Being skeptical about H1N1

sliabh

Can anyone recommend some good "one-stop-shop" skeptical articles I can recommend to people worried by the extremists raving abouut H1N1 (i.e. that the "aporkolypse" will devastate humanity, and that the vaccine is worse than the illness?).

I have a pretty good grasp of the facts myself, but I would like some (reputable) sites to point people to for quick doses of reality.

King Mob

sliabh wrote: »

Can anyone recommend some good "one-stop-shop" skeptical articles I can recommend to people worried by the extremists raving abouut H1N1 (i.e. that the "aporkolypse" will devastate humanity, and that the vaccine is worse than the illness?).

I have a pretty good grasp of the facts myself, but I would like some (reputable) sites to point people to for quick doses of reality.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/

These are always good for general information on Alternative Medicine stuff and have a few articles on H1N1.

Mahatma coat

Just saw this.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread516163/pg1

if you are truly a skeptic you will look at all the information presented before amking a decision.

robindch

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Just saw this.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread516163/pg1

if you are truly a skeptic you will look at all the information presented before amking a decision.

The same site that suggests it's a good idea for US citizens to prepare for an open war against their elected government, and that creationism is a "scientific fact"?

As you say, take a look at all the info before, er, "amking a decision".

King Mob

Yes, you should look at all the facts.
However Abovetopsecret is completely devoid of facts.

Turtwig

Does anyone frequent this forum?:(
bah humbug.

Newscientist common myths.

Oh and can I just give a special mention to a certain Wolfgang Wodarg and co.? To paraphrase a now well known Climatalogist : "Next time I see him (them) I will be tempted to beat the crap out of him (them).":)

onq

I have not been convinced over the past 12 months by reports of the alleged Swine Flu Pandemic issuing from the various European and World medical bodies arising from information from sources seemingly beholden to Big Pharma.

It came as some surprise however to find this little article tucked away on http://www.globalresearch.ca recently:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=16880

Taken together with the below motion put before the European Assembly, this raises a huge question-mark over the several pronouncements by member of the Irish and British medical professions over the past few months.

Are our doctors, like our bankers, rubber stamping toxic products from United States companies?

This time it may be inadequately tested cocktails of drugs containing known toxic substances instead of securitized sub-prime loans, but the practice, amounting to systemic error, of not conducting adequate independent verification and monitoring seem to be the same.

Will we never learn?

ONQ.

---

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=16911

http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc09/EDOC12110.pdf

Doc. 12110

18 December 2009

Faked Pandemics - a threat for health
Motion for a recommendation presented by Mr Wodarg and others

This motion has not been discussed in the Assembly and commits only the members who have signed it

In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies have influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards, to alarm governments worldwide. They have made them squander tight health care resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly exposed millions of healthy people to the risk of unknown side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.

The "birds-flu“-campaign (2005/06) combined with the "swine-flu“-campaign
seem to have caused a great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients and to public health budgets, but also to the credibility and accountability of important international health agencies. The definition of an alarming pandemic must not be under the influence of drug-sellers.

The member states of the Council of Europe should ask for immediate investigations on the consequences at national as well as European level.

Signed:

WODARG Wolfgang, Germany, SOC
ABURTO BASELGA Fátima, Spain, SOC
AYVA Lokman, Turkey, EPP/CD
CONDE BAJÉN Agustín, Spain, EPP/CD
CZINEGE Imre, Hungary, SOC
FLYNN Paul, United Kingdom, SOC
GROZDANOVA Dzhema, Bulgaria, EPP/CD
HANCOCK Michael, United Kingdom, ALDE
HUSS Jean, Luxembourg, SOC
MARQUET Bernard, Monaco, ALDE
McCAFFERTY Christine, United Kingdom, SOC
OHLSSON Carina, Sweden, SOC
ÜNAL Mustafa, Turkey, EPP/CD
VOLONTE' Luca, Italy, EPP/CD

---

EPP/CD: Group of the European People’s Party
SOC: Socialist Group
ALDE: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
EDG: European Democratic Group
UEL: Group of the Unified European Left
NR: not registered in a group

onq

Malty_T wrote: »

Does anyone frequent this forum?:(
bah humbug.

Newscientist common myths.

Oh and can I just give a special mention to a certain Wolfgang Wodarg and co.? To paraphrase a now well known Climatalogist : "Next time I see him (them) I will be tempted to beat the crap out of him (them).":)

Yes you can, then go to the link you posted and read the waffle on it.

Go to Myth 3: You're safe as long as you're healthy. Only sick, weak people get really ill

Most of the children who have died of swine flu were perfectly healthy beforehand, and many of the adult victims also had no underlying conditions.
Read More...

Then go an "read more"... - but you can't, because this little op-ed piece - as opposed to "scientific article" provides NO INFORMATION to back up the headliner above.

What it does do is let slip this little nugget.

"We have this immunity because of a biological accident: in 1977, an H1N1 flu virus was accidentally released in the Soviet Union and has circulated ever since, alongside the regular H3N2 strains."

Released?

From a zoo perhaps?

There's only one kind of place that "releases" viruses and that's a biological weapons factory.

Have we all just been exposed to an aerosol-spread biological weapon?

Is that why the WHO and powers that be were so worried about it?

Of were they just influenced by shills for Big Pharma?

From the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242147/The-false-pandemic-Drug-firms-cashed-scare-swine-flu-claims-Euro-health-chief.html

"...last year, the Daily Mail revealed that Sir Roy Anderson, a scientist who advises the Government on swine flu, also holds a £116,000-a-year post on the board of GlaxoSmithKline.

GSK makes anti-flu drugs and vaccines and is predicted to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the pandemic."

Perhaps you'd better tell us why you might want to attack Wolfgang Wodarg.

At the very least I think you should state if you have an interest.

Are you employed by a multi-national drug company?

You can appreciate why I'd be sceptical.,,

ONQ.

Turtwig

onq wrote: »

From the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242147/The-false-pandemic-Drug-firms-cashed-scare-swine-flu-claims-Euro-health-chief.html

"...last year, the Daily Mail revealed that Sir Roy Anderson, a scientist who advises the Government on swine flu, also holds a £116,000-a-year post on the board of GlaxoSmithKline.

