Driver to drive?

[Jamie M]

On 1/27/2016 8:55 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, 28 January 2016 15:26:08 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 1/27/2016 6:42 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, 28 January 2016 09:56:09 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 1/25/2016 10:59 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 17:19:23 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
Hi,

Quotes from the study:

"Vaccine adjuvants and vaccines may induce autoimmune and inflammatory
manifestations in susceptible individuals"

"To date most human vaccine trials utilize aluminum (Al) adjuvants as
placebos despite much evidence showing that Al in vaccine-relevant
exposures can be toxic to humans and animals"

link to the study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26778424

Bad news for your mice. The clinical argument is that while negative
reactions to vaccines do occur, they are infrequent, and
a whole lot less damaging than the results of the infection which the
vaccination is designed to prevent.

Jamie lacks a sense of proportion, or any understanding of the idea of
taking precautions against things that might happen,
so he feels free to reject the clinical argument.

Vaccine manufacturers didn't even seem to test the vaccine, which would
seem to be a sensible precaution before their widespread use.

What makes you think that? The vaccine adjuncts seem to much the same
across a variety of vaccines, so that aspect of vaccine safety
would seem to be pretty predictable.

At the same time they lobbied successfully for removing liability to any
damaging effects from vaccine injury.

The well-known defects of the American legislative system let them do that > > - it saves them the price of buying insurance against
what seem to be rare adverse reactions, but it can be argued that the
communities that get the public health benefits of adequate
vaccination coverage should cover the costs of the occasional adverse
reaction to vaccination.

I guess your idea of taking precautions only applies when profit
of multinational corporations aren't at risk, however I am glad
the scientists who wrote this study think otherwise, and identified
neurological damage from a dangerous vaccine, which is supposed
to prevent an STD virus, HPV, yet for some reason the vaccine
manufacturers have lobbied politicians to make it a mandatory vaccine
for 11 year old's to enter school:

http://cervicalcancer.healthdiaries.com/executive-order-gardasil-mandatory-in-texas.html

This law didn't last very long but it shows you that the vaccine
manufacturers, who didn't even test the toxic effects of this
vaccine properly, attempt to mandate it just for profit.

You blithely ignore the toxic effects of getting cervical cancer, which is > > what the vaccination is intended to protect against.

I shouldn't need to have to spell this out, but you aren't either clever
or well-informed, so the train of logic goes like this.

Most cervical cancers are a side effect of a sexually transmitted human
papillomavirus infection. If you immunise enough teenage girls
against this virus infection, not only do you make it much less likely
that they will get the virus infection, but you also make it less
likely that they will pass it on to their sexual partners, who will - in
turn - be less likely to pass it on to their sexual partners
(who may not have been immunised).

If you immunise enough of the population, the breed of virus you immunise
against virus will die out completely. We've managed this with
small-pox, and are close to it with polio, but a bunch of religious
nutters, who seem to be just as silly as you are, are making it difficult
to vaccinate enough of the kids in the last hold-out areas.

So your precaution argument, as with your other biased
arguments, is illogical.

The argument is perfectly logical. Your problem is that you don't know
enough of the facts involved to be able to follow the logic.

One giveaway is that you never mention the incidence of "adverse
side-effects" which is typically rather low, at least for anything worth
worrying about.

https://www.tga.gov.au/alert/gardasil-human-papillomavirus-vaccine

Anaphylactic shock comes in at 2.6 per million. The incidence of
demyelinating disorder such as multiple sclerosis, which have been
blamed on the vaccine, isn't significantly different from the incidence
in the unvaccinated population. People have got multiple sclerosis after
being vaccinated, but the statistics suggest that they would have got
it even if they hadn't been vaccinated (which isn't the way the data is
presented on the anti-vaccination web-sites).

Your "logic" has holes in it.

There are links to the immune system function with autism and
schizophrenia both now, related to neural pruning, and vaccines
including gardasil cause neuroinflammation and autoimmune reactions,
probably pruning neurons in the brain among many other side effects
of the vaccine. This caused measurable depression symptoms in the
mice that were given gardasil as compared to placebo.

What's a "depression" symptom in a mouse? Your crap about autism and schizophrenia seems to come from a

long-discredited study by a guy who ended up disbarred because of the
nature of the mistakes he made. This
doesn't stop half-wits like you screaming "cover-up", but it does
discourage rational observers from taking you seriously.

"It appears that Gardasil via its Al adjuvant and HPV antigens has the
ability to trigger neuroinflammation and autoimmune reactions, further
leading to behavioral changes"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26778424

In mice. Some millions of women have been vaccinated with the product, and while quite a few of them are nuts,

some of them only showing symptoms since vaccination, the connection
between their going nuts and them getting
vaccinated isn't statistically significant.

It is a common pattern that industry funded studies produce
good results for drugs and vaccines, and it is only from
common sense and later unbiased studies that the truth comes
out.

It happens, but calling it a "common pattern" is nonsense. It wouldn't be news if it were "a common pattern".

For example:

"Anti depressants double the risk of aggression and suicide"

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-01-antidepressants-aggression-suicide-children.html

"This is because of the poor design of clinical trials that assess
these antidepressants, and the misreporting of findings in published
articles."

Antidepressants have to change the nervous system to work at all. Vaccines have no direct effect on the nervous

system. You have this theory that they can, sometimes, but if it does
happen it seems to be too rare to show up as
statistically significant.

You want to block a vaccination program that can prevent quite a few cervical cancers because there's a statistically

insignificant risk of nerve damage that you fevered imagination has
deduced from a few people who went nuts after they'd
been vaccinated, when Occam's Razor suggests that they would have gone
nuts whether they'd been vaccinated or not.

