105 kids died from flu this season, so far...

[Chisleu]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/cdc-105-us-children-died-flu-season-18790325#.UUzFcxzvvF8

90% were not vaccinated.

Only 1 child died shortly after receiving the vaccine so far this season, however it is impossible to determine if it was a reaction to the vaccine, or she simply got a different flu virus at the same time. Yes, there were many with adverse reactions, the overwealming majority of which are local site reactions (redness and swelling.) None rising anywhere close to the DEAD these 105 experienced from the flu itself.

The flu is more dangerous than the vaccine.

The flu is more dangerous than the vaccine.

Not vaccinating your children is a potential death sentance. Vaccines are not perfect. 10% of children who died from flu had been previously vaccinated because vaccines do not protect against all possible strains of flu, just the ones likely to spread.

90% of children who died from the flu were not vaccinated.

90% of children who died from the flu were not vaccinated.

The rate of Guillain-Barré syndrome does not change if you are vaccinated. Stop listening to lies and bullshit 99% spread by individuals with no medical training, who think someone is going to kill you with the shot on purpose. Realize that the powers that be can kill as many of us as they want, in very short order, and complex conspiracies are rediculously unnecessary.

Don't let crack pots kill your kids.

[RestoringGuy]

 

90% of children who died from the flu were not vaccinated.

Don't let crack pots kill your kids.

 

The numbers make no sense.  What percent of children who did not die from the flu were not vaccinated?   We can't compare 90% to another number that is not presented.  CDC is the same crackpots wanting to cut off boys' foreskins.

[Rick Horton]

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/cdc-105-us-children-died-flu-season-18790325#.UUzFcxzvvF8

90% were not vaccinated.

Only 1 child died shortly after receiving the vaccine so far this season, however it is impossible to determine if it was a reaction to the vaccine, or she simply got a different flu virus at the same time. Yes, there were many with adverse reactions, the overwealming majority of which are local site reactions (redness and swelling.) None rising anywhere close to the DEAD these 105 experienced from the flu itself.

The flu is more dangerous than the vaccine.

The flu is more dangerous than the vaccine.

Not vaccinating your children is a potential death sentance. Vaccines are not perfect. 10% of children who died from flu had been previously vaccinated because vaccines do not protect against all possible strains of flu, just the ones likely to spread.

90% of children who died from the flu were not vaccinated.

90% of children who died from the flu were not vaccinated.

The rate of Guillain-Barré syndrome does not change if you are vaccinated. Stop listening to lies and bullshit 99% spread by individuals with no medical training, who think someone is going to kill you with the shot on purpose. Realize that the powers that be can kill as many of us as they want, in very short order, and complex conspiracies are rediculously unnecessary.

Don't let crack pots kill your kids.

 

I AGREE. . And it's refreshing to read this amongst so many crackpots that say they are somehow helping their children by NOT vaccinating them. Scientifically speaking, that seems far more abusive than a "spanking, or slap on a wrist".  It's like people have never learned what great terrors vaccinations prevent, and have prevented in the past. Small Pox, Polio, The Flu, Papaloma, etc... Vaccines are very important. Too important to let people who are simply paranoid, ignorant, and irresponsible, pursuade you as a parent.

[RestoringGuy]

 

I AGREE. . And it's refreshing to read this amongst so many crackpots that say they are somehow helping their children by NOT vaccinating them. Scientifically speaking, that seems far more abusive than a "spanking, or slap on a wrist".  It's like people have never learned what great terrors vaccinations prevent, and have prevented in the past. Small Pox, Polio, The Flu, Papaloma, etc... Vaccines are very important. Too important to let people who are simply paranoid, ignorant, and irresponsible, pursuade you as a parent.

 

As I understand, evolution guides the human immune system -- the death of the least immune provides future generations with strengthened genes, survival of the fittest.   I agree that not vaccinating is not going to be somehow helpful to a randomly selected child.  But on large scale we have passed on vulneratbilities for a long time and people will be weaker with each generation.  That main flaw of a long-term vaccine program seems scientifically undeniable,it is sabotage of naturally evolved immunity.  It is similar to antibiotics, their overuse is now being admitted.  Evolution proves treatment methods helpful in the short run can become harmful in the long run.

 

 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

I AGREE. . And it's refreshing to read this amongst so many crackpots that say they are somehow helping their children by NOT vaccinating them. Scientifically speaking, that seems far more abusive than a "spanking, or slap on a wrist".  It's like people have never learned what great terrors vaccinations prevent, and have prevented in the past. Small Pox, Polio, The Flu, Papaloma, etc... Vaccines are very important. Too important to let people who are simply paranoid, ignorant, and irresponsible, pursuade you as a parent.

 

As I understand, evolution guides the human immune system -- the death of the least immune provides future generations with strengthened genes, survival of the fittest.   I agree that not vaccinating is not going to be somehow helpful to a randomly selected child.  But on large scale we have passed on vulneratbilities for a long time and people will be weaker with each generation.  That main flaw of a long-term vaccine program seems scientifically undeniable,it is sabotage of naturally evolved immunity.  It is similar to antibiotics, their overuse is now being admitted.  Evolution proves treatment methods helpful in the short run can become harmful in the long run.

 

 

 

People live longer and healthier in modern times that at any previous time. You have no evidence for your claim. 

[SimonF]

The data is insufficient to draw any conclusions.

[Chisleu]

Actually it isn't enough.

Thanks for pointing that out. It's only enough for the average american who understands that 50%+ of american children are vaccinated against the flu now, and it's rising in spite of the bullshit.

For the statistic to be neutral, 90% of children would have to be unvaccinated.

http://healthyamericans.org/report/102/

 

I hate circumcision as well. You don't have to agree with everything an organization says to agree with one point. That goes for Hitler too.

[Jimmy]

 

Actually it isn't enough.

Thanks for pointing that out. It's only enough for the average american who understands that 50%+ of american children are vaccinated against the flu now, and it's rising in spite of the bullshit.

For the statistic to be neutral, 90% of children would have to be unvaccinated.

http://healthyamericans.org/report/102/

 

I hate circumcision as well. You don't have to agree with everything an organization says to agree with one point. That goes for Hitler too.

 

Could someone explain the statistical reasoning behind the claims that there isn't enough information? I know things can be counterintuitive so I'd love to understand this. To me, 90% of child deaths coming from the unvaccinated seems like a hefty endoresment for vacciation, no?

