Croatian Constitutional Court Upholds Mandatory Child Vaccination

Grimpachi
PERSPECTIVE

According to Schaffner, studies have showed the flu vaccine to be about 40 percent effective overall in the elderly. He expressed optimism to CBSNews.com in January because the H3N2 influenza A strain the committee selected prior to the start of the flu season was a "bull's-eye hit" for the strain causing most of the illnesses this year. That remains true, he said Thursday, which is why today's findings in seniors were so puzzling.

As dismal as the numbers looked, he said, there needs to be perspective. The vaccine was still 27 percent effective overall for seniors over 65 years. For that age group, there aren't other preventive disease-fighting approaches as effective, he said. He also added that the better protection rates reported in children and adults under 65 suggest people in those age groups were less likely to give influenza to older people.

"You have to add in all the benefits before you give the influenza vaccine a thumbs down," said Schaffner.

Flu surveillance reports released by the CDC in recent months have shown adults 65 and older account for more than half of the Americans who have been hospitalized because of the flu.

27% > 0%

as even Dr.'s at the WHO have admitted they are pointless profit machines.

So the above statement that was made was not factual?

Schaffner never worked for the WHO . . . as was already pointed out by myself . . .

The doctors linked to in this article do not work for the WHO, but if you start checking for the rates by year and look up the doctor's pedigree it is a very simple task.

Are you really trying to insinuate that unvaccinated people have no immunity to the flu?

This sort of crap is why I loose patience with these threads.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


I understand Schaffner never worked for the WHO, but you left out the part that put things into perspective. 27% effectiveness is better than 0% effectiveness with that strain. I hope you agree. I never insinuate that unvaccinated people have no immunity.





By not addressing the question about your statement of the WHO are you saying you couldn't find anything to back up your claim of

Dr.'s at the WHO have admitted they are pointless profit machines.

?????

Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

I understand Schaffner never worked for the WHO, but you left out the part that put things into perspective. 27% effectiveness is better than 0% effectiveness with that strain. I hope you agree. I never insinuate that unvaccinated people have no immunity.

-FBB

Once you get around to providing folks with some info on the difference between efficacy and effectiveness you may also want to include information into the statistical analysis as well as criteria for such.

Study: Getting flu shot 2 years in a row may lower protection
www.cidrap.umn.edu...

An additional finding was that the vaccine did not seem to protect participants who were exposed to flu in their own household, though the numbers in that arm of the study were small.

Researchers from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the University of Hong Kong collaborated with University of Michigan researchers on the study, with Suzanne E. Ohmit, DrPH, of Michigan as the lead author.

The findings come amid a growing number of studies that raise questions about flu vaccine effectiveness (VE). They include, among others, last week's CDC report that this year's vaccine has worked poorly in elderly people and three recent European studies showing that vaccine-induced immunity in the 2011-12 season waned after 3 to 4 months. Other studies have cast doubt on the long-standing belief that a close match between the vaccine virus strains and circulating strains improves VE.

A Cohort Study of the Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in Older People, Performed Using the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database
jid.oxfordjournals.org...

Results. The pooled effectiveness of vaccine against hospitalizations for acute respiratory disease was 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17%–26%). The rate reduction attributable to vaccination was 4.15 hospitalizations/100,000 person-weeks in the influenza season. Among vaccine recipients, no important reduction in the number of admissions to the hospital was seen outside influenza seasons. The pooled effectiveness of vaccine against deaths due to respiratory disease was 12% (95% CI, 8%–16%). A greater proportionate reduction was seen among people without medical disorders, but absolute rate reduction was higher in individuals with medical disorders, compared with individuals without such disorders (6.14 deaths due to respiratory disease/100,000 person-weeks vs. 3.12 deaths due to respiratory disease/100,000 person-weeks). Clear protection against death due to all causes was not seen.

. . .

Among the 125 people who tested positive for flu, 59% had been vaccinated at least 14 days before their illness onset, long enough for an immune response. The infection risk in the vaccinated people was 8.5% (74 of 866), versus 8.9% (51 of 575) in the unvaccinated individuals.

Effectiveness of Inactivated Influenza Vaccines in Preventing Influenza-Associated Deaths and Hospitalizations among Ontario Residents Aged ≥65 Years: Estimates with Generalized Linear Models Accounting for Healthy Vaccinee Effects
www.plosone.org...

