Vaccinations and health ... for or against?

How to stay healthy and prevent risks and consequences on your health and public health. occupational disease, industrial risks (asbestos, air pollution, electromagnetic waves ...), company risk (workplace stress, overuse of drugs ...) and individual (tobacco, alcohol ...).

vaccinations

You can select 1 option

 
 
Consult the results
User avatar
BaudouinLabrique
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 318
Registration: 11/02/18, 18:17
Location: Hainaut (Belgium)
x 54

Re: Vaccinations and health ... for or against?




by BaudouinLabrique » 15/02/18, 17:26

Janic wrote:
Recall that the French Senate in June 2008 act "that there is no scientific evidence on the usefulness of vaccines! (Source)

President Jean-Michel Dubernard, MP, estimated lack of scientific data to assess the usefulness of vaccines.
Mr. Eric Guez considered that mistrust of the vaccine is, in France, a lack of confidence in the results.
President Jean-Michel Dubernard, MP, agreed, recalling that there is no scientific evidence on the usefulness of vaccines
http://www.senat.fr/compte-rendu-commissions/20070604/sante.html

Moreover, for those who read all this report, none of the interlocutors representing the vaccine lobby intervened to say that it was false, so it is indeed an implicit recognition "that there is no scientific evidence on the usefulness of vaccines"

and following this commission, the Senate voted majority for 11 vaccines, but Dubernard (provaccins it seems) is only a deputy, not a senator! Our provaccines has therefore still had a memory failure and its pseudo-scientific sources have not read it either!


In fact, to be exact it is the 6 June 2007 and so there is more than 10 years that it was recorded in the Senate.
Considering the fact that Jean-Michel Dubernard, MP seems to have reached a strange and selective amnesia!

In the "Absurdie" (Cf my compatriot Stéphane de Groodt)) that France has become, here is another surrealist element:

It is claimed everywhere and without any false note that medicine can only be based on scientific evidence (" Evidence Based Medicine And the other medicines are opposed to it.

In his conclusion of a long article superbly argued and nuanced (Prove at all costs the effectiveness of psychotherapy: scientific and political issues),
the renowned Professor and specialist Nicolas Duruz from the University of Lausanne concludes:
« We must not be more royalist than the king: from different international surveys, it appears that only 10 to 20% of acts in medicine are proven effective according to evidence-based-medicine »!!!

Not based on any scientific evidence, Vaccination is therefore part of the 80 90% of medical procedures that are NOT based on Evidence-Based-Medicine, but that does not bother the too many members of the medical profession (and some posteurs here) who adhere to it religiously, with the venal blessing urbi and orbi of Big Pharma (who watches over the grain)!

NB In such circumstances, paradoxical, but above all unjust, that scientists who do not admit it (a reminder, to accept as true only that which is proved by science) make a very bad and unfair trial at the address of the most unconventional medicines! They should also rebel against the fact that 80 90% of medical procedures are not based on scientific evidence and especially the (juicy) vaccination that is one of the very 'beautiful' jewels!
0 x
«There are those who see things as they are and wonder why. Me, I see them as they could be and I say to myself: why not! (Sir Bernard Shaw)
« The future belongs to those who see the possibilities before they become obvious. (Theodore Levitt).
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Vaccinations and health ... for or against?




by izentrop » 15/02/18, 18:15

The word of a deputy as scientific proof : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: A scoop, a real : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: We fall more and more low :( :x
0 x
User avatar
BaudouinLabrique
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 318
Registration: 11/02/18, 18:17
Location: Hainaut (Belgium)
x 54

Re: Vaccinations and health ... for or against?




by BaudouinLabrique » 15/02/18, 18:34

izentrop wrote:The word of a deputy as scientific proof : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: A scoop, a real : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: We fall more and more low :( :x

What a bad faith: he summarized what was discussed at length in the round table and the (collective) conclusion that was drawn on behalf of all those who participated: it was not his personal opinionIs it intelligible enough? : roll: )
You have to know how to read but probably some deforming glasses are there for something ....
0 x
«There are those who see things as they are and wonder why. Me, I see them as they could be and I say to myself: why not! (Sir Bernard Shaw)
« The future belongs to those who see the possibilities before they become obvious. (Theodore Levitt).
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Vaccinations and health ... for or against?




by Janic » 15/02/18, 18:44

Based on no scientific evidence, vaccination is therefore part of the 80% 90% of medical procedures that are NOT based on Evidence-Based-Medicine, but that does not bother the too many members of the medical profession ( and some postmen here) who adhere to it religiously, with the venal blessing urbi and orbi of Big Pharma (who watches over the grain)!