[JohnDJasper]

The biggest fallacy of the OP is the idea that anything published by the CDC would be accepted as evidence when they have a long history of lying to support their agenda not unlike every other government agency.  Dr David Brownstein provides a serious criticism of the CDC's claim in this article:

More CDC Nonsense About the Flu Vaccine

The CDC enrolled 2,697 adults in this study.  Let’s first look at the first group—I will call them Group A– that did not get the flu. Group A consisted of 1,582 subjects who did not get the flu.  In Group A, 793 were given the vaccine in this group—50%.   So, the CDC can tout a 50% efficacy of the flu vaccine.  However, the other 50% of the subjects did not get the flu vaccine nor did they contract the influenza virus.  I say, these numbers show the ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine.  Since 50% of the subjects did not get the vaccine or get the flu, where is the effectiveness of the vaccine?

If you just look at those 1582 subjects, you don't get 50% effective, you get absolutely no proof of effectiveness whatsoever.

He goes on to point out:

Let’s move to Group B—those that were diagnosed with the flu.  The Group
B data showed that of 1117 subjects who tested positive for the flu,
367 received the vaccine.  That means that 33% of those vaccinated still
became ill with the flu.   If we take the 50% from group A who did not
get the flu and had the flu shot and subtract the 33% from group B who
got the flu vaccine and also became ill with the flu, we have a net
benefit of 17%.  So, the flu vaccine is, at best, 17% effective
from protecting you against the flu!

So we're getting closer to the truth.  But still:

This study reported that roughly 50% of the subjects contracted the
flu.  In the general population, only about 5-20% becomes ill with the
flu.  This study was suffering from a selection bias

If the vaccine was, at best, 17% effective in this biased group, some fancy maths would be required to determine the likely effectiveness rate amongst the general population allowing for the fact that the flu vaccines are completely useless for the elderly as proven by the CDC themselves.

Flu vaccines failed to provide protection this year, particularly among elderly

According to the CDC data itself, the efficacy of seasonal influenza
vaccines among those 65 years of age and older during the 2012-2013 flu
season was a mere nine percent. What this means is that 91 percent of elderly individuals given a flu shot derived absolutely no benefit from the vaccine,
as they developed the flu anyway. Many of these same individuals also
likely suffered negative side effects in the form of lowered immunity
and increased heavy metal toxicity.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039422_flu_vaccines_elderly_failure.html#ixzz2ORl36SMu

 

But don't worry about these facts - just get your damn shots!

[JohnDJasper]

Further to this discussion and while I'm challenging the assumptions about vaccination effectiveness and safety, here is a little tale of how those 'safe' vaccines disrupt lives on a regular basis.

How the Medical Profession Covered Up Vaccine Injuries and Called it ‘Child Abuse’

An expert witness deliberately misleading a jury...

Sally Clark spent three and a half years in jail wrongly convicted of murdering two of her babies. This was after [Professor Sir Roy] Meadow and another expert witness assured the jury that there was no other explanation for the sudden deaths of her children other than that she had deliberately smothered them. This was despite the fact that Harry died five hours after a DPT vaccine and that Prof Meadow had attended 13 meetings discussing adverse reactions to the DPT which included cot death.

The Spectator [9] reporting on the case states:

Not many people know these facts, because at Sally’s trial the defense did not mention immunization as a possible cause of death. Two prosecution witnesses, including the paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow, assured the jury it could be discounted. Their statements went unchallenged, and the issue did not form any part of the appeal hearings. Professor Meadow, a former member of a Department of Health sub-committee on adverse reactions to vaccines, told the jury that he could not think of any natural explanation for Harry’s or Christopher’s deaths.

and also misdirecting committees discussing vaccine dangers...

The fact that Meadow not only tried to misdirect committees discussing vaccine dangers and cot death but contributed in a memorandum outlining guidelines for the treatment of anaphylaxis called ‘Immunization Against Infectious Diseases’ is totally beyond belief, especially when it has been reported that he stood up in court and assured a jury in a murder case that vaccines could not have been responsible for the death of her child.  I have been told by mothers falsely accused that he denied vaccines were responsible for the deaths of other babies in their trials as well. Let us hope that at last these parents will get the justice they deserve and their children can be laid to rest in peace at long last.

To believe that vaccinations are saving lives, you have to ignore a lot of evidence to the contrary.  Ignorance may be bliss but it can also kill you or one of your loved ones.  If you're scared, get your shots but don't confuse this fear-induced conformity with intelligent decision-making.

[RestoringGuy]

 

People live longer and healthier in modern times that at any previous time. You have no evidence for your claim. 

 

I never doubted such a thing about modern health. What I claim is some of these improvements cost us our natural capacity for health.  The progression of eye defects and vision impairment, the need for vision correction is on the rise because humans have been skilled at providing substitute optics while making hunting less of a survival need.  And the so-called "superbugs" would not exist without the antibiotics which give people survival advantage.  Unless one believes God will provide an answer, it seems clear that technological dependency is being bred into the human genome.

John, it is great to see some quantitative skepticism.  Most people take no statistics courses or have little exposure to Simpson's paradox or other statistical fallacies.  There is faith-based doctrine that goverment is their protector.  Important thing is that although they are sometimes right, they are using force to pay for their research and that should make a person at least skeptical, not just of the statistical claims, but the recommended course of action.  Anybody can prove cars kill people no matter how many safety features, so by an overkill recommendation you should smash your car as a precaution.  I think to make recommendations, you have to factor in more than sound statistics, but also what are the long-term effects and goals. 

On a funnier note, one could probably do a rough analysis and prove death by car crash is more likely than you changing the outcome of a big election.  So the CDC should be promoting staying home on those Tuesday election nights.

 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

People live longer and healthier in modern times that at any previous time. You have no evidence for your claim. 

 

I never doubted such a thing about modern health. What I claim is some of these improvements cost us our natural capacity for health.  The progression of eye defects and vision impairment, the need for vision correction is on the rise because humans have been skilled at providing substitute optics while making hunting less of a survival need.  And the so-called "superbugs" would not exist without the antibiotics which give people survival advantage.  Unless one believes God will provide an answer, it seems clear that technological dependency is being bred into the human genome.

John, it is great to see some quantitative skepticism.  Most people take no statistics courses or have little exposure to Simpson's paradox or other statistical fallacies.  There is faith-based doctrine that goverment is their protector.  Important thing is that although they are sometimes right, they are using force to pay for their research and that should make a person at least skeptical, not just of the statistical claims, but the recommended course of action.  Anybody can prove cars kill people no matter how many safety features, so by an overkill recommendation you should smash your car as a precaution.  I think to make recommendations, you have to factor in more than sound statistics, but also what are the long-term effects and goals. 

