OT: government study on flu shot effectiveness

academics-

I'm afraid it's not that honest as you try to describe it. All of what Monsanto does and sells is driven exclusively by financial gain, acquisition of monopoly and dominance. Together with criminal neglect and willfull corruption of science.

The 'science' that Monsanto and its cronies present is totally corrupt and misleading. *That* is the problem.

I can only see that the country where the most babies are vaccinated has the highest occurrence (did I use that word right?) of autism.

One can calculate that for every life saved by the HVP shots, 4 are destroyed forever.

Etc. etc. etc.

joe

breast.html

The point with factory milk, is that if there is 1 infected cow, the whole production batch will be infected. On a raw milk farm there is much less contamination of a large quantity of milk.

joe

Or try to reply in the 4 other languages that I'm able to communicate quite fluently in: French, Portugese, German, Dutch.

Arrogant brat!

joe

Quacks like a duck ...

Your fears are driven by your imperfect comprehension. Learn a bit more and start getting afraid about serious issues.

That's how their board is legally obliged to behave. They could be less short-termist about it, but they are obliged to maximise the long term return to the shareholders.

I'm sure that their lawyers can prove that this isn't actually true.

They do seem to concentrate hard on the potential benefits, and rely on the ecology lobby to spell out the dangers.

This is called the adversary system wen it gets to court.

Highest number of diagnoses of autism. The same well-funded medical establishment that delivers the vaccinations also check out the kids later for problems that they can make money out of treating.

"Occurrence" presupposes that countries with less well-developed (and less rapacious) medical establishment will be as enthusiastic about diagnosing the disorder.

Do present the calculation. We haven't savaged an incompetent calculation for weeks now.

Bad thinking. It's individual viruses that do the infecting. The evidence set out suggests that only one cow in several hundred is shedding virus.

In a 500 plus herd, there's almost always one cow shedding into the combined output. In smaller herds, there's occasionally one cow shedding.

The average number viral infectors per litre will be the same, but you will occasionally run into a lot of them in a small herd's output, and regularly run into a much lower concentration in a big herd's output.

Your choice is between occasional high risk of getting breast cancer ( if the bovine leukemia virus is a cause, rather than a symptom) and a steady lower risk. It doesn't make any difference to your actual chance of getting breast cancer.

Jamie presented the data as if it did, because he's an idiot who can't do joined up logic.

In reality, there's almost certainly something more complicated going. Bovine leukemia virus is unlikely to replicate well in human tissue, and even less likely to produce a human equivalent of bovine leukemia.

What we might be seeing could be the effectiveness of individual human virus-clearing mechanisms - people who get rid of bovine leukemia virus more rapidly could also get rid of a human breast cancer virus more rapidly too.

One would not expect that virus to come from cows.

I've passed - or been given credit - for Science French, Science German, an d Science Russian. I've passed the university entrance tests for speaking D utch, listening to it and reading it (which isn't bad when I started at 50) . My written Dutch is perfectly comprehensible, but error prone - when I wa s working in the Netherlands my employers preferred me to write in English, since most of the buitenlandse filials could read English.

Your English is fine, but your thinking is shoddy.

And still haven't identified.

this/

Plus that they initiate a total corruption of the FDA with their revolving door strategy (no need for explanation, I presume).

And that they corrupt the scientific basis of the acceptance by that corrupt FDA by only publishing their research of possible development of cancer in rats over a period of a few weeks, while Seralini et. al. already find prolific cancers when they study a few weeks longer.

Plus that they (financially) get Elsevier to retract the Seralini paper for reasons which are not even valid within the Elsevier rules for retraction.

Plus that they also station a 'supervising editor' at Elsevier to prevent that kind of papers to be published in the future.

And the list goes on and on and on.

Are *you* maybe being paid by Monsanto? Your tenacity in and aggression while defending Monsanto makes this a plausible concern.

There is that aggression again... If you were really and honestly interested in such a relation you'd have been asking something totally different.

joe

Still waiting for a coherent reply from you on my post in which I mentioned Dr. Fred R. Klenner...

