My turn to complain about vaccine mandates :D

[deerdeerdeer]

That's OK, my son doesn't take criticism well either. Like you, he's rather thinned skinned. I explained simply what I thought about your original post, in a rather benign way in fact. No personal attack whatsoever and you feel like you have been attacked. My son's mother was diagnosed, twice in fact, with narcissistic personality disorder. You remind me of her.

As for making the claim that I thought you were "playing dumb" when it came to not understanding the reaction you would get with the remarks about getting your daughter jabbed, I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I knew this from the geicko by the way he responds and interacts with people on this forum. Take a look at the title post with the : D face, its pretty clear. Also, I played professional card games for awhile, long and behold, I am actually a good reading people, and I also do not run on emotion, and I also don't care for winning or losing which made it ten-fold easier to read people and win games. I'm sorry your sons mother has this, and if rocket has it, I am sorry too. My mom has it too, but I had to school her that you have a son raising a parent about morals, and she finally heard me out. Plus, I piut my emotions aside with her, mom's run it with an ironclad, and showed her more love which she needed probably more than me. We now get along, well for now., but I am pretty sure its indefinitely since we had a real talk for once . Her claim is she knows, she understands, I told her if she truly understands how come we have been doing this for decades. I told her theres too much sh*t going on for us to argue, she heard me out finally.... I don't know if this helps, this is just my case scenario, I truly wish someday she will understand you though and things change. As for your son, I don't got one, so you know more than me, probably would ask for your advice someday Maturity takes time on both sides, good luck, and godspeed, my man.

[as_rocketman]

That's OK, my son doesn't take criticism well either. Like you, he's rather thinned skinned. I explained simply what I thought about your original post, in a rather benign way in fact. No personal attack whatsoever and you feel like you have been attacked. My son's mother was diagnosed, twice in fact, with narcissistic personality disorder. You remind me of her.

As for making the claim that I thought you were "playing dumb" when it came to not understanding the reaction you would get with the remarks about getting your daughter jabbed, I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

That's three times you've thrown shade on me with no justification. Shame on you again.

[RedPilled1]

That's three times you've thrown shade on me with no justification. Shame on you again.

[deerdeerdeer]

That's three times you've thrown shade on me with no justification. Shame on you again.

The irony of the post, he stated its okay, and he understands. He even put humility on his own son and baby momma, just to show you he understands. There is no shade, just opinions, like yours or mines. Is your emotions getting hurt? Are you triggered, keep that m1 garand far far away from me rocket. The great Mike Tyson said if you let them control your emotions, you are their slave and they are your master, hopefully you take something from this, if not, I still wish you the best. I truly do, if you need help or need someone to talk too, just PM me.You can curse me out if you want, I won't report it, just gonna listen man. We is here for you and your daughter. I'm with you human to human, but opinion to opinion, we are on different planets. I believe I threw the most shade, slighly apologetic, we havent met in the middle yet....

[Den60]

That's three times you've thrown shade on me with no justification. Shame on you again.

Spiro Agnew. God, you like to dish it out but you cannot take any criticism whatsoever.

When US submarines leave port and set out to sea and extend their towed array sonar, they will do a circle to do a self assessment of their emissions, just to be sure. Perhaps you should think of something similar for you on here, just so you play better with others. Just a thought. Yeah you will dismiss such a though because... well, I already said why.

[as_rocketman]

Spiro Agnew. God, you like to dish it out but you cannot take any criticism whatsoever.

When US submarines leave port and set out to sea and extend their towed array sonar, they will do a circle to do a self assessment of their emissions, just to be sure. Perhaps you should think of something similar for you on here, just so you play better with others. Just a thought. Yeah you will dismiss such a though because... well, I already said why.

While we're cloaking our malice in submarine analogies, here's a better one: Silence is golden.

--

I'll follow the evidence. Right now we have pretty good results but they're incomplete.

The Phase 3 for children is still running, but it's in an "extended" period -- in the original BNT162b2 study, they ran for six months after the initial findings before unblinding and going to a Phase IV model. I have to imagine the current trial will behave similarly, but I can't be certain.

Publication is following about a four or five month cycle after release of data, but that's full publication. A preprint might be available faster. I'm watching the indexes but haven't seen this one come up yet.

[RedPilled1]

While we're cloaking our malice in submarine analogies, here's a better one: Silence is golden.

--



I'll follow the evidence. Right now we have pretty good results but they're incomplete.

The Phase 3 for children is still running, but it's in an "extended" period -- in the original BNT162b2 study, they ran for six months after the initial findings before unblinding and going to a Phase IV model. I have to imagine the current trial will behave similarly, but I can't be certain.

Publication is following about a four or five month cycle after release of data, but that's full publication. A preprint might be available faster. I'm watching the indexes but haven't seen this one come up yet.

[Den60]

While we're cloaking our malice in submarine analogies, here's a better one: Silence is golden.

