Vaccinations: are they trying to kill us, or is it all about the money?

La Buka

Or is it a bit of both?

Jonny7

You've forgotten another option:

To save lives and prevent illnesses.

La Buka

Thanks Jonny! I'm not buying that :-)

What leads you to believe that vaccines are deadly?

HHobo

Like Salk. The crazy power-mad fool. Saved hundreds of thousands of lives and and improved immesurably millions more but had not interest in patenting the polio vaccine. The B*****d!

I'm not sure who is worse, Hitler or Salk. Probably Salk, the b*****d!

Torakx

Its not that wise to presume so much before seeking answers on the theory or question posed.
The thread title is set in the present.NOT the past when vaccinations were first brought in and arguably needed in some format or other.

I must now presume from your sarcastic viewpoint, that you are firmly set in the mind that vaccines have not changed since the 1700's or around then.
Arguably youve backed yourself into a corner and appearing idiotic or stuck in that frame of mind as mentioned above, which I should say may still be true.I dont know yet.
Im guessing they have changed though.

Torakx

Torakx wrote: »

Its not that wise to presume so much before seeking answers on the theory or question posed.
The thread title is set in the present.NOT the past when vaccinations were first brought in and arguably needed in some format or other.

I must now presume from your sarcastic viewpoint, that you are firmly set in the mind that vaccines have not changed since the 1700's or around then.
Arguably youve backed yourself into a corner and appearing idiotic or stuck in that frame of mind as mentioned above, which I should say may still be true.I dont know yet.
Im guessing they have changed though.

Salk developed the polio vaccine in the 50's. And in certain parts of the world, it's still desperately needed. As are some of the childhood vaccines in the first world.

What about vaccines have changed since Salk's time that could have made them more deadly?

Jonny7

La Buka wrote: »

Thanks Jonny! I'm not buying that :-)

Vaccinations have saved millions of lives.

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

Salk developed the polio vaccine in the 50's. And in certain parts of the world, it's still desperately needed. As are some of the childhood vaccines in the first world.

What about vaccines have changed since Salk's time that could have made them more deadly?

I'm assuming it is something to do with GM.

seanmacc

If you look at all the hysteria over swine flu and the vaccination programme it makes you wonder.

Swine flu was only about as fatal as the regular seasonal flu and similarly contageous. Western governments bought the vaccinations in massive bulk whilst signing disclaimers by the pharmacutical company that made it that the company would not be liable because it wasn't properly tested. A massive campaign to emotionally black mail parents and seniors to get the vaccination ensued and the disease eventually disappered into the background. It has transpired now that there has been multiple cases of narcolepsy in young people who were vaccinated and probably a number of other cases of people developing other conditions may surface.

You'd be forgiven for wondering if big Pharma and governments were complicit in what could be precieved as a big vaccination scam

kupus

Somebody was watching utopia on Ch4 last night!

seanmacc

seanmacc wrote: »

If you look at all the hysteria over swine flu and the vaccination programme it makes you wonder.

Again, the only actual hysteria people can point to are headlines from the likes of the Sun and other tabloids engaging in typical sensationalism.
And that was nothing to what was being claimed by some conspiracy theorists such as the swine flu being the virus to depopulate the entire world or as an excuse to bring in mandatory vaccines and to shoot those who did not get them.

seanmacc wrote: »

Swine flu was only about as fatal as the regular seasonal flu and similarly contageous.

Firstly the seasonal flu is quite serious and can kill a lot of people. Secondly, this is said with the benefit of hindsight. At the time they could not have known with absolute certainty how serious the swine flu would have been, so needed to prepare for the worst.

seanmacc wrote: »

It has transpired now that there has been multiple cases of narcolepsy in young people who were vaccinated and probably a number of other cases of people developing other conditions may surface.

A small number of cases resulting from one brand in one country. There is no reason to believe that it is probable that people developing other conditions may surface.

seanmacc wrote: »

You'd be forgiven for wondering if big Pharma and governments were complicit in what could be precieved as a big vaccination scam

How would this scam work exactly? The government just handing over money to the companies, resulting the the government just losing money they don't make back?

Cookie_Monster

Kill people: No, who would be around to buy stuff for the same companies to profit from?

Make Money: hardly, if it was about making money then they would simply come up with treatments for dieases rather than vaccines that prevent them, that way they can makes lots of money over a long period from sufferers rather than a once off fee.

Torakx

They already use patented treatments for diseases and gneral ailements that i regularly clear up using garlic...
The plus side for me, is that Garlic does not kill everything else good along with the bad stuff.
The down side and why they dont prescribe garlic is because it is natural and cant be patented..yet.

Torakx

Torakx wrote: »

They already use patented treatments for diseases and gneral ailements that i regularly clear up using garlic...
The plus side for me, is that Garlic does not kill everything else good along with the bad stuff.
The down side and why they dont prescribe garlic is because it is natural and cant be patented..yet.

Garlic does not prevent the spread of viruses. Garlic does not treat any viruses (or any diseases as or more effectively than actual medication).
Vaccines do not "kill everything else good along with the bad stuff".
And there are many many medicines and treatments that are not patented and many that cure things that previously would have resulted in years and years of expensive treatment.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Again, the only actual hysteria people can point to are headlines from the likes of the Sun and other tabloids engaging in typical sensationalism.

So when they report scaremongering from the likes of the WHO ,CDC they are just being sensationalist

A small number of cases resulting from one brand in one country. There is no reason to believe that it is probable that people developing other conditions may surface.

Not quite up to date in your information

Finland, Norway, Ireland and France have seen spikes in narcolepsy cases, too, and people familiar with the results of a soon-to-be-published study in Britain have told Reuters it will show a similar pattern in children there.

Their fate, coping with an illness that all but destroys normal life, is developing into what the health official who coordinated Sweden's vaccination campaign calls a "medical tragedy" that will demand rising scientific and medical attention.

Independent teams of scientists have published peer-reviewed studies from Sweden, Finland and Ireland showing the risk of developing narcolepsy after the 2009-2010 immunization campaign was between seven and 13 times higher for children who had Pandemrix than for their unvaccinated peers.

I know you like the peer reviewed stuff

http://news.yahoo.com/insight-evidence-grows-narcolepsy-gsk-swine-flu-shot-070212916--finance.html

How would this scam work exactly? The government just handing over money to the companies, resulting the the government just losing money they don't make back?

How about we switch that and say the big pharma companies hand over money to corrupt governments so they they ply their trade unhindered that would be more workable dont you think

enno99

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Kill people: No, who would be around to buy stuff for the same companies to profit from?

Make Money: hardly, if it was about making money then they would simply come up with treatments for dieases rather than vaccines that prevent them, that way they can makes lots of money over a long period from sufferers rather than a once off fee.

With scientists facing years of investigation and research, Emelie just wants to make the best of her life.

She reluctantly accepts that to do so, she needs a cocktail of drugs to try to control the narcolepsy symptoms. The stimulant Ritalin and the sleeping pill Sobril are prescribed for Emelie's daytime sleepiness and night terrors. Then there's Prozac to try to stabilize her and limit her cataplexies.

Fu$k me that is some cocktail for a 14 year old

You think they will make money on them

http://news.yahoo.com/insight-evidence-grows-narcolepsy-gsk-swine-flu-shot-070212916--finance.html

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

So when they report scaremongering from the likes of the WHO ,CDC they are just being sensationalist

What scaremongering did the WHO and CDC engage in?

enno99 wrote: »

Not quite up to date in your information

So as I said. A small number of cases in one country by one specific brand of one specific vaccine with nothing at all to suggest that it caused other conditions.
What is out of date about my statement?

Also do you not see the irony of using a rather sensationalist and emotive news story from the main stream media to complain that big pharma or whoever used senstationalism and emotional manipulation?

enno99 wrote: »

How about we switch that and say the big pharma companies hand over money to corrupt governments so they they ply their trade unhindered that would be more workable dont you think

No I don't think.
They paid the government to pay them for vaccines that went unsold and unused?

Cookie_Monster

enno99 wrote: »

With scientists facing years of investigation and research, Emelie just wants to make the best of her life.

She reluctantly accepts that to do so, she needs a cocktail of drugs to try to control the narcolepsy symptoms. The stimulant Ritalin and the sleeping pill Sobril are prescribed for Emelie's daytime sleepiness and night terrors. Then there's Prozac to try to stabilize her and limit her cataplexies.

Fu$k me that is some cocktail for a 14 year old

You think they will make money on them

http://news.yahoo.com/insight-evidence-grows-narcolepsy-gsk-swine-flu-shot-070212916--finance.html

Well in fairness the swineflu shot was a rushed over reaction, it's hardly fair to use it as the benchmark for all vaccinations. And there are only 800 suspected cases out of 30 million so it's hardly a massive issue either at the end of the day, only about .0027% of those immunised developed such side effects.

Cookie_Monster

Torakx wrote: »

They already use patented treatments for diseases and gneral ailements that i regularly clear up using garlic...
The plus side for me, is that Garlic does not kill everything else good along with the bad stuff.
The down side and why they dont prescribe garlic is because it is natural and cant be patented..yet.

what extensive list of ailments do you use garlic for then?
Note that cuts, scratches, colds and coughs need not be treated with anything except patience so don't count.

Esel

No wonder cows are sacred in some religions. A pox on both your houses.

Jonny7

Esel wrote: »

No wonder cows are sacred in some religions. A pox on both your houses.

Yup, except small pox doesn't really exist anymore thanks to the invention of the vaccination back in late 18th century.

Before the vaccination it killed approx 400 million people.

I guess that part is left out of the current conspiracy theory though.

Torakx

Torakx wrote: »

They already use patented treatments for diseases and gneral ailements that i regularly clear up using garlic...
The plus side for me, is that Garlic does not kill everything else good along with the bad stuff.
The down side and why they dont prescribe garlic is because it is natural and cant be patented..yet.

I get my garlic in Tesco without a prescription!

So there are no diseases or ailments in France or Italy where consumption is greater than Ireland?

If you eat garlic regularly how do you get these diseases or ailments in the first place?

What is the mode of action of these compounds that allows them to have only positive effects given we share similar biological structures and mechanisms with various bacteria and viruses etc?

Benny_Cake

Torakx wrote: »

They already use patented treatments for diseases and gneral ailements that i regularly clear up using garlic...
The plus side for me, is that Garlic does not kill everything else good along with the bad stuff.
The down side and why they dont prescribe garlic is because it is natural and cant be patented..yet.

Garlic is good and healthy and adds flavour to any dish. It is absolutely not a substitute for conventional medicine, however, and it's potentially dangerous to suggest that it is.

weisses

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Garlic is good and healthy and adds flavour to any dish. It is absolutely not a substitute for conventional medicine, however, and it's potentially dangerous to suggest that it is.

Garlic does wonders

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090130154901.htm

And where does he says it is a substitute for conventional medicine ?

Torakx

Torakx wrote: »

They already use patented treatments for diseases and gneral ailements that i regularly clear up using garlic...
The plus side for me, is that Garlic does not kill everything else good along with the bad stuff.
The down side and why they dont prescribe garlic is because it is natural and cant be patented..yet.

I took the highlighted to mean it is a substitute for conventional medicine, which would be a ridiculous statement to make if intended.

Jonny7

weisses wrote: »

Garlic does wonders

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090130154901.htm

And where does he says it is a substitute for conventional medicine ?

I am pretty sure it refers to this line

They already use patented treatments for diseases and gneral ailements that i regularly clear up using garlic...

What diseases and ailments does garlic cure I'd also like to know.

seanmacc

Torakx wrote: »

The down side and why they dont prescribe garlic is because it is natural and cant be patented..yet.

One for another thread, but Monsanto are trying their damdest to convert the world onto their brand of GM crops in which they can patent and have being suing people for inadvertant patent infringement over the past few years.

hooradiation

Jonny7 wrote: »

What diseases and ailments does garlic cure I'd also like to know.

Vampirism.

Just Like Heaven

Torakx wrote: »

They already use patented treatments for diseases and gneral ailements that i regularly clear up using garlic...
The plus side for me, is that Garlic does not kill everything else good along with the bad stuff.
The down side and why they dont prescribe garlic is because it is natural and cant be patented..yet.

Torakx

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Garlic is good and healthy and adds flavour to any dish. It is absolutely not a substitute for conventional medicine, however, and it's potentially dangerous to suggest that it is.

I said".. I regularly clear up".
I did not say dont go to your doctor.If you did go to your doctor rest assured that he wont prescribe you garlic for your ear ache/infection for example,but rather an antibiotic of some kind(im guessing).And so you have nothing to fear about my use of it as a replacement or about going to your doctor.
You wil get the treatment you wish to recieve.

Sorry who ever asked what else I use it for.I am not giving any advice.
Just research what garlic kills and you have your answer.
Im explaining why they administer some drugs instead of natural products.
Its a bussiness....Thats the angle im coming from.

Torakx

jh79 wrote: »

I get my garlic in Tesco without a prescription!

So there are no diseases or ailments in France or Italy where consumption is greater than Ireland?

If you eat garlic regularly how do you get these diseases or ailments in the first place?

What is the mode of action of these compounds that allows them to have only positive effects given we share similar biological structures and mechanisms with various bacteria and viruses etc?

Sorry I did not give advice and so, I did not advise on how to adminster it either.
Or what exactly it kills in the human body.

Regarding how a person gets sick....there are many ways the body can be compromised.

But suffice to say, I havent needed to see a doctor in about 6-8 years, especially since I started researching things for myself.
Cured issues the naturalway(not specifically just garlic!).
But again...this is my personal business and the topic is about the pharma business I believe to a great extent.

Torakx

Torakx wrote: »

I said".. I regularly clear up".
I did not say dont go to your doctor.If you did go to your doctor rest assured that he wont prescribe you garlic for your ear ache/infection for example,but rather an antibiotic of some kind.And so you have nothing to fear about my use of it as a replacement or about going to your doctor.
You wil get the treatment you wish to recieve.

Sorry who ever asked what else I use it for.I am not giving any advice.
Just research what garlic kills and you have your answer.
Im explaining why they administer some drugs instead of natural products.
Its a bussiness....Thats the angle im coming from.

This sounds almost exactly like garlic does nothing at all, and you are unable to explain or support how it might work in the way you claim.

Perhaps doctors do not prescribe "natural cures" because they don't actually work.

UDP

enno99 wrote: »

So when they report scaremongering from the likes of the WHO ,CDC they are just being sensationalist



Not quite up to date in your information

Finland, Norway, Ireland and France have seen spikes in narcolepsy cases, too, and people familiar with the results of a soon-to-be-published study in Britain have told Reuters it will show a similar pattern in children there.

Their fate, coping with an illness that all but destroys normal life, is developing into what the health official who coordinated Sweden's vaccination campaign calls a "medical tragedy" that will demand rising scientific and medical attention.

Independent teams of scientists have published peer-reviewed studies from Sweden, Finland and Ireland showing the risk of developing narcolepsy after the 2009-2010 immunization campaign was between seven and 13 times higher for children who had Pandemrix than for their unvaccinated peers.

I know you like the peer reviewed stuff

http://news.yahoo.com/insight-evidence-grows-narcolepsy-gsk-swine-flu-shot-070212916--finance.html

This is still being investigated. The latest is that there may have been a link with 12 of the earliest batches of pandemrix but that is still a bit inconclusive. There is also evidence that more children are likely to develop narcolepsy by not taking the vaccine than those that supposedly did get it from the vaccine. They think this is because it looks like narcolepsy is caused by the immune system.

There is always a risk with taking a vaccine - in fact there is always a risk from taking any medication. The risks as they are understood from testing and epidemiological studies are presented to those taking the vaccine before they take it. The benefits for populations at large are enormous. Millions (if not billions) of lives have been saved by the use of vaccines.

I know I will be vaccinating my children. It doesn't just protect them but it also especially protects the vulnerable people in our society.

hooradiation

Torakx wrote: »

But suffice to say, I havent needed to see a doctor in about 6-8 years, especially since I started researching things for myself.

