Render Posted June 17, 2013 #26 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I'm too old for it. Why such a high cut-off lower age and low cut-off upper age (18-49) no kids or elderly who I thought need these the most? To test new flu vaccines they typically wont immediately start testing on the more weakers ones of society. Unless you're vaccinating ppl to extend their lives, it's not common to use the very young or very old. I would suspect further testing on larger age groups will commence later on, when post market effectiveness is assessed. Or before. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Render Posted June 17, 2013 #27 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Ohhhhhh GOOD. Despite deaths during clinical trials,and the outcry against gmos ,the FDA has just approved a gmo flu vaccination ,that also contain insect virus DNA . As per the usual suspects ,its "highly effective" . Simbi, you're doing it again....selectively taking out a couple of words that you know will add to your sensationalism. If you trully believe you're on to something here, why do you feel the need to lie? It only proves to me you have no clue what you're talking about and are only interested in creating panic so the more gullible ppl here can elevate you to the position of messiah of truth. If you truly are, o so very, concerned with everybodies health. Then why can't you even bring up the effort to actually look up all the information about this vaccine? Again proof you don't care about the actual information, you simply want attention. The wrong kind of attention. Across trials, through 6 months post vaccination, two deaths were reported, one in a Flublok recipient and one in a placebo recipient. Both deaths occurred more than 28 days following vaccination and neither was considered vaccine - related. SAEs were reported by 32 Flublok recipients a nd 35 placebo recipients. One SAE in a Flublok recipient was assessed as possibly related to the vaccine: pleuropericarditis with effusions requiring hospitalization and drainage. No specific cause was identified. The patient recovered. In Study 1, th e most frequent unsolicited adverse events, occurring in 1% - 2% of subjects, were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory infection, headache, cough, nasal congestion, pharyngolaryngeal pain, and rhinorrhea. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM336020.pdf In case of a pandemic ,they can make it fast ! Is the selling point apparently Yup, because new techniques of cultivating vaccines are way overdue. Eggs are not practical, not by the slightest. Any fool knows this. The vaccine is free of ingredients that some people don’t want in a shot, she says.The vaccine has, for example, a built-in potential market among people who are allergic to eggs. The company has built a database of such people looking for alternatives to other vaccines. Cox says the vaccine could also be attractive to vegans and health conscious people who have expressed concerns about preservatives and other elements sometimes found in more traditional flu vaccines. Also, some young people incorrectly believe that they can become infected through traditional flu shots, she says, and so Protein Sciences has been emphasizing that Flublok’s manufacturing process doesn’t include the use of live flu virus. http://www.xconomy.com/new-york/2013/03/11/protein-sciences-pitch-a-pure-flu-vaccine-alternative/2/ Maybe reread the above until you understand. But im probably making another hopeless attempt to put you in your place. Because you just love love love all the attention. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simbi Laveau Posted June 17, 2013 Author #28 Share Posted June 17, 2013 OBAMA Awwwww....no one liked my soapy bath comment .........I think you did ....but won't admit it *pouts* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simbi Laveau Posted June 17, 2013 Author #29 Share Posted June 17, 2013 (edited) I didn't say that. You did. Read back through the posts. I was very clear where your dishonesty lies. Leave your strawmen out of this. You didn't read what I wrote did you? Just like you didn't read the articles you posted yourself. Well done. But you didn't need to go to all the trouble of looking this up. You could have just read the articles you posted. Think of all the time it would have saved you. Evidence? There's that lie again. I already explained to you why this claim is dishonest. Oh, that's right. You don't read other posts, do you? Since you cannot find anything but propagana on your own . Here's my lie ,in black and white. Just because its not in that article,doesnt mean im not aware of the facts . People on this forum,always find out the hard way ,theres always proof of what I say ,or I wouldnt say it. And if you cry for evidence,its the same place the FDA sweeps all the other fatalities incurred during test trial of meds the approve. http://www.examiner.com/article/two-vaccine-study-participants-die-during-trials-of-the-first-gmo-flu-vaccine And if the reason I posted links to the companies website went over your head ,tsk tsk . Sad . Flublok, a new vaccine for influenza, is now available and is the first vaccine ever to contain genetically-modified (GM) proteins derived from insect cells. Flublok is trivalent, which means it contains GM proteins from three different influenza strains. According to clinical data provided in the vaccine's package insert by its manufacturer, the Protein Sciences Corporation (PSC), two study participants actually died during trials of the vaccine. Yes yes ! It's about saving lives,but this is in their mission statement An independent market study (Datamonitor, 2007) found that the worldwide influenza vaccine market is growing rapidly and is predicted to more than double in size to more than $4.4 billion by 2016. We have established a broad patent estate on influenza vaccines produced using recombinant technology in our And,they're working on a vaccine for SARS . Has anyone even contracted it in the last three years ? Just all these "SARs like " illnesses all over the news. How telling Edited June 17, 2013 by Simbi Laveau 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbenol Posted June 17, 2013 #30 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Since you cannot find anything but propagana on your own . Here's my lie ,in black and white. Just because its not in that article,doesnt mean im not aware of the facts . http://www.examiner.com/article/two-vaccine-study-participants-die-during-trials-of-the-first-gmo-flu-vaccine Again. Posting misinformation as if it furthers your argument. What part of this do you have trouble understanding? Two people died during the six month period of the trial. Out of 5000 people, why is this so unexpected. Posting the same propaganda adds nothing. Do you have any information on the causes of death? If you do, share. And I think you missed the bit where you were informed (twice) that one of those that died received the placebo. What's the point of quoting my post when you didn't address anything I said. Now you've already demonstrated that you have nothing intelligent to contribute, so you might as well go back to hurling insults - you need the practice. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Render Posted June 17, 2013 #31 Share Posted June 17, 2013 (edited) Since you cannot find anything but propagana on your own . Here's my lie ,in black and white. Just because its not in that article,doesnt mean im not aware of the facts . People on this forum,always find out the hard way ,theres always proof of what I say ,or I wouldnt say it. http://www.examiner....gmo-flu-vaccine And if the reason I posted links to the companies website went over your head ,tsk tsk . Sad . Flublok, a new vaccine for influenza, is now available and is the first vaccine ever to contain genetically-modified (GM) proteins derived from insect cells. Flublok is trivalent, which means it contains GM proteins from three different influenza strains. According to clinical data provided in the vaccine's package insert by its manufacturer, the Protein Sciences Corporation (PSC), two study participants actually died during trials of the vaccine. Can you understand anything apart from blowing your own smoke up your ass??? Across trials, through 6 monthspost vaccination, two deaths were reported, one in a Flublok recipient and one in a placebo recipient. Both deaths occurred more than 28 days following vaccination and neither was considered vaccine and neither wasconsidered vaccine and neither wasconsidered vaccine GET OVER YOURSELF you are not the messiah, you don't see information that others don't this is all very common knowledge you didn't just pull the rabit out of the hat Competent boards go over all the data, they're smarter than you yes. Obviously. FluBlOk containing higher amounts of the H1 and B antigens was 100% efficacious in preventing culture positive influenza illness, the FDA standard measure of efficacy. This was statistically significant compared to placebo (p=0.0146). FluBlOk also significantly reduced the overall occurrence of CDC-defined ILI compared to placebo, the established measure of vaccine effectiveness. FluBlOk was more than 85% efficacious against culture positive influenza illness in the combined vaccine group (2/301 vs. 7/153 placebo), which also was statistically significant relative to placebo (p=0.0083). You most likely don't understand the meaning of statistical significance...so let me break it down for you: It's a good thing. While the technology is new to flu vaccine production, it is used to make vaccines that have been approved by the FDA to prevent other infectious diseases. http://www.fda.gov/N...s/ucm335891.htm Oh nooo, this technique isn't even new? ? Damn Simbi, seems like you dropped the ball on punctual panicking. Are you actually gonna read this or just glaze over and say "2 death 2 deaths mimimimimimimi 2 deaths" So if 10 ppl go visit some waterfalls and 2 ppl die later that month Simbi will be all over it and say "waterfalls caused 2 deaths" TU TU TUM You better be careful about being so open Simbi....the government is gonna come after you for not keeping this hush hush Edited June 17, 2013 by Render 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted June 17, 2013 #32 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Across trials, through 6 months post vaccination, two deaths were reported, one in a Flublok recipient and one in a placebo recipient. Both deaths occurred more than 28 days following vaccination and neither was considered vaccine related. SAEs were reported by 32 Flublok recipients and 35 placebo recipients. One SAE in a Flublok recipient was assessed as possibly related to the vaccine: pleuropericarditis with effusions requiring hospitalization and drainage. No specific cause was identified. The patient recovered. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM336020.pdf What are they doing I wonder .... Not related ... then possibly related ... then no specific cause identified ... then ... no problem ? Well ... blow me down ... pilgrims ... let's all just mosey on down and get our jabs shall we ? uhmmm ... you guys just trot along and go ahead ... I'll sit this one out ... ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Render Posted June 17, 2013 #33 Share Posted June 17, 2013 (edited) http://www.fda.gov/d...s/UCM336020.pdf What are they doing I wonder .... Not related ... then possibly related ... then no specific cause identified ... then ... no problem ? Well ... blow me down ... pilgrims ... let's all just mosey on down and get our jabs shall we ? uhmmm ... you guys just trot along and go ahead ... I'll sit this one out ... ~ I think you misunderstand there. The deaths were not considered related. The SAE was considered as possibly related. SAE stands for Severe Adverse Effect only 1 had this extreme response of the other 31 SAE, out the even bigger total group of tested people. And this patient recovered. So this is great. I think you fail to realise how rare these great results actually are. It's very easy to freak out over things you don't understand. Even though all the information is readily available. Edited June 17, 2013 by Render 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted June 17, 2013 #34 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I think you misunderstand there. The deaths were not considered related. The SAE was considered as possibly related. SAE stands for Severe Adverse Effect only 1 had this extreme response of the other 31 SAE, out the even bigger total group of tested people. And this patient recovered. So this is great. I think you fail to realise how rare these great results actually are. That being said, I know too of other sources that questions the reliability of such reports, especially when it is from sources from only one side of the 'opinions' and 'interests' I have my concerns and I believe with certainty that it is not unfounded. I understand your optimism ... from your stand point ... but I have so far placed my lot with the TCM and Ayurvedic practices for the most part of my life and from my stand point its a bit far for my fetching. I know for certainty that most of what doesn't work in the ancient practices is because of the lab produced reactions induced by the chemically produced solutions. That's what detoxification means from my world. Clearing the body of such contaminations so the natural remedies can work. I'm not about to fill my body with such toxic elements again after all that. From my stand point of course. Something just sounds very wrong to me when it is genetic elements that don't belong or found naturally in my body to be introduced no matter what the premise or purpose. Or maybe the more accurate term is unnatural. If I have to die because of that choice ... then at least I'll die knowingly and naturally and satisfied. My choice. I'm just more comfortable with placing my lot with what works and what has carried the human civilisation for thousands of years I guess. ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Render Posted June 17, 2013 #35 Share Posted June 17, 2013 That being said, I know too of other sources that questions the reliability of such reports, especially when it is from sources from only one side of the 'opinions' and 'interests' I have my concerns and I believe with certainty that it is not unfounded. I understand your optimism ... from your stand point ... but I have so far placed my lot with the TCM and Ayurvedic practices for the most part of my life and from my stand point its a bit far for my fetching. I know for certainty that most of what doesn't work in the ancient practices is because of the lab produced reactions induced by the chemically produced solutions. That's what detoxification means from my world. Clearing the body of such contaminations so the natural remedies can work. I'm not about to fill my body with such toxic elements again after all that. From my stand point of course. Something just sounds very wrong to me when it is genetic elements that don't belong or found naturally in my body to be introduced no matter what the premise or purpose. Or maybe the more accurate term is unnatural. If I have to die because of that choice ... then at least I'll die knowingly and naturally and satisfied. My