On a funnier note, one could probably do a rough analysis and prove death by car crash is more likely than you changing the outcome of a big election.  So the CDC should be promoting staying home on those Tuesday election nights.

 

 

That's all fine and dandy, but you do know that not all evolution is for the better right?  Many animals evolve themselves into extinction. So, it's as likely "if not more likely" that if we didn't vaccinate, we wouldn't adapt. Creatures don't always adapt. They don't always overcome disease. I think it's smarter to deal with things like polio, small pox, flu, papaloma, and diseases like that with "the present" in mind. Not a thousand years from now. We could just as easily go extinct from disease as we could adapt. Evolution doesn't favor anybody. It might favor the disease far more than us. The disease very well could just use us and jump to another species. One never knows that kind of thing, so we develop medicines and vaccines. 

There is another thread going on right now, on this forum, about Autism. Interestingly, last night I was thinking about all of the things people say others are doing to perhaps cause Autism to be rapidly increasing in humans. One thing people are failing to put into the equation is that we might not be "doing" anything to cause the increase of Autism. We may be evolving in a counter productive way. This is a real concern. Autism may be a natural, but bad mutation in the human genome. 

[RestoringGuy]

 

That's all fine and dandy, but you do know that not all evolution is for the better right?  Many animals evolve themselves into extinction. So, it's as likely "if not more likely" that if we didn't vaccinate, we wouldn't adapt. Creatures don't always adapt. They don't always overcome disease. I think it's smarter to deal with things like polio, small pox, flu, papaloma, and diseases like that with "the present" in mind. Not a thousand years from now. We could just as easily go extinct from disease as we could adapt. Evolution doesn't favor anybody. It might favor the disease far more than us. The disease very well could just use us and jump to another species. One never knows that kind of thing, so we develop medicines and vaccines. 

There is another thread going on right now, on this forum, about Autism. Interestingly, last night I was thinking about all of the things people say others are doing to perhaps cause Autism to be rapidly increasing in humans. One thing people are failing to put into the equation is that we might not be "doing" anything to cause the increase of Autism. We may be evolving in a counter productive way. This is a real concern. Autism may be a natural, but bad mutation in the human genome. 

 

Yes you might be right about autism, it seems random.  You have me confused with the "intelligent design" people or at least their characterization of evolutionists.  Of course evolution does not magnetically guide toward beneficial adaptation.  But you seem to accept the general narrative that "flu shots save people".  If so, then you can't deny those people reproduce similar need for shots.  Animals "evolve into extinction" because they were beaten (and perhaps eaten) by stronger species, perhaps viruses, not because evolution gave them random fatal misfortune which they somehow passed on.  I say this because the individuals with a fatal random mutation are less likely pass it on, correct?  So it would seem to me you must either say flu is totally non-fatal, or else (to whatever extent it is fatal) admit effective vaccines facilitate a long-term weakening of the genome.  This would seem essential, because if you can claim that is just the way our species was heading anyway (weakened immunity) then you should also accept that those children who get flu are equally likely (eg. survive the flu) to pass on this weakness compared to those who do not get flu.  There can be no bias in the expectation.

 

 

 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

That's all fine and dandy, but you do know that not all evolution is for the better right?  Many animals evolve themselves into extinction. So, it's as likely "if not more likely" that if we didn't vaccinate, we wouldn't adapt. Creatures don't always adapt. They don't always overcome disease. I think it's smarter to deal with things like polio, small pox, flu, papaloma, and diseases like that with "the present" in mind. Not a thousand years from now. We could just as easily go extinct from disease as we could adapt. Evolution doesn't favor anybody. It might favor the disease far more than us. The disease very well could just use us and jump to another species. One never knows that kind of thing, so we develop medicines and vaccines. 

There is another thread going on right now, on this forum, about Autism. Interestingly, last night I was thinking about all of the things people say others are doing to perhaps cause Autism to be rapidly increasing in humans. One thing people are failing to put into the equation is that we might not be "doing" anything to cause the increase of Autism. We may be evolving in a counter productive way. This is a real concern. Autism may be a natural, but bad mutation in the human genome. 

 

Yes you might be right about autism, it seems random.  You have me confused with the "intelligent design" people or at least their characterization of evolutionists.  Of course evolution does not magnetically guide toward beneficial adaptation.  But you seem to accept the general narrative that "flu shots save people".  If so, then you can't deny those people reproduce similar need for shots.  Animals "evolve into extinction" because they were beaten (and perhaps eaten) by stronger species, perhaps viruses, not because evolution gave them random fatal misfortune which they somehow passed on.  I say this because the individuals with a fatal random mutation are less likely pass it on, correct?  So it would seem to me you must either say flu is totally non-fatal, or else (to whatever extent it is fatal) admit effective vaccines facilitate a long-term weakening of the genome.  This would seem essential, because if you can claim that is just the way our species was heading anyway (weakened immunity) then you should also accept that those children who get flu are equally likely (eg. survive the flu) to pass on this weakness compared to those who do not get flu.  There can be no bias in the expectation.

 

Yes. I see your point. I concede that traits that are damning wouldn't get a chance to really pass on for a very long time. This may be the case in Autism as well. It may phase itself out. Of course there is the paradox that you mentioned. (I think it was you) If we find a way to treat Autism well, or vaccinate against it, it may phase it out faster, BUT it may keep it around longer. It's tricky. I concede that. 

 

 

 

 

[Chisleu]

 

The biggest fallacy of the OP is the idea that anything published by the CDC would be accepted as evidence when they have a long history of lying to support their agenda not unlike every other government agency.  Dr David Brownstein provides a serious criticism of the CDC's claim in this article:

More CDC Nonsense About the Flu Vaccine

The CDC enrolled 2,697 adults in this study.  Let’s first look at the first group—I will call them Group A– that did not get the flu. Group A consisted of 1,582 subjects who did not get the flu.  In Group A, 793 were given the vaccine in this group—50%.   So, the CDC can tout a 50% efficacy of the flu vaccine.  However, the other 50% of the subjects did not get the flu vaccine nor did they contract the influenza virus.  I say, these numbers show the ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine.  Since 50% of the subjects did not get the vaccine or get the flu, where is the effectiveness of the vaccine?

If you just look at those 1582 subjects, you don't get 50% effective, you get absolutely no proof of effectiveness whatsoever.

