Kategori: vetenskap

Jeff Forssell Jeff Forssell
för 6 dagar sedan
When vaccinations are tested (preferably not by the producer) against real placebos (in stead of other vaccines, adjuvent soups etc which are always used) we will be able to say something scientifically about their safety. But that isn’t done. (and of course if they are so safe, why has the vaccine part of the medical industry been exempted from being sued for damages?)
When a real comparison of unvaccinated and vaccinated groups for their total health picture we might be able to start to really asses the ”benefits”. That hasn’t been done either.
The young fellow making this video can perhaps be excused because of his age to not know that people like me (74 yr) that lived with and HAD measles find the current panic about measles way out of all sense of reality. (But he should have/could have checked the mortality of measles and how it had gone down 99% way before the vaccines came, and claimed victory)

Jeff Forssell Det var först idag jag såg att jag hade fått motkommentar:
Vary Olla
för 5 dagar sedan
Your rather comical if facile attempt at logic here does not lend to your argument. First of course is that Phase 3 clinical trials DO employ placebos as well as are randomized blind studies = making this common assertion by vaccine opponents oxymoronic on it’s face.

Next is that there have been countless studies worldwide – both governmental and non-governmental – looking into the efficacy of vaccines which took into account various socioeconomic variables of those populations as well as things such as vaccinated vs. unvaccinated status. That therefore = makes another of your purported claims fallacious as well…………not going very well is it.

Lastly is the fact of ”who” is the primary purchaser of vaccines???? Answer: governments. So in the US as an example the Congress via the annual HHS budget appropriates money via child health grants to purchase vaccines. Those vaccines = are then given away. If the individual receiving the vaccines has government sponsored healthcare then the government also pays the provider as well as paying for the vaccine = making it a further economic ”loss”. Meanwhile if they have private insurance then that insurer pays the prescriber while vaccines are typically given free or at low cost to the individual under the preventative health section of their policy. So what they pay the doctor for the office visit often does not even cover the cost of the vaccine.

Moral of the story: so the government as the ”end user” of vaccines accepts at the time of purchase that a small percentage of people might react per the possible side effects identified during those clinical trials as well as post-marketing surveillance. Accordingly it created the VICP to deal with such eventualities. So long as vaccine manufacturers abide by all applicable regulations relating to their manufacture to produce a legal product which is then sold to the government = the government accepts responsibility for known adverse results which might occur since it bought the product + created the schedules by which it is administered + and distributed it for said administration.

On a side note. Measles since you referenced it is one of the worse infectious diseases out there. Your surviving it as a child = made you LUCKY – nothing more. Measles kills each year worldwide >100,000 people – mostly children under 5. Measles is also a leading cause of childhood blindness as well as other neurocognitive issues such as deafness etc.. Lastly is that measles is one of the most infectious diseases out there with an R0 rating of 12-18 = or 2-3X that of other infectious diseases.

Meanwhile the MeV virus which causes measles ravages your immune system. It disrupts the dendritic cells of your lymph system responsible for antibody activation. Depending upon the severity of the case upwards of 70% of your circulatory antibodies can be wiped out = basically erasing your previous immunity to things. This means that a person lucky enough to survive having measles is then at significant risk post-measles for secondary infections for a period of weeks to months until those damaged immune cells can be replaced. In other words a person can survive measles and die of some secondary infection afterwards given that damage done to their immune system. You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about. Better luck next time.

Jeff Forssell Så för tillfället försöker jag andas djupt medans jag funderar vilka detaljer jag skall dra upp.

Funderar på kort ”Which commonly used vaccine was safety tested against a placebo and what was that placebo?”

Jeff Forssell
för 8 minuter sedan (redigerad)
@Vary Olla Thank you for your effort!
And for inspiring me to finally check how to get BOLD and italic and even strikeout in YT comments.
You clearly have a lot of ideas about what you are talking about. But for a person that is scientifically oriented, you talk a bit much about ”luck”
You are correct that I was lucky that I didn’t die as a child. Measles is very contagious. All my friends got it. It would probably be more newsworthy to find someone that reached their 20s without getting it. But nobody was afraid of it. The schools weren’t full of ”childhood blindness as well as other neurocognitive issues such as deafness ”. I guess we were all ”just lucky” 🙂 . Or could there be a more scientific way of looking at?
There are a lot of ”unlucky” people [in the world] that die while they have measles. They also (like the people of Sweden in the 1860s) are not ”lucky enough” to have clean running water, refrigeration, good housing etc. In Sweden (as in most developed country similarly) the mortality of measles decreased about 99,7% by the 1950s. But most people that have listened in Biology class could probably not give a correct answer to the question ”Between 1860 and 1950 mortality in measles in Sweden decreased 99,7%, how much of that could be because of vaccine?”
Right answer 0% WHY? 1950 was 2 decades before measles vaccin came into practice.

I’m trying to excuse your ”You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about. Better luck next time” and hoping that your assumption is no less understandable than when I myself believed the dogma of the vaccin church: ”Vaccins are safe and effective, amen” and thought is was well-grounded in science (but we wouldn’t include the ”amen” 🙂 ). I have since become an apostate (someone that leaves a faith).

_ ”First of course is that Phase 3 clinical trials DO employ placebos”_ — is your first point. I have really looked for that. Please give me at least 1 commonly used vaccine that has been safety tested against a ” placebo ” AND what that placebo contained AND the source where I can check that
looking forward to your answer!

Jeppson Rolf Och här är en 80-talist som oxå hade flera av ”barnshukdomarna”. Msslingen var det flera i min klass som hade och INGEN av dom vare sig dog blev blinda döva eller ngt annat! Vi hade både mässling, röda hund, vattkoppor, kikhosta och påssjuka. Bara scharlakansfeber minns jag ingen som hade. Och på den finns inget vaccin.

Jeff Forssell Vary har kommit med ny motkommentar:

”Vary Olla
för 20 timmar sedan
1 – anecdotal evidence is merely evidence of anecdotes. Also people are not typically afraid of things unless they understand the risk said thing can present. So people who are ”on the outside looking in” = simply see measles as a rash and temporary illness. Meanwhile those on the inside who actually understand the illness and what it does = recognizes that measles is an infectious disease which ravages the human body. It can massively disrupt your immune system – basically ”erasing” your previously acquired immunity to things by destroying up to 70% of your circulatory antibodies – to say nothing of how it can result in encephalopathy leading to a host of neurocognitive problems. So the result of a measles infection is that the individual – should they survive = are then at a significantly greater risk post-measles for secondary infections given that impairment to their immune system caused by the virus. So it is NOT a benign illness.

2 – your Sweden example = irrelevant. It is however emblematic of how vaccine opponents grossly fail to think about the topic. Sweden = northern European country near the Artic Circle. As such it does not see anywhere near the level of immigration that a country like the US does. So what does this mean??? It means that if as a result of previous infection chains being controlled the incidence of an infectious disease is low = then the likelihood of new exposures is similarly low because outsiders are less likely to go there and reintroduce the illness.

3 – now look at a country like the US. Huge population compared to Sweden. That population further sees a huge influx of travelers each year to say nothing of immigrants from Third World countries where measles is endemic. That makes the likelihood of someone introducing a new chain of infection = massively higher than for a place like Sweden.

4 – last but not least. Mortality rates reflect the relative health status of the individual pre-sickness + their access to healthcare and the level of that healthcare. So once again a small country whose population is largely ”living in a bubble” with little chance of exposure from outside the country = can limit it’s exposure to outside pathogens as well as it has a smaller population which is thereby easier to treat medically. Accordingly Sweden by nothing else than the numbers and a socialized healthcare system would naturally see better statistics from an epidemiological standpoint compared to larger countries whose own population is diverse in it’s health status being comprised of a wide cross-section of socioeconomic variables.

5 – thus we come back to the US where the healthcare system is not socialized resulting in a wide disparity of access to healthcare in places. Meanwhile as noted in #3 = it also has a massively higher risk of infectious diseases being introduced into it’s large population from the outside which then sustains new ongoing chains of infection. So mortality rates are not the metric for considering vaccine employment = incidence of infection and chance of new exposures are. All a mortality rate tells you is if individuals were able to be treated in a modern healthcare system and their general healthcare status. Meanwhile incidence of infection is what tells you if vaccine employment is working or not.

Moral of the story: as history shows we see a recurrent theme whereby wherever vaccines are employed = incidence of infection drops like a stone in the subsequent years which demonstrates the efficacy of vaccines. So you can parrot all the talking points you want such as vaccine opponents spew onto the internet. Unless you actually think about what those talking points represent however = you’ll keep making the same errors of deduction. Anti-vaxxers make a habit of a highly facile approach to data and what goes on. Have a nice day.”

När Vary pratar om ”rabbla talking points” kan jag inte annat än tänka på

Man skall inte kasta sten i glashus

eller

”the pot calling the kettle black”

Han har åtminstone önskat mig ”a nice day” 🙂

Men han har, trots sina 5 långa points inte svarat den enda frågan jag ställde, trots att den stod i FETSTIL!

 Om någon bryr sig, här finns mitt nya svar till Vary

Jeff Forssell
för 1 sekund sedan
@Vary Olla Thanks for wishing me a nice day!

A bit uncertain how to continue, but it seems important to at least go to the bottom of your FIRST point in your rebuttals to me before exploring the MANY other points you are bring up. In spite of putting my question in bold (thanks again! 🙂 though I found that in that question I had to put in many * s to get it done! ) you haven’t answered my question. If you don’t answer it, I will have to assume that when you dug (and you are a digger!) you found (also! I am also a digger too! High five!) that the vaccines commonly used and assumed safe have not been compared to anything that a scientist would call a placebo. (Though a researcher paid by the producer can agree to call all kinds of things a placebo)

_ ”First of course is that Phase 3 clinical trials DO employ placebos”_ — is your first point. I have really looked for that. Please give me at least 1 commonly used vaccine that has been safety tested against a ” placebo ” AND what that placebo contained AND the source where I can check that?

looking forward to your answer!

Vary Olla
för 11 timmar sedan
Rotateq – you have access to the internet. Accordingly use it for something other than posting mundane commentary and revalidating your incorrect beliefs. Clinical trials typically don’t detail placebo ingredients. PBS – Phosphate Buffered Solution – read saline with stabilizers – is a commonly used product.

So apparently you did not look very hard as one can find Phase 3 clinical trial results online with a 5 second Google search. Accordingly one is forced to conclude that – like all vaccine opponents – you are not actually seeking information.

Instead you quibble for the sake of quibbling as vaccine opponents invariably are simply too inured into their worldviews to consider the reality that they have been chasing ”internet rumor” in the form of the pseudo-scientific nonsense the anti-vaccine industry passes around on the net and in the echo chambers of social media – utterly unreliable platforms for news acquisition in case you missed the memo.

p.s. – vaccines are not ”assumed” to be safe = nonsensical statement. Each year literally billions of doses of vaccine are administered worldwide. Meanwhile literally billions of vaccinated people are walking around the planet who are just fine – some having been vaccinated decades previously. That = the largest and most comprehensive clinical trial you could ask for.

• Maria E Jeff Forssell
  Vet du/man vad personen arbetar som? Skulle gissa lobbyist(påminner om en ’VoF-attityd’).?