Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Bill Gates wants 1 Billion dead.

Options
1…678911

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    weisses wrote: »
    source ?

    Knock yourself out on the history of all this.

    http://www.sv40foundation.org/cpv-link.html

    Science and bureaucracy do not happen overnight. That does not make it a conspiracy to kill millions of people.


  • Options
    #303
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Beano wrote: »
    it was used for 3 more years after sv40 was discovered. not 3 more years after sv40 was discovered in the vaccine.

    Where in that piece you quoted are they referring to your point above?

    you can quote from it and post it here

    I came up with this
    By 1960, the Salk injectable polio vaccine (IPV) had been administered to about 98 million American children and adults, and Sabin’s OPV had been administered to about 10,000 Americans and millions in the USSR where the clinical trials had been conducted.[27] It was estimated that 10% to 30% of the vaccines contained live SV40.[28] The federal agency in charge of vaccine licensing and safety at the time was the Division of Biologics Standards (DBS) of the National Institute of Health (NIH).[29] Incredibly, this agency did not order a recall of any of the SV40-contaminated vaccines.[30] The tainted vaccines continued to be administered until 1963 when they were all used and replaced by allegedly SV40-free vaccines as required by the new federal regulations promulgated in 1961


  • Options
    #304
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    weisses wrote: »
    Where in that piece you quoted are they referring to your point above?

    you can quote from it and post it here

    I came up with this

    Well it appears i got my timeline wrong. I'm only human. Doesnt make this a conspiracy to kill millions.

    they made a decision to use up what they had. Bureaucrats dont like wasting money. Perhaps they judged the risk of using what they had against the financial cost. Did they make the right decision? I dont have the numbers to know definitively. Still not a conspiracy to kill millions. They seemed to have been quite blatant about it.


  • Options
    #305
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Beano wrote: »
    Well it appears i got my timeline wrong. I'm only human. Doesnt make this a conspiracy to kill millions.

    they made a decision to use up what they had. Bureaucrats dont like wasting money. Perhaps they judged the risk of using what they had against the financial cost. Did they make the right decision? I dont have the numbers to know definitively. Still not a conspiracy to kill millions. They seemed to have been quite blatant about it.

    Problem is that apparently it was used for 20 more years
    An analysis presented at the Vaccine Cell Substrate Conference in 2004[27] suggested that vaccines used in the former Soviet bloc countries, China, Japan, and Africa, could have been contaminated up to 1980, meaning that hundreds of millions more could have been exposed to the virus unknowingly.

    Bill Gates would have nothing to do with this probably :pac: .... Very shocking practice nonetheless

    And if you knowingly and willingly let Doctors go ahead with vaccinating people with a contaminated vaccine of which you don't know the implications of ... How would you call that ?


    (big Pharma Boardrooms) Ahh well we got rid of Polio but we created a much bigger problem we can make huge profits from


  • Options
    #306
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    weisses wrote: »
    Problem is that apparently it was used for 20 more years



    Bill Gates would have nothing to do with this probably :pac: .... Very shocking practice nonetheless

    And if you knowingly and willingly let Doctors go ahead with vaccinating people with a contaminated vaccine of which you don't know the implications of ... How would you call that ?


    (big Pharma Boardrooms) Ahh well we got rid of Polio but we created a much bigger problem we can make huge profits from


    but it hasnt created a bigger problem so lets not pretend that it has. The other countries that kept using the vaccine made their own risk analysis and decided to continue. Still not a conspiracy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Beano wrote: »
    but it hasnt created a bigger problem so lets not pretend that it has.

    Not for Big Pharma ...

    Cancer rates are up because of this according to a source I quoted earlier

    The only one pretending is you here by stating it didn't create a bigger problem
    Beano wrote: »
    The other countries that kept using the vaccine made their own risk analysis and decided to continue. Still not a conspiracy.

    Any source regarding the "risk analysis" or did you pull that one out of the hat as well ?


  • Options
    #308
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    weisses wrote: »
    Not for Big Pharma ...

    Cancer rates are up because of this according to a source I quoted earlier

    The only one pretending is you here by stating it didn't create a bigger problem



    Any source regarding the "risk analysis" or did you pull that one out of the hat as well ?

    do you think they make these decisions without risk analysis? you think they just said "**** it, it'll be grand"?


  • Options
    #309
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Not for Big Pharma ...

