Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
|
I didn't find it technically troubled, other scientists evaluated the paper and found it so. Getting published is the beginning, not the end.
For the links, the PDF one seemed very weak to me; it was reported in a psychological journal, not a medical one, and it seemed to depend a lot of self-reporting, almost assuming the vaccine - illness link rather than trying to establish it. If they're trying to establish a medical link, why publish in a psychological journal?
And both are only valid for people deployed in the Gulf War and related to multiple vaccines in a short time, as the first link says:
"Finally, our results should be viewed only in the narrow context of service personnel deployed to the Gulf war. The combination of multiple vaccines before deployment seems safe, and this study provides no evidence that vaccine regimens currently used in civilians are harmful."
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
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?
|
Is 130 too few? I don't know, what's the normal number for a new vaccine? Maybe that's all they ever do? Without more information it's difficult to evaluate the number of 130.
Who cares where the scientists were born? That's just an appeal to emotion again.
I linked to Lchoy's post because he's been providing information from the FAQ provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
And it's not an identical vaccine. This apparently the first time adjuvant is being used in a flu vaccine.
|
No but the adjuvant has been used elsewhere. To evaluate if having the adjuvant in the flu vaccine posts a significant risk compared with the known vaccine would require more knowledge of biology than I have, and the WHO held consultations to that effect already, and determined that there was no significant safety barriers to testing or implementing the vaccine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
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.
|
I see people (including doctors) saying "not enough testing has been done", but I don't see anyone actually being specific and saying "x testing was done, y is the amount of testing normally done, and z a and b are the reasons why this warrants more testing." It's all been fuzzy "it's not enough" statements that I've seen anyway, but I haven't read every post in the thread so I'll skim back and look.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
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.
|
True, I should have mentioned that Lchoy was using the Public Health Agency of Canada as his source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
Not you... people in general.
|
Well my original statement was about myself; I can't be responsible for others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
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.
|
I didn't say that you can take it for granted that the same mistakes won't be made. I said that one can't assume that the same mistakes will be made, and to infer that they are making the same mistakes would require evidence to that effect.