'boosters.' What I have "done to this thread" (as you phrase it) is to point out exactly that. Are there always 'holes' in the knowledge/data when vaccines are deployed? Yes. Are those 'holes' typically (oops, I used the word 'typically' again, see below) as glaring and large as we have with the current 'vaccines?' That is part of the current debate and we are unlikely to resolve it via 15,000 character limited posts.

You also claim that multi-shot vaccines "typically" top out at three. I have to wonder what you consider typical, as DTaP, perhaps the most common in this country, is a series of five. Common vaccines such as tetanus are recommended on a decadal schedule, and there is of course influenza, which is yearly.

Now I see where the 'minutiae' bit came from. You were deflecting to set up what you were about to do. Since you are looking for... something... hidden in plain English, let's try the basic definition for 'typically'.

in a way that shows all the characteristics that you would expect from the stated person, thing, or group... used when you are giving an average or usual example of a particular thing...

Will there be exceptions, outliers, and, most of all, as I indicated, a potential range over a broad spectrum of exemplars? Yes. Without going down the rabbit hole, again, of the proper application of the word 'vaccine,' not to mention the on-going... 'debate'... over comparing COVID to older, more deadly diseases, what you appear to be getting at, consciously or not, is the length of effective efficacy.

As I have posted before, when I was a kid, Tetanus 'boosters' were mandatory and much closer together; often being given immediately after an 'incident' rather than as a regular regimen. Today, they have discovered that the efficacy lasts longer and vulnerabilities are actually lower than previously known/thought. In fact, the 'decadal schedule' you reference is not mandatory. It is simply advisory and, in many respects, dependent upon circumstances. Part of the change had to do with a 'new' version of the vaccine having been deployed in (I believe) the 1990's or early 2000's. Even at that, the number of doses is variable depending on the age of the individual.

That's not 'proof' that these 'vaccines' are simply part of the 'norm.' The Tetanus vaccines have been around for, literally, 100 years. The time involved has allowed for study of long-term issues, said issues being a major contributor in what led to the new formulations in the 1990's. Which speaks directly to your next point...

So your claim is wrong coming and going. I don't know what the final recommended schedule for COVID-19 vaccines will be, but you are simply spouting nonsense to say it's out of family with other vaccines, let alone that it represents an unusual cost, and even further removed from associating that with the speed of development.

Do I really need to provide a list of one and two dose vaccines and compare that to the list of multi-dose versions to establish "typical" vs. 'exceptions?' Again, this isn't a peer review or a presentation at a conference. Do your own work. Suffice to say that your reference to the "flu shots" (which I'm personally loathe to declare 'vaccines') is the most on-point and I would refer you to one of our earliest exchanges where I stated that my own 'hesitancy' stemmed, partially, from a lack of clarity as to how many doses or what regimen of shots was going to be required with the COVID 'vaccines;' i.e., well before it became more common to view them as 'treatments' rather than vaccines in the sense they were generally understood by the public and defined by the CDC before the change.

While that is accurate, lower efficacy than hoped is not a cost, it's at best a diminished benefit compared to expectations. Both vaccines are still providing a measurable net benefit. This, too, shows no signs of correctibility had the vaccine been delayed.

No evidence because, as the rest of the paragraph, for context, noted...

...we don't know the long-term implications as the long-term has yet to transpire. We do know that one of the 'penalties' is a progressing series of shots. Bear in mind, that multiple shot vaccines typically top out at three. In some cases, we are now up to four or even five. There's also the fact that Pfizer is proving less efficacious than Moderna, especially against the variants; yet, it has been on the fast track with Government approvals and, therefore, is the more readily available, despite its comparatively lower efficacy...

We've already covered this ground upthread. What you refer to as...

...But I would expect further tweaks to the vaccination schedule as time goes on. Each time you pick a dosage, you need a new trial... it's a slow process.

As I noted in reply...

...As I have maintained, much is not yet known and the guesswork... excuse me... process currently being employed simply feeds the perception of 'experimentation.' That does not communicate the 'confidence' (to many) that is needed for acceptance of the vaccines.

