exercising or 'exersising'

by emilmoller
Sat Nov 7th, 2009 at 09:23:47 AM EST

there seems to be air tight seal between old style mass media and internet media on the flu; one wonders what's actually happening


just heard an health professional on Belgian radio declaring that the Mexican flu vaccins for the high risk people in Belgium were being injected coming weeks. And that these were really very safe

exdcuse me¿ 'really very safe'; one would think that would be a nominee for the redundant label of the week.
Googled I puzzled a bit. Came across Interpol doing an excersise by their saying and an 'exercise' by the saying of others

the lemma dealing with an important bell ringer in Wikipedia remembles my state of mind: confused

called some newspapers and my political parties on whether or not they found this worth investigating: no. Reason: the internet is full of strange stories, we rely on solid sources like reuters and gov't publications. Could they be wrong in important ways? Possibly, but that's not our responsibility.

with many subjects, like with Harrit on nano thermite, one can leave this alone relatively easily. With a slight relief, for not continuing a path where the label 'conspiracy theorist' is a major liability when seeking debate re the subject matter, rather than exchanging formal labels

but when my children run a risk of being mandatorily injected by parties with an unclear track record, intentions and affiliations with a debated substance, I get somewhat nervous. 'Mandatorily'? Yes, under WHO-regulations, when a pandemic falls within a certain category, which many nations have signed to allow to prevail over national regulations.

ok, I read on and came across the founding father of the school our kids attend, Rudolf Steiner

"Ich habe Sie darauf hingewiesen, daß ja freilich die Menschenleiber sich so entwickeln werden, daß in ihnen gewisse Spiritualitäten Platz finden können, daß aber der materialistische Sinn, der sich immer mehr ausbreiten wird durch die Anweisungen der Geister der Finsternis, dagegen arbeiten und mit materiellen Mitteln dagegen kämpfen wird. Ich habe Ihnen gesagt, daß die Geister der Finsternis ihre Kostgeber, die Menschen, in denen sie wohnen werden, dazu inspirieren werden, sogar ein Impfmittel zu finden, um den Seelen schon in frühester Jugend auf dem Umwege durch die Leiblichkeit die Hinneigung zur Spiritualität auszutreiben. Wie man heute die Leiber impft gegen dies und jenes, so wird man zukünftig die Kinder mit einem Stoff impfen, der durchaus hergestellt werden kann, so daß durch diese Impfung die Menschen gefeit sein werden, die Narrheiten des spirituellen Lebens nicht aus sich heraus zu entwickeln, «Narrheiten» selbstverständlich im materialistischen Sinne gesprochen. [Steiner, GA 177 27-10-1917] ·

Wie damals auf jenem Konzil in Konstantinopel der Geist abgeschafft worden ist, das heisst, wie man dogmatisch bestimmt hat: Der Mensch besteht nur aus Leib und Seele, von einem Geist zu sprechen ist ketzerisch -, so wird man in einer ändern Form anstreben, die Seele abzuschaffen, das Seelenleben. Und die Zeit wird kommen, vielleicht gar nicht in so ferner Zukunft, wo sich auf solch einem Kongress wie dem, welcher 1912 stattgefunden hat, noch ganz anderes entwickeln wird, wo noch ganz andere Tendenzen auftreten werden, wo man sagen wird: Es ist schon krankhaft beim Menschen, wenn er überhaupt an Geist und Seele denkt. Gesund sind nur diejenigen Menschen, die überhaupt nur vom Leibe reden. - Man wird es als ein Krankheitssymptom ansehen, wenn der Mensch sich so entwickelt, da er auf den Begriff kommen kann: Es gibt einen Geist oder eine Seele. - Das werden kranke Menschen sein. Und man wird finden - da können Sie ganz sicher sein - das entsprechende Arzneimittel, durch das man wirken wird. Damals schaffte man den Geist ab. Die Seele wird man abschaffen durch ein Arzneimittel. Man wird aus einer gesunden Anschauung heraus einen Impfstoff finden, durch den der Organismus so bearbeitet wird in möglichst für her Jugend, möglichst gleich bei der Geburt, da dieser menschliche Leib nicht zu dem Gedanken kommt: Es gibt eine Seele und einen Geist. So scharf werden sich die beiden Weltanschauungsströmungen gegen bertreten. Die eine wird nachzudenken haben, wie Begriffe und Vorstellungen auszubilden sind, damit sie der realen Wirklichkeit, der Geist- und Seelenwirklichkeit gewachsen sind. Die ändern, die Nachfolger der heutigen Materialisten, werden den Impfstoff suchen, der den Körper gesund macht, das heisst, so macht, da dieser Körper durch seine Konstitution nicht mehr von solch albernen Dingen redet wie von Seele und Geist, sondern gesund redet von den Kräften, die in Maschinen und Chemie leben, die im Weltennebel Planeten und Sonnen konstituieren. Das wird man durch körperliche Prozeduren herbeif hren. Den materialistischen Medizinern wird man es übergeben, die Seelen auszutreiben aus der Menschheit. Ja, diejenigen, die glauben, da man mit spielerischen Begriffen in die Zukunft sehen kann, die irren gar sehr. Mit ernsten, gründlichen, tiefen Begriffen muss man in die Zukunft sehen. Geisteswissenschaft ist nicht eine Spielerei, ist nicht bloß eine Theorie, sondern Geisteswissenschaft ist gegen über der Entwickelung der Menschheit eine wirkliche Pflicht. Davon wollen wir dann morgen weiter sprechen. [Steiner, GA 177 7-10-1917] ·

what now?

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
when my children run a risk of being mandatorily injected by parties with an unclear track record

Well. When they are NOT injected, it won't be just you at risk of contacting the disease, but the children's schoolmates and the parents of the schoolmates, too. Just by direct contact.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 at 12:23:40 PM EST
No one doubts the smallpox vaccines worked.  

But flu is totally different.  Flu vaccines are of dodgy effectiveness at best.  I am not talking about safety here, merely the question of "will it work?"  

But there are reasons to doubt the safety of post-modern profit-driven vaccines--it is not at all like the old days.  

So yes, there is reason for concern here.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Mon Nov 9th, 2009 at 01:33:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No one doubts the smallpox vaccines worked.

Actually... [Scopie Alert]

But flu is totally different.  Flu vaccines are of dodgy effectiveness at best.

[Citation needed]

But there are reasons to doubt the safety of post-modern profit-driven vaccines--it is not at all like the old days.

And I think we should be thankful that it's not. Back in the good old days of Victorian medicine, vaccinations had double-digit complication rates.

Which is still better than actually getting infected with polio or smallpox. By a couple of orders of magnitude. But hardly a goal to aspire to.

- Jake

It is necessary to distinguish between the virtue and the vice of liquidity. (With apologies to Lemuel K. Washburn)

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Nov 9th, 2009 at 06:30:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
CDC - Seasonal Influenza (Flu) - Q & A: Seasonal Flu Shot
In studies of the seasonal flu shot, when the "match" between vaccine viruses and circulating viruses is close, the vaccine has been shown to prevent influenza in about 70%-90% of healthy persons younger than age 65 years. Among elderly persons living outside chronic-care facilities (such as nursing homes) and those persons with long-term (chronic) medical conditions (such as asthma, diabetes, or heart disease), the flu shot has been shown to be between 30% and 70% effective in preventing hospitalization for pneumonia and influenza.

'Between 30% and 70%'? Scientific precision is a wondeful thing.

See also:

Evidence of bias in estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness in seniors -- Jackson et al. 35 (2): 337 -- International Journal of Epidemiology

Methods We evaluated a cohort of 72 527 persons 65 years of age and older followed during an 8 year period and assessed the risk of death from any cause, or hospitalization for pneumonia or influenza, in relation to influenza vaccination, in periods before, during, and after influenza seasons. Secondary models adjusted for covariates defined primarily by diagnosis codes assigned to medical encounters.

Results The relative risk of death for vaccinated persons compared with unvaccinated persons was 0.39 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.33-0.47] before influenza season, 0.56 (0.52-0.61) during influenza season, and 0.74 (0.67-0.80) after influenza season. The relative risk of pneumonia hospitalization was 0.72 (0.59-0.89) before, 0.82 (0.75-0.89) during, and 0.95 (0.85-1.07) after influenza season. Adjustment for diagnosis code variables resulted in estimates that were further from the null, in all time periods.

Conclusions The reductions in risk before influenza season indicate preferential receipt of vaccine by relatively healthy seniors. Adjustment for diagnosis code variables did not control for this bias. In this study, the magnitude of the bias demonstrated by the associations before the influenza season was sufficient to account entirely for the associations observed during influenza season.

The issue with H1N1 is whether or not it mutates into a killer strain, away from the relatively mild first round strain, which was unpleasant but not particularly fatal.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how a vaccine designed for a mild strain is supposed to guarantee protection against a much more dangerous strain that may well be significantly different.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Nov 9th, 2009 at 09:07:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how a vaccine designed for a mild strain is supposed to guarantee protection against a much more dangerous strain that may well be significantly different.

Infectiousness and severity are two different things. The effectiveness of the vaccine is in preventing infection, not in making the symptoms less severe.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 9th, 2009 at 09:22:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru:
The effectiveness of the vaccine is in preventing infection, not in making the symptoms less severe.

I do not quite agree with you.  In my opinion, preventing infection would be avoiding contact with the virus, this is not what the vaccine does. For the anti-bodies from the vaccine to become active, the virus has to be contacted and then is being fought by the anti-bodies. The advantage of the vaccine would be that the anti-bodies are already available and do not have to be build by the immune system after contacting the virus.  At least that is how I remember it from immunology.

Thus to have the proper antibodies you have to know exactly what virus you are fighting and that is not always very clear with the flu-vaccines.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 9th, 2009 at 09:53:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
to have the proper antibodies you have to know exactly what virus you are fighting

Not exactly. Antibodies are 'dumb' agents, they don't scan the virus for DNA, but identify some of the protein molecules on its surface. The name "H1N1" for a flu strain refers to versions of two of these surface molecules, hemagglutinin (the H) and neuraminidase (the N). So vaccination doesn't have to concentrate on the entire virus genome to trigger the production of the right antibodies. In the case of flu, with its several parallel strains that have different activity in different seasons, that means a bit of routine.

From what I read, a significant part (if not the majority) of ineffective vaccinations is infection with strains of flu that make up the minority of infections in a season and weren't considered in that season's mix.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon Nov 9th, 2009 at 10:40:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, it's both, through increased immune response.

But that doesn't explain how a vaccine for one strain is supposed to prime the immune response for what may be a different virus strain - which doesn't even exist yet.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Nov 9th, 2009 at 10:09:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because major changes in lethality do not necessarily correlate to major changes in the antibodies targeted by the vaccine.

They might - in which case we're screwed - but they also might not.

- Jake

It is necessary to distinguish between the virtue and the vice of liquidity. (With apologies to Lemuel K. Washburn)

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Nov 9th, 2009 at 10:30:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ThatBritGuy:

The issue with H1N1 is whether or not it mutates into a killer strain, away from the relatively mild first round strain, which was unpleasant but not particularly fatal.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how a vaccine designed for a mild strain is supposed to guarantee protection against a much more dangerous strain that may well be significantly different.

From what I have understood the risk of more dangerous strains is proportional to the number of infections (each copy giving a chance for mutation). Mass vaccination that stops the spread by achieving herd immunity (I think 80-90% vaccinated is needed for that) removes the environment where the mutations can takes place.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Nov 10th, 2009 at 05:44:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A swedish kind of death:
achieving herd immunity (I think 80-90% vaccinated is needed for that)
This is a percolation problem and the rate of immunity needed for herd immunity depends on 1) the probability of infection given contact; 2) the average time an individual remains contagious after infection.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 10th, 2009 at 05:55:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought mutation of flu viruses happened mostly in birds?

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 10th, 2009 at 05:59:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
it happens  in both humans and birds, at a higher rate where you get environmental changes for the virus where it is passing back and forwards between humans and Birds whn they are sharing living spaces.  So once human to human transfer is the main method, the virus mutates at a lower rate and vaccines are vastly more likely to be effective, even if minor changes increase the danger of the virus.

Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell. Frank Borman
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Nov 10th, 2009 at 06:10:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Every time I read a diary or comment on stupidly ridiculous vaccination conspiracy theories I want to reach through the internet and throttle what I find on the other end. Why do people when Vaccines come up suddenly switch from  "government is not the problem" to right wing anti-government propaganda?

There are a variety of people who cannot recieve vaccines, people with a variety of cancers, transplant recipients, asthmatics etc. To effectively protect these people we have to rely on something called herd immunity, where if we immunise a large enough proportion of the population then the disease has problems meeting enough non imunised people to spread, and so keeps those people who cannot be imunised safe.

Why are mandatory injections being considered? because fools with books and TV advertising to sell are putting public health in danger. There's a basic rule  that freedom of speach does not extend to yelling Fire in a crowded theatre, and this is what these people are doing.  If theres a real risk and real problems  with a product then fair enough, but made up theories about risks of vaccines,
that cause people to catch the associated diseases due to  lack of uptake, there are a number of media figures that desrve a good slap.

Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell. Frank Borman

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 at 02:13:37 PM EST
where does the strongly negative labelling come from?

what are the chances that all utterings that contradict common assumptions are wrong and even evil intended?

what would be the agenda of these people; making a fool of themselves for the fun of it, having their heads up their * & risking -rightfully- angry victims of their disinformation and other stakeholders to file lawsuits against them, their ego so undernourished that youtube should come to their rescue?

what's the agenda of the other side of the story; the corporations, governments and those corrupted by the power given to /taken by them? What I've seen so far doesn't make me want to trust them up front. With the -many- people I know inside the actors mentioned concurring. But complying by and large for reasons of comfort

the downsides of not accepting injection, mentioned by DoDo, are true enough, but do not address the issue raised

by emilmoller (emil@beyondthewalls.eu) on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 at 03:49:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
where does the strongly negative labelling come from?

Quacks who want to push their nostrums, and ambulance chasers who want to sue for big settlements. Cranks who want to peddle their pet "theories."

what are the chances that all utterings that contradict common assumptions are wrong and even evil intended?

One does not have to be evil to be dangerous. Stupid is plenty sufficient.

what would be the agenda of these people;

Making money off nostrums, making money off lawsuit settlements, inflating their egos, making money off speaking assignments, pushing their crank "theories," making money by selling books.

Not really so different from the creationists, or the people who take issue with the germ theory of disease (and there's a considerable overlap with the latter group).

what's the agenda of the other side of the story; the corporations, governments

Preventing outbreaks of infectious diseases, expanding their power, prestige and prerogatives, obtaining reelection/promotion, and assorted similar motives common to any political organisation.

the downsides of not accepting injection, mentioned by DoDo, are true enough, but do not address the issue raised

And what issue was that again?

- Jake

It is necessary to distinguish between the virtue and the vice of liquidity. (With apologies to Lemuel K. Washburn)

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 at 08:38:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Jake, what makes you using ad hominems instead of looking at the arguments presented by the people involved?

the label 'pet theory' doesn't help either. Using a particular theory can be labelled 'pet' anytime. Often the difference is the size of the organization associated with a theory and the interest one has in accepting or rejecting it and not it being non-pet = true

the label 'stupid' is not confined to the people presenting dissenting opinions and mostly adds little to efforts to clarify matters

to how much % of the dissenting opinions would the agendas you indicate apply?

could organizations (corporations, NGO's and nation states) be able to perform stunts above, beside, below the traditional ones you indicate? When watching 'The corporation' and reading about the Gulf of Tonkin incidentor start of the 2nd Gulf wa, I tend to answer this in an affirmative way

the issue was and is: how can one determine what's true and what's not when the call comes close to home, when there's a reluctance by main stream actors to investigate and publicize outside of official, power backed up statements

by emilmoller (emil@beyondthewalls.eu) on Sun Nov 8th, 2009 at 05:41:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Often the difference is the size of the organization associated with a theory and the interest one has in accepting or rejecting it and not it being non-pet = true

But more often, the difference is in the amount and quality of the data behind the model in question.

How many papers do these "dissenters" have, again?

the label 'stupid'

Is not being applied here. I didn't call anti-vaccers stupid (some are simply misinformed, after all).

