Joe Biden Innocent or Not Guilty

Apologies if not your intent, but it seems like you are passing this off as new news. This GMA story is from June 2019.

tps wrote:Abc poking around the biden family

https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/amp/news/story/biden-sidesteps-questions-sons-foreign-business-dealings-promises-63820806?__twitter_impression=true

They may have been on to something

https://www.nypost.com/2020/10/29/fbi-investigating-hunter-biden-over-money-laundering-allegations-report/amp/

tps wrote:

tps wrote:Abc poking around the biden family

https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/amp/news/story/biden-sidesteps-questions-sons-foreign-business-dealings-promises-63820806?__twitter_impression=true

They may have been on to something

https://www.nypost.com/2020/10/29/fbi-investigating-hunter-biden-over-money-laundering-allegations-report/amp/

Or maybe the fbi investigation fake and it is a plot to get a fisa warrant to spy on the biden campaign - wait i think somebody already did that

At one of his rallies yesterday....

TRUMP, about former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe: “We won Michigan — first time in decades. And you know what we've done? Many, many car plants are now opening up ... I said, 'Shinzo, please do me a favor, we need more car companies. ... We want them built here, not in Japan, please.' He said, ‘But we cannot do that, this is a free enterprise system.’ I said, ‘... Please, I need some car companies.’ ... I said, ‘Shinzo, you have to do it.’ Next day, it was the story: 'Five car companies opened up in Michigan.'” — North Carolina rally Saturday.

THE FACTS: Trump is making up the story.

No Japanese automaker assembly plants have been announced or built in Michigan, let alone in one day, and there are no plans to add any.

Surely people know that there haven’t been Japanese car plants opening in Michigan. Why lie about that?

Why lie about where you graduated in your class in college?

It's what politicians do.

Head Idiot wrote:Why lie about where you graduated in your class in college?

It's what politicians do.

It's Trump. At a rally. Telling a story. That's how he campaigns. He's building energy in his troops, not testifying before Congress.

Examples of real lies:
We'll close Guantanamo Bay on day one by executive order
We'll do comprehensive immigration reform within the first 12 months of my presidency
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor

You forgot the Affordable Care Act will save you money.

And “we will have a vaccine by Election Day”

I forgot. Only Trump lies.

Stupid me.

Teetime wrote:And “we will have a vaccine by Election Day”

I don't recall Trump saying that. I do recall pundits worried that this might be true and help Trump get re-elected. No matter. Fauci told us it would be YEARS before a vaccine would be ready... among other things.

BirdWatcher wrote:

Teetime wrote:And “we will have a vaccine by Election Day”

I don't recall Trump saying that.  I do recall pundits worried that this might be true and help Trump get re-elected.   No matter.  Fauci told us it would be YEARS before a vaccine would be ready... among other things.

In the NY Daily News (One of your favorites) on September 15th...

"President Trump claimed Tuesday that a coronavirus vaccine could be ready as early as October 13, which he hopes will give him a potent boost before Election Day.

Even as public health experts warn against politicizing the rush to produce a vaccine, Trump predicted a shot to ward off COVID-19 could be rolled out within as little as “four weeks."


Then...later:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/30/white-house-aide-says-trumps-vaccine-by-election-day-promise-was-arbitrary-433670

So I'm saying now that any promise or class ranking mentioned by a democrat was "arbitrary".

BirdWatcher wrote:

Teetime wrote:And “we will have a vaccine by Election Day”

I don't recall Trump saying that.  I do recall pundits worried that this might be true and help Trump get re-elected.   No matter.  Fauci told us it would be YEARS before a vaccine would be ready... among other things.

Your source?  I don't recall Fauci saying YEARS.  Early on, I recall him saying 12-18 months.  My source, dated Feb 27, 2020: fauci on camera    

At the time, some experts were saying he was being overly optimistic.  

FYI, now he is saying around April the vaccine should be ready for distribution to the general public.  Looks to me like his prediction was SPOT ON.

In February Fauci was doubtful they could get any major manufacturer to commit to producing any vaccine NIH developed.

"“When we were doing this with Ebola, it was a major vaccine company that got burned who’s now pulling out of that,” Fauci added, without naming the company. “It is going to be a challenge to be able to get a major company to do that.”
https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/11/major-drug-makers-havent-stepped-up-to-manufacture-coronavirus-vaccine-top-u-s-health-official-says/

I'm just glad we have a businessman in the WH who knows how to get businesses on board.  I doubt a 47-year politician would even know who to call....