--



I'll follow the evidence. Right now we have pretty good results but they're incomplete.

The Phase 3 for children is still running, but it's in an "extended" period -- in the original BNT162b2 study, they ran for six months after the initial findings before unblinding and going to a Phase IV model. I have to imagine the current trial will behave similarly, but I can't be certain.

Publication is following about a four or five month cycle after release of data, but that's full publication. A preprint might be available faster. I'm watching the indexes but haven't seen this one come up yet.

The more you post in this thread the more pitiful you look. I gave you an avenue to escape but you keep doubling down on dumb. I never attacked you, you just feel that anyone that disagrees with you is attacking you.

The post you quoted is not one of mine. What is your point?

[as_rocketman]

Can you please explain to me the first paragraph?

It says phase 3 started July 27 (2020) and will continue for 2 more years (article written Nov 2020) making it in phase 3 until around Nov. 2022, then report come out 6 months later making it May 2023.

Is my math correct? I’m terrible at math.

How can we trust the science when the science isn’t finished yet?

They're describing the Phase IV. They typically do long-term surveillance of their Phase III pool for two years, but it's different -- less intensive screening, and unblinded, as ethically it makes no sense to deny a proven therapy to the placebo group any longer. But as they've already invested time in building up the subject pool, they keep it going for longer assessment.

This is normal stuff. Previous vaccines were released on a similar timetable with respect to the Phase III / IV boundary. As for science, it is never finished.

[RedPilled1]

They're describing the Phase IV. They typically do long-term surveillance of their Phase III pool for two years, but it's different -- less intensive screening, and unblinded, as ethically it makes no sense to deny a proven therapy to the placebo group any longer. But as they've already invested time in building up the subject pool, they keep it going for longer assessment.

This is normal stuff. Previous vaccines were released on a similar timetable with respect to the Phase III / IV boundary. As for science, it is never finished.

[stonefly-2]

Tough love.

It's time you just face it before risking what's most precious.

You've worked hard and become adept at your craft but it's left you with no gag reflex when you need it most.

All the walls of text you can muster won't change one simple fact....garbage in=garbage out.

They are dirty my man and you have little to protect you and yours,
snap out of it.

[as_rocketman]

It's a jargon thing. The clinical trial, registered here, describes a process involving a cohort of human subjects. The different drug development trials, Phase I / II / III / IV, describe objectives. The word "trial" is thus overloaded in cases where you can achieve more than one objective with the same group of subjects.

That's what's happening here. They refer to both phases as a single trial because it involves the same subjects, and is registered as a single activity. With respect to FDA licensing, Phase III and IV follow different methods and have their own reports, and from that perspective, are distinct.

Phase III preliminary data for age 5-11 are done and reported. Phase III extended for them is underway. I haven't found updated releases beyond what was in the OP to this thread. I do expect them in the next month or two.

[RedPilled1]

My turn to complain about vaccine mandates [emoji3]

It's a jargon thing. The clinical trial, registered here, describes a process involving a cohort of human subjects. The different drug development trials, Phase I / II / III / IV, describe objectives. The word "trial" is thus overloaded in cases where you can achieve more than one objective with the same group of subjects.

That's what's happening here. They refer to both phases as a single trial because it involves the same subjects, and is registered as a single activity. With respect to FDA licensing, Phase III and IV follow different methods and have their own reports, and from that perspective, are distinct.

Phase III preliminary data for age 5-11 are done and reported. Phase III extended for them is underway. I haven't found updated releases beyond what was in the OP to this thread. I do expect them in the next month or two.

[as_rocketman]

Do you find any of this concerning?

Those giant images are giving me some grief, yeah.

They can go fine. The only thing that was rushed here is the testing time. The trials went much faster than normal because, instead of other recent vaccines which treated rare diseases (e.g., Ebola, original SARS), they had a high infection rate and could reach statistical significance in a matter of weeks, whereas often it takes months or years. This is an unusual pandemic and it drove RCTs.

As for the development time, you can't really discount the decades of investment in what are essentially modular epitope delivery platforms. If you do, it may look artificially short, but that's not honest.

You don't judge a result by how long it takes. You judge by the results. Anyway, I imagine you've seen this discussion before. It's not new.

[RedPilled1]

Those giant images are giving me some grief, yeah.



They can go fine. The only thing that was rushed here is the testing time. The trials went much faster than normal because, instead of other recent vaccines which treated rare diseases (e.g., Ebola, original SARS), they had a high infection rate and could reach statistical significance in a matter of weeks, whereas often it takes months or years. This is an unusual pandemic and it drove RCTs.

As for the development time, you can't really discount the decades of investment in what are essentially modular epitope delivery platforms. If you do, it may look artificially short, but that's not honest.

You don't judge a result by how long it takes. You judge by the results. Anyway, I imagine you've seen this discussion before. It's not new.