On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 19:38:26 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 3/10/2021 6:08 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
>>> Yes, because what you say is not true. It was tested extensively with
>>> good results.
>>
>> LOL. Were you expect bad results being announced?
>
>May not be on the news but it would have have been allowed for use. I'm
>sure some ideas did not work and were not pursued. Same as any new idea.
>
>
>>
>>> The technology has actually existed for some time but has
>>> just not been used in a mass vaccine like this.
>>
>> Exactly. It is untested in vaccines. You buy the bullshit that:
>>
>> 1: A year ago they said vaccines are being developed and should be
>> available by end of year. This, despite this never being achieved
>> before on such a short timeline - ever.
>>
>>
>> 2: Testing, normally taking years, been reduced to weeks/months. LOL.
>>
>> 3: The mRNA vaccines are STILL essentially new and the ramifications
>> are still unknown. No matter what they say. These vaccines have NOT
>> undergone proper testing. No matter what you are told. This is
>> science, not politics.
>
>What is the proper testing? Details please.

That's not a genuine question, as if you'd be even interested. Proper
testing takes years, not months.

>>> If no evidence of efficacy was shown it would not be approved.
>>
>> That was a fait accompli a year ago. Vaccines were going to be
>> approved and released, no matter what. And they were.
>
>No matter what? Where have they failed?

By breaking all the general rules with vaccine testing. Care to
provide examples of other vaccines developed, tested and deemed safe
in such a short time?

>> You have no idea what you're talking about. Just repeating information
>> served to you.
>>
>
>As you are.

Uh-huh. You're obtuse as ****.

--
The real Bruce posts with Eternal September