Results

During weeks when 5% of respiratory specimens tested positive for influenza A, vaccine effectiveness among persons aged ≥65 years was 22% (95% confidence interval [CI], −6%–42%) for all influenza-associated deaths, 25% (95% CI, 13%–37%) for deaths occurring within 30 days after an influenza-associated pneumonia/influenza hospitalization, and 19% (95% CI, 4%–31%) for influenza-associated pneumonia/influenza hospitalizations. Because small proportions of deaths, deaths after pneumonia/influenza hospitalizations, and pneumonia/influenza hospitalizations were associated with influenza virus circulation, we estimated that vaccination prevented 1.6%, 4.8%, and 4.1% of these outcomes, respectively.
Conclusions

By using confounding-reducing techniques with 15 years of provincial-level data including vaccination and health outcomes, we estimated that influenza vaccination prevented ~4% of influenza-associated hospitalizations and deaths occurring after hospitalizations among older adults in Ontario.

I have previously linked the OP to the CDC's website where they state that vaccination programs are non-effective against pandemic strains such as the Spanish-flu. Meaning they would do little to nothing to prevent such outbreaks.

Furthermore vaccination rates against influenza and death rates do not show particular statistical significance.

That is why I stated that at least they didn't make flu-vaccination mandatory.

There are effective methods and ineffective methods and unlike clothing one size does not fit all. I am all for people actually being informed about what they are involving themselves with.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


I understand exactly what it means. Thanks anyway. Vaccine effectiveness can and has been measured, but I do not have the patience to explain that.


And just to be clear the 27% effectiveness number came from YOUR source. Perhaps you hadn't read the article you were quoting from. Here let me quote it for you again.

As dismal as the numbers looked, he said, there needs to be perspective. The vaccine was still 27 percent effective overall for seniors over 65 years. For that age group, there aren't other preventive disease-fighting approaches as effective, he said.

The thing I keep saying over and over is do you have anything to back up your claim of

Dr.'s at the WHO have admitted they are pointless profit machines.

???

But it seems like you want to avoid answering.

here are some facts though.

As an interactive map from the Council on Foreign Relations illustrates, several diseases that are easily prevented with vaccines have made a comeback in the past few years. Their resurgence coincides with changes in perceptions about vaccine safety. link

.......MMR...DTP/Dtap----Polio------Hib--------§ HepB

2008- 92.1---96.2-----------93.6-----90.9--------93.5
2009- 90-----95--------------92.8-----54.8--------92.4
2010- 91.5---95--------------93.3-----66.8-------91.8
2011- 91.6---95.5-----------93.9------80.4-------91
2012- 90.8---94.3-----------92.8------80.9-------89.7

cdc

reply to post by Grimpachi


It is clear you do not rely on actually informing individuals but would rather propagate propaganda insinuating I do not support any vaccination whatsoever. This is further evidenced by your refusal to stay on the topic of influenza in which you inquired but rather jump to any other disease possible to deflect attention away from actual scientific studies on the matter.

I seem to be the only individual actually presenting studies on the matter, a.k.a. science.


FYI VE IS A MEASUREMENT . . . IDK WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO STATE THERE . . .
www.cdc.gov...

How are benefits of vaccination measured?

Public health researchers measure how well flu vaccines work through different kinds of studies. “Randomized studies,” in which people are randomly assigned to receive either vaccine or placebo (i.e., salt water solution), and then followed to see how many in each group get the flu, are the “gold standard” (best method) for determining how well a vaccine works. The effects of vaccination measured in these studies is called “efficacy.”

“Observational studies” are studies in which subjects who choose to be vaccinated are compared to those who chose not to be vaccinated. This means that vaccination of study subjects is not randomized. The measurement of vaccine effects in an observational study is referred to as “effectiveness.” Randomized studies are expensive and are not conducted after a recommendation for vaccination has been issued, as withholding vaccine from people recommended for vaccination would place them at risk for infection, illness and possibly serious complications. For that reason, most U.S. studies conducted to determine the benefits of flu vaccination in the elderly are observational studies.

How does CDC present data on flu vaccine effectiveness?

CDC typically presents vaccine effectiveness (VE) as a single point estimate: for example, 60%. This point estimate represents the reduction in risk provided by the flu vaccine. CDC vaccine effectiveness studies commonly measure laboratory confirmed flu illness that results in a doctor’s visit or urgent care visit as an outcome. For this outcome, a VE point estimate of 60% means that the flu vaccine reduces a person’s risk of developing flu illness that results in a visit to the doctor’s office or urgent care provider by 60%.

