Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > Lifestyle

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #8076  
Old 12-30-2017, 07:28 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCCLIX
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
Hm, ok, peacegirl. I don't see how this is really "diversionary" as it directly addresses the exact points raised by the source that you cited. Anyway:

Which studies were too small? What were the sample sizes? What were the results? What are the statistical effects of the sample size on the results? What was the risk/benefit analysis used by EMA? How was that different from the analysis applied by FDA? What is an adequate sample size?
peacegirl, I will give you a hint: the EMA EPAR for Bexsero would be a great place to find the answers to these basic questions. It is kind of the very first place someone would look if they were doing their due diligence.
http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/...C500216767.pdf
So that is an element of the EPAR but is not the EPAR. It's a CSR assessment for a some of the Bexsero studies. There are quite a few more studies included in the EPAR. peacegirl, do you need help locating the EMA EPAR for Bexsero?

But it's progress - peacegirl, what does this document tell you? How does it support the argument you have made here? Which studies were too small? What were the sample sizes? What were the results? What are the statistical effects of the sample size on the results? What was the risk/benefit analysis used by EMA? How was that different from the analysis applied by FDA? What is an adequate sample size?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, do you understand that the FDA and EMA are different agencies?
What are the main differences between the FDA and the EMA?
Yes, peacegirl, you have posted that link before, as it is assuredly the first thing you found on Google. Did you read it, peacegirl? Do you understand it? What kind of due diligence have you taken to determine whether the information it presents is accurate?

How does it help you understand the reasons that the US Bexsero label may be different from the EU Bexsero label?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (12-30-2017), The Man (12-30-2017)
  #8077  
Old 12-30-2017, 07:39 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

:dddp:
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 12-30-2017 at 08:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8078  
Old 12-30-2017, 08:03 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
Hm, ok, peacegirl. I don't see how this is really "diversionary" as it directly addresses the exact points raised by the source that you cited. Anyway:

Which studies were too small? What were the sample sizes? What were the results? What are the statistical effects of the sample size on the results? What was the risk/benefit analysis used by EMA? How was that different from the analysis applied by FDA? What is an adequate sample size?
peacegirl, I will give you a hint: the EMA EPAR for Bexsero would be a great place to find the answers to these basic questions. It is kind of the very first place someone would look if they were doing their due diligence.
http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/...C500216767.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
So that is an EMA document but is not the EPAR. It's a CSR assessment for a some of the Bexsero studies. There are quite a few more studies included in the EPAR. peacegirl, do you need help locating the EMA EPAR for Bexsero?

But it's progress - peacegirl, what does this document tell you? How does it support the argument you have made here? Which studies were too small? What were the sample sizes? What were the results? What are the statistical effects of the sample size on the results? What was the risk/benefit analysis used by EMA? How was that different from the analysis applied by FDA? What is an adequate sample size?
I have no interest in comparing the EMA with the FDA, or getting off onto a tangent that could go on ad nauseam. I believe Christina England's reasoning was sound based on her legitimate concerns. You must have missed this.

Dr. Mark Sawyer, an infectious disease specialist at Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego who has helped set national vaccination policy, said the meningitis decision is more nuanced than it is for more routine vaccinations that have been around for decades.

“Physicians are struggling with this because we do not have a precise guideline. I was just at a conference where there were over 500 pediatricians in attendance and we talked about this issue for more than a half-hour because this is a real gray area,” Sawyer said.

Doctors divided on merits, risks of meningitis B vaccine - The San Diego Union-Tribune



Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, do you understand that the FDA and EMA are different agencies?
What are the main differences between the FDA and the EMA?
Yes, peacegirl, you have posted that link before, as it is assuredly the first thing you found on Google. Did you read it, peacegirl? Do you understand it?

How does it help you understand the reasons that the US Bexsero label may be different from the EU Bexsero label?
The labeling may be different, but the standards used for approval are similar.

1 INTRODUCTION

The United States and the European Union have distinct but overlapping schemes for the regulation of biologics, ranging from the definition of a biologic itself to the technical requirements for approval. In the United States, the definition of “biological product” was developed over time, and historical context continues to inform its interpretation. In the European Union, biologics are largely defined in terms of their active substances and methods of manufacture. Despite these differences, both jurisdictions recognize that biologics warrant special treatment because of their distinct characteristics, such as their complex structures and susceptibility to
variation during manufacturing. Whereas in the United States, Congress enacted a separate statute for biologics, in the EU, the general approval scheme and certain specific requirements apply to biologics. Nevertheless, US and EU authorities have undertaken harmonization efforts with respect to some technical requirements for biologics applications; thus, there is significant overlap in requirements imposed by both regions. This chapter provides an overview of the US and EU regulatory schemes, from nonclinical trials through clinical trials to approval. It then discusses considerations for global development of biologics, and it ends by discussing special issues for developing vaccines.

https://www.cov.com/-/media/files/co...and_europe.pdf
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (12-30-2017)
  #8079  
Old 12-30-2017, 08:56 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCCLIX
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
How does it help you understand the reasons that the US Bexsero label may be different from the EU Bexsero label?
The labeling may be different, but the standards used for approval are similar.

