Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
CDC? If they would lie/omit certain information, what would keep them from lying about anything. Absolutely nothing! Whistleblower Claims CDC Covered Up Data Showing Vaccine-Autism Link | Time We all know the power of big pharma and some of us are intelligent enough to sort it out, while others prefer to have the information they get fed to them by the CDC. Of course, it is all about the money.
Again, the positive is that this information is getting out there and the majority of Americans are now rejecting the flu vaccine along with many other chemicals going into their bodies! The medical issues that will be created with the flu vaccine will assure the medical machine and big pharma a positive financial future. I won't be supporting it.
No data were omitted. The information from the study is still available from the CDC. Any legitimate researcher who wants it can get it.
"Big Pharma" would make more money treating influenza if no one vaccinated than it would from the vaccine itself.
The risk of a serious adverse reaction from the vaccine is about 1 in a million doses.
Quote:
If it requires some personal responsibility in a decision, most opt out, that is easier.
The CDC or any other corrupt agency can study it until they turn blue, but the real world stories, those not getting paid to promote big pharma is where I will choose to get my info.
I would certainly think I could choose not to get chemicals injected into my body. I don't understand why they whine about it anyway, if they want the vaccine and don't want to let their immune system react naturally, it is available to them. I know there argument is, "What about those with compromised immune systems?", and those people need to take personal responsibility for themselves in avoiding being exposed to the flu.
Personal responsibility and choice. Yep, that would take some thought and effort that most aren't up to.
Parents of children with special needs tend to be better educated and involved in the health of their children. 1/2 the kids with disabilities skipped their flu shots in 2013. "Better safe than sorry."
"Real world stories"? You mean internet anecdotes? That's not scientific data. Anecdotes never are.
Anyone may choose not to take the flu vaccine - or any vaccine. I am here to point out that there is no valid medical reason to avoid taking it. The risk of the disease is greater than the risk of the vaccine (which is tiny).
The "natural" reaction to influenza is to get sick, often very sick, and sometimes fatally so.
About half of the children who die from influenza each year have special needs. Not vaccinating is certainly not "better safe than sorry". There have been 8 pediatric flu deaths already this season in the US.
Statistically significant findings were omitted according the one of the authors of the study. The boys in the study did not have autism prior to the vaccine. That's part of the spin that occurred after the whistle was blown and I see that spin machine was successful in getting people to believe. :shrug:
This thread isn't about the MMR vaccine though so it's only relevant in regards to whether one puts 100% trust in the CDC or questions things when they are worthy of questioning.
Regarding the flu vaccine. I don't know what else can be said. Roughly half the population thinks it's worth it and the other half does not.
Statistically significant findings were omitted according the one of the authors of the study. The boys in the study did not have autism prior to the vaccine. That's part of the spin that occurred after the whistle was blown and I see that spin machine was successful in getting people to believe. :shrug:
This thread isn't about the MMR vaccine though so it's only relevant in regards to whether one puts 100% trust in the CDC or questions things when they are worthy of questioning.
Regarding the flu vaccine. I don't know what else can be said. Roughly half the population thinks it's worth it and the other half does not.
Here's some that Thompson said:
"Reasonable scientists can and do differ in their interpretation of information. I will do everything I can to assist any unbiased and objective scientists inside or outside the CDC to analyze data collected by the CDC or other public organizations for the purpose of understanding whether vaccines are associated with an increased risk of autism." https://respectfulinsolence.com/2014...s-a-statement/
Unfortunately for Thompson, he got mixed up with a person who committed fraud, Brian Hooker.
It doesn't matter what each half of the population thinks about flu vaccine. What matters is the science.
"Reasonable scientists can and do differ in their interpretation of information. I will do everything I can to assist any unbiased and objective scientists inside or outside the CDC to analyze data collected by the CDC or other public organizations for the purpose of understanding whether vaccines are associated with an increased risk of autism."
It doesn't matter what each half of the population thinks about flu vaccine. What matters is the science.
I read Thomspon's statement in full, many times. Nothing in your quote refutes the rest of his statement where he admits that statistically significant information was omitted.
If you think that everyone should get the flu vaccine no matter what then maybe you should care abut the fact that half of the population does not feel that they are worth it.
I read Thomspon's statement in full, many times. Nothing in your quote refutes the rest of his statement where he admits that statistically significant information was omitted.
If you think that everyone should get the flu vaccine no matter what then maybe you should care abut the fact that half of the population does not feel that they are worth it.
If you've read Thompson's letter many times you should quit misrepresenting it. He is not "admitting" that statistically significant information was omitted, he is stating it is his opinion this was done. As he said, reasonable scientists can and do differ in their interpretation. When Brian Hooker "reanalyzed" the stats with the information, he mucked it up so much his paper was retracted. Hooker also did not disclose his conflicts of interest.
I do not think everyone should get the flu shot no matter what and have said so many times. So what if half the population, most of whom haven't taken a science course since high school, think the flu shot is "not worth it"? Is that how scientific decisions should be made, by a vote of the public?
I do not think everyone should get the flu shot no matter what and have said so many times.
Cool. No need to argue about it anymore.
Quote:
So what if half the population, most of whom haven't taken a science course since high school, think the flu shot is "not worth it"? Is that how scientific decisions should be made, by a vote of the public?
Getting a flu vaccine or not is not a scientific decision but rather a health decision. Besides, the science concerning flu vaccines is not totally cut and dry and the efficacy can and does vary from one year to the next.
Getting a flu vaccine or not is not a scientific decision but rather a health decision. Besides, the science concerning flu vaccines is not totally cut and dry and the efficacy can and does vary from one year to the next.
Excuse me, MissTerri. Are you telling me to quit posting? Seriously?
Health is science. It's not "feelings". The science concerning flu vaccine is pretty cut and dried; getting the vaccine decreases your chances of getting the flu. The efficacy does vary from year to year but is always greater than "0" which is what you have if you don't get one.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 12-21-2017 at 10:27 PM..
Excuse me, MissTerri. Are you telling me to quit posting? Seriously?
Health is science. It's not "feelings". The science concerning flu vaccine is pretty cut and dried; getting the vaccine decreases your chances of getting the flu. The efficacy does vary from year to year but is always greater than "0" which is what you have if you don't get one.
Health is science based. The CDC recommends that everyone over the age of 6 months with no medical contraindications get a flu vaccination. That is what I meant when I said I do not think "everyone should get the flu shot no matter what". Of course people with medical contraindications should not get a flu shot.
There are many people on CD and elsewhere who think they know more than the scientists at the CDC.
Excuse me, MissTerri. Are you telling me to quit posting? Seriously?
Health is science. It's not "feelings". The science concerning flu vaccine is pretty cut and dried; getting the vaccine decreases your chances of getting the flu. The efficacy does vary from year to year but is always greater than "0" which is what you have if you don't get one.
Science has been wrong more than once. Actually, time after time. And, when you involve the CDC........
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
Health is science based. The CDC recommends that everyone over the age of 6 months with no medical contraindications get a flu vaccination. That is what I meant when I said I do not think "everyone should get the flu shot no matter what". Of course people with medical contraindications should not get a flu shot.
There are many people on CD and elsewhere who think they know more than the scientists at the CDC.
Per the article: The scientists complain that the "climate of disregard" at CDC puts "many" agency scientists in difficult positions. "We are often directed to do things we know are not right." The public record supports SPIDER's allegations that scientists who insist on research integrity suffer persecution by CDC supervisors.
"Last summer, a senior CDC scientist-Dr. William Thompson-admitted that the CDC altered data that showed the MMR vaccine was associated with autism. In fact, the original CDC data showed that the MMR vaccine, when given before 36 months of age was associated with a 240% increase in autism in African American children. Furthermore, there was a 69% increase in autism in any male child who received the vaccine before 36 months of age."
People that want the flu shot, which will be 10% effective against the flu this year, should get it. Those that do not want it, should not get it. The majority of Americans will NOT get the flu shot.
I asked my husband yesterday "How successful do you think a product would be on the market that was 10% effective in doing what it was supposed to do?" The answer to that question is "Only if backed by big pharma/CDC (one in the same).
Suggest those dropping to their knees to worship "scientists" google for "times scientists have been wrong".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cool. No need to argue about it anymore. 
The answer to that question is "Only if backed by big pharma/CDC (one in the same).
