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.
I would think that a vaccine study funded by a vaccine manufacturer would be much more biased then an independent, non-profit reviewing the literature as a whole. You don't?
That piece is proof of the old saying in statistics: Torture your data long enough, and they'll confess to anything.
The Natural News geniuses have discovered that vaccine only makes a difference to those who are exposed to the flu, and as most aren't over the course of a winter - well, then it's somehow unfair to point out that when you compare vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, the unvaccinated consequently fall ill from the flu at a considerably higher rate.
It is akin to pointing out that the beneficial effects of seatbelts is ridiculously low, because most people don't crash in the first place and what good are seatbelts then, huh?
The attached is very long yet interesting look the flu research and the flu vaccine. The following quote is just a tiny snippet of the information contained in the link: http://assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDoc..._statement.pdf
Quote:
After reviewing more than 40 clinical trials, it is clear that the performance of the vaccines in healthy adults is nothing to get excited about. On average, perhaps 1 adult out of a 100 vaccinated will get influenza symptoms compared to 2 out of 100 in the unvaccinated group.
A 100% higher incidence rate in the unvaccinated group would get me pretty excited.
I would think that a vaccine study funded by a vaccine manufacturer would be much more biased then an independent, non-profit reviewing the literature as a whole. You don't?
I'm sure that most people would be excited by that...
Good. That's what happens. Incidence rate of flu in the unvaccinated control group is 100% higher. Those are your own figures.
Quote:
since it would mean that the flu vaccine was VERY effective.
It is.
Quote:
A 1% difference is kind of a let down.
It is not a difference of 1%, but let's not get into the difference between percentage and percentage point right now.
This is where your math fails: Using your way of figuring, if someone came up with a flu vaccine that eradicated flu outbreaks completely in the vaccinated population, it would still only make a 2% difference. (Vaccinated population: 0% got flu. Unvaccinated population: 2% got the flu.) Or, to steal a phrase: "... the performance of the vaccines in healthy adults is nothing to get excited about. On average, 0 adults out of a 100 vaccinated will get influenza symptoms compared to 2 out of 100 in the unvaccinated group."
98% of the adult population won't get the flu, vaccine or no vaccine. It's the remaining 2% we can do something for - reduce them to 1%, for instance. Which is what the vaccine does.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 01-31-2013 at 04:18 PM..
Me thinks you're fulla poop. I have been getting the flu shot for about 20yrs and guess what? I haven't had the flu in 20 yrs, go figure!It is impossible to get the flu from the modern flu shot, either you were infected at the time of the shot and it had not taken hold yet or you got infected before the shot was able to give you immunity, about 2 weeks. I have had the flu and it was no picnic, I wil take 62% over no protection at all!
I have gotten vaccinated for most of the past 20 years, but have skipped some. I skipped getting a shot for 3 years straight, and came down with the flu twice during that period. One illness was bad- it laid me out for 9 weeks.
Once I did come down with the flu after I was vaccinated, but it was mild. That particular year developed a virus that wasn't well covered by the vaccine, but while all the folks I worked with got very sick if they didn't get a shot, mine was little more than a cold in it's severity.
All I can tell you is that for about five years, my husband and I religiously got our flu shots - and eventually came down with the flue anyway.
For the past two years, we have NOT gotten the vaccine, and have NOT gotten the flu. So far so good this year. If either of us gets the flu, I will come back to the thread and eat crow.
The flu vaccine doesn't prevent the flu.
It merely stimulates your immune system which may or may not protect you.
Then your immune system is only built up against whatever strains are in the cocktail...
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.
It is impossible to get the flu from the modern flu shot, either you were infected at the time of the shot and it had not taken hold yet or you got infected before the shot was able to give you immunity, about 2 weeks. I have had the flu and it was no picnic, I wil take 62% over no protection at all!