exact! in Autrec's 1967 wrote a book on the charlatans of medicine, implicating less the doctors themselves than the system which made these doctors ineffective according to the means proposed by the system. Today, 50 years later, the situation has worsened still further and these doctors have become passive prescribers of the pharmaceutical industry with its thousands of useless and dangerous drugs (rant from Prof. Even "Guide to 4 useful, unnecessary or dangerous drugs ")
How could a doctor not only know by heart these 4.000 products and even more the cumulative effects of these that even the pharmaceutical industry does not, given the exorbitant cost and infinitely long that it would represent? We are only guinea pigs!

izentrop wrote:
The word of a deputy as scientific proof: A scoop, a real one, We fall more and more low
He is a member of Parliament like other doctors are among senators, deputies, mayors, etc., you did not even bother to read his biography. But here it is not only his opinion but also and above all that his double affirmation is not disputed, not even a whisper, by the representatives of the pharmaceutical industries.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Vaccinations and health ... for or against?




by izentrop » 16/02/18, 20:42

BaudouinLabrique wrote:
izentrop wrote:The word of a deputy as scientific proof : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: A scoop, a real : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: We fall more and more low :( :x

What a bad faith: he summarized what was discussed at length in the round table and the (collective) conclusion that was drawn on behalf of all those who participated: it was not his personal opinionIs it intelligible enough? : roll: )
You have to know how to read but probably some deforming glasses are there for something ....
According to an estimate of the World Health Organization (WHO), three million lives are saved each year in the world thanks to vaccination, able today to prevent twenty-six infectious diseases and fight diseases that remain endemic in some developing countries (measles, polio, tetanus or whooping cough). http://www.senat.fr/compte-rendu-commis ... sante.html
The mass is said and the little phrase of the deputy is out of touch. : Mrgreen:
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Vaccinations and health ... for or against?




by Janic » 17/02/18, 10:00

According to AN estimate of the World Health Organization (WHO), three million lives are saved each year in the world through vaccination, able today to prevent twenty-six infectious diseases and fight diseases that remain endemic in some developing countries (measles, polio, tetanus or pertussis). http://www.senat.fr/compte-rendu-commis ... health.html
the mass is said and the little sentence of the mistress is off the subject of the blows.

And he clings to his lead buoy, the guy! It is remarkable such perseverance to sink! Any idiot, even before reading this report and considering its constitution, could already anticipate its content and its conclusions, Professor Dubernard just put a little pebble in the machine.
So again,
1. The WHO's investigation of cash investigation had shown that it was the governments of the acceding countries that financed this organization, and then, gradually, private funds replaced these contributions to the point, as this excerpt shows below. WHO, that the public funds are now only 7%, the rest coming from the big pharmaceutical groups that hold the WHO and therefore they make their promotions through this intermediary. (what the WHO interviewee barely contested)

Voluntary contributions
WHO's program budget is funded through a combination of assessed contributions and voluntary contributions.
Voluntary contributions come from Member States (in addition to their fixed contribution) or from various partners. In recent years, voluntary contributions have accounted for more than three quarters of the Organization's funding.
Voluntary contributions range from flexible payments to clearly designated payments. Core voluntary contributions are funds provided to WHO that are fully flexible at the program budget or at the category level, and are an important component of the WHO funding model.
Core voluntary contributions allow less well funded activities to benefit from a better flow of resources and to mitigate bottlenecks in implementation for lack of immediate funding. Improved funding flexibility is therefore a key principle of the WHO funding dialogue. Yet only 7% of all voluntary contributions for the 2014-2015 exercise were made to the core voluntary contributions account.

2. An announcement is not a proof! This speaker would have just as well say 10.000 as 10.000.000, it does not cost the effects of announcement. Indeed, for a quantification to be made, it is necessary to have comparative elements scientifically established with the mastery of all the parameters concerned. But here, weird, nothing but figures balanced around without precise documents and especially independent.
3. Previously the analysis of this same statement of the WHO had been seen:
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 2 to 3 million lives are saved each year through this simple act of prevention.

This figure is impossible to prove because it would require a comparison, all things being equal, with an unvaccinated population, which in our regions becomes difficult or impossible to find. As for countries with health development in full change, the level of general hygiene (a simple act of prevention as the current messages on the media for the flu) is increasing and thus drastically reduces infections and epidemics. WHO has largely emphasized and recognized before being snapped up by private interests and mainly the labs (investigation of Elise Lucet mediatized on FR2) who make from there then their own promotion!

