Tamukha,

I guess I don't agree with your unsubstantiated characterization for the motives (i.e. it's all about money) of providers of vaccines for a very serious virus. You frankly aren't in a position to know what information I have reviewed in reaching my statements in earlier posts. So, let's leave it at that. Likewise, your supposition of my faith in data is also misplaced and inaccurate.

I rely on a weight of evidence approach for all human health issues that we confront. I just don't lightly dismiss or rationalize evidence, however preliminary, that contradicts dogma. I keep an open mind. With that in mind, please substantiate your claim regarding toxicity and carcinogenic components in the vaccines and dosages for the population receiving them and provide evidence of the harm they have caused those vaccinated for H1N1 as well as how we know what health outcomes would have befallen those not vaccinated and how you know that without modeling or algorithms. You have my undivided attention.

I described my experience regarding what I have heard without claiming anything as fact about the H1N1 vaccine. And I am open to contrary points of view. With a virus this serious, it's worth looking at options and the evidence. You are entitled to do the same. When I feel the need to ask you what is "Ok", rest assured I will ask you.

Paul



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2009 12:30AM by pborst.

Uhhhhhhh....... I think Dr. Eisenstein does that for vaccines in general in a very fact-oriented way. I especially like his approach because he simply provides facts that are easily accessible to the general public and doesn't encourage or condemn anyone in particular for their decisions. I appreciated that balanced approach in his presentation(s). Seems logical (to me, at least) to apply that same principle to all vaccines.... ESPECIALLY the h1n1 with it being so new and lacking so much factual information provided to us by the government.

Cracked me up how NY State had to back down on their requirement for all healthcare workers to get this vaccine when they finally had enough sense to realize they didn't have ENOUGH of it to go around. DUH !!! That's our government for you. Not reel smart. heh.

*****************************
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson

pborst,

If you have read the preliminary clinical data on demonstrable Swine Flu vaccine efficacy and if you are aware of the ingredients in the, as of now, five different branded formulations, you oughtn't to disagree. Swine Flu is not a serious virus--the preponderance of American fatalities to date has been among the elderly and very young, with already compromised immune function. I know five or six unvaccinated people who have had it and are, amazingly, recovered. We've dealt with Swine Flu before, about forty years ago, with greater skill and less hysteria. I don't wear a tin foil hat and think the Rockefellers are behind this, but I am not so naïve as to think that classifying something with only a slightly larger scope of infection than regular seasonal flu as a "pandemic" isn't at least partly profit driven. If you don't see it that way, I put it down to a difference of world view, rather than your having better assessment ability, or whatever, than those of us on the con side have.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2009 03:07PM by Tamukha.

WOW !! I could not have said it better myself! (tips hat to Tamukha)

*****************************
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson

Another great article encouraging us to investigate the FACTS before injecting ourselves with mysterious substances. I really appreciate how he presents a BALANCED approach - not for or against vaccines - simply stating the FACTS!

[articles.mercola.com]

I love this last paragraph. Kinda' makes you wonder -

"How Effective is the H1N1 Vaccine, Really?

"Specific levels of HI antibody titers post-vaccination with inactivated influenza virus vaccine have not been correlated with protection from influenza virus. In some human studies, antibody titers of 1:40 or greater have been associated with protection from influenza illness in up to 50% of subjects."

You will find that paragraph in all the vaccine inserts.

What that paragraph says, is that the vaccine only works in half, or less, of those individuals who attain the specified level of seroconversion after vaccination. The FDA defines seroconversion as achieving an antibody titer of 1:40.

This means that if a vaccine was 100 percent effective at achieving this level of seroconversion, it would protect up to 50 percent of the recipients of the vaccine.

But none of the vaccines are 100 percent effective at achieving seroconversion.

CSL's vaccine insert (CSL Biotherapies, Inc.), for example, (see pages 11-12), states that their H1N1 vaccine provides seroconversion for:

•48.7 percent of people aged 18-65
•34 percent for seniors, 65 and older
That means that, at best, their vaccine works in one out of every four people! (49 percent of 50 percent).

Which, of course, means that the vaccine does NOT work in three out of every four people…


Is it REALLY worth it?"

*****************************
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson

plainlydressed,

This is exactly what I'm talking about! The kind of disinformation, or I should say, prevarication, we are seeing from the pro flu vaccine forces, and which the public believes without question, is staggering. I had a talk with an intelligent person the other day where I said, "Look, what is this vaccine supposed to do?" And he was like,"It's supposed to induce an antibody response." So I said, "What does your immune system possess innately?" He replied, sheepishly, "Um, antibody responses." The healthy are supposed to survive things like this all on their own, and the unhealthy, well, I'm going to just say it, aren't. That's just Darwinism.

I don't always agree with what he touts, but when it comes to extracting and issuing data we aren't usually privy to, and getting at medical topics incisively, Dr. Mercola can't be beat!

I guess I will stick with the FDA & Quackwatch when it comes to Mercola. To each their own.

[www.quackwatch.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2009 09:06PM by pborst.

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst,
>
> I don't wear a tin foil hat and think the Rockefellers are behind
> this, ....

I never said you did. I think we can agree to disagree on the issue and move on. We obviously have very different views of the CDC, FDA, etc. FWIW, I can't get vaccinated because I don't fit the high risk group. Maybe I should consider myself lucky. lol. Have a great weekend.

Paul

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess I will stick with the FDA & Quackwatch
> when it comes to Mercola. To each their own.
>
> [www.quackwatch.com]

Sooooo........ let me get this straight:

It's ok for quackwatch to call Mercola a quack and we're supposed to take that as gospel, but no one is allowed to call anything from the GOVERNMENT "quack," regardless of how many NON-MERCOLA-GENERATED statistics are available from the culprits themselves?

This is getting beyond hilarious, and also proof of why the government HAS so many blind believers and followers. *giggle* Who needs television when we have intelligent, logical conversations like this? heheheheheheheheheheh. *choke, gasp, wheeze*

*****************************
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson

plainlydressed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I guess I will stick with the FDA & Quackwatch
> > when it comes to Mercola. To each their own.
> >
> > [www.quackwatch.com]
>
> Sooooo........ let me get this straight:
>
> It's ok for quackwatch to call Mercola a quack and
> we're supposed to take that as gospel, but no one
> is allowed to call anything from the GOVERNMENT
> "quack," regardless of how many
> NON-MERCOLA-GENERATED statistics are available
> from the culprits themselves?
>
> This is getting beyond hilarious, and also proof
> of why the government HAS so many blind believers
> and followers. *giggle* Who needs television
> when we have intelligent, logical conversations
> like this? heheheheheheheheheheh. *choke, gasp,
> wheeze*

Whatever. The government didn't accuse Mercola of being a quack. It accused him of selling goods with claims that were not substantiated scientifically. There is a difference.

Please proceed to discount standing criticisms of an authority accused making unsubstantiated claims without any corroboration on his claims of your own. I agree the thread is getting tired. That said, I don't view myself as a "blind believer" and wouldn't presume to insult people who disagree with me with the pejorative comment you just made. I know the visually impaired make an important contribution to our society. And I greatly value that contribution.

My husband just said to stop being "pedantic" (yes his word, sitting here at his desk next to mine) and also said that your comments make absolutely no sense. *giggle* I read the whole paragraph aloud and he just shook his head and crossed his eyes at me and said "huh?" Leave it to you to turn my "blind" remark into an "un-PC" remark. *grin* =)

Don't worry, Bryan. I'm done with this thread. =) Thanks for the entertainment.

BOYCOTT H1N1 VACCINES !!!

*****************************
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson

plainlydressed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My husband just said to stop being "pedantic"
> (yes his word, sitting here at his desk next to
> mine) and also said that your comments make
> absolutely no sense. *giggle* I read the whole
> paragraph aloud and he just shook his head and
> crossed his eyes at me and said "huh?" Leave it
> to you to turn my "blind" remark into an "un-PC"
> remark. *grin* =)
>
> Don't worry, Bryan. I'm done with this thread.
> =) Thanks for the entertainment.
>
> BOYCOTT H1N1 VACCINES !!!

Whenever people who insult or berate a group that has been disadvantaged, they call it PC to rationalize their behavior. Such is the case here. As for what your husband thinks about my view of your comment, to you and to him, I could care less. Do you object to gender-biased language? "Manning the desk" instead of "staffing the desk". If not, it's ok. If so, just try to be a little bit more sensitive. It wouldn't kill you.

Paul

coco, thanks a lot for the link!

Isn't it great Cynthia?
I think I'll take the advice of world's leading flu researcher, the doctor with literally years and years of research and practice behind him, and the neurosurgeon who studies this specifically about this issue instead of buying the hype and lending my body to big pharma to test this one out. I can handle some flu if it comes down to that, a guinea pig I ain't. Thanks anyhow.