U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-31-2010, 02:25 PM
 
3,493 posts, read 2,467,245 times
Reputation: 2350

Advertisements

Queen Victoria's third child, Alice, died of diphtheria as an adult after her family was stricken with the disease and several members of her family died of the disease:

Princess Alice of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Her second daughter, Vicky, lost one son to diphteria and another to meningitis:

Victoria, Princess Royal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hardly lower class people without access to clean quarters, healthy food or safe water.

Worldwide measles deaths have dropped drastically simply because of better access to the vaccine:

Measles deaths drop by 74 percent - Health - Infectious diseases - msnbc.com

 
Old 12-31-2010, 04:25 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,274 posts, read 28,076,984 times
Reputation: 28732
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
In all seriousness, mortality rates have improved over the span of time, and modern society, inventions and better understanding of the causes of disease have done far more than "medicine" to improve life expectancy.

That's not to say that medicine hasn't played a valuable role ... antibiotics are probably one of the the greatest contributions, but too much credit has been taken by modern medicine's "interventions" because the causes of death today are FAR DIFFERENT than the common causes 200 years ago. Few people die today from the type of diseases that used to be the leading causes of death ... communicable diseases.
Largely because of vaccines! (Emphasis mine.)


Quote:
The older days ... general health was determined by one's access to clean water and food, proper hygiene, and advancements in food preservation (refrigeration). Country living versus town living was also a factor ... with concentrations of and contamination due to animal excrement littering the cities from horses ... lack of refrigeration of food .. disease spreading rodents and insects ... and poor sanitation.
Actually, differences in rural and urban populations probably have more to do with population density than horse poop. Sure, hygiene has a lot to do with preventing food borne infectious illnesses. Not so much those that are airborne.

Quote:
We see the same thing happening in undeveloped and underdeveloped countries today ... with early death rates relating DIRECTLY to the shortages of clean water, food, poor sanitation and hygiene, and the lack of electricity. But, with the World Health Organization traipsing all over the globe with vaccine distribution programs, little has been accomplished to correct the fundamental causes of disease ... and the results of these vaccine programs simply don't show any significant positive effects. With over half of the third world countries having no access to sanitation .... and 1 Billion people malnourished .. mortality ... especially infant mortality has changed very little in these countries.
It is not one or the other you know. Providing safe water and food is one goal. Vaccinating against preventable illnesses is another. They are not mutually exclusive.

Quote:
As for the effectiveness of vaccines, there is simply no evidence whatsoever that vaccination has prevented or eliminated any disease, contrary to overwhelmingly popular myth and propaganda. In fact, just the opposite can be shown in some of the hallmark vaccines for which vaccine proponents cite as their evidence of success. Imagine that!

Polio vaccine, for example, is widely believed to have virtually eliminated Polio, but the evidence shows that Polio vaccine actually extended the life of the disease, which was in natural and substantial decline prior to the invention of the vaccine itself ... and tremendous increases in epidemics of Polio can be traced to the mass vaccination programs of Polio in the mid and late 1950's.

Vaccine/Vaccination/Immunization Dangers Polio Vaccine Page 2

Polio Index page Vaccination Liberation Information

The mother of all vaccines ... "smallpox" .... was and still is the greatest fraud in medical history ... and vaccine propagandists have spared no effort in perpetuating that fraud today. The evidence indicates no other conclusion can be reached but to consider it purposefully done, and ignorantly accepted by the masses ... including "knowledgeable" medical "experts".

Contrary to the claims of vaccine champions ... "Smallpox" vaccine was developed using "cowpox" as it's viral agent, and was based on that for over 100 years .... with it's clinical trial case of ONE PATIENT.

The problem is, immunologic mechanisms of vaccine technology as is currently defined can only work by using the "EXACT" virus intended to be immunized from .... with one exception .... you guessed it ... "Smallpox". This HAS TO BE THE CASE because it is now well documented that the original vaccine using "cowpox" as it's viral agent couldn't have possibly prevented the disease of an entirely different virus without a great deal of virologist double talk. This is necessary to protect the entire industry born from the alleged "success" of smallpox vaccine.

The reality is, huge increases in epidemics of smallpox occurred after mandatory vaccination programs were instituted in Europe (a similar trend to the Polio vaccine) ... and those mandatory programs were forced to an end by massive public revolt as they began to see mass death occurring in the vaccinated populations, while the un-vaccinated populations experienced no such increases.