GSK makes anti-flu drugs and vaccines and is predicted to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the pandemic."

Perhaps you'd better tell us why you might want to attack Wolfgang Wodarg.

At the very least I think you should state if you have an interest.

Are you employed by a multi-national drug company?

You can appreciate why I'd be sceptical.,,

ONQ.

Skeptical about the dailymail? Of course!!

onq

Malty_T wrote: »

Skeptical about the dailymail? Of course!!

First posting comments that attack the man, not his work.

A man who has put his concerns formally in the public domain.

http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc09/EDOC12110.pdf

Then ridiculing a newspaper that has exposed a paid shill for Big Pharma.

Is that the level of the exchange in this forum?

Unfounded allegations and one-liners?

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

Unfounded allegations and one-liners?

ONQ.

Hang on.
Didn't you just accuse Malty T of being paid by a pharma company to discredit someone?

onq

King Mob wrote: »

Hang on.
Didn't you just accuse Malty T of being paid by a pharma company to discredit someone?

Speaking of unfounded allegations and one-liners...

No. I didn't.

Unless Malty T is Sir Roy Anderson in disguise.

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

Speaking of unfounded allegations and one-liners...

No. I didn't.

Unless Malty T is Sir Roy Anderson in disguise.

ONQ.

onq wrote: »

Perhaps you'd better tell us why you might want to attack Wolfgang Wodarg.

At the very least I think you should state if you have an interest.

Are you employed by a multi-national drug company?

You can appreciate why I'd be sceptical.,,

ONQ.

Looks like an accusation to me.

onq

King Mob wrote: »

Looks like an accusation to me.

Those words with "if" in the middle of them are not a statement so cannot be an accusation.

Those words with "?" at the end form a question - again, not an accusation.

HTH



ONQ.

PS Neither you nor he actually addressed the issues raised.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

Those words with "if" in the middle of them are not a statement so cannot be an accusation.

Those words with "?" at the end form a question - again, not an accusation.

HTH

Oh in that case.

Perhaps you'd better tell us why you might want to attack vaccines.

At the very least I think you should state if you have an interest.

Are you a biological terrorist?

onq wrote: »

ONQ.

PS Neither you nor he actually addressed the issues raised.

What issues exactly?
You taking things out of context, twisting facts and generally making **** up?
No thanks.

It's clear you've already made you mind up that the government is evil and out to get us.
No amount of reasoning is going to change your mind.

onq

King Mob wrote: »

Oh in that case.

Perhaps you'd better tell us why you might want to attack vaccines.
At the very least I think you should state if you have an interest.
Are you a biological terrorist?

"Attack vaccines".
There's a mental image.

You taking things out of context, twisting facts and generally making **** up?

In that regard I'm learning from you.

It's clear you've already made you mind up that the government is evil and out to get us.

It seems nothing I've posted appears clear to you - I queried the actions of the WHO and the medical councils, not the government.

No amount of reasoning is going to change your mind.

Any time you're going to start reasoning be my guest.

Perhaps you could begin by confirming why the drugs being promoted as a treatment for H1N1 could not possibly be a "vaccine".

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

"Attack vaccines", from a country one of whose overseas parmaceutical companies brought us the Bhopal disaster?

Ah so you are a bio terrorist?
(you see it's not a accusation cause there's a ? at the end.)

onq wrote: »

Have you been experimented on "King Mob"?

I have taken part in an experiment yes.
I don't see how it's important.

Has you ever been dying of a vaccine preventable disease?

onq wrote: »

In that regard I'm learning from you.

Care to point out where I did any of that?
Cause I can with you.

onq wrote: »

It seems nothing I've posted appears clear to you

Oh it's very clear to me what you've posted.

onq wrote: »

Any time you're going to start reasoning be my guest.

Ok what evidence would prove your belief to be wrong?

onq wrote: »

Perhaps you could begin by confirming why the drugs being promoted as a reatment for H1N1 could not possibly be a "vaccine".
ONQ.

What drugs are being promoted as a treatment?
Who's calling them a vaccine?

I don't there's any credible sources who do.

Turtwig

onq wrote: »

Perhaps you could begin by confirming why the drugs being promoted as a treatment for H1N1 could not possibly be a "vaccine".

Swine flu first appeared around September/October of 2008, although it remained largely undetected until the outbreak in Mexico in 2009. During this outbreak Tamiflu and Relenza were using as the anti viral drugs of choice worldwide. Resistance to Tamiflu was encountered in South Africa, Denmark and Japan, iirc. Relenza, only deals with influenza in the lungs, swine flu was found to penetrate all the way to the gut. So it goes without saying that antiviral drugs weren't exactly going to be the way to combat widespread infections if a dangerous pandemic were to occur.

Use of Tamiflu or Relenza as prophylactics is a very dangerous route because it practically guarantees that the virus will develop resistance and possibly mutate into something much worse. Use of Tamiflu/Relenza sparingly doesn't guarantee that the virus won't develop resistance but it does lower the chances of such an occurrence significantly. Hence the reason why once the pandemic was declared Tamiflu was no longer used as a prophylactic.

Vaccines are the only practical way to deal with virus's and they're also a lot cheaper than drugs.

onq

King Mob wrote: »

Ah so you are a bio terrorist?
(you see it's not a accusation cause there's a ? at the end.)

Monkey see, monkey do.

I have taken part in an experiment yes.

What was the experiment

I don't see how it's important.

Let me be the judge of that - what was it?

Has you ever been dying of a vaccine preventable disease?

A question mark at the end of a sequence of words doesn't make it into a question, or if disbelief is stretched to the breaking point, into a relevant question.

Care to point out where I did any of that?
Cause I can with you.

So far you've either pretended to misunderstand what I said or else genuinely failed to understand - neither position confers credibility.

Oh it's very clear to me what you've posted.

The extent of your questioning suggests otherwise.

Ok what evidence would prove your belief to be wrong?

Irrefutable evidence.

What drugs are being promoted as a treatment?
Who's calling them a vaccine?

More questions instead of answers.

I don't there's any credible sources who do.

