The Flu Vaccine Scam Rears Its Ugly Head Again in 2010
Rebel1
This article is an update of a series of articles with similar titles
first posted Sept 25, 2008, and most recently on May 2, 2009. It has
been reformatted using fixed-width type so the numbers in the columns
properly align and it has been updated with newly released data for
2007. To prevent the table from getting too wide for a 1024x768 display,
the 2002 data has been deleted. It was originally posted at the
sci.med.nutrition, alt.health, alt.social-security-disability,
alt.politics.usa.congress, and misc.consumers.frugal-living newsgroups
on August 31, 2010, 2:55 pm ET, by Rebel1.
(As an aside, Mike Adams, also known as the Health Ranger, makes a good
case that nobody dies in the U.S. from flu because none of the deaths
are confirmed by lab data; fascinating perspective.
http://www.naturalnews.com/026169.html)
************************************************************************
Once again the government and its press lackeys are circulating lies
about the alleged number of annual U.S. flu deaths in an attempt to
scare the population into getting flu shots of questionable value.
Nobody in Congress challenges the number, because Big Pharma makes
substantial “contributions” to their reelection campaigns. FDA
decision-makers don’t make waves because their silence is often rewarded
with lucrative jobs at Big Pharma companies after leaving government.
Advertising-supported popular magazines and even medical journals dare
not expose the truth; just count the number of advertising pages for
drugs and figure it out yourself. Major news services (AP, Reuters,
etc.) don’t expose the fraud either; perhaps it’s the fear of being
denied access to key people in the government, or perhaps their writers
are too lazy to do fact-checking.
36,000 DEATHS PER YEAR
That’s the bogus number typically circulated. It’s sometimes given as
deaths from pneumonia and flu combined. Other times it’s given as deaths
from flu alone. (They can’t even tell a consistent lie.) In either case,
the number is wrong. The true number of flu deaths and pneumonia deaths
in all age groups, right from the government’s Centers for Disease
Control reports, are as follows:
Deaths from 2003(1) 2004(2) 2005(3) 2006(4) 2007(5)
Pneumonia & flu 65,163 59,644 63,001 56,326 52,717
Pneumonia alone 63,371 58,564 61,189 55,477 52,306
Flu alone 1,792 1,100 1,812 849 411
All causes 2,448,288 2,397,615 2,448,017 2,426,264 2,423,712
That’s right, flu deaths ranged from 1,792 in 2003 to 411 in 2007. The
five-year average is 1,192 per year!
SO WHO SHOULD GET THE FLU VACCINE?
According to this site, http://www.medicinenet.com/influenza/page3.htm,
“groups at increased risk of influenza complications include people aged
65 years or older.…” (With all their drug ads, can they be impartial?)
Let’s see just how high that risk is. Here are the numbers for people
aged 65 and older+ in year 2007(5):
Age Age Age Total
Deaths from: 65-74 75-84 85&Up 65&Up
Pneumonia and flu 5,547 14,859 25,535 45,941
Pneumonia alone 5,509 14,780 25,396 45,685
Flu Alone 38 79 139 256
Total Deaths, all causes 389,238 652,682 713,646 1,755,566
Flu Deaths, % of Total 0.010 0.012 0.019 0.015
Deaths
So IF vaccine makers correctly GUESSED at the type of virus strains that
would be a risk 9 months after they started making the vaccine, AND IF
the vaccine were 100 percent effective, only 256 deaths (0.015%) would
be delayed out of 1,755,566 from all causes.
Some might credit the drop of flu deaths in the 65 and above group (256
in 2007 vs. 689 in 2006) to increased vaccination coverage. But the CDC
says that coverage of 68.0% in this age group was similar to previous
seasons.(6)
But they want to vaccinate all 35,000,000 people 65 and older(7). At $20
per vaccine, that’s $700,000,000 transferred from the bank accounts of
seniors and their insurers to the medical mafia (everyone from the local
doctors up the distribution chain to the manufacturer) hoping to delay a
mere 256 deaths in an already vulnerable group. That’s $2,734,375 for
each delayed death. Yes, there will be some savings due to reduced
hospitalizations. Nevertheless, this kind of insanity is what’s
bankrupting the system.
HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE VACCINE?
An article in the October 4, 2007, issue of the New England Journal of
Medicine addressed this question.(8) Data were pooled from 18 cohorts of
community-dwelling elderly members of one U.S. health maintenance
organization (HMO) for 1990–1991 through 1999–2000 and of two other HMOs
for 1996–1997 through 1999–2000. The study was not designed to evaluate
levels of vaccine effectiveness among the frailest elderly, such as
those living in nursing homes, and is somewhat biased because all
members were part of an HMO. The data covered 10 flu seasons, which
included eight seasons where the vaccine matched the circulating virus.
Results - Some quotes from the study:
“During the 10 influenza seasons, there were 4599 hospitalizations for
pneumonia or influenza and 8796 deaths. The observed hospitalization
rates for unvaccinated and for vaccinated participants were, on average,
0.7% and 0.6% per season, respectively, with corresponding death rates
of 1.6% and 1.0% per season.”
“Influenza vaccination was associated on average with substantial
reductions in hospitalizations for pneumonia and for influenza (vaccine
effectiveness, 27%) and in death (vaccine effectiveness, 48%). Estimates
varied from season to season and across the 18 cohorts). In the two
seasons with a poor match between the vaccine and the virus strain,
vaccine effectiveness was lower for reducing death (in seasons with a
poor match, vaccine effectiveness was 37%; in seasons with a good match,
vaccine effectiveness was 52%) but not for reducing hospitalization.”
While these results may appear impressive, the study warns:
“How these results might relate to population-level trends is unclear.
For example, influenza-attributable excess mortality rates in the United
States have not declined to the degree that might be expected in light
of increasing vaccination rates during the 1980s and the early 1990s.
However, nation-level data do not include the risk profile or
vaccination status of those who have died. Critical information is
therefore lacking, making it difficult to estimate what the expected
excess mortality rates would be if vaccination rates were 0%, what
benefits have already been realized given current patterns of vaccine
use, and what additional benefits might be realized with more effective
vaccine delivery.”
Draw your own conclusions as to the value of a flu vaccine, considering
the cost of a nationwide program compared to the few who will benefit.
WHAT ABOUT PNEUMONIA?
True, complications from the flu VIRUS can lead to pneumonia. About 50
percent of the pneumonia cases are caused by viruses, which produce less
severe pneumonia(9). The rest are mainly caused by bacteria. Get a
pneumonia vaccination.
HOW TO PREVENT THE FLU
The flu season coincides with shorter days, which means less sunlight
and less vitamin D generated by our bodies from direct (not through
glass or sunscreen) sun exposure on our skin. Here’s the background:
(If the above link doesn't take you directly to the article, type the
link manually in the address box or enter in the search box " More
Evidence Vitamin D Beats the Flu" and click on the first result.)
1) Take vitamin D3 supplements or cod liver oil, at daily doses of
1000-2000 IU. But read this before starting:
http://www.mercola.com/2002/feb/23/vitamin_d_deficiency.htm
2) Frequently wash hands after being in public
3) Get plenty of sleep
4) Reduce stress
5) Cut sugar consumption, which depresses the immune system.
MORE INFO
http://tampa.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A3696
**********************************************************
REFERENCES:
(1) Deaths: Final Data for 2003, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol.
54, #13, Apr 19, 2006, Table 10, page 32
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_13.pdf
(2) Deaths: Final Data for 2004, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol.
55, #19, Oct 10, 2007, pages 30, 32 and 36
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr55/nvsr55_19.pdf
(3) Deaths: Final Data for 2005, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol.
56, #10, April 24, 2008, page 33, Table 10
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf
(4) Deaths: Final Data for 2006, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol.
57, #14, April 2009, Table 10
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf.
(5) Deaths: Final Data for 2007, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol.
58, #19, May 2010, Table 10
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf.
(6) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, April 30, 2010
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5916a1.htm
(7) Information Please Almanac
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0905042.html
(8) Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in the Community-Dwelling Elderly.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/14/1373
(9) Pneumonia Fact Sheet, American Lung Association
http://www.lungusa.org/lung-disease/influenza/in-depth-resources/pneumonia-fact-sheet.html
Rod Speed
> The Flu Vaccine Scam Rears Its Ugly Head Again in 2010
> This article is an update of a series of articles with similar titles
> first posted Sept 25, 2008, and most recently on May 2, 2009.
> It has been reformatted using fixed-width type so the numbers in the columns properly align
You have no control over what the typeface the reader uses in his usenet client.
> and it has been updated with newly released data for 2007. To prevent the table from getting too wide for a 1024x768
> display, the 2002 data has been deleted. It was originally posted at the sci.med.nutrition, alt.health,
> alt.social-security-disability,
> alt.politics.usa.congress, and misc.consumers.frugal-living newsgroups on August 31, 2010, 2:55 pm ET, by Rebel1.
> (As an aside, Mike Adams, also known as the Health Ranger, makes a good case that nobody dies in the U.S. from flu
> because none of the deaths are confirmed by lab data; fascinating perspective.
No he doesnt make a good case, because they either died of the flu or they
didnt, doesnt matter whether that has been confirmed by lab data or not.
> http://www.naturalnews.com/026169.html)
> ************************************************************************
> Once again the government and its press lackeys are circulating lies
And this is where your prejudices stand out like dogs balls.
> about the alleged number of annual U.S. flu deaths in an attempt to scare the population into getting flu shots of
> questionable value.
Why would they bother ?
> Nobody in Congress challenges the number, because Big Pharma makes substantial “contributions” to their reelection
> campaigns.
Mindlessly silly.
> FDA decision-makers don’t make waves because their silence is often
> rewarded with lucrative jobs at Big Pharma companies after leaving government.
Even sillier.
> Advertising-supported popular magazines and even medical
> journals dare not expose the truth; just count the number of
> advertising pages for drugs and figure it out yourself.
Peer reviewed scientific journals dont have any drug advertising.
> Major news services (AP, Reuters, etc.) don’t expose the fraud either; perhaps it’s the fear of being denied access to
> key people in the government, or perhaps their writers are too lazy to do fact-checking.
More likely because there is no fraud.
> 36,000 DEATHS PER YEAR
> That’s the bogus number typically circulated.
Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate the claim that its bogus.
> It’s sometimes given as deaths from pneumonia and flu combined. Other times it’s given as deaths from flu alone. (They
> can’t even tell a consistent lie.)
Its nothing like as black and white as that.
> In either case, the number is wrong.
Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate the claim that its bogus.
> The true number of flu deaths and pneumonia deaths in all age groups, right from the government’s Centers for Disease
> Control reports, are as follows:
> Deaths from 2003(1) 2004(2) 2005(3) 2006(4) 2007(5)
> Pneumonia & flu 65,163 59,644 63,001 56,326 52,717
> Pneumonia alone 63,371 58,564 61,189 55,477 52,306
Thats a flagrantly dishonest misrepresentation of what the CDC reports actually say.
> Flu alone 1,792 1,100 1,812 849 411
And that in spades.
> All causes 2,448,288 2,397,615 2,448,017 2,426,264 2,423,712
> That’s right, flu deaths ranged from 1,792 in 2003 to 411 in 2007.
The CDC doesnt say that.
> The five-year average is 1,192 per year!
Or that either.
And you havent even considered how many more would have
died of flu if there had not been any flu vaccinations anyway.
