We have been part of an experiment

[Scott777]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/lockdown-effects-feared-to-be-killing-more-people-than-covid/ar-AA10OyYi?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=20d6213f0d7d44b786086e6305a415a9
Well make of it what you will.

Here's the Telegraph own article.

"Unexplained excess deaths outstrip those from virus as medics call figures 'terrifying'"

Obviously, it's not the vaccines, oh, no no no no.  It's unexplained, BUT NEVER experimental vaccines, cos, everyone repeat after me, "safe and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective".

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/18/lockdown-effects-feared-killing-people-covid/

[Sheepy]

Thought the corrected bit would get you twisting info again.

The Reuters correction reads:

CORRECTED-Fact Check- COVID-19 vaccines are not experimental and they have not skipped trial stages 
By Reuters Fact Check
9 Min Read
Correction, April 30, 2021: An earlier version of this check described the Pfizer/BioNtech, Moderna and J&J vaccines as being approved for use in the United States. This has been corrected to say these vaccines have been authorized for emergency use by the FDA. Vaccine makers will need to apply to the FDA for full approval to continue use after the pandemic.
Claims that COVID-19 vaccines are "experimental", have skipped animal testing and have not completed initial research trials are false.

Now I note you're shifting your argument again — ie, And still, you won't answer the question: why they would be illegal under normal circumstances? How can the Covid pandemic be classed as "normal circumstances"? any more than any emergency would be classed as normal, unless it was regularly trained and catered for and experienced. I addressed that in Reply #352

As Reuters points out: Claims that COVID-19 vaccines are "experimental", have skipped animal testing and have not completed initial research trials are false.

The incomplete bit of a chart you attach to your post, the parent document of which I managed to open, has another page, Study Results — not Study Results So Far, but Study Results:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT04516746?term=AZD1222&draw=2

Nowhere can I see the word "experimental" referring to periods following March 5, 2021 — though it is interesting to note under the heading Serious Adverse Events, more were recorded among those receiving the Placebo, than those being dosed with the actual vaccine — 0.72% compared to 0.65%. Non-serious reactions (many associated with the vaccine actually working — my words) showed 31.66% for the vaccine, and 20.44% for the placebo.

And still I see no use of the word "experimental" referring to ongoing work as the study is being carried out...

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/lockdown-effects-feared-to-be-killing-more-people-than-covid/ar-AA10OyYi?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=20d6213f0d7d44b786086e6305a415a9
Well make of it what you will.

[Sheepy]

You're struggling, Pat.  Try to focus on what I say.  Reuters fact-checkers are not a reliable source of facts.  They had to correct themselves, which proves it.  Additionally, they have not claimed the vaccines are not experimental.  Again, you didn't read it correctly. "Claims that COVID-19 vaccines are 'experimental', have skipped animal testing and have not completed initial research trials are false."  This is a statement combining 3 different facts.  If any of the 3 facts are false, then the combined statement is false.  So, if they have not skipped animal testing, then the combined statement is false, even if the other 2 parts are true.  That's how English grammar works.

No, I haven't shifted my argument, that's what you did.  I quote from my earlier post, #348: "If it were not for the guv declaring a public health emergency, the vaccine would not be legal".  Instead YOU shift the point with: How can the Covid pandemic be classed as normal circumstances. I never said or suggested that.  I said, "if".  Do you not understand the word "if"?  You still haven't said why it would be illegal.  I explained it's because it is not safe.  You still ignore it.

You didn't open a "parent document".  My link is not an "incomplete bit of a chart".  There is one document, with 3 tabs: "Study Detail", "Tabular View", and "Study Results".  You opened the Study Results.  The results do not need to specify "experimental", because the Study Detail does.  Why would results need to specify the experimental classification of the study?  Why would the word "experimental" need to be used referring to ongoing work, if the entire study classification is stated in the correct tab?

They just cannot get their heads around any of it, we have showed them evidence from some of the greatest minds alive, yet they still repeat the same mantra.

[Scott777]

Thought the corrected bit would get you twisting info again.