Hi,

You continue to ignore the science showing the vaccine causes neural
damage. Don't forget that this science was done due to reported
damage in humans from the vaccine.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/hpv-vaccine-israel-health-ministry-considers-canceling-vaccination-due-to-side-effects/

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.545014

The Israeli health ministry noted reported side effects of the Gardasil
vaccine from the doctors noticing side effects, and now Israeli
scientists have reexamined the Gardasil vaccine and there are side
effects from the vaccine that should be troubling to anyone with
at least half a brain.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26778424
(Israeli study)

Many people have had their lives disrupted and even ruined by this
vaccine, now science is starting to explain why this occurs, and
the sensible recommendation is to not accept this vaccine if it
isn't safe.

cheers,
Jamie

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 28 January 2016 18:11:01 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

On 1/27/2016 8:55 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, 28 January 2016 15:26:08 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 1/27/2016 6:42 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, 28 January 2016 09:56:09 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 1/25/2016 10:59 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 17:19:23 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
Hi,

Quotes from the study:

"Vaccine adjuvants and vaccines may induce autoimmune and inflammatory
manifestations in susceptible individuals"

"To date most human vaccine trials utilize aluminum (Al) adjuvants as
placebos despite much evidence showing that Al in vaccine-relevant
exposures can be toxic to humans and animals"

link to the study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26778424

Bad news for your mice. The clinical argument is that while negative
reactions to vaccines do occur, they are infrequent, and
a whole lot less damaging than the results of the infection which the
vaccination is designed to prevent.

Jamie lacks a sense of proportion, or any understanding of the idea of
taking precautions against things that might happen,
so he feels free to reject the clinical argument.

Vaccine manufacturers didn't even seem to test the vaccine, which would
seem to be a sensible precaution before their widespread use.

What makes you think that? The vaccine adjuncts seem to much the same
across a variety of vaccines, so that aspect of vaccine safety
would seem to be pretty predictable.

At the same time they lobbied successfully for removing liability to any
damaging effects from vaccine injury.

The well-known defects of the American legislative system let them do
that - it saves them the price of buying insurance against
what seem to be rare adverse reactions, but it can be argued that the
communities that get the public health benefits of adequate
vaccination coverage should cover the costs of the occasional adverse
reaction to vaccination.

I guess your idea of taking precautions only applies when profit
of multinational corporations aren't at risk, however I am glad
the scientists who wrote this study think otherwise, and identified
neurological damage from a dangerous vaccine, which is supposed
to prevent an STD virus, HPV, yet for some reason the vaccine
manufacturers have lobbied politicians to make it a mandatory vaccine
for 11 year old's to enter school:

http://cervicalcancer.healthdiaries.com/executive-order-gardasil-mandatory-in-texas.html

This law didn't last very long but it shows you that the vaccine
manufacturers, who didn't even test the toxic effects of this
vaccine properly, attempt to mandate it just for profit.

You blithely ignore the toxic effects of getting cervical cancer, which > > >> is what the vaccination is intended to protect against.

I shouldn't need to have to spell this out, but you aren't either clever
or well-informed, so the train of logic goes like this.

Most cervical cancers are a side effect of a sexually transmitted human
papillomavirus infection. If you immunise enough teenage girls
against this virus infection, not only do you make it much less likely
that they will get the virus infection, but you also make it less
likely that they will pass it on to their sexual partners, who will - in
turn - be less likely to pass it on to their sexual partners
(who may not have been immunised).

If you immunise enough of the population, the breed of virus you immunise
against virus will die out completely. We've managed this with
small-pox, and are close to it with polio, but a bunch of religious
nutters, who seem to be just as silly as you are, are making it difficult
to vaccinate enough of the kids in the last hold-out areas.

So your precaution argument, as with your other biased
arguments, is illogical.

The argument is perfectly logical. Your problem is that you don't know
enough of the facts involved to be able to follow the logic.

One giveaway is that you never mention the incidence of "adverse
side-effects" which is typically rather low, at least for anything worth
worrying about.

https://www.tga.gov.au/alert/gardasil-human-papillomavirus-vaccine

Anaphylactic shock comes in at 2.6 per million. The incidence of
demyelinating disorder such as multiple sclerosis, which have been
blamed on the vaccine, isn't significantly different from the incidence
in the unvaccinated population. People have got multiple sclerosis after
being vaccinated, but the statistics suggest that they would have got
it even if they hadn't been vaccinated (which isn't the way the data is
presented on the anti-vaccination web-sites).

Your "logic" has holes in it.

There are links to the immune system function with autism and
schizophrenia both now, related to neural pruning, and vaccines
including gardasil cause neuroinflammation and autoimmune reactions,
probably pruning neurons in the brain among many other side effects
of the vaccine. This caused measurable depression symptoms in the
mice that were given gardasil as compared to placebo.

What's a "depression" symptom in a mouse? Your crap about autism and
schizophrenia seems to come from a
long-discredited study by a guy who ended up disbarred because of the
nature of the mistakes he made. This
doesn't stop half-wits like you screaming "cover-up", but it does
discourage rational observers from taking you seriously.

"It appears that Gardasil via its Al adjuvant and HPV antigens has the
ability to trigger neuroinflammation and autoimmune reactions, further
leading to behavioral changes"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26778424

In mice. Some millions of women have been vaccinated with the product, and > > while quite a few of them are nuts,
some of them only showing symptoms since vaccination, the connection
between their going nuts and them getting
vaccinated isn't statistically significant.

It is a common pattern that industry funded studies produce
good results for drugs and vaccines, and it is only from
common sense and later unbiased studies that the truth comes
out.

It happens, but calling it a "common pattern" is nonsense. It wouldn't be
news if it were "a common pattern".

For example:

"Anti depressants double the risk of aggression and suicide"

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-01-antidepressants-aggression-suicide-children.html

"This is because of the poor design of clinical trials that assess
these antidepressants, and the misreporting of findings in published
articles."

Antidepressants have to change the nervous system to work at all. Vaccines > > have no direct effect on the nervous
system. You have this theory that they can, sometimes, but if it does
happen it seems to be too rare to show up as
statistically significant.

You want to block a vaccination program that can prevent quite a few
cervical cancers because there's a statistically
insignificant risk of nerve damage that you fevered imagination has
deduced from a few people who went nuts after they'd
been vaccinated, when Occam's Razor suggests that they would have gone
nuts whether they'd been vaccinated or not.

You continue to ignore the science showing the vaccine causes neural
damage.

There isn't any. What you are fussing a about is a medical study that claims that it might - in mice - where there's a whole body of vaccinated women who don't seem to be showing any statisitcally significant signs of any kind of damage. In this context a "medical" study isn't necessarily all that scientific - medical training doesn't involve training in doing scientific research, and the medical literature has more than it's fair share of rubbish papers.

Don't forget that this science was done due to reported
damage in humans from the vaccine.