None of the rest of this even more mindless silly shit worth bothering with.
Don Klipstein
What about those who got pneumonia as a result of getting flu?
And even without pneumonia, flu still kills nearly about .05% of people
before they would have died from something else.
>SO WHO SHOULD GET THE FLU VACCINE?
>According to this site, http://www.medicinenet.com/influenza/page3.htm,
>“groups at increased risk of influenza complications include people aged
>65 years or older.…” (With all their drug ads, can they be impartial?)
>Let’s see just how high that risk is. Here are the numbers for people
>aged 65 and older+ in year 2007(5):
Looks to me cherrypicked for having flu-alone deaths about 35% of the
above-mentioned 5-year average.
> Age Age Age Total
>Deaths from: 65-74 75-84 85&Up 65&Up
>Pneumonia and flu 5,547 14,859 25,535 45,941
>Pneumonia alone 5,509 14,780 25,396 45,685
>Flu Alone 38 79 139 256
>Total Deaths, all causes 389,238 652,682 713,646 1,755,566
>Flu Deaths, % of Total 0.010 0.012 0.019 0.015
> Deaths
>
>So IF vaccine makers correctly GUESSED at the type of virus strains that
>would be a risk 9 months after they started making the vaccine, AND IF
>the vaccine were 100 percent effective, only 256 deaths (0.015%) would
>be delayed out of 1,755,566 from all causes.
>
>Some might credit the drop of flu deaths in the 65 and above group (256
>in 2007 vs. 689 in 2006) to increased vaccination coverage. But the CDC
>says that coverage of 68.0% in this age group was similar to previous
>seasons.(6)
>
>But they want to vaccinate all 35,000,000 people 65 and older(7). At $20
>per vaccine, that’s $700,000,000 transferred from the bank accounts of
>seniors and their insurers to the medical mafia (everyone from the local
>doctors up the distribution chain to the manufacturer) hoping to delay a
>mere 256 deaths in an already vulnerable group. That’s $2,734,375 for
>each delayed death.
Except you are ignoring deaths by flu complications that required the
flu to occur, such as pneumonia. Using your figure from an exceptionally
low flu-alone-deaths year and what you mentioned for same year of flu plus
pneumonia, that works out to about $15K to get someone to live a little
longer.
> Yes, there will be some savings due to reduced
>hospitalizations. Nevertheless, this kind of insanity is what’s
>bankrupting the system.
>
>HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE VACCINE?
>An article in the October 4, 2007, issue of the New England Journal of
>Medicine addressed this question.(8) Data were pooled from 18 cohorts of
>community-dwelling elderly members of one U.S. health maintenance
>organization (HMO) for 1990–1991 through 1999–2000 and of two other HMOs
>for 1996–1997 through 1999–2000. The study was not designed to evaluate
>levels of vaccine effectiveness among the frailest elderly, such as
>those living in nursing homes, and is somewhat biased because all
>members were part of an HMO. The data covered 10 flu seasons, which
>included eight seasons where the vaccine matched the circulating virus.
>
>Results - Some quotes from the study:
>
>“During the 10 influenza seasons, there were 4599 hospitalizations for
>pneumonia or influenza and 8796 deaths. The observed hospitalization
>rates for unvaccinated and for vaccinated participants were, on average,
>0.7% and 0.6% per season, respectively, with corresponding death rates
>of 1.6% and 1.0% per season.”
You are not showing any exclusion of pneumonias unassociated with flu,
which according to your figures are almost as common as pneumonias that
are associated with flu.
>“Influenza vaccination was associated on average with substantial
>reductions in hospitalizations for pneumonia and for influenza (vaccine
>effectiveness, 27%) and in death (vaccine effectiveness, 48%). Estimates
>varied from season to season and across the 18 cohorts). In the two
>seasons with a poor match between the vaccine and the virus strain,
>vaccine effectiveness was lower for reducing death (in seasons with a
>poor match, vaccine effectiveness was 37%; in seasons with a good match,
>vaccine effectiveness was 52%) but not for reducing hospitalization.”
These figures are still with lack of showing work to exclude the nearly
half of pneumonias that are not associated with flu.
>While these results may appear impressive, the study warns:
>
>“How these results might relate to population-level trends is unclear.
>For example, influenza-attributable excess mortality rates in the United
>States have not declined to the degree that might be expected in light
>of increasing vaccination rates during the 1980s and the early 1990s.
>However, nation-level data do not include the risk profile or
>vaccination status of those who have died. Critical information is
>therefore lacking, making it difficult to estimate what the expected
>excess mortality rates would be if vaccination rates were 0%, what
>benefits have already been realized given current patterns of vaccine
>use, and what additional benefits might be realized with more effective
>vaccine delivery.”
>
>Draw your own conclusions as to the value of a flu vaccine, considering
>the cost of a nationwide program compared to the few who will benefit.
>
>WHAT ABOUT PNEUMONIA?
>True, complications from the flu VIRUS can lead to pneumonia. About 50
>percent of the pneumonia cases are caused by viruses, which produce less
>severe pneumonia(9). The rest are mainly caused by bacteria. Get a
>pneumonia vaccination.
>
>HOW TO PREVENT THE FLU
>The flu season coincides with shorter days, which means less sunlight
>and less vitamin D generated by our bodies from direct (not through
>glass or sunscreen) sun exposure on our skin. Here’s the background:
>
>http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/10/03/more-evidence-vitamin-d-beats-the-flu.aspx
Flu season also coordinates with (and even slightly lags) people being
indoors with each other more and traveling more to visit other people.
>(If the above link doesn't take you directly to the article, type the
>link manually in the address box or enter in the search box " More
>Evidence Vitamin D Beats the Flu" and click on the first result.)