Which is, in essence, the same thought you just conveyed...

...As I noted before, there is quite a lot of pushback on all of the booster ideas already floated, and the reason -- salient to this thread, despite what you've done to it -- is that we don't have the science...

Readers are free to read our earlier exchange, but the point is...

...Your own statement indicates part of the problem in that (pick your poison) experimentation/refinement/optimization is, typically, part of the process which has, heretofore, caused YEARS to be required in the deployment of a vaccine, not months. It's not about individual precision so much as it is a rather broad-based assumption. Yes. There is a good deal of leeway in terms of tolerance. But, that is hardly satisfying to those outside those tolerances, whatever their actual parameters, who are still being coerced/mandated into taking the vaccine(s). It's also worrisome for those inside those tolerances in that 'tolerant' isn't necessarily synonymous with 'no ill effect(s),' whether temporary or permanent...

...as you and I have extensively discussed, it is those very laypeople who are those which must be convinced, not the technicians or those scientists/public health officials already predisposed to moving with great alacrity...

...It does not have the history behind it to encourage trust among that lay community we are referencing and the on-going discovery/assessment of issues which were predicted months prior to deployment (which should have had extensive evaluation prior to deployment) hasn't helped in that regard...

How much should we have learned prior to deployment vs. how much should we be having to learn after deployment? Where is that tipping point between HOPING for the best and KNOWING the relative safety within acceptable tolerance levels? What is the level of knowledge which is needed and must be conveyed to convince the lay community, a significant percentage of which view these 'vaccines' with both an healthy and, in some cases, an unhealthy level of skepticism?...

...As the Nature piece I quoted pointed out, in the interest of safety, more progress should have been made prior to deployment on this rather than - single trial, looks safe, deploy, oops, alter. That is why vaccines traditionally take years to develop and deploy. While the trials may, ultimately, be similarly 'sized,' the progression/evolution is traditionally more advanced before deployment...

You develop a vaccine and see how it does BEFORE you deploy it on the general population. That is what the article from Nature on safety I linked to/quoted from was all about... Insofar as what you are optimizing for, remember, it has been documented, on a number of occasions, that these 'vaccines' were NEVER intended to provide full immunity, period, full stop. They weren't even designed to provide protection in the traditionally understood context of vaccines. They were intended to meet the professed need at that time... a way to reduce pressure on the system by reducing severe disease; i.e., hospitalizations and mortality...

Once again, the issue isn't whether there are 'failures' with 'vaccines.' Everyone knows there are and that such a potential exists... up to a point. The issue is how extensively the scientific community was aware of them and the magnitude prior to deployment. While it can be argued that many of the headlines exaggerate the impacts and while study protocols define things to a gnat's posterior (or are supposed to), the issue has far broader implications than just the chemistry at the lab counter or the results of the (arguably limited) trials and how those results are hopefully projected to the general population. A scientific definition of failure is limited, particularly when the purpose of the design is not clear, even after deployment.

As I said, here is certainly a measure of success regarding the prevention of severe disease. But, as I asked, what is the true measure of the 'failures?'...

...The mRNA technology took a decade (maybe a little more) to develop. However, as applied to potentially successful vaccines, it's still a relatively recent innovation. During development of the technology, the focus was on therapeutics (which these 'vaccines' arguably are), not vaccines. It's something I offered you in a previous post in that the 'breakthrough' insofar as vaccines did not come until COVID, which has only been with us just shy of two years...

The criticism revolves around the idea that these 'vaccines' did NOT meet the traditional definition (one that has been out there for decades as the general understanding) of vaccine. Even the definition itself was officially changed. As I and actual experts have argued, there is a case to be made that they are more a therapeutic/treatment than an actual vaccine and, as I noted in the linked piece, such was the actual history of mRNA technology until COVID...

Just that last should have prompted restraint/caution vs. alacrity in the development/deployment of these 'vaccines.' But, combined with the lack of scientific knowledge, the breadth/depth of which is... typically ()... more complete than what we currently possess... yes... 'incomplete' and 'truncated' would seem to be appropriate terms. As to the rest under #1...

cont'd...