Medicos just love reporting imagined damage from treatments. Sometimes they report real damage, but the first guy to pick up on the damage thalidiomide did had similar anxieties about Debenox which were less well-founded - and got him stuck off for five years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McBride_%28doctor%29

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/hpv-vaccine-israel-health-ministry-considers-canceling-vaccination-due-to-side-effects/

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.545014

The Israeli health ministry noted reported side effects of the Gardasil
vaccine from the doctors noticing side effects, and now Israeli
scientists have reexamined the Gardasil vaccine and there are side
effects from the vaccine that should be troubling to anyone with
at least half a brain.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26778424
(Israeli study)

Any mouse - the creatures tested in this study - might well get anxious.

Many people have had their lives disrupted and even ruined by this
vaccine, now science is starting to explain why this occurs, and
the sensible recommendation is to not accept this vaccine if it
isn't safe.

A few people have claimed that their lives have been disrupted and even ruined by an autoimmune reaction which they have associated with an injection of this vaccine.

Quite a few more have experienced similar autoimmune reactions without being injected with the vaccine.

Anybody with half a brain (and you clearly have rather less than half a of functional brain)should be able to work out that this is one case where a very weak correlation doesn't suggest causation.

What you should realise is that there is a thriving medical industry involved in making people anxious about stuff. The medicos involved aren't scrupulous about what they make their victims anxious about.

Alex Comfort wrote a book about it back in 1967

http://www.amazon.com/The-anxiety-makers-preoccupations-profession/dp/B0000CNHG1

His most risible examples involved making people anxious about sex, but doctors do like pontificating, and they are willing to pontificate about anything that will draw an audience.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 28 January 2016 18:22:24 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

Really this is the only line you need to read to at least have some
doubt on vaccine safety:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26778424

"To date most human vaccine trials utilize aluminum (Al) adjuvants as
placebos despite much evidence showing that Al in vaccine-relevant
exposures can be toxic to humans and animals."

It's the only line you have to believe to have some doubts. Granting the enthusiasm of the medical profession for making their patients anxious, frequently for no good reason, I'd look for rather more persuasive evidence than experiments carried out by medical doctors on mice.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[David Brown]

On 28/01/16 03:42, Bill Sloman wrote:

Most cervical cancers are a side effect of a sexually transmitted
human papillomavirus infection. If you immunise enough teenage girls
against this virus infection, not only do you make it much less
likely that they will get the virus infection, but you also make it
less likely that they will pass it on to their sexual partners, who
will - in turn - be less likely to pass it on to their sexual
partners (who may not have been immunised).

If you immunise enough of the population, the breed of virus you
immunise against virus will die out completely. We've managed this
with small-pox, and are close to it with polio, but a bunch of
religious nutters, who seem to be just as silly as you are, are
making it difficult to vaccinate enough of the kids in the last
hold-out areas.

While you are on the right track here, you are underestimating the
problem of HPV. It is a not just a major cause of cervical cancers - it
is at least suspected of being a major influence of a variety of other
cancers around the body, both of males and females. Basically any time
one person rubs one part of their body vigorously against some part of
another body, HPV can be transferred. And once HPV has got established
in part of a body, it significantly increases the risk of getting cancer
there.

HPV vaccines should be mandatory for all kids, boys and girls, and
strongly encouraged for all adults (at least those who like to rub body
parts) who have not been vaccinated.

Like many viruses, HPV comes in strains and mutations, making it
difficult to eradicate entirely. But it could certainly be turned from
a major slow killer into a problem only for the extremely unlucky - if
vaccination programs cover /everyone/, not just girls. It is not only
women who spread it, and not only women who suffer from it.

 

[Joe Hey]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:56:07 -0800
Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:

}snip{

Hi,

Vaccine manufacturers didn't even seem to test the vaccine, which
would seem to be a sensible precaution before their widespread use.

Actually, they are testing it... right now.

}snip{

joe

 

[Joe Hey]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 18:42:24 -0800 (PST)
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 28 January 2016 09:56:09 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

}snip{

Vaccine manufacturers didn't even seem to test the vaccine, which
would seem to be a sensible precaution before their widespread use.

What makes you think that? The vaccine adjuncts seem to much the same
across a variety of vaccines, so that aspect of vaccine safety would
seem to be pretty predictable.

I can not make too much of your slightly challenged use of the English
language, but, well, of course nobody comes up with the idea to test for
amplification effects due to the combined use of various ingredients.
That would be too much of an admission that the human bodies aren't
behaving in a uniform and linear manner.

At the same time they lobbied successfully for removing liability
to any damaging effects from vaccine injury.

The well-known defects of the American legislative system let them do
that - it saves them the price of buying insurance against what seem
to be rare adverse reactions, but it can be argued that the
communities that get the public health benefits of adequate
vaccination coverage should cover the costs of the occasional adverse
reaction to vaccination.

If it only were 'occasional' enough en not to severe.
However, the same lobbying caused that we can not be sure of that
(anymore, if ever).

I guess your idea of taking precautions only applies when profit
of multinational corporations aren't at risk, however I am glad
the scientists who wrote this study think otherwise, and identified
neurological damage from a dangerous vaccine, which is supposed
to prevent an STD virus, HPV, yet for some reason the vaccine
manufacturers have lobbied politicians to make it a mandatory
vaccine for 11 year old's to enter school:

http://cervicalcancer.healthdiaries.com/executive-order-gardasil-mandatory-in-texas.html

This law didn't last very long but it shows you that the vaccine
manufacturers, who didn't even test the toxic effects of this
vaccine properly, attempt to mandate it just for profit.

You blithely ignore the toxic effects of getting cervical cancer,
which is what the vaccination is intended to protect against. I
shouldn't need to have to spell this out, but you aren't either
clever or well-informed, so the train of logic goes like this.

Most cervical cancers are a side effect of a sexually transmitted
human papillomavirus infection. If you immunise enough teenage girls
against this virus infection, not only do you make it much less
likely that they will get the virus infection, but you also make it
less likely that they will pass it on to their sexual partners, who
will - in turn - be less likely to pass it on to their sexual
partners (who may not have been immunised).

If you immunise enough of the population, the breed of virus you
immunise against virus will die out completely.

