forums energies: society, ecology and clean technologies

The subject back on the mat a few times as devote a subject. This subject is widely debated on the web and strangely little or no by éconologistes yet on the lookout for anything that may pollute.

I am not for this kind of "controversial subject" which gives a certain extremist image to forum...

And above already discussed about H1N1: https://www.econologie.com/forums/vaccinatio ... t8852.html

Question that has no place!
For or against = dualistic approach aimed at the division of viewpoints.

There are not to be for or against, but determined in which case vaccination is actually useful.
It is the same thing on many "controversial" subjects ex: video surveillance, imprisonment, armed force etc ...
There are no standard answers, but only case by case.

christophe hello

I am not for this kind of "controversial subject" which gives a certain extremist image to forum...

Is your legitimacy to refuse this, it is your site.
Otherwise if you want to avoid all subjects "controversy" it will remain much more if people always and on any agreement between them.
While ecology is in itself controversial ... and even extremist!
For the extremist image of forumit would be the case if its moderators took a stand for or against because to be for it is as extremist as to be against. I was thinking rather of information that does not go through most other conformist channels.

And above already discussed about H1N1, type in H1N1 https://www.econologie.com/forums/search.php

I followed the subject (here and elsewhere) which concerned ce product in question and the conditions around him rather than the same principle with its advantages and disadvantages.

sen-no-sen wrote:Question that has no place!
For or against = dualistic approach aimed at the division of viewpoints.

There are not to be for or against, but determined in which case vaccination is actually useful.

1 +!

Vaccination yes! The pressure on vaccination pharma lobbies and generate life complications or allergies ... no thank you!

Beautiful answer: do not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Vaccination has already saved hundreds of (millions?) Of lives and saved huge sums of money for social security: have you ever seen the cost of a "case" of polio? or even "simple" tuberculosis?

It should however for the government not to be gouged by gangsters blouses and white collar.

sen NOSEN

For or against = dualistic approach to ensuring the viewpoints division

I agree with you, but it is this type of "poll" that wants it! People will soon be voting and the same question will be asked of them with 3/4 options and finally only 2.

There are not to be for or against, but determined in which case vaccination is actually useful.

Always agree, but this requires a broader information than the official discourse, even based on their own information and figures.

It is the same thing on many "controversial" subjects ex: video surveillance, imprisonment, armed force etc ...

Or nuclear power, genetic engineering and GMOs, chemicals and other endocrine disruptors, asbestos, etc ... that make millions of deaths on the world.

There are no standard answers, but only case by case.

Difficult to make a case by case 65 million French relevant!
Example: in the Human and Experimental Toxicology review a study of the United States and countries 33 "the assumption made by the researchers is to link the deaths of infants with survaccination .... Two thirds of babies who died of SIDS had received the vaccine dt polio. These babies 6,5% died within hours of vaccination 12, 13% in 24 hours 26 3% in the days and 37% 61 70% and%, one, two and three weeks respectively. In conclusion the study shows that " the vaccine could be a major cause ignored Sudden infant death syndrome and the risks of vaccination may outweigh the benefits »
Nothing in the controversy, it's just a study to verify, but respect all parents from having a baby or pending.
Where to find this kind of information in official sources?

Poll of the same kind: A comparison of the policy of Kim Jong Il, you find the NS policy: good, bad, do not say!

Cheers for handling!

Janic know nothing of conditional probabilities, well clear in the text that quotes without giving the exact precise reference with its link to the article he cites, once again, what prevents accurate verification to forge a rigorous scientific opinion !!

Janic, as with many other things, makes an incredible salad in probabilities, essential in epidemiological studies and not at all obvious, enabling full manipulation.
Every word counts and has a sense rather gargle of Janic.

Finally, vaccinations are varied and therefore a general survey of all mixed vaccinations, is a real scam,, Religious creed, mixing vaccinations saving millions of lives with other much less effective, almost comfort and questionable.

In principle "against" in the current state, but it still depends for whom!

At what age? Depending on what metabolism?
And all this assuming of course that we have vaccines without squalene, reserved for the elite as too expensive to produce ...

The most interesting is that vaccines against viruses and that a healthy person should be able to defend themselves without!

It remains to define what a "healthy" subject