Developer Of HPV Vaccines Comes Clean, Warns Parents

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Developer Of HPV Vaccines Comes Clean, Warns Parents

Postby Burnt Hill » Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:35 am

Joe Hillshoist » Tue Apr 26, 2016 11:33 pm wrote:
Sounder » 26 Apr 2016 08:46 wrote:

Vaccine promotion is classic rent seeking behavior. Big Pharma knows well how to get paid for their wares. But is more of a (maybe) good thing always better?

What happens when some bright bulbs take initiative and put something like nagalase in the vaccines? Woah, good thing that could never happen.


When happens when your own body produces it? Woah, good thing that could never happen.


Nagalase is an extracellular matrix-degrading enzyme that is secreted by cancerous cells in the process of tumor invasion. It is also an intrinsic component of the envelope protein of various virions, such as HIV and the influenza virus.


Surely our bodies produce many chemicals that we wouldn't want to inject into our muscles and bloodstream.
User avatar
Burnt Hill
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: down down
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Developer Of HPV Vaccines Comes Clean, Warns Parents

Postby Burnt Hill » Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:48 am

Joe Hillshoist » Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:25 am wrote:
Burnt Hill » 27 Apr 2016 08:00 wrote:
DrEvil » Tue Apr 26, 2016 3:22 pm wrote:
And one more thing: If all this stuff is so horrible, why are people living longer than at any point in human history? We must be doing something right. We could probably add about 10 years to everyone's lifespan with better healthcare, food and exercise (Monaco has an average lifespan of 89 years), but we're still living longer than ever, and the numbers keep going up.


Not sure that chemo or radiation gets much credit for the overall increase in life expectancy
At least not to the established maximums.
- it still pulls the average down.
(and life expectancy just dropped for Women in the USA, again).
For example:

Childhood cancer survivors may face shortened lifespan, study reveals
Although more children today are surviving cancer than ever before, young patients successfully treated in the 1970s and 80s may live a decade less, on average, than the general population, according to a study from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the Harvard School of Public Health.

Depending on the type of cancer, the estimated loss of life expectancy ranges from four years to more than 17 years, the scientists report in the April 6 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. Causes of the premature deaths include recurrences of the initial cancer, new cancers caused by drug and radiation therapy, and other delayed complications from cancer treatments.


http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/childhood-cancer-survivors-may-face-shortened-lifespan-study-reveals/

Anecdotally radiation and chemo shortened the lifespan of my mother, and worsened the quality of her remaining life,


How long would survivors of childhood cancers have lived without the treatment?

Would they have survived at all?

Isn't the fact they are called "survivors" of something and they presumably "survived" it because of this treatment a bit of a give away?

If Kid A lived a normal life he would have lived 80 years, but because he had cancer treatment he only lived 70.

OK - how long would that kid have lived without the treatment? 80 years or 12?


Your points were considered and careful reading of my post contradicts none of them.
What hasn't been considered are the many instances where chemo and radiation have shortened lifespans.
And the quality of life for those whose treatments only added a short time to their life.
I am not suggesting any individual should not consider those methods of treatment.
Just bringing other info to the table.
User avatar
Burnt Hill
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: down down
Blog: View Blog (0)

The more you know...

Postby Burnt Hill » Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:43 pm

Early-Morning Flu Shots are More Potent, Suggests Study

New research from the University of Birmingham, U.K. proposes patients get their influenza vaccinations in the morning because the injections could offer stronger protection at that time.

“We know that there are fluctuations in immune responses throughout the day and wanted to examine whether this would extend to the antibody response to vaccination,” said principal study investigator Dr. Anna Phillips in a statement.

The study was a randomized trial that lasted between 2011 and 2013 where it was held at 24 different doctors’ offices in the United Kingdom’s West Midlands area. Vaccinations for three different influenza strains were given to an approximate 276 adults, over the age of 65.

Results demonstrated the participants taking part in the morning group experienced a considerably larger uptick in antibody concentrations at the end of a one-month period following the initial vaccination against two out of three of the flu strains. No major difference was seen in the third strain, but these results were significantly better than the data obtained from the afternoon group, according to the university’s announcement.

Next steps involve testing this method on patients over age 65 with medical conditions, like diabetes and liver disease, as well as determine the strategy’s efficacy for administering a pneumonia shot.

Dr Phillips added, “Being able to see that morning vaccinations yield a more efficient response will not only help in strategies for flu vaccination, but might provide clues to improve vaccination strategies more generally.”


http://www.dddmag.com/articles/2016/04/early-morning-flu-shots-are-more-potent-suggests-study?
User avatar
Burnt Hill
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: down down
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests