- Register |
- Login |
- Premium Memberships |
- Audio & Video Chat |
- Top Leakers |
- Faq |
- Contact Us |
- Set As Homepage |
- Advanced Search
- Sections:
- All |
- News/Politics |
- Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran..) |
- Entertainment |
- Celebrity |
- Education |
- Citizen Journalism
NY boy dies of encephalitis 5 days after flu shot.
Viral encephalitis is suspected to have killed an 8-year-old Kings Park boy this month, state health authorities said Thursday, though they cautioned that a definitive cause of death may never be known.
The tentative diagnosis is the result of a New York State Health Department probe launched after the Oct. 11 death of Sean Weisse in the pediatric intensive care unit of Stony Brook University More..
Poll
Added: Oct 30 2009 In: leak,education
Recorded on: Oct 30 2009By: Maxisminion
- Tags:
- maxisminion,
- vaccine,
- flu,
- shot,
- h1n1,
- swine,
- vaccination,
- autism,
- encephalitis,
- drug,
- companies,
- nwo,
- who,
- merck,
- phizer,
- tamiflu,
- scam,
- pig,
- virus,
- bird,
- sickness,
- death,
- dying,
- child,
- children,
- brain,
- autism
- Views: 2087 |
- Votes: 0 |
- Recommendations: 0 |
- Comments: 9
- |
- Send to Friends |
Comments - sort by newest to oldest
nwo in the tags, eh Max?
Set phizers to STUN!
Well, at least you spelled Merck right...
Posted Oct-30-2009 by "jackal452" (R)
Gee, wonder why Obammy's litter didn't get the shots...
Posted Oct-30-2009 by "Snerple" (R)
Obama's children have had H1N1 shots: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5426406.shtml
You know, I am continually surprised by the stupidity of people. Vaccines are safe. They give protection against diseases. This rise in skepticism about the 0.01% of severe reactions to vaccines is by people of a certain generation - people who have never known what the alternative was like. When 20% of children didn't reach their teenage years, and when the average lifespan was 38 years, due to disease.
Fear of vaccines is for people who are bad at math.
I guess there is an element of "well, I can't control the risk of getting sick, but I can control the risk of injury from a vaccine" but when you're looking at a 20,000:1 benefit ratio - truly, some people just have no rationality when it comes to measuring risk.
I'd like to say "stupid Americans" but unfortunately, through the US cultural influence on the western world, this view is now endemic in particularly English-speaking nations.
Disclaimer: I am a forensic anthropologist - I do this for a living.
Posted Oct-31-2009 by "plasticuser" (R)
Obama's children have had H1N1 shots: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5426406.shtml
You know, I am continually surprised by the stupidity of people. Vaccines are safe. They give protection against diseases. This rise in skepticism about the 0.01% of severe reactions to vaccines is by people of a certain generation - people who have never known what the alternative was like. When 20% of children didn't reach their teenage years, and when the average lifespan was 38 years, due to disease.
Fear of vaccines is for people who are bad at math.
I guess there is an element of "well, I can't control the risk of getting sick, but I can control the risk of injury from a vaccine" but when you're looking at a 20,000:1 benefit ratio - truly, some people just have no rationality when it comes to measuring risk.
I'd like to say "stupid Americans" but unfortunately, through the US cultural influence on the western world, this view is now endemic in particularly English-speaking nations.
Disclaimer: I am a forensic anthropologist - I do this for a living.
Posted Oct-31-2009 by "plasticuser" (R)
You need another option on that poll, How about:
No ******* way i'm having that nasty cocktail of shit pumped into my system
Posted Oct-31-2009 by "ReddyBreak" (R)
You know, I am continually surprised by the stupidity of people. Vaccines are safe. They give protection against diseases. This rise in skepticism about the 0.01% of severe reactions to vaccines is by people of a certain generation - people who have never known what the alternative was like. When 20% of children didn't reach their teenage years, and when the average lifespan was 38 years, due to disease.
Fear of vaccines is for people who are bad at math.
I guess there is an element of "well, I can't control the risk of getting sick, but I can control the risk of injury from a vaccine" but when you're looking at a 20,000:1 benefit ratio - truly, some people just have no rationality when it comes to measuring risk.
I'd like to say "stupid Americans" but unfortunately, through the US cultural influence on the western world, this view is now endemic in particularly English-speaking nations.
Disclaimer: I am a forensic anthropologist - I do this for a living.
Do you own stock in a Pharmaceutical company?? If so, you might be biased on the topic.. Im only asking..
Also, they say most people who get the swine flu will only have a mild flu and will not need hospitalization or antibiotics. If this is true, then why is there a need for a vaccine that is untested and may cause illness worse then the swine flu?? You may never even be infected with swine flu, why get a shot for it?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de1_1256276420
I think i would rather take my chances with the flu and let my body develop its defenses naturally.. I bet you would feel differently about the situation if your child was forced to take the shot and it just so happened that he/she turned out to be that 1 in 20,000.. If it were somewhere around 1 in a million, the odds would a bit more favorable.
Also, check this post, Id like to hear your take on it:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f71_1256937829
Posted Oct-31-2009 by "Maxisminion" (R)
You know, I am continually surprised by the stupidity of people. Vaccines are safe. They give protection against diseases. This rise in skepticism about the 0.01% of severe reactions to vaccines is by people of a certain generation - people who have never known what the alternative was like. When 20% of children didn't reach their teenage years, and when the average lifespan was 38 years, due to disease.
Fear of vaccines is for people who are bad at math.
I guess there is an element of "well, I can't control the risk of getting sick, but I can control the risk of injury from a vaccine" but when you're looking at a 20,000:1 benefit ratio - truly, some people just have no rationality when it comes to measuring risk.
I'd like to say "stupid Americans" but unfortunately, through the US cultural influence on the western world, this view is now endemic in particularly English-speaking nations.
Disclaimer: I am a forensic anthropologist - I do this for a living.
Do you own stock in a Pharmaceutical company?? If so, you might be biased on the topic.. Im only asking..
Also, they say most people who get the swine flu will only have a mild flu and will not need hospitalization or antibiotics. If this is true, then why is there a need for a vaccine that is untested and may cause illness worse then the swine flu?? You may never even be infected with swine flu, why get a shot for it?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de1_1256276420
I think i would rather take my chances with the flu and let my body develop its defenses naturally.. I bet you would feel differently about the situation if your child was forced to take the shot and it just so happened that he/she turned out to be that 1 in 20,000.. If it were somewhere around 1 in a million, the odds would a bit more favorable.
Also, check this post, Id like to hear your take on it:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f71_1256937829
I do not own any stock in a pharmaceutical company. Instead, I used to work for an Institutional Review Board carrying out ethical checks on medical studies - I am definitely not a friend of big pharma.
I think people see a new vaccine and they don't understand how it can be "well tested" after such a short period of time. There's two things going on there: establishing the safety and consistency of a product METHODOLOGY (in this case the methodology is tried and tested over many hundreds of millions of batches across the entire gamut of flu-type viruses) and establishing the EFFICACY versus RISK.
For the H1N1 vaccine, it was double blind tested across 10,000s of volunteers in the USA at HSCs and teaching hospitals, and with hundreds of PIs involved. It was quickly established that the vaccine does give effective protection for over 80% of recipients, that there were no UPs (Unanticipated Problems) and no related SAEs (no Serious Adverse Events were reported.) This information is publicly available through the FDA's MedWatch service.
*watches video you linked* The quotes listed on the screen were the production crew, not Dr. Hilleman. The only quote actually from him was "This was in very crude times."
Since the 80s they've done DNA typing to establish that only the intended virus is in the preparation. Early early vaccines were about as safe as early early cars. We understand them so much better now - vaccines AND cars.
Talking about what was happening in the 50s is about as relevant to today as electroconvulsive therapy (ick), frontal lobotomies (ick) or trepanning.
The credit to be given here is that scientists can learn that they didn't take into account something, acknowledge the Unanticipated Problem, and redesign their procedures so that this can't happen again.
Also, it seems to be lost on people that his complaint about the monkeys was that their biology was different enough that the virus research wasn't applicable to humans, as the viruses didn't cross species easily even with direct infusion. Both ways. The results were not relevant to human physiology. Hence the genetically engineered mice for human cancer research - closer, more relevant results.
I'm the first to admit that science has had some horrible screwups, but the simple fact is that at the end of the day, if you're over 40 you owe your life to science, because 250 years ago, 90% probability was you would have succumbed already.
Like I said in my original post - people are just bad at math and assessing risk, and do not know what it was like before vaccines.
Look at the evolution of the vaccines: first they took out the diseases that killed in plagues, then they took out the horribly disabling diseases like TB and polio, and now they are taking out the hidden viruses we never even knew existed 30 years ago - the HPVs and other infections that seem so mild, then kill you with cancer 20 or more years later. In 50 years time, cervical cancer will be largely a thing of the past, for example.
Every respect to those who disagree.
Posted Oct-31-2009 by "plasticuser" (R)
You know, I am continually surprised by the stupidity of people. Vaccines are safe. They give protection against diseases. This rise in skepticism about the 0.01% of severe reactions to vaccines is by people of a certain generation - people who have never known what the alternative was like. When 20% of children didn't reach their teenage years, and when the average lifespan was 38 years, due to disease.
Fear of vaccines is for people who are bad at math.
I guess there is an element of "well, I can't control the risk of getting sick, but I can control the risk of injury from a vaccine" but when you're looking at a 20,000:1 benefit ratio - truly, some people just have no rationality when it comes to measuring risk.
I'd like to say "stupid Americans" but unfortunately, through the US cultural influence on the western world, this view is now endemic in particularly English-speaking nations.
Disclaimer: I am a forensic anthropologist - I do this for a living.
Do you own stock in a Pharmaceutical company?? If so, you might be biased on the topic.. Im only asking..
Also, they say most people who get the swine flu will only have a mild flu and will not need hospitalization or antibiotics. If this is true, then why is there a need for a vaccine that is untested and may cause illness worse then the swine flu?? You may never even be infected with swine flu, why get a shot for it?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=de1_1256276420
I think i would rather take my chances with the flu and let my body develop its defenses naturally.. I bet you would feel differently about the situation if your child was forced to take the shot and it just so happened that he/she turned out to be that 1 in 20,000.. If it were somewhere around 1 in a million, the odds would a bit more favorable.
Also, check this post, Id like to hear your take on it:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f71_1256937829
I do not own any stock in a pharmaceutical company. Instead, I used to work for an Institutional Review Board carrying out ethical checks on medical studies - I am definitely not a friend of big pharma.
I think people see a new vaccine and they don't understand how it can be "well tested" after such a short period of time. There's two things going on there: establishing the safety and consistency of a product METHODOLOGY (in this case the methodology is tried and tested over many hundreds of millions of batches across the entire gamut of flu-type viruses) and establishing the EFFICACY versus RISK.
For the H1N1 vaccine, it was double blind tested across 10,000s of volunteers in the USA at HSCs and teaching hospitals, and with hundreds of PIs involved. It was quickly established that the vaccine does give effective protection for over 80% of recipients, that there were no UPs (Unanticipated Problems) and no related SAEs (no Serious Adverse Events were reported.) This information is publicly available through the FDA's MedWatch service.
*watches video you linked* The quotes listed on the screen were the production crew, not Dr. Hilleman. The only quote actually from him was "This was in very crude times."
Since the 80s they've done DNA typing to establish that only the intended virus is in the preparation. Early early vaccines were about as safe as early early cars. We understand them so much better now - vaccines AND cars.
Talking about what was happening in the 50s is about as relevant to today as electroconvulsive therapy (ick), frontal lobotomies (ick) or trepanning.
The credit to be given here is that scientists can learn that they didn't take into account something, acknowledge the Unanticipated Problem, and redesign their procedures so that this can't happen again.
Also, it seems to be lost on people that his complaint about the monkeys was that their biology was different enough that the virus research wasn't applicable to humans, as the viruses didn't cross species easily even with direct infusion. Both ways. The results were not relevant to human physiology. Hence the genetically engineered mice for human cancer research - closer, more relevant results.
I'm the first to admit that science has had some horrible screwups, but the simple fact is that at the end of the day, if you're over 40 you owe your life to science, because 250 years ago, 90% probability was you would have succumbed already.
Like I said in my original post - people are just bad at math and assessing risk, and do not know what it was like before vaccines.
Look at the evolution of the vaccines: first they took out the diseases that killed in plagues, then they took out the horribly disabling diseases like TB and polio, and now they are taking out the hidden viruses we never even knew existed 30 years ago - the HPVs and other infections that seem so mild, then kill you with cancer 20 or more years later. In 50 years time, cervical cancer will be largely a thing of the past, for example.
Every respect to those who disagree.
Interesting perspective. Cheers!
Posted Oct-31-2009 by "Maxisminion" (R)
HUH ????
Posted 1 day ago by "oklakid1" (R)