France is one of the worst European pupils in terms of vaccination.

[pedrodelavega]

like you then are unable to answer it frankly, clearly!

I answered one of your affirmations: It is false.

Personally, I affirm that neither near nor far, I do not work and never worked for this industry

Same for me.

When at the trial he was widely examined and you cling to your lies

Which?

false interpretations of the patent.

It is possible that it is you who makes a false interpretation.

[Janic]

janic wrote: as you then are unable to answer frankly, clearly!

I answered one of your affirmations: It is false.

No you still have not answered the 16 + 5 questions asked to your fellow before you and the last 8 I reported above. You would have difficulty in doing so without recognizing that these lack of control endanger the health of the vaccinated, that's why you run away every time!

Janic wrote Personally, I say that neither near nor far, I do not work and have never worked for this industry

Same for me.

Well, here is something done. So you're not a doctor, or a biologist (like Deer) or a technician, you move slowly, but you defend immunitarian totalitarianism and its lies without special skills. So by ideology!

janic wrote: When at trial he was widely examined and you cling to your lies

Which?

refusal of rejection of the accusations common to W and Smith and that you persist in wanting to imply all the same to W. on the only lies of Deer, an unscientific journalist, nor competent in vaccinology. Similarly, use the abusive term of antivaxx, which has no social or scientific reality, but is only a report of the lies of the vaccinomaniacs.

Janic wrote: false interpretations of the patent.

It is possible that it is you who makes a false interpretation.
It's entirely possible on the sole support of a translation, like any translation. [*] Not on the subject itself in this translation. I do not master, as much as possible, as French in patents, by necessity and professional practice, and your superficial reading does not correspond to the form or the substance of the accusation that you carry and the phony loopholes that you use. to support your false reading and must I say misleading because you like so much to use it wrongly and wrongly.
So I'm still waiting, not just me but all readers of this topic, on the questions asked above

[*] That's why I suggested you to have this patent read by a professional from them, by law firms, and with qualified biologists on the nuance between vaccine and "transfer factor".

[pedrodelavega]

I answered one of your affirmations: It is false.

No

Have not I answered one of your affirmations?

but you defend immunitarian totalitarianism and its lies without particular skills. So by ideology!

If you say so. You may also defend your antivirus positions without special skills, ideology ...

refusal to dismiss W & Smith's common charges

A refusal is not a lie. Especially since I have sourced my assertions.

on the only lies of Deer,

Wakefield having lost all these lawsuits, in particular against him, nothing establishes that Deer lied.

Similarly, use the abusive term of antivaxx

How is qualifying "someone or a site with only arguments against vaccines" against vaccines a lie or an insult?

should I say lies because you like so much to use it wrongly and wrongly.

On the last 5 pages of this topic, you use the term "lies" 17 times, me once .....

That's why I suggested that you have the patent read by a professional from them, by surgeries, and with qualified biologists on the nuance between vaccine and "transfer factor".

This patent has been mentioned many times in specialized journals:
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/735721
http://www.testingtreatments.org/2016/0 ... wakefield/
https://www.medpagetoday.com/pediatrics/vaccines/24293
http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/epidemiol ... partII.pdf
etc ...
All these specialized journals read by many specialists say the same thing as Deer about this patent, say the same thing as the various trials that convict Wakefield:
"Claiming that the measles virus in the ror causes problems, Wakefield's paper is for a patent on a "safer" monovalent measles vaccine and a product to treat autism and IBD. This no longer made public"

Apart from Wakefield, I do not know any scientists who support your theory, not even Smith who, at the end of his call, never defended Wakefield on this point.
Appeal in which, this "transfer factor" is mentioned as "drug" requiring a "approval / authorization"and "security research".
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ad ... 2/503.html
A dietary supplement is not a medicine, does not require individual marketing authorization, based on the prior assessment and is not often patented.
https://eurekasante.vidal.fr/parapharma ... ments.html

[Janic]

Janic wrote:

I replied to a of your affirmation: It is false.

No

Have not I answered one of your affirmations?

Disregarding the development that followed and which is a fact established and recognized by BP. Now, each one in turn, answers the 8 questions above

janic wrote: but you defend immunitarian totalitarianism and its lies without particular skills. So by ideology!