BirdWatcher wrote:"“When we were doing this with Ebola, it was a major vaccine company that got burned who’s now pulling out of that,” Fauci added, without naming the company. “It is going to be a challenge to be able to get a major company to do that.”
https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/11/major-drug-makers-havent-stepped-up-to-manufacture-coronavirus-vaccine-top-u-s-health-official-says/

The article you linked goes on to paraphrase Fauci saying it would be at least a year.  Guess you didn't read that far into the article after Googling it.  Either that, or you purposely omitted mention of it because it was contradictory to your narrative. Still looking for the source of your "YEARS" assertion.  Did I miss something?

BirdWatcher wrote:In February Fauci was doubtful they could get any major manufacturer to commit to producing any vaccine NIH developed.

BirdWatcher wrote:I'm just glad we have a businessman in the WH who knows how to get businesses on board.  I doubt a 47-year politician would even know who to call....

Can you imagine if that businessman hadn't totally mismanaged the virus and instead had gotten it under control right away?   Good thing he admittedly claimed that the virus was basically a flu (even though he KNEW it was much worse) in the interest of not creating panic, huh?  If he hadn't created enormous demand for a vaccine through his colossal failure to mitigate the spread of the virus in this country, we'd still be waiting for big pharma to see the profit potential in fast tracking vaccine development.  

ramblinman wrote:The article you linked goes on to paraphrase Fauci saying it would be at least a year. ... Still looking for the source of your "YEARS" assertion.  Did I miss something?

Yeah you did.  Probably reading comprehension.

"At least a year" is more than one year.  So, yeah, plural.  I didn't say 5 years.  Or ten years.   And the gist of the article (again, reading comprehension is key) is that the NIH is working on a vaccine (at least a year out on Feb 11 2020) and Fauci is concerned they'd have a vaccine and no pharma company to produce/distribute it.

Thank Dog the Business-Man-In-Chief has a former pharma CEO to lead HHS and the connections to get pharma to sign on again, after being screwed over on the ebola vaccine.

BirdWatcher wrote:

ramblinman wrote:The article you linked goes on to paraphrase Fauci saying it would be at least a year. ... Still looking for the source of your "YEARS" assertion.  Did I miss something?

Yeah you did.  Probably reading comprehension.

"At least a year" is more than one year.  So, yeah, plural.  I didn't say 5 years.  Or ten years.   And the gist of the article (again, reading comprehension is key) is that the NIH is working on a vaccine (at least a year out on Feb 11 2020) and Fauci is concerned they'd have a vaccine and no pharma company to produce/distribute it.

Thank Dog the Business-Man-In-Chief has a former pharma CEO to lead HHS and the connections to get pharma to sign on again, after being screwed over on the ebola vaccine.

I am stunned at how lame your response is. Really thought you would just take your lumps on this one.

At least a year does NOT mean years, as in plural. At a minimum, it means 366 days or more. It most definitely does not imply multiple years. Fauci is a pretty educated guy. If he meant YEARS, as in plural, then he would have said at least TWO YEARS.

Still waiting for your source.

ramblinman wrote:Still waiting for your source.

That's the thing about reading, you have to put in the effort.

My source is above... where Fauci is worried that the NIH developed (year+ wait) vaccine will have to sit on the shelves with no way to get to patients. How long for that? Fauci doesn't say directly, but if you're familiar with the Merck/Ebola example (also in the article above & my wife retired from Merck) you understand what he's talking about.

So, yeah, Fauci was worried in February that it'd be years before a vaccine was available for patients. If the FDA approved the vaccine in 11 months and 29 days but no one could get it, would you say it was done in under a year? Nope.

What got your panties in a bunch? That I capitalized years and put it in italics?

P.S. I accept no lumps.

BirdWatcher wrote:

ramblinman wrote:Still waiting for your source.

That's the thing about reading, you have to put in the effort.

My source is above... where Fauci is worried that the NIH developed (year+ wait) vaccine will have to sit on the shelves with no way to get to patients.  How long for that?  Fauci doesn't say directly, but if you're familiar with the Merck/Ebola example (also in the article above & my wife retired from Merck) you understand what he's talking about.  

So, yeah, Fauci was worried in February that it'd be years before a vaccine was available for patients.  If the FDA approved the vaccine in 11 months and 29 days but no one could  get it, would you say it was done in under a year?  Nope.

What got your panties in a bunch?  That I capitalized years and put it in italics?

P.S. I accept no lumps.  

