H1N1 vaccine - Should we Leap before we Look?

_

Jeanwah wrote:

scb wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I typically have high regard for NPR. So I was perplexed by this article as it was EXTREMELY biased for getting the vaccine. I mean, I go to NPR for objective and independent news once in a while, but any proponent for objective journalism would know that this article is obviously a bias piece. So I went to the npr.com home page. There are 11 articles that are pro-vaccine and not one being objective on the subject. The credibility of NPR has just flown right out the window. How TRULY disappointing.

OR maybe NPR is still credible and it's just a good idea to get the vaccine.

DId you not read the article? It was blatant biasness. It REEKED of agenda.

Certainly you're not suggesting that the ones you just posted are unbiased, are you? And do you have links/sources for them, please?

I agree that the NPR article has an agenda: to preserve the public's health.

Jeanwah

scb wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

DId you not read the article? It was blatant biasness. It REEKED of agenda.

Certainly you're not suggesting that the ones you just posted are unbiased, are you? And do you have links/sources for them, please?

I agree that the NPR article has an agenda: to preserve the public's health.

OK, maybe I should mention that you go to the NPR homepage and search for H1N1 vaccinations, like I posted that I did so you can see how biased the site is about the issue. No objectivitiy whatsoever.

Oh, and NPR is national public radio...it's PUBLIC. It's not supposed to serve any agenda, it's supposed to be public.

_

By the way... for those who seem to prefer anecdotes to science... the chief resident on our maternal and child health service now has the H1N1 flu (thinks she got it from patients) and we're now trying to figure out who's going to deliver all the babies this week.

_

Jeanwah wrote:

scb wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

DId you not read the article? It was blatant biasness. It REEKED of agenda.

Certainly you're not suggesting that the ones you just posted are unbiased, are you? And do you have links/sources for them, please?

I agree that the NPR article has an agenda: to preserve the public's health.

OK, maybe I should mention that you go to the NPR homepage and search for H1N1 vaccinations, like I posted that I did so you can see how biased the site is about the issue. No objectivitiy whatsoever.

Oh, and NPR is national public radio...it's PUBLIC. It's not supposed to serve any agenda, it's supposed to be public.

So it shouldn't even serve a PUBLIC health agenda?? Should it be fair and balanced with an anti-public health agenda?

Jeanwah

scb wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

scb wrote:

I agree that the NPR article has an agenda: to preserve the public's health.

OK, maybe I should mention that you go to the NPR homepage and search for H1N1 vaccinations, like I posted that I did so you can see how biased the site is about the issue. No objectivitiy whatsoever.

Oh, and NPR is national public radio...it's PUBLIC. It's not supposed to serve any agenda, it's supposed to be public.

So it shouldn't even serve a PUBLIC health agenda?? Should it be fair and balanced with an anti-public health agenda?

Why yes is should serve a public health agenda and that's serving ALL VOICES!! Do you not understand the point of being free speech? Do you not understand that there's more to this issue than your side? As your article mentioned, more and more people are not buying this H1N1 scare. That's the other voice you're not listening to.

_

Jeanwah wrote:

scb wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

OK, maybe I should mention that you go to the NPR homepage and search for H1N1 vaccinations, like I posted that I did so you can see how biased the site is about the issue. No objectivitiy whatsoever.

Oh, and NPR is national public radio...it's PUBLIC. It's not supposed to serve any agenda, it's supposed to be public.

So it shouldn't even serve a PUBLIC health agenda?? Should it be fair and balanced with an anti-public health agenda?

Why yes is should serve a public health agenda and that's serving ALL VOICES!! Do you not understand the point of being free speech? Do you not understand that there's more to this issue than your side? As your article mentioned, more and more people are not buying this H1N1 scare. That's the other voice you're not listening to.

I do understand that there are two sides. There's the scientific/epidemiologic/best medical evidence & advice side and there's the side that wants to ignore the preponderance of the evidence and think their anecdotes carry just as much validity.

