Being skeptical about H1N1

robindch

onq wrote: »

You cannot claim you've tested a combination of treatments because one element in one of them has been tested.

The active ingredient has been tested millions of times and examined in papers over one thousand times.

What do you believe has never been tested? And what are your medical grounds for claiming that this absence renders the entire body of evidence useless?

onq

King Mob wrote: »

So what is the mixture of the Tamiflu treatment exactly?

We don't know - I think that's the point.

Is it tamiflu?

W-e d-o-n-t k-n-o-w. . .

What other elements are you refering to?

The other elements Tamiflu was served up with

Is it possible that in the 13+ years of using and testing tamiflu they tested in combination with other drugs?

Anything is possible, but did they? W-e d-o-n-t k-n-o-w. . .

Why do you keep claiming this mixture of treatments (if it even exists) is untested anyway?
What basis other than your own insistence do you have to back it up?

I never said it was untested, I said it was inadequately tested - there you go again, putting words in my mouth.
This from the guy who claims his assertions are backed up with my posts. If you cannot quote accurately from my posts your arguments will be inherently flawed.

Firstly, GWS is not really accepted as a real singular disease.

That's possibly why its called Gulf War Syndrome, as opposed to Gulf War Disease...

Second, noone has ever been able to show any possible cause for the wide range of reported symptoms in any scientific study.

How do you show a possible cause is to blame - read my comment above - anything is possible.

How exactly do you know that GWS was caused by a combination of treatments?
And which treatments exactly?

Well that's the core difficulty with medical research including research on the side effects or unwanted effects of treatments, vaccines or drugs - it can be impossible to determine a causal link, only a statistical one.

You should be able to infer from this the necessity to conduct widespread clinical trials of a drug, vaccine, treatment or combination of treatments before release.

And any chance you-<snip>

Let's see if you understand what I wrote above before we move on, shall we?

ONQ.

onq

robindch wrote: »

The active ingredient has been tested millions of times and examined in papers over one thousand times.

What do you believe has never been tested? And what are your medical grounds for claiming that this absence renders the entire body of evidence useless?

I didn't claim that - you are putting words in my mouth - does no-one in this forum know how to quote people accurately without misinterpretation?

I - quite specifically and on several occassions now - stated that the treatment was inadequately tested, the treatment being Tamiflu and another product.

Gulf War Syndrome showed the dangers of not testing drugs in combination to determine the effects of them on the human body.

I am surprised at the lack of understanding on this, of all forums, of this point.

ONQ.

robindch

onq wrote: »

I - quite specifically and on several occassions now - stated that the treatment was inadequately tested, the treatment being Tamiflu and another product.

Yes, and several times, I've asked you to substantiate that claim. So far, you haven't.

Are you agreeing that the active agent in Tamiflu has been adequately tested? And that your issue, therefore, is not with the active agent, but with the other compounds present in a normal Tamiflu dosage?

If so, then please explain what else is in Tamiflu that you're unhappy with, and the medical reasons -- supported in the scientific literature -- for your unhappiness.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

My assertions were founded on reports you dissed without proof - another pretty bad thing to do.

No some of your assertions where based on bad reports from a bad site.
Most of your assertions are based on your own insistence.

onq wrote: »

Your assertions misinterpret my posts - I've tried to explain, but you don't seem to understand.

There's only so much one can do.

ONQ.

So did you or did you not claim that the Tamiflu treatment was a cocktail of toxic chemicals?
Did you or did you not call GWS a disease?

It's hard to misrepresent something when I'm actually quoting in the post.

onq wrote: »

We don't know - I think that's the point.
W-e d-o-n-t k-n-o-w. . .
The other elements Tamiflu was served up with
Anything is possible, but did they? W-e d-o-n-t k-n-o-w. . .

So you don't know what's in tamiflu, but you claim that it contains "known toxic substances"?
How does that work?

How do you know that in the thirteen years of use and testing of tamiflu, they didn't test it with other ingredients?

And again can you actually back up your insistance of "inadequate testing" with something other than your own incredulity?

onq wrote: »

I never said it was untested, I said it was inadequately tested - there you go again, putting words in my mouth.
This from the guy who claims his assertions are backed up with my posts. If you cannot quote accurately from my posts your arguments will be inherently flawed.

So rather than answer the question you want to quibble about semantics?
That's what we call dodging the question.

onq wrote: »

That's possibly why its called Gulf War Syndrome, as opposed to Gulf War Disease...

Yay more semantics and more dodging the issue.
GWS is not completely recognised as a single condition.

onq wrote: »

How do you show a possible cause is to blame - read my comment above - anything is possible.

Well then since anything is possible, believing in silly conspiracy theories gives you GWS.
Anything is possible right?

Except you're didn't claim it was just "possible" you claimed it was the cause.
Can you actually back this up with anything resembling scientific evidence?

onq wrote: »

Well that's the core difficulty with medical research including research on the side effects or unwanted effects of treatments, vaccines or drugs - it can be impossible to determine a causal link, only a statistical one.

But you're claiming that there are side effects to mixing treatments.
How do you know that it was caused by this?
And what has this to do with tamiflu.

onq wrote: »

You should be able to infer from this the necessity to conduct widespread clinical trials of a drug, vaccine, treatment or combination of treatments before release.

And there has been 13 years of testing on tamiflu.

So again to recap, not only are you claiming a vast unprovable conspiracy, you are claiming that tamiflu might dangerous based nothing but your own bias.
How is this any different to what you think the government does?

King Mob

Oh and here's the ingredient list for the tamiflu tablets.
It took all of five minutes looking on the website to find, which indicates exactly how much research you did before you made your claims ONQ.

http://www.gene.com/gene/products/information/tamiflu/pdf/pi.pdf

It even includes the ink on the tablet.

So can you point out with ingredient is inadequately tested?
Can you point out the "Known toxic chemicals"?

Turtwig

King Mob wrote: »

So can you point out with ingredient is inadequately tested?
Can you point out the "Known toxic chemicals"?

Actually what onq has to do is explain why any ingredient, when consider mixed with every other ingredient, in Tamiflu leads to an overall toxic result in the final product. You can still have toxic chemicals in a concoction but they might actually implement no harm. Cyanide in wine is an example that springs to mind.

King Mob

Malty_T wrote: »

Actually what onq has to do is explain why any ingredient, when consider mixed with every other ingredient, in Tamiflu leads to an overall toxic result in the final product. You can still have toxic chemicals in a concoction but they might actually implement no harm. Cyanide in wine is an example that springs to mind.

Well toxic is a funny word.
Anything is toxic in the right dosage, water for example.
Or the fact that eating 22 bananas at once will give you potassium poisoning.
Or the fact that a tin of tuna contains more mercury that a single vaccine, yet the cranks say vaccines are the dangerous ones.

I was more trying to point out the fact that ONQ claimed in his first post that tamiflu contained "known toxic chemicals" but then in his last post said (repeatedly) that he didn't know what was in the tablets.

robindch

Looks like the ball is firmly in onq's court.

pH

robindch wrote: »

Looks like the ball is firmly in onq's court.

Except, to continue the tennis metaphor, CTs such as onq don't like just one ball in play, they serve a scatter-gun of "points", ignore any that are returned and call aces on the rest.

Diving into this one thread has reminded me how pointless it is arguing them, it's really easy to invent things, much harder to check facts and refute them, so it's like a tennis game where the CT always serves and can serve as many balls as they want, with any one not returned being a win.