Really? Neither have I.
But I don't use natural "cures" or anything like that.
So how is this possible?
Clearly I am wolverine.




Or is it more likely that there is more to your continued rude health than simply following some questionable science you found on the internets?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

This sounds almost exactly like garlic does nothing at all, and you are unable to explain or support how it might work in the way you claim.

Perhaps doctors do not prescribe "natural cures" because they don't actually work.

I suggest you read up on the history of aspirin

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

I said".. I regularly clear up".
I did not say dont go to your doctor.If you did go to your doctor rest assured that he wont prescribe you garlic for your ear ache/infection for example,but rather an antibiotic of some kind(im guessing).And so you have nothing to fear about my use of it as a replacement or about going to your doctor.
You wil get the treatment you wish to recieve.

Sorry who ever asked what else I use it for.I am not giving any advice.
Just research what garlic kills and you have your answer.
Im explaining why they administer some drugs instead of natural products.
Its a bussiness....Thats the angle im coming from.

Your own personal anecdotal belief

The above is a huge misconception and is downright dangerous.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I suggest you read up on the history of aspirin

Care you elaborate on your point?
Are you trying to say that aspirin is a natural cure in the same sense that Torakx is using? Because I don't think it is.

And there's a reason doctors and pharmacists prescribe aspirin instead of giving you some willow bark to chew on.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I suggest you read up on the history of aspirin

Aspirin is not a natural cure, it is a pharmaceutical product developed from a natural remedy. Eating willow bark is not as effective as taking aspirin. By the same token the beneficial effects of garlic would only be minor, unless the active ingredients were replicated in a lab and a tablet with a suitable concentration developed. Even then the active ingredient at higher concentrations may cause adverse effects and not get FDA / IMB approval.

Aspirin is often highlighted as an old discovery that would struggle to get approval today given the number of side effects it causes.

Torakx

Torakx wrote: »

I said".. I regularly clear up".
I did not say dont go to your doctor.If you did go to your doctor rest assured that he wont prescribe you garlic for your ear ache/infection for example,but rather an antibiotic of some kind(im guessing).And so you have nothing to fear about my use of it as a replacement or about going to your doctor.
You wil get the treatment you wish to recieve.

Sorry who ever asked what else I use it for.I am not giving any advice.
Just research what garlic kills and you have your answer.
Im explaining why they administer some drugs instead of natural products.
Its a bussiness....Thats the angle im coming from.

Could you summarise the science behind this statement without advocating it just for the sake of discussion?

UDP

jh79 wrote: »

Could you summarise the science behind this statement without advocating it just for the sake of discussion?

Garlic breath kills everything!

Torakx

jh79 wrote: »

Could you summarise the science behind this statement without advocating it just for the sake of discussion?

Honestly I dont know if im allowed.
People here are pretty ardcore about protecting the status quo.
If I step a bit out of line I could be infracted or banned.
Otherwise I would be more than happy to discuss it all in great detail.
Because I cannot, it may look like I have no arguement to some of the above comments.
Unfortunately avoiding being sued is a high priority on boards(understandably) and so I cant risk it.
If a mod say its ok for me to go into detail on garlic and what It cures I surely will and would alsolike to explain about grapeseed extract aswell.
But... you know ...lol

It does in many respects fit with the topic...."..or is it all for money?".
But we are drifting a little from vaccines.
My point was that there are things that grow naturally that can do just as good a job and in my case and experience, a better job in certain situations.
But for someone to presume and state that I mean all natural products outweigh all chemical products, is very misleading and dangerous.
My comments should be read carefully in future.

enno99

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Well in fairness the swineflu shot was a rushed over reaction, it's hardly fair to use it as the benchmark for all vaccinations. And there are only 800 suspected cases out of 30 million so it's hardly a massive issue either at the end of the day, only about .0027% of those immunised developed such side effects.