    Cancer rates are up because of this according to a source I quoted earlier

    The only one pretending is you here by stating it didn't create a bigger problem
    So was their goal to cause cancer?
    This can't be the case because they couldn't have planned to do this if they didn't know the contamination could cause cancer.

    If they didn't set out to cause cancer, why did they produce the vaccine in the first place?


  • Options
    #310
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Not for Big Pharma ...

    Cancer rates are up because of this according to a source I quoted earlier

    The only one pretending is you here by stating it didn't create a bigger problem



    Any source regarding the "risk analysis" or did you pull that one out of the hat as well ?

    Cancer rates are not up though;

    One study from Denmark

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12671021

    A 2005 review

    This article reviews the data regarding contamination of poliovirus vaccines with SV40 and summarizes the results from epidemiologic studies of vaccine recipients. Long-term follow-up studies have not revealed recipients of SV40-contaminated poliovirus vaccines to be at an increased risk for cancer.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15889993

    A 2007 review;

    In summary, the most recent evidence does not support the notion that SV40 contributed to the development of human cancers.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17131333


  • Options
    #311
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    The presence of SV40 in the Salk vaccine was not recognized until 1960,5 years after the vaccine was licensed in 1955. In the USA, vaccine lots approved in 1961 and later were required to be free of SV40, but lots approved earlier were not recalled, so vaccine-related human exposure to SV40 may have continued until 1963. While there is no evidence of SV40 contamination in polio vaccines licensed in the USA and UK after 1961, some vaccines prepared by an eastern European manufacturer contained infectious SV40 until the 1970s.

    From the 2nd link above


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Beano wrote: »
    do you think they make these decisions without risk analysis? you think they just said "**** it, it'll be grand"?

    That's a No then to my question.

    I like to see the guy explaining his risk analysis to people that got vaccinated with the contaminated stuff


  • Options
    #313
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Cancer rates are not up though;

    One study from Denmark

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12671021

    A 2005 review

    This article reviews the data regarding contamination of poliovirus vaccines with SV40 and summarizes the results from epidemiologic studies of vaccine recipients. Long-term follow-up studies have not revealed recipients of SV40-contaminated poliovirus vaccines to be at an increased risk for cancer.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15889993

    A 2007 review;

    In summary, the most recent evidence does not support the notion that SV40 contributed to the development of human cancers.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17131333

    Then one reliable source is telling different things then the other


  • Options
    #314
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Then one reliable source is telling different things then the other

    How do you mean?


  • Options
    #315
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So was their goal to cause cancer?
    This can't be the case because they couldn't have planned to do this if they didn't know the contamination could cause cancer.

    If they didn't set out to cause cancer, why did they produce the vaccine in the first place?

    I don't know what their "goal" was

    Hilleman made some stupid remarks if it wasn't intended

    Logic would dictate if you want to get rid of people you not gonna make a polio vaccine in the first place


  • Options
    #316
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    How do you mean?

    I quoted from a reliable source a few posts back regarding the cancer


  • Options
    #317
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    I quoted from a reliable source a few posts back regarding the cancer

    Have you a link to the full paper, couldn't find it?

    How do you know the differences in cancer rates was not just natural variation, the fact that further studies show no correlation suggest this?

    Also if the link is definite in your eyes (due to this study) why did further studies not show the same correlation?

    What kind of hare brained conspiracy involves a virus that very rarely if at all causes an adverse effect?


  • Options
    #318
    Beano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭Beano


    weisses wrote: »
    That's a No then to my question.

    I like to see the guy explaining his risk analysis to people that got vaccinated with the contaminated stuff

    How would i have a cite for that? should i dig back in public records from 50 years ago? Have some cop and accept that decisions of that nature are not made willy-nilly. and they are not made by a single person.

    Despite everything in this thread you still havent shown that there any conspiracy to deliberately infect people using the polio vaccine. You have assumed there is and expect others to disprove it despite there being no evidence of a conspiracy at all. I know that is par for the course (and i have been reminded by mods that skeptics are second class citizens in the CT forum ) but it really doesnt paint you in a good light.


  • Options
    #319
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Have you a link to the full paper, couldn't find it?

    How do you know the differences in cancer rates was not just natural variation, the fact that further studies show no correlation suggest this?

    Also if the link is definite in your eyes (due to this study) why did further studies not show the same correlation?

    What kind of hare brained conspiracy involves a virus that very rarely if at all causes an adverse effect?

    I was referring to this one

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10472327


  • Options
    #320
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    I was referring to this one

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10472327

    I know but i want to read the full paper have you a link?


  • Options
    #321
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Beano wrote: »
    How would i have a cite for that? should i dig back in public records from 50 years ago? Have some cop and accept that decisions of that nature are not made willy-nilly. and they are not made by a single person.

    Hey you suggested they had a risk analysis done and decided to go ahead with vaccinating people with contaminated serum ... Not a decision to take lightly so there must be something on the web at least referring to your hypothesis
    Beano wrote: »
    Despite everything in this thread you still havent shown that there any conspiracy to deliberately infect people using the polio vaccine. You have assumed there is and expect others to disprove it despite there being no evidence of a conspiracy at all. I know that is par for the course (and i have been reminded by mods that skeptics are second class citizens in the CT forum ) but it really doesnt paint you in a good light.

    Hilleman was quoted saying they knew about the cancer.

    If that is a conspiracy ? I don't know but its a very sinister situation to say the least

    At least I showed you here that they allowed doctors to use a contaminated vaccine on children for years after they knew it was contaminated (which could be a conspiracy on its own)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    I know but i want to read the full paper have you a link?

    Nope sorry ... I didn't look in the link if there was a referral to one either


  • Options
    #323
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Nope sorry ... I didn't look in the link if there was a referral to one either

    So how do you know the paper is a good one or at least good enough to dismiss subsequent studies?


  • Options
    #324
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    So how do you know the paper is a good one or at least good enough to dismiss subsequent studies?

    I don't .... The best I can do is quote from relative reliable sources ... (to avoid the crap source discussion)


  • Options
    #325
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    I don't .... The best I can do is quote from relative reliable sources ... (to avoid the crap source discussion)

    So it is possible there are flaws in that research given the failure of others to replicate those findings?


  • Options
    #326
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    With respect to the third question, the possibility that the increasing incidence of mesothelioma, brain tumors and NHL in the decades following vaccination might be related to exposure to SV40 in contaminated vaccines seemed plausible when SV40 DNA sequences were identified in these cancers.11, 81 There is no evidence that this is the case. All 4 epidemiologic studies discussed in this review concluded, as had earlier studies,1 that the increased incidence of the cancers did not occur in those who had the highest risk of SV40 exposure from contaminated vaccine. As emphasized in the IOM report,1 these data by themselves do not disprove the role of SV40 in human cancer because the exposure to SV40 by the vaccine is not known at the level of the individual, but they do allow the more limited interpretation that the increased incidence of cancers was unrelated to the contaminated vaccine.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22425/full

    Reference 81 is the paper you linked to.


  • Options
    #327
    Johngoose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭Johngoose


    Bill might get his wish with the ebola virus. If this disease spreads it could wipe out half the planet. The planet is certainly overpopulated and disease could be nature's answer to reducing the world population.


  • Options
    #328
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    So it is possible there are flaws in that research given the failure of others to replicate those findings?

    Yes could well be

    Although I did not find any research specifically stating that


  • Options
    #329
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    jh79 wrote: »
    With respect to the third question, the possibility that the increasing incidence of mesothelioma, brain tumors and NHL in the decades following vaccination might be related to exposure to SV40 in contaminated vaccines seemed plausible when SV40 DNA sequences were identified in these cancers.11, 81 There is no evidence that this is the case. All 4 epidemiologic studies discussed in this review concluded, as had earlier studies,1 that the increased incidence of the cancers did not occur in those who had the highest risk of SV40 exposure from contaminated vaccine. As emphasized in the IOM report,1 these data by themselves do not disprove the role of SV40 in human cancer because the exposure to SV40 by the vaccine is not known at the level of the individual, but they do allow the more limited interpretation that the increased incidence of cancers was unrelated to the contaminated vaccine.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22425/full

    Reference 81 is the paper you linked to.

    What about this?


  • Options
    #330
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    What about this?

    Good find .... Explains why the later studies could not link cancer to sv40

    still doesn't explain Hillemans remarks though


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Good find .... Explains why the later studies could not link cancer to sv40

    still doesn't explain Hillemans remarks though

    A joke at the expense of conspiracy theorists

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/09/11/a-zombie-meme-rises-from-the-grave-maurice-hilleman-the-polio-vaccine-sv40-and-cancer/


Advertisement