[TrappedinCalifornia]

The burden of proof is upon you, and you could meet it. You would have to suggest a scenario where vaccine rollout was delayed further, perhaps as a result of being held to an even higher safety standard, that resulted in some overall improvement. You have not. Instead, all we have is a much wordier and more irritating version of the appeal to ignorance that some hypothetical future effect will invert the trade. Like the others, you've brought no credible hypothesis, so this is only idle fear -- what we call a "worry bead" in risk management. You can bring it up, but don't expect action.

My point stands. The opinion to study more before deployment out of safety concerns was valid. So was the opinion that we had enough to proceed. The evidence in hand supported the latter opinion. The evidence to date affirms that opinion.

We've been over this ground, time and again. A difference of opinion is the very reason things are being debated as we speak and one doesn't get to declare 'victory' simply because they find opinions they agree with; something you have chastised many other members for, repeatedly, in your posts.

Neither does 'winning' come from your near continuous reference to "fallacies" and "biases" (present in a wide array of your posts on numerous threads), demands for 'evidence/proof' (particularly when it has already been posted in numerous threads, many of which you have admitted to missing, and the levels you demand are unlikely in the context of this forum), and other 'debate-style' tactics. That's attacking the messenger rather than the message, something I've warned you about regarding your approach and why many react to you and your 'translations' as they do.

As I said, this isn't a peer review or conference presentation. The burden of proof isn't on me. I'm pointing out exactly what you said, that the science is not there, yet. You have a tendency to interpret such as 'personal attacks' rather than 'constructive criticism' and initiate various tactics such as denigration and minutiae (sometimes coming perilously close to 'baffle 'em with...' in the process). As we've discussed...

...While you may not be entirely satisfied, you are clearly and admittedly sufficiently satisfied to proceed. As you note, that is your opinion, not a case in fact. There are others, with, at least on paper, a greater expertise than your own who disagree with that opinion; yet, you are content to denigrate others here who don't see things as you do as 'proof' of the superiority of your opinion...

As you say, onward...

2. Denying the classification of Pfizer Comirnaty / BNT162-b2 as a vaccine

So even taking your own words as gospel, you have equivocated the word "protective" with the word "prevention." Dirty pool. Anyone so aggressively specific about word definitions, who then substitutes words in his rebuttal, is not arguing in good faith, and that's that.

Did you even go back and read the post from several months ago that I provided you the link for where I walked readers through a deconstruction of the language and how it is understood by what you term the 'lay community?' Such was neither equivocation nor arbitrary. Once again, you are creating a straw man...

I will assume that you accept the Pfizer product does provide an immune response, since you focused solely on the word "protective."

Why assume? It's right there in the linked post...

...Set that against what a vaccine is supposed to do vis a vis "you can be exposed to it without becoming infected." Again, to be fair, in medical parlance, there are caveats and the word 'absolute' is not used in conjunction with 'protection.' However, numbers of infected among the vaccinated are not insignificant contributors to this wave and if the warning is that as "more people are vaccinated, the number of fully vaccinated people becoming infected will increase," the question of whether these COVID vaccines are actually vaccines by the CDC's own definition is tempting to ask. Of course, that will depend upon the intent behind the vaccine; i.e., was the intent to prevent or slow/hinder (i.e., 'mitigate') the disease?...

Put another way, if a 'correlate of protection' has only recently been discovered, then I think it can be argued that protection from infection was never the agenda for the vaccines currently under the EUA. Instead, they were intended as 'preventives' using the caveats provided in medical parlance; i.e., slow, hinder. Which returns us to the definition of "treatment" - "The use of an agent, procedure, or regimen, such as a drug, surgery, or exercise, in an attempt to cure or mitigate a disease, condition, or injury."

So... While it may meet the medical understanding of 'preventive,' the current EUA vaccines do not necessarily provide 'protection' in the way most understand the term. Given that 'protect' is a crucial element in the CDC's definition of 'vaccine,' if the COVID-19 vaccines being used under the auspices of the EUA do not 'protect' and, instead, mitigate, for the vast unwashed, that would make them more closely akin to how even the medical community defines... 'treatment.'...