Missing "think".

Perhaps that's what you are...

ONQ

King Mob

onq wrote: »

Monkey see, monkey do.

So you were making baseless accusations while giving out to someone for making baseless accusations?

onq wrote: »

What was the experiment

Let me be the judge of that - what was it?

Psychological experiment on pain and pain management.
Never actually checked if it got published.

onq wrote: »

A question mark at the end of a sequence of words doesn't make it into a question, or if disbelief is stretched to the breaking point, into a relevant question.

I was assuming you asked your question in an attempt to appeal to emotion, I was illustrating I can do the same.

onq wrote: »

So far you've either pretended to misunderstand what I said or else genuinely failed to understand - neither position confers credibility.

No I pointed out your were twisting facts etc. you accused me of doing the same?
Can you point out were I did this? Because I can with your post.

onq wrote: »

The extent of your questioning suggests otherwise.

I'll expand.
It's clear you're parroting the usual anti science and anti medicine crap you find anywhere on the internet.
I.e. Twisted facts, out of contexts quotes and bad logic.

onq wrote: »

Irrefutable evidence.

Of...?

onq wrote: »

More questions instead of answers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method ?
Also it's very unclear what you are asking.

onq wrote: »

Missing "think".

Perhaps that's what you are...

ONQ

Oh well so much for the high road for you.

onq

Malty_T wrote: »

Swine flu first appeared around September/October of 2008, although it remained largely undetected until the outbreak in Mexico in 2009. During this outbreak Tamiflu and Relenza were using as the anti viral drugs of choice worldwide. Resistance to Tamiflu was encountered in South Africa, Denmark and Japan, iirc. Relenza, only deals with influenza in the lungs, swine flu was found to penetrate all the way to the gut. So it goes without saying that antiviral drugs weren't exactly going to be the way to combat widespread infections if a dangerous pandemic were to occur.

Use of Tamiflu or Relenza as prophylactics is a very dangerous route because it practically guarantees that the virus will develop resistance and possibly mutate into something much worse. Use of Tamiflu/Relenza sparingly doesn't guarantee that the virus won't develop resistance but it does lower the chances of such an occurrence significantly. Hence the reason why once the pandemic was declared Tamiflu was no longer used as a prophylactic.

Vaccines are the only practical way to deal with virus's and they're also a lot cheaper than drugs.

Thank you for making the point.

The money is in the drugs and the drug patents and not the more effective vaccine yet it was quite clear from repeated pronouncements from the WHO and the Irish Medical Council, as well as our own HSE and the Government that Tamiflu was going to be stockpiled at a huge costs to the taxpayer.

When its use was discredited it was then offered for use in conjunction with another product, the combined effect of which had never been adequately and independently tested or the results of tests corroborated.

There is a difficulty with a vaccine in getting the product to market in time and in sufficient quantities to make a difference. Where thsi difficulty cannot be overcome for whatever reasons the temptation of medical organizations is to use whatever treatment is available and most effective, even when it may have considerable side effects and or store up immunity problems for the future.

My argument does not address the effectiveness of Tamiflu or the product it was offered with as a medicine. It may do some good for some people for all I know. My problem was with the principle of mass vaccination using an untested product. It is precisely this lack of rigour in procuring products or services that led to the BTSB scandal.

ONQ.

Turtwig

onq wrote: »

My problem was with the principle of mass vaccination using an untested product.

Untested how?
The vaccine is almost identical to that of the seasonal flu that is released annually. Testing procedure was more than sufficient.
With regard to the stockpiling of tamiflu, well it was the only drug available for combating the flu once symptoms began. In some hospitals they had such shortages of it that they had ground down the pills of into fine powders as a way of administering it via IV.

onq

King Mob wrote: »

So you were making baseless accusations while giving out to someone for making baseless accusations?

You had copied my earlier remark - I was acknowledging that fact.

Psychological experiment on pain and pain management.
Never actually checked if it got published.

Were you checked after it was finished?

I was assuming you asked your question in an attempt to appeal to emotion, I was illustrating I can do the same.

You assumed that's what I was doing - I ask questions to elicit information.

No I pointed out your were twisting facts etc. you accused me of doing the same?
Can you point out were I did this? Because I can with your post.

You're tying yourself in knots with this - at least Malty-T is back and on-topic.

I'll expand.
It's clear you're parroting the usual anti science and anti medicine crap you find anywhere on the internet.
I.e. Twisted facts, out of contexts quotes and bad logic.

You assumed that's what I was doing - you were wrong before and now.

<snip>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method ?
Also it's very unclear what you are asking.
<snip>

You're unclear about what I'm asking.
You've made several incorrect assumptions.
I'm glad to see you've finally admitted your position.

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

You had copied my earlier remark - I was acknowledging that fact.

So was your remark an accusation or not?

onq wrote: »

Were you checked after it was finished?

Why does it matter?

onq wrote: »

You assumed that's what I was doing - I ask questions to elicit information.

onq wrote: »

You're tying yourself in knots with this - at least Malty-T is back and on-topic.

So then you can't back up that statement and you're going dodge the question.
Fair enough.

onq wrote: »

You assumed that's what I was doing - you were wrong before and now.

Nope that is what you are doing. Same nonsense from the anti vax sites

onq wrote: »

You're unclear about what I'm asking.
You've made several incorrect assumptions.
I'm glad to see you've finally admitted your position.

ONQ.

No I was unclear about what you were asking because no one was claiming other treatments for H1N1 were claiming they were the vaccine.
But silly me for asking you to clarify something.

onq

Malty_T wrote: »

Untested how?
The vaccine is almost identical to that of the seasonal flu that is released annually. Testing procedure was more than sufficient.
With regard to the stockpiling of tamiflu, well it was the only drug available for combating the flu once symptoms began. In some hospitals they had such shortages of it that they had ground down the pills of into fine powders as a way of administering it via IV.

Malty_T others differ.

http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/atlantic-monthly-on-flu-vaccines-the-main-points/

The calculations of the death rate alone cannot be verified except statistically making some very vague assumptions in the face of a huge lack of hard evidence identifying which virus was responsible.