Of course I understand the point of free speech. But, personally, I think NPR has an obligation to the public to not present any old nut's personal beliefs as fact.

ETA: Maybe you should write to them and tell them to present the "other" side, if you don't think it's been well-represented.

Jeanwah

http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/alt ... u-vaccines
Urgent lawsuit filed against FDA to halt swine flu vaccines; claims FDA violated federal law

Friday, October 09, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews
Editor

(NaturalNews) Health freedom attorney Jim Turner is filing a lawsuit in
Washington D.C. mid-day Friday in an urgent effort to halt the distribution
of the swine flu vaccine in America. On behalf of plaintiffs Dr. Gary Null
and other licensed health care workers of New York State, the lawsuit
charges that the FDA violated the law in its hasty approval of four swine
flu vaccines by failing to scientifically determine neither the safety nor
efficacy of the vaccines.

"The suit will seek an injunction against the FDA from approving the
vaccine," attorney Jim Turner told NaturalNews on Thursday evening's Natural
News Talk Hour show. "And the core of the argument is that they have not
done the proper safety and efficacy tests on the vaccine to allow it to be
release at this time."

The suit seeks to not only nullify the FDA's unlawful "approval" of the four
H1N1 influenza vaccines, but to also ask the court to issue an injunction
that would halt any mandatory vaccination requirements.

"The FDA is required by law to establish that a vaccine is safe and
effective before it can be given to the public," said Turner. "We are
arguing that they did not establish that the vaccine was effective, and did
not establish that it was safe. They are trying to get it on the market by a
waiver."

Vaccine / adjuvant combination has never been properly tested
The vaccine / adjuvant combination being referred to as the "swine flu
vaccine" has apparently never been safety tested or approved by the FDA. In
fact, in many cases the vaccine is being sent to clinics, pharmacies and
other health establishments separately from the adjuvant chemical, leaving
it up to each local vaccine retailer to properly mix the vaccine with the
adjuvant, according to information provided by Turner. With hundreds of
millions of Americans potentially being targeted with this vaccine, the
potential for improper mixing, improper dosages, and human error is
alarming.

If the charges described in the lawsuit are true, it means the FDA has
blatantly abandoned medical science and violated its own regulations in
approving not only these four vaccines, but the potentially deadly adjuvant
chemicals as well. To date, the FDA has produced absolutely no scientific
evidence documenting safety tests for any of these swine flu vaccines. There
are no published studies, no records of any clinical trials, and no
publicly-available paper trail demonstrating that any safety testing was
done whatsoever. There is no researcher who has publicly put their name on
the record declaring the vaccines to be safe, and no FDA official has ever
stated that scientifically-valid safety testing has ever been conducted on
the vaccine / adjuvant combinations now being distributed across America.

Normally, when a pharmaceutical achieves "FDA approved" status, there is a
considerable paper trail of scientific scrutiny, peer review, clinical
trials and other supporting evidence. To our knowledge, no such documents
exist for the swine flu vaccines. The FDA's approval of these vaccines
appears to be based entirely on a whim.

"What has been tested?" asked attorney Jim turner. "Where has it been
tested? Who reviewed the test? Who looked at the test and said yes they
proved safety and efficacy? There is no record that we can find that shows
these things have been done."

By approving the four vaccines in the absence of such safety testing, the
FDA itself stands in direct violation of federal law. "There is a law that
they're supposed to follow and they are not following it," Turner added.

Billions of dollars are at stake
Why, then, did the FDA apparently violate the law and push these vaccines
into full public distribution without securing the safety testing required
by law? Turner suspects a profit motive may be involved: "They're charging
$24.95 to get a vaccine. Multiplied by 100 million people, that's a lot of
money. If you do the whole society, you're talking about several billion
dollars."

In fact, the U.S. vaccination push could ultimately target over 200 million
Americans, generating nearly $5 billion in vaccine-related revenues. Cashing
in on those revenues, however, requires three things:

1) Spreading fear about H1N1 swine flu by exaggerating its dangers.

