Vaccinations and health ... for or against?

[Obamot]

obamot hello

(PS: but you flatter me! ^^) I would rather be an elephant in a porcelain store

Ah, a real compliment then thanks.

c) industry is reputed do your job well or they are criminal sanctions that must rain like with Servier.

I will qualify by saying that she is supposed doing its job well (like nuclear power for that matter), the sanctions unfortunately fall when the damage is already done (as for asbestos) given the immobility of AFSSAPS.

There are still good pharmaceutical products that save lives: let's not forget. The "firefighter" medicine that comes to extinguish fires is essential, even if it is the one that costs the most!
Yes I know. It's surprising words on my part, but I maintain. Because those who are not at the required level of excellence, of what demand the grandes écoles and other universities - it is their problem, it is up to them to make their up date - I prefer to speak for the others who give themselves a sore dog, and in these difficult times, it is good to restore confidence in humans.
In addition, it is necessary to preserve all the possibilities of the therapeutic arsenal.

d) thus we admit that the vaccines are efficient and their production safe - since this is the prerequisite that is expected of them - because otherwise we can hardly focus on the basic question: namely IN ASSUMPTION WHERE THESE CONDITIONS ARE MET, to know WHY we are "for" or "against" and to explain the reasons.

that is the whole question, since it is a presupposition, but is it accepted or not?

It is within the limits of the above answer and depending on the person treated. And if we are "ready" for an immediate profit at the expense of a weakening of the species ... But that's not what I recommend except for those who are no longer in a position to procreate.

The only way to verify this is precisely by consulting the official archives, which will testify to the real, relative or zero, or even dangerous, effectiveness of the means used.

Even thornier than that! To carry out double-blind clinical tests etc ... We take everyone and anyone. Except you should only take healthy subjects! Yes but what does "healthy" mean ...? There should be subjects who followed a drastic diet for five years, isolated from any chemical pollution and consuming only unpolluted food or treated with synthetic products and with a good physical condition requiring the regular practice of a sport. There yes, we would have the beginning of the beginning of something reliable. In fact, the same consideration as when you resume studies from the days of Pasteur ...
In the meantime, we don't really know where we are or where we are going. And the "doses" are much too high, because they are adapted to subjects already weakened by their lifestyle.
For the anecdote, the rare times when I have to take a pain reliever / antipyretic like Paracetamol, if I take the dose "adult", I am completely stoned
(I can already see it saying, that "the drug works ", because it's my "normal" state ^^)

... then I don't really call that setting the "right priorities!"

Everything is priority, it's like when we put things in order, everyone will start with what seems to them priority, another step.
You underline, (and I fully agree with this point) the food and even environmental quality of our way of life, but vaccinations are also done in countries where these modes and means are not combined and where vaccinations meet the same failure (as the smallpox vaccine in its time as WHO will point out!)

Answer as above.
About priorities, certainly! Take the example of calcium metabolism:
- having a correct diet will not be enough, if you do not go a little in the sun ... (taking some precautions.)!
- and even ... if we do not make a physical effort, it will not be enough either, since it takes "pressure" to fix the calcium! etc.

We can also add that the priorities exist but that they can vary from one subject to another => especially when it comes to moving from a pathological stage to a state of "good health". In addition there is a question of duration which also varies. Not that easy...
When I heard the "good priorities", that is what I meant ... and that we cannot start from the point of view that some would be dishonest to justify or not the merits of getting vaccinated! It doesn't make much sense. And that in any case does not take the problem by the right end of the spyglass. If we “feel guilty”, it is good that deep down, we have the intuition that we did not do enough upstream! So yes, when we understand that and that we are motivated to take charge of our health: everything matters, but it should not be like a mountain: so we can set fun priorities that make us want to continue! And who put our foot in the stirrup to place the bar always a little higher. If desired.

Until the question of the microbiological quality of food as a tool for early prevention has not been addressed. We will not know if it is worth it or not to vaccinate massively.

I can only agree in our type of society, but at the time of Jenner or Pasteur, these questions were not yet topical and yet the failure was the same (consult the official archives of INSERM.)

Give them time to find out ... In the meantime the industry will have been reformed! (We can dream...)

[Janic]

christophe hello

So start by putting your numbers ...

I want to start with which vaccine?
I specify that these figures will not be mine but those of INSERM or official bodies of other countries or even recognized medical journals so as not to be accused of cheating or lying!

dedeleco

I gave concrete figures 4 th previous post, links to much more info,

where?

In addition, the whole history of vaccinations is full of figures, starting with Pasteur and the sheep.

precisely concerning Pasteur the figures did not prove to be to his advantage and relying on ONLY ONE example (distorted by the way) is rather simplistic and scientifically unacceptable (repetitive double-blind protocols, etc.)

[sen-no-sen]

@Janic: the preliminaries is good, but in the end, where do you want to come from?