Maybe. However, the current vaccines only 'immunise' against 2-4
strains of the HPV. Killing those strains off gives room for the others
to flourish in a way you would not have anticipated, and with
consequences you wouldn't have anticipated.

Now *that* is clever...?

We've managed this
with small-pox, and are close to it with polio, but a bunch of
religious nutters, who seem to be just as silly as you are, are
making it difficult to vaccinate enough of the kids in the last
hold-out areas.

Yeah, that goes like this:
Hey YOU! Move over! WE want to eradicate a virus so YOU should submit
and just take that jab! No choice! No liability if something goes
wrong, and if it goes wrong then it couldn't have come from the
vaccine, because "vaccines are just safe (TM)".

Maybe you weren't around at that time or haven't read that part of your
Brittanice (yet), but this goes against the Nuernberg charter,
and for some very good reasons too.

So your precaution argument, as with your other biased
arguments, is illogical.

The argument is perfectly logical. Your problem is that you don't
know enough of the fact involved to be able to follow the logic.

One giveaway is that you never mention the incidence of "adverse
side-effects" which is typically rather low, at least for anything
worth worrying about.

The chance to get cancer from the virus is also quite low, at least for
anything hygienic worth worrying about.

https://www.tga.gov.au/alert/gardasil-human-papillomavirus-vaccine

Anaphylactic shock comes in at 2.6 per million. The consequent
incidence of demyelinating disorder such as multiple sclerosis, which
have been blamed on the vaccine, isn't significantly different from
the incidence in the unvaccinated population. People have got
multiple sclerosis after being vaccinated, but the statistics suggest
that they would have got it even if they hadn't been vaccinated
(which isn't the way the data is presented on the anti-vaccination
web-sites).

CFS and related debilitating conditions are not 'generally recognised'
and are therefore not accepted nor counted as adverse side effects.
So they are, very conveniently, not counted as side effects.

If you mention statistics, then don't cherry-pick your facts,
mentioning the facts that don't matter, but omitting to mention the
facts that do to me is the same as fraud.

Your "logic" has holes in it.

First get your statistics straight before you start about someone
else's logic.


joe

 

[Joe Hey]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 23:56:51 -0800 (PST)
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 28 January 2016 18:11:01 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

}snip{

You continue to ignore the science showing the vaccine causes
neural damage.

There isn't any. What you are fussing a about is a medical study that
claims that it might - in mice - where there's a whole body of
vaccinated women who don't seem to be showing any statisitcally
significant signs of any kind of damage.

Maybe the women that do report damage are ignored because the symptoms
of their damage are not recognised (yet) as belonging to a recognised
disease.
And of course, the 'scientific' medical establishment won't hesitate to
shout "There is no proof" after deliberately refusing to even take a
look at the reports, or persistently calls them 'mere anecdotal'.

Strange than when an air-plane passenger notifies a stewardess about a
loose engine he sees fluttering under a wing, this isn't called
'anecdotal' in even one instance, but when a whole herd of vaccinated
women report a problem, they are served off with the 'merely anecdotal'
argument.

In this context a "medical"
study isn't necessarily all that scientific - medical training
doesn't involve training in doing scientific research, and the
medical literature has more than it's fair share of rubbish papers.

Of course only when it serves your purpose, otherwise 'random
controlled double blind studies' are the holy grail of medical science,
if they ever get published because it happens the results were finally
favourable for the pharmaceutical corporation.

Don't forget that this science was done due to reported
damage in humans from the vaccine.

Medicos just love reporting imagined damage from treatments.
Sometimes they report real damage, but the first guy to pick up on
the damage thalidiomide did had similar anxieties about Debenox which
were less well-founded - and got him stuck off for five years

And Dr. Semmelweis, another 'nut' again, ... or wait...

}snip{

joe

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 29 January 2016 01:56:22 UTC+11, Joe Hey wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 23:56:51 -0800 (PST)
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 28 January 2016 18:11:01 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

}snip{

You continue to ignore the science showing the vaccine causes
neural damage.

There isn't any. What you are fussing a about is a medical study that
claims that it might - in mice - where there's a whole body of
vaccinated women who don't seem to be showing any statistically
significant signs of any kind of damage.

Maybe the women that do report damage are ignored because the symptoms
of their damage are not recognised (yet) as belonging to a recognised
disease.

Don't be silly. There are a whole range of disorders that are just clinical associations - chronic fatigue syndrome comes to mind - and the medical profession copes with them.

And of course, the 'scientific' medical establishment won't hesitate to
shout "There is no proof" after deliberately refusing to even take a
look at the reports, or persistently calls them 'mere anecdotal'.

Only in your fantasy world. "Statistically insignificant" does mean that people who get sick in a particular way after vaccination can be presumed to have being going to get sick even without the vaccination, and making a fuss about them is making a fuss about mere anecdotes, but the deliberate process of weeding hysterical nonsense doesn't make the people peddling the hysterical nonsense any happier.

Strange than when an air-plane passenger notifies a stewardess about a
loose engine he sees fluttering under a wing, this isn't called
'anecdotal' in even one instance, but when a whole herd of vaccinated
women report a problem, they are served off with the 'merely anecdotal'
argument.

When a whole (small) herd of unvaccinated women reported the same problem at roughly the same incidence, "merely anecdotal" is the correct response. "A" happening after "B" doesn't necessarily imply that "A" caused "B", particularly when "A" is frequent" and "B" isn't.

In this context a "medical"
study isn't necessarily all that scientific - medical training
doesn't involve training in doing scientific research, and the
medical literature has more than it's fair share of rubbish papers.

Of course only when it serves your purpose,

Why would you think that? When I was working in medical ultrasound (1976-79) I got exposed to a lot of rubbish papers in the medical literature and what I've seen since doesn't suggest that the editors and reviewers have got any better.

otherwise 'random controlled double blind studies' are the holy grail of
medical science,

But they are rare and expensive, and sometimes impractical.

if they ever get published because it happens the results were finally
favourable for the pharmaceutical corporation.

Not every study gets funded by pharmaeutical corporations, and even when they are, the people carrying out the study want to get it published. The pharmaceutical corporations might like to suppress less favourable studies, but they can't make a habit of it - drug development involves a lot of misses for every hit, and everybody knows it.