2) Quickly making a vaccine available for sale, even if it has never been
thoroughly tested for safety and efficacy.

3) Aggressively marketing the vaccines before the H1N1 swine flu fizzles out
and can no longer be hyped up as "highly virulent."

All three of these conditions are now being pushed aggressively in the U.S.
by pharma-influenced health authorities at both the state and federal level.
There is a mad, cult-like rush under way to vaccinate American citizens with
an unproven, untested chemical that was thrust into distribution in apparent
violation of federal law. And if this vaccine is not stopped, the price that
may ultimately be paid in terms of lost lives could be quite dire.

It all harkens back to 1976 when a previous formulation of the swine flu
vaccine paralyzed and killed thousands of Americans. Turner was one of the
attorneys instrumental in halting that vaccine, and he fears a repeat
situation could potentially recur today. He told NaturalNews, "[In 1976]
they were intending to inoculate 200 million people. We stopped them... and
somewhere between 40 and 50 million people were vaccinated. What ultimately
brought it down is that a substantial number of people got 'French Polio'
[Guillain-Barre syndrome], a paralysis that goes... through the body, and if
it goes far enough you die."

Jeanwah

scb wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

scb wrote:

So it shouldn't even serve a PUBLIC health agenda?? Should it be fair and balanced with an anti-public health agenda?

Why yes is should serve a public health agenda and that's serving ALL VOICES!! Do you not understand the point of being free speech? Do you not understand that there's more to this issue than your side? As your article mentioned, more and more people are not buying this H1N1 scare. That's the other voice you're not listening to.

I do understand that there are two sides. There's the scientific/epidemiologic/best medical evidence & advice side and there's the side that wants to ignore the preponderance of the evidence and think their anecdotes carry just as much validity.

Of course I understand the point of free speech. But, personally, I think NPR has an obligation to the public to not present any old nut's personal beliefs as fact.

ETA: Maybe you should write to them and tell them to present the "other" side, if you don't think it's been well-represented.

NPR has an obligation to the public to be public and objective, not biased and one-sided. That site/station just lost its credibility for being truly independent.

Have you not been reading where I'm stating that the scientific and medical world are not agreeable on this issue? That there's several doctors admitting that there has not been enough testing and it's not completely safe? Nor can it be determined to be completely effective, issues of side effects and the ability to catch the virus by taking the vaccine (which is common for the flu vac too)? Or the fact that it's not an emergency situation and the vaccine manufacturers have their asses covered hence someone dies from taking the vac and tries to sue? How about this last one about the attorney suing the FDA for violating federal law regarding the H1N1? Are you not reading any of what I've posted?? Do you really want me to show you more reasons to question this vaccine?

_

Jeanwah wrote:

NPR has an obligation to the public to be public and objective, not biased and one-sided. That site/station just lost its credibility for being truly independent.

Have you not been reading where I'm stating that the scientific and medical world are not agreeable on this issue? That there's several doctors admitting that there has not been enough testing and it's not completely safe? Nor can it be determined to be completely effective, issues of side effects and the ability to catch the virus by taking the vaccine (which is common for the flu vac too)? Or the fact that it's not an emergency situation and the vaccine manufacturers have their asses covered hence someone dies from taking the vac and tries to sue? How about this last one about the attorney suing the FDA for violating federal law regarding the H1N1? Are you not reading any of what I've posted?? Do you really want me to show you more reasons to question this vaccine?

Yes, I'm reading what you're posting, but I question the validity of your sources. (Well, you haven't actually provided sources for some of the articles.)

I agree that the scientific/medical world doesn't agree 100% on this issue - they don't agree 100% on any issue. So we have to look to the data specifically and its validity, as well as consider what the experts have to say. I can tell you right now, I’m going to trust the opinion of someone who has devoted his/her career to studying the flu over someone whose career is focused on something else.

You say there are several doctors "admitting" that there hasn't been enough testing and it's not safe. But who are these doctors? How many of them are there compared to the ones who disagree? What is the source of their information? Has their data been peer-reviewed?