1 INTRODUCTION

The United States and the European Union have distinct but overlapping schemes for the regulation of biologics, ranging from the definition of a biologic itself to the technical requirements for approval. In the United States, the definition of “biological product” was developed over time, and historical context continues to inform its interpretation. In the European Union, biologics are largely defined in terms of their active substances and methods of manufacture. Despite these differences, both jurisdictions recognize that biologics warrant special treatment because of their distinct characteristics, such as their complex structures and susceptibility to
variation during manufacturing. Whereas in the United States, Congress enacted a separate statute for biologics, in the EU, the general approval scheme and certain specific requirements apply to biologics. Nevertheless, US and EU authorities have undertaken harmonization efforts with respect to some technical requirements for biologics applications; thus, there is significant overlap in requirements imposed by both regions. This chapter provides an overview of the US and EU regulatory schemes, from nonclinical trials through clinical trials to approval. It then discusses considerations for global development of biologics, and it ends by discussing special issues for developing vaccines.

https://www.cov.com/-/media/files/co...and_europe.pdf
And indeed, the labels overlap quite a bit.

peacegirl, let me give you a hint: manufacturers have to apply for biologics licenses. Does this help? If not, let me give you another hint: try comparing the manufacturer's BLA submitted to the FDA with the MA application the manufacturer submitted to the EMA. Do you see any important differences?

peacegirl, you previously linked to an EMA CSR assessment. How does it support the argument you have made here? Which studies were too small? What were the sample sizes? What were the results? What are the statistical effects of the sample size on the results? What was the risk/benefit analysis used by EMA? How was that different from the analysis applied by FDA? What is an adequate sample size?

You've also linked to something you found on google about the differences between FDA and EMA. Did you read it, peacegirl? Do you understand it? What kind of due diligence have you taken to determine whether the information it presents is accurate?

Last edited by ChuckF; 12-30-2017 at 09:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (12-30-2017), The Man (12-30-2017)
  #8080  
Old 12-30-2017, 09:27 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
How does it help you understand the reasons that the US Bexsero label may be different from the EU Bexsero label?
The labeling may be different, but the standards used for approval are similar.

1 INTRODUCTION

The United States and the European Union have distinct but overlapping schemes for the regulation of biologics, ranging from the definition of a biologic itself to the technical requirements for approval. In the United States, the definition of “biological product” was developed over time, and historical context continues to inform its interpretation. In the European Union, biologics are largely defined in terms of their active substances and methods of manufacture. Despite these differences, both jurisdictions recognize that biologics warrant special treatment because of their distinct characteristics, such as their complex structures and susceptibility to
variation during manufacturing. Whereas in the United States, Congress enacted a separate statute for biologics, in the EU, the general approval scheme and certain specific requirements apply to biologics. Nevertheless, US and EU authorities have undertaken harmonization efforts with respect to some technical requirements for biologics applications; thus, there is significant overlap in requirements imposed by both regions. This chapter provides an overview of the US and EU regulatory schemes, from nonclinical trials through clinical trials to approval. It then discusses considerations for global development of biologics, and it ends by discussing special issues for developing vaccines.

https://www.cov.com/-/media/files/co...and_europe.pdf
And indeed, the labels overlap quite a bit.

peacegirl, let me give you a hint: manufacturers have to apply for biologics licenses. Does this help? If not, let me give you another hint: try comparing the manufacturer's BLA submitted to the FDA with the MA application the manufacturer submitted to the EMA. Do you see any important differences?

peacegirl, you previously linked to a an EMA CSR assessment. How does it support the argument you have made here? Which studies were too small? What were the sample sizes? What were the results? What are the statistical effects of the sample size on the results? What was the risk/benefit analysis used by EMA? How was that different from the analysis applied by FDA? What is an adequate sample size?

You've also linked to something you found on google about the differences between FDA and EMA. Did you read it, peacegirl? Do you understand it? What kind of due diligence have you taken to determine whether the information it presents is accurate?
I just told you that this could go on ad nauseam, and you ignored me and went right ahead quizzing me. None of this has anything to do with whether Christina England's article was misleading. Her main concern was the aluminum content given to infants which is too high, according to EPA standards. I have done enough due diligence to have serious concerns about the adjuvants in vaccines and the increasing vaccine schedule. Bacterial meningitis is very dangerous because it can kill so quickly. I am not sure what I would do (get them the vaccine or not) if my children were living in crowded quarters where the risk of contracting this disease is higher than normal, although still considered a rare event. But again, this decision should be the parents to make, not government.

If you want to answer your own questions for everyone to read, that's fine. I don't want to be quizzed by you anymore, just so you can make me look ignorant on this issue.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #8081  
Old 12-30-2017, 10:14 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCCLIX
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If you want to answer your own questions for everyone to read, that's fine. I don't want to be quizzed by you anymore, just so you can make me look ignorant on this issue.
But peacegirl, you are ignorant on this issue.

I thought you might have some interest in not being ignorant. I guess not.

For those who are curious - or who might want to actually do some due diligence - about why the FDA-approved Bexsero label is different from the EMA-approved Bexsero label, look no further than the content of the FDA approval action and the EMA EPAR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDA Summary Basis for Regulatory Action at 3
BEXSERO is intended for intramuscular injection administered as a two-dose series at least one month apart in individuals 10 through 25 years of age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMA Assessment Report at 6
The applicant applied for the following indication, active immunisation of individuals from 2 months of age and older against invasive meningococcal disease caused by Neisseria meningitidis group B.
The labels are different because...the manufacturer applied for different labels! In the US, they applied for approval for individuals 10-25 years old. In the EMA, they applied for use in 2 months of age and older.

Why the difference? You can also find that information in the FDA document itself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDA Summary Basis for Regulatory Action at 18
Studies in children ages 6 weeks to <10 years were deferred because the product was ready for regulatory approval for use in adolescents and young adults before studies in children age 6 weeks to <10 years were completed.
In the US, accelerated approval could be obtained if the application was limited to adolescents.

As for all of that blather about sample sizes, you can find information about studies in infants dosing at two months on pages 23-26 of the EPAR as well as additional study information here (n=225). The results and sample sizes can be found here (N=147), here (N=1885), here (N=1507), and here (N=3630). Those are just the studies enrolling 2 month olds - there are quite a few more with different subject populations in the EPAR. So the total N there is...7169 at the time of application, I guess? With additional enrollment in subsequent post-approval studies.

(What was fraudulent quack Andy Wakefield's sample size in his fake study? Like...11?)

peacegirl, I really do think that you if tried hard enough for long enough you could understand some of the basics of these things that you simply blather about. I encourage you to do so. Why, in just these past few mosts you may have learned a tiny amount about regulatory harmonization in the US and EU - keep at it. And if you have questions, just ask me.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (12-30-2017), Dragar (12-31-2017), Stephen Maturin (12-31-2017), The Man (12-30-2017)
  #8082  
Old 12-31-2017, 03:32 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If you want to answer your own questions for everyone to read, that's fine. I don't want to be quizzed by you anymore, just so you can make me look ignorant on this issue.
But peacegirl, you are ignorant on this issue.

I thought you might have some interest in not being ignorant. I guess not.

For those who are curious - or who might want to actually do some due diligence - about why the FDA-approved Bexsero label is different from the EMA-approved Bexsero label, look no further than the content of the FDA approval action and the EMA EPAR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDA Summary Basis for Regulatory Action at 3
BEXSERO is intended for intramuscular injection administered as a two-dose series at least one month apart in individuals 10 through 25 years of age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMA Assessment Report at 6
The applicant applied for the following indication, active immunisation of individuals from 2 months of age and older against invasive meningococcal disease caused by Neisseria meningitidis group B.
The labels are different because...the manufacturer applied for different labels! In the US, they applied for approval for individuals 10-25 years old. In the EMA, they applied for use in 2 months of age and older.

Why the difference? You can also find that information in the FDA document itself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDA Summary Basis for Regulatory Action at 18
Studies in children ages 6 weeks to <10 years were deferred because the product was ready for regulatory approval for use in adolescents and young adults before studies in children age 6 weeks to <10 years were completed.
In the US, accelerated approval could be obtained if the application was limited to adolescents.

As for all of that blather about sample sizes, you can find information about studies in infants dosing at two months on pages 23-26 of the EPAR as well as additional study information here (n=225). The results and sample sizes can be found here (N=147), here (N=1885), here (N=1507), and here (N=3630). Those are just the studies enrolling 2 month olds - there are quite a few more with different subject populations in the EPAR. So the total N there is...7169 at the time of application, I guess? With additional enrollment in subsequent post-approval studies.

(What was fraudulent quack Andy Wakefield's sample size in his fake study? Like...11?)
Why do you keep bringing Andy Wakefield’s sample up as a comparison? He never claimed a direct correlation. All he said was that he saw a different presentation in the gut of autistic children who had been given the MMR shot. He believed it deserved further investigation. It was his moral duty to present such findings. You’re trying to pin something on him in order to make you feel comfortable with your attack against him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by “Chuck”
peacegirl, I really do think that you if tried hard enough for long enough you could understand some of the basics of these things that you simply blather about. I encourage you to do so. Why, in just these past few mosts you may have learned a tiny amount about regulatory harmonization in the US and EU - keep at it. And if you have questions, just ask me.
It’s all well and good that the EU got approval for the use of Bexsero on infants. It still begs the question if adding another aluminum filled vaccine to a two month old outweighs the risk of getting bacterial meningitis. I can’t answer that and if you were honest with yourself, you couldn’t either. :sadcheer:
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #8083  
Old 12-31-2017, 03:53 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCCLIX
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Why do you keep bringing Andy Wakefield’s sample up as a comparison?
Well, peacegirl, you brought up inadequate sample sizes for some reason ("Further, the studies done in the UK were so small, they could not be a true sampling of the risk/benefit analysis.") This is why I asked:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Which studies were too small? What were the sample sizes? What were the results? What are the statistical effects of the sample size on the results? What was the risk/benefit analysis used by EMA? How was that different from the analysis applied by FDA? What is an adequate sample size?
Owing to your aforesaid ignorance, you were never able to articulate any answer to those questions, so I'm trying to determine what you think is an adequate sample size.

peacegirl, do you agree that Andy Wakefield's study (among many other shortcomings, such as being an unethical medical experiment on children) was so small that it could not be a true sampling of the risk/benefit analysis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It’s all well and good that the EU got approval for the use of Bexsero on infants.
I agree. Fewer children will die from meningococcal disease because of it.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (12-31-2017), Stephen Maturin (01-01-2018), The Man (12-31-2017)
  #8084  
Old 12-31-2017, 04:06 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCCLIX
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Fair enough, peacegirl - you are not interested in trying. I didn't think you would be. You never have been before.

Anyway, peacegirl, getting back to your due diligence. Did you look for the EMA EPAR for Bexsero? Did you read it? What did it say? How does the actual content of the regulatory document comport with what your source says?
Her main concern in this article had to do with the high aluminum content given to infants, along with other ingredients not mentioned, such as e.coli.
By the way, peacegirl - this is a stupid and obvious lie that you told.

You should read the dumb bullshit you post.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (12-31-2017), The Man (12-31-2017)
  #8085  
Old 12-31-2017, 07:58 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Why do you keep bringing Andy Wakefield’s sample up as a comparison?
Well, peacegirl, you brought up inadequate sample sizes for some reason ("Further, the studies done in the UK were so small, they could not be a true sampling of the risk/benefit analysis.") This is why I asked:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Which studies were too small? What were the sample sizes? What were the results? What are the statistical effects of the sample size on the results? What was the risk/benefit analysis used by EMA? How was that different from the analysis applied by FDA? What is an adequate sample size?
Owing to your aforesaid ignorance, you were never able to articulate any answer to those questions, so I'm trying to determine what you think is an adequate sample size.
I do not know what would qualify as an adequate sample size because that number seems quite arbitrary. Obviously, the more people in a study the better, but when it comes to the human body it's very difficult to determine how a vaccine and its ingredients are going to affect every child due to the fact that there are so many variables that cannot be isolated and tested for. Moreover, the studies focus on one vaccine at a time and how well it is tolerated regardless of the cumulative effects of other vaccines (along with their adjuvants) that may come into play. I know you pooh pooh this by hand-waving it away. What an easy cop-out. :glare:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, do you agree that Andy Wakefield's study (among many other shortcomings, such as being an unethical medical experiment on children) was so small that it could not be a true sampling of the risk/benefit analysis?
You are constantly repeating this one mistake as if he killed someone. You are trying to justify your dislike of him and the punishment he got. His "ethical" mistake has nothing to do with his Lancet paper and why he felt more investigation needed to be done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It’s all well and good that the EU got approval for the use of Bexsero on infants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
I agree. Fewer children will die from meningococcal disease because of it.
I really hope so. There was a girl in my high school class whose sister died of bacterial meningitis. :sad: This still doesn't change the fact that all of these vaccines may be unnecessary and causing other chronic illnesses. You cannot tell me you know for sure that vaccines are innocent because no one knows for sure. Why do you think Dr. Sawyer in the article below wouldn't even get his own daughter vaccinated with Bexsero? He didn't think it was necessary since she wasn't living in a crowded space. It should be up to the parents to decide whether they believe their child could benefit from a vaccine based on their lifestyle and health history. It should not be a one size fits all.

McDonald, whose high school-age son is in a boarding school, was scheduled to get the vaccine this week.
“There is a little higher risk when they’re in a boarding situation, and that happens to be where we are at,” McDonald said.
But Sawyer said he did not recommend the vaccine for his 21-year-old daughter.
“I didn’t feel that she was at an increased risk, so I didn’t have her get the vaccine,” Sawyer said.

Doctors divided on merits, risks of meningitis B vaccine - The San Diego Union-Tribune
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 12-31-2017 at 08:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8086  
Old 12-31-2017, 08:39 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Fair enough, peacegirl - you are not interested in trying. I didn't think you would be. You never have been before.

Anyway, peacegirl, getting back to your due diligence. Did you look for the EMA EPAR for Bexsero? Did you read it? What did it say? How does the actual content of the regulatory document comport with what your source says?
Her main concern in this article had to do with the high aluminum content given to infants, along with other ingredients not mentioned, such as e.coli.
By the way, peacegirl - this is a stupid and obvious lie that you told.

You should read the dumb bullshit you post.
You may not agree with her for being cautious as to the potential risks rather than the potential benefits, but it is her right to speak her mind. She may not have understood that the EMA and the FDA have different submission guidelines, and that the EMA was given full approval to do studies on infants. The other concern had to do with aluminum in this particular vaccine. Since aluminum is known to accumulate in the brain and bones, this could be a realistic danger. Her concerns were reasonable IMO.

Professor Christopher Exley, often referred to as Mr. Aluminum, has been studying the effects of aluminum on the human body for thirty years and has become increasingly worried. In a recent video presentation, he explained that, despite the fact that aluminum has been regularly used as an adjuvant in vaccination for many years, little is known about its effect on the human body. He made it clear that we should accept that aluminum is toxic and that toxicity may take many different forms. He stated that wherever it ends up in the body, it has the potential to do harm.

This is certainly something to consider, especially when none of us can be certain where an aluminum adjuvant will accumulate once it has been vaccinated into our body.

Professor Exley continued by stating that:

If aluminum is in the brain, it can produce neurodegeneration and problems associated with the brain; if it is in the bone, it can produce bone disease. Wherever it ends up in the body, it has the potential to cause toxicity, whether it is in humans, fish or any other living organism.

Taking this a little bit further, Professor Exley explained that it is possible for two individuals to have very similar amounts of aluminum in their body and for only one of them to suffer an adverse effect, which he says could be due to individual physiology, medical history and genetics.

Speaking about the different ways in which the body can absorb aluminum, Professor Exley talked about the gut, the lungs, the nose and the skin before moving on to the subject of vaccination and adjuvants. He stated that we must understand that aluminum exposure in this form is very different from any other form of exposure.

Are Ineffective New Meningitis B Vaccines Causing Harm to Children?
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #8087  
Old 12-31-2017, 08:40 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCIII
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I do not know what would qualify as an adequate sample size because that number seems quite arbitrary.
So you have no idea. Of course, that doesn't stop you from pontificating.

Quote:
Obviously, the more people in a study the better, but when it comes to the human body it's very difficult to determine how a vaccine and its ingredients are going to affect every child due to the fact that there are so many variables that cannot be isolated and tested for.
You're just making shit up.

Quote:
Moreover, the studies focus on one vaccine at a time and how well it is tolerated regardless of the cumulative effects of other vaccines (along with their adjuvants) that may come into play.
Yeah, you're making that up.

Quote:
There was a girl in my high school class whose sister died of bacterial meningitis. :sad: This still doesn't change the fact that all of these vaccines may be unnecessary
That doesn't make any sense at all. Are you drunk?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (12-31-2017), Stephen Maturin (01-01-2018), The Man (12-31-2017)
  #8088  
Old 12-31-2017, 09:35 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCCLIX
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Fair enough, peacegirl - you are not interested in trying. I didn't think you would be. You never have been before.

Anyway, peacegirl, getting back to your due diligence. Did you look for the EMA EPAR for Bexsero? Did you read it? What did it say? How does the actual content of the regulatory document comport with what your source says?
Her main concern in this article had to do with the high aluminum content given to infants, along with other ingredients not mentioned, such as e.coli.
By the way, peacegirl - this is a stupid and obvious lie that you told.

You should read the dumb bullshit you post.
You may not agree with her for being cautious as to the potential risks rather than the potential benefits, but it is her right to speak her mind.
Yeah peacegirl, you were just making shit up about the "main concern" in her article.
Quote:
She may not have understood that the EMA and the FDA have different submission guidelines,
:lol: I guess she might just be ignorant. I mean, why would she need to understand stuff, right?

But yeah, I think it's completely likely that she doesn't understand or care about anything like that. I think it's more likely that she's just another fraud making a living on idiot anti-vaxxer rubes like you.
Quote:
and that the EMA was given full approval to do studies on infants.
Yeah, peacegirl, as I have already said: the EMA doesn't conduct studies. Neither does the FDA. That is not their role. If you would like to learn more about this, I can give you some resources.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (12-31-2017), Stephen Maturin (01-01-2018), The Man (12-31-2017)
  #8089  
Old 12-31-2017, 09:41 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCCLIX
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Moreover, the studies focus on one vaccine at a time and how well it is tolerated regardless of the cumulative effects of other vaccines (along with their adjuvants) that may come into play.
peacegirl, what facts support this conclusion? From what data is it derived? peacegirl, have you reviewed the clinical protocols for these studies? What were the endpoints of those studies? What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria? Did subjects receive concomitant vaccines? peacegirl, would you like some help answering these questions? (I'll give you a hint: you can find the answers in links I have already provided to you on this very page! Once again, I have done for you the due diligence that you are too ignorant and lazy to do on your own.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, do you agree that Andy Wakefield's study (among many other shortcomings, such as being an unethical medical experiment on children) was so small that it could not be a true sampling of the risk/benefit analysis?
You are constantly repeating this one mistake as if he killed someone. You are trying to justify your dislike of him and the punishment he got.
:lol: peacegirl, I know you hate it when I use emotive language about Andy Wakefield unethically experimenting on children. Do you ever wonder why I do that?

peacegirl, I will give you a hint: look at the headline of the article you posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Is the European Medical Agency Experimenting on Babies with the Meningitis Vaccine Only Approved for Age 10 and Above?
ARE THEY EXPERIMENTING ON BABBIES??!??

peacegirl, does this give you any insights into the way I talk about Andy Wakefield's unethical medical research on children?
Quote:
His "ethical" mistake has nothing to do with his Lancet paper and why he felt more investigation needed to be done.
peacegirl, this is totally wrong. You should read the GMC determination. Wakefield's unethical conduct in connection with the Lancet paper are material and extensively addressed. It has a great deal to do with why he is a fraudulent quack who unethically experiments on children.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (12-31-2017), Stephen Maturin (01-01-2018), The Man (12-31-2017)
  #8090  
Old 12-31-2017, 09:47 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCCLIX
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Quote:
Moreover, the studies focus on one vaccine at a time and how well it is tolerated regardless of the cumulative effects of other vaccines (along with their adjuvants) that may come into play.
Yeah, you're making that up.
Quoted for truth.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (12-31-2017), The Man (12-31-2017)
  #8091  
Old 12-31-2017, 10:31 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Fair enough, peacegirl - you are not interested in trying. I didn't think you would be. You never have been before.

Anyway, peacegirl, getting back to your due diligence. Did you look for the EMA EPAR for Bexsero? Did you read it? What did it say? How does the actual content of the regulatory document comport with what your source says?
Her main concern in this article had to do with the high aluminum content given to infants, along with other ingredients not mentioned, such as e.coli.
By the way, peacegirl - this is a stupid and obvious lie that you told.

You should read the dumb bullshit you post.
You may not agree with her for being cautious as to the potential risks rather than the potential benefits, but it is her right to speak her mind.
Yeah peacegirl, you were just making shit up about the "main concern" in her article.
Quote:
She may not have understood that the EMA and the FDA have different submission guidelines,
:lol: I guess she might just be ignorant. I mean, why would she need to understand stuff, right?

But yeah, I think it's completely likely that she doesn't understand or care about anything like that. I think it's more likely that she's just another fraud making a living on idiot anti-vaxxer rubes like you.
Quote:
and that the EMA was given full approval to do studies on infants.
Yeah, peacegirl, as I have already said: the EMA doesn't conduct studies. Neither does the FDA. That is not their role. If you would like to learn more about this, I can give you some resources.
Whether or not I got it wrong about what the EMA does or doesn't do HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAY PARENTS EVALUATE THE RISK TO BENEFIT RATIO! Stop deflecting, will you? Of course not.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #8092  
Old 12-31-2017, 10:37 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Moreover, the studies focus on one vaccine at a time and how well it is tolerated regardless of the cumulative effects of other vaccines (along with their adjuvants) that may come into play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, what facts support this conclusion? From what data is it derived? peacegirl, have you reviewed the clinical protocols for these studies? What were the endpoints of those studies? What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria? Did subjects receive concomitant vaccines? peacegirl, would you like some help answering these questions? (I'll give you a hint: you can find the answers in links I have already provided to you on this very page! Once again, I have done for you the due diligence that you are too ignorant and lazy to do on your own.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, do you agree that Andy Wakefield's study (among many other shortcomings, such as being an unethical medical experiment on children) was so small that it could not be a true sampling of the risk/benefit analysis?
I don't need your condescending attitude.

Quote:
You are constantly repeating this one mistake as if he killed someone. You are trying to justify your dislike of him and the punishment he got.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
:lol: peacegirl, I know you hate it when I use emotive language about Andy Wakefield unethically experimenting on children. Do you ever wonder why I do that?
That's why Dr. Walker Smith (the world renowned gastroenterologist) who worked with Wakefield on the study, was exonerated. :yup:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, I will give you a hint: look at the headline of the article you posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Is the European Medical Agency Experimenting on Babies with the Meningitis Vaccine Only Approved for Age 10 and Above?
ARE THEY EXPERIMENTING ON BABBIES??!??
They were not experimenting. They got approval. That changes the definition according to the law. But doing research on babies (regardless of what you call it) is a form of experimentation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, does this give you any insights into the way I talk about Andy Wakefield's unethical medical research on children?
Quote:
His "ethical" mistake has nothing to do with his Lancet paper and why he felt more investigation needed to be done.
peacegirl, this is totally wrong. You should read the GMC determination. Wakefield's unethical conduct in connection with the Lancet paper are material and extensively addressed. It has a great deal to do with why he is a fraudulent quack who unethically experiments on children.
OPEN LETTER to the Sponsors of Brian Deer’s Lectures at The University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, October 2012
October 26, 2012
Marshfield Clinic and Labs (Brian H. Ewert, MD, C. Todd Stewart, MD, Gene R. Shaw, MD)

Gundersen Lutheran Clinic Jeffrey E. Thompson, MD, Julio J. Bird, MD, Mary Kuffel, MD)

U of W La Crosse Foundation, Allen Trapp, President, Greg Reichert, Asst. Chancellor

College of Science and Health, Dean Bruce Riley

Departments of Biology, Microbiology, Chemistry, English, Health Education and Promotions, Communication Studies, Exercise and Sports:

Dr. David Howard, Chair, Biology Dept., Dr. S. N. Rajagopal, Chair, Microbiology Dept., Dr. Aaron Monte, Chair, Chemistry Dept. Dr. Susan Crutchfield, Chair, English Dept. Dr. Dan Duquette, Chair, Health Education and Promotions Dr. Linda Dickmeyer, Chair, Communication Studies, Dr. Mark Gibson, Chair, Exercise and Sports Science

Faculty of the Dept. of Microbiology: Sue Anglehart, Marisa Barbknecht, Bonnie Jo Bratina, Michael Hoffman, Michael A. Lazzari, Marc A. Rott, William Schwan, Diane Sewell, Bernadette C. Taylor, Peter Wilker, Mike Winfrey

Susan Betts, Dept. of Microbiology

Premed Club, Jordan L. Ludwigson, President

Biology Club Microbiology Club, William Close, President

Institute for Biomolecular Sciences

Members of Distinguished Speakers Committee

cc: Editor, Racquet Student Newspaper, Chancellor Gow

My name is Jennifer VanDerHorst-Larson, and my open letter to university officials was singled out by Brian Deer for response. As you know, Mr. Deer recently lectured at the university about the Wakefield/MMR vaccine controversy. On his website, Mr. Deer referred to my letter as a form of “abuse.” (Please judge for yourself if it’s abusive.) My letter here. Mr. Deer’s response.

I am the mother of a boy with autism who developed normally – exceeding his milestones – until he received his Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR) and other vaccinations at 15 months. He reacted immediately and showed clear evidence of regression the day after his 15-month shots. By 18 months, he had lost all of his skills. By 19 months, all he did was cry, bang his head and say “go” – his only remaining word. I was told to consider an institution for him, and he wasn’t even two.

OPEN LETTER to the Sponsors of Brian Deerā€™s Lectures at The University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, October 2012 - Canary Party

__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #8093  
Old 12-31-2017, 10:50 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCIII
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Whether or not I got it wrong about what the EMA does or doesn't do HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAY PARENTS EVALUATE THE RISK TO BENEFIT RATIO!
This and

Quote:
Stop deflecting, will you? Of course not.
:lol:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (12-31-2017)
  #8094  
Old 12-31-2017, 10:51 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCCLIX
Images: 2
Default Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Whether or not I got it wrong about what the EMA does or doesn't do HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAY PARENTS EVALUATE THE RISK TO BENEFIT RATIO!
I disagree, peacegirl - it simply demonstrates that you are ignorant and not interested in doing anything to change that. I think it important that parents who are doing their due diligence see clearly that you are ignorant and not a credible source of information.

In addition to being wrong about the very basics of what the EMA does (because you were just making things up), you also lied about the content of the article that you posted.

peacegirl, a few posts ago you said "the studies focus on one vaccine at a time and how well it is tolerated regardless of the cumulative effects of other vaccines (along with their adjuvants) that may come into play." peacegirl, what facts support that assertion? From what data is it derived? peacegirl, you just made that up, didn't you?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (12-31-2017), The Man (12-31-2017)
  #8095  
Old 01-01-2018, 04:43 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Whether or not I got it wrong about what the EMA does or doesn't do HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAY PARENTS EVALUATE THE RISK TO BENEFIT RATIO!
I disagree, peacegirl - it simply demonstrates that you are ignorant and not interested in doing anything to change that. I think it important that parents who are doing their due diligence see clearly that you are ignorant and not a credible source of information.
Your saying I'm ignorant with nothing to back it up is going to backfire on you. I have no idea what people are thinking in this thread, but I trust that they will, on their own, do their due diligence. May they figure out the best course of action for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
In addition to being wrong about the very basics of what the EMA does (because you were just making things up), you also lied about the content of the article that you posted.
I'm not sure where I lied. You throw that word around like it's nobody's business, just like all the other people in here when they have nothing else on me but to lie themselves. :pinocchio:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, a few posts ago you said "the studies focus on one vaccine at a time and how well it is tolerated regardless of the cumulative effects of other vaccines (along with their adjuvants) that may come into play." peacegirl, what facts support that assertion? From what data is it derived? peacegirl, you just made that up, didn't you?
Do your own due diligence Chuck. I am not your caretaker. If you are the least bit concerned about the fact that synergistic effects are real, then act like a true investigator and do your damn research! Geeezeee!!!! :doh:
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #8096  
Old 01-01-2018, 05:00 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCCLIX
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Your saying I'm ignorant with nothing to back it up
:lol: Of course, peacegirl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
I'm not sure where I lied.
You lie quite often, peacegirl, but I was referring to this particular, obvious lie:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Her main concern in this article had to do with the high aluminum content given to infants, along with other ingredients not mentioned, such as e.coli.
I think it's because you didn't even read the article you posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, a few posts ago you said "the studies focus on one vaccine at a time and how well it is tolerated regardless of the cumulative effects of other vaccines (along with their adjuvants) that may come into play." peacegirl, what facts support that assertion? From what data is it derived? peacegirl, you just made that up, didn't you?
Do your own due diligence Chuck. I am not your caretaker. If you are the least bit concerned about the fact that synergistic effects are real, then act like a true investigator and do your damn research! Geeezeee!!!! :doh:
:lol: Ok, peacegirl, so you don't have any facts to support that assertion? No data from which it is derived? You just made it up?

I know, peacegirl. I know because I have already done the research, in this very thread. As you usual, I have done the diligent research that you are too lazy and ignorant to do.

Here, I will demonstrate that you claim that "the studies focus on one vaccine at a time and how well it is tolerated regardless of the cumulative effects of other vaccines (along with their adjuvants) that may come into play" is ignorant bullshit that you just made up, using only information I have already posted in this paragraph:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
As for all of that blather about sample sizes, you can find information about studies in infants dosing at two months on pages 23-26 of the EPAR as well as additional study information here (n=225). The results and sample sizes can be found here (N=147), here (N=1885), here (N=1507), and here (N=3630). Those are just the studies enrolling 2 month olds - there are quite a few more with different subject populations in the EPAR.
Study V72_60 administered Bexsero concomitantly with routine vaccines (see 2.1). So subjects did not receive "one vaccine at a time" but rather received the other routine vaccines as well.

Study V72P6 administered Bexsero to 2 month old infants concomitantly with routine vaccines - and indeed had an experimental arm in which subjects received only routine vaccines, specifically in order to isolate and determine synergistic effects.

Study V72P12 administered Bexsero to 2 month old infants concomitantly with routine infant vaccines. It also had routine-only experimental arms.

Study V72P16 administered Bexsero to 2 month old infants concomitantly with routine infant vaccines.

Study V72P13 administered Bexsero to 2 month old infants concomitantly with routine infant vaccines. It also had routine-only experimental arms.

There you go, peacegirl. I did my own damn research - and it turns out you were just making up ignorant shit, because you are ignorant.

Geeezee, you dumb shit.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (01-01-2018), The Man (01-01-2018)
  #8097  
Old 01-01-2018, 06:15 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Your saying I'm ignorant with nothing to back it up
:lol: Of course, peacegirl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
I'm not sure where I lied.
You lie quite often, peacegirl, but I was referring to this particular, obvious lie:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Her main concern in this article had to do with the high aluminum content given to infants, along with other ingredients not mentioned, such as e.coli.
I think it's because you didn't even read the article you posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, a few posts ago you said "the studies focus on one vaccine at a time and how well it is tolerated regardless of the cumulative effects of other vaccines (along with their adjuvants) that may come into play." peacegirl, what facts support that assertion? From what data is it derived? peacegirl, you just made that up, didn't you?
Do your own due diligence Chuck. If you are the least bit concerned about the fact that synergistic effects are real, then act like a true investigator and do your damn research! Geeezeee!!!! :doh:
:lol: Ok, peacegirl, so you don't have any facts to support that assertion? No data from which it is derived? You just made it up?

I know, peacegirl. I know because I have already done the research, in this very thread. As you usual, I have done the diligent research that you are too lazy and ignorant to do.

Here, I will demonstrate that you claim that "the studies focus on one vaccine at a time and how well it is tolerated regardless of the cumulative effects of other vaccines (along with their adjuvants) that may come into play" is ignorant bullshit that you just made up, using only information I have already posted in this paragraph:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
As for all of that blather about sample sizes, you can find information about studies in infants dosing at two months on pages 23-26 of the EPAR as well as additional study information here (n=225). The results and sample sizes can be found here (N=147), here (N=1885), here (N=1507), and here (N=3630). Those are just the studies enrolling 2 month olds - there are quite a few more with different subject populations in the EPAR.
Study V72_60 administered Bexsero concomitantly with routine vaccines (see 2.1). So subjects did not receive "one vaccine at a time" but rather received the other routine vaccines as well.

Study V72P6 administered Bexsero to 2 month old infants concomitantly with routine vaccines - and indeed had an experimental arm in which subjects received only routine vaccines, specifically in order to isolate and determine synergistic effects.