Don't forget that this science was done due to reported
damage in humans from the vaccine.

The paper Jamie cited was a bout a study on mice. Either you weren't paying attention, or you've got a different study in mind, and one that hasn't been cited here.

Medicos just love reporting imagined damage from treatments.
Sometimes they report real damage, but the first guy to pick up on
the damage thalidiomide did had similar anxieties about Debenox which
were less well-founded - and got him stuck off for five years

And Dr. Semmelweis, another 'nut' again, ... or wait...

Nobody loved Dr. Semmelwesis at the time - he was safely dead before anybody said anything nice about him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McBride_%28doctor%29

William McBride had a great reputation after the Thalidomide disaster, and he completely blew it by trying to pull the same trick a second time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 29 January 2016 09:09:17 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

On 1/28/2016 12:00 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, 28 January 2016 18:22:24 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
Really this is the only line you need to read to at least have some
doubt on vaccine safety:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26778424

"To date most human vaccine trials utilize aluminum (Al) adjuvants as
placebos despite much evidence showing that Al in vaccine-relevant
exposures can be toxic to humans and animals."

It's the only line you have to believe to have some doubts. Granting the enthusiasm of the medical profession for
making their patients anxious, frequently for no good reason, I'd look
for rather more persuasive evidence than
experiments carried out by medical doctors on mice.


Hi,

Here's some more info about the dangers of Gardasil and Cervarix
HPV vaccines from the American College of Pediatricians:

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/health-issues/new-concerns-about-the-human-papillomavirus-vaccine

(site undergoing maintenance as of this post)

"The American College of Pediatricians has stated it has serious
concerns about the connection between HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix
and premature menopause and that it wants parents and physicians to know
of their concerns."

"They have notified the vaccine makers and federal health officials and
asked them to investigate further and do the research that was never
done - using a real placebo not aluminum and Polysorbate 80."

Of course the paper also includes the line "Adverse events that occur after vaccines are frequently not caused by the vaccine and there has not been a noticeable rise in POF cases in the last 9 years since HPV4 vaccine has been widely used."

You didn't see fit to quote that, and it makes nonsense of all the anxiety-making blather that you did quote.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 29 January 2016 08:36:05 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

On 1/27/2016 8:55 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

What's a "depression" symptom in a mouse? Your crap about autism and schizophrenia seems to come from a long-discredited
study by a guy who ended up disbarred because of the nature of the
mistakes he made. This doesn't stop half-wits like you
screaming "cover-up", but it does discourage rational observers from
taking you seriously.

The fact that the vaccine causes neural depressive effects should
be a strong signal that the vaccine is dangerous to take.

You didn't answer the question. What is a neural depressive effect in a mouse?

You are incorrect about the autism and schizophrenia immune
system links too.

The strongest genetic link to schizophrenia that is currently
known is an neuron pruning immune related gene, and also in autism,
immune related neural pruning genes are also genetically linked.

schizophrenia immune system neural pruning genetic link:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-01-genetic-first-ever-insight-biological-schizophrenia.html

Sure, but what do neural pruning genes have to do with vaccine adjuncts?

You may like to think that both are having the same effect, but in reality neural pruning is an essential part of development, and any mutation that messes up the mechanism is pretty much bound to make the brain work less well.

If vaccine adjuncts do have any effect, it will be a lot less specific and the neural development system will cope with it as well as it would cope with any other assault (such as a measles infection).

quote from the page:
"
The site in Chromosome 6 harboring the gene C4 towers far above other
risk-associated areas on schizophrenia's genomic "skyline," marking its
strongest known genetic influence.
"

Which has nothing to do with the side effects of vaccination.

<snipped the rest of the pretentiuous irrelevance>

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if the vaccines
affects the immune system (most people agree on that) and also
they cause depressive systems,

"Depressive systems"? Did you mean symptoms?

ie neural effects, it is possible
that there is an immune system related effect causing damage
in the brain,

Lots of mechanisms impair brain development. Getting starved every winter (which put starvation lines on the teeth of pretty much all our ancestors) is one such effect, and the development system can cope with that.

> possibly related to improper neural pruning,

That's at spectacular stretch. Neural pruning is very specific. Slowdowns in brain development due to infection or starvation are quite unspecific. trying to tie the two together is kind of fatuous argument for which you are notorious.

which is related to schizophrenia and autism, as well as
probably many other unknown negative effects.

Not only unknown but also totally implausible. You are the worst kind of snake-oil salesman - who actually believes the nonsense he peddles.

Once the mainstream media accepts this information you will
too Bill,

When the sun rises in the west.

just remember in the future when you are wrong
again

Jamie does enjoy his little fantasies. I'm not even wrong yet ...

you can learn yourself before being told by the mainstream
what is correct.

As opposed to being fed nonsense by a polluted eddy?

You post the most fatuous and implausible nonsense then try to claim that the mainstream will eventually come around to accepting the rubbish that only a gullible idiot like you could swallow.

Grow up - though at your age the best that we can hope for is that you will drop dead, or at least lose the capacity to to work a keyboard.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 29 January 2016 01:35:22 UTC+11, Joe Hey wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 18:42:24 -0800 (PST)
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 28 January 2016 09:56:09 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

}snip{

Vaccine manufacturers didn't even seem to test the vaccine, which
would seem to be a sensible precaution before their widespread use.

What makes you think that? The vaccine adjuncts seem to much the same
across a variety of vaccines, so that aspect of vaccine safety would
seem to be pretty predictable.

I can not make too much of your slightly challenged use of the English
language, but, well, of course nobody comes up with the idea to test for
amplification effects due to the combined use of various ingredients.
That would be too much of an admission that the human bodies aren't
behaving in a uniform and linear manner.

Vaccines are routinely tested for safety, even if you and Jamie don't know about it. Synergism does happen, but not very often.

At the same time they lobbied successfully for removing liability
to any damaging effects from vaccine injury.

The well-known defects of the American legislative system let them do
that - it saves them the price of buying insurance against what seem
to be rare adverse reactions, but it can be argued that the
communities that get the public health benefits of adequate
vaccination coverage should cover the costs of the occasional adverse
reaction to vaccination.

If it only were 'occasional' enough and not too severe.
However, the same lobbying caused that we can not be sure of that
(anymore, if ever).

