Rabies post-exposure prophylaxis vaccination with purified chick embryo cell vaccine (PCECV) and purified Vero cell rabies vaccine (PVRV) in a four-site intradermal …
A Ambrozaitis, A Laiškonis, L Balčiuniene, A Banzhoff… - Vaccine, 2006 - Elsevier
Longevity of rabies antibody titre in recipients of human diploid cell rabies vaccine
DJ Briggs, JR Schwenke - Vaccine, 1992 - Elsevier
Safety and efficacy of purified Vero cell rabies vaccine given intramuscularly and intradermally.(Results of a prospective randomized trial)
W Jaiiaroensup, J Lang, P Thipkong, O Wimalaratne… - Vaccine, 1998 - Elsevier
Measles mortality and vaccine efficacy in rural West Africa
HF Hull, PJ Williams, F Oldfield - The Lancet, 1983 - Elsevier
Administration of Enders' live measles virus vaccine with human immune globulin
Robert Weibel, Ronald Halenda, Joseph Stokes, Maurice R Hilleman, Eugene B Buynak
JAMA 180 (13), 1086-1094, 1962
John F. Enders and measles virus vaccine—a reminiscence
SL Katz
Measles: History and Basic Biology, 3-11, 2009
Development and Evaluation of the Moraten Measles Virus Vaccine
Maurice R. Hilleman, PhD, DSc; Eugene B. Buynak, PhD; Robert E. Weibel, MD; et al
Joseph Stokes Jr., MD, DSc; James E. Whitman Jr., PhD; M. Bernice Leagus, PhD
The first one you can read for 40$ but the abstract already gives it away. It says " Rabipur™, is as safe and effective as the rabies human diploid cell vaccine (HDCV)". This means they compared one poison jab with another. There was no inert placebo. No proper control groups. Pseudoscience. That is the top of your list of 'science'. The rest are probably even worse. There is no warning on the article. That would be like walking into the reactor in the Chernobyl exclusion zone and nobody put any signs up to warn you. There is the gold standard and your article fails. As does the publisher. It is on the dark web.
You didn’t bother to read it and made assumptions about what it said and then made assumptions about every other paper listed based on your assumptions of the first article. Then you use the dark web as a source.
I never claimed the sources were in any particular order because they are not.
Nice of you to omit this part “ When used appropriately, new cell culture vaccines provide nearly 100% protection with a high degree of safety; yet over 40,000 people world-wide die from rabies each year. Additionally, PCEC vaccine does not result in immune-mediated hypersensitivity reactions following booster doses seen in about 6% of those receiving HDCV boosters following an initial series of HDCV.”
Also having a control group in humans for a disease with a 100% fatality rate is extremely unethical, far worse than what they did experimenting on people with the Covid jab. So rabies has a 100% fatality rate, this vaccine has a close to 100% effective rate and a lower than 6% reaction rate and you are mad because they didn’t let people die needlessly a horrible and agonizing death? For what it’s worth they did have control groups in the earlier nonhuman studies and you could have looked at those studies if you had bothered reading the actual paper. (Spoiler alert 100% of the control group got rabies.)
Your demands for studies are insincere because you are too cheap and lazy to get access to them or to bother reading them. Then you automatically declare any publisher of such studies as biased and suspect and then you use sources like the Dark Web. That’s like saying that since every pharmacist is corrupt I should go to my local neighborhood meth cook for pharmaceutical advice. After all there’s very little “science” to prove him wrong.
If you are going to ask for evidence the least you could do is pretend to look at it.
Where are these scientific studies? You only have pseudoscience which is why you have nothing to post. A terrorist in plain English.
Let me know when you get through with these how many more of which diseases I can get for you.