4. Because as your text begins, it is only a question ofUNE only study (paid by whom?)
5. Your holes of memory make you forget this:
Also note the position of the national college of general teachers (swindlers then in the opinion of Izentrop on Joyeux): " the vaccination obligation is a simplistic and inappropriate position, there is no scientific evidence to show that this measure leads to better protection, especially for children. It is to be feared that its authoritarian nature reinforces the mistrust and suspicion of a growing part of the population "
National College of General Practitioners Teachers "how to improve immunization coverage: consultations or obligations? »27 June 2017


6. thanks to vaccination, able today to prevent twenty-six infectious diseases and fight diseases that remain endemic in some developing countries (measles, polio, tetanus or pertussis).
Since when are measles, tetanus, polio, rubella and mumps endemic in France?
Now your article specifies: for endemic regions ... when we had only 10 fatal cases of measles in 10 years and that there is more diphtheria, more rubella, mumps and everything to the rider.
http://invs.santepubliquefrance.fr/fr.. ... iologiques
http://invs.santepubliquefrance.fr/fr.. ... iologiques
http://invs.santepubliquefrance.fr/Doss ... iologiques
As shown in their graph (all there is official so) compulsory vaccination comes at a time when the number of cases had drastically dropped and therefore the vaccination is not for nothing (although they attribute to the vaccination that starts). It is here that we see that their argument is completely foolish, since according to their own literature 95% of vaccinated is needed to have sufficient protective cover, which was precisely not the case here; moreover their graph shows that they use a peak of cases to self-justify themselves whereas they could have used an average in previous years (the vpo reached this average in 1962 as it was in 1956) and as it was also at that time that the waters, carrying the viruses, are sanitized, so more or fewer transmissions.
For the anecdote, and that other people of my generation have also known: In 1959, I spent my holidays in a Breton family that had just been installed electricity and running water (and no longer the water from the well near the manure pile), the soil was still in the dirt and the small animals came in, went out, leaving some memories in passing.
Hygiene is the first and most recognized factor in the regression of epidemics and not some ineffective and dangerous vaccines, except for the business of course!
Clear "having reason to believe does not mean having reason to believe "of....????
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
BaudouinLabrique
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 318
Registration: 11/02/18, 18:17
Location: Hainaut (Belgium)
x 54

Re: Vaccinations and health ... for or against?




by BaudouinLabrique » 17/02/18, 11:12

izentrop wrote:]
According to an estimate of the World Health Organization (WHO), three million lives are saved each year worldwide through immunization, today able to prevent twenty-six infectious diseases and fight diseases that remain endemic in some countries. development (measles, polio, tetanus or pertussis). http://www.senat.fr/compte-rendu-commis ... sante.html
The mass is said and the little phrase of the deputy is out of touch. : Mrgreen:

"According to an estimate"and therefore which is not based on any proof and for good reason since there is none and there will never be any for reasons explained widely above.

What the French Senate did in June 2007 is a finding "there is no evidence of vaccine effectiveness"

Sorry if you apparently do not know the French language or the Logic!
0 x
«There are those who see things as they are and wonder why. Me, I see them as they could be and I say to myself: why not! (Sir Bernard Shaw)
« The future belongs to those who see the possibilities before they become obvious. (Theodore Levitt).
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Vaccinations and health ... for or against?




by izentrop » 17/02/18, 23:16

BaudouinLabrique wrote: it's a finding "there is no evidence of vaccine effectiveness"
Sorry if you apparently do not know the French language or the Logic!
By taking the right statistics, the evidence is clearly established https://theierecosmique.com/2015/09/28/ ... s-vaccins/
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15995
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5189

Re: Vaccinations and health ... for or against?




by Remundo » 18/02/18, 08:36

it would be nice to stop bickering no?

if you reason about millions of people vaccinated, the influence on health is statistically very positive.

if you reason about the few cases of vaccinated people who develop a vaccine problem, it is something else.

The whole debate is here ...

Personally I was to maintain the DT-Polyo and not to make hexavalent, then 11-valents compulsory, especially on very small babies whose immune system is fragile.
0 x
Image
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Vaccinations and health ... for or against?




by Janic » 18/02/18, 09:29

By taking the right statistics, the evidence is clearly established https://theierecosmique.com/2015/09/28/ ... s-vaccines /

Ouarf, ouarf! Your two pseudo-scientific sects are reduced to looking for truncated statistics in America rather than using those which correspond to OUR French situation coming from the very official organization that is the INPES, the only truly valid reference (even if it is analysable differently than this service). Unless you are afraid of its reality!
In fact, the statistics begin seriously in the middle of the Xth century, and therefore, in this case, the curves represented should include all the preceding statistics, at least until the beginning of the Xth century, and your zigotos take care not to do it for all. because not supporting their speech.
Examine the polio chart, and what do you see? A very low rate of 5 case on average (in 1938 it even goes down to 2 case / 100.000, WITHOUT VACCINES, followed by a sharp rise to find its previous average in 1960. The question is: what has caused this peak of 1916, with a sudden relapse (still without vaccines) and another peak of 1942 1957 with again a descent to find its usual average, vaccines or not.
And as hygiene conditions become more and more important, especially the improvement of drinking water, (officially recognized as its main cause and already demonstrated documents in hand), cases of morbidity and mortality tend towards 0, whether in America or Europe, but not in Africa for example.
On the other hand, European statistics show the opposite, as regards the impact of vaccines, of those presented by the pseudo-scientific sect.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré

Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 303 guests