Quote Bob8="Bob8"Quite. It is hardly a gotcha.
There is this fake humility, that suggests it is modest to expect his complete lack of knowledge and experience to not mean his opinion and judgement should not be weighed above those who have worked in the ICU, developed and trialled vaccines etc.'"
The figures I posted were from Sage's own published paper. If you're suggesting Sage don't work in the relevant area and aren't qualified to comment, but you are, I suggest any humility, fake or otherwise, on your part would be an improvement.
You're sharing an opinion and don't work in the relevant area. Hypocrisy much?
Finally. The definition was changed. If you're going to keep pretending it wasn't, please provide evidence.
I've said multiple times now .. including in the very first post with which you took issue...that whether any individual attaches any relevance to that is personal choice (unlike yourself who feels only your opinion is valid). Further, I've explained in detail above why it matters to me (completely ignored by yourself so I'm assuming you have no reasoned, or indeed reasonable, argument to counter it).
I'm not exactly sure what it is about freedom of thought that scares or offends you so much but it's quite clear that you're completely incapable of accepting any view except your own and that debate to you consists of insulting or trying to belittle the person you're debating with.
You have offered nothing to counter any point I've put forward beyond an incorrect table from the Financial Times, some vague insinuation that any viewpoint other than your own must somehow be wrong and that if you belittle the person rather than the argument you are somehow "winning" the debate.
Anyway, put up or shut up time. Provide evidence that they haven't changed the definition in order to recategorise the new treatments as vaccines. It's a very simple request and one you should be able to accomplish without resorting to insults. Unless of course... God forbid...you're actually wrong. Surely not.