Lobbying works on legislatures. You can't "lobby" the FDA. The pharmaceutical companies can try and pressure the FDA and other regulatory agencies, but if they get too obvious about it the newspapers get told about it and there's a scandal.

I guess your idea of taking precautions only applies when profit
of multinational corporations aren't at risk, however I am glad
the scientists who wrote this study think otherwise, and identified
neurological damage from a dangerous vaccine, which is supposed
to prevent an STD virus, HPV, yet for some reason the vaccine
manufacturers have lobbied politicians to make it a mandatory
vaccine for 11 year old's to enter school:

http://cervicalcancer.healthdiaries.com/executive-order-gardasil-mandatory-in-texas.html

This law didn't last very long but it shows you that the vaccine
manufacturers, who didn't even test the toxic effects of this
vaccine properly, attempt to mandate it just for profit.

You blithely ignore the toxic effects of getting cervical cancer,
which is what the vaccination is intended to protect against. I
shouldn't need to have to spell this out, but you aren't either
clever or well-informed, so the train of logic goes like this.

Most cervical cancers are a side effect of a sexually transmitted
human papillomavirus infection. If you immunise enough teenage girls
against this virus infection, not only do you make it much less
likely that they will get the virus infection, but you also make it
less likely that they will pass it on to their sexual partners, who
will - in turn - be less likely to pass it on to their sexual
partners (who may not have been immunised).

If you immunise enough of the population, the breed of virus you
immunise against virus will die out completely.

Maybe. However, the current vaccines only 'immunise' against 2-4
strains of the HPV. Killing those strains off gives room for the others
to flourish in a way you would not have anticipated, and with
consequences you wouldn't have anticipated.

The strains of the HPV that get immunised against are the most common ones - those most effective at getting transmitted.

There's no evidence that viruses compete inside the body, and they certainly don't interact. Blocking the viruses that are best at getting transmitted just means that fewer people will get infected - which is what we want.

> Now *that* is clever...?

No. It's a moronic misapprehension about how virus infection works, and what viruses exist to do. A virus can only do one thing - invade a cell and take over its replication system, and set it to making more of that virus. They don't invade all that many cells - because if they did the host would die before it has replicated the maximum possible number of virus particles. Viruses don't interact.

We've managed this
with small-pox, and are close to it with polio, but a bunch of
religious nutters, who seem to be just as silly as you are, are
making it difficult to vaccinate enough of the kids in the last
hold-out areas.

Yeah, that goes like this:
Hey YOU! Move over! WE want to eradicate a virus so YOU should submit
and just take that jab! No choice! No liability if something goes
wrong, and if it goes wrong then it couldn't have come from the
vaccine, because "vaccines are just safe (TM)".

Innoculation isn't "safe" - it's just a lot less dangerous than getting the disease. Everybody seems to be happy with admitting liability when something does go wrong, but that doesn't extend to accepting liability for something that probably would have gone wrong at the same time and in the same way if the vaccination hadn't happened.

Maybe you weren't around at that time or haven't read that part of your
Brittanica (yet), but this goes against the Nuernberg charter,
and for some very good reasons too.

The Nuremberg trials

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials

were war crimes prosecutions. "Hard cases make bad law" and trying to generalise
the principles allegedly underlying the prosecutions isn't a task where an ignorant half-wit like you is likely to do well.

So your precaution argument, as with your other biased
arguments, is illogical.

The argument is perfectly logical. Your problem is that you don't
know enough of the fact involved to be able to follow the logic.

One giveaway is that you never mention the incidence of "adverse
side-effects" which is typically rather low, at least for anything
worth worrying about.

The chance to get cancer from the virus is also quite low, at least for
anything hygienic worth worrying about.

But it's 100% for every unfortunate woman who gets the cancer.

https://www.tga.gov.au/alert/gardasil-human-papillomavirus-vaccine

Anaphylactic shock comes in at 2.6 per million. The consequent
incidence of demyelinating disorder such as multiple sclerosis, which
have been blamed on the vaccine, isn't significantly different from
the incidence in the unvaccinated population. People have got
multiple sclerosis after being vaccinated, but the statistics suggest
that they would have got it even if they hadn't been vaccinated
(which isn't the way the data is presented on the anti-vaccination
web-sites).

CFS and related debilitating conditions are not 'generally recognised'
and are therefore not accepted nor counted as adverse side effects.
So they are, very conveniently, not counted as side effects.

Chronic fatigue syndrome is recognised as a debilating condition. It has a recognised set of symptoms. It takes a while before they can be recognised as a syndrome. By now, enough people have been immunised against HPV to generate an increase in the incidence of the syndrome if the vaccination did make it more likely. Nobody is talking about any epidemic of chronic fatigue syndrome, so - even if the vaccine did have this side-effect (which seems unlikely) - you are balancing it against a reduced chance of getting cervical cancer, which induces terminal fatigue.

If you mention statistics, then don't cherry-pick your facts,
mentioning the facts that don't matter, but omitting to mention the
facts that do to me is the same as fraud.

Granting the kind of "fact" that you pay attention to, and the kind of facts that you ignore, this merely betrays the fact that you haven't a clue about what you are talking about.

Your "logic" has holes in it.

First get your statistics straight before you start about someone
else's logic.

You haven't quoted a single statistic in this entire post, let alone identified a statistic that I've got wrong or misapplied. As advice, that line is unexceptionable, but you are the last person entitled to give it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jamie M]

On 1/27/2016 8:55 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

> What's a "depression" symptom in a mouse? Your crap about autism and schizophrenia seems to come from a long-discredited
study by a guy who ended up disbarred because of the nature of the
mistakes he made. This doesn't stop half-wits like you
screaming "cover-up", but it does discourage rational observers from
taking you seriously.

Hi,

The fact that the vaccine causes neural depressive effects should
be a strong signal that the vaccine is dangerous to take.

You are incorrect about the autism and schizophrenia immune
system links too.