Where the identification is claimed to be accurate, underlying conditions have been involved.
Without a detailed post mortem I fail to see how you can ascribe a death to one or the other.

Using vague statistics as the basis for judgement on using vaccinations calls leaves you on political ground, well away from scientific rigour.

ONQ.

onq

King Mob wrote: »

So was your remark an accusation or not?

My original reponse to your unfounded allegation made my position clear

Why does it matter?

Prolonged exposure to pain is known to have several debilitating side effects including loss of concentration, memory lapses and the like.

So then you can't back up that statement and you're going dodge the question.
Fair enough.

At the moment you're floundering in a sea of obsolete assumptions.
All you had to do was read a simple post and make some sense out of it.

Nope that is what you are doing. Same nonsense from the anti vax sites

Continually making unfounded assumptions and pigeon-holing posters dosn't confer credibility. Malty_T is at least engaging with the topic.

No I was unclear about what you were asking because no one was claiming other treatments for H1N1 were claiming they were the vaccine.
But silly me for asking you to clarify something.

Silly you for failing to spot a rhetorical question - remember this?

"Perhaps you could begin by confirming why the drugs being promoted as a treatment for H1N1 could not possibly be a "vaccine"."

<shakes head>

ONQ.

robindch

onq wrote: »

It came as some surprise however to find this little article tucked away on http://www.globalresearch.ca recently:

onq wrote: »

Then go an "read more"... - but you can't, because this little op-ed piece - as opposed to "scientific article" provides NO INFORMATION to back up the headliner above. [....] From the Daily Mail:

You're unlikely to win many converts to your cause if you rubbish the New Scientist as unscientific, then link to lurid stories from the gutter press, in this case, the Daily Mail.

All the more so if you refer in glowing terms to a website which claims that global-warming is a concoction of the media and that Haitians should "forcefully oppose the presence" of the US troops there to help out with relief.

A bit of balance in your views would go a long way in winning you some, or even any, support.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

My original reponse to your unfounded allegation made my position clear

Oh that wasn't an accusation cause it had a question at the end.

onq wrote: »

Prolonged exposure to pain is known to have several debilitating side effects including loss of concentration, memory lapses and the like.

Ah very mature indeed.

onq wrote: »

At the moment you're floundering in a sea of obsolete assumptions.
All you had to do was read a simple post and make some sense out of it.

So that's a no you can't back up your claim, that I was twisting facts etc. And a yes you are dodging the question.

onq wrote: »

Continually making unfounded assumptions and pigeon-holing posters dosn't confer credibility. Malty_T is at least engaging with the topic, not trying to win a pissing contest while facing into the wind.

And accusing me of being a shill for big pharma isn't pigeon holing?
An I've yet to see anything that would convince me my assumptions are wrong.

onq wrote: »

Silly you for failing to spot a rhetorical question - remember this?

"Perhaps you could begin by confirming why the drugs being promoted as a treatment for H1N1 could not possibly be a "vaccine"."

<shakes head>

ONQ.

And I fail to see what the point is in that case.
No one is claiming that.

onq

robindch wrote: »

You're unlikely to win many converts to your cause if you rubbish the New Scientist as unscientific, then link to lurid stories from the gutter press, in this case, the Daily Mail.

You've judged the article on the basis of which magazine its published in as opposed to the information contained therein = zero credibility. Have you bothered to read it and seen its lack of hard information for yourself?

All the more so if you refer in glowing terms to a website which claims that global-warming is a concoction of the media and that Haitians should "forcefully oppose the presence" of the US troops there to help out with relief.

You've just judged another article on the basis of which website its published on as opposed to the information contained therein = zero credibility.
At the risk of being distracted off topic [by a mod?!] I'll simply note that http://www.globalresearch.ca contains a wide variety of opinion, not all of it in agreement. Re Global Warming, the British advisor to the Government was recently exposed as a shill and we've just had the coldest Christmas/New Year period on record. Whether the presence of the US military in Haiti will significantly aid the relief work already being undertaken by doctors from Cuba and Medicines sans Frontiers remains to be seen. Unless the US planes are bringing the American Red Cross, I'd be doubtful.

A bit of balance in your views would go a long way in winning you some, or even any, support.

Making assumptions based on publishers while not apparently assessing the contents of the articles referred to isn't a credible means of approaching a subject.

ONQ.

Turtwig

onq wrote: »

we've just had the coldest Christmas/New Year period on record..

Totally offtopic, but you do realise that this year happens to be the 2nd warmest on record since records began even though the sun and El nino are both on the nadir of their cycles that to me is Global Warming, no two ways about it.

onq

Malty_T wrote: »

Totally offtopic, but you do realise that this year happens to be the 2nd warmest on record since records began even though the sun and El nino are both on the nadir of their cycles that to me is Global Warming, no two ways about it.

Since I was responding to an off topic comment by another poster, robindch a moderator, in post #27 above perhaps you should direct your comments to him.

Please don't direct your comments to me as I merely responded to it and I've already mentioned it in post #29.

Feel free to start a new thread on Global warming but please post your sources.
Mine are here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png
To place this in a Geological Timescale view of temperature:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

"...2nd warmest on record since records began..."?
I don't see that in the data.

I agree with your el nino comments, but solar activity?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
And from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png

And to take this up a level:
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf
I admit nothing is defintive in any of the references, but that's the point.
A trend has been hyped into a fact by the media and other vested interests.
I suspect this and H1N1 are distractions to keep other things off the front page.

For the record:
I have no problems preparing for a pandemic.
I have no problem with trying to reduce greenhouse gases per se.
Reducing dependence on fossil fuels is a no-brainer for any advanced economy.
However, panicking people using claims that are subject to interpretation lacks credibility.

Unless the biggest producers of CO2 and the destroyers of rainforest sign up its all a wasted effort.
We'll have the usual standoff between America and China with the Brazilians and others continuing to destroy the rainforest.
Once the tipping point is reached one of the planet's main cooling and distribution drivers will be gone.
Brazil will become like the Sahara Desert and we may see some real global warming.