Smallpox Vaccine: Origins of Vaccine Madness |
Your whole argument is based on the belief that infection with cowpox would provide no protection against smallpox and that the vaccinia virus in smallpox vaccine would not protect against smallpox. No matter what you believe, the truth is that Jenner observed that women who had had cowpox were less likely to get smallpox. And the vaccinia and smallpox viruses are similar enough that vaccination with vaccinia virus causes the body to produce antibodies that kill smallpox virus.

CDC Smallpox | Information on Live Virus Vaccines & Vaccinia

"The vaccinia virus is the "live virus" used in the smallpox vaccine. It is a "pox"-type virus related to smallpox. When given to humans as a vaccine, it helps the body to develop immunity to smallpox. The smallpox vaccine does not contain the smallpox virus and it cannot cause smallpox."


Proteome-wide analysis of the serological response to vaccinia and smallpox - Davies - 2007 - PROTEOMICS - Wiley Online Library

"The eradication of smallpox by vaccination with vaccinia virus was probably one of the greatest achievements of vaccinology. However, the immunological basis of this protection is not fully understood. To this end, we have used protein microarrays of the vaccinia (Western Reserve, WR) proteome to profile antibody reactivities after primary infection or boosting with the licensed smallpox vaccine, Dryvax®, and with archival convalescent smallpox sera. Some 25 antigens were consistently recognized by Dryvax® sera, of which half were envelope proteins (notably, H3, A13, B5, and D8). The remainder consisted mainly of core proteins (e.g. A10, L4, and I1), proteins involved in intracellular morphogenesis (A11, D13), and the A-type inclusion protein, WR148. Convalescent smallpox sera also detected vaccinia antigens on the array, consistent with the notion that there is serological cross-reactivity between these two orthopox species that underlies protection. Moreover, the profiles of immunodominant antigens recognized by variola-infected individuals and Dryvax® vaccinees were indistinguishable. This is the first description of antibody-specificity profiles induced after smallpox infection. The array data indicate that a significant component of the antibody response is not involved in virus neutralization, although these antigens should be considered alongside the envelope proteins as potential candidates for diagnostic and vaccine applications." Emphasis mine.

You may not understand how smallpox vaccine works, but it does work.


Quote:
And it is all too apparent that the modern vaccine community has no problem employing double talk and outright deception, evidenced by the contradictions in the foundation of immunology regarding the very first vaccine that started it all.
No, you do not understand the fundamental science behind vaccines.

Quote:
Today, it is well understood that influenza vaccines can and do become completely useless due to antigenic shift and drift, as the virus quickly mutates. So, even the vaccine using the exact virus becomes ineffective against that exact virus due to those changes. Consequently, no one would dare claim that one influenza virus vaccine would protect you from a completely different strain, which is why you have separate vaccines for H1N1 and H5N1. In fact, the suppression of one's own natural immune system due to the increase toxin load of one flu vaccine makes a person MORE susceptible to infection of another strain. But for those few who are aware of this ... including "medical experts" are asked to ignore these facts and contradictions, and blindly accept the nonsensical claim that "cowpox" virus is "similar" enough to "smallpox" virus, that it actually worked, and eradicated smallpox. Total BALONEY ... and similar in nonsensical value to the claims that "global warming" actually causes cooling too.
Again, you do not understand the basics. Once the virus mutates enough, you do need a different vaccine, but then you are talking about a different "strain". It is a different virus and needs a different vaccine. But if H1N1 came back in a different year, H1N1 vaccine would be protective. There is no scientific evidence that vaccination for one strain increses the risk of catching another strain of flu.

Quote:
The bottom line is that the two champions of the vaccine world ... Smallpox and Polio were gigantic frauds ... as is the current fraud of all of the other vaccines today. And, relative to the topic at hand ... the double talk dismissing vaccination links to Autism employs the same massive fraud, double talk, and absence of common sense:

First Fraud: Dr. Poul Thorsen and the original
The scientific evidence that there is no link between vaccines and autism is overwhelming, desperate as the anti-vax folks are to persuade people otherwise.


Quote:
Regardless of the fact that Autism is a neurological disorder ... we are asked to accept the idea that injecting a neurotoxin (mercury) into children has no causative association to the onset of neurological damage being experienced by these children after vaccination. And apparently half the population or more are gullible enough to accept this absurd nonsense?

