Your schtick sucks and it screams insecurity.

Originally Posted By Anachron⏩

The jumping through hoops is really amusing.

So you're saying that the efficacy is not what it was, but the results of the clinical trial are still valid. Which one is it?

No hoops are being jumped through. You’re trying to be clever and look like a fool. Let me put this as simply as I can: the early data suggested 90-95% effectiveness against symptomatic disease. The pathogen has evolved and immunity has waned. Those two factors have led to a drop in that effectiveness, but it is still very effective.

Now with that said, can you tell me specifically why you think a reduction in effectiveness undermines the original data or deem the results fraudulent? Don’t be a slippery fish. Be specific.

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

"Stop sitting back saying yeah man, I wanna be this, I wanna be that, grab your phucking nuts and be it" -Greg Plitt

Can't edit avi, mod tried to help but he couldn't figure it out either

Originally Posted By Anachron⏩

I can be as slippery as you are being. Please note that I have said nothing along the lines of "undermining the original data" or that the "results were fraudulent".

Simple yes or no answer, is the "early data" still valid today?

Valid isn’t the word you’re looking for. Are the results still applicable today? No. That’s why we have recent results that are.

Good, I’m glad we’re on the same page and that I cleared any misconceptions you had. Wouldn’t want you thinking that discrepancies in early vs more recent data are not perfectly consistent with biology.

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

Sloots gonna sloot
RIP ZYZZ, Greg Plitt
Say no to lefty snowflakes crew
Meat-eating crew, leaf eaters GTFO
Pureblood Crew

"Stop sitting back saying yeah man, I wanna be this, I wanna be that, grab your phucking nuts and be it" -Greg Plitt

Can't edit avi, mod tried to help but he couldn't figure it out either

Originally Posted By Anachron⏩

I can be as slippery as you are being. Please note that I have said nothing along the lines of "undermining the original data" or that the "results were fraudulent".

Simple yes or no answer, is the "early data" still valid today?

Stop answering a question with a question, *******.

Your schtick sucks and it screams insecurity.

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

Weight Loss: Go carnivore or keto/low carb. Create calorie deficit. Buy packaged healthy meals if needed. Meat is good and heals, stop being lied to.

Youtube Dr. Shawn Baker to change your life today.

Originally Posted By Anachron⏩

So the efficacy numbers are not "applicable" anymore - thanks for confirming.

If the most recent data is "perfectly consistent with biology", why did they not know that the dosage would not be 2 shots over 21 days ( or 28 days in case of Moderna ), but three shots with the third one being 8 months out from the second one?



Another wild vaxcel appears, maybe you can try to answer my question, too.

See you’re doing it again. Now I want you to edit your post to say the EARLY efficacy data are not applicable. That’s an important distinction and the entire point.

Being consistent doesn’t mean we can predict it. Think about what those words mean.

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

*Look at reflection in car window and flex every time crew*
*Use half the roll to wipe after a poo crew*
*Fart in the gym and blame rotten smell on faulty ventilation crew*
*Fart at home and blame it on the dog crew*
*Watch neutron-star density poop mock me as water flushes around it and it stays put crew*
*Drive 2 minutes in the summer and back of shirt gets completely wet crew*
*Coffee black as midnight on a moonless night crew*
*Fat shame my cat on a daily basis crew*

Originally Posted By Anachron⏩

Sorry, typed too fast, I did mean early. My mistake - I meant the efficacy numbers of the Phase III clinical trials.

So, what you're saying is that they couldn't predict what the efficacy was going to be long term?

Again, simple yes or no, we don't need a whole novel on this.

As in predict the exact relative reduction of the vaccine long term? That is correct, they could not nor was that expected. Just like with any antimicrobial drug or vaccine. That said, you can reasonably predict qualitative trends but I don’t think you’re interested in discussing that science.

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

Originally Posted By Anachron⏩

No, I am not interested in discussing that. I am only interested in the bolded, not the deflections that are only good to illustrate "being slippery".

Because I agree with you. They couldn't predict, and it would be foolish to think that was expected - especially considering that any of the currently available Covid vaccines work in a way no vaccine has ever worked before.

But...

Everyone is supposed to believe the narrative that while they couldn't predict the long term efficacy of a vaccine, they could predict the long term safety of it.

Thanks for playing.

That is correct. You should believe that. It is a false equivalence. And I’m happy to have played.

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

Originally Posted By Anachron⏩

Except it's not - you should look up the meaning of the term.

That is exactly what it is. Perhaps you should.

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

Age: 30

"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants"
-Sir Isaac Newton

Always Neg Back Crew.

Originally Posted By Anachron⏩

Perhaps your personal bias is getting the better of you, and you don't quite understand what I posted. Wouldn't be the first time - heck, I needed to ask a simple question three times before you got it.

I answered every one of your questions. Your entire approach is trying to ask leading question after leading question. It didn’t work. In summary: the vaccine is effective and safe. Good day boyo.

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

- Arthur Schopenhauer

Veni Vidi Vici MMXI

A million miles away - I don't.. feel.... anything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXGZu4yxjW0