Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

As I said the spin is a thing. If there is something you don't understand in what I posted let me know, and I'll try and clarify.

Re others on this thread, I've seen many lies and falsehoods on here - true. But I don't really share your obsession with having to comment on every single post I disagree with and lump all those posters together as "Wrong".

No. The spin is that the vaccines were not originally approved to prevent Covid cases but were in fact originally approved to reduce the severity of Covid cases.

That is a falsehood.

Can you please specifically tell me what I am claiming that is not true?

Ok, I will give you a very simple example of the type of spin that is widespread.

In response to my comment about the specific reasons for approval, rather than discuss what the vaccine was specifically approved for a spinner will say something along the lines of:

This is just a deflection to try and spin the narrative that in reducing the severity of the disease the vaccines are working exactly as expected by the regulators.

But that is totally untrue.

What the regulators expected was the vaccine to reduce the number of symptomatic covid cases. At the time of approval, they had no idea if the vaccines would reduce the severity of the symptoms in symptomatic cases.

What the vaccines were originally approved for is not up debate. They were approved to prevent symptomatic cases of Covid 19. The EMA links above confirm that. The original EUA approval from the FDA confirms the same.

So I am assuming it is not that bit of what you quoted you are claiming is untrue. So it must be my claim that "It was spun as if the primary function all along was to reduce serious illness and death,"

Oddly enough in the discussion my post prompted @whippet said that the vaccines were approved "To reduce the effects of the virus and its transmission" - this is a falsehood. I don't think the poster is some bad faith actor deliberately spreading misinformation, I think it is just an example of how he has fallen for the spin.

They maybe be some other explanation for whippets false belief in what the vaccines were approved for, I don't know. But there are numerous examples of the spin that the vaccines are working exactly as per the function they were approved for - think of all the "Just got a mild dose of Covid, I'm grateful for my vaccine, this proves it's working" tweets.

You asked why I haven't comment on all the falsehoods I've seen in this thread. Apart from the fact it would take too long to get involved in a debate with every falsehood posted here, I generally try not to get involved in a discussion that has no chance of proceeding along some sort of logical and reasonable lines.

For example if somebody is claiming a 5G Bill Gates Microchip agenda, I will steer clear of it because it such blatant garbage the discussion clearly has no chance of logic or reason.

What spin? Who's spinning it? Why?

The tweets are just one example. There are thousands. There is a clear narrative across global governments and media to promote the vaccines benefits in reducing ICU cases and deaths as an example of how they're working as intended. I suspect it is simply to encourage vaccine uptake, nothing more sinister than that. I think it is done with good intentions, but I think it is wrong nonetheless.

Would you class say patnor's opening mischaracterizations of the Vaers data etc as blatant garbage?

No I don't think saying the VAERs data raises some red flags about vaccine safety is blatant garbage. It is more nuanced than that. But it is a discussion topic I avoid for the reasons I posted above, because I have seen how it plays it out there is no chance of it proceeding along some sort of logical and reasonable lines. Largely because you and your ilk use the VAERS disclaimer to shut down any sensible discussion on the subject. I couldn't be bothered with that.

How about 323's latest post that he has since abandoned?

I agree with most of the rebuttals of 323's post in that annual reports are full of those sort of commercial caveats and that in itself does not mean anything. In any event the market has delivered its own verdict on the commercial threats facing the vaccine manufacturers. I'd recommend this if anybody is looking for more in depth discussion on that topic - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAr2CkGPJ8M

There chief benefit is not a prophylactic, i.e preventative, it is not one of active immunisation as intended, thus I referred to them as so called vaccines because they have delivered something which is undoubtedly beneficial, but it is different to what the approved use is.

a computer program called Reason can retroactively justify any decision, providing an incontrovertible argument that whatever was decided was the right thing to do.

Indeed.

1) Decide to approve the emergency use of a vaccine to prevent cases of Covid 19 because the benefits of preventing cases outweigh the risks of fast tracking approval.

2) Discover that the vaccine does not actually prevent cases of Covid 19, but it does reduce the severity of cases

3) Realise that the emergency use does not cover it's use in reducing the severity of cases. Is that a technical problem meaning the approval is actually invalid?

4) Doesn't matter, just retroactively say we originally approved it to reduce the severity of cases.

5) Hey presto, vaccine is working as we said it would, we did the right thing.

Job done.

There is a lot that I agree with in what you say but it essentially boils down to "OK, it didn't work very well providing the benefits we approved it for, but it did work well providing other benefits, that were unclear at the time of the approval, so it all worked out well in the end, hence we made the right decision"

Yes up to a point, but essentially we got lucky. The approval of medicines is done on a risk/benefit analysis and if we set a precedent that the benefit side of that analysis is a bit of a grey area, go for it and hope for the best, sure it might work out if we get lucky, I think that's a pretty dangerous precedent to set.