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.
And you think anti-vaxers know what they're talking about. You have to prevent the flu to prevent the complications from it! For crying out loud! You will not prevent flu with berry syrups, vitamins or spices. Some may have LIMITED anti-viral activity, once the flu is contracted.
Effectiveness is not determined by individual cases. It is determined by comparing groups of people who take the vaccine with groups of people who do not. Basic misunderstanding of epidemiology there, Tex.
Big Pharm would make billions more on drugs to treat the flu than on vaccines to prevent it. Have you perhaps just been deceiving us with your anti-vax stance all along in an attempt to create more sick people for Big Pharma to treat?
Where were my manners ....
Hi Suzy!
First, I have no misunderstanding at all about how these presumptions of effectiveness are calculated. The entire process is pure speculation, assumption, and self serving guesses, starting with the presumption that flu-like symptoms are caused by influenza virus infection when most cases are not clinically typed. Furthermore, when surveillance efforts have been employed comprehensively, the truth is, 80+% are found not to be suffering influenza virus infection at all. There are many nasties that can cause flu-like symptoms. Then we have the hospitalizations and death counts which count all who are suffering the most common secondary infections associated with the flu during the flu season (pneumonia) 6 as flu related, without clinical evidence proving the influenza virus was responsible. And finally, as you mentioned, groups of vaccinated and non vaccinated are compared to determine effectiveness of the vaccine, which is purely speculative, as there is no way to actually predict exposure to the virus in either group. And let me repeat the old axiom ... "there are lies, damned lies, and then statistics"!
As for my collusion with big pharma to help boost it's profits by dissuading people from vaccination, leading to greater sickness requiring more pharmaceutical drugs to mitigate that outcome ... your tongue in cheek insinuation is pretty funny, given your well established position here as the poster girl for poison injections.
And you think anti-vaxers know what they're talking about. So it's OK to get the flu, but not the pneumonia that follows? You have to prevent the flu to prevent the complications from it! For crying out loud! You will not prevent flu with berry syrups, vitamins or spices. Some may have LIMITED anti-viral activity, once the flu is contracted.
Vitamin D3 is vastly superior as a preventative than any vaccine.
This partially explains why the flu "season" is not in the summer time when people are getting outdoors and receiving lots of sun light, which produces elevated D3 levels.
Vitamin D3 is vastly superior as a preventative than any vaccine.
This partially explains why the flu "season" is not in the summer time when people are getting outdoors and receiving lots of sun light, which produces elevated D3 levels.
There is no proof that having vaccinated prevent anything. This is no different that financial bailout. When it failed, it just push for more bail out because last one is not big enough. And right now, any type of failure in the financial system require a mandatory bail out. Sound familiar?
You can bet that when there is a new flu breakout, the first thing happen is they will come up with a new vaccinate (as always, untested) that will cure the flu.
There is no proof that having vaccinated prevent anything. This is no different that financial bailout. When it failed, it just push for more bail out because last one is not big enough. And right now, any type of failure in the financial system require a mandatory bail out. Sound familiar?
You can bet that when there is a new flu breakout, the first thing happen is they will come up with a new vaccinate (as always, untested) that will cure the flu.
You don't understand what vaccines are. They're not meant to cure, they're meant to prevent. And yeah, when the H1N1 flu came out in the spring of 2009, there was a massive effort to get a vaccine out. That's probably what spared the world of a flu epidemic like that of 1918. It sure wasn't elderberry syrup that did it.
You don't understand what vaccines are. They're not meant to cure, they're meant to prevent. And yeah, when the H1N1 flu came out in the spring of 2009, there was a massive effort to get a vaccine out. That's probably what spared the world of a flu epidemic like that of 1918. It sure wasn't elderberry syrup that did it.
First, I have no misunderstanding at all about how these presumptions of effectiveness are calculated. The entire process is pure speculation, assumption, and self serving guesses, starting with the presumption that flu-like symptoms are caused by influenza virus infection when most cases are not clinically typed. Furthermore, when surveillance efforts have been employed comprehensively, the truth is, 80+% are found not to be suffering influenza virus infection at all. There are many nasties that can cause flu-like symptoms. Then we have the hospitalizations and death counts which count all who are suffering the most common secondary infections associated with the flu during the flu season (pneumonia) 6 as flu related, without clinical evidence proving the influenza virus was responsible. And finally, as you mentioned, groups of vaccinated and non vaccinated are compared to determine effectiveness of the vaccine, which is purely speculative, as there is no way to actually predict exposure to the virus in either group. And let me repeat the old axiom ... "there are lies, damned lies, and then statistics"!
As for my collusion with big pharma to help boost it's profits by dissuading people from vaccination, leading to greater sickness requiring more pharmaceutical drugs to mitigate that outcome ... your tongue in cheek insinuation is pretty funny, given your well established position here as the poster girl for poison injections.
Nope, when studies on effectiveness are done, the participants are tested to see whether they are actually infected with flu virus or not.
If the reason you get sick in the first place is because you are infected with influenza virus, flu will be the underlying cause of death if you die. You do not get a complication of flu if you do not get flu at all.
There is no proof that having vaccinated prevent anything.
You can bet that when there is a new flu breakout, the first thing happen is they will come up with a new vaccinate (as always, untested) that will cure the flu.
Denial does not make the facts go away. Vaccines do work.
Vaccines do not "cure", they prevent. And they are tested.
Denial does not make the facts go away. Vaccines do work.
Vaccines do not "cure", they prevent. And they are tested.
Then tell me why people don't get the flu who are exposed to it and don't get vaccinated? Both Miss Terri and I have told you that we haven't had the flu in decades. WHY don't we get the flu when we are around people who have it and we have not been vaccinated? You cannot argue herd immunity when we are around people who have the flu.
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.