The Reuters correction reads:

CORRECTED-Fact Check- COVID-19 vaccines are not experimental and they have not skipped trial stages 
By Reuters Fact Check
9 Min Read
Correction, April 30, 2021: An earlier version of this check described the Pfizer/BioNtech, Moderna and J&J vaccines as being approved for use in the United States. This has been corrected to say these vaccines have been authorized for emergency use by the FDA. Vaccine makers will need to apply to the FDA for full approval to continue use after the pandemic.
Claims that COVID-19 vaccines are "experimental", have skipped animal testing and have not completed initial research trials are false.

Now I note you're shifting your argument again — ie, And still, you won't answer the question: why they would be illegal under normal circumstances? How can the Covid pandemic be classed as "normal circumstances"? any more than any emergency would be classed as normal, unless it was regularly trained and catered for and experienced. I addressed that in Reply #352

As Reuters points out: Claims that COVID-19 vaccines are "experimental", have skipped animal testing and have not completed initial research trials are false.

The incomplete bit of a chart you attach to your post, the parent document of which I managed to open, has another page, Study Results — not Study Results So Far, but Study Results:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT04516746?term=AZD1222&draw=2

Nowhere can I see the word "experimental" referring to periods following March 5, 2021 — though it is interesting to note under the heading Serious Adverse Events, more were recorded among those receiving the Placebo, than those being dosed with the actual vaccine — 0.72% compared to 0.65%. Non-serious reactions (many associated with the vaccine actually working — my words) showed 31.66% for the vaccine, and 20.44% for the placebo.

And still I see no use of the word "experimental" referring to ongoing work as the study is being carried out...

You're struggling, Pat.  Try to focus on what I say.  Reuters fact-checkers are not a reliable source of facts.  They had to correct themselves, which proves it.  Additionally, they have not claimed the vaccines are not experimental.  Again, you didn't read it correctly. "Claims that COVID-19 vaccines are 'experimental', have skipped animal testing and have not completed initial research trials are false."  This is a statement combining 3 different facts.  If any of the 3 facts are false, then the combined statement is false.  So, if they have not skipped animal testing, then the combined statement is false, even if the other 2 parts are true.  That's how English grammar works.

No, I haven't shifted my argument, that's what you did.  I quote from my earlier post, #348: "If it were not for the guv declaring a public health emergency, the vaccine would not be legal".  Instead YOU shift the point with: How can the Covid pandemic be classed as normal circumstances.  I never said or suggested that.  I said, "if".  Do you not understand the word "if"?  You still haven't said why it would be illegal.  I explained it's because it is not safe.  You still ignore it.

You didn't open a "parent document".  My link is not an "incomplete bit of a chart".  There is one document, with 3 tabs: "Study Detail", "Tabular View", and "Study Results".  You opened the Study Results.  The results do not need to specify "experimental", because the Study Detail does.  Why would results need to specify the experimental classification of the study?  Why would the word "experimental" need to be used referring to ongoing work, if the entire study classification is stated in the correct tab?

[patman post]

Thought the corrected bit would get you twisting info again.

The Reuters correction reads:

CORRECTED-Fact Check- COVID-19 vaccines are not experimental and they have not skipped trial stages 
By Reuters Fact Check
9 Min Read
Correction, April 30, 2021: An earlier version of this check described the Pfizer/BioNtech, Moderna and J&J vaccines as being approved for use in the United States. This has been corrected to say these vaccines have been authorized for emergency use by the FDA. Vaccine makers will need to apply to the FDA for full approval to continue use after the pandemic.
Claims that COVID-19 vaccines are "experimental", have skipped animal testing and have not completed initial research trials are false.

Now I note you're shifting your argument again — ie, And still, you won't answer the question: why they would be illegal under normal circumstances? How can the Covid pandemic be classed as "normal circumstances"? any more than any emergency would be classed as normal, unless it was regularly trained and catered for and experienced. I addressed that in Reply #352

As Reuters points out: Claims that COVID-19 vaccines are "experimental", have skipped animal testing and have not completed initial research trials are false.

The incomplete bit of a chart you attach to your post, the parent document of which I managed to open, has another page, Study Results — not Study Results So Far, but Study Results:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT04516746?term=AZD1222&draw=2

Nowhere can I see the word "experimental" referring to periods following March 5, 2021 — though it is interesting to note under the heading Serious Adverse Events, more were recorded among those receiving the Placebo, than those being dosed with the actual vaccine — 0.72% compared to 0.65%. Non-serious reactions (many associated with the vaccine actually working — my words) showed 31.66% for the vaccine, and 20.44% for the placebo.