He goes on to point out:

Let’s move to Group B—those that were diagnosed with the flu.  The Group
B data showed that of 1117 subjects who tested positive for the flu,
367 received the vaccine.  That means that 33% of those vaccinated still
became ill with the flu.   If we take the 50% from group A who did not
get the flu and had the flu shot and subtract the 33% from group B who
got the flu vaccine and also became ill with the flu, we have a net
benefit of 17%.  So, the flu vaccine is, at best, 17% effective
from protecting you against the flu!

So we're getting closer to the truth.  But still:

This study reported that roughly 50% of the subjects contracted the
flu.  In the general population, only about 5-20% becomes ill with the
flu.  This study was suffering from a selection bias

If the vaccine was, at best, 17% effective in this biased group, some fancy maths would be required to determine the likely effectiveness rate amongst the general population allowing for the fact that the flu vaccines are completely useless for the elderly as proven by the CDC themselves.

Flu vaccines failed to provide protection this year, particularly among elderly

According to the CDC data itself, the efficacy of seasonal influenza
vaccines among those 65 years of age and older during the 2012-2013 flu
season was a mere nine percent. What this means is that 91 percent of elderly individuals given a flu shot derived absolutely no benefit from the vaccine,
as they developed the flu anyway. Many of these same individuals also
likely suffered negative side effects in the form of lowered immunity
and increased heavy metal toxicity.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039422_flu_vaccines_elderly_failure.html#ixzz2ORl36SMu

 

But don't worry about these facts - just get your damn shots!

 

 

I'm going to be as nice as possible. This will be my last response.

Your bullcrap is appauling. In the study you quote:

Those who did not get the shot were 200% more likely to get the flu.

Those who DID NOT get the shot were 200% MORE LIKELY to get the flu.

 

The flu can and does kill people every year. 105 children this season alone.

The flu CAN AND DOES KILL PEOPLE every year. 105 CHILDREN this season alone.

The flu vaccine does not kill people.

The flu vaccine DOES NOT KILL PEOPLE.

It may cause minor reactions, but I'm betting a little red welp would have been acceptable to the parents of those 105 children.

The flu vaccine is not perfect. Doctors make their best guess as to which of the many influenzas are going to come from the pig farms in China (and Mexico) and they start creating vaccines for those before those viruses ever spread. "The flu" is a class of illness, not a certain disease. I would expect the vaccine is in the 99%+ efficacy rate for the specific viruses it was designed to protect against, however they can't predict which viruses will spread.

IN FACT, the fact that so many people (over 100 million Americans every year) are vaccinated for the ones the virologists think most serious and spreadable certainly prevents many other non vaccinated people from contracting the disease.... Talk about a free rider problem....

Get your head out of your butt. Stop seeing conspiracy everywhere because when you really do stumble upon something worth looking at, people are going to ignore you because of your constant nonsense.

Your noise is tantamount to yelling fire in a theater.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

The biggest fallacy of the OP is the idea that anything published by the CDC would be accepted as evidence when they have a long history of lying to support their agenda not unlike every other government agency.  Dr David Brownstein provides a serious criticism of the CDC's claim in this article:

More CDC Nonsense About the Flu Vaccine

The CDC enrolled 2,697 adults in this study.  Let’s first look at the first group—I will call them Group A– that did not get the flu. Group A consisted of 1,582 subjects who did not get the flu.  In Group A, 793 were given the vaccine in this group—50%.   So, the CDC can tout a 50% efficacy of the flu vaccine.  However, the other 50% of the subjects did not get the flu vaccine nor did they contract the influenza virus.  I say, these numbers show the ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine.  Since 50% of the subjects did not get the vaccine or get the flu, where is the effectiveness of the vaccine?

If you just look at those 1582 subjects, you don't get 50% effective, you get absolutely no proof of effectiveness whatsoever.

He goes on to point out:

Let’s move to Group B—those that were diagnosed with the flu.  The Group
B data showed that of 1117 subjects who tested positive for the flu,
367 received the vaccine.  That means that 33% of those vaccinated still
became ill with the flu.   If we take the 50% from group A who did not
get the flu and had the flu shot and subtract the 33% from group B who
got the flu vaccine and also became ill with the flu, we have a net
benefit of 17%.  So, the flu vaccine is, at best, 17% effective
from protecting you against the flu!

So we're getting closer to the truth.  But still:

This study reported that roughly 50% of the subjects contracted the
flu.  In the general population, only about 5-20% becomes ill with the
flu.  This study was suffering from a selection bias

If the vaccine was, at best, 17% effective in this biased group, some fancy maths would be required to determine the likely effectiveness rate amongst the general population allowing for the fact that the flu vaccines are completely useless for the elderly as proven by the CDC themselves.

Flu vaccines failed to provide protection this year, particularly among elderly

According to the CDC data itself, the efficacy of seasonal influenza
vaccines among those 65 years of age and older during the 2012-2013 flu
season was a mere nine percent. What this means is that 91 percent of elderly individuals given a flu shot derived absolutely no benefit from the vaccine,
as they developed the flu anyway. Many of these same individuals also
likely suffered negative side effects in the form of lowered immunity
and increased heavy metal toxicity.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039422_flu_vaccines_elderly_failure.html#ixzz2ORl36SMu

 

But don't worry about these facts - just get your damn shots!

 

 

I'm going to be as nice as possible. This will be my last response.

Your bullcrap is appauling. In the study you quote:

Those who did not get the shot were 200% more likely to get the flu.

Those who DID NOT get the shot were 200% MORE LIKELY to get the flu.

 

The flu can and does kill people every year. 105 children this season alone.

The flu CAN AND DOES KILL PEOPLE every year. 105 CHILDREN this season alone.

The flu vaccine does not kill people.

The flu vaccine DOES NOT KILL PEOPLE.

It may cause minor reactions, but I'm betting a little red welp would have been acceptable to the parents of those 105 children.

The flu vaccine is not perfect. Doctors make their best guess as to which of the many influenzas are going to come from the pig farms in China (and Mexico) and they start creating vaccines for those before those viruses ever spread. "The flu" is a class of illness, not a certain disease. I would expect the vaccine is in the 99%+ efficacy rate for the specific viruses it was designed to protect against, however they can't predict which viruses will spread.

IN FACT, the fact that so many people (over 100 million Americans every year) are vaccinated for the ones the virologists think most serious and spreadable certainly prevents many other non vaccinated people from contracting the disease.... Talk about a free rider problem....

Get your head out of your butt. Stop seeing conspiracy everywhere because when you really do stumble upon something worth looking at, people are going to ignore you because of your constant nonsense.

Your noise is tantamount to yelling fire in a theater.

 

I agree.