choice. I'm just more comfortable with placing my lot with what works and what has carried the human civilisation for thousands of years I guess. ~ Well, you can have an opinion but to side with conspiracy theorists because you let personal emotions lead your judgement, is just wrong. Keep it to yourself or go talk about on the spiritual board or something. The reliability of this official FDA report you doubt? Because why? They are out to destroy us and if Simbi wouldn't have stumbled on this readily available information we would all be doomed? It's ridiculous, a time a place for everything. And this thread is all wrong. It's not that im wildly optimistic, im just being realistic about it. Im not pro flu vaccines either, but i understand that a certain part of the population benefits from it. So i can step outside of my own judgement and look at facts and see them for what they are. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted June 17, 2013 #36 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Well, you can have an opinion but to side with conspiracy theorists because you let personal emotions lead your judgement, is just wrong. Keep it to yourself or go talk about on the spiritual board or something. The reliability of this official FDA report you doubt? Because why? They are out to destroy us and if Simbi wouldn't have stumbled on this readily available information we would all be doomed? It's ridiculous, a time a place for everything. And this thread is all wrong. It's not that im wildly optimistic, im just being realistic about it. Im not pro flu vaccines either, but i understand that a certain part of the population benefits from it. So i can step outside of my own judgement and look at facts and see them for what they are. Side ? Wrong ? my post at #25 or here link contrary to what you proposed ... not everyone from the Scientific commune is as confident or optimistic as you are in the facts JOŚE L.DOMINGO Laboratory of Toxicology and Environmental Health, School of Medicine, “Rovira I Virgili” University, San Lorenzo 21, 43201 Reus, Spain Taking into account that different GMOs include different genes inserted in different ways, the WHO indicates that indi- vidual foods and their safety should be assessed in a case-by-case basis, and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods. In general terms, the safety assessment of GM foods should investigate: a) toxicity, allergenicity, c) specific components thought to have nutritional or toxic properties, d) stability of the inserted gene, e) nutritional effects associated with genetic modification, and f) any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion (WHO, 2002) Although the WHO declares that the GM products that are currently on the international market have all passed risk as- sessment conducted by national authorities, in a review on the scientific literature performed in 2000, we were not able to find sufficient published information concerning that assessment (Domingo and G ́omez, 2000). In particular, the lack of published toxicological studies on adverse health effects was evident. Al- though a considerable number of commentaries, general news, and letters to the Editor were published in reputable international journals, papers about experimental investigations on the safetyof GM foods were surprisingly very scant. from http://www.biosafety.ru/ftp/domingo.pdf "And this thread is all wrong." Why ? Because it provides an avenue to discuss other possibilities or point of views ? ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Render Posted June 17, 2013 #37 Share Posted June 17, 2013 (edited) "And this thread is all wrong." Why ? Because it provides an avenue to discuss other possibilities or point of views ? ~ .Because, again, you and certain others here, are comparing apples and oranges. Your above posts proves this yet again with these articles you just cherry pick. And you don't even comprehend that you are doing this. But because it satisfies your distrusting bias you use it as some form of proof against this type of vaccine. Which is wrong on so many levels, i can't even begin to explain because you obviously don't understand the basis for it. It's pointless. If you were to discuss this professionally, you would have to disclose your bias and ppl would just stop reading there. Because you have already admitted you are not interested in the facts, much like Simbi. You are interested in feeding your bias with a myriad of non related information. Edited June 17, 2013 by Render 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted June 17, 2013 #38 Share Posted June 17, 2013 . Because, again, you and certain others here, are comparing apples and oranges. Your above posts proves this yet again with these articles you just cherry pick. And you don't even comprehend that you are doing this. But because it satisfies your distrusting bias you use it as some form of proof against this type of vaccine. Which is wrong on so many levels, i can't even begin to explain because you obviously don't understand the basis for it. It's pointless. If you were to discuss this professionally, you would have to disclose your bias and ppl would just stop reading there. Because you have already admitted you are not interested in the facts, much like Simbi. You are interested in feeding your bias with a myriad of non related information. No I am not a professional ... nor do I agree with everything Simbi proposes ... but I am responsible for my own choices and beliefs and for my own body and well being You are partially right that I don't understand ... first of all ... the 'WHY' genetically modified solutions is unnatural ... that to me is enough , that doesn't seems to go down too well with the 'facticists' (no offense its a personal joke) so what if there is a pandemic ... maybe you should be happy as 'my kind and those that is in agreement' with my point of views will be gone in a week now wouldn't that be a grand proof of how effective these GMO vaccines will be ? or what if there is the other kind of pandemic .... ? the kind that wipes out those with these elements in their system ? is that the conspiracy you are talking about ? I don't believe that ... nor do I believe in specific genetic targeting viruses ... life goes on ... as the saying goes // I don't trust GMOs ... period ... everything GMO ... to be specific .... I don't care what kind of wonder miracles they promise ... leave the genes alone is my mantra ... I have had enough of such promises ... trying to outsmart some divine character is like trying to outsmart oneself ... you always win but ends up losing in the end. I am not particularly keen on religions but I am highly akin to spirituality ... I'd like to keep my spirit and soul uncontaminated ... and like to believe that I have possession of such. ~cheers ` Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Render Posted June 17, 2013 #39 Share Posted June 17, 2013 No I am not a professional ... nor do I agree with everything Simbi proposes ... but I am responsible for my own choices and beliefs and for my own body and well being You are partially right that I don't understand ... first of all ... the 'WHY' genetically modified solutions is unnatural ... that to me is enough , that doesn't seems to go down too well with the 'facticists' (no offense its a personal joke) so what if there is a pandemic ... maybe you should be happy as 'my kind and those that is in agreement' with my point of views will be gone in a week now wouldn't that be a grand proof of how effective these GMO vaccines will be ? or what if there is the other kind of pandemic .... ? the kind that wipes out those with these elements in their system ? is that the conspiracy you are talking about ? I don't believe that ... nor do I believe in specific genetic targeting viruses ... life goes on ... as the saying goes // I don't trust GMOs ... period ... everything GMO ... to be specific .... I don't care what kind of wonder miracles they promise ... leave the genes alone is my mantra ... I have had enough of such promises ... trying to outsmart some divine character is like trying to outsmart oneself ... you always win but ends up losing in the end. I am not particularly keen on religions but I am highly akin to spirituality ... I'd like to keep my spirit and soul uncontaminated ... and like to believe that I have possession of such. ~cheers ` As is your good right. But it has no place in Scientific oriented threads, just to drag pharma's and researchers through the mud. Acting like they are creating poison. And you also have to able to respect others that say "i want this vaccine, i will benefit from it". They are owed an unbiased investigation/research. Which is what they are given in this case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted June 17, 2013 #40 Share Posted June 17, 2013 As is your good right. But it has no place in Scientific oriented threads, just to drag pharma's and researchers through the mud. Acting like they are creating poison. And you also have to able to respect others that say "i want this vaccine, i will benefit from it". They are owed an unbiased investigation/research. Which is what they are given in this case. well .. when the tars on the other brush .. it looks the same every which way you look // the scalpel just cuts along the lines from what the surgeons reads from the xray prints ... no ? oriented is right ... it is not specifically a Scientific thread is it ? Some might even go as far as to say GMO has no place in Science ... but that's for another Scientific oriented thread ... "They are owed an unbiased investigation/research." Exactly ... we just define bias with a different kind focus ... that's all ... As for dragging the big 'pharmas' corporations through the mud ... they're doing that well enough on their own ... mired in it as you've no doubt noticed too .... and I don't believe for one minute its all due to 'lies' and 'tar brushes' from distrustful individuals like me .... if only we had such influence ... ~sigh~ please don't drag the link wars into this ... its been linked to death already, honestly ... even governing bodies are concerned ... that should say enough about the big corporations