Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
I discount all articles, since science journalism is terrible. I asked for the evidence beyond the technically troubled GWS paper. I still have no evidence of adverse effects of squalene adjuvants, and with 22 million doses out there one would think that anyone interested would have studied them for it. It's possible no one is interested, but somehow I doubt that.
|
That's the thing... I bet you could find anything "technically troubled" if you wanted to. Here's another article then (there are actually several):
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/320/7246/1363
https://www.mvrd.org/pdf/UofKReports.pdf
Quote:
|
Define "normal testing".. as has been pointed out, testing for a completely new vaccine would be till next year, and testing for seasonal vaccines is far shorter because the vaccine is identical, just the actual viruses used change. This one is like the seasonal; same vaccine, just a different virus. It's not a new vaccine, so a shorter testing period (but longer than the seasonal) is reasonable to those who do such things.
|
I would describe normal as more than the 130 test subjects from a study done in Belgium over a short period of time... that no Canadian doctors or scientists were involved in. Again... is it tested longer than seasonal flu viruses? You'll have to do better than link to a someone's post. If my GWS articles are no good, how can a poster on CP be considered a better source?
And it's not an identical vaccine. This apparently the first time adjuvant is being used in a flu vaccine.
Quote:
|
That's fine, but if you want your position to have merit you have to provide some support.. we have links to official sources, people who work in the industry posting, if you have information about how much testing has or has not been done then provide it. "There seems to be different information" isn't a compelling argument.
|
I don't know where you have been, but you can turn on the news or look on the internet and find sources from medical professionals that do provide different information. Go back through this thread if you have to.
Quote:
|
Sure, people most of the time think what they think for reasons far removed from the reality of the topic of thought. That's how the human mind works.. I don't get your point here.
|
My point is that you can't just go to someone's post and use it as a "source" just because the person is in a particular profession. It's still an anonymous board.
Quote:
|
Missed what? I said I didn't recall me calling anyone names, I missed myself calling someone a name?
|
Not you... people in general.
Quote:
So because we don't learn from some mistakes means that we never learn from any mistakes? This isn't a rational argument, it's an emotional one.
Mistakes from 30 years ago are very relevant because they are educational. Sometimes we learn, sometimes we don't, but to demonstrate that mistakes are being repeated requires evidence.
|
I'm just saying that you can't take it for granted that because 30 years has gone by that we won't make the same mistake again (which is what it sounded like you were saying). Using time lapsed isn't really proof of anything. As far as I'm concerned, you're only as good as your last game. The last time they planned a mass immunization for Swine Flu, they messed up.