|
|
Public Consultation / Irish Social Forum
Blog Feeds
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandIndymedia Ireland is a volunteer-run non-commercial open publishing website for local and international news, opinion & analysis, press releases and events. Its main objective is to enable the public to participate in reporting and analysis of the news and other important events and aspects of our daily lives and thereby give a voice to people.
Lockdown Skeptics
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international edition
|
Is HSE ‘Phishing’ parents regarding Informed Consent? national |
public consultation / irish social forum |
news report
 Tuesday September 08, 2015 21:30 by Martin o' Héalaigh - regret.ie
 How 1 + 1 = 3 In the IT security world this might be known as ‘Phishing’ – you get directed to an authentic looking payment/banking site (for example), where you enter your login details and account information. However, you are unknowingly on a fake website cleverly designed to imitate the original and fool you into believing that what you see is the real thing. Can 1 plus 1 ever equal 3? The officials in the National Immunisation Office apparently think so (based on the info they see on the IPHA site?). But the only way that this conundrum could possibly hold true is if 2 doses of the vaccine are equally as ineffective as 3 doses. This is the case when the assumed “protection” offered by 3 doses wears off before the minimum 15-year threshold required for any kind of supposed cancer prevention. The aforementioned HSE authored info booklet gives us a clue: “We will let you know if a booster is needed in the future”. |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (1 of 1)
Jump To Comment: 1a) A vaccine fully effective for "only" 15 years isn't useless regardless of the disease. You would also want to find out if can at that point be given again. As an example, the protection from the mumps vaccine has turned out not to be as permanent as previosuly thought. In any case, there are any number of vaccines that have to be redone after some interval of years. Do you not take a tetanus shot just becuse not permanent?
b) But this isn't "regardless of disease". For almost any STD, if an unprotected person hasn't caught a particular one between the ages of say 15 and 30, far less likely to catch it after 30. Did you imagine we humans are as sexually active (in terms of multiple partners) all of our lives?
c) That the cancer develops no sooner than 10-15 years after first having contracted the disease means a major gain if you delayed that first infection by 15 years.
Let's have a bit of honesty please. If your objection to vaccines against and treatment for STDs is that making sex safer leads to more sin, say so. Present moral arguments, not bad science medical ones.