The strongest genetic link to schizophrenia that is currently
known is an neuron pruning immune related gene, and also in autism,
immune related neural pruning genes are also genetically linked.

schizophrenia immune system neural pruning genetic link:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-01-genetic-first-ever-insight-biological-schizophrenia.html

quote from the page:
"
The site in Chromosome 6 harboring the gene C4 towers far above other
risk-associated areas on schizophrenia's genomic "skyline," marking its
strongest known genetic influence.
"


autism immune system neural pruning genetic link:

http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/08/23/in-autism-poor-pruning-of-neurons-leads-to-excess-synapses/73982.html

https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/study-suggests-key-immune-protein-could-play-role-autism



background on the immune system neural pruning related biology for
schizophrenia and autism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_histocompatibility_complex

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complement_component_4

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if the vaccines
effect the immune system (most people agree on that) and also
they cause depressive systems, ie neural effects, it is possible
that there is an immune system related effect causing damage
in the brain, possibly related to improper neural pruning,
which is related to schizophrenia and autism, as well as
probably many other unknown negative effects.

Once the mainstream media accepts this information you will
too Bill, just remember in the future when you are wrong
again you can learn yourself before being told by the mainstream
what is correct.

cheers,
Jamie

 

[Jamie M]

On 1/28/2016 12:00 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, 28 January 2016 18:22:24 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
Really this is the only line you need to read to at least have some
doubt on vaccine safety:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26778424

"To date most human vaccine trials utilize aluminum (Al) adjuvants as
placebos despite much evidence showing that Al in vaccine-relevant
exposures can be toxic to humans and animals."

It's the only line you have to believe to have some doubts. Granting the enthusiasm of the medical profession for

making their patients anxious, frequently for no good reason, I'd look
for rather more persuasive evidence than
experiments carried out by medical doctors on mice.
>

Hi,

Here's some more info about the dangers of Gardasil and Cervarix
HPV vaccines from the American College of Pediatricians:

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/health-issues/new-concerns-about-the-human-papillomavirus-vaccine

(site undergoing maintenance as of this post)

"The American College of Pediatricians has stated it has serious
concerns about the connection between HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix
and premature menopause and that it wants parents and physicians to know
of their concerns."

"They have notified the vaccine makers and federal health officials and
asked them to investigate further and do the research that was never
done - using a real placebo not aluminum and Polysorbate 80."

cheers,
Jamie

 

>"Antidepressants have to change the nervous system to work at all. >Vaccines have no direct effect on the nervous system. You have this >theory that they can, sometimes, but if it does happen it seems to >be too rare to show up as statistically significant. "

Damn, sorry I thought you had good schools down there. Antidepressants must effect a change on brain chemistry. the nerves running up down your arms and legs got not a fucking thing to do with it.

Also note that Jamie is quoting things from a dot gov.

 

>"Lobbying works on legislatures. You can't "lobby" the FDA. "

They don't have to lobby, they run it. Another bit of non-knowledge about the US from an Aussie, who "believes in" the system because, partly, they have less gun violence but would never thionk of coming unarmed to Detroit or Chicago.

There is alike a revolving door between the FDA and the boards of big pharma. There is also a revolving door between big agra and the USDA.

I am not looking it up for you. Take you fucking vaccinations and meds, whatever "they" tell you. Do not question them.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 29 January 2016 16:55:20 UTC+11, Joe Hey wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:14:07 -0800 (PST)
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped Joey Hey being as moronic as ever>

No. It's a moronic misapprehension about how virus infection works,
and what viruses exist to do.

If one virus strain gets blocked, another strain takes over.
And probably with a vengeance.

Really? If I get innoculated against one strain of flu, does a new strain spring up immediately to give me a different strain of flu?

Influenza is a fast-mutating virus, and it can't manage that.

}snip{

Yeah, that goes like this:
Hey YOU! Move over! WE want to eradicate a virus so YOU should
submit and just take that jab! No choice! No liability if something
goes wrong, and if it goes wrong then it couldn't have come from the
vaccine, because "vaccines are just safe (TM)".

Innoculation isn't "safe"

Then let people decide for their own whether they want to get
vaccinated or not.

- it's just a lot less dangerous than
getting the disease. Everybody seems to be happy with admitting
liability when something does go wrong, but that doesn't extend to
accepting liability for something that probably would have gone wrong
at the same time and in the same way if the vaccination hadn't
happened.

Sure, and let them make up their own minds about when they can drive a car well enough to go out on the road. Vaccination doesn't just affect your own health, but also the health of everybody your might infect if you got sick..

}snip{

CFS and related debilitating conditions are not 'generally
recognised' and are therefore not accepted nor counted as adverse
side effects. So they are, very conveniently, not counted as side
effects.

Chronic fatigue syndrome is recognised as a debilating condition. It
has a recognised set of symptoms. It takes a while before they can be
recognised as a syndrome. By now, enough people have been immunised
against HPV to generate an increase in the incidence of the syndrome
if the vaccination did make it more likely. Nobody is talking about
any epidemic of chronic fatigue syndrome

You exaggerate.
In Denmark some doctors *are* warning their (until now playing deaf)
health authorities that there is an increased number of cases of girls
with very serious CFS-like symptoms caused by the HPV-jab.

Cite.

, so - even if the vaccine
did have this side-effect (which seems unlikely) - you are balancing
it against a reduced chance of getting cervical cancer, which induces
terminal fatigue.

If you mention statistics, then don't cherry-pick your facts,
mentioning the facts that don't matter, but omitting to mention the
facts that do to me is the same as fraud.

Granting the kind of "fact" that you pay attention to, and the kind
of facts that you ignore, this merely betrays the fact that you
haven't a clue about what you are talking about.

You are the one without a clue about how many girls in for instance
Denmark got a debilitating amount of CFS-like symptoms very shortly
after being injected with a HPV-vaccin, who were otherwise completely
healthy and probably wouldn't have gotten the HPV-caused cancer anyway.

What makes you think that? Provide a link to the information you claim to have.

And you are probably also totally clueless about the fact that these
extremely severe side effects occur more frequently, if not almost
exclusively, in girls with a very high physical activity level. As in
top sport.

Since I've never heard of anything of the sort, I'm supposed to take your word for it?

> But no, Bill Sloman is the know-it-all and I am ignorant.

I don't have to know much to know more than you do, and I can substantiate my facts, which you rarely bother to do - and when you do try, you are prone to misunderstand what your "facts" actually mean.

> No Sir, here YOU are the ignoramus.

You do like to think that. A more objective observer would be unlikely to share your opinion.

Your "logic" has holes in it.

