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.
Thanks for sharing, I wouldn't say I forgot, just never knew. Didn't hit my radar.
But a few thoughts:
1. I never knew the true threshold for "epidemic" level and assumed it was way worse, so thanks for sharing this.
2.The article says "The overall vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the 2017-2018 flu vaccine against both influenza A and B viruses is estimated to be 40%. This means the flu vaccine reduced a person’s overall risk of having to seek medical care at a doctor’s office for flu illness by 40%." Seems like a rather low effectiveness threshold from a layman perspective.
3. 2017-2018 is only one data point (granted the most recent) in a period that goes back to 2003, so I'd be curious to see if its an emerging trend, or just a short term spike.
Again, thanks for sharing...good food for thought based on facts is always helpful.
The threshold for epidemic is a moving target. The WHO once declared an epidemic after 20 cases.
It depends what organization it is, what disease it is, etc. Saying something is an epidemic isn;t really indicative of anything. It's meaningless the way it is used.
Sometimes we can put two and two together and it takes the medical establishment a long time to catch up, do proper studies and for the "great minds" acknowledge what we already know is true. Sometimes that never happens or gets prevented from happening.
If you are one who knew the truth about something before They acknowledge it, you still won't get credit for knowing and trying to warn people - maybe you just made a lucky guess. Logic is even frowned on if it is not stamped by the Right group of people. Doctors particularly can be in great denial if science does not currently have support for something they can see with their own eyes. No one paid for the studies yet so it isn't real.
Remember when studies proved cigarettes were not only safe, but healthy and pushed by MDs?
Remember when studies proved cigarettes were not only safe, but healthy and pushed by MDs?
Ahh, the good old days of medical science.
You're coughing up a lung, but it's a healthy cough.
We have to go with our own common sense. It's hard to block out the noise sometimes, especially if we want to believe experts are benevolently watching out for us, but we gotta watch out for ourselves.
Yes they instituted a new classification system. That usually occurs when either data don't reflect the desired outcome, or if normal levels need to be changed to ensure more people fit the classification to get whatever drug is being pushed. But I digress ... back to topic ..
Can you point out in the link above that you provided, the exact number of cases and deaths that were confirmed to be from influenza?
Not "influenza-related" or classified as "pneumonia/influenza," but specific, confirmed number of cases of INFLUENZA and deaths by INFLUENZA.
Thanks in advance.
That's somewhat hard to do because the CDC only requires flu cases and/or related fatalities be reported for those under 18.
Oh, so you mean the CDC doesn't know how many CONFIRMED cases of the flu there are or CONFIRMED deaths?
Huh. Interesting.
And the link of course, is "flu-related" deaths. Not Flu. "Flu-related." Which means pretty much anybody with a respiratory infection or cough.
They do not confirm no. of flu deaths. They used to. Not anymore. They stopped when the numbers showed again and again, very few deaths. When I was tracking it year over year, I think the HIGHEST I saw was 4,000 deaths. It was usually between 400 and 1000.
But they keep putting these generalized, all-inclusive, put anybody in there that coughed, statistics out as if they are meaningful. To scare the pants off people like the vocal posters here who demand everyone get the vax or they are going to DIE.
I broke one of my primary personal rules in this thread, and for that I must now apologize (while wiping egg from my face). I experienced a knee-jerk reaction then jumped in and stated a personal opinion without first tracking down the BEST arguments and evidence against my position. Shame on me. I will let this post stand as a testament to why this is a good general policy, and as an example of what can happen when one fails to uphold it.
There is a bit of extra irony here because I have been a long-time skeptic of big pharma, the medical industry and, more generally, anything where entrenched profit-motive-interests could be driving public paradigms and policies (which seems to include practically everything these days) so this topic should have triggered red flags for me all over the place. But in this case I got just plain lazy and broke my personal vows and now I have to pay for it. Thanks to GuyNTexas for posting the link that awoke me from my lazy slumber and made me feel foolish.
WARNING: I have still not done a good personal investigation of the actual scientific evidence, and I cannot personally attest to the credibility of the article by Jeremy R. Hammond, so I'm not totally flipping over to "the flu vaccine is worthless or dangerous," but I am, for the moment, landing squarely in the camp of "I don't know." Whatever Hammond's personal agenda, credibility, or expertise might be, he does seem to be offering good arguments and evidence for his conclusions, and that carries a lot of weight with me. Perhaps now someone can offer some good counter-arguments that are specific to the claims made by Hammond. If enough of his key points can be refuted, I may go back to my previous position. If not, I might join the ranks of the flu-vax skeptics.
