What's "unbiased" about it, and how does it show the - imagined - associati on.
n
"Debate"? What you've posted is typical pseudo-stastical gibberish. There a re a total of 89 cases (out of the millions vaccinated) and the goof quotes the numbers of cases associated with a particular vaccine without spelling out the number of doses of each particular vaccine administered.
Even you should have been able to notice the obvious error there.
That is one way of looking at that article, and one that suites your foolis h preconceptions. A more sensible appreciation would see it as written by l awyers as a way letting the pediatricians claim that if anything ever did g o wrong, they'd said that it might.
Humans, and in fact all the primates have Alu sequences all over their geno nome
formatting link
In humans about 10.7% of the genome consists of them. It is estimated that there is about one new Alu insert per 20 human births, leading to about one in every 1,000 new human genetic diseases.
A lot of genetic disease represents a new fault in the genetic code, rather the than the unfortunate combination of two defective recessive genes. Now that gene sequencing has become cheap enough to be applied widely, we've b ecome aware of this, even if you hadn't heard about it until now. The profe ssor of Pediatric Neurology at Nijmegen (who was the husband of the - femal e - left wing of my hockey team) got talking about it once.
There are other explanations. Do some reading and you may come across them.
Choosing to start driving before your skills are good enough can kill you and anybody you run into.
The chance of death from measles was about one in 1000 infections in the US and the UK after pneumonia stopped being a fatal complication of measles.
Vaccination isn't that dangerous.
Sure. And everybody else demands that your lunatic delusions aren't allowed to endanger them.
The problem is that you've almost certainly made a mistake - I know it, and anybody who has read many of your posts will too. I'm not going to go to trouble of finding out that you've misunderstood something - again.
Who takes You Tube seriously? Find a properly published report, or shut up.
See, there's that reaction again. It's not 'youtube' that one should take seriously, it's the doctors that talk in the documentary about the problem that the CFS symptoms are not recognised as a disease and hence are not included in the studies that are supposed to investigate adverse health effects of the HPV vaccines.
So there you clearly have the situation that real-life doctors who are confronted with both vaccine victims and health authorities talk about this problem of circular 'logic' that states that there are no serious adverse health effects after effectively having deleted the same from the study on totally irrational grounds.
This is the exact example of what happens when studies are carried out allegedly to find an effect by people who actually don't *want* to find such effect.
And Billy Boy also plays his role in this game by stating he doesn't want to hear about these problems because it comes to him via youtube and he doesn't 'trust' youtube.
The stupidity of it all is unbelievable, can not be described by normal words, but is nonetheless clearly present, and appears to me as criminal.
Only in the sense that you have chosen a strategy to cope with the situation where can't produce an appropriate response to an intelligent reaction, and routinely end up responding to me with trivia.
It's an illustration of your cognitive deficit, and the fact that when given the choice of dealing with something more difficult than you are used to, or sliding out form under, you creep off with your tail between your legs.
It would actually mean burying you in an isolation ward, or on a desert isl and. Burying you at a crossroad with a stake through your heart would work too.
If the doctors had serious reservations, they'd published them in a peer-re viewed medical journal. Getting personal publicity by posting fatuous specu lations on You Tube isn't to be taken seriously.
Or, looking at it from another point of view, publicity-seeking doctors hav e posted a You Tube sequence where they can air anxiety-making speculations without having to go to trouble of spelling out their arguments, or docume nting their evidence (if any).
They publish on You Tube?
You Tube isn't a medium for communicating scientific observations. Peer-rev iew is a device to try and get what's published clear and unambiguous - spe aking from the very limited amount of referring I've done, authors can't be relied on to limit their claims to what the evidence supports, or to lay o ut the evidence in a way that makes it intelligible. Lots of papers are rej ected at the peer-review stage - not because the reviewer dislikes the conc lusion, but because the conclusions don't follow from the data presented.
You stupidity is unfortunate, but there's nothing criminal about believing nonsense or telling other people that it isn't nonsense, unless you do it t o make money. Doing it because you want to pose as somebody who should be t aken seriously probably should be a crime, but that legislation hasn't been written yet.
Alu segments in the genome have been lined to Alzheimers'.
formatting link
The Alu involved has nothing to do with aluminium (whose chemical symbol is Al).