Study V72P12 administered Bexsero to 2 month old infants concomitantly with routine infant vaccines. It also had routine-only experimental arms.

Study V72P16 administered Bexsero to 2 month old infants concomitantly with routine infant vaccines.

Study V72P13 administered Bexsero to 2 month old infants concomitantly with routine infant vaccines. It also had routine-only experimental arms.

There you go, peacegirl. I did my own damn research - and it turns out you were just making up ignorant shit, because you are ignorant.

Geeezee, you dumb shit.
In the very first study they had how 225 subjects? Second trial was 147. And you call this a large enough sample size? Third study, 1885 participants. 1507 was the next. 3630 was the last study you posted. These last three enlisted more infants but a far cry from claiming that the latest vaccine schedule (with this newer vaccine barely tested over the long haul) is safe for all babies. I'm sure you would agree that the number of children in these studies does not necessarily represent how all children will react. It's a leap of faith. How long did they even follow these babies? Problems can arise long after the follow-up is over. Reviewing the studies doesn't always give the whole story Chuck. That's what you are basing all of your conclusions on, while being so hard-nosed about the subject you think you know so much about, that you have lost your humanity. What about the woman whose son lost all of his speech after his 15 month MMR shot? What about that Chuck? Of course the studies say there is no correlation, so you feel justified in ignoring these parents' cries for help. Why wouldn't Dr. Sawyer get his own daughter the Bexsero shot? I'm sure he had reservations. But why, if it's supposed to be so safe? Why don't you care about the children who have been permanently damaged by the vaccine that was meant to help them? Don't go into denial. Most parents want their children to be healthy. You don't hold the truth on what constitutes a healthy organism, or what that even looks like.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 01-01-2018 at 11:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8098  
Old 01-01-2018, 07:36 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCCLIX
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
In the very first study they had how 225 subjects? Second trial was 147. And you call this a large enough sample size? Third study, 1885 participants. 1507 was the next. 3630 was the last study you posted.
Do I think 7,000+ is an adequate sample size to demonstrate statistical significance? Keep in mind, of course, that this significantly understates total enrollment as there are numerous additional studies listed in the FDA and EMA documents I have already provided you. Of course you did not read them, because you are too ignorant and lazy.

peacegirl, do you think Andy Wakefield's sample size of 11 was an adequate sample size to demonstrate statistical significance?

Quote:
How long did they even follow these babies?
peacegirl, have you done any due diligence to answer this question? Have you applied any critical analysis?

A person of ordinary intellect could find the study plans using the resource I have already provided, peacegirl. But you are not a person of ordinary intellect, and of course, you have not done this - you are too lazy and ignorant.

So the answer, peacegirl, is that they followed these subjects for years, not only in the primary studies, but in extension studies enrolling the same individuals. Do you know what an extension study is, peacegirl? You could find these in the EMA and FDA documents if you were not so ignorant and lazy, peacegirl.
Quote:
Problems can arise long after the follow-up is over. Reviewing the studies doesn't always give the whole story Chuck.
Indeed, peacegirl - that's why regulatory authorities require manufacturers to continue to monitor and evaluate the safety of products, post-marketing (something to which you have elsewhere bizarrely objected because you do not have any understanding of even the basics of pharmacovigilance). If you were not too ignorant and lazy to do so, you could find information about this with respect to Bexsero in the FDA and EMA documents. But alas, you cannot.

Quote:
That's what you are basing all of your conclusions on, while being so hard-nosed about the subject you think you know so much about, that you have lost your humanity. What about the woman whose son lost all of his speech after his 15 month MMR shot? What about that Chuck? Of course the studies say there is no correlation, so you feel justified in ignoring these parents' cries for help. Why wouldn't Dr. Sawyer get his own daughter the Bexsero shot? I'm sure he had reservations. But why, if it's supposed to be so safe? Why don't you care about the children who have been permanently damaged by the vaccine that was meant to help them? Don't go into denial. Most parents want their children to be healthy. You don't hold the truth on what constitutes a healthy organism, or what that even looks like.
Yeah this is just ignorant and unfocused peacegirl nonsense babble, I guess because I have demonstrated just how fucking stupid and ignorant you are to claim that "the studies focus on one vaccine at a time and how well it is tolerated regardless of the cumulative effects of other vaccines (along with their adjuvants) that may come into play."

What about the woman whose son died while wearing a deathbelt, peacegirl? What about that, peacegirl?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (01-01-2018), Stephen Maturin (01-01-2018), The Man (01-01-2018)
  #8099  
Old 01-01-2018, 07:41 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCCLIX
Images: 2
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Just a side note: While being the True Steward of the Authentic Text is of course my primary and highest calling, I find that I do rather enjoy kicking the shit out of peacegirl's uninformed bullshit when she happens to wander into areas where I have actual, literal expertise.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (01-01-2018), Stephen Maturin (01-01-2018), The Man (01-01-2018)
  #8100  
Old 01-01-2018, 08:20 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCIII
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Just a side note: While being the True Steward of the Authentic Text is of course my primary and highest calling, I find that I do rather enjoy kicking the shit out of peacegirl's uninformed bullshit when she happens to wander into areas where I have actual, literal expertise.
And then there's the follow-on where you watch the generous shower of knowledge roll off peacegirl's Teflon brain which is this weird mixture of fascinating and frustrating all at once.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (01-01-2018), Stephen Maturin (01-01-2018), The Man (01-01-2018)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > Lifestyle


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 3.77728 seconds with 16 queries