Aussie Flu

[rosnarun]

like all science and m#nedicence you have a choice who to belive
on one hand there the vast bulk of medical opinion who have spent edecades studying and peer reviewing and having work peer review getting  vaccines passed as being fit for purpose . allof who studies are in the public domain to be analyzed and criticized by anyone   
and on the other you have a few outliers doctors and academics Quacks Ayurvedists,  Biofield therapist , Bioelectromagnetic therapist , shamens and reiki healers , Naturopaths , acupuncturists madmen.women,holistics , charlatans Holistics , homeopaths , and others who advocate cures that are  disproven, unproven, impossible to prove, or are excessively harmful in relation to their effect; and where the scientific consensus is that the therapy does not, or cannot, work because the known laws of nature are violated by its basic claims; or where it is considered so much worse than conventional treatment that it would be unethical to offer as treatment.

I know who I choose to belive

[Hardy]

like all science and m#nedicence you have a choice who to belive
on one hand there the vast bulk of medical opinion who have spent edecades studying and peer reviewing and having work peer review getting  vaccines passed as being fit for purpose . allof who studies are in the public domain to be analyzed and criticized by anyone   
and on the other you have a few outliers doctors and academics Quacks Ayurvedists,  Biofield therapist , Bioelectromagnetic therapist , shamens and reiki healers , Naturopaths , acupuncturists madmen.women,holistics , charlatans Holistics , homeopaths , and others who advocate cures that are  disproven, unproven, impossible to prove, or are excessively harmful in relation to their effect; and where the scientific consensus is that the therapy does not, or cannot, work because the known laws of nature are violated by its basic claims; or where it is considered so much worse than conventional treatment that it would be unethical to offer as treatment.

I know who I choose to belive

It's a real head-shaker is that this simple fact has to be reiterated at all. But worse still is the fact that there is a frighteningly large cohort of people on whom it has no effect whatsoever.

[magpie seanie]

like all science and m#nedicence you have a choice who to belive
on one hand there the vast bulk of medical opinion who have spent edecades studying and peer reviewing and having work peer review getting  vaccines passed as being fit for purpose . allof who studies are in the public domain to be analyzed and criticized by anyone   
and on the other you have a few outliers doctors and academics Quacks Ayurvedists,  Biofield therapist , Bioelectromagnetic therapist , shamens and reiki healers , Naturopaths , acupuncturists madmen.women,holistics , charlatans Holistics , homeopaths , and others who advocate cures that are  disproven, unproven, impossible to prove, or are excessively harmful in relation to their effect; and where the scientific consensus is that the therapy does not, or cannot, work because the known laws of nature are violated by its basic claims; or where it is considered so much worse than conventional treatment that it would be unethical to offer as treatment.

I know who I choose to belive

It's a real head-shaker is that this simple fact has to be reiterated at all. But worse still is the fact that there is a frighteningly large cohort of people on whom it has no effect whatsoever.

And it's also very difficult to explain this without coming across as superior and condescending. With the best will in the world I think I have failed above.

[armaghniac]

like all science and m#nedicence you have a choice who to belive
on one hand there the vast bulk of medical opinion who have spent edecades studying and peer reviewing and having work peer review getting  vaccines passed as being fit for purpose . allof who studies are in the public domain to be analyzed and criticized by anyone   
and on the other you have a few outliers doctors and academics Quacks Ayurvedists,  Biofield therapist , Bioelectromagnetic therapist , shamens and reiki healers , Naturopaths , acupuncturists madmen.women,holistics , charlatans Holistics , homeopaths , and others who advocate cures that are  disproven, unproven, impossible to prove, or are excessively harmful in relation to their effect; and where the scientific consensus is that the therapy does not, or cannot, work because the known laws of nature are violated by its basic claims; or where it is considered so much worse than conventional treatment that it would be unethical to offer as treatment.

I know who I choose to belive

It's a real head-shaker is that this simple fact has to be reiterated at all. But worse still is the fact that there is a frighteningly large cohort of people on whom it has no effect whatsoever.

In England, people voted for Brexit to get back at the "experts".

[Puckoon]

Joe,

If you read the PNAS article and then read the NBC (not fake news) article, you can see how they've butchered the material and you don't need to go beyond the second sentence to find this...

Flu viruses mutate every year and it turns out the methods used to make flu vaccines cause them to mutate even more, the researchers found.