In addition to the VE point estimate, CDC also provides a “confidence interval” (CI) for this point estimate, for example, 60% (95% CI: 50%-70%). The confidence interval provides a lower boundary for the VE estimate (e.g., 50%) as well as an upper boundary (e.g., 70%). One way to interpret a 95% confidence interval is that if CDC were to repeat this study 100 times, 95 times out of 100, the VE point estimate would fall within the confidence interval (i.e., on or between 50% and 70%). There is still the possibility that five times out of 100 (a 5% chance) that CDC’s point estimate of VE could fall outside of the 50%-70% confidence interval.

It is a simple enough task to find information pertaining to data selection and interpretation, so dive right in.

I encouraged you and others in this thread to do some actual research as opposed to continually spewing rhetoric and insinuate utter nonsense, but it seems you rather do the later.

If you wish to continue insinuating such lies I would suggest you find some actual quotes to corroborate such.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

This is further evidenced by your refusal to stay on the topic

You know I am real glad you wish to stay on topic because we seem to be drifting away from the question that was asked of you.

This thread wasn't about influenza however you did bring it up when you said.

At least mandatory influenza vaccination is not on the list as even Dr.'s at the WHO have admitted they are pointless profit machines. www.abovetopsecret.com...

To which the question has been asked several times if you can corroborate your claim that

influenza vaccination is not on the list as even Dr.'s at the WHO have admitted they are pointless profit machines.

Can you please stop deflecting attention away from the question and answer.

The thread wasn't about influenza, but you made a statement which I think you simply made up. I figured you were done so I went back in line with the thread but please if Dr's at the WHO actually are saying those things I want to know.

Come now pots shouldn't be antagonizing kettles.

Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

This is further evidenced by your refusal to stay on the topic

You know I am real glad you wish to stay on topic because we seem to be drifting away from the question that was asked of you.
This thread wasn't about influenza however you did bring it up when you said.

At least mandatory influenza vaccination is not on the list as even Dr.'s at the WHO have admitted they are pointless profit machines. www.abovetopsecret.com...

To which the question has been asked several times if you can corroborate your claim that

influenza vaccination is not on the list as even Dr.'s at the WHO have admitted they are pointless profit machines.

Can you please stop deflecting attention away from the question and answer.
The thread wasn't about influenza, but you made a statement which I think you simply made up. I figured you were done so I went back in line with the thread but please if Dr's at the WHO actually are saying those things I want to know.
Come now pots shouldn't be antagonizing kettles.

edit on 28-3-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

How do you know I haven't actually linked you directly to the answer already?

-FBB

EDIT
In the mean time, perhaps you may want to look over some of this data including private investigations by CBS into CDC health data which was refused by FOIA requests:
Swine Flu Cases Overestimated?
www.cbsnews.com...

If you've been diagnosed "probable" or "presumed" 2009 H1N1 or "swine flu" in recent months, you may be surprised to know this: odds are you didn't have H1N1 flu.

In fact, you probably didn't have flu at all. That's according to state-by-state test results obtained in a three-month-long CBS News investigation.

The ramifications of this finding are important. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Britain's National Health Service, once you have H1N1 flu, you're immune from future outbreaks of the same virus. Those who think they've had H1N1 flu -- but haven't -- might mistakenly presume they're immune. As a result, they might skip taking a vaccine that could help them, and expose themselves to others with H1N1 flu under the mistaken belief they won't catch it. Parents might not keep sick children home from school, mistakenly believing they've already had H1N1 flu.

. . .

In late July, the CDC abruptly advised states to stop testing for H1N1 flu, and stopped counting individual cases. The rationale given for the CDC guidance to forego testing and tracking individual cases was: why waste resources testing for H1N1 flu when the government has already confirmed there's an epidemic?

. . .

CBS News learned that the decision to stop counting H1N1 flu cases was made so hastily that states weren't given the opportunity to provide input. Instead, on July 24, the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists, CSTE, issued the following notice to state public health officials on behalf of the CDC

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Because I have not read anything you linked that stated as you have that

Dr.'s at the WHO have admitted they are pointless profit machines.