And of course it's not 100% effective - nothing is 100% effective. You're right to compare issues of effectiveness, side effects, and possibility of getting the flu to the regular flu vaccine. That has been studied and studied over many years and millions of cases. And the medical community as a whole believes that the risk/benefit analysis favors getting the flu vaccine. Are there a few outliers in the medical community? Sure. As I already said, there will always be outliers. But why should I trust them over the majority of the medical community and the preponderance of the evidence?

I don't know what you mean by "it's not an emergency situation". It is what it is - whether you consider it an emergency is subjective. The authorities describing the severity of the outbreak are reporting the hard data they are collecting. This is factual data. I have no understanding of how anyone could argue with simple counts, unless they accusing the flu experts of just making shit up.

In terms of how concerned we should be about it, I guess that depends on your perspective. I know my job requires me to be concerned about it. We know that our hospital will be overwhelmed (as the NPR article pointed out) with flu patients. We know that as we have more patients, we will have fewer providers because they and their families will get sick. We know we have an obligation to our patients to plan for this, and to determine the best way to keep the spread of flu within our hospital to a minimum. We have spent many hours reviewing the evidence and making these plans. Our hospital has already seen a dramatic increase in flu patients and decrease in providers as they’ve fallen ill to the flu.

I have to take it seriously. If you don’t have to and don’t want to, don’t. But then stay home if/when you get sick instead of infecting the rest of us and creating a burden for our healthcare system.

_

Jeanwah wrote:

http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/alternative/40333/Urgent-lawsuit-filed-against-FDA-to-halt-swine-flu-vaccines
Urgent lawsuit filed against FDA to halt swine flu vaccines; claims FDA violated federal law

Friday, October 09, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews
Editor

You said previously that you got your data from legitimate medical sites and medical journals, as opposed to bogus sources like the CDC, but never did point me in the direction of these more legitimate sources. I've noticed that many of the articles you post have come from NaturalNews.com. I'm wondering: Is this the "legitimate" source of information to which you were referring?

If so, I'm wondering what makes this website so much more legit? Is it even a peer-reviewed medical journal?

I read some of the articles there - like the ones about how antibiotics are bad and how we shouldn't try to reduce high fevers, even if a child is having fever-induced convulsions - and noted that the "facts" in some of these articles weren't even cited and the articles were written by "citizen journalists". Is giving articles written by "citizen journalists" for a website equal/greater weight than the information provided by the researchers themselves what you mean by balancing the discussion with both "sides"?

Also, does this organization not have the same obligation as NPR to present unbiased, and not one-sided, information? Where is the "other" side on their website? (And why won't the United States allow them to have non-profit status?)

Jeanwah

scb wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/alternative/40333/Urgent-lawsuit-filed-against-FDA-to-halt-swine-flu-vaccines
Urgent lawsuit filed against FDA to halt swine flu vaccines; claims FDA violated federal law

Friday, October 09, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews
Editor

You said previously that you got your data from legitimate medical sites and medical journals, as opposed to bogus sources like the CDC, but never did point me in the direction of these more legitimate sources. I've noticed that many of the articles you post have come from NaturalNews.com. I'm wondering: Is this the "legitimate" source of information to which you were referring?

If so, I'm wondering what makes this website so much more legit? Is it even a peer-reviewed medical journal?

I read some of the articles there - like the ones about how antibiotics are bad and how we shouldn't try to reduce high fevers, even if a child is having fever-induced convulsions - and noted that the "facts" in some of these articles weren't even cited and the articles were written by "citizen journalists". Is giving articles written by "citizen journalists" for a website equal/greater weight than the information provided by the researchers themselves what you mean by balancing the discussion with both "sides"?

Also, does this organization not have the same obligation as NPR to present unbiased, and not one-sided, information? Where is the "other" side on their website? (And why won't the United States allow them to have non-profit status?)