When backed into a corner .. some will grudgingly go so far as to acknowledge the possibility that the mercury in these vaccines may "trigger" an underlying condition which is a genetic defect in some children, while continuing to claim that the the rewards of the vaccines outweigh the damage caused to the "unfortunate" and genetically defective kids. Hey, gotta break a few eggs if you want to make an omelet, right?

Right. Let's deny the damage first ... and if you can't do that, blame the kid's genes as the problem ... and coldly dismiss the damage as necessary for the greater good?

That is such a callous mindset to begin with, but made worse by the fact that the alleged "good benefits" are based on false assumptions and a pack of lies.
Again, current children's vaccines do not contain mercury, and removing thimerosal from children's vaccines did not reduce the incidence of autism.

Quote:
Contrary to popular belief ... there is no clinically proven, scientifically sound evidence that ANY vaccine actually works at all ... the effectiveness of vaccines is ASSUMED ... with all testing conducted relative to "safety" ONLY. This absence of double blind, placebo control testing isn't there to prove effectiveness ... and the industry claims that is because such testing would be unethical, due to the requirement of purposely infecting an "unprotected" person with a virus. And of course, that would be unethical in my view too. Unfortunately, regarding vaccines, efficacy testing seems to be the only area for which the medical community allows ethics to guide their actions.

How convenient.
Again, you do not understand how vaccines are developed.

Vaccine Licensing

On vaccine approval in general: (Mod: government site):

From a regulatory perspective, there are four stages in vaccine development:
1) the pre-Investigational New Drug (IND) stage (before the product is used in people);
2) the IND stage (where human use occurs under limited study conditions);
3) the license application stage for vaccines (where FDA reviews the results of the clinical studies and the manufacturing process); and,
4) the post-licensure stage (following approval of the product for marketing).
Before a new vaccine can be studied in people, a sponsor must submit an IND application to FDA. In the application, the sponsor:
1) describes the composition, source, and method of manufacture of the product and the methods used in testing its safety, purity, and potency;
2) provides a summary of all laboratory and pre-clinical animal testing performed; and,
3) provides a description of the proposed clinical study and the names and qualifications of each clinical investigator.
Once the sponsor submits the IND, FDA has 30 days to review the application to determine whether or not the study may proceed. FDA may prohibit a sponsor from conducting a study for a number of reasons, including when the study volunteers will be exposed to unwarranted risks, by putting the IND on "clinical hold".
The IND process generally is described as having three phases prior to product approval; however, the distinctions between these phases are not absolute. Phase 1 trials are focused on basic safety and, for vaccines, Phase 1 trials also usually evaluate the immune response elicited by the vaccine. These trials are usually small - generally between 20 and 100 subjects - and they frequently are done in healthy "normal volunteers" and may last just several months. Phase 2 trials often include several hundred subjects, are often randomized, and last anywhere from several months to several years. These trials usually include individuals who are at high risk for the infectious disease of interest. Unless severe reactions or a lack of effectiveness surface during the first two phases, the sponsor may decide to perform one or more Phase 3 studies that can include up to several thousands of people. These Phase 3 trials are intended to provide the definitive measure of effectiveness, as well as continue the evaluation of the product's safety. The size of the efficacy trial will be affected by the expected incidence of disease that the vaccine is intended to prevent. If at the end of Phase 3 trials the manufacturer believes there are adequate data to show the vaccine is safe and effective for its intended use, the manufacturer submits a license application to the Agency.
Licensing a new vaccine is only one stage of FDA's oversight of vaccine safety. Following issuance of the license, there is continued post-marketing surveillance of the product by monitoring adverse events, e.g., the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), and of the manufacturer's production activities, including compliance with good manufacturing practices. Manufacturers generally submit samples of each licensed vaccine lot and the results If their own tests for potency, safety, and sterility to the Agency before release of each lot of the licensed product, because of the complex manufacturing processes for most biological products. In addition, licensed establishments are inspected regularly by FDA.


Efficacy testing is therefore a requirement for licensing of a vaccine.

Perhaps you should read a bit about basic immunology before discussing vaccines any further.
 
Old 12-31-2010, 04:39 PM
 
9,065 posts, read 5,591,238 times
Reputation: 3824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Correction: SOME white people had immunity to those diseases,e.g. those who got them and recovered. However, many died in the process, particluarly from smallpox and measles, which is not a benign disease, no matter what the anti-immunization people say.
As a child ... I had all of them .... mumps ... measles .. chickenpox ... the deadly trio ... and I'm still here ... and I never have to worry about ever becoming infected again ... lifelong, natural immunity .... no booster shots needed. and as a result, my immune system was STRENGTHENED by the inconvenience of suffering through these common childhood diseases, providing a lifetime of benefits as a result.

