Bob, I am still awaiting a response to the points I put to you. I have had the courtesy to reply to your questions now please answer mine.

Just copied a reply from someone who has been providing info throughout the pandemic on statistical/scientific analysis etc

A couple of things here:

1. Pfizer has nothing to do with this data release. It is the FDA who controls this info, and the release was drastically sped up due to a FOIA request. There are 300,000 pages set to be released. The FDA was planning on releasing 500 a month. The judge ordered that it be increased to 55,000 a month.

2. I haven't read the first 55,000 pages. In fact, if you read a page per minute without sleeping, eating, or stopping for a single second, you would still be about 10,000 pages short by the next release.

3. It wasn't being buried, it was being released at a normal rate. This is because that part of the FDA normally has about 10 employees who do this work. They have to redact all personal and proprietary info on every page potentially. And they are juggling, on average, several hundred other FOIA requests. This is a unique ask that requires a ton of external help to pull off.

4. We almost certainly won't read anything new in these documents. The highlights are already released, and the safety profile has been well established with several billion data points now.

I believe I read that the FDA is handling, on average, about 400 FOIA demands at any one time. If you release 500 pages per month for each report, that's 200,000 pages released monthly. That's about 20,000 pages per month per employee. Once again, the antivax crowd uses a nugget of truth to build a bigger lie.

No one is hiding anything

Just to add some context to the above, Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna are making profits of roughly $1000 a SECOND. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/pfiz ... -s-poorest

Just to add some context to the above, Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna are making profits of roughly $1000 a SECOND. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/pfiz ... -s-poorest

OK, so you are using the definition of vaccine as one that a teacher (who had a BSc in a generic science subject) used to teach to a bunch of about thirty odd teenages kids of varying intelligence. Do you see that having too much reliance on that as an authority might be the issue. Biology is messy, nothing is 100%.

The vaccines (for they are vaccines) do give protection. We can see this as unvaccinated people are disproportionately more likely to end up in UCI with Covid-19 than if they had been vaccinated. You can trust the official figures, or trust doctors and nurses who work in ICU.

You study you quoted, that I suspect you would not have quoted if it did not agree with you, was indeed co-authored by people at John Hopkin University. It has many departments, and if co-authored by a Danish political pressure group. It is not an independent study. Common sense would tell you to look at comparisons. Sweden did not lock down and suffered many, many deaths is 2020, similar Denmark and Norway locked down early and moderately and had no significant excess deaths. Post vaccination roll-out, Sweden had the highest vaccine uptake and is now doing extremely well, particularly to nations that have not.

And yet 'all-cause' mortality rates stayed the same in both countries in 2020 as in previous years (2015-2018 Sweden and 2015-2019 Norway*)

Conclusion: Neither country faired better than the other when it came to mortality rate unless you take the ridiculous viewpoint that Covid deaths are somehow more important than Cancer deaths, heart disease deaths etc.

Incidentally, the vaccine definition was the one used by the WHO, not some biology teacher. Stop being disingenuous with your responses. It weakens your argument.

*All cause deaths actually fell in Sweden in 2019 so were outside the useful data for comparison.

This is not an argument. The issue is that there is something wrong with yout brain. You are lying about the figures: https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-5eb ... df5b386938 No-one give a turd about what your teacher taught you, which is what you referred to. Grown up sin teh vaccine industry know what a vaccine is. You do not know what you are talking about. It can be hard for people to accept that these things are not all about them, and that other people such as those working in ICU and vaccine development actually know more about it. But, it is the case. That is why some people get to work on vaccines, some work in ICU and others sole contribution is talking rubbish on a message board. Take a good look at your life, mate.

This is not an argument. The issue is that there is something wrong with yout brain. You are lying about the figures: https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-5eb ... df5b386938 No-one give a turd about what your teacher taught you, which is what you referred to. Grown up sin teh vaccine industry know what a vaccine is. You do not know what you are talking about. It can be hard for people to accept that these things are not all about them, and that other people such as those working in ICU and vaccine development actually know more about it. But, it is the case. That is why some people get to work on vaccines, some work in ICU and others sole contribution is talking rubbish on a message board. Take a good look at your life, mate.

Let us agree to disagree.
It could be a boring vaccine, that has some effectiveness limited by the immune system, and that the overwhelming majority of experts are right that separate limits infection.

Or...
All the experts have it wrong, we should all listen to anonymous numb-nuts who have never worked in science or healthcare in their lives, that all the scientists on the field are corrupt and incompetent, together with all the doctors and nurses. And, the real experts are boring gits like you. That last sentance might seem insulting, but it is nothing like as bad as the ones just before it.

Fair enough

Why does changing the definition matter? If you're questioning why they changed the definition that's fair enough but it seems like you and others are hinting at a lot more than that.

I'm hinting at nothing. I am merely stating a fact. They changed the definition of 'vaccine' in order to fit the Covid 19 treatment in. I said in the original post that it's up to each individual to decide whether that is relevant to them or not. However, whether you do or don't does not change the fact that it happened.

If you're asking why do I personally think it matters I'm more than happy to answer. I think it's important because transparency of information is important and should not be sacrificed on the alter of "noble lies". Once you start to bend the truth in order to fit a narrative or agenda, even if you perceive that agenda to be a good one, you are on a slippery slope. Who decides which lies are acceptable or not?

Unlike our friend Bob, I am more than happy to accept that someone else's opinion may differ and don't feel the need to insult them if it does. However, despite his protestations the Covid 19 treatments are not vaccines as, in order to classify them as such, the definition of what a vaccine is needed to be changed.

Using this logic we could tweak it again to read "a product that assists a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” which, again, only changes a single word ("stimulates" to "assists"icon_wink.gif. However water would then adhere to this description and we could all happily inject water in the safe knowledge that we're being "vaccinated".

Whether you think truth matters is very much a personal choice. I happen to think it does.

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.

Thanks for the reply.

I guess I take the position bob8 is taking. I don't know how these areas work, whether they alter what fits in categories often or not. I just have to trust experts in relevant fields and the vaccines seem to be working.

Did this affect your decision whether to get vaccinated?(or take the shots and boosters if you prefer) and what is the relevance of the profits the Pfizer et al are making?