I hesitated to post the source of this article, because I don't post from just any source. But I went ahead and did it...because if you google this news story you will notice that it's not just from this natural health site (which I've never sourced before). It's being reported from MANY sources, yet you will not find it on any mainstream news because of the sensitive subject. A Fed agency being sued for what? Violating Federal Law? Like Hell will any gov't controlled mainstream media allow that released to the public, they protect any damaging news from being released about them. As if you didn't know, our MSM will only report what they want us to hear. I'm big into the media in general which is why I'm skeptical of any MSM sourced "news".

I also posted it because it's not made up. Jim Turner is filing a lawsuit against the FDA for the way the H1N1 has been released, which is unlawful.

Oh, and if you go back and look, I have sourced everything I post.

Jeanwah

scb wrote:

Yes, I'm reading what you're posting, but I question the validity of your sources. (Well, you haven't actually provided sources for some of the articles.)

Yes I have.

I agree that the scientific/medical world doesn't agree 100% on this issue - they don't agree 100% on any issue. So we have to look to the data specifically and its validity, as well as consider what the experts have to say. I can tell you right now, I’m going to trust the opinion of someone who has devoted his/her career to studying the flu over someone whose career is focused on something else.

You say there are several doctors "admitting" that there hasn't been enough testing and it's not safe. But who are these doctors? How many of them are there compared to the ones who disagree? What is the source of their information? Has their data been peer-reviewed?

And of course it's not 100% effective - nothing is 100% effective. You're right to compare issues of effectiveness, side effects, and possibility of getting the flu to the regular flu vaccine. That has been studied and studied over many years and millions of cases. And the medical community as a whole believes that the risk/benefit analysis favors getting the flu vaccine. Are there a few outliers in the medical community? Sure. As I already said, there will always be outliers. But why should I trust them over the majority of the medical community and the preponderance of the evidence?

The Medical Community as a whole is now divided on the subject. I've provided enough info, (and I'm sure there will be more in the coming weeks) to justify that the med. community and several doctors disagree that we all should be vaccinated with H1N1. So you're beating a dead horse at this point, the debate has been ripped wide open by the public being questionable about this vaccine. It's not just me, anymore.

I don't know what you mean by "it's not an emergency situation". It is what it is - whether you consider it an emergency is subjective. The authorities describing the severity of the outbreak are reporting the hard data they are collecting. This is factual data. I have no understanding of how anyone could argue with simple counts, unless they accusing the flu experts of just making shit up.

The authorities describing the so-called outbreak are resorting to using fear to get people to go out and get vaccinated. Yes, there are fatalities, but not enough to exactly call this an "emergency" situation. If you read my last few articles, one stated that between 30,000 and 40,000 die from the regular flu every winter. AND that's with those who received the flu vaccine! Yet, regular flu is not considered an emergency, and Swine Flu is? What's the number of reported fatalities w/ that?

In terms of how concerned we should be about it, I guess that depends on your perspective. I know my job requires me to be concerned about it. We know that our hospital will be overwhelmed (as the NPR article pointed out) with flu patients. We know that as we have more patients, we will have fewer providers because they and their families will get sick. We know we have an obligation to our patients to plan for this, and to determine the best way to keep the spread of flu within our hospital to a minimum. We have spent many hours reviewing the evidence and making these plans. Our hospital has already seen a dramatic increase in flu patients and decrease in providers as they’ve fallen ill to the flu.

I have to take it seriously. If you don’t have to and don’t want to, don’t. But then stay home if/when you get sick instead of infecting the rest of us and creating a burden for our healthcare system.

And you keep believing that this so called pandemic is going to kill everyone, if we don't accept an unsafe and limited tested drug up our nose of inserted into our bloodstream.

GTFLYGIRL

Jeanwah wrote:

[And you keep believing that this so called pandemic is going to kill everyone, if we don't accept an unsafe and limited tested drug up our nose of inserted into our bloodstream.

oh my. nowhere in this thread did i get the idea that scb thinks the swine flu is going to kill everyone!

i didnt hear any sort of mass hysteria tone to her posts... idk...

this is a crazy ass thread!

