What does efficacy mean

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

Cherry picked from my link, as per usual. Thoughts on other studies I’ve referenced?

The original link established that polio vaccines were contaminated with SV40. The next few show evidence of SV40 role in cancers.

Would you inject yourself or children with a vaccine containing SV40 wilfully?

Cue the disingenuous mental gymnastics.

So none of studies show a link between the vaccine and cancer and you are talking about something happened 50+ years ago that has nothing to do with the topic.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Nice deflection.

Actually the studies show exactly that. A link between SV40 and cancer, the vaccines were contaminated with SV40, SV40 causes cancer.

Again, would you be happy to inject either yourself or your kids with a vaccine contaminated with SV40?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes, when you failed to state the full conclusion, with the final paragraph.

“The analysis of specific cancer sites is largely inconclusive because of substantial problems that most studies have had in reliably defining exposure, defining latency effects, or dealing with confounding and other biases. A new generation of molecular epidemiologic studies is necessary to properly address these issues.“

Further studies which I’ve now provided you with.

Also, polio hasn’t been eradicated, in fact most cases of paralysis from polio are now the result of vaccine acquired polio rather than the wild virus.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes, when you failed to state the full conclusion, with the final paragraph.

“The analysis of specific cancer sites is largely inconclusive because of substantial problems that most studies have had in reliably defining exposure, defining latency effects, or dealing with confounding and other biases. A new generation of molecular epidemiologic studies is necessary to properly address these issues.“

Further studies which I’ve now provided you with.

Also, polio hasn’t been eradicated, in fact most cases of paralysis from polio are now the result of vaccine acquired polio rather than the wild virus.

The second study you linked pre dates the first it's not a new study.

The third link states this

No cancer epidemic followed the administration of SV40-contaminated poliovaccines.

So not in anyway backing up your fear mongering about vaccinations.

Have you anything tio discuss about the actual topic?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Again, you picked one line from a detailed study while ignoring 99% of the info.

Says everything about your character.

Still not answered, would you inject SV40 into either you or your children?

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ScepticScot

Again, you picked one line from a detailed study while ignoring 99% of the info.

Says everything about your character.

Still not answered, would you inject SV40 into either you or your children?

I'm pointing out the study doesn't support your anti vax fear mongering .

Why would I answer such a stupid question. I assumed that it was rhetorical but clearly you really are asking it.

And yet again fdo you have anything to add about the actual topic rather than spaming off topic studies you haven't read?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Of course you wouldn’t, so I’ve shown previous mass vaccination programs contained hidden carcinogenic material, which wasn’t discovered for years and could have infected up to 90% of the population.

If that isn’t good reason for vaccine hesitancy, I don’t know what is.

Personally I’ll wait till i’m satisfied by long term studies regarding safety before I inject anything into my children. By long term I mean like a decade of data, sometimes it takes a while for science to catch up to its own flaws.

Nothing I’ve stated here is unreasonable?