-
FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
-
We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.
UK Vaccine ?
- Thread starter ming
- Start date
kiwibird
Editor, Senior Moderator
Re: UK Vaccine ?
There is a discussion about this in this post: http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126011&highlight=vaccine+europe
Well worth a thorough read.
There is a discussion about this in this post: http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126011&highlight=vaccine+europe
Well worth a thorough read.
Emily
Editor, Senior Moderator
Re: UK Vaccine ?
I'm afraid that the GSK with AS03 is what they are testing at Stanford here in the US. I think taxpayers are funding that and I wonder why since at least it sounds like the MF59 has been in use seemingly with good results. (Just going by what little I know about MF59.)
I'm afraid that the GSK with AS03 is what they are testing at Stanford here in the US. I think taxpayers are funding that and I wonder why since at least it sounds like the MF59 has been in use seemingly with good results. (Just going by what little I know about MF59.)
Snowy Owl
Retired in 2010, In Memoriam
Re: UK Vaccine ?
Despite that the House of Commons of Canada have passed a Bill called Bill C-6, the Contract between the City Caryatide called; Glaxo-Smith-Kline on the specific addition of the undocumented and dangerous (GSK admission) adjuvant AS03, Canada is stuck with its solidarity in those matters with U.K. refer to the Constitution.
First Nations have always been a bridge between Canadians and The Queen and the King. Each time they where received by the Court they came with Plumes and sang their prayers attended with Full Dignity by the Queen.
The UK House of lords is stuck as the Canadian House of Commons, contract with a private firm support bu lobbyist in an emergency situation where it is difficult to intervene.
The only Path is if our Health Ministers makes a recall of Glaxo AS03 adjuvant.
First Nations will remind their privilege on this issue both in Ottawa and at the Court.
We are in dire need of help.
Snowy
Despite that the House of Commons of Canada have passed a Bill called Bill C-6, the Contract between the City Caryatide called; Glaxo-Smith-Kline on the specific addition of the undocumented and dangerous (GSK admission) adjuvant AS03, Canada is stuck with its solidarity in those matters with U.K. refer to the Constitution.
First Nations have always been a bridge between Canadians and The Queen and the King. Each time they where received by the Court they came with Plumes and sang their prayers attended with Full Dignity by the Queen.
The UK House of lords is stuck as the Canadian House of Commons, contract with a private firm support bu lobbyist in an emergency situation where it is difficult to intervene.
The only Path is if our Health Ministers makes a recall of Glaxo AS03 adjuvant.
First Nations will remind their privilege on this issue both in Ottawa and at the Court.
We are in dire need of help.
Snowy
Snowy Owl
Retired in 2010, In Memoriam
Re: UK Vaccine ?
Is it what you mean
Use drivel in a Sentence
See web results for drivel
See images of drivel
?noun <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex" width="35">1.</td> <td>saliva flowing from the mouth, or mucus from the nose; slaver.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex" width="35">2.</td> <td>childish, silly, or meaningless talk or thinking; nonsense; twaddle.</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
?verb (used without object) <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex" width="35">3.</td> <td>to let saliva flow from the mouth or mucus from the nose; slaver.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex" width="35">4.</td> <td>to talk childishly or idiotically.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex" width="35">5.</td> <td>Archaic. to issue like spittle.</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
?verb (used with object) <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex" width="35">6.</td> <td>to utter childishly or idiotically.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dnindex" width="35">7.</td> <td>to waste foolishly.</td></tr></tbody></table>
Is it what you mean
Use drivel in a Sentence
See web results for drivel
See images of drivel
?noun <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex" width="35">1.</td> <td>saliva flowing from the mouth, or mucus from the nose; slaver.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex" width="35">2.</td> <td>childish, silly, or meaningless talk or thinking; nonsense; twaddle.</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
?verb (used without object) <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex" width="35">3.</td> <td>to let saliva flow from the mouth or mucus from the nose; slaver.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex" width="35">4.</td> <td>to talk childishly or idiotically.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex" width="35">5.</td> <td>Archaic. to issue like spittle.</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
?verb (used with object) <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex" width="35">6.</td> <td>to utter childishly or idiotically.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dnindex" width="35">7.</td> <td>to waste foolishly.</td></tr></tbody></table>
Snowy Owl
Retired in 2010, In Memoriam
Re: UK Vaccine ?
Unless you really talk about saliva and mucus I do not get it, I have always said that it was the time for 'School out for coughers'.
If you meant the insult, go back to school young boy, read history and even contempory via Brittannica Encyclopedia they have a 30 days free trial.
Then come back and we shall argue intelligently.
SNowy Owl
Unless you really talk about saliva and mucus I do not get it, I have always said that it was the time for 'School out for coughers'.
If you meant the insult, go back to school young boy, read history and even contempory via Brittannica Encyclopedia they have a 30 days free trial.
Then come back and we shall argue intelligently.
SNowy Owl
Re: UK Vaccine ?
Yet upthread we are told it is being tested at Stanford in the US and that it is similar to MF59 (both Squalene based). The logic for using it seems to be simply that, while it would be preferable to do without, in an emergency it is better to get more doses of a vaccine with than fewer without.
The study (with H5N1) you link listed no "Severe Adverse Reactions" in the test groups although there was an increase noted in minor reactions. It concludes
Recommendation
Based on the CHMP review of data on quality, safety and efficacy, the CHMP considered by consensus that the risk-benefit balance of Pandemrix for the prophylaxis of influenza in an officially declared pandemic situation, in accordance with official guidance, was favourable and therefore
recommended the granting of the marketing authorisation under exceptional circumstances.
Yet upthread we are told it is being tested at Stanford in the US and that it is similar to MF59 (both Squalene based). The logic for using it seems to be simply that, while it would be preferable to do without, in an emergency it is better to get more doses of a vaccine with than fewer without.
The study (with H5N1) you link listed no "Severe Adverse Reactions" in the test groups although there was an increase noted in minor reactions. It concludes
Recommendation
Based on the CHMP review of data on quality, safety and efficacy, the CHMP considered by consensus that the risk-benefit balance of Pandemrix for the prophylaxis of influenza in an officially declared pandemic situation, in accordance with official guidance, was favourable and therefore
recommended the granting of the marketing authorisation under exceptional circumstances.
Snowy Owl
Retired in 2010, In Memoriam
Re: UK Vaccine ?
Hum, hum, do not forget that is a GSK paper presented in Europe
Here is what Dr SusanC says about it
it comes from the paper above cited
There was a group of pregnant women who were asked whether they planned on taking the vaccine. None of them put up their hand. One person said she was told by her consultant to definitely take it, but then she heard all these other stories, so she isn't so sure anymore. For anyone who is pregnant and contemplating taking this vaccine, let me draw your attention to the following information taken from the file that GSK submitted for licensure, the section on reproductive toxicology.
In this study, six groups of 48 female rats were given a single intramuscular dose on Day -30 and paired with males and 44 rats with a positive indication of mating were treated on Days 6, 8, 11 and 15 after mating. 22 were killed at Day 20 and 22 were allowed to deliver and rear their young to Day 25 of age. Measures of reproductive toxicity and maternal health were assessed. The six groups were dosed with:
There was one unexpected death in a maternal rat: however, this was judged unrelated to the vaccine. Treatment of maternal rats did not adversely affect their clinical condition, bodyweight or food consumption throughout the study. Mating performance, fertility of maternal rats, and length of gestation or ability to give birth to a live litter were unaffected. Embryo-foetal survival, growth and development were not affected by vaccination. In neonates, the reflex development was unimpaired, but among offspring from dams treated with AS03 13 offspring from 7 litters did not show the air righting reflect before day 21 of age and this effect may be related to treatment. However, AS03 did not affect the attainment of the surface righting reflex or the ability of the offspring to show startle response reflexes or the pupil reflex. No abnormalities were evident on macro pathological examination of the offspring. This is considered a suitable study to assess the reproductive toxicity of the vaccine. In other words
http://www.newfluwiki2.com/diary/39...amme-misleads-the-public-on-swine-flu-vaccine
Snowy
Hum, hum, do not forget that is a GSK paper presented in Europe
Here is what Dr SusanC says about it
it comes from the paper above cited
There was a group of pregnant women who were asked whether they planned on taking the vaccine. None of them put up their hand. One person said she was told by her consultant to definitely take it, but then she heard all these other stories, so she isn't so sure anymore. For anyone who is pregnant and contemplating taking this vaccine, let me draw your attention to the following information taken from the file that GSK submitted for licensure, the section on reproductive toxicology.
In this study, six groups of 48 female rats were given a single intramuscular dose on Day -30 and paired with males and 44 rats with a positive indication of mating were treated on Days 6, 8, 11 and 15 after mating. 22 were killed at Day 20 and 22 were allowed to deliver and rear their young to Day 25 of age. Measures of reproductive toxicity and maternal health were assessed. The six groups were dosed with:
- saline, 200 ul
- AS03 adjuvant, 200 ul
- saline / split H5N1/AS03, 200 ul
- split H5N1 / AS03, 200 ul
- saline whole H5N1A1, 100 ul
- whole H5N1/A1, 100 ul
There was one unexpected death in a maternal rat: however, this was judged unrelated to the vaccine. Treatment of maternal rats did not adversely affect their clinical condition, bodyweight or food consumption throughout the study. Mating performance, fertility of maternal rats, and length of gestation or ability to give birth to a live litter were unaffected. Embryo-foetal survival, growth and development were not affected by vaccination. In neonates, the reflex development was unimpaired, but among offspring from dams treated with AS03 13 offspring from 7 litters did not show the air righting reflect before day 21 of age and this effect may be related to treatment. However, AS03 did not affect the attainment of the surface righting reflex or the ability of the offspring to show startle response reflexes or the pupil reflex. No abnormalities were evident on macro pathological examination of the offspring. This is considered a suitable study to assess the reproductive toxicity of the vaccine.
- 13 babies from 7 litters whose mothers had been given AS03, showed a delay in a neuro-developmental test.
- GSK admits this may be related to the AS03
- and the only conclusion they can draw in this section (since they can't say the tests showed no concerns about reproductive toxicity) was that this was an appropriate study for reproductive toxicity
http://www.newfluwiki2.com/diary/39...amme-misleads-the-public-on-swine-flu-vaccine
Snowy