Jeanwah

GTFLYGIRL wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

[And you keep believing that this so called pandemic is going to kill everyone, if we don't accept an unsafe and limited tested drug up our nose of inserted into our bloodstream.

oh my. nowhere in this thread did i get the idea that scb thinks the swine flu is going to kill everyone!

i didnt hear any sort of mass hysteria tone to her posts... idk...

this is a crazy ass thread!

You're right, she didn't come out and say that the swine flu will kill everyone. She is on the pro-vaccine side though and believes we all should go out and inject or snort up a drug that has not been tested enough for safety.

_

Jeanwah wrote:

GTFLYGIRL wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

[And you keep believing that this so called pandemic is going to kill everyone, if we don't accept an unsafe and limited tested drug up our nose of inserted into our bloodstream.

oh my. nowhere in this thread did i get the idea that scb thinks the swine flu is going to kill everyone!

i didnt hear any sort of mass hysteria tone to her posts... idk...

this is a crazy ass thread!

You're right, she didn't come out and say that the swine flu will kill everyone. She is on the pro-vaccine side though and believes we all should go out and inject or snort up a drug that has not been tested enough for safety.

1. I don't believe this flu is going to kill everyone & I don't believe there should be any hysteria about it.

2. I do believe it should be taken seriously.... no more or less seriously than warranted.

3. I do know, not just from scientific data but also from first-hand experience, that this flu is having a different impact than the regular flu (because young people don't have an immunity to it).

4. I do believe that science has proven again & again the value of vaccines & that, on a population level, it is more risky to not get vaccinated than to get vaccinated.

5. I do believe that this vaccine has been sufficiently tested.

6. I don't consider your sources to be more valid than the sources they claim to refute.

7. I admit that I'm losing my patience with the groups of people who want to give equal weight to pseudo-science & random opinion as is given to actual science. It's not their personal opinion that frustrates me as much as the fact that the are propagating such bullshit to others.

8. I also admit that I'm losing my patience with the all-or-none mentality that suggests that if something's not 100% good than it's 100% bad, instead of acknowledging the risks & benefits of everything and the inevitable limitations on all knowledge.

9. I'm sorry for losing my patience with you.

10. I want to now respectfully walk away from this conversation. But I have enough self-knowledge to realize that I probably won't be able to keep my mouth shut the next time someone posts something that seems misleading (for lack of a better adjective). Thankfully, I'll be going out of town soon & won't have Internet access.

I wish you peace & health.

decides2dream

scb wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

GTFLYGIRL wrote:

oh my. nowhere in this thread did i get the idea that scb thinks the swine flu is going to kill everyone!

i didnt hear any sort of mass hysteria tone to her posts... idk...

this is a crazy ass thread!

You're right, she didn't come out and say that the swine flu will kill everyone. She is on the pro-vaccine side though and believes we all should go out and inject or snort up a drug that has not been tested enough for safety.

1. I don't believe this flu is going to kill everyone & I don't believe there should be any hysteria about it.

2. I do believe it should be taken seriously.... no more or less seriously than warranted.

3. I do know, not just from scientific data but also from first-hand experience, that this flu is having a different impact than the regular flu (because young people don't have an immunity to it).

4. I do believe that science has proven again & again the value of vaccines & that, on a population level, it is more risky to not get vaccinated than to get vaccinated.

5. I do believe that this vaccine has been sufficiently tested.

6. I don't consider your sources to be more valid than the sources they claim to refute.

7. I admit that I'm losing my patience with the groups of people who want to give equal weight to pseudo-science & random opinion as is given to actual science. It's not their personal opinion that frustrates me as much as the fact that the are propagating such bullshit to others.

8. I also admit that I'm losing my patience with the all-or-none mentality that suggests that if something's not 100% good than it's 100% bad, instead of acknowledging the risks & benefits of everything and the inevitable limitations on all knowledge.

9. I'm sorry for losing my patience with you.

10. I want to now respectfully walk away from this conversation. But I have enough self-knowledge to realize that I probably won't be able to keep my mouth shut the next time someone posts something that seems misleading (for lack of a better adjective). Thankfully, I'll be going out of town soon & won't have Internet access.

I wish you peace & health.

as to #10.....
if only we all could manage to do that from time to time.....hahahaha.
scb, i ALWAYS appreciate your posts - the information you share and your perspective. don't ever stop sharing...

_

decides2dream wrote:

10. I want to now respectfully walk away from this conversation. But I have enough self-knowledge to realize that I probably won't be able to keep my mouth shut the next time someone posts something that seems misleading (for lack of a better adjective). Thankfully, I'll be going out of town soon & won't have Internet access.

as to #10.....
if only we all could manage to do that from time to time.....hahahaha.[/quote]

I know, it's hopeless, no? :oops:

thanks for your kind words. I hope you're feeling better soon!

decides2dream wrote:

scb, i ALWAYS appreciate your posts - the information you share and your perspective. don't ever stop sharing...

Jeanwah

scb wrote:

1. I don't believe this flu is going to kill everyone & I don't believe there should be any hysteria about it.

2. I do believe it should be taken seriously.... no more or less seriously than warranted.

3. I do know, not just from scientific data but also from first-hand experience, that this flu is having a different impact than the regular flu (because young people don't have an immunity to it).

4. I do believe that science has proven again & again the value of vaccines & that, on a population level, it is more risky to not get vaccinated than to get vaccinated.

5. I do believe that this vaccine has been sufficiently tested.

6. I don't consider your sources to be more valid than the sources they claim to refute.

7. I admit that I'm losing my patience with the groups of people who want to give equal weight to pseudo-science & random opinion as is given to actual science. It's not their personal opinion that frustrates me as much as the fact that the are propagating such bullshit to others.

8. I also admit that I'm losing my patience with the all-or-none mentality that suggests that if something's not 100% good than it's 100% bad, instead of acknowledging the risks & benefits of everything and the inevitable limitations on all knowledge.

9. I'm sorry for losing my patience with you.

10. I want to now respectfully walk away from this conversation. But I have enough self-knowledge to realize that I probably won't be able to keep my mouth shut the next time someone posts something that seems misleading (for lack of a better adjective). Thankfully, I'll be going out of town soon & won't have Internet access.

I wish you peace & health.

I apologize as well for losing my patience with you. You provided good info, I just realize that we're not going to budge on our opinions, and that's why I bowed out a while ago with this debate. But I couldn't resist coming back to it. And just for the record, I am considering getting my daughter, who's 6, vaxed, if cases of children fatalities rise. I'm not as stubborn as I may appear.

Peace and good health to you as well.

yahamita

[/quote]

Interesting read.

I have a few questions that hopefully you can help me answer:

1. Are there sources for the statements above?

2. Do the flu vaccine studies really claim to reduce the OVERALL death rate (from everything) by 50% or do they only claim to reduce the rate of death attributable to influenza by 50%? It's hard to tell since the article doesn't cite the studies.

3. Have the results of Jackson's study been reproduced?

4. Did flu cases increase in 2004?

Fuck it... this article is too long to read carefully while I'm at work... I'll have to finish reading it later.[/quote]
I found this on Natural News.

_

yahamita wrote:

scb wrote:

Interesting read.

I have a few questions that hopefully you can help me answer:

1. Are there sources for the statements above?

2. Do the flu vaccine studies really claim to reduce the OVERALL death rate (from everything) by 50% or do they only claim to reduce the rate of death attributable to influenza by 50%? It's hard to tell since the article doesn't cite the studies.

3. Have the results of Jackson's study been reproduced?

4. Did flu cases increase in 2004?

Fuck it... this article is too long to read carefully while I'm at work... I'll have to finish reading it later.

I found this on Natural News.

Hahaha... figures! This thread is too much!