First half, correct. Second half, misleading. Yes the Flu virus mutates every year. Yes, the methods used to make flu vaccines leave the flu vaccine itself open to mutation. That vaccine is open to mutation based on how it is grown in the egg system. The flu vaccine does not cause the flu virus that we are susceptible to, to mutate. The avian egg growth system may cause the flu virus in the vaccine, to mutate. Huge difference, but it can lead to issues in efficacy. There is considerable research efforts to finding another vaccine systems that reduce the % probability of antigenic mismatches between vaccine virus and circulating virius - but the egg system is stable, and fully equipped to do the job. The virus just has the ability to outsmart it sometimes. The same virus has the ability to outsmart us, and continually find ways to mutate and adapt.

Big Pharma is involved in the manufacture process of flu vaccine and this is another reason that the enlightened public can trend so heavily against it. Big Pharma is bad... etc, but that's another topic. GSK, Sanofi Pasteur and Novartis are the 3 main players (smaller companies don't get involved in the manufacture and sale of the flu vaccine of the year - primarily due to the scale of manufacture needed in the short time span window).

Public Health Agencies and funded research labs (think universities, CDC etc) examine the strains from each hemisphere which has a different flu season and are able to work on predictive models based on strains that are found in the opposing hemisphere in their respective flu season. From this the PHAs provide seed strains to the main pharmaceutical companies who either have in house regulated manufacturing capabilities (a rare and no mean feat feature of a pharmaceutical company), or a strong relationship with a Contract Manufacturing System who is on alert to produce the quantities needed to match the demand. Each vaccine is usually comprised of 3-4 strains, 4 being the most recent successful flu development. There are models actively being researched to find a universal vaccine which is efficacious independent of strain. Timelines projected for this around 8-10 years.

Drug development is an insanely complex logistical challenge. Supply chain, release and stability data and the drug passport considerations that are required to accompany any product designed for human use - on top of the proof of concept and R&D work that precedes any human designed manufacture is mind blowing in its enormity.

[omaghjoe]

Examples:

a jab will only give immunity only for a short period even for the same strain

That page explains how a vaccine creates antibodies which permanently reside in the body. Similar to how they are created by actually getting the illness, without getting the illness of course.

Therefore it would be a non starter for the flu considering the hit and miss ratio of getting the correct strain

There's no hit and miss ratio. It's very clear what strains are covered by the flu vaccine. I've mentioned it a few times on this thread. A vaccine cannot be developed for a mutation that might happen......it will always be playing a catch up game unless the virus stops mutating.

Short period was in reference relative to acquiring immunity through natural infection ... you will have much longer and more robust protection from being infected naturally

That is the hit and miss ratio! The dominant strains in a season v the strains in the jab

[omaghjoe]

like all science and m#nedicence you have a choice who to belive
on one hand there the vast bulk of medical opinion who have spent edecades studying and peer reviewing and having work peer review getting  vaccines passed as being fit for purpose . allof who studies are in the public domain to be analyzed and criticized by anyone   
and on the other you have a few outliers doctors and academics Quacks Ayurvedists,  Biofield therapist , Bioelectromagnetic therapist , shamens and reiki healers , Naturopaths , acupuncturists madmen.women,holistics , charlatans Holistics , homeopaths , and others who advocate cures that are  disproven, unproven, impossible to prove, or are excessively harmful in relation to their effect; and where the scientific consensus is that the therapy does not, or cannot, work because the known laws of nature are violated by its basic claims; or where it is considered so much worse than conventional treatment that it would be unethical to offer as treatment.

I know who I choose to belive

It's a real head-shaker is that this simple fact has to be reiterated at all. But worse still is the fact that there is a frighteningly large cohort of people on whom it has no effect whatsoever.

In England, people voted for Brexit to get back at the "experts".

What is also frightening is the willingness of people to follow blindly and refuse to question when they dont fully understand

Medicine is a practice not a science what it administers to you by someone who practises medicine does not always work as intended, in a way if its science then you are the experiment.

To lump all dissenters together as loonies whose opinion should be disregarded may make you feel better but it does not make you right.

An appeal to majority or authority does not mean your right either.

[omaghjoe]

Joe,

If you read the PNAS article and then read the NBC (not fake news) article, you can see how they've butchered the material and you don't need to go beyond the second sentence to find this...

Flu viruses mutate every year and it turns out the methods used to make flu vaccines cause them to mutate even more, the researchers found.