You asked ceebs why he thought erected a straw man that all vaccine scaremongers are evil. I replied that they do not have to be uniformly evil (although some of them undoubtedly are). Being stupid is sufficient.

the issue was and is: how can one determine what's true and what's not

I have scientific papers. You have Andrew Wakefield and Rudolf Steiner. I'd say that's as good an indication of what's true as any you're likely to get.

- Jake

It is necessary to distinguish between the virtue and the vice of liquidity. (With apologies to Lemuel K. Washburn)

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Nov 8th, 2009 at 06:50:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd say that's not reality based.

Even allowing for the fetishisation of the scientific paper process - which is hardly infallible - big pharma has a long history of distorting it for profit.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Nov 8th, 2009 at 07:29:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If somebody wants to have a serious discussion of the failings of counting papers and citations as a measure of scientific production, then I'm game. It does have numerous and grave flaws, that makes it unsuitable as a serious indexing tool.

Fortunately, when all the anti-vaxers have is a bought and paid for "study" by Wakefield and a couple of conspiracy theories, you don't need a serious index to debunk it.

If you want to discuss the many and varied faults and crimes of Big Pharma, then I'm also game. But then I'd suggest that you look at the failure to do anything serious in the way of malaria research, the absolutely criminal crusade against generic drugs in developing countries, or the aggressive way over-the-counter drugs (and even a few prescription drugs) are being marketed as lifestyle accessories.

Vaccines are a no-show in that game: Low markup, comparatively low volume, adequate R&D, relatively unaggressively advertised and fairly widely available outside the first world.

- Jake

It is necessary to distinguish between the virtue and the vice of liquidity. (With apologies to Lemuel K. Washburn)

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Nov 8th, 2009 at 12:45:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So what is the issue raised?

If its why should people be forced to accept injections, then I think I have. By Refusing to accept injections during a serious pandemic, then you are severely threatening  the lives of around four percent of the population who through medical reasons cannot have a vaccine due to their depleted immune system. What

As for What are the Agendas of government, if you wish to move beyond reasonable public health issues, then what  posibilities can you have that arent seriously Conspiracy minded thinking?

what are the chances that all utterings that contradict common assumptions are wrong and even evil intended?

What do you mean by this?

Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell. Frank Borman

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun Nov 8th, 2009 at 07:47:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ok, the seal isn't that tight in German: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puK-YD4xJKE
by emilmoller (emil@beyondthewalls.eu) on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 at 04:06:39 PM EST
As I understand it, Steiner's objection to vaccination was that it would sap/shock the "vital energies" of the child, as per a book on the subject I read recently. Seems like a pretty clearly inappropriate attempt to apply mythos to the real world, which never seems to end well.

Also, the guy died in 1925. I rather doubt he's entirely up to date on vaccine science.

(And he was responsible for the wacky biodynamics crowd too. Excellent.)

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun Nov 8th, 2009 at 04:29:51 PM EST
Latest vaccine-related news I saw here in Sweden was a piece on local VIPs cutting the line to get vaccine before their turn (the turn order is based on level of risk). I think that by now all medical personnel has got their first flu shot.

Giving the persons in charge and the persons carrying out the vaccination the vaccine first, does not match the picture of an attempt to kill people off.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Nov 9th, 2009 at 04:21:09 PM EST
How do you know they were given a vaccine and not a placebo? </tinfoil>

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 9th, 2009 at 04:58:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
HPV vaccination outcry

There is an immense anti-vaccine movement against which healthcare workers and others are having to rally to prevent the spread of disinformation. SciScoop asked a cancer expert to comment on the claims that HPV vaccination is a pharma scam.

The HPV vaccine against a sexually transmitted virus that causes a significant proportion of cervical cancer cases is certainly not a "scam". The vaccine is as safe as any vaccine (i.e. extremely safe, you feel particularly paranoid. Indeed, the single death associated with vaccination in the UK was associated with a serious underlying health condition and while tragic, there have been 1.4million HPV vaccines administered in the UK with no worse side-effects than a sore arm and the occasional fainting fit.



Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell. Frank Borman
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Nov 10th, 2009 at 12:15:01 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]