reply to post by kiwifoot
I agree that the only rigorous way of testing a virus vaccine’s effectiveness in humans is for the participants to be exposed to the pathogen. While
in vitro testing can indicate possible outcomes it is no substitute for real-life situations. However, as a placebo test group do not know that they
have not really been given the vaccine under trial, finding volunteers would be nigh-on impossible…
Originally posted by saint4God
Here's hoping, and let's test even the results. If even 1 life was saved by the vaccine (say for example yours), would it be worth it?
Well, we can use that argument, but on the other hand we can also look at it like this: in the trial we are looking at, the difference between the two
groups worked out at around 1 person in 400 infected or not infected, depending on which group. I wouldn’t feel at all protected by a vaccine that
offered those odds.
Originally posted by corvin77
reply to post by JustMike
…When I read the article this morning, I was dumbstruck that anyone could actually even consider this a possible vaccine by these means of research
and results, in my eyes there is absolutely no indication that this vaccine actually even works.
Whats even worse, this reseach has cost a whopping £100 Million for these insignificant results. I cannot help wonder how this research has actually
cost so much…
Yes, and very few scientists who are not in the pay of certain big pharma companies or govt entities would even credit these results as showing
anything at all. They have all had it hammered into them during their studies and after that statistics must be presented correctly and assessed
objectively, which this report does not.
A major factor in the huge cost in such a long-term survey is the need for extensive laboratory analysis of the samples taken from the participants,
both at the outset (pre-Trial) and every six months thereafter, along with full physical exams of them all as well. This requires a fair number of lab
specialists, top-quality equipment including electron microscopes and other nice toys, and of course a whole bunch of medical doctors. Then there are
the support staff for the counseling and of course the office people as well. Just producing the vaccine at trial stage is also very costly.
I think, all in all I have these questions:
- Why did it cost so much? Another excuse for disappearing public funds?
- Why the big hype (News) with no significant (provable) results for a vacine still in trial stage?
- Could this be just more vaccine pushing propaganda?
- Is it only me, or is it really fishy and coincidence this comes out 1 day after the succesful skin cancer meds hype (Which is only in trial stages
- Breaking news today, just as scientists predicted, October will have high swine flu cases, as they are already showing an increase in the UK with
October around the corner...yet tempratures have not even started dropping...wonder how they so acurately predicted a major variable?
To say that I am sceptical, would be an over statement!
I guess you mean understatement.
But like you I’m not just skeptical, I’m appalled at the fact that even Dr Sanjay Gupta on CNN has presented
this story as if it’s a big deal -- and has quoted that “31%” figure, which he has to know is nonsensical and unscientific. Considering that Dr
Gupta’s name was put out as a possible US Surgeon General that’s disturbing. So yes, there are some shenanigans going on.
I hadn’t heard about the skin cancer meds so can’t comment on that except to say that sometimes these news releases might seem co-incidental, but
we have to bear in mind that these studies get published in major medical journals. This means that two or three of these reports can break on the
news at around the same time if they are either just published, or due to be published in an upcoming journal issue.
About the increase in UK swine flu cases. They’ve had a raft of cases all through summer as well and scientists were scratching their heads as to
why, because traditionally, flu cases drop off in summer. But I wonder if they’ve considered how wet the summer was? Higher humidity can increase
the chances of airborne transfer of infectious viruses.
edit to add:
Just been wondering whether big pharma, is now being exploited by TPTB to compensate for losses from the banking crisis. Maybe even becoming their new
income source as audit trails in research are harder to establish.
[edit on 9/24/2009 by corvin77]
Well, big pharma has been exploiting the people -- I mean, TPTB have been exploiting big pharma’s fear-driven areas of business for a long time.
Doubtful that the pharma companies’ earnings/taxes could offset banking crisis losses by any appreciable amount, but every penny helps I guess.
reply to post by angelx666
That’s an interesting angle you’ve presented. I would have thought that the Italians would follow WHO guidelines as a general rule, along with
those of the EU. If you can obtain more information about the Italians’ perspective I’m sure we’d be interested.
I do feel the need to comment on your following statement:
there is no HIV at all and no such things as Viruses (confirmed by me)
I would like to know how you confirmed that viruses do not exist. Are you a microbiologist? Those who specialize in viruses are called virologists,
but I assume you aren’t a virologist as you say that viruses don’t exist. So, how did you confirm their non-existence? Do you have access to
electron microscopes, for example, and have you done many detailed studies of patients infected with (say) the common cold -- which is claimed to have
around 100 virus variants -- and found that none of these patients were infected with any viruses at all? I’m sure we would all be interested to
know because if viruses don’t exist and it’s known that the common cold is not a bacterial infection, then what is the pathogen?
If you could reply with some details and perhaps links to any research you have published that confirms your statement that there are no viruses, then
I am sure we’d all appreciate it very much.
Edit to add: by the way Angelx666, Italy does have a national registry of HIV infection and its data were accessed for the study entitled
Epidemiological changes in AIDS and HIV infection in Italy
, which was published in the Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases
35, issue S106, Dec 2003, and whose extract can be accessed here
. So the
statement you have reproduced in your post -- that claims "no national registry of HIV infection is implemented" -- is false.
[edit on 25/9/09 by JustMike]