A global review of rabies vaccines for human use
Dreesen, David W
ISSN: 0264410X , 0264-410X , 1873-2518; DOI: 10.1016/S0264-410X(96)00314-3
Vaccine Vaccine. , 1997, Vol.15, p.S2-
Rabies post-exposure prophylaxis vaccination with purified chick embryo cell vaccine (PCECV) and purified Vero cell rabies vaccine (PVRV) in a four-site intradermal …
A Ambrozaitis, A Laiškonis, L Balčiuniene, A Banzhoff… - Vaccine, 2006 - Elsevier
Longevity of rabies antibody titre in recipients of human diploid cell rabies vaccine
DJ Briggs, JR Schwenke - Vaccine, 1992 - Elsevier
Safety and efficacy of purified Vero cell rabies vaccine given intramuscularly and intradermally.(Results of a prospective randomized trial)
W Jaiiaroensup, J Lang, P Thipkong, O Wimalaratne… - Vaccine, 1998 - Elsevier
Measles mortality and vaccine efficacy in rural West Africa
HF Hull, PJ Williams, F Oldfield - The Lancet, 1983 - Elsevier
Administration of Enders' live measles virus vaccine with human immune globulin
Robert Weibel, Ronald Halenda, Joseph Stokes, Maurice R Hilleman, Eugene B Buynak
JAMA 180 (13), 1086-1094, 1962
John F. Enders and measles virus vaccine—a reminiscence
SL Katz
Measles: History and Basic Biology, 3-11, 2009
Development and Evaluation of the Moraten Measles Virus Vaccine
Maurice R. Hilleman, PhD, DSc; Eugene B. Buynak, PhD; Robert E. Weibel, MD; et al
Joseph Stokes Jr., MD, DSc; James E. Whitman Jr., PhD; M. Bernice Leagus, PhD
Author Affiliations
JAMA. 1968;206(3):587-590. doi:10.1001/jama.1968.03150030043009
Poliovirus
PD Minor - eLS, 1997 - Wiley Online Library
Minor, 2012b
P.D. Minor
The polio eradication programme and issues of the endgame
J. Gen. Virol., 93 (2012), pp. 457-474
The first one you can read for 40$ but the abstract already gives it away. It says " Rabipur™, is as safe and effective as the rabies human diploid cell vaccine (HDCV)". This means they compared one poison jab with another. There was no inert placebo. No proper control groups. Pseudoscience. That is the top of your list of 'science'. The rest are probably even worse. There is no warning on the article. That would be like walking into the reactor in the Chernobyl exclusion zone and nobody put any signs up to warn you. There is the gold standard and your article fails. As does the publisher. It is on the dark web.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGPjj4B_jEk
You didn’t bother to read it and made assumptions about what it said and then made assumptions about every other paper listed based on your assumptions of the first article. Then you use the dark web as a source.
I never claimed the sources were in any particular order because they are not.
Nice of you to omit this part “ When used appropriately, new cell culture vaccines provide nearly 100% protection with a high degree of safety; yet over 40,000 people world-wide die from rabies each year. Additionally, PCEC vaccine does not result in immune-mediated hypersensitivity reactions following booster doses seen in about 6% of those receiving HDCV boosters following an initial series of HDCV.”
Also having a control group in humans for a disease with a 100% fatality rate is extremely unethical, far worse than what they did experimenting on people with the Covid jab. So rabies has a 100% fatality rate, this vaccine has a close to 100% effective rate and a lower than 6% reaction rate and you are mad because they didn’t let people die needlessly a horrible and agonizing death? For what it’s worth they did have control groups in the earlier nonhuman studies and you could have looked at those studies if you had bothered reading the actual paper. (Spoiler alert 100% of the control group got rabies.)
Your demands for studies are insincere because you are too cheap and lazy to get access to them or to bother reading them. Then you automatically declare any publisher of such studies as biased and suspect and then you use sources like the Dark Web. That’s like saying that since every pharmacist is corrupt I should go to my local neighborhood meth cook for pharmaceutical advice. After all there’s very little “science” to prove him wrong.
If you are going to ask for evidence the least you could do is pretend to look at it.