[Blank]

Skepticism is a powerful tool, particularly where the state and the church have insinuated themselves into a market and locked out other actors. But sometimes the science is correct regardless of whether the state has monopolized the industry (or the research).

Refusing to accept a factual truth, simply because it is being uttered by people we hate, is religious dogma. Telling people not to get vaccinated, we might as well be the Catholic Vatican telling them not to use condoms. 

[JohnDJasper]

 

John, it is great to see some quantitative skepticism.  Most people take no statistics courses or have little exposure to Simpson's paradox or other statistical fallacies.  There is faith-based doctrine that goverment is their protector.  Important thing is that although they are sometimes right, they are using force to pay for their research and that should make a person at least skeptical, not just of the statistical claims, but the recommended course of action.  Anybody can prove cars kill people no matter how many safety features, so by an overkill recommendation you should smash your car as a precaution.  I think to make recommendations, you have to factor in more than sound statistics, but also what are the long-term effects and goals. 

On a funnier note, one could probably do a rough analysis and prove death by car crash is more likely than you changing the outcome of a big election.  So the CDC should be promoting staying home on those Tuesday election nights.

 

 

RestoringGuy, I actually know very little about statistics but what I do know is that they're regularly mis-employed to support whatever agenda the author is pushing.  I believe that the weakest point of all statistics is the quality of the data that they're derived from and vaccine statistics are no exception.  Hence, when I discuss problems with stats, it's from the position of arguing the case provided by the author but with a mental note that the data itself may be seriously flawed.  A number of rogue doctors and vaccine historians have pointed out how the rules for diagnosing certain illnesses changed in concert with the release of the associated vaccine leading to a drop in reported cases which in turn was credited to the vaccine instead of the changed criteria.

I fully agree with your thoughts on recommendations being based on long-term (and I think short-term as well) effects and goals.  I agree, also, about the benefits of not taking part in election nights! []

 

[JohnDJasper]

 

That's all fine and dandy, but you do know that not all evolution is for the better right?  Many animals evolve themselves into extinction. So, it's as likely "if not more likely" that if we didn't vaccinate, we wouldn't adapt. Creatures don't always adapt. They don't always overcome disease. I think it's smarter to deal with things like polio, small pox, flu, papaloma, and diseases like that with "the present" in mind. Not a thousand years from now. We could just as easily go extinct from disease as we could adapt. Evolution doesn't favor anybody. It might favor the disease far more than us. The disease very well could just use us and jump to another species. One never knows that kind of thing, so we develop medicines and vaccines. 

There is another thread going on right now, on this forum, about Autism. Interestingly, last night I was thinking about all of the things people say others are doing to perhaps cause Autism to be rapidly increasing in humans. One thing people are failing to put into the equation is that we might not be "doing" anything to cause the increase of Autism. We may be evolving in a counter productive way. This is a real concern. Autism may be a natural, but bad mutation in the human genome. 

 

Moncaloono,

Yes, there are many examples of animals evolving themselves into extinction or near-extinction or alternatively not being able to adapt quick enough to severe changes in their environment.  All of these incidents have been beyond the ability of those animals to affect or control and they are truly victims of misfortune.  By comparison, humans have a large element of choice in what changes they make to their environment and lifestyle although granted that many changes will be forced on them by the choice of the greater society around them.  A peace-loving person may have to become war-like to defend against belligerent neighbours, a hunter-gatherer may have to become a farmer or factory worker due to homesteading by others but the details of anyone's lifestyle is pretty much down to their own choice.  Couch potato or healthily active? Junk food or health food? Natural health or dependency of pharmaceutical products?

The lesson that is being overlooked is that alternative health advocates have proved that nothing produced by the pharmaceutical industry is required for health.  Some of the products are undeniably useful such as anaesthetics for use during surgical procedures or pain relievers to relieve intense or chronic pain but it should be recognised that there is always a cost to the body when these are used.  Just as every alcoholic drink that you consume will permanently damage brain and liver cells, every other medicine that you take will have some effect on some part of your body even if no symptoms present themselves.

I suspect that humans are mutating (not evolving) ourselves through the use of vaccinations, medications, radiation and the ingestion of various toxic substances regularly used in medicinal preparations and processed foods and we're doing this because 1) we ignore the warnings that are regularly addressed to us by concerned professionals and 2) because we accept as gospel the assurances made by the medical and food cartels that all is as it should be.  No need to worry about pesticides on our foods, flouride and caustic chemicals in our toothpaste, mercury and aluminum in our vaccines.  Rightly or wrongly, these items are part of the general public's environment and over time, we will adapt to them and sometime in the future, we'll find that we can no longer function without their presence.  Certain medicines already do this.  After a few years on insulin, diabetics lose the ability to produce their own insulin and will die if the medicine is withdrawn.  The same goes with thyroid medicines.

You say "I think it's smarter to deal with things like polio, small pox, flu, papaloma, and diseases like that with "the present" in mind."  I agree but instead of focussing on vaccination, why not make a greater impact on all of these by improving sanitation and clean water supplies, nutrition and shelter for those people who are the breeding grounds for these diseases.  If you want to find people with TB, just visit the slums in your city where the homeless people hang out.  If you want to find cholera, try looking where there's inadequate food, clean water and sanitation.  If you want to find flu, look where people are overstressed, eating rich diets, breathing polluted air, drinking anything but clean water and not getting adequate exercise or rest/sleep.  If you want to see people dying of flu, measles, etc, look where people are giving the patient medicines or treatments to reduce fever or "fight" the flu, where the patient is not given sufficient water to keep hydrated or where they're kept in stuffy rooms, rebreathing the same stale air.

Of course, you can ask, where's the proof to all that I say.  Well, the proof is available from numerous sources but it doesn't always come in the nice packages that "medical science" comes cloaked in.  It's very seldom that a fatality report includes the measures taken or advised by the physicians attending but every now and then, they let slip a few clues.  Rogue doctors are very good at spilling the beans in general but obviously will not relate actual, traceable cases but they do generate enough smoke to indicate the probability of "FIRE".

Let's not forget the highly respected Cochrane Library report that blasted the flu vaccine out of the water.  As reported by Gaia Health:

No Value in Any Influenza Vaccine: Cochrane Collaboration Study

A remarkable study published in the Cochrane Library found no evidence
of benefit for influenza vaccinations. It’s also damns the quality of
flu vaccine studies by saying that the vast majority of trials were
inadequate. The authors stated that the only ones showing benefit were
industry-funded. They also pointed out that the industry-funded studies
were more likely to be published in the most prestigious journals … and
one more thing: They found cases of severe harm caused by the vaccines,
in spite of inadequate reporting of adverse effects.