and their intentions. "i want this vaccine, i will benefit from it" by all means ... with blessings even ... as long as they know of the concerns too ... even if unfounded to your perspective ? isn't that what is an informed decision means ? ~peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Render Posted June 17, 2013 #41 Share Posted June 17, 2013 well .. when the tars on the other brush .. it looks the same every which way you look // the scalpel just cuts along the lines from what the surgeons reads from the xray prints ... no ? oriented is right ... it is not specifically a Scientific thread is it ? Some might even go as far as to say GMO has no place in Science ... but that's for another Scientific oriented thread ... "They are owed an unbiased investigation/research." Exactly ... we just define bias with a different kind focus ... that's all ... As for dragging the big 'pharmas' corporations through the mud ... they're doing that well enough on their own ... mired in it as you've no doubt noticed too .... and I don't believe for one minute its all due to 'lies' and 'tar brushes' from distrustful individuals like me .... if only we had such influence ... ~sigh~ please don't drag the link wars into this ... its been linked to death already, honestly ... even governing bodies are concerned ... that should say enough about the big corporations and their intentions. "i want this vaccine, i will benefit from it" by all means ... with blessings even ... as long as they know of the concerns too ... even if unfounded to your perspective ? isn't that what is an informed decision means ? ~peace Again, apples and oranges here. You want to inform ppl of the risk of eating GMO foods. This is not the same as this vaccine technique, not by a long shot. You are basically saying something along the lines of "Ppl work with copper, and if copper is ingested it can lead to blindness and organ failure. So ppl shouldn't work with copper, and copper wires should not be used because it makes you blind. " This is your train of logic, which makes no sense. Which makes all your posts here obsolete. Ppl who are offered this vaccine, now are able to make an informed decision.Thanks to the extensive testing they reported statiscal significance, what side affects can be, etc .... So ppl aren't in the dark. They know the concerns. That's why these extensive testings are mandatory. And that's why, for example, if medicines, vaccines etc cause to many SAE or even deaths the FDA, EMA, etc immediately puts these on hold or even throws the whole construct out of the window. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted June 17, 2013 #42 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Again, apples and oranges here. You want to inform ppl of the risk of eating GMO foods. This is not the same as this vaccine technique, not by a long shot. You are basically saying something along the lines of "Ppl work with copper, and if copper is ingested it can lead to blindness and organ failure. So ppl shouldn't work with copper, and copper wires should not be used because it makes you blind. " This is your train of logic, which makes no sense. Which makes all your posts here obsolete. Ppl who are offered this vaccine, now are able to make an informed decision.Thanks to the extensive testing they reported statiscal significance, what side affects can be, etc .... So ppl aren't in the dark. They know the concerns. That's why these extensive testings are mandatory. And that's why, for example, if medicines, vaccines etc cause to many SAE or even deaths the FDA, EMA, etc immediately puts these on hold or even throws the whole construct out of the window. I believe my concerns about the GMO vaccines are as follows : “We’re trying to figure out which genes from the swine influenza virus to incorporate into corn”, stated Hank Harris, a researcher on the project. “If a swine flu virus breaks out, the corn could be shipped to the location to try to vaccinate animals and humans in the area quickly. …there is no need for extensive vaccine purification, which can be an expensive process.” http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/06/03/vaccines-watch-out-for-flying-syringes-gmo-food-vaccines-and-forced-vaccinations/ FDA approves first GMO flu vaccine containing reprogrammed insect virus Friday, February 08, 2013 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer Tags: flu vaccine, insect virus, GMOs According to Flublok's package insert, the vaccine is trivalent, which means it contains GM proteins from three different flu strains. The vaccine's manufacturer, Protein Sciences Corporation (PSC), explains that Flublok is produced by extracting cells from the fall armyworm, a type of caterpillar, and genetically altering them to produce large amounts of hemagglutinin, a flu virus protein that enables the flu virus itself to enter the body quickly. ...... FDA also approves flu vaccine containing dog kidney cells Back in November, the FDA also approved a new flu vaccine known as Flucelvax that is actually made using dog kidney cells. A product of pharmaceutical giant Novartis, Flucelvax also does away with the egg cultures, and can similarly be produced much more rapidly than traditional flu vaccines, which means vaccine companies can have it ready and waiting should the federal government declare a pandemic. Learn more: http://www.naturalne...l#ixzz2WRiO3qLV Two serious concerns have been raised concerning the biosafety of conventional or recombinant vaccines for human and animal uses. The first one is the fact that vaccine strains may persist in the vaccinated recipients and, if the target species is a food-producing animal, later on in the food chain. The second one is that administration of a vaccine may trigger long-term adverse effects in normal or immunodeficient recipients. Project BIO4-CT98-0031 showed that those effects could be discarded by using a recombinant alphavirus, namely Semliki Forest Virus (SFV), in mice, chicken and sheep. The vaccine virus does not persist more than seven days after vaccination. http://ec.europa.eu/research/quality-of-life/gmo/08-vaccines/08-intro.htm "The FDA has hands tied and eyes blind folded" ... I believe it was some US activist that said that ... I can't remember who now ... and my links are in a mess from neglect ... I gave up on this line of knowing a long time ago ... things haven't changed just because they got some fancy new machines that gives new standards or up the bar on 'safety' issues ... its all cosmetic to me.... Bottom line is I don't want : ~ swine influenza virus to incorporate into corn on my table to vaccinate me ... ~ reprogrammed insect virus in my immune system ~ a flu virus protein that enables the flu virus itself to enter the body quickly in my body or ~ dog kidney cells running wild let loose in my body or anything that might or ~may trigger long-term adverse effects in normal or immunodeficient recipients. thank you very much // ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FurthurBB Posted June 17, 2013 #43 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Again. Posting misinformation as if it furthers your argument. What part of this do you have trouble understanding? Two people died during the six month period of the trial. Out of 5000 people, why is this so unexpected. Posting the same propaganda adds nothing. Do you have any information on the causes of death? If you do, share. And I think you missed the bit where you were informed (twice) that one of those that died received the placebo. What's the point of quoting my post when you didn't address anything I said. Now you've already demonstrated that you have nothing intelligent to contribute, so you might as well go back to hurling insults - you need the practice. Well, what else do you expect from Simbi? All you will ever get is misinformation, ignornace of any type of science, quotes taken out of context, and out right lies. Oh well, it is easy to see which side the truth is on when one side always lies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted June 18, 2013 #44 Share Posted June 18, 2013 let the lying continue ..... not .... ~ please ~ ` 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crystal sage Posted October 2, 2013 #45 Share Posted October 2, 2013 So far they have found that animals fed GMO's had a shortened life span, were more likely to have reproductive problems.. digestive problems.. tumors.. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/monsanto-corn-study-france_n_1896115.html Yet what makes them believe that injecting GMO's straight into your bloodstream will be safer? Remember it is only in the last few years that they have discovered that the 'junk DNA' the scientists ignored that were included in some of these GMO's actually are not junk DNA at all and serve a purpose... What 'junk DNA' are randomly strewn in these vaccines.... Oh and don't forget the damaged DNA that are casualties of these cutting and spicing and recombining chimera genes. These may take years to fully react.. maybe the outcomes will be in the next generation or maybe it would take days or months... how long will it take for the body's immune system to react to unnaturally created gene recombinations? Note they aren't reacting to real viruses.. but unstable man made chimera viruses.. Look at these vaccines that they have created for our food supply.. our dairy... our beef supply . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22521286 Here's the process of creating the Gardasil vaccination back in 2000 where it was still being created... ... http://www.hu.ufsc.br/projeto_hpv/Developing%20HPV%20virus-like%20particle%20vaccines%20to%20prevent.pdf . In summary, there has been considerable progress in the development of prophylactic HPV vaccines in the 8 years since the discovery of papillomavirus VLPs. Preclinical studies have produced attractive vaccine candidates and the recent early phase clinical trials have yielded exceptionally promising results. However, the lack of a sexual transmission model in animals makes it impossible to confidently predict the outcome of the anticipated efficacy trials. Until efficacy trials determine that simple systemic vaccination with purified HPV VLPs induces long-lasting protection from cervical infection, it seems prudent to continue preclinical studies of alternative vaccine candidates that might be more effective, less expensive, and also more practical for worldwide use. I think we may have been the more effective.. less expensive candidates that they were referring to. Phase II of the human trials were still going on in 2005... and they were still playing around with the vaccine.. http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/10/7/528.full Interesting... can you donate blood after a Gardasil Vaccination? http://real-agenda.com/2013/09/10/genetically-modified-hpv-dna-found-in-samples-of-gardasil/#sthash.5mil9ATB.dpbs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted October 2, 2013 #46 Share Posted October 2, 2013 So far they have found that animals fed GMO's had a shortened life span, were more likely to have reproductive problems.. digestive problems.. tumors.. http://www.huffingto..._n_1896115.html Yet what makes them believe that injecting GMO's straight into your bloodstream will be safer? Remember it is only in the last few years that they have discovered that the 'junk DNA' the scientists ignored that were included in some of these GMO's actually are not junk DNA at all and serve a purpose... What 'junk DNA' are randomly strewn in these vaccines.... Oh and don't forget the damaged DNA that are casualties of these cutting and spicing and recombining chimera genes. These may take years to fully react.. maybe the outcomes will be in the next generation or maybe it would take days or months... how long will it take for the body's immune system to react to unnaturally created gene recombinations? Note they aren't reacting to real viruses.. but unstable man made chimera viruses.. Look at these vaccines that they have created for our food supply.. our dairy... our beef supply . http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22521286 Here's the process of creating the Gardasil vaccination back in 2000 where it was still being created... ... http://www.hu.ufsc.b... to prevent.pdf . I think we may have been the more effective.. less expensive candidates that they were referring to. Phase II of the human trials were still going on in 2005... and they were still playing around with the vaccine.. http://theoncologist...t/10/7/528.full Interesting... can you donate blood after a Gardasil Vaccination? http://real-agenda.c...h.5mil9ATB.dpbs Double thanks for the links ~ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonshadow60 Posted October 2, 2013 #47 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Doesn't matter what I think since I am old enough to be expendable, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted October 3, 2013 #48 Share Posted October 3, 2013 . It's the vaccine making us sick 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FurthurBB Posted October 3, 2013 #49 Share Posted October 3, 2013 I haven't had any shots since that age of 14, from that age on. It is very rare I get sick and if I do it only lasts a couple days maximum. Just to give you perspective. My mum and brother both get their shots and all that ****. They get seriously sick at least 5 times a year. We live in the same house, eat the same food and everything. Only real difference is the shots they get that I don't get. I believe these shots aren't what we are told they are. We have no idea what they put in the injections. The only people who know are the people to make them and the FDA. But you must trust the FDA 100% because people can never be bought off to just accept something. That would be a laughable claim right?? The immune system of a person doesn't have anything to do with vaccinations, other than you can build immunity through them, it has to do with genetics. You were just lucky enough to get a good mix of genes for your immune system. Also, 5 times a year is more than just a variable immune system issue. I have a friend who is HIV positive and immune compromised because of it and he does not get seriously sick anywhere near 5 times a year. I would suggest your family get a doctor to see what is really going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FurthurBB Posted October 3, 2013 #50 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Again. Posting misinformation as if it furthers your argument. What part of this do you have trouble understanding? Two people died during the six month period of the trial. Out of 5000 people, why is this so unexpected. Posting the same propaganda adds nothing. Do you have any information on the causes of death? If you do, share. And I think you missed the bit where you were informed (twice) that one of those that died received the placebo. What's the point of quoting my post when you didn't address anything I said. Now you've already demonstrated that you have nothing intelligent to contribute, so you might as well go back to hurling insults - you need the practice. I think simbi meant to say that they only know how to find propaganda so they will post you a link, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now