First get your statistics straight before you start about someone
else's logic.

You haven't quoted a single statistic in this entire post, let alone
identified a statistic that I've got wrong or misapplied. As advice,
that line is unexceptionable, but you are the last person entitled to
give it.

If I would quote any statistic you would brush that aside as
probably coming from an anti-vac site.

Not if you provided the link, so that I could see whether it was a propaganda site, or something with some faint hint of credibility.

Point is that you are ignorant about the facts, and you don't even know
it, let alone would ever admit it.

Your idea of a what constitutes a fact needs work. When we argued about the usefulness of vaccination against measles, you deliberately ignored the UK statistics on the number of people who caught measles (which went down dramatically after immunisation against measles was introduced) and denied that immunisation had any effect on the death rate although the death rate went down in portion to the reduction in the number that got infected, preferring to to argue that the reduction in the death rate was all due to "better hygiene" ...

Well, I know those facts, so for me you are the ignorant clueless idiot.
You haven't even looked for the facts.

I'm not pushing this nonsense, you are. You are citing "facts" which you might as well have imagined, and on past history, have almost certainly misunderstood.

I'm not spending any more effort on proving that you are an idiot than I have to, and I don't need to do much research to do it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

"Yeah, with the same dedication as Monsanto tested her
glyphosate-resistant GMO corn and didn't find any adverse health
effects in her rats study of, what was it, 6 weeks?
Then a real researcher passes by, does the same safety study over
again, but then for a slightly longer period, and lo-and-behold: the
rats start developing cancer, all kinds of birth defects, spontaneous
abortions, infertility and what not. "

Yeah I remember about that. they hand picked a guy and got him into a position to "unpublish" that study claiming it was not done "according to Hoyle".. Strangely though, there has been ZERO research offered up that refutes it in any way. All they could come up with was some very minor issues with the procedure.

 

"> And many of the so called 'hits' are also a fraud.

How many? Cite a study. Your "impressions" are little too >predictable to be taken seriously. "

Study the TV in the US. First you get an ad saying "Ask your doctor if killyastine is right for you" and then list of side effects so long you forget what the drug is supposed to treat. (NOT CURE, TREAT)

Then comes the lawyer commercials with the class action lawsuits. If you understand US law, you know that class action lawsuits fuck people over by limiting liability of the drug pushers. Speaking of drug pushers, I have never had anyone on TV or call me on the phone trying to sell me pot or coke or ay of that. But on TV about 20 % of the ads are for drugs.

Then comes the people who buy out structured settlements. See, in a class action usually their offer is a monthly stipend, you don't even get the fucking money. You borrow it from J G Wentworth or his ilk.

There are huge amounts of money involved.

Someone in a country with socialised medicine cannot possibly begin to understand how the medical and drug industries are here. We have every right and good reason to not trust them. They are scum who will poison millions of people for the bottom line. they have lawyers of staff that interact with doctors and accountants to figure out if it is profitable to market a dangerous drug. If we get caught, will it cost us more than we made ? That is the only fucking question on their mind.

It is common knowledge here to anyone with open eyes. Maybe these foreigners who think they know what is best for us should come here. First of all you scared of guns ? Move to Detroit. You think you can trust doctors or drug countries, come to our hospitals. You think you can trust our government ? Go talk to some people down in Tuskeegee. Oh, you can't because they died of syphillis just so the government could see how the disease progresses if allowed to. But those people were Black, no better than your "Abos" so it doesn't matter.

Because they lacked the wherewithall to sue.

 

>"I'm not spending any more effort on proving that you are an idiot >than I have to, and I don't need to do much research to do it. "

Hopefully you have the sense to actually do that, but it seems you keep doing what doesn't work. Are you expecting a different outcome ?

You are in no position whatsoever to talk about the healthscam industry in the US. You know nothing about it. You want all kinds of proof ? Go to get the names of the directors of pharma companies and then go look at who runs the FDA. The guy who got unpublisheed for the study on Monsanto frankencorn got that way by an (ex) employee of Monsanto, fast tracked into a job at a joural publication which usually takes years of vetting. Monsantobucks got it done in months.

you go ahead and do what they tell you. I am not joking. They do not get rich when you get sick there. Here, they do. And they are scumsucking motherfuckers. They would kill you for a dollar. Even though millionaires, they would kill you for a dollar. They would give you a poison pill and charge you a dollar to die.

And that is the way it is. Come on over and experience our "freeedom and democracy".

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 29 January 2016 21:05:35 UTC+11, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

"> And many of the so called 'hits' are also a fraud.

How many? Cite a study. Your "impressions" are little too >predictable to be taken seriously. "

Study the TV in the US. First you get an ad saying "Ask your doctor if killyastine is right for you" and then list of side effects so long you forget what the drug is supposed to treat. (NOT CURE, TREAT)

Then comes the lawyer commercials with the class action lawsuits. If you understand US law, you know that class action lawsuits fuck people over by limiting liability of the drug pushers. Speaking of drug pushers, I have never had anyone on TV or call me on the phone trying to sell me pot or coke or ay of that. But on TV about 20 % of the ads are for drugs.

Then comes the people who buy out structured settlements. See, in a class action usually their offer is a monthly stipend, you don't even get the fucking money. You borrow it from J G Wentworth or his ilk.

There are huge amounts of money involved.

Someone in a country with socialised medicine cannot possibly begin to understand how the medical and drug industries are here.

The world has a limited number of drug companies, and most of them are active around the world. European and Australian newspapers do report what happens in the US - it matters to us. What happens in Europe and Australia is less important to Americans - though more important than they like to think. There are 503 million people living in the European Community, which is half-again more than live in the US.

"Socialised medicine" cover a fair range of health schemes - Australia's system is a lot less comprehensive than the systems in France, Germany, and the Netherlands, which are - in turn - more generous than the UK's National Health Service.

> We have every right and good reason to not trust them. They are scum who will poison millions of people for the bottom line.

Killing patients doesn't do the bottom line any good at all, and it does get noticed.

>They have lawyers of staff that interact with doctors and accountants to figure out if it is profitable to market a dangerous drug. If we get caught, will it cost us more than we made ? That is the only fucking question on their mind.

You are thinking of the car companies. With drugs it's rather more complicated.

<snipped jurb being even sillier than usual>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney