This was me posting a flyer downtown in Saskatoon asking for residents to complete an informal survey on their opinions about the vaccine’s safety and the pandemic in general. I received approx 260 respondents who confirmed what the Public Health Agency of Canada confirmed in their later report – more than 54% of the population had no intention of getting this vaccine.
Izhar Gafni, the creator of the bike, took it upon himself as a personal project to create this because of his love for biking. After consulting with many engineers who told him it wouldn’t work he went ahead and created it.
The cost is approximately $9-12 each, with a retail price shooting for $60-90 depending on the configuration.
I am just wondering when we will see this thing on Kickstarter?
Virology Blog looks at the effectiveness of influenza vaccines in their blog below…
The ramifications of this study are vast…
1. How do we justify mandatory vaccine programs for healthcare workers ??
2. How will vaccine manufacturers respond to this hit to their bottom line (as undoubtedly, public compliance levels and distrust are sure to have a negative effect)??
Is it a co-incidence that the Telegraph posted an article stating that it would be rolling out a ‘scheme’ aimed at two to 17 year olds comprising approximately 9 million doses.
In addition, such a program means that the vaccine needs “to be sourced and a decision needs to be made on who will deliver the vaccine – whether it should be school nurses or other healthcare workers.”
The above two paragraphs answer questions 1 and 2 in that if healthcare workers will be distributing the vaccine, they will be mandated to take the shot. As for the vaccine manufacturers bottom line, it will be boosted by the competition for a contract for a guaranteed number of doses which will be guaranteed to be given to a portion of the population that the article at Virology blog (below) says ‘needs it most’.
by Vic Racaniello of Virology Blog
I hear from many readers that they routinely get the flu vaccine every year, yet they often contract the disease. I usually tell them that the vaccine is not perfect: it doesn’t protect everyone who gets it. Now we have the numbers to back up this statement, and they are not pretty.
There have been 5,707 studies since 1967 on how well influenza vaccine protects against infection. Many of them did not properly assess whether individuals were infected with influenza, leading to overestimation of the protective effect of vaccines. In many studies a four-fold increase in serum hemagglutinin antibodies were used to confirm infection. Immunization also increases these antibodies, making it difficult to confirm viral infection.
A review of the influenza vaccine studies was done by focusing on reports in which viral infection was confirmed by viral culture or polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The results of 31 studies show that the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine is overall 59% effective in individuals 18-65 years of age. That means of every 100 individuals immunized, 41 will be susceptible to influenza. This number is far too low – it should be above 90%. The infectious, attenuated vaccine fared better – it is overall 83% effective but only in children 6 months to 7 years of age. It was not significantly effective in protecting individuals 18-49 years old.
Perhaps even more telling is those age groups in which there are no efficacy data for influenza vaccines. No trial results for the inactivated vaccine in 2-17 year olds or adults 65 years and older were considered adequate for inclusion in this study. Furthermore, there were no acceptable data for the attenuated vaccine in the 8-17 year group. Nevertheless, seasonal influenza vaccine is recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization practices for all people over 6 months of age.
The 65 and older age group is a main target for influenza immunization to prevent serious illness and mortality. However, there are few data for this age group on the ability of influenza vaccine to reduce illness or death. The infectious attenuated vaccine was shown to have significant efficacy in this age group in only one study, but it is not licensed for use in adults 50 years old or more in the US.
This study sends a strong message that better influenza vaccines must be developed. Why does the inactivated vaccine confer such poor protection? This vaccine is produced by inactivating the virus with formalin and disrupting it with detergents. In this dissociated state it not only does not replicate after intramuscular injection, but it lacks many of the components that induce a strong inflammatory response. Consequently the antibody response is weak. The attenuated influenza vaccine, which replicates in the respiratory tract, is more protective (83%) in the 6 month-7 year age group. If shown to be efficacious in other age groups it would make sense to increase the use of this vaccine, which currently accounts for only 9% of vaccine given in the US. But we should aim for greater than 90% protection and that may require developing entirely new vaccine approaches using novel antigens, delivery systems, and adjuvants.
These findings will provide a rationale for those do not feel it is necessary to be immunized against influenza. But the study authors do not condone abandoning the inactivated influenza vaccine:
…We should maintain public support for present vaccines that are the best intervention available for seasonal influenza.
In other words, it’s better than nothing, surely not a ringing endorsement. I suspect that the results of this study will lead to a decline in influenza immunization rates in the US.
Update: Alan Dove has a slightly different view of this study.
Osterholm MT, Kelley NS, Sommer A, & Belongia EA (2011). Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet infectious diseases PMID: 22032844
VRM: World Health Organization Mafia – Lies, Flies & Conflicts of Interest VRM: World Health Organization Mafia – Lies, Flies & Conflicts of Interest 13th June 2012 – By Joel Lord Repost from Vaccine Resistance Movement ‘The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is […]
Friday, February 5, 2010
In Obama’s speech yesterday at a prayer breakfast where dignitaries, politicians and lawmakers gathered to share a meeting of the minds; the President made bold and scathing comments aimed at bringing his critics into line. In a typical passive-agressive fashion, Obama openly challenged those who questioned his faith and “for that matter” his citizenship. This move, clearly aimed at re-establishing his position as the commander-in-chief, seemed to also say….’don’t mess with Mr. Big’!