[Janic]

sen no sen hello

@Janic: the preliminaries is good, but in the end, where do you want to come from?

with the same result as everything that concerns ecology: to think with your head while daring to question the dogmas and presuppositions that seem to go without saying.
What characterizes ecology? Send cries of alarm concerning the drifts of our society in the various fields which concern this one. Its role is that of a sentinel, not a reformer of the lives of others. After the role of the sentinel fades to give way to fighters against misconceptions or overrated.
More and more doctors and scientists are raising alarm cries on the subject, cries muffled by the lobbies in place who have the right of priority expression on the media and other conditioning channels, but which it is the consumer who will costs when he is forced by law to act against his conscience and against human rights.
And which is found in this subject which has just appeared: Information, censorship, media debate: where did the truth go??

[sen-no-sen]

I do not see where you want to come from, all the "econologists" are aware of the excesses of the various lobbies.

As I mentioned above, there is no need to be for or against, but to determine the cases where such and such a procedure is valid.

The funny thing is that at the time I write this message, the poll is 50/50: as in politics with the big trends ... while everyone certainly has the same wish ...

What did you answer to the survey? (I did not answer, because the question is too simplistic).

[FPLM]

(I did not answer because the question is too simplistic).

Hi hi ... Same for me.

[Janic]

Sen no sen

I do not see where you want to come from, all the "econologists" are aware of the excesses of the various lobbies.

Including that one? I did not find anything on the subject on econology except the specific case of H1N1! Especially that it is a copious subject with an important literature coming from the medical profession itself and of this fact controversial.

As I mentioned above, there is no need to be for or against, but to determine the cases where such and such a procedure is valid.

What if this process is NEVER valid? And how do you know?

What did you answer to the survey? (I did not answer, because the question is too simplistic).

Too simplistic like any survey it's obvious! With hindsight, as it is in the health part, instead of for or against I should have put effective or not or something of this kind.

Otherwise it's like asking an environmentalist if he is for or against nuclear power! From the development of the first power stations (for military purposes, it should not be forgotten) all environmentalists of this time declared themselves against, including nuclear physicists themselves (as for GMOs or electromagnetic waves). Likewise, most doctors who have done orthodox studies (except in rare specific cases) are for vaccinations and change their opinion more or less according to their professional experience or their specialty (few homeopaths are for vaccines given that half of their job is to fight against the deleterious effects of these.) the majority of naturopaths is against, by biological principle, for other specialties I do not know.
So inevitably (but not immediately) I expressed a negative opinion, but it's been more than 40 years that I have been the subject closely so I am better informed than the average consumer.
But when I say negative, I mean that I am against obligations, vaccine constraints, not against the fact that people freely use it as much as people to consume chemical, GMO, nuclear or electromagnetic, it is the freedom of choice… when there is possible choice!

[sen-no-sen]

But when I say negative, I mean that I am against obligations, vaccine constraints, not against the fact that people freely use it as much as people to consume chemical, GMO, nuclear or electromagnetic, it is the freedom of choice… when there is possible choice!

That's what I said: too simplistic!

You seem to be amalgamating a research sector and its applications.

Let's develop a little:
Nuclear for or against? But what exactly is nuclear:
Deterrent weapons, industrial processes to make electricity, or means to make x-rays, radiotherapies etc ...

The same goes for GMOs: most GMOs are used to make medicines (for or against?), Food (global food subjugation project), or basic research.

What is electromagnetic? mobile telephony, MRI ???

It is not research that must be condemned but certain applications.

Another example: vivisection.
It is an abominable practice which is still widely used in the medical world, the development of cosmetics, etc.
However it is now possible to carry out in vivo tests on human cells (with much greater efficiency) ... yet to achieve this, it was necessary to have recourse to methods widely criticized by certain groups ... which now defend its methods!

[Janic]

obamot

There are still good pharmaceutical products that save lives: let's not forget. The "firefighter" medicine that comes to extinguish fires is essential, even if it is the one that costs the most!

Of course, in a few limited cases, the brutal method can prove to be effective (like an atomic bomb) but is it the right one and above all the only alternative. People have little choice, chemical medicine has imposed itself on the medical profession which hardly knows any other alternative (except to return to university to learn other less aggressive modes of care).

In addition, it is necessary to preserve all the possibilities of the therapeutic arsenal.

It is not an opposition to the therapeutic arsenal (which should be as broad as possible) but the exclusive imposition of products (of the pharmaceutical industry) of synthetic origin which poses problem as much to the doctor, to whom the choice is not left, only to the patient who no longer knows anything else.

It is within the limits of the above answer and depending on the person treated. And if we are "ready" for an immediate profit at the expense of a weakening of the species ... But that's not what I recommend except for those who are no longer in a position to procreate.

Difficult to meet the conditions without falling into eugenics!

Janic wrote:
The only way to verify this is precisely by consulting the official archives, which will testify to the real, relative or zero, or even dangerous, effectiveness of the means used.

Even thornier than that! To carry out double-blind clinical tests etc ... We take everyone and anyone. Except you should only take healthy subjects! Yes but what does "healthy" mean ...? There should be subjects who followed a drastic diet for five years, isolated from any chemical pollution and consuming only unpolluted food or treated with synthetic products and with a good physical condition requiring the regular practice of a sport. There yes, we would have the beginning of the beginning of something reliable. In fact, the same consideration as when you resume studies from the days of Pasteur ...

In fact, things are getting more and more complicated, making all clinical trials suspect;

For the anecdote, the rare times when I have to take a pain reliever / antipyretic like Paracetamol, if I take the dose "adult", I am completely stoned

Pov 'of you! I don't even have an aspirin tablet in my pharmacy, no pharmacy either! But I have the equivalent in my garden!

About priorities, certainly! Take the example of calcium metabolism:
- having a correct diet will not be enough, if you do not go a little in the sun ... (taking some precautions.)!
- and even ... if we do not make a physical effort, it will not be enough either, since it takes "pressure" to fix the calcium! etc.

These are extreme cases! not very valid for the majority of populations.

When I heard the "good priorities", that is what I meant ... and that we cannot start from the point of view that some would be dishonest to justify or not the merits of getting vaccinated! It doesn't make much sense. And that in any case does not take the problem by the right end of the spyglass. If we “feel guilty”, it is good that deep down, we have the intuition that we did not do enough upstream! So yes, when we understand that and that we are motivated to take charge of our health: everything matters, but it should not be like a mountain: so we can set fun priorities that make us want to continue! And who put our foot in the stirrup to place the bar always a little higher. If desired.

Good move! in this sense I agree, you should not want to swallow everything at once!

Give them time to find out ... In the meantime the industry will have been reformed! (We can dream...)

Ouarf, ouarf! dreams and utopia are also basic needs ... without forgetting religion as you might say!: cheesy: But time is sometimes what is missing! To tell parents whose children are victims of vaccine "accidents" that in a few decades, perhaps, we will see that their kid died for plums: what consolation!

[Janic]

Sen no sen

You seem to be amalgamating a research sector and its applications.

luckily not!

Let's develop a little:
Nuclear for or against? But what exactly is nuclear:
Deterrent weapons, industrial processes to make electricity, or means to make x-rays, radiotherapies etc ...

It doesn't make any difference, radiation is dangerous for health, whether on an industrial level or "health". We precisely confuse the industrial process applied to matter and the process applied to living things, it is the small nuance that is not very well understood. The technological application in radiotherapy (which as a technician, I recognize the performance) ended up serving as justification for the rest. The product is also dangerous and will go to reprocessing like those of the local power station with its risks over a few thousand years.

The same goes for GMOs: most GMOs are used to make medicines (for or against?), Food (global food subjugation project), or basic research.

As long as it is basic research that will never come out of the labs where what matters is the acquisition of knowledge for knowledge: why not ?! But unfortunately, all research ends up finding an industrial application whose consequences on life are not measured with sufficient hindsight. (The first nuclear tests were done without protection, and now the victims are suing the state for exposure to radiation.)
GMOs for making drugs obey the same rules: we do not know and in a few years the victims will rise up against the State, the doctors, the labs to obtain recognition as a victim and possibly reparation (except when we are dead). For food, it is the same thing, the first consequences are beginning to emerge as much with farmers as with consumers as for the products of treatment.

What is electromagnetic? mobile telephony, MRI ???

And the rest too!

It is not research that must be condemned but certain applications.

It is the least that one can say but a fundamental research (especially concerning the business of the disease) without industrial outlets: do you know any?

Another example: vivisection.
It is an abominable practice which is still widely used in the medical world, the development of cosmetics, etc.
However, it is now possible to carry out in vivo tests on human cells (with much greater efficiency) ...

illusion! The first tests in vitro, not in vivo, on human cells are followed by the same tests on animals (which will then be vivisected for control) and then on voluntary human guinea pigs (that is to say for remuneration) a priori not vivisected them, at least we can hope! It's just the first stage that is biased!

however to achieve this, it was necessary to have recourse to methods widely criticized by certain groups ... which now defend its methods!

To give yourself a clear conscience and to be able to smear your face and the rest of "healthy" products or to continue to absorb products whose toxicity has not been revealed at these different stages !? The aim is not to preserve health, but to distribute products whose toxicity is sufficiently reduced so that signs of intoxication are not immediately perceptible and therefore allow its marketing. I remind you that any drug placed on the market having received its Marketing Authorization is only so if the benefit is superior at risk, not without risk! Like the products currently challenged with the pick.