I promised myself that I wouldn't take threads like this seriously anymore but I DO have one question.

Have they done an unbiased study (not funded by Pharma, the FDA, or CDC) on the number of casualties from the flu- vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated? Since they've practically sold out, er, run out of serum, they should have a good database of vaccinated participants vs the unvaccinated portion of the population. This should give us a good feel for it's effectiveness and whether or not it exarcerbated/worsened symptoms or caused death when it was introduced.

bloody spaniard wrote:

why are you so sure people don't know what they are talking about..?? reasearch isn't reserved for just doctors... even you could learn some stuff if you wanted to.... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

Ram sent me a IT Tomahawk once.... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

Uh-oh... I hollered "Don't look, Bloody!" but it was too late...

MACS wrote:

that 62% is only valid if you actually had the shot..... we were trying to figure out the percentage of those getting the flu who didn't get the shot... 😟



and nobody is offering medical advice here... just opinions and personal experiences.... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

The 62% is if you are exposed to the flu virus and have the shot.
The percentage of people getting the flu who didn't get the shot is kind of irrelevant, because it's directly impacted by how many people get the shot (and not in the way you think).

Epidemiology has identified that the more people in a population who are vaccinated against something, the less likely the unvaccinated are of catching it (because there are fewer infected people to come in contact with).

So, your chances of getting the flu are based on two factors - 1- the virulence of the strain (if you are in direct contact with the virus, what are the chances of infection... and of course this varies with your personal hygiene habits, the number of viral particles you are exposed to, and the area of exposure) and 2 - your odds of being exposed to the flu.

I don't personally get the shot. But that's because I don't really need it. I don't touch children or go to places where there are sick people, and have a reasonably healthy immune system. Additionally the company I work for does produce one of the annual vaccines, and a large number of my co-workers get vaccinated, decreasing my potential exposure.

victor809 wrote:

The 62% is if you are exposed to the flu virus and have the shot.
The percentage of people getting the flu who didn't get the shot is kind of irrelevant, because it's directly impacted by how many people get the shot (and not in the way you think).

Epidemiology has identified that the more people in a population who are vaccinated against something, the less likely the unvaccinated are of catching it (because there are fewer infected people to come in contact with).

So, your chances of getting the flu are based on two factors - 1- the virulence of the strain (if you are in direct contact with the virus, what are the chances of infection... and of course this varies with your personal hygiene habits, the number of viral particles you are exposed to, and the area of exposure) and 2 - your odds of being exposed to the flu.

I don't personally get the shot. But that's because I don't really need it. I don't touch children or go to places where there are sick people, and have a reasonably healthy immune system. Additionally the company I work for does produce one of the annual vaccines, and a large number of my co-workers get vaccinated, decreasing my potential exposure.

victor809 wrote:

1. I am interested in knowing the flu- related death rates for the inoculated vs. those left untainted;

bloody spaniard wrote:

2. Don't the odds of being exposed to the flu increase if you receive live viri?;

3. Perhaps some of us are not vaccinated in part due to your rationale which indirectly admits the body is subjected to some unknown variable of damage from a vaccine... better let others risk it?

I'll take my doctors word over the words of a layman. Look at all the idiots running around a few years ago saying research proved that immunizations cause Autism. Turns out that research was crap and because parents were afraid to get their kids immunized diseases like the mumps and measles started making a come back and in almost every case it was in a child who didn't receive the vaccines. You've got actors and politicians running around citing these research reports that respected and educated physicians dismissed because they knew the research was poorly done. So yeah I'll take the word of the mainstream medical establishment over the word of some actress who read some crackpot paper. This years flu vaccine is 62% effective against this years strains of flu according to the CDC. I think cutting your chances of getting sick by 62% is worth it.

CelticBomber wrote:

Tell that to the people that died.
18+ kids now.
I have not had the shot. I did see my doc in November, and she tested me for the flu, but I tested negative.

Mrs.Tank wrote:

It is up to each individual whether the risk of the vaccine is worth taking when compared to the risk associated with the particular strains of influenza anticipated.

rfenst wrote:

I promised myself that I wouldn't take threads like this seriously anymore but I DO have one question.

Have they done an unbiased study (not funded by Pharma, the FDA, or CDC) on the number of casualties from the flu- vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated? Since they've practically sold out, er, run out of serum, they should have a good database of vaccinated participants vs the unvaccinated portion of the population. This should give us a good feel for it's effectiveness and whether or not it exarcerbated/worsened symptoms or caused death when it was introduced.

bloody spaniard wrote:

Would you accept the results?

Gene363 wrote:

Hi, MrsSleddn! (very sensible)



Yes, of course I would, Gene. Who am I NOT to accept credible, unbiased evidence?? The problem is, it doesn't exist.
For instance, I would love to know why we are not told why those killed (or dying) from the flu were vaccinated or not.

bloody spaniard wrote:

There was a time when vaccine's and antibiotics didn't exist. When family's would have 8 children and be considered lucky if two made it to adulthood. A time when a simple scratch could kill you because of an infection. A time when polio ravaged children's body's and crippled and even killed. Today Polio has been virtually wiped out in the U.S. and around the world. The Spanish Flu affected 1/5 of the worlds population and killed anywhere from 20 to 50 million. It wasn't children and the old it killed either it was healthy men and women between 20 and 40 years old it killed because it drove our immune systems into overdrive and our own body's attacked us. Kids and older people with weaker immune systems survived because their weakened immune systems didn't have the strength to kill them. Why anyone would want to go back to those days is beyond my comprehension. Calling it a scam so medical company's can make a profit. Thinking it's some evil plan to sterilize us and control the population. The Taliban is killing aid workers who are trying to vaccinate young children over there for exactly that reason. If any other corporation is price gouge, or making a profit in some unethical way, etc. and get called on it the accusers are called socalists or facists who are against free enterprise. But when a medical company sells a vaccine and makes a profit it's all just some evil scam and how dare they make money from this. The lead author of the paper which started this whole scare, Andrew Wakefield, had his medical license pulled because of his fraudulent research. Yet people still buy into it. I really don't understand why anyone would be against vaccines or antibiotics.

CelticBomber wrote: