I've been rolling the dice on all this since the beginning.
Politically; I say dose up all the Democrats and any other government trusting homonids,
then study them for effects.

The FDA/CDC has protocols for the vaxx creation process. Which have been in place for a long time for a reason. So when the poll asked if Trump also pushed taking the vaxx, I said no. Because said procedures were changed.

#1 - do you want your doctor to "dumb things down" for you when explaining what disease you have and what medications will do to your body?

#2 - do you believe the government is lying when they claim "transparency" then later explain it away as, "We knew you wouldn't understand?"

#3 - How can you ask if gene therapy is a bad thing when this case is about millions of people being injected with this experimental vaccine?  That's not how you test gene therapy.  You have to have a test group that represents a variety of DNA maps.  They have NO CLUE what this therapy will do to any given percentage of the population.  They can only guess.  That's irresponsible if you didn't fully inform everyone BEFORE they got injected.

The problem is when its forced and they don't give you a choice in the matter.

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

The podcast I posed addressed this issue in a bit of detail. Usually studies run 3 trials one after the other but they ran 3 trials simultaneously. This was an increased risk to the trial participants but it also shaved a lot of time off of the approval process. The 3rd wave of human trials wasn't sped up as I understand though. The tradeoff of course is potential lives saved by having the vaccine come out sooner. Was this a good call? Some certainly think so, I think the best we can say is time will tell whether this was a good decision or not.

Personally, no. I tend to ask way more questions than a doctor usually wants to answer. I think others do want dumbed down simple answers though

It does not inspire confidence but I also understand that sometimes if you throw too many facts at the public they tune out. There is a balance in presenting effectively. I personally prefer more information

I don't know if the mRNA vaccines truly are a form of gene therapy as the person claims or if it is in a gray area where there is some disagreement over whether it could really be considered gene therapy. If there are differences in opinion then it isn't necessarily a lie if two sides just don't use the same definition.

they did not run three PHASES simultaneously
some ran 2/3 together

1 not shocking at all that you ask way more questions.

also not shocking that you consider others to need things "dumbed down"

B not shocking you prefer more information
last the mRNA vaccines were defined as "gene therapy" - this has been noted and referenced MANY times before, links were even posted

Not according to the guy who came up with and administered the Warp Speed Project.
Some ran the phases simultaneously, maybe not all of them did. They narrowed the project down to about 14 vaccine candidates IIRC, maybe not all of them ran their phases simultaneously.

But consider that running 3 phases simultaneously would not necessarily mean anything was rushed between the human trials and approval for public use. If you save time by doing the animal trials simultaneously to the human trials you can save time while not having short cut the human trials.

Not according to the guy who came up with and administered the Warp Speed Project.
Some ran the phases simultaneously, maybe not all of them did. They narrowed the project down to about 14 vaccine candidates IIRC, maybe not all of them ran their phases simultaneously.

But consider that running 3 phases simultaneously would not necessarily mean anything was rushed between the human trials and approval for public use. If you save time by doing the animal trials simultaneously to the human trials you can save time while not having short cut the human trials.

I agree but then that doesn't matter whether it is gene therapy or not. They should never force a treatement on you either way.

please show me where i said i didn't consider this

I spoke with my son who is on the frontline of Covid. He said that the vaccinated have immunity program into their dna. That's why they're not showing antibodies.

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

please show me where all three phases were done at once

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=43539.0

ARONCZYK: The way things have been done in the past will not work for a respiratory virus that is quickly spreading around the world. Up until now, the fastest timeline for a new vaccine was four years. Thankfully, Dr. Bob knows someone at the FDA, Dr. Peter Marks. They patch him into the pizza party.

KADLEC: Peter Marks, you know, came on the line, and we pitched him about this idea of accelerating the FDA approval cycle.

HOROWITZ-GHAZI: Together, they come up with a bold solution. What if they were to run all the parts of the FDA process - the animal trials, the human trials, the data analysis - all roughly at the same time?

KADLEC: It's basically taking a string, as linear as it is when you hold it end to end, and then folding it on itself to take the processes that are typically done sequentially and doing them in parallel.

that's your "proof"?
i think you need to go back to your hypothetical drawing board...

Why is that not good proof? You aren't going to trust the guy who started and oversaw the program? Is there some credibility issue with this man I am unfamiliar with?

You are just dismissing my "proof" without any justification.

i am dismissing your "proof" because IT IS A QUESTION
you see the "what if" and the question mark?
that means IT IS A QUESTION
NOT A STATEMENT
FOCUS

Why is that not good proof? You aren't going to trust the guy who started and oversaw the program? Is there some credibility issue with this man I am unfamiliar with?

You are just dismissing my "proof" without any justification.