What is an "immune response?"

The immune response is how your body recognizes and defends itself against bacteria, viruses, and substances that appear foreign and harmful...

The immune system protects the body from possibly harmful substances by recognizing and responding to antigens. Antigens are substances (usually proteins) on the surface of cells, viruses, fungi, or bacteria. Nonliving substances such as toxins, chemicals, drugs, and foreign particles (such as a splinter) can also be antigens. The immune system recognizes and destroys, or tries to destroy, substances that contain antigens...

More on that in a moment...

Whether I am right therefore depends on whether the vaccine's effects can be considered protective. I leave a definition search of second-grade vocabulary words to the reader as an exercise. You will also find that precise verbiage dominant in scholarly papers on performance of the Pfizer product (but, crazy as it might seem, they also to a one fix on the use of the word "vaccine").

Interestingly, as hung up as you are on specific definitions, you seem perfectly happy to ignore specific definitions, even those provided by authorities, so long as they have been recently changed -- apparently, while "optimization" and "thread drift" are concepts you're happy with, "clarification" and evolution of language are bugbears of yours...

More straw men? The key elements related to what we're discussing at the moment in the third reference from the list you linked to...

...longer follow-up is needed to assess durability of protection...

...Monitoring durability of protection after COVID-19 vaccination can help determine whether booster vaccines might be indicated, particularly with continued emergence of new variants that might overcome vaccine-induced immunity. In real-world settings, durability of protection has commonly been measured by comparing the odds of vaccination in laboratory-confirmed case-patients and control-patients who tested negative for infection, by time since vaccination...

Protection against severe COVID-19 resulting in hospitalization was sustained through 24 weeks after vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines...

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines provide strong protection against severe COVID-19; however, the duration of protection is uncertain...

What did I say in my reply to your first point?

...the short of it is that they are, at this time, uncertain as to what ultimate dosage is going to be required for effectiveness beyond a few weeks/months and are, progressively, adding more; reduced dosage size or not...

Remember the definitions the CDC has now altered were...

• Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.
  
• Vaccine:Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.
  
• Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.

The date of my post was 7/30/2021. The date the CDC posted the altered definitons was on or about 9/1/2021. In case you missed it, there was a thread about it, which included screenshots of the old and new definitions. Note that the 'older' definition did not include the phrase "immune response." It used "immunity" and the key word in the definition of immunity is protection. I guess the CDC is (or was) "hung up" on that word too; yet, it seems to have become their "bugabear," prompting the change in the definition.

Insofar as the rest of the list of words you cite, readers are free to go back and discover our exchanges over them; i.e., how you are the one providing 'unique' definitions rather than 'commonly understood' the way you claim they are. As an example, in reference to "optimization," it took a bit for you to admit it, but...

...Actually, you're the one calling it something else. What you are describing is an intrinsic PART of the process (as demonstrated from two engineering publications) not the entirety of the process.

The developers of the system, that's Pfizer / BioNTech, do indeed get to choose the metrics. In consultation with their customers, of course. I note those customers appear to be satisified, given the EUA decision announced today.

Then it is NOT a generally understood process. It is UNIQUE to the participants. The problem is that 'the customers,' as you cite them, are not the end user such 'vaccines' are supposed to be optimized for...

Moving on...

So you are insisting on the older definition, and you apparently feel what these vaccines provide is inconsistent with "immunity." Never mind that it stimulates a function of the immune system, or that re-infection among previous COVID-19 survivors compares poorly with vaccinated performance. But let's go with that.

My post was made BEFORE the "new definition" was out there. The reasons for the change are another, potential rabbit hole; but, suffice to say, that the "lay community" was used to and reliant upon the definition as it existed for years prior to, during the development of, and after the deployment of the current COVID 'vaccines.' The fact that they were changed 2 months ago to more closely align with the results being observed with these new 'vaccines' raises legitimate questions; regardless of your willingness to focus solely on the new definitions.

Let's accept the extremist position that only a 100% effective vaccine can be legitimately considered a vaccine.

Are there any?

The answer is "no." So -- if I were to accept your logic, I would have to retire the word "vaccine" from my lexicon entirely.

This is absurd. There is no advantage to this particular bit of linguistic stubbornness apart from interfering with the conversation.

For someone who is so hell-bent on "public perception," I fail to see how such a contrarian position helps things. It is better to simply explain how all vaccines are probabilistic in nature than to say there never was such a thing in the first place, or worse, to delude them into thinking the performance of the COVID-19 vaccines is somehow qualitatively different from vaccines of the past.

Yet another straw man? I addressed that...

...Desired functionality is a crucial component in the discussion of these vaccines. As has been, repeatedly, noted, in various ways and via various perceptions, the desired functionality of these 'vaccines' was NOT in the vein of how vaccines have been traditionally understood. It's something which cannot be dismissed or 'hidden' with... 'vaccines are never 100% effective.' As has been well established, the concept behind these 'treatments' was mitigation of severe disease, not prevention (immunity)...

...as you and I have extensively discussed, it is those very laypeople who are those which must be convinced, not the technicians or those scientists/public health officials already predisposed to moving with great alacrity...

... it has been documented, on a number of occasions, that these 'vaccines' were NEVER intended to provide full immunity, period, full stop. They weren't even designed to provide protection in the traditionally understood context of vaccines. They were intended to meet the professed need at that time... a way to reduce pressure on the system by reducing severe disease; i.e., hospitalizations and mortality...

Once again, the issue isn't whether there are 'failures' with 'vaccines.' Everyone knows there are and that such a potential exists... up to a point. The issue is how extensively the scientific community was aware of them and the magnitude prior to deployment...

We seem to be going over the same ground we've already covered. However, to your last point...

cont'd.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

3. Timeline of past vaccine development compared to COVID-19 vaccines

Before we actually put the chart you brought to good use, you've made another equivocation here -- very, very poor showing for someone as obsessive as you are about infinitessimal details of argument.

As I said to start this three part reply...

Uh... As I've asked previously... Project much do you? Your posts are almost nothing but arguing, touting, or pushing minutiae. My posts tend to be broader in scope...

Back at it...

The "arbitrary" timelines I refer to are those raised by the non-technical objectors (I include you in that grouping), those with sentiments such as "these vaccines are UNSAFE for males under age 30 until they are ACTUALLY PROVEN SAFE, and with large, long-term (at LEAST 5 year) studies" or more extreme variants like "When someone can explain to me how you can condense 15 to 20 years worth of long term safety research into less than 2 years" and so on. Such excuses are legion.

While the arguments presented in those threads may lack the "scientific sophistication" you deem as the only appropriate form of discourse when seeking knowledge, the reality is that the questions/issues being raised are not limited to "non-technical objectors." As I have already shown you, there are individuals, some more, some less qualified than yourself, who are asking the exact, same questions and raising the exact, same issues. Once again, this is the type of 'denigration' I keep pointing out as consistently present in your posts.

Those demands are not coming from practitioners.

But they are from individuals directly impacted by the vaccines via the growing mandates; for themselves, for their children, for their families, and/or for their friends. They are asking about the same LONG-TERM implications that I broached in one of our first exchanges as part of the source of my own hesitancy. Some or much of that has been a traditionally established part of the data prior to widespread deployment of vaccines. It is something overtly 'missing' in these and it is the very thing underlying the warnings provided in the previously discussed Nature article by an imminently qualified immunologist prior to the development of these 'vaccines;' i.e., hardly a non-practitioner, non-technical objector, or a stray opinion.

I suppose you will find a stray opinion to that effect, but your own chart belies the fact that the "10 year" timeline is just an average. In that chart, we have three out of eight examples of successful, past vaccines whose safety period -- the gap between large clinical trials and rollout, however crisply that may be defined -- is the same or even shorter.

People are free to look at the chart and make their own evaluation on that. Remember, development and evaluation cannot be partitioned into JUST the "large scale clinical trials;" i.e., you will note that the chart...



