So....here is a picture book of WTF?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vasa Croe

New phase 4 approved way? Or just a clinical trial kinda emergency way with some apparent hiccups?

What does that have to do with the definition?

Well...something called a vaccine would technically need FDA phase 4 approval to be called such....can you reference one that is not, prior to these 3?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

something called a vaccine would technically need FDA phase 4 approval to be called such

Why would that be the case? Technically?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vasa Croe

something called a vaccine would technically need FDA phase 4 approval to be called such

Why would that be the case? Technically?

Because it is not a vaccine until phase 4 approved?

Again...can you show me one prior to that isn't?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lumenari

But nowadays it perfectly describes your post.

Actually. It doesn't. He is correct.

In 2017 that did describe vaccines which were in use. This is 2021. There is now a new way to induce immune response, which is the same thing as saying "produce or artificially increase immunity." The only difference is in the precise method of doing so.

Thank you for changing the rules of the English language to fit your argument, Captain Sophistry.

And that is all the time I am going to take to reply to you.

Don't want you to be grossed out again.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Because it is not a vaccine until phase 4 approved?

That makes no sense. It is not a legal description.

Again...can you show me one prior to that isn't?

Sure. In general (go ahead, wayback it)

Clinical development is a three-phase process. During Phase I, small groups of people receive the trial vaccine. In Phase II, the clinical study is expanded and vaccine is given to people who have characteristics (such as age and physical health) similar to those for whom the new vaccine is intended. In Phase III, the vaccine is given to thousands of people and tested for efficacy and safety.

Many vaccines undergo Phase IV formal, ongoing studies after the vaccine is approved and licensed.

www.cdc.gov...

Specifically:

A first-in-human, phase 1 trial is to be conducted in a healthy adult population in the US to assess the safety and immunogenicity of three ascending Nipah vaccine (HeV-sG-V; Hendra virus soluble glycoprotein vaccine) dosages. Different dosing regimens and number of doses will also be explored.

clinicaltrials.gov...

a reply to: Lumenari

Thank you for changing the rules of the English language to fit your argument,

As has been pointed out, the English language is fluid.

originally posted by: slatesteam
Do quarantine next!

I can't wait until they flatten the curve.

*everyone laughs hysterically

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Because it is not a vaccine until phase 4 approved?

That makes no sense. It is not a legal description.

Again...can you show me one prior to that isn't?

Sure. In general (go ahead, wayback it)

Clinical development is a three-phase process. During Phase I, small groups of people receive the trial vaccine. In Phase II, the clinical study is expanded and vaccine is given to people who have characteristics (such as age and physical health) similar to those for whom the new vaccine is intended. In Phase III, the vaccine is given to thousands of people and tested for efficacy and safety.

Many vaccines undergo Phase IV formal, ongoing studies after the vaccine is approved and licensed.

www.cdc.gov...

Specifically:

A first-in-human, phase 1 trial is to be conducted in a healthy adult population in the US to assess the safety and immunogenicity of three ascending Nipah vaccine (HeV-sG-V; Hendra virus soluble glycoprotein vaccine) dosages. Different dosing regimens and number of doses will also be explored.

clinicaltrials.gov...

So, per you own admission/definition and post, no, there has not been a mass non-phase 4 vaccine ever administered to the public....ever.

It is still phase 3 clinical trial....

a reply to: Vasa Croe

It is still phase 3 clinical trial....

Phase III trials were completed before the EUAs were issued.

But I thought we were talking about the definition of the word vaccine.

something called a vaccine would technically need FDA phase 4 approval to be called such

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
[Neat...now link me to a single one that has ever had phase 4 approval from the FDA....

Don't give a shart. The cigarette I'm smoking right now is much more dangerous than the mRNA vaccine, as is the virus itself.

I get my second jab a week from today, and I'll laugh in international travel this summer as we already had plans to visit my family in the UK.

While still being told to wear a mask and keep your distance.

It's like you put your hand up and teacher picked you for being first, in second grade.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vasa Croe

It is still phase 3 clinical trial....

Phase III trials were completed before the EUAs were issued.

But I thought we were talking about the definition of the word vaccine.

We can talk about either.

So, phase 3 is completed but it is not Phase 4 approved....does that make it phase 3.2?

I wouldn't consider it a "vaccine" until it is....

As I said before....there are no others that are not phase 4 approved.

This one has been administered to millions, not thousands. There is nothing of precedent that the FDA has ever approved as far as any injectable mRNA....

Why are you so all in on this.....doesn't seem like the old Phage.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: slatesteam
So what you’re saying is, this is a vaccine unlike any we have seen before.

Because it’s not a vaccine right?

whatever helps you sleep at night.

For me it’s logic.




My flat-screen TV isn't a real TV because we didn't have those back when we had black and white TVs with antennas to pick up 3 or 4 channels.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I wouldn't consider it a "vaccine" until it is....

Good for you. But it's a vaccine no matter what you want to call it.

As I said before....there are no others that are not phase 4 approved.

Are you sure about that? But yes, this is the first time a new vaccine has been developed during a pandemic of a novel disease.

There is nothing of precedent that the FDA has ever approved as far as any injectable mRNA....

What makes you think there is anything particularly dangerous about that?

Why are you so all in on this.....doesn't seem like the old Phage.

Because I think the vaccines are a good thing. Had my second shot last Friday. Don't really care if you do or not.

Perhaps you might want to read some of my old posts about GMO paranoia. The fear and ignorance factor is quite similar to this.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Language is fluid. Especially the English language and especially technical terms.

Check out "awesome" and "awful". Once upon a time they both meant the same thing. Now, most Americans would assume they meant the diametric opposites.

Check out the word "strawman" while you are at it.

Once upon a time it meant nothing but a scarecrow in a field...

But nowadays it perfectly describes your post.

Which, BTW, has nothing to do with changing the definition of "vaccination" to mean something that it isn't for political purposes.

But you know that, don't you?

The definition of a vaccine changed several times since Jenner wrote up his Cowpox paper. You can see it changing year to year just since 2017 (from the OP).

The Coronavirus and mRNA vaccines were only really a political issue in the last half of 2020, well after the changes in definitions.

Fortunately, some of us have a memory slightly longer than that of a goldfish and an understanding of the march of progress. Nor do we buy into the inanity of the Qtard type politicized paranoias.

I mean, you seem to be proposing that dictionary writers across the globe are part of some great conspiracy to push a very particular political agenda. Get real! They are just typing up what words mean in an environment when technology and therefore definitions are bound to change.

Think of the children!!

originally posted by: rickymouse
We should be burning all the books so they can instantly change the definitions of things to alter reality to fit the desires of the people who are seizing control the world. The old definitions will soon disappear off of the net everywhere, and there will be no evidence left that will be accepted as real shortly. It is not real if they say it is not real.

Nice 1984 reference

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I wouldn't consider it a "vaccine" until it is....

Good for you. But it's a vaccine no matter what you want to call it.

As I said before....there are no others that are not phase 4 approved.

Are you sure about that? But yes, this is the first time a new vaccine has been developed during a pandemic of a novel disease.

There is nothing of precedent that the FDA has ever approved as far as any injectable mRNA....

What makes you think there is anything particularly dangerous about that?

Why are you so all in on this.....doesn't seem like the old Phage.

Because I think the vaccines are a good thing. Had my second shot last Friday. Perhaps you might want to read some of my old posts about GMO paranoia. The fear and ignorance factor is quite similar to this.

Ok....happy you feel good about it.

I'll wait for phase 4 approval before I get something injected in me that I have no clue about and less than a year of testing has gone into.

Enjoy!

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Okey dokey.

But it is a vaccine. Doesn't need any sort of approval to be called one.

I guess oranges are a vaccine against the common cold now.

a reply to: Iconic

Don't seem to fit to old or "new" definitions.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Language is fluid. Especially the English language and especially technical terms.

Check out "awesome" and "awful". Once upon a time they both meant the same thing. Now, most Americans would assume they meant the diametric opposites.

Check out the word "strawman" while you are at it.

Once upon a time it meant nothing but a scarecrow in a field...

But nowadays it perfectly describes your post.

Which, BTW, has nothing to do with changing the definition of "vaccination" to mean something that it isn't for political purposes.

But you know that, don't you?

The definition of a vaccine changed several times since Jenner wrote up his Cowpox paper. You can see it changing year to year just since 2017 (from the OP).

The Coronavirus and mRNA vaccines were only really a political issue in the last half of 2020, well after the changes in definitions.

Fortunately, some of us have a memory slightly longer than that of a goldfish and an understanding of the march of progress. Nor do we buy into the inanity of the Qtard type politicized paranoias.

I mean, you seem to be proposing that dictionary writers across the globe are part of some great conspiracy to push a very particular political agenda. Get real! They are just typing up what words mean in an environment when technology and therefore definitions are bound to change.

Think of the children!!

Sure....tech and everything will change.

Do you buy the first iteration of a car, or any product for that matter? If so....you are just a mass consumer.

If you don't, you wait to see the next version that is tuned and ready for consumers.

As You Like It.....