He did not say that it would be years, and you are unable to prove that he did.  He said at least a year.  Saying that does not mean years as in plural.  Within a couple of weeks of that article you found, he refined his prediction and said 12-18 months.  He has been saying that until fairly recently when he began to say that a vaccine could be distributed to high risk patients as early as late December or early January, with more widespread distribution by April.

ramblinman wrote:

BirdWatcher wrote:

ramblinman wrote:Still waiting for your source.

That's the thing about reading, you have to put in the effort.

My source is above... where Fauci is worried that the NIH developed (year+ wait) vaccine will have to sit on the shelves with no way to get to patients.  How long for that?  Fauci doesn't say directly, but if you're familiar with the Merck/Ebola example (also in the article above & my wife retired from Merck) you understand what he's talking about.  

So, yeah, Fauci was worried in February that it'd be years before a vaccine was available for patients.  If the FDA approved the vaccine in 11 months and 29 days but no one could  get it, would you say it was done in under a year?  Nope.

What got your panties in a bunch?  That I capitalized years and put it in italics?

P.S. I accept no lumps.  

He did not say that it would be years, and you are unable to prove that he did.  He said at least a year.  Saying that does not mean years as in plural.  Within a couple of weeks of that article you found, he refined his prediction and said 12-18 months.  He has been saying that until fairly recently when he began say that a vaccine could be distributed to high risk patients as early as late December or early January, with more widespread distribution by April.

I still have plenty of doubts that the vaccine will even be effective especially as the virus as seemed to mutated and the vaccine they are creating may not be as effective on the newer strains. I have no clue how the biology of all of the vaccines work. However, I have one question. If the vaccine is first going to be distributed to high-risk patients, is it being tested on these high-risk patients to show it's effectiveness? The vaccine may be effective for younger healthy individuals but is there potential the vaccine could be deadly for the most vulnerable?

dusty7 wrote:
I still have plenty of doubts that the vaccine will even be effective especially as the virus as seemed to mutated and the vaccine they are creating may not be as effective on the newer strains.  I have no clue how the biology of all of the vaccines work. However, I have one question. If the vaccine is first going to be distributed to high-risk patients, is it being tested on these high-risk patients to show it's effectiveness? The vaccine may be effective for younger healthy individuals but is there potential the vaccine could be deadly for the most vulnerable?

It seems to me that the answer to your question would have to be a resounding yes.  Can you imagine the enormous liability these companies would be open to if they didn't test high risk patients in the clinical trials?  Plus, these tests are conducted in accordance with plans and protocols developed by the FDA.  Once the testing is complete, the results are given to the FDA to review before licensure to distribute the vaccine is granted...or not.

From the CDC website regarding vaccine development:  "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."

From the FDA website regarding vaccine development:  "Typically, there are three phases of clinical trials. Vaccines that are being developed for children are first tested in adults. FDA sets guidelines for the three phases of clinical trials to ensure the safety of the volunteers.

Phase 1 clinical trials focus on safety and include 20–100 healthy volunteers. In Phase 1, scientists begin to learn how the size of the dose may be related to side effects. If possible at this early stage, scientists also try to learn how effective the vaccine may be.  

If no serious side effects are found in Phase 1, next is Phase 2, which involves several hundred volunteers. This phase includes studies that may provide additional information on common short-term side effects and how the size of the dose relates to immune response.  

In Phase 3 studies, hundreds or thousands of volunteers participate. Vaccinated people are compared with people who have received a placebo or another vaccine so researchers can learn more about the test vaccine’s safety and effectiveness and identify common side effects."

ramblinman wrote:

dusty7 wrote:
I still have plenty of doubts that the vaccine will even be effective especially as the virus as seemed to mutated and the vaccine they are creating may not be as effective on the newer strains.  I have no clue how the biology of all of the vaccines work. However, I have one question. If the vaccine is first going to be distributed to high-risk patients, is it being tested on these high-risk patients to show it's effectiveness? The vaccine may be effective for younger healthy individuals but is there potential the vaccine could be deadly for the most vulnerable?

It seems to me that the answer to your question would have to be a resounding yes.  Can you imagine the enormous liability these companies would be open to if they didn't test high risk patients in the clinical trials?  Plus, these tests are conducted in accordance with plans and protocols developed by the FDA.  Once the testing is complete, the results are given to the FDA to review before licensure to distribute the vaccine is granted...or not.

From the CDC website regarding vaccine development:  "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."

From the FDA website regarding vaccine development:  "Typically, there are three phases of clinical trials. Vaccines that are being developed for children are first tested in adults. FDA sets guidelines for the three phases of clinical trials to ensure the safety of the volunteers.

Phase 1 clinical trials focus on safety and include 20–100 healthy volunteers. In Phase 1, scientists begin to learn how the size of the dose may be related to side effects. If possible at this early stage, scientists also try to learn how effective the vaccine may be.  

If no serious side effects are found in Phase 1, next is Phase 2, which involves several hundred volunteers. This phase includes studies that may provide additional information on common short-term side effects and how the size of the dose relates to immune response.  

In Phase 3 studies, hundreds or thousands of volunteers participate. Vaccinated people are compared with people who have received a placebo or another vaccine so researchers can learn more about the test vaccine’s safety and effectiveness and identify common side effects."

Good info. I just hope the media would stop with headlines like this - https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/volunteer-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-trial-dies-brazil-n1244166

Headlines like this cause people a lot of concern but as you read the article they clearly state that the individual was in the control group and did not even receive a vaccine.

Sorry to add a sidebar to this discussion....back to how both candidates most people are voting on today suck.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-fire-fauci-easily-make-messy/story?id=73971488&__twitter_impression=true

Our President has taken anything and everything he can that Dr. Fauci has said and turned it as much as possible to fit his agenda. EVERYTHING the President says about him can easily be refuted.  That’s how much of an asshat Trump is.

Masks:  Fauci and many other health officials didn’t want the public buying masks early on because our government refused to supply health care workers with proper PPE. Then Trump was able to blame Governors for not helping their states more. It’s the Governor's fault.

China: Fauci did in fact say Trump shouldn’t use the plan that the administration devised to ban China; Fauci said shut it all down. Trumps plan, which he continually touts saved ‘millions’ of lives from a virus he continually says isn’t that bad, is proven statistically to have only banned about 20% of people coming into the US from China, and that’s an aggressive number.

Vaccines:  Really?  Fauci has been doing this for decades. He has said continually it’ll be a year at least. Hundreds of respected public health officials have said it’ll be at least spring or early summer before we see widespread vaccination of the public, regardless of who wins today.

It just never ceases to amaze how a man can continually refute medical experts like Fauci and Birx and listen to an Anesthesiologist about infectious diseases.

Listen, if you want to support Trump because he made you more money, or because he packs the Federal courts with judges who will shoot down laws you think are wrong fine, I can live with that. If you believe the virus is being blown out of proportion and think it’s no big deal, fine, I respect your decision.  But please stop there.  To say that he’s handled this even at an average level is disrespectful to the millions of health care workers who are risking their lives and their families lives to help all of us. When Dr. Birx and Fauci say things, I listen. If you choose not to, that’s fine. I just wish our President did even just a little bit.

lefty120 wrote:
It just never ceases to amaze how a man can continually refute medical experts like Fauci and Birx and listen to an Anesthesiologist about infectious diseases.

Remember, here in Illinois we are relying on a pediatrician who has not practiced medicine in several years and disregarded the opinions infectious disease experts at U of I, U of Chicago, and Northwestern.

Trump obviously did not handle this as well as he should have and I don't think any politician would have done much better. It easy to play Monday morning quarterback after the fact and say, "well what I would have done..." But the truth is very few countries, if any, around the world handled this successfully. If they did, it wouldn't be a pandemic and we would not be seeing a worldwide 2nd wave.

From the beginning I have said this was a failure at all levels of government and proves that a top down approach does not work. Had the Feds and and State governments simply given supplies to local govts I do not think we would be in the situation we are currently in. A one size fits all approach never works and there was a lot of misinformation from the get go that makes people very skeptical when the govt suddenly changes it's mind. Remember the focus on getting ventilators, turns out, many people died because they were put on vents this the decrease I their use.

You guys hear something about an election or something yesterday?

My wife and oldest son were up last night until about 11 watching the returns. I love that he's so into it. It's close as I thought it would be. Right now as it sits, I'd give Trump a 55-45 shot to be re-elected. As a Social Studies teacher, I didn't care for his comments last night regarding the stoppage of counting votes and imploring the Supreme Court to do something about that; neither he or a majority of his supporters understand the Constitution. But honestly, the election proves a couple things: 1. This is where our nation has gone in the last 6-8 years and yes, it started during the Obama administration. 2. Biden was not a strong candidate, which many on here have agreed with; and again, this is where we are when the Democrats could honestly have a slam dunk if they had anybody worth a crap...and they just don't.