>
>1) Take vitamin D3 supplements or cod liver oil, at daily doses of
>1000-2000 IU. But read this before starting:
>http://www.mercola.com/2002/feb/23/vitamin_d_deficiency.htm
>2) Frequently wash hands after being in public
>3) Get plenty of sleep
>4) Reduce stress
>5) Cut sugar consumption, which depresses the immune system.
Oh, so I am hearing this from someone who is not only on some
anti-vaccine bandwagon, but also on the anti-carb one? (Though I do
think that Americans consume too much sugar - as well as plenty of other
things rich in calories, especially fats which have twice the calorie
density of sugar.)
You did not mention exercise, which helps the immune system along with
health in general.
Not that I am any fan of "Big Pharma", but this is yet another example
of the anti-vaccine types rubbing me the wrong way. I have seen many
others - including many claiming that any vaccine tested on non-human
animals before being used on humans is inherently flawed.
--
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>Rebel1 wrote:
>
>> The Flu Vaccine Scam Rears Its Ugly Head Again in 2010
>
>> This article is an update of a series of articles with similar titles
>> first posted Sept 25, 2008, and most recently on May 2, 2009.
>
>> It has been reformatted using fixed-width type so the numbers in the
>> columns properly align
>
>You have no control over what the typeface the reader uses in his usenet
>client.
As long as you have been on Usenet, you should know that technical types
who often read Usenet articles of technical sort tend to use Usenet
clients that display with a fixed-width font. Many Usenet clients default
to fixed-width font because it is common enough in Usenet to post tables
and artwork such as schematic diagrams.
The few others seeing the table of data screwed up by lack of
fixed-width font are advised above that they can fix that by using
fixed-width font - which is common advice often dispensed for reading
Usenet articles.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Rebel1 wrote
>>> The Flu Vaccine Scam Rears Its Ugly Head Again in 2010
>>> This article is an update of a series of articles with similar titles
>>> first posted Sept 25, 2008, and most recently on May 2, 2009.
>>> It has been reformatted using fixed-width type so the numbers in the columns properly align
>> You have no control over what the typeface the reader uses in his usenet client.
> As long as you have been on Usenet, you should know that
> technical types who often read Usenet articles of technical sort
> tend to use Usenet clients that display with a fixed-width font.
You aint established that its 'technical types' who are reading that post.
> Many Usenet clients default to fixed-width font
And the absolute vast bulk use a usenet client that doesnt.
> because it is common enough in Usenet to post
> tables and artwork such as schematic diagrams.
> The few others seeing the table of data screwed up by lack of fixed-width
> font are advised above that they can fix that by using fixed-width font -
> which is common advice often dispensed for reading Usenet articles.
And he stupidly assumed that the font he posted using has any
relevance what so ever to the font used when reading his post.
Ray K
>> (As an aside, Mike Adams, also known as the Health Ranger, makes a good case that nobody dies in the U.S. from flu
>> because none of the deaths are confirmed by lab data; fascinating perspective.
>
> No he doesnt make a good case, because they either died of the flu or they
> didnt, doesnt matter whether that has been confirmed by lab data or not.
>
Why doesn't it matter? If they didn't die from flu, why bother with flu
vaccinations? How can you know for sure there are only two alternatives,
flu, or no flu? There are no other illness anywhere on the planet with
the same symptoms?
>> http://www.naturalnews.com/026169.html)
>
>> ************************************************************************
>
>> Once again the government and its press lackeys are circulating lies
>
> And this is where your prejudices stand out like dogs balls.
>
>> about the alleged number of annual U.S. flu deaths in an attempt to scare the population into getting flu shots of
>> questionable value.
>
> Why would they bother?
The next sentence answers that simple question.
>> Nobody in Congress challenges the number, because Big Pharma makes substantial “contributions” to their reelection
>> campaigns.
>
> Mindlessly silly.
Actually your are naive if you assume there are no politics in medicine.
I suggest you subscribe to free newsletters from mercola.com and
naturalnews.com for the wakeup call you desperately need.
>> FDA decision-makers don’t make waves because their silence is often
>> rewarded with lucrative jobs at Big Pharma companies after leaving government.
>
> Even sillier.
Obviously, the prhase "revolving door" doesn't mean anything to you.
Google on "FDA revolving door" (no quotes) and read for yourself.
http://www.goodhealthinfo.net/cancer/fda_cozy_relationship.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Government-industry_revolving_door
http://www.psrast.org/ecologmons.htm
>> Advertising-supported popular magazines and even medical
>> journals dare not expose the truth; just count the number of
>> advertising pages for drugs and figure it out yourself.
>
> Peer reviewed scientific journals dont have any drug advertising.
Really?! You are not only naive but in denial.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16523984
It says that the advertising-to-editorial ratio in the NEJM is nearly
unity, and the the JAMA, about 0.3. But I guess that in your myopic
world, NEJM and JAMA are not peer-reviewed journals.
>> Major news services (AP, Reuters, etc.) don’t expose the fraud either; perhaps it’s the fear of being denied access to
>> key people in the government, or perhaps their writers are too lazy to do fact-checking.
>
> More likely because there is no fraud.
Wake up!
>> 36,000 DEATHS PER YEAR
>> That’s the bogus number typically circulated.
>
> Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate the claim that its bogus.
The sources of data in the original post are all from the CDC and cited
in the references. Obviously, you can't be bothered reading the them.
Doesn't it strike you odd that the 36,000 figure never changes, year to
year?
>> It’s sometimes given as deaths from pneumonia and flu combined. Other times it’s given as deaths from flu alone. (They
>> can’t even tell a consistent lie.)
>
> Its nothing like as black and white as that.
According the the CDC data, it is. Read the references.
>> In either case, the number is wrong.
>
> Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate the claim that its bogus.
The data is take directly from CDC publications.