PS:  Another point about the CDC's study is that they counted as vaccinated anyone who had received at least one seasonal flu vaccination 14 or more days before the flu commenced.  This doesn't allow for the failure rate of the vaccine which is not mentioned in the study and which I'm having trouble finding reference for at the moment but I know that vaccines don't always produce antibodies.  They're completely ineffectual in immuno-suppressed people which includes infants and the elderly but also not 100% reliable in the average joe.

 

[SteveRG1]

Call me crazy or unreasonable if you want. I don't and will never trust the CDC. Bogus medical research is cooked up all the time to support slinging dangerous pills.

I guarantee that people out there dying from the flu are severely immunocompromised due to nutritional or other factors. So many things have to go wrong in order for your body's defenses to be overwhelmed by one of these common bugs.

The evidence for the potential benefits would have to be overwhelming for me to even consider putting that garbage in my body, and it's just not. I keep my immune system strong. I fend off, with ease, most of the crap that most of the people get. I'll take my chances for now, thank you.

 

 

[JohnDJasper]

 

Skepticism is a powerful tool, particularly where the state and the church have insinuated themselves into a market and locked out other actors. But sometimes the science is correct regardless of whether the state has monopolized the industry (or the research).

Refusing to accept a factual truth, simply because it is being uttered by people we hate, is religious dogma. Telling people not to get vaccinated, we might as well be the Catholic Vatican telling them not to use condoms. 

 

 

Hi Greg.  I was with you up to the point where you said "Telling people not to get vaccinated, we might as well be the Catholic Vatican telling them not to use condoms."  That only makes sense if you accept as unquestionable that vaccinations are safe, effective and sensible.  If asked, I would probably warn anyone not to trust in a Homeopath, a witch doctor or an astrologer but I would not insist that they take my advice.  I would highly recommend that people not consume caustic soda because I'm convinced that it would be detrimental to their health.  My advice concerning vaccination is not dogma based but based on sound evidence that directly conflicts with the establishment's position on this subject and is not founded on the popularity of the organisation.

Hence, my warnings against vaccination are in no way similar to the Vatican's rules on the use of condoms.  Would you agree?

[Rick Horton]

 

 

Skepticism is a powerful tool, particularly where the state and the church have insinuated themselves into a market and locked out other actors. But sometimes the science is correct regardless of whether the state has monopolized the industry (or the research).

Refusing to accept a factual truth, simply because it is being uttered by people we hate, is religious dogma. Telling people not to get vaccinated, we might as well be the Catholic Vatican telling them not to use condoms. 

 

 

Hi Greg.  I was with you up to the point where you said "Telling people not to get vaccinated, we might as well be the Catholic Vatican telling them not to use condoms."  That only makes sense if you accept as unquestionable that vaccinations are safe, effective and sensible.  If asked, I would probably warn anyone not to trust in a Homeopath, a witch doctor or an astrologer but I would not insist that they take my advice.  I would highly recommend that people not consume caustic soda because I'm convinced that it would be detrimental to their health.  My advice concerning vaccination is not dogma based but based on sound evidence that directly conflicts with the establishment's position on this subject and is not founded on the popularity of the organisation.

Hence, my warnings against vaccination are in no way similar to the Vatican's rules on the use of condoms.  Would you agree?

 

Your warnings are pretty irrational. This is how I see it. Good article. NPR

http://www.npr.org/2010/11/17/131385344/why-the-controversy-vaccines-save-lives

[Metric]

I am not fully up on this debate, but as I understand it, no one here is claiming that the flu vaccine makes you more likely to die of the flu, or even that the benefits with respect to the flu are exactly, mathematically zero. 

The argument seems to be that injecting heavy metals into children every flu season during their key brain development years is not worth the very marginal improvement in overall risk of death (100 per year in a country of 300+ million is less than the childhood death rate due to brain cancer alone).  Maybe there is a definative counter-argument for this, but it's not in the OP.

To boil the argument down to the lowest common denominator, if eating paint chips off old houses gave you a 100% guarantee that your child would not die from the flu, would you have them do it?

[Rick Horton]

 

I am not fully up on this debate, but as I understand it, no one here is claiming that the flu vaccine makes you more likely to die of the flu, or even that the benefits with respect to the flu are exactly, mathematically zero. 

The argument seems to be that injecting heavy metals into children every flu season during their key brain development years is not worth the very marginal improvement in overall risk of death (100 per year in a country of 300+ million is less than the childhood death rate due to brain cancer alone).  Maybe there is a definative counter-argument for this, but it's not in the OP.

To boil the argument down to the lowest common denominator, if eating paint chips off old houses gave you a 100% guarantee that your child would not die from the flu, would you have them do it?

 

Injecting heavy metals. Okay, evidence please.....

Also you're equivicating flu shots with paint chips. 

And to top it off you are only mentioning flu shots but do you accept that vaccines are beneficial "other" than flu vaccinations? I don't get flu shots either because they seem a little frightning to me from all of the things going around, and that's probably a shame.

[Metric]

 

 

I am not fully up on this debate, but as I understand it, no one here is claiming that the flu vaccine makes you more likely to die of the flu, or even that the benefits with respect to the flu are exactly, mathematically zero. 

The argument seems to be that injecting heavy metals into children every flu season during their key brain development years is not worth the very marginal improvement in overall risk of death (100 per year in a country of 300+ million is less than the childhood death rate due to brain cancer alone).  Maybe there is a definative counter-argument for this, but it's not in the OP.

To boil the argument down to the lowest common denominator, if eating paint chips off old houses gave you a 100% guarantee that your child would not die from the flu, would you have them do it?

 

Injecting heavy metals. Okay, evidence please.....

Also you're equivicating flu shots with paint chips. 

And to top it off you are only mentioning flu shots but do you accept that vaccines are beneficial "other" than flu vaccinations? I don't get flu shots either because they seem a little frightning to me from all of the things going around, and that's probably a shame.

 

Obviously it's a simplified analogy to point out the type of argument that is made.  As for heavy metals, google it and you'll be buried with info.  With other vaccines, you'd have to do a seperate risk/reward analysis -- you don't need a new Tdap shot every single year, and the payoff may be more significant.

[JohnDJasper]

 

Your warnings are pretty irrational. This is how I see it. Good article. NPR

http://www.npr.org/2010/11/17/131385344/why-the-controversy-vaccines-save-lives

 

Moncaloono,  you state that my warnings are irrational, give no justification for the remark and then post a link to an article by a biologist who works in the vaccine industry re-stating the official vaccination propaganda.  The only saving grace of the article is this quote:

Thanks to improved public health measures — of which vaccines are a
vital part — today's United States is a country largely without
tuberculosis. Without diphtheria, rubella, typhoid fever.