First half, correct. Second half, misleading. Yes the Flu virus mutates every year. Yes, the methods used to make flu vaccines leave the flu vaccine itself open to mutation. That vaccine is open to mutation based on how it is grown in the egg system. The flu vaccine does not cause the flu virus that we are susceptible to, to mutate. The avian egg growth system may cause the flu virus in the vaccine, to mutate. Huge difference, but it can lead to issues in efficacy. There is considerable research efforts to finding another vaccine systems that reduce the % probability of antigenic mismatches between vaccine virus and circulating virius - but the egg system is stable, and fully equipped to do the job. The virus just has the ability to outsmart it sometimes. The same virus has the ability to outsmart us, and continually find ways to mutate and adapt.

Big Pharma is involved in the manufacture process of flu vaccine and this is another reason that the enlightened public can trend so heavily against it. Big Pharma is bad... etc, but that's another topic. GSK, Sanofi Pasteur and Novartis are the 3 main players (smaller companies don't get involved in the manufacture and sale of the flu vaccine of the year - primarily due to the scale of manufacture needed in the short time span window).

Public Health Agencies and funded research labs (think universities, CDC etc) examine the strains from each hemisphere which has a different flu season and are able to work on predictive models based on strains that are found in the opposing hemisphere in their respective flu season. From this the PHAs provide seed strains to the main pharmaceutical companies who either have in house regulated manufacturing capabilities (a rare and no mean feat feature of a pharmaceutical company), or a strong relationship with a Contract Manufacturing System who is on alert to produce the quantities needed to match the demand. Each vaccine is usually comprised of 3-4 strains, 4 being the most recent successful flu development. There are models actively being researched to find a universal vaccine which is efficacious independent of strain. Timelines projected for this around 8-10 years.

Drug development is an insanely complex logistical challenge. Supply chain, release and stability data and the drug passport considerations that are required to accompany any product designed for human use - on top of the proof of concept and R&D work that precedes any human designed manufacture is mind blowing in its enormity.

I actually did reread after because I was thinking how do the virus mutate if they don't reproduce (which isnt strictly true either I found out) and seen that it was the process of making the vaccine that causes the mutations in the vaccine.
A good example of how the flu, or any DNA or is susceptible to mutation depending on the environment. But I suppose its defo less susceptible to mutation that a bacterial disease, which is what I originally thought.

That will be interesting to see how the generic flu vaccine turns out.

TBH Puck I think that a lot of people have concerns about the effect of the vaccine on their bodies... why do infants not get them when their born but its ok in utero? But the prospect of big business making money is a concern for the motivation also.

[armaghniac]

TBH Puck I think that alot of people are concerns about the effect of the vaccine on their bodies... why do infants not get them when their born but its ok in utero. But the prospect of big business making money is a concern for the motivation also.

Infants in utero get the antibodies from their mother.
People are concerned with big business, but many of these seem less worried about big business in regard to the Iphone they use to post nonsense.

[omaghjoe]

TBH Puck I think that alot of people are concerns about the effect of the vaccine on their bodies... why do infants not get them when their born but its ok in utero. But the prospect of big business making money is a concern for the motivation also.

Infants in utero get the antibodies from their mother.
People are concerned with big business, but many of these seem less worried about big business in regard to the Iphone they use to post nonsense.

...yes they get that along with all the other crap that they don't want newborns to get?
You don't think that corporations who's unabashed goal to increase their bottom line would affect their willingness to ply the population with something that might have adverse side affects? Their track record would suggest otherwise.

[armaghniac]

...yes they get that along with all the other crap that they don't want newborns to get?
You don't think that corporations who's unabashed goal to increase their bottom line would affect their willingness to ply the population with something that might have adverse side affects? Their track record would suggest otherwise.

Are we talking about the entirety of the pharma industry here, or the flu vaccine?

I was listening to a doctor on the radio there, the best plan was to be born in the mid 60s, as the new flu came along on 1968 and if you were first exposed to it when a child you have some longterm immunity.

[omaghjoe]

...yes they get that along with all the other crap that they don't want newborns to get?
You don't think that corporations who's unabashed goal to increase their bottom line would affect their willingness to ply the population with something that might have adverse side affects? Their track record would suggest otherwise.

Are we talking about the entirety of the pharma industry here, or the flu vaccine?

I was listening to a doctor on the radio there, the best plan was to be born in the mid 60s, as the new flu came along on 1968 and if you were first exposed to it when a child you have some longterm immunity.

We are talking about the primary motivations behind providing these products to the public by a profit making entity and their track record.

It is an off shoot of my primary concern tho which is with injecting a chemical cocktail that was cooked up last week into my body that no one knows the side effects off and whether I as a healthy young low risk individual would most likely be better off risking acquiring the flu naturally.