>> The true number of flu deaths and pneumonia deaths in all age groups, right from the government’s Centers for Disease
>> Control reports, are as follows:
>
>> Deaths from 2003(1) 2004(2) 2005(3) 2006(4) 2007(5)
>> Pneumonia & flu 65,163 59,644 63,001 56,326 52,717
>> Pneumonia alone 63,371 58,564 61,189 55,477 52,306
>
> Thats a flagrantly dishonest misrepresentation of what the CDC reports actually say.
Please substantiate your claim.
>> Flu alone 1,792 1,100 1,812 849 411
>
> And that in spades.
It's simple subtraction. Take a remedial course in basic arithmetic.
>> That’s right, flu deaths ranged from 1,792 in 2003 to 411 in 2007.
>
> The CDC doesnt say that.
If you do the subtracion, that's exactly what it does say. Read the
references.
>> The five-year average is 1,192 per year!
>
> Or that either.
If you add the five numbers above for flu-alone deaths, they total 5964.
Divide that by five, and you get 1192.8 as the five-year average. You
should have paid attention to basic arithmetic. Maybe you can get a
10-year-old to explain it to you.
> And you havent even considered how many more would have
> died of flu if there had not been any flu vaccinations anyway.
What is the number? If you read this article from Sept 2,
http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vaccines_junk_science.html,
you'll see that the vaccines don't work in 99 out of 100 people. So at
best they relieve symptoms in only 1 out of 100.
> None of the rest of this even more mindless silly shit worth bothering with.
At least you are admitting that you haven't bothered reading the
references and even if you had, you consider the CDC's data to be shit.
How much does Big Pharma pay you to publicly embarrass yourself with you
nonsensical rantings?
Besides not understanding basic arithmetic, you don't even understand
basic spelling, either. Learn to use an apostrophe in a contraction.
(Sorry to use that big three-syllable word.)
Rebel1
> What about those who got pneumonia as a result of getting flu?
As the OP says, get a pneumonia vaccination. Yes, viral pneumonia can be
a problem.
> And even without pneumonia, flu still kills nearly about .05% of people
> before they would have died from something else.
The data in the original post says only 0.015 percent in the 65+ age
group. Where did you get the 0.05% number from?
Besides, how much should be spent to extend the life a people close to
death anyway by a small amount? As a nation, we have to get over this
notion that it's okay to spend an infinite amount of money to postpone a
death by a few weeks or even months.
If you had a diagnosis of six months to live, confirmed by second and
third opinions, and you had to pay in full for all the recommended
treatments out of your pocket, how much would you be willing to spend?
Remember, that six months to a 70-year-old is 0.71% of the 840 months
he/she has already lived.
>> SO WHO SHOULD GET THE FLU VACCINE?
>> According to this site, http://www.medicinenet.com/influenza/page3.htm,
>> “groups at increased risk of influenza complications include people aged
>> 65 years or older.…” (With all their drug ads, can they be impartial?)
>> Let’s see just how high that risk is. Here are the numbers for people
>> aged 65 and older+ in year 2007(5):
>
> Looks to me cherrypicked for having flu-alone deaths about 35% of the
> above-mentioned 5-year average.
I don't understand how you arrived at 35%. I wasn't attempting any
cherry-picking.
Are you saying that flu is more a result of first being weakened by
pneumonia rather than the other way around?
>> Yes, there will be some savings due to reduced
>> hospitalizations. Nevertheless, this kind of insanity is what’s
>> bankrupting the system.
>>
>> HOW TO PREVENT THE FLU
>> The flu season coincides with shorter days, which means less sunlight
>> and less vitamin D generated by our bodies from direct (not through
>> glass or sunscreen) sun exposure on our skin. Here’s the background:
>>
>> http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/10/03/more-evidence-vitamin-d-beats-the-flu.aspx
>
> Flu season also coordinates with (and even slightly lags) people being
> indoors with each other more and traveling more to visit other people.
Yes, and not enough hand-washing.
>> 5) Cut sugar consumption, which depresses the immune system.
>
> Oh, so I am hearing this from someone who is not only on some
> anti-vaccine bandwagon, but also on the anti-carb one? (Though I do
> think that Americans consume too much sugar - as well as plenty of other
> things rich in calories, especially fats which have twice the calorie
> density of sugar.)
I'm just the messenger, reporting what people smarter that me say about
the effect of sugar on the immune system.
http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/sugar.htm
http://www.thebody.com/content/esp/art31115.html
http://www.thebody.com/content/esp/art31115.html (Scroll down to item 1
under "76 ways"
> You did not mention exercise, which helps the immune system along with
> health in general.
Ah yes, the magic cure-all for everything: exercise.
> Not that I am any fan of "Big Pharma", but this is yet another example
> of the anti-vaccine types rubbing me the wrong way. I have seen many
> others - including many claiming that any vaccine tested on non-human
> animals before being used on humans is inherently flawed.
There are serious concerns about that issue. I don't know the answer. At
present animal research seems to be the best starting point for
determining effectiveness of a new drug. But just consider all the drugs
that made it to the market with FDA approval that eventually got
recalled for high death rates (e.g., Vioxx) or unacceptable other side
effects (e.g., hormone replacement for women).
Overall, the vaccination program is overhyped. When the H1N1 scam was in
full swing last year, it was especially recommended that pregnant women
(and the elderly) get the shot. But the manufacturer's package inserts
warned against giving preggies the shot, as it wasn't tested in groups
below age 4 years. And if the shot came from a multi-dose vial, it also
contained mercury. Just what a fetus needs to get a good start in life.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> (As an aside, Mike Adams, also known as the Health Ranger, makes a good case that nobody dies in the U.S. from flu
>>> because none of the deaths are confirmed by lab data; fascinating perspective.
>> No he doesnt make a good case, because they either died of the flu or they didnt, doesnt matter whether that has been
>> confirmed by lab data or not.