If I missed it apologies however I don't think I missed a statement such as that. I have never seen you miss a chance at proving a point so I am inclined to think you never linked it.

If such a statement from Dr's at the WHO exists I would like to see it. If you cant be bothered to quote and link the info then I think my inclination is probably correct. Seeing as how from the start I searched looking for info to back up your statement to no avail the odds are less than what you get with a coin toss of it being true.

Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Because I have not read anything you linked that stated as you have that

Dr.'s at the WHO have admitted they are pointless profit machines.

If I missed it apologies however I don't think I missed a statement such as that. I have never seen you miss a chance at proving a point so I am inclined to think you never linked it.

If such a statement from Dr's at the WHO exists I would like to see it. If you cant be bothered to quote and link the info then I think my inclination is probably correct. Seeing as how from the start I searched looking for info to back up your statement to no avail the odds are less than what you get with a coin toss of it being true.

edit on 28-3-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

I feel absolutely no obligation to provide you with material. On many occasions I have asked you for input and gotten a response of too impatient or otherwise uninterested in continuing on the matter. So I respond in kind.

I will let you know that the statement is not so direct. It is more in line with missed immunization goals and at a later date discussions concerning the financial impact of vaccination programs.

You of course are free to believe what you want.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Thank you it was exactly as I thought the Dr's from the WHO never said anything like what you claimed.

However, your articles did say.

"Our bottom line is that immunization is the most effective single thing you can do to protect yourself [from flu], and this isn't going to change what we say," Nicoll said. But he added, "It's an important finding, and this does now need to be looked at in the longer term and a larger cohort."

Influenza vaccination reduces the number of hospitalizations and deaths due to respiratory disease, after correction for confounding in individuals > years of age who had a high risk or a low risk for influenza. For elderly people, untargeted influenza vaccination is of confirmed benefit against serious outcomes.

By using confounding-reducing techniques with 15 years of provincial-level data including vaccination and health outcomes, we estimated that influenza vaccination prevented ~4% of influenza-associated hospitalizations and deaths occurring after hospitalizations among older adults in Ontario.

Even if the vaccine provides less protection in older adults than it might in younger people, some protection is better than no protection at all, especially in this high risk group......... While the protection elderly adults obtain from flu vaccination can vary significantly, a yearly flu vaccination is still the best protection currently available against the flu.........There are limited data to suggest that flu vaccination may reduce flu illness severity; so while someone who is vaccinated may still get infected, their illness may be milder........... Although flu vaccine is not perfect, the overall evidence supports the public health benefit of flu vaccination. Vaccination is particularly important for people 65 and older who are especially vulnerable to serious illness and death, despite the fact that the vaccine may not work as well in this age group.... Recent studies show vaccine can reduce the risk of flu illness by about 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are like the viruses the flu vaccine is designed to protect against.

Because of the uncertainties, the CDC advises even those who were told they had H1N1 to get vaccinated unless they had lab confirmation. "Persons who are uncertain about how they were diagnosed should get the 2009 H1N1 vaccine."

Nope nothing of the sort.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Where did I say that article was what you are claiming?

Oh wait . . . I didn't . . .

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

Where did I say that article was what you are claiming?

Oh wait . . . I didn't . . .

Those are quotes from all the articles you posted. lol

Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Where did I say that article was what you are claiming?
Oh wait . . . I didn't . . .

Those are quotes from all the articles you posted. lol

edit on 28-3-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

Apologies, I did not commit the entirety of each article to memory and assumed you were merely copying and pasting portions of the first one to suit your biased interest.

Your selective cut and paste efforts are cute though.

I like that you don't include any confidence intervals either, how charming and a clear indication of either your bias or lack of understanding. You also realize you are supporting mandatory vaccination of the entire population (as you stated previously) in order to achieve an ~4% reduction in serious hospital visits for the elderly.

Even more adorable is that you leave out the portions of the studies where repeated flu vaccination actually showed no beneficial results after having been previously vaccinated.

Should I link you to the other studies which demonstrate that the targeted vaccination of health professionals against the flu actually resulted in fewer cases of the flu then when all the population was inoculated?

You did say you don't see any reason not to mandate the flu vaccine.

You are either desperate, trying to troll me, or simply don't understand what you are quoting (highly unlikely that last one).

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

I did not commit the entirety of each article to memory and assumed

I am familiar with your posting habits.

Your selective cut and paste efforts are cute though.

I tried to mimic your style.

You also realize you are supporting mandatory vaccination of the entire population (as you stated previously)

Actually you made that up or you assume so.

Should I link you to the other studies

Only if they support your statement that

Dr.'s at the WHO have admitted they are pointless profit machines.www.abovetopsecret.com...

Which I have asked you to do all day to no avail.

You did say you don't see any reason not to mandate the flu vaccine.

Is that a question because if it is a statement you not only forgot what the articles you linked said but you have forgot what I have said.

You are either desperate, trying to troll me, or simply don't understand what you are quoting

I am neither desperate nor trolling I am simply trying to get a strait answer from you to see if you can corroborate your statement that.

At least mandatory influenza vaccination is not on the list as even Dr.'s at the WHO have admitted they are pointless profit machines.

So far with everything that has been posted you seem to be the only one who has made the claim.

Back on topic

Since Croatia made vaccinations universal in 1999 diphtheria, whooping cough and measles have disappeared entirely and tuberculosis has decreased by 93%, tetanus by 97% and hepatitis B by 65%.

Possibly because of this success, however, Croatia has experienced substantial resistance to what was once an uncontroversial policy. Having achieved universal vaccination for a decade (presumably excluding cases where there was a valid medical reason) 28 children went unvaccinated in 2012, according to official records, and in 2013 this climbed to 143. While these numbers are not enough to generate the sorts of outbreaks seen in the US and UK as a result of campaigns by anti-vax lobbyists, the direction is clear.

The potential scale of the revolt is indicated by 10,000 people signing a petition claiming, "the vaccination of healthy children poses a threat to their health." Inevitably the law was challenged in court, but the highest court in the land has now endorsed it. The decision has been hailed by the Croatian Medical Association and the Croatian Institute for Public Health.

The implications of a let up in vaccination regimes can be seen in Syria where the war has interrupted the childhood immunization program. As a result polio, recently confined to just three countries, is now spiraling out of control in Syria. Children, including those who make it to refugee camps in surrounding countries, are being sentenced to lifelong paralysis.


Read more at www.iflscience.com...

Let us hope that one day the world will be free of preventable diseases.

Grimpachi
Back on topic
Let us hope that one day the world will be free of preventable diseases.

Yes, it is a nice hope to have.

If you were familiar with my posting habits and this was an attempt to simulate them then I would suggest actually providing the citation of your source above the excerpt. Also I don't provide links through the option and instead post the url address so people don't have to hover their mouses or click on a an ambiguous link.

Since you are on the topic of mandatory vaccination in Croatia for non flu pathogens, perhaps I should inform you that the process actually began in the region before Croatia was separated from the communist block. The communist party had established mandatory vaccination in the region ahead of western nations, at least to the current extent.

Croatia
en.wikipedia.org...

In June 1991, Croatia declared independence, which came into effect on 8 October of the same year. The Croatian War of Independence was fought successfully during the four years following the declaration.

Interesting that this bit of news comes out now when just a few months ago this was national news for Croatia, and also the reason for which I was questioning what organization is tasked with handling the new vaccination schedules.

Croatia's vaccines manufacturer left hanging as it enters administration
22 January 2014Mićo Tatalović
www.rsc.org...

The Croatian Immunology Institute has entered administration and fired all of its workers – some 200 people, including research staff – despite being a profitable biotech firm with around 20 drugs and vaccines sold internationally.

The institute announced it was going into administration on 8 January, with an ensuing media furore and allegations of political corruption. Some claimed that the state was attempting to sell off parts of this key national asset that also makes discounted drugs and vaccines for the local market.

A long-term lack of investment in technology and premises in the capital Zagreb cost the institute first its World Health Organization (WHO) licence in 1998, and then its Croatian national drug agency licence to manufacture blood derivatives and bacterial vaccines last summer. These two products accounted for almost 80% of its profits in the last two years or around €5.7 million (£4.7 million) in 2012.

Ivan Tomac, president of a Croatian power and chemistry union, tells Chemistry World 'the Institute of Immunology has been neglected and outdated in terms of personnel, finance, organisation and technology'. Lack of investment and action from management meant that 'each year the institute sank deeper and deeper [into debt], which culminated in the loss of the production licence' for blood derivatives and bacterial vaccines last year.

. . .