You've made it quite clear that you will only accept the medical cartel's official position on vaccination and disregard any evidence to the contrary.  Are you trying to convince the rest of us to avoid using our brains and just trust the authorities to protect us?

[JohnDJasper]

 

...I don't get flu shots either because they seem a little frightning to me from all of the things going around, and that's probably a shame.

 

I had a similar feeling of fear when I stopped believing in "God."  After 18 years of indoctrination, if I even thought the words "There is no God," I would uncontrollably wince in case a lightning bolt struck me.  It took several years to overcome that reflex.

[JohnDJasper]

 

I am not fully up on this debate, but as I understand it, no one here is claiming that the flu vaccine makes you more likely to die of the flu, or even that the benefits with respect to the flu are exactly, mathematically zero. 

The argument seems to be that injecting heavy metals into children every flu season during their key brain development years is not worth the very marginal improvement in overall risk of death (100 per year in a country of 300+ million is less than the childhood death rate due to brain cancer alone).  Maybe there is a definative counter-argument for this, but it's not in the OP.

To boil the argument down to the lowest common denominator, if eating paint chips off old houses gave you a 100% guarantee that your child would not die from the flu, would you have them do it?

 

Metric,

I fail to see how you reduced the argument down to the risk of heavy metals against the benefits of the flu vaccine unless you completely ignored my posts (and therefore I'm wasting my time typing this!)  As there is no reliable proof that vaccines provide any benefit and considerable evidence that vaccines can cause permanent injury ranging from developmental disorders to death, I think the argument boils down to whether or not you believe the mumbo jumbo that the medical cartel pushes on us.

The anti-vax contingent is made up of those who believe that 1) vaccines are generally good but some are dangerous and need fixing and 2) those who believe that vaccines are completely unnecessary and at best useless but more likely harmful and occasionally, extremely so.  The OP's position is that we should listen to faith-based, fear-induced propaganda and disregard all evidence to the contrary.  I feel that this is a more reliable, quick summary of the argument.

[RestoringGuy]

 

 

...I don't get flu shots either because they seem a little frightning to me from all of the things going around, and that's probably a shame.

 

I had a similar feeling of fear when I stopped believing in "God."  After 18 years of indoctrination, if I even thought the words "There is no God," I would uncontrollably wince in case a lightning bolt struck me.  It took several years to overcome that reflex.

 

Perhaps we should also be ashamed of spending this much time.  Cigarettes for example are said to reduce life expectancy by 11 minutes.  Even if the vaccine people are flawless and correct, they will extend the life of 1-in-a-million children perhaps at most by 80 years.  So the most optimistic effect on life expectancy is extending by 80/365*365*1440=42 minutes.  So should you get it?  Sure if convenient and free.  But if you waste more than 42 minutes worth of time, gasoline, payment, etc., then it can be a net loss on average.  The chance of gain is a long shot like the lottery.  And if you have wasted more than 42 minutes debating or worrying in either direction then we have inflicted on ourselves something worse than flu.

[Metric]

 

 

I am not fully up on this debate, but as I understand it, no one here is claiming that the flu vaccine makes you more likely to die of the flu, or even that the benefits with respect to the flu are exactly, mathematically zero. 

The argument seems to be that injecting heavy metals into children every flu season during their key brain development years is not worth the very marginal improvement in overall risk of death (100 per year in a country of 300+ million is less than the childhood death rate due to brain cancer alone).  Maybe there is a definative counter-argument for this, but it's not in the OP.

To boil the argument down to the lowest common denominator, if eating paint chips off old houses gave you a 100% guarantee that your child would not die from the flu, would you have them do it?

 

Metric,

I fail to see how you reduced the argument down to the risk of heavy metals against the benefits of the flu vaccine unless you completely ignored my posts (and therefore I'm wasting my time typing this!)  As there is no reliable proof that vaccines provide any benefit and considerable evidence that vaccines can cause permanent injury ranging from developmental disorders to death, I think the argument boils down to whether or not you believe the mumbo jumbo that the medical cartel pushes on us.

The anti-vax contingent is made up of those who believe that 1) vaccines are generally good but some are dangerous and need fixing and 2) those who believe that vaccines are completely unnecessary and at best useless but more likely harmful and occasionally, extremely so.  The OP's position is that we should listen to faith-based, fear-induced propaganda and disregard all evidence to the contrary.  I feel that this is a more reliable, quick summary of the argument.

 

Sorry -- I should have specified that some people think vaccines are a new-world-order conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids, and the government numbers are a PR fabrication dreamed up in a smoke-filled room somwhere.  In that case, there is no real argument to be had, as no opposing data will be allowed into evidence.

I'm not going to adopt the "everyone is lying but me" position -- I'm simply doing a poker player's EV calculation with the usual claims.  If your kid gets the flu shot, he'll with 100% certainty be getting some nasty shit (including heavy metals) in small doses annually during his/her key developmental years, but you also "hit the jackpot" and save his life roughly one time in a million (according to their numbers).  To me it just doesn't sound like an attractive trade at all -- as I said, maybe there are good counter-arguments to this position that would immediately change my mind, but no one has presented them here.

 

[JohnDJasper]

 

Call me crazy or unreasonable if you want. I don't and will never trust the CDC. Bogus medical research is cooked up all the time to support slinging dangerous pills.

I guarantee that people out there dying from the flu are severely immunocompromised due to nutritional or other factors. So many things have to go wrong in order for your body's defenses to be overwhelmed by one of these common bugs.

The evidence for the potential benefits would have to be overwhelming for me to even consider putting that garbage in my body, and it's just not. I keep my immune system strong. I fend off, with ease, most of the crap that most of the people get. I'll take my chances for now, thank you.

 

SteveRG1,  Some might write you off as crazy or unreasonable but IMO, yours is a rare example of sane reasoning.