Just to be clear: I'm focusing only on the flu vax here. I still think it is foolish for people to be anti-vax in general (but, as always, I'm open to good evidence and arguments to the contrary). I would hate to see anyone hastily generalize from "the flu vax is a scam" to "all vaxs are scams" or "all science is a scam" etc. - that logical fallacy leads to sheer stupidity and a lot of unnecessary suffering.
You just restored my faith in humanity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
Jeremy Hammond is an antivaccine loon. If you're not anti-vax, you don't agree with Hammond. ]
Perfect example of the Transfer/Association technique used in Propaganda campaigns. And no; I’m not accusing Katarina of being a propagandist. I am saying she is reiterating propaganda:
Is there a reason that vaccines; a product of science: Are supported by propaganda; an influencer of opinion?
Are you labeling the poster above as an evil “anti-vaxxer”? Is he not intelligent enough to utilize his own reading comprehension & cognition to decide what is “loony”?
“Your not one of us if; you agree with him, her, them, that ...” Good grief.
But carry on if you must; conservative Republicans who are in favor of immunizations have already felt alienated here on this thread by this tactic.
Can a pro-vaccine argument be won without the use of propaganda? Meaning no use of labels, transfer or Bandwagoning? Meaning that nobody gets called an anti vaccine anything: Scientists are scientists. Doctors are doctors. Parents are not “poor historians” looking for “someone to blame”. Whistleblowers are not “just a disgruntled employee”.
Can that happen? Can vaccines, as a product of science; stand on its own two feet by virtue of the science? All the science?
Just to be clear, the article says he got GBS from the shot. It does not say he got the flu from the shot.
Another thing that is becoming clear to me: We really ought to do a lot more research on ways to identify who is more likely to be at risk for various sorts of bad drug reactions. We can't realistically make any drug 100% safe, but we probably could figure out how to identify potential problems prior to getting the drug or vaccine. From what I can see, the current risks from vaccines are statistically small, but considering the severity of some of the potential side effects, it would be worth it to reduce the risk even more. Hopefully our increasing knowledge of genetics could eventually play a role in this? Judging from the story above, it might be good to do an extensive study of links between autoimmune disease and drug side effects. (For all I know, such studies might have already been done but, if not, they ought to be).
It’s called Pharmacogenomics & it is being done. It’s known but not disclosed. For example; the CYP2D6 gene, which carries out metabolism of 25% of drugs currently available in the market.
To the other poster taking about his elderly Mom getting the flu and cleaning out her fridge, that is my daughter. Her husband is a HS Science Teacher. Is this jar of spaghetti sauce in your fridge with the white stuff on top your science experiment for class? Grabbed it from me and threw it in the garbage. I refuse to eat or cook at daughter's house.
How does this relate to this thread? Last September daughter had severe vomiting and diarrhea. Went to a doctor who tested her and said she had Influenza A!!!! Really? I told her she had Food Poisoning, which I myself have had. Nope the FLU. Terrified her so much that she got her very first Flu Shot, which of course will protect her from those symptoms she had. Anything you can to increase flu shots?
Great. Add one more flu case to the yearly total and one more Flu Shot to the list. Of course, the next time she eats her 5 year old Ranch Dressing in her fridge, then she will claim her Flu Shot did not protect her when she has that Influenza A again and severe vomiting and diarrhea.
Oh, so you mean the CDC doesn't know how many CONFIRMED cases of the flu there are or CONFIRMED deaths?
Huh. Interesting.
And the link of course, is "flu-related" deaths. Not Flu. "Flu-related." Which means pretty much anybody with a respiratory infection or cough.
They do not confirm no. of flu deaths. They used to. Not anymore. They stopped when the numbers showed again and again, very few deaths. When I was tracking it year over year, I think the HIGHEST I saw was 4,000 deaths. It was usually between 400 and 1000.
But they keep putting these generalized, all-inclusive, put anybody in there that coughed, statistics out as if they are meaningful. To scare the pants off people like the vocal posters here who demand everyone get the vax or they are going to DIE.
There's some nuance you're missing. The people are just as dead but not necessarily from the flu itself. Causes like flu induced pneumonia.
There's a reason the elderly die of flu, they already have more things wrong with them that influenza makes worse.
See the stories in the post above. I really do get tickled at people who think they have some sort of "cast-iron" immune system WRT flu and they'll NEVER get it. And Mason, young (or middle aged) healthy adults do get the flu and die from it. Do you think 180 pediatric deaths and 80,000 adults deaths is "flu hysteria".
I’m 51 now and some people do have better immune systems then other that’s just a fact. Like some people who have smoked cigarettes and drank alcohol all thier lives and never missed a beat.
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.