Now, if I were as callous as the vaccine champions, I could turn right around and use the same argument that some of you use .... that the kids who died from these diseases obviously suffered some underlying genetic defect that I and most other kids didn't suffer, so why should we lose the immune system development benefits of these diseases, making us dependent on pharmaceutical companies to protect us, for the sake of the minority who may die from the disease? You do realize that the alleged immunity from such vaccinations do not offer lifetime immunity as does the disease itself, don't you?

But I'm not so callous ... as I view every child just as valuable as the next ... with none of them falling into a category of acceptable losses for the greater good.

No, my argument is based on the un-manipulated facts that the death rates of these childhood diseases have been astronomically overstated to justify the vaccine programs ...while also fraudulently claiming the effectiveness of these vaccines ... all to make tons of money from them, while causing more harm to children than the disease itself.

Contrary to the LIES ... the death rate for measles (for example) from 1901 forward had declined by 99.4% prior to the development of the vaccine in 1968. PAY ATTENTION ... I said the "Death Rate" had declined by 99.4% ... not the incidence of the disease itself ... and that is an important point. And it shows that the vaccine had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with saving children's lives. So this is the FIRST FRAUD, but just the starting point.

When I got all of these diseases ... so did everyone else I knew ... my large extended family with dozens having these diseases ... childhood friends and school mates ... not one of them died from any of them. NOT ONE. And something else .... none of them had asthma ... none had Leukemia ... Diabetes ... Brain Cancer ... deadly diseases that were unheard of back then with regard to kids, and associated with adults ... though now exploding in children today. That's a clue, but a topic unto itself.

So, let's stick to the point ... as a kid, I got all of these diseases ... and not once did I or anyone else I knew ever got sick enough from them that required hospitalization ... and this is IMPORTANT. Back then, everyone knew what to do ... and home care was the general way of the day. Suffice it to say that only a tiny tiny fraction of the kids that got these diseases actually became sick enough to require hospitalization, and of that, some percentage of those actually died. Lets say 1 out of every 500 cases had to be hospitalized, and 2 out of every 10 hospitalized, died. Because of this, they try to claim a 20% death rate ... when in reality .. the number is actually 1/5 of .002% or .0004%. There is a slight difference between 20% and .0004% ... don't you think?

Of course nobody knows how many actually got the disease because there are no records of the vast majority who simply stayed home and let it run it's course. So how can they possibly claim a legitimate death rate? They can't ... it's a fraud ... and it is designed to get you to believe that the disease is very deadly, and that vaccines saves lots of lives. Shear nonsense.

Now contrast that with the number of adverse reactions to vaccines each year ... which runs about 14,000 cases annually. The official estimate is that only 1-10% of adverse reactions are ever reported by Doctors ... which means 140,000 to to over a Million cases may occur each year.

ThinkTwice Global Vaccine Institute: Secret Vaccine Database

Quote:
Ideally, doctors would abide by this federal law and report adverse events following the administration of a vaccine. However, the FDA recently acknowledged that 90 percent of doctors do not report vaccine reactions. They are choosing to subvert this law by claiming the adverse event was, in their opinion, not related to the shot.

So the numbers are phony, the books are cooked, the benefits are exaggerated, and the risks covered up ... and they want to make it mandatory for everyone, no exceptions and no excuses.

And they are doing it all out of their sincere concern for children, and not for the Billions in profit.

Right!!!


Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 12-31-2010 at 05:08 PM.. Reason: Personal attack + copyright violation
 
Old 12-31-2010, 05:53 PM
 
Location: California
30,513 posts, read 33,327,796 times
Reputation: 25987
I wish there was a vax for ignorance.
 
Old 12-31-2010, 06:15 PM
 
9,065 posts, read 5,591,238 times
Reputation: 3824
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post

Efficacy testing is therefore a requirement for licensing of a vaccine.

Perhaps you should read a bit about basic immunology before discussing vaccines any further.
Maybe you should educate yourself about proper science, and the bogus assumptions that are made regarding vaccine efficacy, and their testing.

If you give 100 healthy people a flu vaccine ... and they don't get the flu .. this isn't proof of efficacy of the vaccine. They were healthy, and unlikely to get the flu to begin with.

When you give healthy people flu vaccine ... and an antibody reaction is measured ... that means that they have a well functioning immune system, and are not likely to get the flu in the first place. (I've had the flu twice in my life ... and never had the vaccine .... and that is a long time, I'm old ... so what kept me from getting the flu for 52 years ... dumb luck?). No ... healthy people don't get the flu ... unhealthy people with low immune function get sick.

People that are most susceptible to becoming infected, and suffering the worst outcomes of the flu ... have weak immune systems and experience none or insufficient immune response to the vaccines ... and therefore receive no protection.

Finally, the only efficacy testing that is scientifically sound is double blind, with placebo ... show me where in the FDA regulations that require double blind placebo testing of vaccines?

There are no such requirements. And consequently ... the tests are purely bogus.

The facts are ... people that might need vaccine protection should any benefit to them exist, are unable to generate the necessary immune response to vaccines. The people who do respond, don't need the vaccine to begin with.
 
Old 12-31-2010, 07:24 PM
 
Location: too far from the sea
19,628 posts, read 18,693,933 times
Reputation: 33345
As a child ... I had all of them .... mumps ... measles .. chickenpox ... the deadly trio ... and I'm still here ... and I never have to worry about ever becoming infected again ... lifelong, natural immunity .... no booster shots needed. and as a result, my immune system was STRENGTHENED by the inconvenience of suffering through these common childhood diseases, providing a lifetime of benefits as a result.

Same here. First, I am neither pro or con re vaccinations but I've never seen a huge need for the mmr vaccine. These were NOT dreaded diseases by any means.

The dangerous diseases were smallpox and whooping cough--I heard horror stories from my mother about those killers. I lived though polio epidemics and was so grateful when the polio vaccine came out that--well, words cannot describe the feelings of relief and joy.

I never heard of any child back then having autism. (I know, it was classified as something else.) But still, with all the large families back in those days NEVER did I hear of little kids who all of a sudden developed symptoms that could today be described as autism. There were a few mentally retarded and in school you'd usually have one kid in a class of 25 who was badly misbehaved.

I don't think that if you added up the number of mentally retarded and the number of kids who acted out or had severe learning problems that it could ever match the number of children these days with autism--so it doesn't seem to me that it's a matter of just calling it by a different name today.

Most kids were just normal kids! So what accounts for the excess of neurologically damaged children of today?

The first autistic child I EVER saw was in the late '60s when I started teaching. He was not in my class but his behavior was totally different from anything I had ever observed. He didn't speak and he didn't interact and seemed to live in a world of his own. This was very very rare.

I realize that I have no scientific basis to make a case, just my own (and those of others I have spoken with) personal observations but this (long) thread is extremely interesting and I do wonder where all this neurological damage is coming from? Could it be too many vaccines given? or too many too close together?
too many, too close, too immature an immune system to be so strongly challenged? All of the above? a combination of the above? none of the above?

Then, if it's somehow related to the vaccines, is it the vaccine itself or an additive IN the vaccine?

Also, as a few have already stated much more eloquently, are some kids simply genetically predisposed to react to X (whatever it is.) Do they perhaps carry a gene or did they receive something dire from the mother either in breast milk or through the mother's bloodstream (from whatever she was exposed to-food, chemicals, etc.) before birth.

I'm enjoying learning things from those who have contributed to this thread and I hope there is more to come. Just wanted to add my own thoughts.














 
Old 12-31-2010, 07:36 PM
 
Location: California
30,513 posts, read 33,327,796 times
Reputation: 25987
I don't understand the myopic views of "it didn't hurt ME so it's no big deal". Do people ever see beyond their own little lives? My dad survived cancer, but it's still a BFD.

And remember, it's not just about YOU but other people who are exposed to you before you may even realize you are sick. Pregnant women, people with compromised immune systems, etc. Vaccines are for the good of SOCIETY, not just so you don't have to miss a week of work or soemthing.
 
Old 12-31-2010, 08:29 PM
 
9,065 posts, read 5,591,238 times
Reputation: 3824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
I don't understand the myopic views of "it didn't hurt ME so it's no big deal". Do people ever see beyond their own little lives? My dad survived cancer, but it's still a BFD.

And remember, it's not just about YOU but other people who are exposed to you before you may even realize you are sick. Pregnant women, people with compromised immune systems, etc. Vaccines are for the good of SOCIETY, not just so you don't have to miss a week of work or soemthing.
Well, if you take your vaccines ... you'd be protected from me, wouldn't you? Well ..... wouldn't you?

You see this is part of the fraud, and it's not rocket science to figure this out ... if the vaccines protect you .. and you take them ... then you shouldn't need to be worried about someone who doesn't take them ... because of course, you are protected ... right?

So, you see, the double talk is just more double talk. But I'm not letting such silliness slip by without challenge.

You need to explain why I put you in some sort of jeopardy if you have taken your wonderful and effective vaccines. If they work, then you should be safe from me or anyone else.

Please explain why you feel threatened because I don't drink the kool-aide?
 
Old 12-31-2010, 09:06 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,274 posts, read 28,076,984 times
Reputation: 28732
This just proves that you really need to learn more about basic science and immunolgy before you keep talking about vaccines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Maybe you should educate yourself about proper science, and the bogus assumptions that are made regarding vaccine efficacy, and their testing.

If you give 100 healthy people a flu vaccine ... and they don't get the flu .. this isn't proof of efficacy of the vaccine. They were healthy, and unlikely to get the flu to begin with.
Healthy people do get the flu. Babies get it. Kids get it. Pregnant women get it. The whole reason that it is now recommended that everyone get flu vaccine is because healthy people can catch the flu!


Quote:
When you give healthy people flu vaccine ... and an antibody reaction is measured ... that means that they have a well functioning immune system, and are not likely to get the flu in the first place. (I've had the flu twice in my life ... and never had the vaccine .... and that is a long time, I'm old ... so what kept me from getting the flu for 52 years ... dumb luck?). No ... healthy people don't get the flu ... unhealthy people with low immune function get sick.

People that are most susceptible to becoming infected, and suffering the worst outcomes of the flu ... have weak immune systems and experience none or insufficient immune response to the vaccines ... and therefore receive no protection.
Then why do most people who get the flu recover and are then immune to that particular strain of the flu? How did their "weak" immune systems prevent them from (usually) dying from the illness? If their immune systems were what caused them to get sick, why did they get well? People who truly do have impaired immune systems, such as those on chemotherapy and the few people with genetic forms of immunodeficiency should try to avoid exposure to others with infectious diseases and are not offered vaccines, either. but when someone comes off chemo, then vaccines can be resumed after the immune system recovers.

Quote:
Finally, the only efficacy testing that is scientifically sound is double blind, with placebo ... show me where in the FDA regulations that require double blind placebo testing of vaccines?

There are no such requirements. And consequently ... the tests are purely bogus.
Who said that phase 3 vaccine trials are not controlled?

phase 3 vaccine trial - definition of phase 3 vaccine trial in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

"phase 3 vaccine trial Immunology A large controlled study to determine the ability of a new vaccine to produce a desired clinical effect on the risk of a given infection, disease, or other condition at an optimum dose and schedule."



Diarrhea Clinical Trial: Randomized Controlled Trial of Killed Oral Cholera Vaccine in Kolkata [Conditions: Diarrhea, Cholera, Vibrio Infections; Interventions: bivalent killed whole cell oral cholera vaccine, Placebo]

"phase 3 vaccine trial A double-blind randomised phase III trial of the reformulated oral killed bivalent cholera vaccine in an urban slum site in Kolkata"

And, for your information, there are many different types of scientifically valid medical studies:

Types of Study in Medical Research


Quote:
The facts are ... people that might need vaccine protection should any benefit to them exist, are unable to generate the necessary immune response to vaccines. The people who do respond, don't need the vaccine to begin with.
False! See above.
 
Old 12-31-2010, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,274 posts, read 28,076,984 times
Reputation: 28732
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Well, if you take your vaccines ... you'd be protected from me, wouldn't you? Well ..... wouldn't you?

You see this is part of the fraud, and it's not rocket science to figure this out ... if the vaccines protect you .. and you take them ... then you shouldn't need to be worried about someone who doesn't take them ... because of course, you are protected ... right?

So, you see, the double talk is just more double talk. But I'm not letting such silliness slip by without challenge.

You need to explain why I put you in some sort of jeopardy if you have taken your wonderful and effective vaccines. If they work, then you should be safe from me or anyone else.

Please explain why you feel threatened because I don't drink the kool-aide?

Because there are people, such as babies who are too young to be vaccinated and those on chemo, who cannot be vaccinated. Those of you who choose not to be vaccinated put them at risk, because you provide a reservoir to keep the infections in the community.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:07 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top