Its a massive issue to the 800 victims would you agree

Statistics seem to be your forte maybe you could tell us how many in that age group who were unvaccinated actually died from swine flu or were left with a lifetime illness because of it

I think Sweeden had a 60% vaccine rate in 9.5 million people Im guessing that leaves about 3 million + unvaccinated ( rubbish at maths)



In Sweeden alone

Nationally, a total of 177 persons have now been reported to have contracted narcolepsy following the vaccination

http://www.thelocal.se/39192/20120219/#.USZICjeyVkg

2009 flu pandemic by country

Sweeden had 29 deaths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic_by_country

Torakx

jh79 wrote: »

Aspirin is not a natural cure, it is a pharmaceutical product developed from a natural remedy. Eating willow bark is not as effective as taking aspirin. By the same token the beneficial effects of garlic would only be minor, unless the active ingredients were replicated in a lab and a tablet with a suitable concentration developed. Even then the active ingredient at higher concentrations may cause adverse effects and not get FDA / IMB approval.

Aspirin is often highlighted as an old discovery that would struggle to get approval today given the number of side effects it causes.

You are close on the garlic bit

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

What scaremongering did the WHO and CDC engage in?


So as I said. A small number of cases in one country by one specific brand of one specific vaccine with nothing at all to suggest that it caused other conditions.
What is out of date about my statement?

Also do you not see the irony of using a rather sensationalist and emotive news story from the main stream media to complain that big pharma or whoever used senstationalism and emotional manipulation?


No I don't think.
They paid the government to pay them for vaccines that went unsold and unused?

Im going on the figures that were thrown about by governments /WHO /CDC
like 90,000 deaths 1.8 million hospitalizations but if you think they were being cautious and getting prepared fine
Were the Sun and other tabloids making up their own their own figures and not using official figures I dont remember perhaps you could show where this happened

There is more than one country involved in the article I linked to


I do think
I bet stationers do a roaring trade in brown envelopes when flu season comes around

enno99

UDP wrote: »

This is still being investigated. The latest is that there may have been a link with 12 of the earliest batches of pandemrix but that is still a bit inconclusive. There is also evidence that more children are likely to develop narcolepsy by not taking the vaccine than those that supposedly did get it from the vaccine. They think this is because it looks like narcolepsy is caused by the immune system.

What are you trying to say that getting swine flu causes narcolepsy ?

Or that their immune systems are shot anyway and taking the vaccine will make them all better ?

mrkiscool2

jh79 wrote: »

Aspirin is not a natural cure, it is a pharmaceutical product developed from a natural remedy. Eating willow bark is not as effective as taking aspirin. By the same token the beneficial effects of garlic would only be minor, unless the active ingredients were replicated in a lab and a tablet with a suitable concentration developed. Even then the active ingredient at higher concentrations may cause adverse effects and not get FDA / IMB approval.

Aspirin is often highlighted as an old discovery that would struggle to get approval today given the number of side effects it causes.

Will you get away from that! I freaking studied this as part of my Chemistry course. The reason people first knew to isolate aspirin from willow was because if people chewed on willow bark, it soothed tooth and headaches. That's where we got it from

No, aspirin would have made the market today as it is, by in-large, relatively safe. As in, if you stick to the prescribed doses you won't suffer from much (again, people who have highly-addictive personalities do get addicted to the stuff sometimes). Its the same as every other drug, if you take it in the right amount, the good out-weighs the bad 10 to 1.

But getting back to the main point, no, vaccines won't kill you nor will they make pharmaceutical billions of dollars. They are there for the benefit of mankind, to make sure we aren't a risk to ourselves or others. To say they are anything otherwise is a harm to society as a whole.

Torakx

Hooradiation, you made a good point there.
My good health is not solid proof.More anecdotal.

On the vaccines topic.
How about thattamiflu vaccine? Or was thata vaccine?
I heard anyway tat by the time it was released and used it was out of date and the virus had already spread and mutated anyway.

Torakx

Torakx wrote: »

Honestly I dont know if im allowed.
People here are pretty ardcore about protecting the status quo.
If I step a bit out of line I could be infracted or banned.
Otherwise I would be more than happy to discuss it all in great detail.
Because I cannot, it may look like I have no arguement to some of the above comments.
Unfortunately avoiding being sued is a high priority on boards(understandably) and so I cant risk it.
If a mod say its ok for me to go into detail on garlic and what It cures I surely will and would alsolike to explain about grapeseed extract aswell.
But... you know ...lol

It does in many respects fit with the topic...."..or is it all for money?".
But we are drifting a little from vaccines.
My point was that there are things that grow naturally that can do just as good a job and in my case and experience, a better job in certain situations.
But for someone to presume and state that I mean all natural products outweigh all chemical products, is very misleading and dangerous.
My comments should be read carefully in future.

I not looking for detail on what it cures but how you propose it has theses properties. If you know for sure it cures these diseases surely you know how it works? Would a plausible mechanism of action be a litmus test to the plausibility of the theory?

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

Im going on the figures that were thrown about by governments /WHO /CDC
like 90,000 deaths 1.8 million hospitalizations but if you think they were being cautious and getting prepared fine

Which was the worst case scenario that could have happened and which they thought they should prepare for and attempt to prevent, which is their job.
It however was still based on the best information available at the time.

enno99 wrote: »

Were the Sun and other tabloids making up their own their own figures and not using official figures I dont remember perhaps you could show where this happened

They didn't have to make up their own figures. They just needed to take the very very worst of the worst case scenarios, ignore the context in which they are presented then boil them down into a big scary sounding headline such as "90,000 dead" etc.

enno99 wrote: »

There is more than one country involved in the article I linked to

No, it says there is a paper which may state that, but the paper was not yet released at the time of that article.
However I see there are indeeds links to the same vaccine in other countries.

But you have also missed my other points, particularly that it was only one brand of of specific vaccine and that there was nothing to suggest that it caused other conditions.

enno99 wrote: »

I do think
I bet stationers do a roaring trade in brown envelopes when flu season comes around

But it doesn't make any sense. Why would the government pay big pharma to pay the government to let them sell vaccines that they don't sell, then force them to stop selling it when it was found it caused a small number of cases of narcoleptic?

enno99 wrote: »

In Sweeden alone

Nationally, a total of 177 persons have now been reported to have contracted narcolepsy following the vaccination

http://www.thelocal.se/39192/20120219/#.USZICjeyVkg

2009 flu pandemic by country

Sweeden had 29 deaths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic_by_country

http://www.thl.fi/en_US/web/en/pressrelease?id=26352

Combining the data on morbidity and mortality with data on vaccinations in the 2009–2010 pandemic season indicate that a swine flu vaccination taken in the pandemic season had provided 75–88 per cent protection against the swine flu virus in winter 2010–2011. Based on these vaccine effectiveness figures, it has been estimated that during the first wave in 2009-2010, the swine flu vaccine prevented approximately 40 000 cases of swine flu, and during the second wave in 2010-2011, another 40 000 cases of swine flu.

The Task Force concurs with the European Medicines Agency’s estimate that, despite the unforeseen and deeply regrettable cases of narcolepsy, the overall benefit-risk balance remains positive.

mrkiscool2

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Will you get away from that! I freaking studied this as part of my Chemistry course. The reason people first knew to isolate aspirin from willow was because if people chewed on willow bark, it soothed tooth and headaches. That's where we got it from

No, aspirin would have made the market today as it is, by in-large, relatively safe. As in, if you stick to the prescribed doses you won't suffer from much (again, people who have highly-addictive personalities do get addicted to the stuff sometimes). Its the same as every other drug, if you take it in the right amount, the good out-weighs the bad 10 to 1.

But getting back to the main point, no, vaccines won't kill you nor will they make pharmaceutical billions of dollars. They are there for the benefit of mankind, to make sure we aren't a risk to ourselves or others. To say they are anything otherwise is a harm to society as a whole.

Not sure what your point is re aspirin, it is a 1st year lab experiment in a BSc and doesn't involve extracting from willow bark it is not a natural product by the normal definition, it is a synthetic compound that was originally extracted from a natural product. The point is natural products are not effective. Another poster suggested that the history of aspirin has some connection to the plausibility of garlic as a natural remedy.

Aspirin would be a problem, just for the share number of adverse effects, for FDA approval .