And still I see no use of the word "experimental" referring to ongoing work as the study is being carried out...

[Scott777]

And the Covid pandemic called  for extraordinary measures, but despite the emergency Covid vaccines are not experimental and have not skipped trial stages.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-vaccines-idUSL1N2M70MW
https://fullfact.org/online/covid-vaccines-not-medical-experiment/
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained

Are you serious?  So I post the official clinical trials, which state they are experimental, and you post so-called fact-checkers, and the FDA (which did not authorise the UK vaccines).  Reuters are correcting their own mistake, so they admit their own fact-check got something wrong.  The FDA makes no mention of whether they are experimental or not, so why did you post it?  And Fullfact, are you seriously posting that garbage to show that the National Institutes of Health is wrong?  if you believe they are not experimental, then just post the clinical trials, not just unreliable claims by fact-checkers.

And still, you won't answer the question: why they would be illegal under normal circumstances?  I can see I'll have to help you a bit, with some clues.  The clinical trials are to test 2 things, safety and efficacy.  If ONLY the efficacy testing is incomplete, then a treatment would not be illegal, because what is the problem with a treatment that might not be very effective, as long as it's safe?  Therefore, the only reason for a treatment being illegal, according to clinical trials, is if the safety testing is incomplete. 

The Estimated Study Completion Date for the AZ is February 24, 2023.  And I quote what this means.  "The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit)."  That means the data has not yet been collected regarding adverse reactions.

If you can't accept it, I'll leave you to wallow in your ignorance.

[patman post]

It's quite long winded, but still does not address the point.  You continue to ignore that Covid vaccines are officially experimental, and would therefore be illegal under normal circumstances.  You keep making a strawman, by suggesting my point is about continued study.  That is not my point.  Continued study of vaccines is not the point.  You again ignored the reason why they are experimental, and the unfinished adverse events still being studied within the basic essential trials.

So, at what point since the end of 2019 could the developed world have been described as operating "under normal circumstances"?

Extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures to combat them. And the Covid pandemic called  for extraordinary measures, but despite the emergency Covid vaccines are not experimental and have not skipped trial stages. 

You like to play games by pretending to be concerned, but when the chips are down, those actually in charge eventually act. Maybe late, but they're forced to act...

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-vaccines-idUSL1N2M70MW
https://fullfact.org/online/covid-vaccines-not-medical-experiment/
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained

[Scott777]

You do realise that invading someone's conspiracy theory with something wholly rational and sensible will mark you down as a deluded loon in their eyes?

It is like the emperor's new clothes. We can all see who the naked one is except the emperor himself, locked in his own delusion where fact is fiction and fiction is fact.

Nice bit of trolling there.  The lack of meaningful debate is why you will continue in your denialist bubble.

[Scott777]

You know that's rubbish, and just playing with words, so I wonder what your motive can be...

***

When tried and tested medications and medical procedures are found to be effective for (or are able to be adapted for) other than the conditions for which they've already been approved, they're put under a whole raft of additional trials — and then, post marketing surveillance.

Current emergencies, such as Ebola, Covid, Monkeypox, etc, give rise to extensive and round-the-clock investigative work in many centres. The current push for intensive studies and trials are prompted by the bad outcomes resulting from less stringent testing in the past — eg, the well-known Thalidomide, though that's now found to be useful in leprosy and certain other diseases.

In fact, it's likely that no officially prescribed medication is ever completely free of monitoring. For proof, look at the alerts put out regularly by the various agencies...

https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update
https://www.gov.uk/drug-device-alerts

It's quite long winded, but still does not address the point.  You continue to ignore that Covid vaccines are officially experimental, and would therefore be illegal under normal circumstances.  You keep making a strawman, by suggesting my point is about continued study.  That is not my point.  Continued study of vaccines is not the point.  You again ignored the reason why they are experimental, and the unfinished adverse events still being studied within the basic essential trials.

[Sheepy]

In a way I'm happy that the three principals and a collection of 43 diverse-disciplined co-signers are still pushing their point of view.

The GBD is still being rubbished by the overwhelming majority of the medical profession and medical researchers world wide, who are still keeping their wits about them so as not to let any adverse reactions to any Covid prevention and treatment pass unnoticed.