...indicates quite a bit more time prior to deployment than is evidenced with these 'vaccines' and that time lag cannot be simply dismissed as due to "old technology/methods." As you well know, there's more evaluation which occurs than just the "large clinical trials." From WHO...

...Each vaccine under development must first undergo screenings and evaluations to determine which antigen should be used to invoke an immune response. This preclinical phase is done without testing on humans. An experimental vaccine is first tested in animals to evaluate its safety and potential to prevent disease.

Phase 1

The vaccine is given to a small number of volunteers to assess its safety, confirm it generates an immune response, and determine the right dosage. Generally in this phase vaccines are tested in young, healthy adult volunteers.

Phase 2

The vaccine is then given to several hundred volunteers to further assess its safety and ability to generate an immune response. Participants in this phase have the same characteristics (such as age, sex) as the people for whom the vaccine is intended. There are usually multiple trials in this phase to evaluate various age groups and different formulations of the vaccine. A group that did not get the vaccine is usually included in phase as a comparator group to determine whether the changes in the vaccinated group are attributed to the vaccine, or have happened by chance.

Phase 3

The vaccine is next given to thousands of volunteers – and compared to a similar group of people who didn’t get the vaccine, but received a comparator product – to determine if the vaccine is effective against the disease it is designed to protect against and to study its safety in a much larger group of people. Most of the time phase three trials are conducted across multiple countries and multiple sites within a country to assure the findings of the vaccine performance apply to many different populations.

During phase two and phase three trials, the volunteers and the scientists conducting the study are shielded from knowing which volunteers had received the vaccine being tested or the comparator product. This is called “blinding” and is necessary to assure that neither the volunteers nor the scientists are influenced in their assessment of safety or effectiveness by knowing who got which product. After the trial is over and all the results are finalized, the volunteers and the trial scientists are informed who received the vaccine and who received the comparator.

When the results of all these clinical trials are available, a series of steps is required, including reviews of efficacy and safety for regulatory and public health policy approvals. Officials in each country closely review the study data and decide whether to authorize the vaccine for use. A vaccine must be proven to be safe and effective across a broad population before it will be approved and introduced into a national immunization programme. The bar for vaccine safety and efficacy is extremely high, recognizing that vaccines are given to people who are otherwise healthy and specifically free from the illness.

Further monitoring takes place in an ongoing way after the vaccine is introduced...

Bringing us back to the beginning of this three-part reply where I said...

You have, repeatedly, mischaracterized what I have said. I have said they were 'truncated' in that, at best, they have met the bare minimum testing time, evaluation periods were 'expedited,' and they have certainly not addressed the long-term. If that qualifies as "rushed," then so be it. I would characterize it more as... 'incomplete' vs. traditional vaccine development/deployment.

Show me where I have declared...

So the idea that this vaccine must be unsafe by analogy, even if we overlook the dissimilarity of method to past vaccines, on the basis of timing as shown in the graph... it just isn't there, friend.

Once again, a mischaracterization to argue against. I have consistently maintained that we don't, yet, know enough to accurately determine if it is safe or not, particularly over the long term. You have yet to provide and, frankly, cannot provide evidence that it is given that, no matter how you slice it, there has been no "long term" which has yet transpired. It's what those "non-technical objectors" who are "not practitioners" are getting at as well.

Instead, you are declaring it 'safe' to the 'best of our knowledge' at this point and within 'acceptable parameters' of immune reaction and anticipated 'failures.' As I've said, several times now, to the 'lay community' that sounds an awful lot like - "it sucks to be you if you fall on the wrong side of the percentages, but it's safe, mostly, so far as we know." While that may be a 'scientifically' valid position, as I am constantly reminding you, this isn't about pure science and it certainly involves more than just public health practitioners in that the vast majority who are most directly impacted are the very "lay community" you tend to dismiss as "unable to understand."

The "inherent broadness" you insist upon is not inherent at all. Typical, perhaps, even ordinary, but not essential. And it has to be for your claim to be valid.

Nope. Maybe the claim(s) you ascribe to me. But, not the claims and assertions I have actually made.

...You may find yourself wanting to issue a retraction.