There was some speculation that lots of aluminium ions in drinking water might be a risk factor for Alzheimers' but the association turned out to be spurious.
The cow's babies drink it. And did your mother pasteurize her milk first before feeding you?
I think you just want to sterilize nature, don't you?
}snip{
No, he is not!
I think there are more here who disagree with you than you think, but are afraid to express it because of your 'intellectual bullying'. I'm not afraid of you, you can't touch my sense of self-esteem, so I just post what I want. Mostly right, but wrong as perceived by you.
}snip{
I propose
Zika-virus parties, not unlike the measles-parties of the past, for the people to get the opportunity to get immunity from it, and
A pregnancy prohibition for women who have yet failed to naturally immunize themselves, the foolish society endangering wrong beings...
The few people who are known to be at risk of dangerous complications are of course granted a generous exemption, and are anyway protected by the (as of yet unproven concept of) herd-immunity of the rest.
I'm not even trying any more to correct your mis-conceptions about nature and its risks. You can keep them... to yourself.
I can't find the reference, but there was a recent paper showing that multiple strains of flu viruses are transmitted at the same time.
This shows that if there are two or more virulent strains in a single flu season with too much variation between the strains to inoculate against both of them with a single vaccine, then the one that hasn't been inoculated for can cause the flu, and potentially have more damaging effects than if there was no inoculation against the other strain.
This depends on how you define a "strain" of flu virus. There are about two million nucleotides in the flu virus genome, and - technically speaking - a difference in any one amino acid creates a different strain.
In practice, the two big proteins that package the RNA payload determine mo st of what a flu virus does, and all the reactions of the immune system to it.
Quite often the examples of the virus that circulate in any one season are antigenically identical, but there's nothing to stop you from vaccinating a gainst two or more different strains with a single injection incorporating different protein fragments that activate two (or more) different antibodie s.
The flu virus mutates quite a lot faster than the human papillomavirus, so it wasn't a useful comment.
Historically speaking, it gave you TB. Today you run a lower risk of a wide r range of infections. The US FDA mentions "Salmonella, E. coli, and Lister ia" and mentions that you are 150 times more likely to get a food-borne inf ection from drinking unpasteursed milk than you are from consuming pasteuri sed dairy products. The good news is that it's only 13 times more likely to hospitalise you - a cynic might wonder whether the other 137 died before t hey got to hospital.
And they got bovine TB from it.
No, but she'd been tested for TB, and knew she didn't have it at the time.
When I was kid, the mobile chest X-ray vans went around Tasmania nonstop, c hecking everybody for TB shadows-on-the-lungs every six months.
Not having any tuberculosis bacteria around may be sterilising nature to so me extent, as does not having any smallpox virus around, but eliminating bu gs who like to make us sick doesn't strike me as a bad idea, nor as unreali stically ambitious.
The difference is immaterial. You are both ignorant half-wits. What I inten d was "You and Joey Hey"
as would have been obvious from the context (which you snipped) to anybody who wasn't a half-wit (which you do seem to be).
I'm frequently right, so the people who would like to disagree with me most ly check their facts before sticking their necks out. You and Jamie can't u nderstand the facts even when you check them, which makes you more fool-har dy than you should be.
I'm well aware that you have an irrationally high self-esteem - you make th is clear pretty much every time you post.
Since your "corrections" are basically wall-to-wall misconceptions, I'm sur e we'd all be happier if you shut up.
So, maybe we should treat our cows a bit better so that we can prevent infection with TB and *then* drink their milk.
Sneaky net-copper again. In the post that I responded to you wrote "...You are Joey Hey...", not 'You and Joey'.
And as you seem to have the habit to change what you wrote on the fly
*after* someone has responded to it, thereby making his response invalid, there's no use in responding to you any more, because chances are that you will repeat that moronic behaviour.
That's what we do today - milk herds are routinely tested for bovine TB, and culled if they test positive. As the FDA figures show, this doesn't work as well with Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria.
What did you think "intended" meant?
We all make typo's. The moronic behaviour is entirely yours. If you weren't a moron you would have realised that it was a typo, and the original "are" should have been "and" as is obvious from the context that you snipped. }snipped historically unreliable piece of text{
which did include much the same content as I've just rewritten. Joey Hey is a transparent half-wit ...
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.