> Why doesn't it matter?
Because its obvious that many do die of flu.
> If they didn't die from flu,
They did. That wasnt confirmed with lab tests, thats all.
> why bother with flu vaccinations?
Because heaps get flu.
> How can you know for sure there are only two alternatives, flu, or no flu?
No one ever said anything like that.
> There are no other illness anywhere on the planet with the same symptoms?
Corse there are. There isnt any point in confirming which one they died of with lab tests tho.
>>> http://www.naturalnews.com/026169.html)
>>> ************************************************************************
>>> Once again the government and its press lackeys are circulating lies
>> And this is where your prejudices stand out like dogs balls.
>>> about the alleged number of annual U.S. flu deaths in an attempt to scare the population into getting flu shots of
>>> questionable value.
>> Why would they bother?
> The next sentence answers that simple question.
Like hell it does.
>>> Nobody in Congress challenges the number, because Big Pharma makes substantial “contributions” to their reelection
>>> campaigns.
>> Mindlessly silly.
> Actually your are naive if you assume there are no politics in medicine.
Never assumed anything of the sort.
> I suggest you subscribe to free newsletters from mercola.com and naturalnews.com for the wakeup call you desperately
> need.
No thanks, I use rigorous science instead.
>>> FDA decision-makers don’t make waves because their silence is often
>>> rewarded with lucrative jobs at Big Pharma companies after leaving government.
>> Even sillier.
> Obviously, the prhase "revolving door" doesn't mean anything to you.
> Google on "FDA revolving door" (no quotes) and read for yourself.
> http://www.goodhealthinfo.net/cancer/fda_cozy_relationship.htm
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Government-industry_revolving_door
> http://www.psrast.org/ecologmons.htm
Just because some fool claims something doesnt make it gospel.
>>> Advertising-supported popular magazines and even medical
>>> journals dare not expose the truth; just count the number of
>>> advertising pages for drugs and figure it out yourself.
>> Peer reviewed scientific journals dont have any drug advertising.
> Really?!
Yes, really.
> You are not only naive but in denial.
We'll see...
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16523984
> It says that the advertising-to-editorial ratio in the NEJM is nearly unity, and the the JAMA, about 0.3.
Doesnt say that about DRUG advertising.
> But I guess that in your myopic world, NEJM and JAMA are not peer-reviewed journals.
Guess again.
>>> Major news services (AP, Reuters, etc.) don’t expose the fraud
>>> either; perhaps it’s the fear of being denied access to key people
>>> in the government, or perhaps their writers are too lazy to do
>>> fact-checking.
>> More likely because there is no fraud.
> Wake up!
Go back to sleep!!!
>>> 36,000 DEATHS PER YEAR
>>> That’s the bogus number typically circulated.
>> Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate the claim that its bogus.
> The sources of data in the original post are all from the CDC and cited in the references.
Pity they dont substantiate that particular claim.
> Obviously, you can't be bothered reading the them.
> Doesn't it strike you odd that the 36,000 figure never changes, year to year?
Thats a lie with the CDC data.
>>> It’s sometimes given as deaths from pneumonia and flu combined.
>>> Other times it’s given as deaths from flu alone. (They can’t even
>>> tell a consistent lie.)
>> Its nothing like as black and white as that.
> According the the CDC data, it is.
You're lying, again.
> Read the references.
Doesnt say anything like that.
>>> In either case, the number is wrong.
>> Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate the claim that its bogus.
> The data is take directly from CDC publications.
That claim about the 36K number isnt.
>>> The true number of flu deaths and pneumonia deaths in all age
>>> groups, right from the government’s Centers for Disease Control
>>> reports, are as follows:
>>> Deaths from 2003(1) 2004(2) 2005(3) 2006(4) 2007(5) Pneumonia & flu 65,163 59,644 63,001
>>> 56,326 52,717 Pneumonia alone 63,371 58,564 61,189 55,477 52,306
>> Thats a flagrantly dishonest misrepresentation of what the CDC reports actually say.
> Please substantiate your claim.
Read the reports.
>>> Flu alone 1,792 1,100 1,812 849 411
>> And that in spades.
> It's simple subtraction.
And that is a flagrantly dishonest misrepresentation of what the CDC actually says.
> Take a remedial course in basic arithmetic.
Take Bullshitting 101.
>>> That’s right, flu deaths ranged from 1,792 in 2003 to 411 in 2007.
>> The CDC doesnt say that.
> If you do the subtracion,
The CDC isnt stupid enough to do that.
> that's exactly what it does say. Read the references.
There is no subtraction done by the CDC.
>>> The five-year average is 1,192 per year!
>> Or that either.
> If you add the five numbers above for flu-alone deaths, they total 5964. Divide that by five, and you get 1192.8 as
> the five-year average.
Pity the CDC says nothing like that.
> You should have paid attention to basic arithmetic. Maybe you can get a 10-year-old to explain it to you.
Any 2 year old can bullshit better than that pathetic effort.
Get one to help you before posting again, if anyone is actually stupid enough to let you anywhere near one.
>> And you havent even considered how many more would have
>> died of flu if there had not been any flu vaccinations anyway.
> What is the number?
No one knows. It isnt even possible to know that.
> If you read this article from Sept 2,
> http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vaccines_junk_science.html,
> you'll see that the vaccines don't work in 99 out of 100 people.
Pity that is a bare faced lie.
There might just be a reason that smallpox was completely eliminated from
the wild and polio is now no longer a serious problem in the first world.
> So at best they relieve symptoms in only 1 out of 100.
Another bare faced lie.
>> None of the rest of this even more mindless silly shit worth bothering with.
> At least you are admitting that you haven't bothered reading the references
Didnt say that. I JUST said that I didnt bother to comment on the rest of your lies.
