No jab no welfare

Originally posted by Scott th Ratbag: ↑

"over 100,000 pregnant women have taken the vaccine...". ....... there's your phrase III trial cohort right there.

the CDC and WHO are constantly monitoring these groups of people subjects. the data base is now bigger than any comparable trial samples, including the short time frame involved.

yes its rushed but don't doubt the professionalism involved.

The (H1N1)pdm09 virus was very different from H1N1 viruses that were circulating at the time of the pandemic. Few young people had any existing immunity (as detected by antibody response) to the (H1N1)pdm09 virus, but nearly one-third of people over 60 years old had antibodies against this virus, likely from exposure to an older H1N1 virus earlier in their lives. Since the (H1N1)pdm09 virus was very different from circulating H1N1 viruses, vaccination with seasonal flu vaccines offered little cross-protection against (H1N1)pdm09 virus infection. While a monovalent (H1N1)pdm09 vaccine was produced, it was not available in large quantities until late November—after the peak of illness during the second wave had come and gone in the United States. From April 12, 2009 to April 10, 2010, CDC estimated there were 60.8 million cases (range: 43.3-89.3 million), 274,304 hospitalizations (range: 195,086-402,719), and 12,469 deaths (range: 8868-18,306) in the United States due to the (H1N1)pdm09 virus.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html

how many people died from your memory of H1N1? I don't recall hearing of any.... what country was this?

A review by theU.S. National Institutes of Health(NIH) concluded that the 2009 H1N1 ("swine flu") vaccine has a safety profile similar to that of seasonal vaccine.^[11]
In an initial clinical trial in Australia, non-serious adverse events were reported by about half of the 240 people vaccinated, with these events including tenderness and pain at the site of injection, headache, malaise, and muscle pain.^[66]Two people had more severe events, with a much longer spell of nausea, muscle pain and malaise that lasted several days. The authors stated that the frequency and severity of these adverse events were similar to those normally seen with seasonal influenza vaccines.^[66]A second trial involved 2,200 people ranging from 3 to 77 years of age.^[70]In this study no patients reported serious adverse events, with the most commonly observed events being pain at the injection site and fever, which occurred in 10–25% of people.^[70]Although this trial followed up patients individually, the Government has been criticized for relying on voluntary reporting for post-vaccination evaluation in other circumstances, since this is "unlikely to accurately measure the percentage of people who get adverse effect".^[12]
As of 19 November 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) said that 65 million doses of vaccine had been administered and that it had a similar safety profile to the seasonal flu vaccine, with no significant differences in the adverse events produced by the different types of vaccine.^[71]There has been one report of an adverse event per 10,000 doses of vaccine, with only five percent of these adverse events being serious, an overall rate of serious events of one in 200,000 doses.^[71]
In Japan around 15 million people had been vaccinated by 31 December 2009. 1,900 cases of side effects and 104 cases of death were reported from medical institutions. The health ministry announced that it will conduct epidemiologic investigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic_vaccine

Expand

Originally posted by hayden8670: ↑

Ha that is your defence they are professionals so its okay. this is just my view generally people with this mind set are cowards because they would rather put a child or baby in harms way than themselves. That is not directed at you but the lack of morality that these people have is unacceptable to me.
Is it the same professionals that sponsored DDT, Round up, agent Orange, viox etc etc not to mention the CDC paid Harvard medical school 1million dollars to investigate the vears reporting system, when they found 1% were reported and offered an alternate system it was declined, congress found itnin the range of 10%

Expand

I think the latter post is a good example of why people rightly don't trust a lot of what they hear.

Whether we like to admit it or not history is littered with examples of failure and manipulation of people by those in authority. there are more examples than @hayden8670 has provided - not just on science but other matters as well, and some of your posts (Scott) on other matters show that there are times when you too do not have unlimited trust. what is "good for us" is not always so. What is good for us often has unintended consequences that are very much not good for us.

whether we like it or not that lack of trust has taken a different course from the past because we have a number of mechanisms available to communicate whatever it is we believe. Those communication channels have forever altered the way people listen, gain knowledge and respond. They feed our predispositions whatever they are. of the scientific papers on any topic only a small number are actually available online and for the most part we do not see the details of the review panel, the debate or in fact the failures. We seldom see a summary of the debate over many years on some theories. piecing one's way through that requires stamina and an ability to recognise one's own disposition and preferences. That applies to EVERYONE, including eminent scientists. Science is seldom "settled" on anything.

in fact there are plenty of examples of scientists proposing theories who have been ridiculed and dismissed but also of cheating. here is one
"William McBride, an Australian obstetrician, was hailed as a whistle-blowing visionary in 1961 when he sounded a warning about the dangers of thalidomide, a sedative prescribed for anxiety and morning sickness. In a letter to the journal The Lancet, McBride suggested that the drug was causing infants to be born with severe limb deformities. Although McBride's hypothesis was based on limited anecdotal observations, subsequent studies proved him right. Thalidomide was removed from the market, and the drug became almost synonymous with pharmaceutical malfeasance. Two decades later, in 1982, McBride published a report about a morning-sickness drug called Debendox that, he claimed, clearly caused birth defects in rabbits. Merrell Dow took the drug off the market amid an avalanche of lawsuits. But there was a problem. McBride had altered data in research carried out by assistants. The results showed Debendox had no ill effects."
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/20-of-the-greatest-blunders-in-science-in-the-last-20-years

I understand why some people come down on the side of vaccinations - and I have always previously argued for vaxing. However I also understand why people are expressing fears about the current vax programs and those on the market. Some of it is who people listen to but some of it is appropriate doubt. Some of it simply represents a failure on the part of those responsible for the Covid roll out (ie the federal government) to recognise the social environment and to use appropriate influence techniques. Some of it represents poor media reporting and some of it reflects the level of distrust in general. In fact the latter has always been a precursor to rebellion and revolution.

there are very well known techniques for influencing people and there has been data and research on this for many years. It would have been easy to do an analysis of the different target audiences and develop appropriate strategies and marketing appropriate to those groups.

the blunt and crude attitude to vaxing on this thread - from supporters - is as bad. positional debate is long known to be useless. by making other people wrong one simply reinforces their need to defend and rebut. you do it and they do it. there is no bridge building. there is no listening to what might be failures of communication, or more serious failures of the technology itself. there is no leading people out of their fears.

Once upon a time when we had an uneducated population (and I mean barely any education or illiterate) and when divine right was a dominant way of thinking, or when armies control people, or when most people were vassals and serfs and had few rights it might have been Ok to use fear and compliance. But it doesn't work any more.

to fail to recognise that is as bad and maybe worse, in my view, as the doubt about this crop of vaccinations.