Replies to post #107721 on NanoViricides Inc. (NNVC)

[Rawnoc]

Despite that bullshit, word is management is concerned that Ebolacide2 may not work because of the unique shape of the virus.

I know it's hard to believe that management would have premature cide-ulation, for the dozenth time in a row, but...

[Drano]

Exactly, leifsmith. There have been NO long-term safety studies on vaccines. I would love to see someone undertake an epidemiological study comparing cancer and autoimmune disease rates of heavily vaccinated people as compared to people who have had few vaccinations. It would be a horrendously difficult and time-consuming study, and there is certainly no profit in it for a drug company to subsidize such a study. It would be up to a university researcher/statistician to do something like that, and there would be no government grants available for something that goes against long-standing policy decisions.

Adjuvants and preservatives that are key parts of the mass manufacturing process -- who knows what cumulative exposure might do to someone long term.

It's great to prevent car accidents by getting drunk drivers off the roads. But there are still going to be car accidents, and having treatments for victims is necessary. There will always be that 193-car pileup that is caused by an unforeseen event like a blizzard. To say that we shouldn't develop treatments because people ought to be able to avoid injury would be crazy. Likewise, saying that vaccines will prevent all disease is illogical.

But really, this is not the vaccine board. The merits or deficits of vaccines are not the subject here, except insofar as they affect funding for research on treatments. I understand that people are bored as we await results from what I think will be a binary event for NNVC -- will there be good results, or bad, from the upcoming tests? Upcoming data is going to be incredibly crucial for the company.

[ZincFinger]

Turn that on it's head:

"if one vaccination is good does it follow that 200 vaccinations are good?" True.

It is ALSO true that "if one vaccine is bad*1 does it foloow that 200 vaccines are bad?"

*1 not that a few very rare cases of bad reactions do not remotely make a vaccine "bad". You would have a very difficult time finding ANY drug that did not have at least a few rare bad side effects. Even aspirin can cause very serious problems (and not that rare, either).

The basic problem here is that some are being extremely hypocritical in applying a very different set of standards to vaccines and drugs.

The question should be "what is the balance between risks and benefit" That is the universally accepted approach in the medical community and yet it is being totally ignored here (and, most especially, by the anti vaxers.)