The CDC just reversed its self on the use of nasal spray vaccines.

We need three verified scholarly sources prove that this is true.

How about going to the CDC's website

For anyone confused about the story: http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/health/ct-nasal-spray-flu-vaccine-not-effective-20160623-story.html

From the CDC Website: http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0622-laiv-flu.html

The CDC and FDA constantly change their stance on things, but nobody seems to notice.

I expect that the preliminary data looked positive, then later on they collected more data that showed it wasn't effective. Scientists do get things wrong sometimes, they're only human. And of course there's always the issue of pressure to get a particular result, resulting in interpretation of the data ranges from biased, to outright fudged. The important thing is, they published the latest findings in an effort to correct a mistake.

When I saw that on the news this evening, I had the exact same thought.  The FDA is useless. 

(itself)

"Scientists do get things wrong sometimes, they're only human."

Fascinating.

But you forgot to mention that that doesn't apply the the climate-change "soothscientists". They're exempt from responding to the kinds of pressures and making the kinds of mistakes that other scientists succumb to, right?

@Salty Herbert -- If there were dozens of studies which consistenly showed that nasal vaccines worked, the CDC would not have reversed itself.

The amount of data showing that:

A) The world is warming

B) Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the most likely reason for it.

C) There have been no verifiable other possible causes for the warming

is substantial.

But, of course, because taking the science seriously might lead to TEH EBIL SOCIALISM! BE AFRAID!, you refuse to take the science seriously.

Meanwhile, the science goes on...

https://weather.com/news/climate/news/record-warmest-may-earth-2016

Science is the best, you don't modify it to your prejudice. You look at results and results change.

Wtf are you talking about, fool?

*sigh* exactly as I expected, without even reading the link. But you're talking about people who want nothing but simple, easily digestible answers, that are unchanging and absolute.

Well, deaves, every time I see a new drug advertised on TV, they go through (at autioneer's speed) all the side effects that often result in death or thoughts of suicide.  Just horrible nightmarish side-effects, and that is right before someone sues the company FOR a death, and then the lawsuits come in and then the law firms advertise on TV about the drug, followed by "please call us if you died, or know someone who died from this drug, and we will get you money, we promise". 

The only thing these ambulance-chasing  law firms can promise is that they are going to get money and you will be lucky if you are ever healthy again in body and in pocketbook.

So, what was it about the reversal of nasal spray hysteria?  Oh yes.  We want to know how that could happen?  Well, deaves, ..... see the above paragraphs.   Read slowly. 

You are welcome.

Old School?  What in the world?  We know these humans are capable of causing gaskets to be blown.  Now, take deep breath and remember, they are clueless.  They cannot even help it.   You cannot yell at a duck for being a duck.  And you cannot expect him to to say anything but quack.    Deep breath. Normal people read you too, it's going to be all right. 

Ok. OS. Why did all that scientific research show it worked and then turned out to be bogus. That is the problem.

Bogus research is pushed out as fact only later to be proven bogus.

You can no longer trust scientific data. To many have an agenda rather than pure research.

In your analogy that is like a doctor determining your leg needs amputated and afterwards deciding no didn't need to after all.

How many children thought they were vaccinated but were not?

I agree but people are told what the side effects are. Their doctors evaluate the risk before they prescribe the drug. Then when things go wrong the law suits fly. Lawyers will cash in every chance they get.

Here we are told by the government(CDC) that they tested this method and said this is the way to go. Then after thousands of children have been vaccinated(not) using that method the CDC says oops we now know the method is worthless and does not protect your children.

Where was the peer review on the methods the government recommend? Private companies would be fined into bankruptcy if they did that and the law suits would fly.

Oh, Special Ed . . . you're so funny when you're trying to defend fortune-telling as real, repeatable scientific research. . .

But first, are you saying that a US Government agency, the CDC, endorsed a Public Health procedure with no credible scientific data to show that doing so was even safe, let alone effective? That's what you seem to be implying when you imply that there were no credible studies. (Isn't NOAA another one of those government agencies, by the way?)

Anyhow, all I did was to point out the double-standard in place, that scientific research in not infallable and that it needs to be constantly reviewed, unless it's Climate (pseudo) Science.  And that pseudo-science of fortune-telling is now the new gospel, denial of which is an act of heresy against the Church of Public Grant Money, punishable by death, or at least imprisonment. You would think that if it was that solid ther's be no need to arrest people for not believing in it? In fact, I remember that as a tact taken by "The Party" in the old Soviet Union to enforce their "scientific" views, funny that you buy into that same strategy.

But maybe if you and the other Chicken Littles of global warming didn't refer to "scientific fact" that's actually less likely to pass true "scientific method" muster than a call to Miss Cleo or The Out-of-Work Actors Psychic Hotline you might get some rational people on-board.

Which is probably why the reference you make to the "TEH EBIL SOCIALISM! BE AFRAID!" Political affiliation should have absolutely nothing to do with the issue if it is, in fact, true science. The only reason to make it as such, is to be a shield to the "sky is falling" con game (which makes the Global Warming proponents the "BE AFRAID" crowd, by the way). Same as when you play the racism card in a vain effort to mask the incompetence of some elected public officials.

And if that's not enough to show just how weak a position the Global Warming crowd has, you point to the Weather Channel's WEB site as your ultimate "irrefutable proof".  Here are some references to call the credibility of the whole con game into question. (And check out which government climate research lab was just closed for falsifying climate data for the last 20 + years . . . )

http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_global_warming_fabricated_data_scientific_fraud.html#
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

It's well past time to debunk this fraud!

The decadent one doesn't understand anything about real science. Real science is open to debate and endless testing. Real scientists have an open mind.

Obviously Obama had stock in nasal sprays.