If you say so. You may also defend your antivirus positions without special skills, ideology ...

Of course, each of us defends his points of view by ideology. However the antivirus formula is inaccurate, false, misleading, insulting for victims of vaccines and so on.

janic wrote: on the only lies of Deer,

Wakefield having lost all these lawsuits, in particular against him, nothing establishes that Deer lied.

It was the judge on appeal who found that Deer's charges were not strong

janic wrote: Similarly use the abusive term of antivaxx

How is qualifying "someone or a site with only arguments against vaccines" against vaccines a lie or an insult?

BP's pressured governments are spreading their message about the pile of things and hiding the front side, which the sites that point to them are doing so. Their sources coming from official sources, so it's not about pros or cons, but information that is not brought to the attention of the general public, including laws protecting citizens

janic wrote: should I say misleading because you like so much to use it wrongly.

On the last 5 pages of this topic, you use the term "lies" 17 times, me once .....

Ouarf! Do you really want me to recap on your formulations?



MENSONGE, subst. masc.
A. - Affirmation contrary to the truth made with intent to deceive.
so concerning Deer, these are lies, no mistakes.

Janic wrote: That's why I suggested that you have this patent read by a professional from them, by law firms, and with qualified biologists on the nuance between vaccine and "transfer factor".

This patent has been mentioned many times in specialized journals:
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/735721
Article that relies on the lies of Deer, it's not the patent
http://www.testingtreatments.org/2016/0 ... wakefield /
No interest, a cartoon has no legal value, nor scientific.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/pediatrics/vaccines/24293
same as the 1 °, source BMJ that the judgment on appeal qualified as superficial
http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/epidemiol ... partII.pdf
etc ...

All these specialized journals read by many specialists say the same thing as Deer about this patent, say the same thing as the various trials that convict Wakefield:
"Claiming that the measles virus in ror causes problems, the Wakefield paper calls for a patent on a 'safer' monovalent measles vaccine and a product to treat autism and IBD. This is also not made public."

And you found that in the patent? You are balèze to read what is not written there.
These medical journals have all turned against W and Smith, contenting themselves with fake news from Deer and the BMJ and GMC since they are subject to BP's dictation.

Apart from Wakefield, I do not know of any scientists who support ta theory, not even Smith who, at the end of his call, never defended Wakefield on this point.

Same thing read the minutes of the trial and who has already been seen and reviewed: Smith opposes the direct impeachment of the MMR while W evokes the precautionary measure, it is all that, concerning this vaccine, opposes them and the GMC does not there is not deceived.

Appeal in which, this "transfer factor" is referred to as a "drug" requiring "approval / authorization" and "safety research".

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ad ... 2/503.html
I will not repeat each time to reread the whole judgment. Indicates precisely the article concerned.

A dietary supplement is not a medicine, does not require individual marketing authorization, based on the prior assessment and is not often patented.

Again, it is not a dietary supplement to consume, as we find parapharmacy, but a transfer factor injectable and so who can not be THAT IN THE CASE OF A MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION and injected by a professional

[pedrodelavega]

Leaving aside the focus that followed

You reiterated that the vaccines were free of tests on real placebo. Now that I've proved you wrong, you change your version. Easy.
Besides, you drowned the fish so much that we do not even know what your problem is on this point.
-------------------------------------------------- ----

It was the judge on appeal who found that Deer's charges were not strong

This judge did not consider anything about Wakefield.
-------------------------------------------------- ----

should I say lies because you like so much to use it wrongly and wrongly.

On the last 5 pages of this topic, you use the term "lies" 17 times, me once .....

Ouarf! Do you really want me to recap on your formulations?

That's what I just did; Verified.
-------------------------------------------------- ----

And you found that in the patent?

No, it's in the link that I quoted above:
http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/epidemiol ... partII.pdf
The patent says the same thing:

1/ "Unfortunately, as I have already shown in the aforementioned patent application, it has been shown that the use of this vaccine has played a determining role in the development of Crohn's disease and other forms of IBD"
"The use of MMR vaccine (encompassing live attenuated measles virus, measles virus, mumps virus and rubella vaccine virus and wild strains of the aforementioned viruses) has also been shown to cause hyperplasia. iloid lymphoid nodular, chronic colitis and pervasive developmental disorder, including autism"
Which corresponds in my previous quote to: "Claiming that the measles virus in ror causes problems"

2/ "So we need a more vaccine sure that does not pose these problems and treatment for people with IBD. I have now discovered a combination vaccine / therapeutic agent which is not only probably safer to be given to children and others by vaccination / immunization, but which can also be used to treat IBD, either as a full course or to relieve symptoms. "
Which corresponds in my previous quote to: "for a patent on a 'safer' monovalent measles vaccine and a product to treat autism and IBD."
---------------------------------------------------------

I will not repeat each time to reread the whole judgment. Indicates precisely the article concerned.

§ 161 to 170 of the judgment cited, the one concerning the "transfer factor."

Last point:
"Food supplements therefore cannot claim to prevent, relieve, treat or cure any disease."
https://eurekasante.vidal.fr/parapharma ... ments.html
While his invention of a "combined vaccine and therapeutic agent" claims so.
His invention, as described in his patent and in all the scientific journals which mention it, is not a food supplement but a "combined vaccine and therapeutic agent".

[GuyGadebois]

Janic "Monastorio" vs Don Pedro de la Vega ...

[Janic]

I remember it very well, this photo was taken during a carnival where everyone had disguised themselves in the other, it was misleading!
But the habit does not make the monk so far!

[Janic]

janic wrote: Ignoring the focus that followed

You reiterated that the vaccines were free of tests on real placebo. Now that I've proved you wrong, you change your version. Easy.

Besides, you drowned the fish so much that we do not even know what your problem is on this point.

It seems to me that whoever wants to drown the fish by mixing everything is rather you!
I have not changed my version, but clarified it, that this development is suitable for you or not.
But you: Answer at least honestly to 8 questions previously asked. Even if it bothers your employers!
-------------------------------------------------- ----

janic wrote: It is the judge on appeal who found that Deer's charges were not strong

This judge did not consider anything about Wakefield.

Exactly ! In France, at least, all accused are considered innocent until proven (before the state) to the contrary. Hence this obligatory formula, now, to say the accused and not the culprit even when there is no reasonable doubt about his guilt. There are laws in France that protect, even insufficiently, individuals from defamation.
-------------------------------------------------- ----

janic wrote: should I say misleading because you like so much to use it wrongly.

On the last 5 pages of this topic, you use the term "lies" 17 times, me once .....

Ouarf! You really want me to do a recap on TES formulations?

That's what I just did; Verified.

On these 5 pages only, I speak of all your literature obviously! From where TES and not CES!

janic wrote: And you found that in the patent?

No, it's in the link that I quoted above:
http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/epidemiol ... partII.pdf

a) It's a PDF that does not translate to google
b) This is a provaxx university, they will not shoot themselves in the foot
c) has no legal value

The patent says the same thing
NO!

1 / "Unfortunately, as I have already shown in the aforementioned patent application, it has been shown that the use of this vaccine has played a determining role in the development of Crohn's disease and other forms of IBD "
"The use of MMR vaccine (encompassing live attenuated measles virus, measles virus, mumps virus and rubella vaccine virus and wild strains of the aforementioned viruses) has also been shown to cause hyperplasia. iloid lymphoid nodular, chronic colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder including autism "

Which corresponds in my previous quote to: "Claiming that the measles virus in ror causes problems"

Not clear ! you would recognize now that the ROR posed problems, it's new!

2 / “So we need a safer vaccine that does not pose these problems and a treatment for people with IBD. I have now discovered a combined vaccine / therapeutic agent that is not only probably more safe to give to children and others by vaccination / immunization, but can also be used to treat IBD, either as a full course or to relieve symptoms. "

Which corresponds in my previous quote to: "For a patent on a 'safer' monovalent measles vaccine and a product to treat autism and IBD."

This is the problem of partial quotes! What do you say about this one, more complete, already quoted:

janic »24 / 08 / 19, 14: 49
The compositions of the present invention have the ability not only to condition the recipient to trigger a specific immune response AGAINST ROR AND the measles virus when used as a vaccine / immunization, but also to restore the appropriate antiviral immune response of an immune system against persistent measles. viral infection in IBD.

No current vaccine works against persistent measles that has already been established.

This indicates that MMR is responsible for this condition RATHER of the measles virus alone and, therefore, a transfer factor (vacuum infra) specific to the virus. components other than the measles virus in the MMR may be necessary.

It's clear, it can not be a vaccine carrying a virus

In addition to transferring the positivity of the antigen-specific skin test, the DLE preparations containing TF may also initiate other immune reactions cell-mediated antigen-specific agents, including the induction of cytokines such as the macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) and the leukocyte migration inhibitory factor (LIF). The ability of TF to stimulate LIF production is the basis for evaluating, in vitro, the potency of antigen-specific TF.

Still clear transfer factor acts as a stimulant of the immune system when a vaccine has already been injected. So in this case the MMR!

DLE-TF is usually given by subcutaneous or intramuscular injection, although oral administration seems to be equally effective. It can also be administered intravenously or by suppository or incorporation into liposomes to prolong its biological activity. Nothing is known about its pharmacokinetics.

therefore can be introduced into the body as for a vaccine or dietary supplement

According to the present invention, it is therefore proposed a pharmaceutical composition for the treatment of a disease mediated by the MMR virus comprising a soluble extract of dialyzed leukocytes comprising a transfer factor (TF) formed by the dialysis of specific lymphocytes virus up to a molecular cleavage value of 12 500, disposed in a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier of the diluent for this purpose. The TF factor is particularly important when DIRECTED AGAINST MEASLES VIRUS, but is a TF factor for MMR, presumed to include live attenuated virus of measles virus, Measles, mouse virus and rubella virus, as well as wild strains of the above-mentioned viruses, or other components of MMR (mumps and rubella) are also useful especially for RBD.

So again, in the current state of medicine, we do not use vaccines AGAINST vaccines. The above passage easily shows that it can not be a vaccine since it does not contain a specific antigen to measles or MMR. But act like a vaccine, yes, but do not confuse goat and cabbage!
---------------------------------------------------------

janic wrote: I will not repeat each time to reread the whole judgment. Indicates precisely the article concerned.

§ 161 to 170 of the judgment cited, the one concerning the "transfer factor."

It makes us a beautiful leg! There is no indication that this transfer factor is a vaccine for all that! It just tells us that it was not Smith who prescribed this product, nothing else.

Last point:
"Food supplements therefore cannot claim to prevent, relieve, treat or cure any disease."
https://eurekasante.vidal.fr/parapharma ... ments.html
While his invention of a "combined vaccine and therapeutic agent" claims so
His invention, as described in his patent and in all the scientific journals which mention it, is not a food supplement but a "combined vaccine and therapeutic agent".

Given the kind of scientific journals you say, that's not surprising. I repeat that the definition of a vaccine is accurate and requires an antigen completely absent in the patent so it is not. Consult a real specialist on the subject.

Vaccine:
Pathogenic substance who, inoculated to an individual, confers immunity against an illness.

In the case W where is this pathogen in question?

[pedrodelavega]

I have not changed my version, but clarified it, that this development is suitable for you or not.

If your focus is:
"a placebo must be used, for drugs, to check its toxicity and each new drug must follow this protocol to obtain its Marketing Authorization, without which it cannot be marketed. Vaccines escape this obligation during a new one. vaccine for which we only compare it to the already existing vaccine to obtain this MA. So go right! "
It is false too.
-------------------------------------------------- ----

Hence this mandatory formula, now, to say the accused and not the culprit

The trials are over. Wakefield no longer has the status of accused but guilty and sentenced.
-------------------------------------------------- ----

a) It's a PDF that does not translate to google

If with a copy / paste in google translation.

b) This is a provaxx university, they will not shoot themselves in the foot

There would be provaxx universities and antivirus universities?

c) has no legal value

It's not the goal. This is just the quote from a scientific journal.
-------------------------------------------------- ----

Not clear ! you would recognize now that the MMR poses problems, it's new!

No: "Claiming that the measles virus in ror causes problems, the Wakefield paper calls for a patent on a 'safer' monovalent measles vaccine and a product to treat autism and IBD. This is also not made public."
http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/epidemiol ... partII.pdf

What do you say about that one, more complete, already mentioned

It does not contradict what is stated at the beginning of the patent:
"I have now discovered a combination vaccine / therapeutic agent which is not only probably safer to give to children and others by vaccination / immunization, but which can also be used to treat IBD, be it as a full course of treatment or to relieve symptoms. " http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/t ... TRGLANG=fr

No current vaccine works against persistent measles that has already been established.

That's why he patented his invention that has 2 claims:
"The present invention relates to a new vaccine / immunization for prevention and / or prophylaxis against measles infection ET a pharmaceutical composition or therapy for the treatment of IBD (inflammatory bowel disease); in particular Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis and regressive behavioral disease (RBD) (also called "pervasive developmental disorder"). "

There is no indication that this transfer factor is a vaccine for all that!

There is no indication that it is a dietary supplement.
In the context of the case, this "medicine" was used for the 2nd claim: "Treatment of IBD (inflammatory bowel disease); in particular Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis and regressive behavioral disease (RBD) (also called" pervasive developmental disorder ")."

A dietary supplement is not a medicine.

[Janic]

janic wrote: I have not changed my version, but clarified this one, that this development suits you or not.

If your focus is:
"a placebo is obligatorily used, for the drugs, for the verification of its toxicity and each new drug must follow this protocol to obtain its MA, without which, it can not be marketed. Vaccines escape this obligation in a new vaccine for which we are only comparing it to the existing vaccine to obtain this marketing authorization. So go right on! "
It is false too.

it is only your point of view proving it by a precise text!
-------------------------------------------------- ----

Janic wrote where this mandatory formula, now, to say the accused and not the culprit

The trials are over. Wakefield no longer has the status of accused but guilty and sentenced.

Once again you mix, voluntarily now, everything.
The College of Physicians is an organization without any legal value in his judgmentsit is just an internal notice to this institution that can decide if this or that member (they are only members who are part of it) respected or not their rules of procedure, so without value in the eyes of the legislation, the laws of the country, in progress. If a member of a football club is fired from his club, the law does not intervene unless there is prejudice actually reprimanded by the law of the country, otherwise it is their internal sauce that decides. It is called separating from the troublemakers, from the hindrances of thinking and acting differently.
To be accused and convicted by a private organization, has no value, neither civil nor administrative, public.
So an individual considered guilty of not having respected, more or less, their rules of procedure, this has no legal value as long as there is no civil judgment. Again check with state judges, you will avoid these infamous mixtures.
The current example is that of Joyeux crossed out by the College of Physicians at the national level and challenged by the local College of Physicians who support it. Joyeux was reinstated, for the principle as Smith since the two no longer exercising, except that Joyeux did not need to resort to the civil trial and therefore the state did not interfere.


-------------------------------------------------- ----

janic wrote: a) This is a PDF that does not translate to google

If with a copy / paste in google translation.

Thanks I will try ! but apparently it only translates words, not PDF texts.

janic wrote: b) This is a provaxx university, they are not going to shoot themselves in the foot

There would be provaxx universities and antivirus universities?

It is precisely to emphasize that there is which universities at BP's boot and that " you do not bite the breast that feeds you "So the supposed antivaxx, or more previously scientists who challenge the dogma vaccination, are not welcome. Here again " to conquer without danger, we triumph without glory But between the glory and the money, their choice is quickly made.

janic wrote: c) has no legal value

It's not the goal. This is just the quote from a scientific journal.

All the more! in our country where everyone is free (less and less) to express their point of view, a scientific journal or not, can tell anything about it, except to create some prejudice not to ideas but to people.
But as you constantly mix internal judgment, without legal value, an institution and internal sauce of it, so you try to deceive the reader
-------------------------------------------------- ----

Janic wrote have clear! you would recognize now that the MMR poses problems, it's new!

No: "Claiming that the measles virus in ror causes problems, the Wakefield paper calls for a patent on a 'safer' monovalent measles vaccine and a product to treat autism and IBD. This was not made public either. "

http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/epidemiol ... partII.pdf

So just a commentator's point of view. Now my own comment:
W stated loudly that measles vaccine in monovalent or trivalent form did not provide sufficient safety for patients and therefore needed to be improved if it actually caused autism. It is not a vaccine that he invented (no mention, concerning his product, to be carrying an antigen that only qualifies a vaccine product) but a transfer factor, only, subject of the patent.
The zigotos who make this comment of the site above, are supposed to have the adequate scientific level to know what defines a vaccine, but not to know how to write a patent. (Asks Christophe or Remondo who, they deposited .)

janic wrote: What do you say about that one, more complete, already mentioned

It does not contradict what is stated at the beginning of the patent:
"I have now discovered a combination vaccine / therapeutic agent which is not only probably safer to give to children and others by vaccination / immunization, but which can also be used to treat IBD, be it as a full course of treatment or to relieve symptoms. " http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/t ... TRGLANG = en

And go again ! Once again, he knows, he went to the university where this elementary thing of what defines a vaccine is taught: yes, yes! and he can not confuse between acting as a vaccine and being a vaccine. So where is the one or more antigens in this one. If there is not one, it's not a vaccine. There is only Deer, incompetent in this matter for having done this primary reading, because without adequate scientific training. It was nice to write to him to avoid this confusion. Deer did not want to take it into account, the dates being authentic. The BMJ and the GMC, which have real scientists, did not follow Deer completely on this point, preferring to rely on non-compliance with the protocol.

janic wrote: No current vaccine works against persistent measles already in place.

That's why he patented his invention that has 2 claims:
"The present invention relates to a novel vaccine / immunization for the prevention and / or prophylaxis against measles virus infection AND to a pharmaceutical or therapeutic composition for the treatment of IBD (inflammatory bowel disease); in particular, Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis and regressive behavioral disease (RBD) (also called "pervasive developmental disorder"). "

This is not incompatible! Suppresses, temporarily, the word vaccine and the rest of the sentence keeps all its coherence, then adds the and the sentence does not change direction. But once again a vaccine can not act AGAINST another vaccine, as mentioned: it is clear in this patent. If you take the first one in a primary way you will have to take this one too and there no toubib, biologist, will do it. Filled up!
But this patent was established, like most of them, by a firm specialized in this field that would not have perceived this inconsistency. Then the applicant is not W but the hospital which, at a minimum, had to read the latter before depositing it and found nothing to complain about it and he would not have perceived this inconsistency either? It's been too many chances to give credibility to your speech. And in the event that he actually made this invention revolutionary sending Pasteur and his aficionados away to oblivion, to the oblivion, and no toubib would have noticed it?

janic wrote: There is no indication that this transfer factor is a vaccine for all that!

There is no indication that it is a dietary supplement.

Indeed, it is you who insists that it be cataloged as a dietary supplement that is sold in drugstore. But it is not a vaccine, according to the definition of this one, it acts AS a dietary supplement since concerning a component of mother's milk where, especially at a time when the women nursed less and less, this factor of transfer acts therefore as a complement in the same way as the vitC in case of scurvy (without vaccine that does not exist) or vitB in beriberi (without vaccine) each missing in the food intake, but injected as vaccines in a curative way in case of deficiency and preventatively by injection, as a vaccine,

In connection with the case, this "medicine" was used for the 2nd claim: "treatment of IBD (inflammatory bowel disease); in particular Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis and regressive behavioral disease (RBD ) (also referred to as "pervasive developmental disorder"). "

A dietary supplement is not a medicine

Except that dietary supplements are consumables by the natural oral route. This transfer factor is applied by injection essentially (like the above vitamins, by injection too) but can ALSO be consumed orally (for example some vaccines like that against the polio of the 60 years which was also drinkable) or the vitamins by the diet.
so the patent, its role, specifies in a very developed and scientific way to be understood by professionals (-INPI in this case- recalls that a patent must be reproducible outside of its inventor) the role and the limit of this factor of transfer If you have the competence read it in its totality, not small bits to try to you (nor me) to give reason.