Then why that belligerent criticism of someone else's use of language? That clearly gives a less attractive impression of your personality.

My reading is ok though, and what I've read about Monsanto c.s. doesn't make me happy at all and it should make everybody (except for those depending on the corporate well-being of those companies) full of concern.

I really don't care.

joe

I did not write that. I wrote:

A fair of idiots? Is that sorta like a gaggle of geese?

Do you really have to ask that? It should be obvious.

Jamie

You're not going to win, no matter what. Bill is just an ignorant has been red coat.

All he knows how to do is disagree with everyone, even when they quote facts that he made prior too. He can't even agree with himself!

He's just a cranky stinky old fart!

Jamie

regularly run into a much lower concentration in a big herd's output.

lower risk. It doesn't make any difference to your actual chance of getting breast cancer.

even less likely to produce a human equivalent of bovine leukemia.

rapidly could also get rid of a human breast cancer virus more rapidly too.

Hi,

Lots of good speculation nice to see you using your imagination for once lol.

A cow is a big animal compared to a human and it only takes a small amount of virus to infect a human, so if you feel safer drinking pooled milk from a bunch of sick cows with short lives living in a factory than from grass fed cows grazing outside leisurely producing healthy milk that is your (illogical as usual) choice.

There are many parts of unknown biology that are detrimentally effected by drinking pasteurized milk from unhealthy cows fed GMO feed in unnatural conditions.

Small scale raw milk farms can test for bovine leukemia if it is determined to be an issue, while big dairy operations would have a difficult time to do the same.

cheers, Jamie

Probably just a simple explanation, bad diet!

I doubt if Monsanto initiated that, or are the only example. The US constit ution was framed to leave enough space for the people who owned the country to run the country, and every US regulatory body is infested by employees whose business is to prevent regulation from getting in the way of making m oney.

Surprise, surprise.

Money talks. Money talks particularly loudly to Elsevier, who publish scien tific journals to make money. They aren't quite a mercenary as they used to be - the scientific community set up the Public Library of Science publica tion system as a reaction to over-mercenary publishers, and the publishers have got the message - but they are in business to make money.

I'm sure that that isn't way it's described by Elsevier.

I don't "defend" Monsanto - I just point out that they aren't actually the moustach-twirling villains that you and Jamie se3em to imagine.

You make a claim, unsupported by any evidence. When asked to support it, yo u chicken out, just as I expected.

or

he

y.

to

ion

use

an

ou

put

uch

ce set out suggests that only one cow in several hundred is shedding virus.

bined output. In smaller herds, there's occasionally one cow shedding.

will > > occasionally run into a lot of them in a small herd's output, and regularly > > run into a much lower concentration in a big herd's output.

if

dy

do

more

too.

It was labeled as speculation. Your output is equally imagined, but you pre sent it as if one ought to take it seriously

The size of the animal doesn't come into it. It takes one virus to infect o ne cell. Whatever bovine leukemia virus does - most probably nothing - it c learly isn't very good at infecting human cells, so you'd need to be expose d to a lot of bovine leukemia virus to build up a significant risk, and it won't matter whether that virus is delivered in infrequent chunks at high c oncentration or more consistently at lower levels.

You like to make this claim, but you haven't ever posted a shred of evidenc e that actually supports it. There is stuff that you fondly believe support s it, but your irrational delusions are only evidence of the deleterious ef fects of drinking raw milk - and then only if we believe that you weren't b orn stupid.

Why would you think that? Hiring an extra hand to do that testing would be easier for a big diary operation.

"Ignorant"? At least I'm not ignorant enough to put that up as a counter-argument. "Infected" isn't a useful concept here - you got to get a bit quantitative, and talk about concentrations of infectious agent.

Example?

I may be cranky, but farts can't type, and the internet can't yet communicate odour.

Nobody coherent would mention Dr. Fred R. Klenner. He claims to have got implausible results that nobody ever replicated.

If you can take him seriously, I've got a couple of perpetual machines that you might be interested in.