The institute has faced difficulties ever since its partial privatisation in 1993, with the government maintaining 50% of shares. The number of employees has halved since 1991. In 1998, because its premises did not meet safety requirements it lost its WHO licence, but continued exporting products to countries that did not require this.

Wait . . . lost its license from the WHO but continued exporting this unlicensed vaccination product to other nations?

Are you privy on their involvement in the current mandate?

Are you comfortable with an unlicensed manufacturer of vaccines being responsible for an entire nation's vaccination shedule?

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


As far as the manufacturer goes.

The institute has since declared bankruptcy, given that most of its revenues were tied to it having the licences to manufacture and sell those products. But this was later annulled by a court and it is now undergoing restructuring and searching for private investors to allow it to restart some production. It has changed three directors in the last couple of months.

The institute’s downfall has been widely seen as a consequence of neglect by its majority shareholder, the Croatian government, and the government’s failure to invest in new technologies and infrastructure.
Vlatko Silobrčić, a fellow of Croatia’s science academy, who was director of the institute from 1992-1997, says the key problem of lack of investment in technology has plagued the organisation for years.

“Nothing concrete really changed [after I left],” he says. “Five management and supervisory boards changed, but the government still neglected its own role.”

It looks like they may have found some much needed investors.

At least two Croatia-based pharmaceutical firms have expressed an interest in investing in and partnering with the institute: PharmaS and Jadran Galenski Laboratorij, and media reports have also said there was interest from Biognost (Croatia), Grifols (Spain) and Octapharma (United Kingdom).

Sci Dev Net 10/02/14

It doesn't really matter what I am comfortable with nor am I aware if they have any other manufacturers that could pick up the slack while they restructure which is why I think their courts have said they can restart some manufacturing.

reply to post by Grimpachi


A body rejected by the WHO is producing vaccines for decades and you are okay with that?

You do realize this is the same government running the facility in partnership with private interests that just declared the mandatory vaccination schedule after its corporation couldn't find enough investors?

These are the people in charge of public health?
www.scidev.net...

Vlatko Silobrčić, a fellow of Croatia’s science academy, who was director of the institute from 1992-1997, says the key problem of lack of investment in technology has plagued the organisation for years.
“Nothing concrete really changed [after I left],” he says. “Five management and supervisory boards changed, but the government still neglected its own role.”

The institute’s key focus was on making medicinal blood derivatives, antitoxins and vaccines against bacterial and viral diseases.

Its products included vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria and meningitis A — and a rabies treatment.

. . .

As recently as last August, the institute signed a deal with HLL Biotech, a subsidiary of Indian government enterprise HLL Lifecare, to provide measles vaccines and technology transfer to enable the production of 80 million doses for the Indian market and possibly for China and other Asian countries.

I am curious if you are aware of the current WHO license status of these other vaccine producers?

If so, why not produce your source and set a good example?

-FBB

FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

A body rejected by the WHO is producing vaccines for decades and you are okay with that?

You do realize this is the same government running the facility in partnership with private interests that just declared the mandatory vaccination schedule after its corporation couldn't find enough investors?

These are the people in charge of public health?
www.scidev.net...

Vlatko Silobrčić, a fellow of Croatia’s science academy, who was director of the institute from 1992-1997, says the key problem of lack of investment in technology has plagued the organisation for years.
“Nothing concrete really changed [after I left],” he says. “Five management and supervisory boards changed, but the government still neglected its own role.”

The institute’s key focus was on making medicinal blood derivatives, antitoxins and vaccines against bacterial and viral diseases.

Its products included vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria and meningitis A — and a rabies treatment.

. . .

As recently as last August, the institute signed a deal with HLL Biotech, a subsidiary of Indian government enterprise HLL Lifecare, to provide measles vaccines and technology transfer to enable the production of 80 million doses for the Indian market and possibly for China and other Asian countries.

I am curious if you are aware of the current WHO license status of these other vaccine producers?

If so, why not produce your source and set a good example?

-FBB

When someone goes out of their way to be as belligerent and unpleasant as possible, it is really important that they be correct. Especially when citing sources. Because when they are proven to be wrong, or as in this case to have been caught pulling stats out of dark places, they do not have the courage to admit when they are wrong.

Making a fool of themselves.

Then they just go back on the attack, because that is what they thinks works.

ATS is a better place than this and will be a better place again when behaviour and decorum makes a return to it's rightful place as a guiding principle.