[kirk paolinelli]

I find the topic of the flu, flu deaths, and flu vaccine infinitely facinating. I have gotten the flu vaccine before, but I no longer get it. Not because I think or even believe it is dangerous, but becaus in the absence of evidence I generally choose inaction. But since I work in the healthcare field in california I may soon be forced to get it next or have to wear a mask for the entire flu season while at work. My main problem with the flu numbers is I have no idea how they are diagnosing the flu, the influenza lab test is rarely ever ordered. I have never know anyone, nor witnessed a patient die from the flu. Its never even discussed in actual healthcare circles and conversations I've been a part of. Yet I will go to infection control seminars and you would think half the patients you encounter will die every year. Granted my personal anecdotal evidence isn't proof of anything. But they are experiences that shape my thinking. The other problem I have with the flu vaccine is that. If it worked so well why hasn't the flu went the way of small pox, vaccinations are way up but I never hear how much flu cases are down. I do know that if you get the vaccine and you get the flu(which I don't know how this is diagnosed except usually by symptoms which are common to other diseases) you are told it was a different strain. But do they test the strains? Maybe the vaccine doesn't work. I know they don't do titers for the vaccines, to make sure you have sufficient antibodies. I also know they like to clump flu deaths with pneumonia deaths to makes the numbers headline grabbing. But this may also be why they can produce lower number of flu deaths cause pneumonia deaths are unrelated to the flu. So when things get this cloudy for me I tend to withdrawal. Also when I see the flu related child deaths, my mind instantly goes to fever. There are a lot of parents that do not do a very good job of managing fevers in children. Children's immune systems are very strong and can spike very high temps leading to seizures and death. I would bet a lot if not all of those deaths are preventable with modern medicine. After saying all this I don't get the strong opinions either way, to me there just isn't any real evidence that vaccines do harm or that the flu vaccine works.  

[RestoringGuy]

 

After saying all this I don't get the strong opinions either way, to me there just isn't any real evidence that vaccines do harm or that the flu vaccine works.  

 

That seems like the best stance.  It's a longshot gamble either way, even if we were to accept the CDC as gospel truth which seems unwise. Too much hysteria both ways.  You can make an argument that by "refusing" to give my annual income to starving children, there are many hundreds who will now die that I easily could have saved.  But what is the long term effect?  A larger dependency problem later on probably.   If the CDC said this shot is a short term fix until we sort out a long-term process of flu eradication that does not add more mandates to all future generations, then they would have some merit as far as intent.  Scientific progress seems good this way, that inventions may be discarded when something better comes along.  That is why I am skeptical of just adding to the list even if their claim has slightly positive expected gain. 

Maybe by the 27th century we will all have to inject our body mass in vaccines just to have a 50/50 shot at living to retirement.  I suppose if a vaccine raised average life-expectancy by a year, that would be quite unreasonable to turn down.  Getting a shot for just 42 minutes of extended life expectancy probably is a gamble that is not worth the effort for me anyway.

[JohnDJasper]

 

I find the topic of the flu, flu deaths, and flu vaccine infinitely facinating. I have gotten the flu vaccine before, but I no longer get it. Not because I think or even believe it is dangerous, but becaus in the absence of evidence I generally choose inaction. But since I work in the healthcare field in california I may soon be forced to get it next or have to wear a mask for the entire flu season while at work. My main problem with the flu numbers is I have no idea how they are diagnosing the flu, the influenza lab test is rarely ever ordered. I have never know anyone, nor witnessed a patient die from the flu. Its never even discussed in actual healthcare circles and conversations I've been a part of. Yet I will go to infection control seminars and you would think half the patients you encounter will die every year. Granted my personal anecdotal evidence isn't proof of anything. But they are experiences that shape my thinking. The other problem I have with the flu vaccine is that. If it worked so well why hasn't the flu went the way of small pox, vaccinations are way up but I never hear how much flu cases are down. I do know that if you get the vaccine and you get the flu(which I don't know how this is diagnosed except usually by symptoms which are common to other diseases) you are told it was a different strain. But do they test the strains? Maybe the vaccine doesn't work. I know they don't do titers for the vaccines, to make sure you have sufficient antibodies. I also know they like to clump flu deaths with pneumonia deaths to makes the numbers headline grabbing. But this may also be why they can produce lower number of flu deaths cause pneumonia deaths are unrelated to the flu. So when things get this cloudy for me I tend to withdrawal. Also when I see the flu related child deaths, my mind instantly goes to fever. There are a lot of parents that do not do a very good job of managing fevers in children. Children's immune systems are very strong and can spike very high temps leading to seizures and death. I would bet a lot if not all of those deaths are preventable with modern medicine. After saying all this I don't get the strong opinions either way, to me there just isn't any real evidence that vaccines do harm or that the flu vaccine works.  

 

kirk24,

Many thanks for your post.  Although we're just "people on the internet," it's useful to share these anecdotes if just to stimulate discussion.  In many avenues of life, learning is stifled because people with strong views (biases, beliefs, prejudices, whatever) shutdown any discussion that threatens their mindset.  Vaccination is one such topic that has the ability to send individuals into the screaming habdabs.  Hopefully, the sight/sound of people discussing the topics without thousands of children dying in the background will hopefully open these people up to more sober discussion.

You say that you've never heard of the lab tests being ordered to confirm a flu diagnosis and yet, I've had nurses and doctors (in person and on-line) insist that every case is lab tested, even during the last Swine Flu "pandemic."  The CDC broadcast during the alleged crisis that they wouldn't test every case but would count every flu-like case as H1N1 which of course pushed the numbers up significantly.  But the health experts insist after the fact that all cases were confirmed by lab test.  They also insist that every person that was vaccinated but died either didn't have the flu or had "underlying conditions."  It's a lovely success story if only people who know better would just shut up!

I suspect that you're right about flu death and fever but not just in children.  Fever is a part of the bodies natural defense mechanism and, as the body never intentionally injures itself, What Natural Hygienists and some other alternative health professionals know is that when you try to reduce fever, you're interfering with the bodies attempt to detoxify itself.  Reducing the fever means diminishing the body's ability to eliminate dangerous levels of toxicity which is threatening organs and tissue and if you use drugs to accomplish this, you're adding to the toxic burden on the body.  It's then easy to wind up in a vicious circle of reduced ability to eliminate toxins and an increase in toxins to be eliminated resulting in organ failure and fatality.  How many of you would take yourself or give your child pain reliever when they come down with a cold or flu symptoms?  How many physicians would recommend the same?  If the patient was denied food and tended to with bed rest and as much pure water as they would like to drink, they would probably avoid the higher fever and recover much quicker.  I'll point out that Hygienists will not entirely ignore the fever but, to my knowledge, they would not advocate the use of medicines to manage it.

And finally, what would you accept as real evidence that vaccines do harm?  Maybe these unhappy links will help you see why so many people have strong opinions against vaccination:

Ian's Voice

Baby Dies After 9 Vaccines in One Day

H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine Insert Admits It Causes Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Vasculitis, Paralysis, Anaphylactic Shock And Death