> and even if you had, you consider the CDC's data to be shit.
You're lying, again.
> How much does Big Pharma pay you
Not a cent.
> to publicly embarrass yourself with you nonsensical rantings?
Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.
> Besides not understanding basic arithmetic, you don't even understand
> basic spelling, either. Learn to use an apostrophe in a contraction.
> (Sorry to use that big three-syllable word.)
Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.
Don Klipstein
>Don Klipstein wrote:
>
>> What about those who got pneumonia as a result of getting flu?
>
>As the OP says, get a pneumonia vaccination. Yes, viral pneumonia can be
>a problem.
>
>> And even without pneumonia, flu still kills nearly about .05% of people
>> before they would have died from something else.
>
>The data in the original post says only 0.015 percent in the 65+ age
>group. Where did you get the 0.05% number from?
From the part of your original post mentioning a 5 year stretch rather
than the one year of unusually low deaths due to flu without pneumonia.
>Besides, how much should be spent to extend the life a people close to
>death anyway by a small amount? As a nation, we have to get over this
>notion that it's okay to spend an infinite amount of money to postpone a
>death by a few weeks or even months.
>
>If you had a diagnosis of six months to live, confirmed by second and
>third opinions, and you had to pay in full for all the recommended
>treatments out of your pocket, how much would you be willing to spend?
>Remember, that six months to a 70-year-old is 0.71% of the 840 months
>he/she has already lived.
Some would spend the figure I mentioned, especially if it turns out to
be more like a year or two or a few years.
>>> SO WHO SHOULD GET THE FLU VACCINE?
>>> According to this site, http://www.medicinenet.com/influenza/page3.htm,
>>> “groups at increased risk of influenza complications include people aged
>>> 65 years or older.…” (With all their drug ads, can they be impartial?)
>>> Let’s see just how high that risk is. Here are the numbers for people
>>> aged 65 and older+ in year 2007(5):
>>
>> Looks to me cherrypicked for having flu-alone deaths about 35% of the
>> above-mentioned 5-year average.
>
>I don't understand how you arrived at 35%. I wasn't attempting any
>cherry-picking.
>
>>> Age Age Age Total
>>> Deaths from: 65-74 75-84 85&Up 65&Up
>>> Pneumonia and flu 5,547 14,859 25,535 45,941
>>> Pneumonia alone 5,509 14,780 25,396 45,685
>>> Flu Alone 38 79 139 256
>>> Total Deaths, all causes 389,238 652,682 713,646 1,755,566
>>> Flu Deaths, % of Total 0.010 0.012 0.019 0.015
>>> Deaths
That was for the one specific year (2007) when deaths for flu without
pneumonia were about 35% of those of the 5-year period incl;uding 2007
that you mentioned earlier in your post, where flu without pneumonia was
just a little less than .05% of deaths.
>>> So IF vaccine makers correctly GUESSED at the type of virus strains that
>>> would be a risk 9 months after they started making the vaccine, AND IF
>>> the vaccine were 100 percent effective, only 256 deaths (0.015%) would
>>> be delayed out of 1,755,566 from all causes.
>>>
>>> Some might credit the drop of flu deaths in the 65 and above group (256
>>> in 2007 vs. 689 in 2006) to increased vaccination coverage. But the CDC
>>> says that coverage of 68.0% in this age group was similar to previous
>>> seasons.(6)
>>>
>>> But they want to vaccinate all 35,000,000 people 65 and older(7). At $20
>>> per vaccine, that’s $700,000,000 transferred from the bank accounts of
>>> seniors and their insurers to the medical mafia (everyone from the local
>>> doctors up the distribution chain to the manufacturer) hoping to delay a
>>> mere 256 deaths in an already vulnerable group. That’s $2,734,375 for
>>> each delayed death.
>>
>> Except you are ignoring deaths by flu complications that required the
>> flu to occur, such as pneumonia. Using your figure from an exceptionally
>> low flu-alone-deaths year and what you mentioned for same year of flu plus
>> pneumonia, that works out to about $15K to get someone to live a little
>> longer.
>
>Are you saying that flu is more a result of first being weakened by
>pneumonia rather than the other way around?
Your data showed that almost half of all fatal pneumonia occurred to
those that had flu, fair chance due to being weakened by flu.
Helps significantly against quite a bit of things that happen
disproportionately to sedentary people,
>> Not that I am any fan of "Big Pharma", but this is yet another example
>> of the anti-vaccine types rubbing me the wrong way. I have seen many
>> others - including many claiming that any vaccine tested on non-human
>> animals before being used on humans is inherently flawed.
>
>There are serious concerns about that issue. I don't know the answer. At
>present animal research seems to be the best starting point for
>determining effectiveness of a new drug. But just consider all the drugs
>that made it to the market with FDA approval that eventually got
>recalled for high death rates (e.g., Vioxx) or unacceptable other side
>effects (e.g., hormone replacement for women).
>
>Overall, the vaccination program is overhyped. When the H1N1 scam was in
>full swing last year, it was especially recommended that pregnant women
>(and the elderly) get the shot. But the manufacturer's package inserts
>warned against giving preggies the shot, as it wasn't tested in groups
>below age 4 years. And if the shot came from a multi-dose vial, it also
>contained mercury. Just what a fetus needs to get a good start in life.
h
"Rebel1" <Reb...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:4c801745$0$31277
Oh, doG, NO one need a flu shot. GIVE IT A REST,. All that crap is a Big
Pharma Scam. Sheesh, everyone knows this....Or, at least all adults with
working brains know this..
Clams
except the 40K who die from influenza each year in the US and 500k
worldwide. Why bother with a shot, even if fully covered by one's
insurance? What's a few days of inconvenience?