And I'm content to acknowledge it's anti-vaxxers and likeminded is helping them to keep their eyes peeled, because I don't want any repeats of contaminated blood, delayed response to incontrovertible evidence, Thalidomide, etc...

LOL 

[patman post]

In a way I'm happy that the three principals and a collection of 43 diverse-disciplined co-signers are still pushing their point of view. 

The GBD is still being rubbished by the overwhelming majority of the medical profession and medical researchers world wide, who are still keeping their wits about them so as not to let any adverse reactions to any Covid prevention and treatment pass unnoticed. 

And I'm content to acknowledge it's anti-vaxxers and likeminded is helping them to keep their eyes peeled, because I don't want any repeats of contaminated blood, delayed response to incontrovertible evidence, Thalidomide, etc...

[Barry]

You do realise that invading someone's conspiracy theory with something wholly rational and sensible will mark you down as a deluded loon in their eyes?

It is like the emperor's new clothes. We can all see who the naked one is except the emperor himself, locked in his own delusion where fact is fiction and fiction is fact.

We all told you about the Great Barrington Declaration which you rubbished:
https://gbdeclaration.org/
And it has all been vindicated.
Just wait around a little longer, we might find more truth from those "anti-vaxxers" and "refuseniks" as time goes on.

[srb7677]

You know that's rubbish, and just playing with words, so I wonder what your motive can be...

***

When tried and tested medications and medical procedures are found to be effective for (or are able to be adapted for) other than the conditions for which they've already been approved, they're put under a whole raft of additional trials — and then, post marketing surveillance.

Current emergencies, such as Ebola, Covid, Monkeypox, etc, give rise to extensive and round-the-clock investigative work in many centres. The current push for intensive studies and trials are prompted by the bad outcomes resulting from less stringent testing in the past — eg, the well-known Thalidomide, though that's now found to be useful in leprosy and certain other diseases.

In fact, it's likely that no officially prescribed medication is ever completely free of monitoring. For proof, look at the alerts put out regularly by the various agencies...

https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update
https://www.gov.uk/drug-device-alerts

You do realise that invading someone's conspiracy theory with something wholly rational and sensible will mark you down as a deluded loon in their eyes? 

It is like the emperor's new clothes. We can all see who the naked one is except the emperor himself, locked in his own delusion where fact is fiction and fiction is fact.

[patman post]

You skipped part of what I said, which is essential to my point.  It is still being studied within the official clinical trials, and therefore classified as experimental, and therefore would be illegal to promote or administer to the general public if there had been no public health emergency.  You omitted to address the point - why would it be illegal?  Is that true for Aspirin?

You know that's rubbish, and just playing with words, so I wonder what your motive can be...

***

When tried and tested medications and medical procedures are found to be effective for (or are able to be adapted for) other than the conditions for which they've already been approved, they're put under a whole raft of additional trials — and then, post marketing surveillance.

Current emergencies, such as Ebola, Covid, Monkeypox, etc, give rise to extensive and round-the-clock investigative work in many centres. The current push for intensive studies and trials are prompted by the bad outcomes resulting from less stringent testing in the past — eg, the well-known Thalidomide, though that's now found to be useful in leprosy and certain other diseases.

In fact, it's likely that no officially prescribed medication is ever completely free of monitoring. For proof, look at the alerts put out regularly by the various agencies...

https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update
https://www.gov.uk/drug-device-alerts

[Scott777]

The adverse events of Aspirin are also still being studied.

The following is a typical paragraph in the prescribing info supplied with many prescription only or over the counter medications in the UK and other countries.

Reporting suspected adverse reactions after authorisation of the medicinal product is important. It allows continued monitoring of the benefit/risk balance of the medicinal product. Healthcare professionals are asked to report any suspected adverse reactions via the Yellow Card Scheme Website: www.mhra.gov.uk/yellowcard or search for MHRA Yellow Card in the Google Play or Apple App Store.

I don't find continued study of drugs and medication sinister — in fact I find it reasssuring...

PS — https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/files/pil.2408.pdf

You skipped part of what I said, which is essential to my point.  It is still being studied within the official clinical trials, and therefore classified as experimental, and therefore would be illegal to promote or administer to the general public if there had been no public health emergency.  You omitted to address the point - why would it be illegal?  Is that true for Aspirin?