Accepting for a moment that the temperature changes we've seen are down to human activity, it'll be human inactivity that may wipe us out.
We have no protocols in place for any of the known recurring ELEs [extinction level events] and the powers-that-be-are distracting us with this reduce Global Warming imperative.
Our planet's magnetic poles reversing, one cometary strike, one supervolcano eruption, one intense gamma burst locally, one massive magma flow - that's all it'll take.

Viewed against this, preparing for pandemics or global warming is so much piffle distracting us from developing planetary and environmental defenses to deal with serious threats to our existence as a species.
ELEs are known to have occurred in the past and are forecast to re-occur with some certainty.
The current lack of progress in developing forecasting mechanisms, atmospheric cleansing strategies, solar power relay devices - you name it we've done very little - stands as an indictment of our species petty squabbling and short-sightedness.

The level of organization needed to address ELEs would take human endeavour to a new realtime globalized level and provide reliable mechanisms for such things as the means to modulate global termperatures and as well as delivery of vaccine and drugs to massive human populations.

[I knew I'd drag this back on topic in the end - have a little faith ]

Mods, please feel free to move this/ start a new thread.

ONQ.

robindch

onq wrote: »

You've judged the article on the basis of which magazine its published in as opposed to the information contained therein = zero credibility. Have you bothered to read it and seen its lack of hard information for yourself?

Yes, I did read it. And in the context of a article which busts headline myths put around by medically uninformed people, I think it's entirely appropriate to provide headline responses. I'm sure the NS has published other articles which has given the scientific case in much more detail, and if they haven't, there are certainly articles in the literature which do.

onq wrote: »

http://www.globalresearch.ca contains a wide variety of opinion, not all of it in agreement.

Not any of it in agreement with reality, from what I've skimmed through.

onq wrote: »

Making assumptions based on publishers while not apparently assessing the contents of the articles referred to isn't a credible means of approaching a subject.

Much as it might annoy some, I do believe that some sources of information are more reliable than others. In this particular case, I think that a journal that I've been reading on and off for perhaps thirty years (and found to be thoroughly trustworthy) is more likely to publish accurate factual information, than, for example, a site which appears to be designed and run by a small group of single-issue fanatics and paranoid conspiracy theorists who fantasize about political issues above anything else.

If there's anything to globalresearch's opinion, then they are free to take part in the ongoing scientific debate that takes place in the scientific literature. The fact that they do not, and instead produce lurid, panicky websites, says much about the degree of trust that they deserve.

onq

robindch wrote: »

Yes, I did read it. And in the context of a article which busts headline myths put around by medically uninformed people, I think it's entirely appropriate to provide headline responses. I'm sure the NS has published other articles which has given the scientific case in much more detail, and if they haven't, there are certainly articles in the literature which do.Not any of it in agreement with reality, from what I've skimmed through.Much as it might annoy some, I do believe that some sources of information are more reliable than others. In this particular case, I think that a journal that I've been reading on and off for perhaps thirty years (and found to be thoroughly trustworthy) is more likely to publish accurate factual information, than, for example, a site which appears to be designed and run by a small group of single-issue fanatics and paranoid conspiracy theorists who fantasize about political issues above anything else.

If there's anything to globalresearch's opinion, then they are free to take part in the ongoing scientific debate that takes place in the scientific literature. The fact that they do not, and instead produce lurid, panicky websites, says much about the degree of trust that they deserve.

Robindch,

I accept that you are sincere in all your comments in principle including your opinion of globlresearch.ca

I happen to disagree with most of them including your opinion of the articles posted there - some are off the wall, most I have read are based on fact, including the first alert in the media to the exposure of the Big Four American Banks to over 1 Trillion in Derivatives trading, a fact not yet available in any mainstream media report.
Nuggets like that make wading through the dross bearable.

However your support for making headline responses to headline posts that fail to support their headline assertions with facts, as oposed to mere counter-headlines, doesn't further the debate on any level - it becomes mere rhetoric.
You'll note I didn't diss the website or the article for appearing on that website - I criticized the article itself for not providing any supporting data for its assertions.

There is a huge question over whether it was appropriate to raise Swine Flu to the level of pandemic at all, given the relative numbers of attributable deaths to this disease as opposed to "normal" influenza. The below information was posted by uprising in the following thread on Boards.ie
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055786529&goto=newpost

You may want to merge the threads if you think its appropriate.

Influenza epidemics occur yearly during autumn and winter in temperate regions. Illnesses result in hospitalizations and deaths mainly among high-risk groups (the very young, elderly or chronically ill). Worldwide, these annual epidemics result in about three to five million cases of severe illness, and about *250 000 to 500 000 deaths.* Most deaths associated with influenza in industrialized countries occur among people age 65 or older. In some tropical countries, influenza viruses circulate throughout the year with one or two peaks during rainy seasons.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs211/en/

*Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 - update 83*
*Weekly update*
15 January 2010 -- As of 10 January 2010, worldwide more than 208 countries and overseas territories or communities have reported laboratory confirmed cases of pandemic influenza H1N1 2009, including at *least 13554 deaths.*
http://www.who.int/csr/don/2010_01_15/en/index.html


250,000 - 500,000 deaths for normal flu - vs- circa14,000 deaths for swine flu.

Thus swine flu is estimated to kill 2.8-5.6% of the number of people killed by normal flu each year - hardly an epidemic, never mind a pandemic.

FWIW

ONQ.

robindch

onq wrote: »

I have read are based on fact, including the first alert in the media to the exposure of the Big Four American Banks to over 1 Trillion in Derivatives trading, a fact not yet available in any mainstream media report.

Anybody familiar with economics in general, or financial or derivative trading in particular, is aware of the massive figures involved and there is no conspiracy of silence to suppress this fact. Quite the opposite in fact, since the figures are publicly available on Wikipedia (for example):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_%28finance%29

BTW, the figure of $1Tr is almost certainly a significant underestimate since the derivative market typically operates at between 50 and 100 times the value of the real economy.

onq wrote: »

However your support for making headline responses to headline posts that fail to support their headline assertions with facts, as oposed to mere counter-headlines, doesn't further the debate on any level - it becomes mere rhetoric.

And how exactly should NS respond to people who speak and think in lurid headlines and credulous believers who won't read technical detail?

onq wrote: »

There is a huge question over whether it was appropriate to raise Swine Flu to the level of pandemic at all, given the relative numbers of attributable deaths to this disease as opposed to "normal" influenza. [...] Thus swine flu is estimated to kill 2.8-5.6% of the number of people killed by normal flu each year - hardly an epidemic, never mind a pandemic.

You don't seem to understand the difference between an epidemic (lots of people simultaneously catching some disease in some geographically confined area) and a pandemic (a global outbreak of some disease).

The terms epidemic and pandemic are related to infection rates and not to mortality rates, which are thankfully low but certainly higher than the figures you quote. In this case, the WHO was quite right to declare a pandemic, since it was an illness that went worldwide in a very short time.

onq

robindch wrote: »

Anybody familiar with economics in general, or financial or derivative trading in particular, is aware of the massive figures involved and there is no conspiracy of silence to suppress this fact. Quite the opposite in fact, since the figures are publicly available on Wikipedia (for example):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_%28finance%29

You're dissing globalresearch and suggesting Wiki as a reliable source?
Regardless, there is a big difference between being publicly available and becoming a story on the national carrier - Wiki isn't mainstream media for most of the population.

BTW, the figure of $1Tr is almost certainly a significant underestimate since the derivative market typically operates at between 50 and 100 times the value of the real economy.

No argument there.

And how exactly should NS respond to people who speak and think in lurid headlines and credulous believers who won't read technical detail?

NS wasn't responding to anyone, the people here were quoting NS, possibly as a source of credible information, and I pointed out that it wasn't backing up the headline with relevant supporting facts. There were being, dare I say it, a bit "lurid" in their presentation.

You don't seem to understand the difference between an epidemic (lots of people simultaneously catching some disease in some geographically confined area) and a pandemic (a global outbreak of some disease).

There is a pandemic of ordinary 'flu - every year.
250,000-500,000 people die from it - every year.

The terms epidemic and pandemic are related to infection rates and not to mortality rates, which are thankfully low but certainly higher than the figures you quote. In this case, the WHO was quite right to declare a pandemic, since it was an illness that went worldwide in a very short time.

Like the 'flu does every year and for the same reason.
It combines robust and successful delivery systems:

• aerosol spray and
• skin contact

...with air travel.

Once it can live and replicate in a human host every disease can go global in a short time using these methods.

Any 'flu may be a pandemic and lethal, but we're not all taking Tamiflu for it.
More people die from the ordinary 'flu than swine flu but its not getting hyped.
The common cold and its myriad of variants has been a rolling pandemic for decades.

Given the limited number of deaths the swine flu scare is merely FUD - Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.
Back in the fifties, this tended to create a fearful population that was willing to accept the Government line.
Today people expect to be treated as intelligent, educated creatures, not hyped to death by people selling Tamiflu.

We'd be better served by wearing paper masks like the Japanese do.
Because since Gulf War Syndome, no-one trusts untested cocktails of drugs from America.

That's also listed on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_syndrome - mind you, with sentences like this:
"The oil and smoke that spewed for months from hundreds of burning oil wells presented another exposure hazard not previously encountered in a warzone"
...you might want to take it with a pinch of [decontaminated] salt - after all, a non-smoking warzone would be a triumph for beauracracy.

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

Given the limited number of deaths the swine flu scare is merely FUD - Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

onq wrote: »

We'd be better served by wearing paper masks like the Japanese do.
Because since Gulf War Syndome, no-one trusts untested cocktails of drugs from America.

Seems like a bit of a contradiction there.

"The government is telling you to fear the flu but don't trust them cause they are only trying to scare you. Also you should be afraid of the vaccines."

robindch

onq wrote: »

robindch wrote:

the figure of $1Tr is almost certainly a significant underestimate since the derivative market typically operates at between 50 and 100 times the value of the real economy.

No argument there.

With respect, there certainly is an argument there. You mentioned that the globalresearch PCT website was useful because it said there was $1Tn in derivatives exposure. I said that it was far more and you appeared to agree. You have changed your position to agree with me, not GR.

I think you have missed the basic point that GR has simply got it wrong, as it appears to have done with respect to everything else that I've read on it.

onq wrote: »

You're dissing globalresearch and suggesting Wiki as a reliable source?

Yes, I certainly am.

I take it you're unaware of the studies that suggest that Wikipedia is generally more reliable than, for example, Encyclopedia Britannica?

onq wrote: »

Regardless, there is a big difference between being publicly available and becoming a story on the national carrier - Wiki isn't mainstream media for most of the population.

Given that Wikipedia is the sixth most popular website in the world, and the most popular informational (vs personal) website, I would respectfully suggest that it certainly is the mainstream. See the Alexa Rankings for more info.

onq wrote: »

Given the limited number of deaths the swine flu scare is merely FUD - Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

Er, are you seriously suggesting that 14,000 deaths -- certainly an underestimate, given that there were around 10,000 deaths in the USA alone in the period up to mid-November, three times the number dead in the WTC attacks -- is in some sense "limited"?

robindch

King Mob wrote: »

Also you should be afraid of the vaccines.

The vaccine-scare meme is a relatively new one, and seems to have taken flight as a public problem after Andrew Wakefield's discredited paper on the links that he was paid (by lawyers) to find between the MMR vaccine and autism. More on this carefully manufactured controversy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

King Mob

robindch wrote: »

The vaccine-scare meme is a relatively new one, and seems to have taken flight as a public problem after Andrew Wakefield's discredited paper on the links that he was paid (by lawyers) to find between the MMR vaccine and autism. More on this carefully manufactured controversy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

Oh don't worry I'm up to date with the nonsense and scaremongering around vaccines.

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of giving out about the government scaremongering then doing the same thing in the same paragraph.

onq

King Mob wrote: »

Seems like a bit of a contradiction there.

"The government is telling you to fear the flu but don't trust them cause they are only trying to scare you. Also you should be afraid of the vaccines."

Its bad enough you don't understand what I write without putting your interpretation in quotation marks to suggest your warblings are my original post.