Apologize for and retract something I didn't say or something I know to be correct?

So that's it, I think that's more than enough for a next salvo. You may squawk about my "control" of the conversation, but as a participant, I have that right.

As a participant, you don't get to control the conversation. You get to participate. The control I reference is that you attempt to set the 'rules' for the discussion, what is an 'acceptable' contribution, and what you will or won't respond to based how how you deem it to be in compliance. That's not participation, that's moderation and, unless you've been given the job when I wasn't looking, you ain't a moderator...

If we can make some progress on these items, maybe we can move on to something else. Pick one and dwell on it if you find your posts growing too long.

As I've told you, several times now...

...it often takes more than a bumper sticker size post to unwind things and 15,000 characters [the post size limit] is about 2,500 - 3,000 words. But, that's something you are well aware of given the size of many of your own posts.

So, you're still attempting to set the parameters and, as I also noted, we're actually treading the same ground we have been all along. You simply keep creating new things to argue against that I didn't say and then accusing me of "not being able to understand" and needing to "learn." In other words, the now familiar 'hiding' I have mentioned to you as similar to what Fauci displays.

Thus... I think we're pretty much done here. I do thank you for helping make it apparent that the science isn't there yet and that what you are, primarily, giving 'voice' to are opinions. As I've said, your translations are helpful and useful for the "lay community." However, it is occasionally useful to reintroduce the actual 'playbook' for the "unlearned" to discern between translation and opinion. Sometimes, it's not always as clear as we think (or claim) it is.

[SmokeTheClay]

Didn't bother reading ASRs though, considering half of his novels are: insulting someone else and saying he is right. I laughed out loud when ASR complained about Trapped's long posts (quoted by Trapped)


I actually read TrappedInCA's last 3 posts. I applaud you for sticking with it and spending the energy to actually answer ASRs novels. For some reason, he doesn't seem to comprehend that these "vaccines" are not completely tested. There are historical threads where he dismissed any potential side effects, which have now come to fruition. He doesn't want to answer to them, and not answering to those shows his true self. Weak, to put it lightly

[Rottentofu]

Didn't bother reading ASRs though, considering half of his novels are: insulting someone else and saying he is right. I laughed out loud when ASR complained about Trapped's long posts (quoted by Trapped)


I actually read TrappedInCA's last 3 posts. I applaud you for sticking with it and spending the energy to actually answer ASRs novels. For some reason, he doesn't seem to comprehend that these "vaccines" are not completely tested. There are historical threads where he dismissed any potential side effects, which have now come to fruition. He doesn't want to answer to them, and not answering to those shows his true self. Weak, to put it lightly

Exactly my thoughts. This is the difference between someone who actually knows his chits vs someone who pretends to know chits. That fact becomes blatantly obvious the more each of the two guys expressed their views.

[sd_shooter]

The FDA, NIH or CDC could put out another 'study' with some numbers and ASR would eat it up without hesitation.
- He himself doesn't question government authority (Although he preaches against this very thing)
- He doesn't question the numbers (They are from the government - they must be correct! What tests used? How many previously sick kids among the 'cases'? And he questions everyone else's numbers)
- Main focus is on how the 'study' was constructed (Doesn't consider it may have been deliberately created to produce a desired result, especially in absence of the raw data. Were any results excluded from the data set because they were an 'outlier'?)

In a vacuum the study indeed looks compelling. Sweden has already seen the light and forbids use of Moderna for those under 30. Waiting to see what happens in the countries that are vaxxing anyway:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58516207

[sd_shooter]

Oh here we go! I guess no one managed to create a custom powerpoint to clear Moderna vax in time, FDA is investigating it due to heart trouble caused in teens

https://thepostmillennial.com/fda-investigating-reports-suggesting-moderna-vaccine-can-cause-adolescent-heart-problems/

[SmokeTheClay]

Oh here we go! I guess no one managed to create a custom powerpoint to clear Moderna vax in time, FDA is investigating it due to heart trouble caused in teens

https://thepostmillennial.com/fda-in...eart-problems/

ASR will say it's still safe for newborns to 11 year olds