When I heard this speech, heck, I almost felt guilty. I mean, how dare we question the authority of the President? Really, what does it matter what Obama’s birth certificate says? He is a man of faith! That should certainly be enough.
Curiously, though, no one noticed that while Obama was blithely asking us to accept the idea that faith and politics should be viewed as singular, in another breath he pledged that he would maintain the separation of Church and State. If this is true Mr. President, then we could certainly accept your adherence to your faith and yet still question your country of origin…..they are after all separate issues as you point out.
Huffington post reports: “Obama said the office would also work to reach out overseas “to foster interfaith dialogue with leaders and scholars around the world.”” (referring to a new branch of government that would seek to revitalize America through interfaith movements at the ‘neighborhood’ level). Obvious to this writer is the contradiction this poses…does anyone else see it too?
He also goes on to say that he will gladly extend religious groups a helping hand from tax dollars provided it goes to non-religious activities. While this is good for feeding the homeless, etc…it does present some form of control over the religious organizations themselves and the ways they see fit to help people.
On a final note, I have to laugh at the following statements he made:
“There is no religion whose central tenet is hate.”
“There is no god who condones taking the life of an innocent human being,” he said, and all religions teach people to love and care for one another. That is the common ground underlying the faith-based office, he said.
I find it hard to believe that the President would be so naive….I mean, did he not pay attention to his briefings on Islamic extremism, is he not familiar with the Talmud? Has he never seen a bhuddist monk kill another person? I would suggest that he is naive (if not in denial or an outright liar) and certainly didn’t have a good speechwriter proofread those remarks before he spoke them.
For the full article see here.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
I’ve come across an interesting theory in Quantum Physics and the quest for the truth that explains why the 9/11 Truth movement just won’t die.
Physicists like Einstein, Bors, Pauli and others, have and continue to wrestle with the concept of reality. Aristotle was the instigator of this question (formally), when he looked at the question of potentiality which asks: “What potential does something have to become something else”. Aristotle’s view was that each ‘thing’ has a certain power to become something that it is not already…ie. A sleeping man to become awake. Quantum physicists took this a step further in proposing that the man is both asleep and awake as the potential exists for both states. The “Copenhagen interpretation” of Quantum Theory developed by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, and others says two basic things:
1. Reality is identical with the totality of observed phenomena (which means reality does not exist in the absence of observation), and
2. Quantum mechanics is a complete description of reality; no deeper understanding is possible. (1)
The Theory basically states that a phenomenon exists only when it is observed, and becaused it is observed. The man exists in both potentially sleeping and awake states and is only one or the other once someone else observes the man that way.
Alex Patterson has this to say about the Observer Effect:
“Fundamental to contemporary Quantum Theory is the notion that there is no phenomenon until it is observed. This effect is known as the ‘Observer Effect’…”.
So what constitutes a phenomenon?…
1. An observable fact or occurrence or a kind of observable fact or occurrence. For example: Hurricanes are a meteorological phenomenon.
2. Appearance; a perceptible aspect of something that is mutable.
3. A fact or event considered very unusual, curious, or astonishing by those who witness it.
4. A wonderful or very remarkable person or thing.
5. An experienced object whose constitution reflects the order and conceptual structure imposed upon it by the human mind (especially by the powers of perception and understanding).
It would seem that the very definitions of ‘phenomenon’ are in themselves ‘Observable Effects’.
Let’s break down September 11, 2001 a little bit. Let’s suppose that only one person in the world was in New York that morning and saw only one plane hit one tower and later saw that tower fall. The collapse of that tower as it appeared to that one observer would be considered a unique phenomenon and it’s “truth” would be found to be unique and unshakable. That person could travel the world telling of his or her experience and all who heard it would also accept that as their “truth”. Now if we add another observer, say two blocks away in the other direction from the first, what that observer saw happen would be an entirely different phenomenon, due to the difference in angle of view.
Now, lets add a second plane hitting the other tower and observers who saw this from their offices on various floors of office buildings around the plaza. As well, we can add people who did not see anything, but heard loud explosions, and other people describing what they saw or heard. These too are unique phenomena.
Now we add another interesting element, which is the media, that supplies us, on say, four or five different channels, different footage from the ground and by helicopter of the two towers. (For those of us who were nowhere near the events of that day, we had only our television sets to shape our observations.) The observations, however, are not enough on their own to constitute the truth of what really happened.
Butressed against these is “the official story”, which has also proved to be as variable as the observations themselves. For each person who was a “witness”, they will contrast their version of what they saw, heard, etc… with “the official story” and decide if it agrees or does not. When the official story begins to show inconsistencies and holes, people still tend to cling to their observation as the absolute truth and discard the official story as a pack of lies. The more that the media clings to the official story and rebroadcasts it, the more the official story begins to stink. What’s more people begin to question all the other official stories they’ve ever been told whether they were observers to the phenomenon or not.
The truth is not really out there, but within each person, based on their personal experience and their perception checking of the facts of the official story and the facts as they see them. The number of truths about 9/11 probably reach in the billions and will never find agreement until all the facts come out.
(1) From Alex Patterson’s Website: http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/observer_effect.htm