Here is a clue:

1. Don't trust the government when they are telling you to fear swine flu - its caused fewer deaths than the ordinary flu.
2. Don't take combinations of anti-viral drugs which haven't been rigorously tested.

There is no contradiction unless you think you automatically become fearful of everything you don't trust.
Most of us can deal with not trusting something without getting sweaty palms about it.
We don't panic about it, we just avoid it.

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

Its bad enough you don't understand what I write without putting your interpretation in quotation marks to suggest your warblings are my original post.

Here is a clue:

1. Don't trust the government when they are telling you to fear swine flu - its caused fewer deaths than the ordinary flu.
2. Don't take combinations of anti-viral drugs which haven't been rigorously tested.

There is no contradiction.

ONQ.

So you don't see how claiming the vaccine is "untested" and a "cocktail of drugs" and claiming they caused gulf war syndrome might be seen as spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt?

I don't see where the government told us to fear anything.
I've seen the media do it.
Oh and you with vaccines of course.

And have you actually read any of the studies related to the swine flu vaccine?

onq

robindch wrote: »

With respect, there certainly is an argument there. You mentioned that the globalresearch PCT website was useful because it said there was $1Tn in derivatives exposure. I said that it was far more and you appeared to agree. You have changed your position to agree with me, not GR.

I was pointing out that they had publicised something that hadn't yet made it into the mainstream media - I wasn't concerned about the exact amount. Your assertion that it may be far more makes the lack of mainstream media publicity even more of the indictment of the 4th Estate.

I think you have missed the basic point that GR has simply got it wrong, as it appears to have done with respect to everything else that I've read on it.

(again) My point was that it broke a story that wasn't covered by the mainstream media - I'm not too worried about the actual amount because I think nobody knows how to quantify OTC trading - that is part of the problem.
It could be a multiple of the figures quoted in your wiki article and it wouldn't take away from the fact that globalresearch carried it and mainstream didn't.
I accept that wiki carried it as well - I'm not arguing the point.

Yes, I certainly am.

Yes, you certainly are... what?

I take it you're unaware of the studies that suggest that Wikipedia is generally more reliable than, for example, Encyclopedia Britannica?Given that Wikipedia is the sixth most popular website in the world, and the most popular informational (vs personal) website, I would respectfully suggest that it certainly is the mainstream. See the Alexa Rankings for more info.

I cannot speak for De Wurld, but I use wiki a lot for reference and I have contributed to its fund because I think the idea of open peer review is the way forward and I am aware of the alleged dificiencies in EB. I say "alleged" because I haven't looked into it or read much about it.

Wiki by definition is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a current affairs blog - of course it will be well read, but can't you see the difference?
Reading a reference work is a different matter than reading a newspaper or a blog looking for up for the minute information.
And none of them carry the gravitas of a national carrier in exposing something that still threatens the world economy.

Er, are you seriously suggesting that 14,000 deaths -- certainly an underestimate, given that there were around 10,000 deaths in the USA alone in the period up to mid-November, three times the number dead in the WTC attacks -- is in some sense "limited"?

Which part of "2.8-5.6%" didn't you get?

As for the WTC attacks, I understand that 45,000 people die from drink driving in the USA - ever year.

You don't see them investing trillions to deal with that disaster, do you?

ONQ.

onq

King Mob wrote: »

So you don't see how claiming the vaccine is "untested" and a "cocktail of drugs" and claiming they caused gulf war syndrome might be seen as spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt?

Happy to spread uncertainty and doubt where a benefit may arise - fear, not so much.

I don't see where the government told us to fear anything.

<drums fingers on table>

I've seen the media do it.
Oh and you with vaccines of course.

Of course.

And have you actually read any of the studies related to the swine flu vaccine?

If you want me to comment as to whether I've read a particular study or not, please post the relevant link.

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

Happy to spread uncertainty and doubt where a benefit may arise - fear, not so much.

So hang on it's ok for you to scaremonger then?

onq wrote: »

<drums fingers on table>

Show us one example.

onq wrote: »

Of course.

And media sensationalises stuff. And contrary to popular belief the media isn't under the control of the government.

What's your excuse for sensationalism and fearmongering?

onq wrote: »

If you want me to comment as to whether I've read a particular study or not, please post the relevant link.

ONQ.

Have you read any studies for the vaccines?

robindch

onq wrote: »

I was pointing out that they had publicised something that hadn't yet made it into the mainstream media - I wasn't concerned about the exact amount.

And I was pointing out that (a) it certainly is in the mainstream media and (b) GR got it wrong.

onq wrote: »

Your assertion that it may be far more makes the lack of mainstream media publicity even more of the indictment of the 4th Estate.

And equally well, it suggests that you may not understand quite what derivative trading is, since it is a virtual economy, not a real one.

onq wrote: »

Which part of "2.8-5.6%" didn't you get?

I do understand the stats, thanks for asking

As I asked, do you really consider that 14,000 deaths is "limited"?

onq wrote: »

As for the WTC attacks, I understand that 45,000 people die from drink driving in the USA - ever year.

Your figures are wrong again. The 45k figure is roughly the total number of road deaths, with around 40% of those being drink-related (see here).

onq wrote: »

You don't see them investing trillions to deal with that disaster, do you?

No, and nobody spends that amount of money on Swine Flu vaccines either.

I think you'd be able to make a better case if your statistics were accurate. So far, every one I've checked has been wrong.

onq

robindch wrote: »

And I was pointing out that (a) it certainly is in the mainstream media and (b) GR got it wrong.And equally well, it suggests that you may not understand quite what derivative trading is, since it is a virtual economy, not a real one.I do understand the stats, thanks for asking

Since the abandonment of the Gold Standard, or any other RL suport for currency, all economies are virtual because their currency is virtual - the price of gold is itself virtual.
Fractional reserve banking allows a bank to create virtual money by ledger entry based on the permitted lending ratio, which itself is also virtual.
We live in a virtual world, not a real world on board.ie.
You are surronded by virtual events, with 90% of your universe composed of dark matter or energy we cannot touch or see.
However the debt, when it becomes due, still must be paid - there's nothing virtual about that.
And as I pointed out GR didn't get it wrong per se because all figures of OTC trades are estimates.
As far as we know - and we don't know for certain - all of the figures you quoted may be wrong also.

As I asked, do you really consider that 14,000 deaths is "limited"?Your figures are wrong again. The 45k figure is roughly the total number of road deaths, with around 40% of those being drink-related (see here).No, and nobody spends that amount of money on Swine Flu vaccines either.

All figures you can quote are limited by definition.
In the present case 14,000 is a limited amount of deaths in relation to 250,000 or 500,000 deaths.
You could well be right about the proportion of road deaths - so its down to around double the swine flu deaths as opposed to triple - thanks for the correction.

I think you'd be able to make a better case if your statistics were accurate. So far, every one I've checked has been wrong.

Please point out to me where you've shown that the WHO's own estimate of the mortality rates from swine flu and ordinary flu are "wrong".

onq

King Mob wrote: »

So hang on it's ok for you to scaremonger then?

"not so much" is a colloquial term its not that hard to understand.

Show us one example.

You don't create fear by telling people to fear something directly

And media sensationalises stuff. And contrary to popular belief the media isn't under the control of the government.

The government, the banks, and during the building boom thedevelopers paid their wages - you figure out who controls them.

What's your excuse for sensationalism and fearmongering?

Telling the truth sometimes causes people to fear things.

Have you read any studies for the vaccines?

You're dodging the question I asked - no surprises.

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

"not so much" is a colloquial term its not that hard to understand.

So you just spread uncertainty and doubt?
That never generates fear alright.

onq wrote: »

You don't create fear by telling people to fear something directly

Wow kinda like what you are doing by saying the vaccine is unsafe?

So can you show a single example of the government do this or not?

onq wrote: »

The government, the banks, and during the building boom thedevelopers paid their wages - you figure out who controls them.

And I pay taxes therefore I control the government?
And can you show that the media sensationalised swine flu at the behest of the government?
Or is that just paranioa on your part?

onq wrote: »

Telling the truth sometimes causes people to fear things.

And so can misinformation.

onq wrote: »

You're dodging the question I asked - no surprises.

ONQ.

So no then, you haven't read any studies on the vaccine.

robindch

onq wrote: »

all economies are virtual because their currency is virtual [...] debt, when it becomes due, still must be paid - there's nothing virtual about that.

:rolleyes:

onq wrote: »

Please point out to me where you've shown that the WHO's own estimate of the mortality rates from swine flu and ordinary flu are "wrong".

I didn't say that all were wrong, I said that all that I checked (because I had to) were wrong. The ones that I didn't check -- like the WHO figure -- are accepted, even if they are also accepted to be considerable underestimates. BTW, can we perhaps agree on 30,000 as a less-unreasonable estimate of the actual figure to date?

onq wrote: »

In the present case 14,000 is a limited amount of deaths in relation to 250,000 or 500,000 deaths.

I'm rather staggered that you can think that a figure of 14,000 deaths is in any way "limited".

You've also failed to show that the reasonable precautionary steps which have been taken by national governments and international organizations to ensure that populations are vaccinated against a virus which at the time of purchase was known to be highly contagious, but of disputed lethality, constitute scare tactics in the broadest sense. And your unsupported assertion that that it's all a conspiracy on behalf of the drug companies -- "Big Pharma" as appear to think of them -- bear all the hallmarks of a straightforward conspiracy theory.

onq

robindch wrote: »

:rolleyes:I didn't say that all were wrong, I said that all that I checked (because I had to) were wrong. The ones that I didn't check -- like the WHO figure -- are accepted, even if they are also accepted to be considerable underestimates. BTW, can we perhaps agree on 30,000 as a less-unreasonable estimate of the actual figure to date?I'm rather staggered that you can think that a figure of 14,000 deaths is in any way "limited".

If you're going to start limiting meaningful discussion of disease because of your liking for what you may consider politically correct semantics you'll do very little talking.
This is a discussion forum, right? Not a "I'm more politically correct than you when I'm talking about death forum"...

For example:
A lot of people die each year, i.e. 400 annually on road deaths in Ireland.
The number of bikers who die is limited in relation to the number of car drivers, not because they're so careful, but because they are so few.
I had a near fatal accident when I was nineteen but I don't get wobbly-kneed over it.
I had several near misses when I was a student cycling in and out of Bolton Street for years.
Perhaps that gives me a different perspective on death from other [current] car drivers.
Move on.

You've also failed to show that the reasonable precautionary steps which have been taken by national governments and international organizations to ensure that populations are vaccinated against a virus which at the time of purchase was known to be highly contagious, but of disputed lethality, constitute scare tactics in the broadest sense.

I haven't raised the issue, but in actual fact the statistics for vaccinated and unvaccinated populations of young people seem to weigh against vaccination.

And your unsupported assertion that that it's all a conspiracy on behalf of the drug companies -- "Big Pharma" as appear to think of them -- bear all the hallmarks of a straightforward conspiracy theory.

The weasel word "theory" is trotted out by those who don't want to face facts.
Capital is a relatively unscrupulous exploiter of Land and Labour - live it it.

ONQ

onq

King Mob wrote: »

So you just spread uncertainty and doubt?
That never generates fear alright.

I'm doubtful if you're an adult and I'm uncertain of your level of comprehension, but I'm not afraid of you.

Wow kinda like what you are doing by saying the vaccine is unsafe?

Not really, no.

So can you show a single example of the government do this or not?

Pardon?

And I pay taxes therefore I control the government?

Well actually its more "I vote and therefore I control the government" but only someone over eighteen would know that from personal experience.

And can you show that the media sensationalised swine flu at the behest of the government?
Or is that just paranioa on your part?

On your part perhaps - I didn't mention the term "sensationalised".
Asking someone to prove more than they have asserted isn't even a good debating technique, it leaves you open to being discredited too easily.

And so can misinformation.

If you say so.

So no then, you haven't read any studies on the vaccine.

I didn't answer.
You asked me whether I read any studies on the vaccine and I asked you to post links so I could determine whether I had or hadn't - you still haven't done this despite being asked to do so repeatedly.

Its very difficult to maintain credibility by raising issues and not following through on them.

ONQ.