Rebel1
> Ray K wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>> (As an aside, Mike Adams, also known as the Health Ranger, makes a good case that nobody dies in the U.S. from flu
>>>> because none of the deaths are confirmed by lab data; fascinating perspective.
>
>>> No he doesnt make a good case, because they either died of the flu or they didnt, doesnt matter whether that has been
>>> confirmed by lab data or not.
>
>> Why doesn't it matter?
>
> Because its obvious that many do die of flu.
Obvious by what criteria? Put a figure on "many."
>> If they didn't die from flu,
>
> They did. That wasnt confirmed with lab tests, thats all.
So how do you know that for a FACT? You have a great problem dealing
with published data, but have no problem making unsubstantiated
broadbased claims. Do you still believe the earth is flat (or maybe a
round disc) and the sun revolves around the earth?
>> why bother with flu vaccinations?
>
> Because heaps get flu.
How do you know that for a FACT? How many are "heaps"?
>> How can you know for sure there are only two alternatives, flu, or no flu?
>
> No one ever said anything like that.
When you said "they either died of the flu or thy didnt..." that's
exactly what you did say.
>> There are no other illness anywhere on the planet with the same symptoms?
>
> Corse there are. There isnt any point in confirming which one they died of with lab tests tho.
If you are using deaths or major complications as the justification for
an expensive mass vaccination program, then the true nature of the
"enemy" must be known.
The so-call AIDS epidemic in Africa isn't based on lab tests. The
diagnosis is based on symptoms shared by many other Africa diseases. And
the definition of AIDS in Africa is not the same as used in the US. It's
considerably broader, to exaggerate the risk and attract funds to
support researcher parasites and enrich drug companies.
http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/africa.html
>>>> http://www.naturalnews.com/026169.html)
>
>>>> ************************************************************************
>
>>>> Once again the government and its press lackeys are circulating lies
>
>>> And this is where your prejudices stand out like dogs balls.
>
>>>> about the alleged number of annual U.S. flu deaths in an attempt to scare the population into getting flu shots of
>>>> questionable value.
>
>>> Why would they bother?
>
>> The next sentence answers that simple question.
>
> Like hell it does.
>
>>>> Nobody in Congress challenges the number, because Big Pharma makes substantial “contributions” to their reelection
>>>> campaigns.
>
>>> Mindlessly silly.
>
>> Actually your are naive if you assume there are no politics in medicine.
>
> Never assumed anything of the sort.
>
>> I suggest you subscribe to free newsletters from mercola.com and naturalnews.com for the wakeup call you desperately
>> need.
>
> No thanks, I use rigorous science instead.
Be specific: Name the sources of "rigorous science" that you rely on.
Why do you put your blind faith in those particular sources? How you you
KNOW they are objective? How do they get the revenue to pay their
overhead (salaries, publication expenses, etc.)? How do you KNOW that
those revenue sources don't slant the editorial content in their favor?
>>>> FDA decision-makers don’t make waves because their silence is often
>>>> rewarded with lucrative jobs at Big Pharma companies after leaving government.
>
>>> Even sillier.
>
>> Obviously, the phrase "revolving door" doesn't mean anything to you.
>> Google on "FDA revolving door" (no quotes) and read for yourself.
>
>> http://www.goodhealthinfo.net/cancer/fda_cozy_relationship.htm
>> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Government-industry_revolving_door
>> http://www.psrast.org/ecologmons.htm
>
> Just because some fool claims something doesnt make it gospel.
That scam works remarkably will for religion and all the people who
believe the nonsense in the holy books of any organized religion.
And just because some fool is in denial about the reality of how people
in power operate, doesn't mean you should bury your head in the sand and
label people who point it out as fools.
>>>> Advertising-supported popular magazines and even medical
>>>> journals dare not expose the truth; just count the number of
>>>> advertising pages for drugs and figure it out yourself.
>
>>> Peer reviewed scientific journals dont have any drug advertising.
>
>> Really?!
>
> Yes, really.
>
>> You are not only naive but in denial.
>
> We'll see...
>
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16523984
>
>> It says that the advertising-to-editorial ratio in the NEJM is nearly unity, and the the JAMA, about 0.3.
>
> Doesnt say that about DRUG advertising.
Yes, you are right. All those ads in NEJM and JAMA are for Cheerios,
Barbie dolls, Hanna Montana garbage, Nintendo, McDonalds, and the rest.
Ads in ANY magazine are slanted toward the profile of typical readership
it's aimed at. Soccer moms don't read NEJM or JAMA.
Trot down to your library and count the number ads in a typical issue of
NEJM as a percent of total ads. Do the survey two ways, once counting
drug ads by their NUMBER as a percent of the total NUMBER of ads, and
then as the percent by area SIZE (square inches devoted to drug ads vs.
non-drug ads). Post your results here. I'm sure you wouldn't believe my
numbers.
>> But I guess that in your myopic world, NEJM and JAMA are not peer-reviewed journals.
>
> Guess again.
If you accept them as being peer-reviewed, then your own earlier claim
that "Peer reviewed scientific journals dont have any drug advertising"
is false.
>>>> Major news services (AP, Reuters, etc.) don’t expose the fraud
>>>> either; perhaps it’s the fear of being denied access to key people
>>>> in the government, or perhaps their writers are too lazy to do
>>>> fact-checking.
>
>>> More likely because there is no fraud.
>
>> Wake up!
>
> Go back to sleep!!!
>
>>>> 36,000 DEATHS PER YEAR
>>>> That’s the bogus number typically circulated.
>
>>> Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate the claim that its bogus.
>
>> The sources of data in the original post are all from the CDC and cited in the references.
>
> Pity they dont substantiate that particular claim.
If you are you talking about the claim of 36,000, just read any article
in the popular media or presented on TV shows. If you are talking about
the claim of bogus, the CDC's data show the numbers in the 50,000-60,000
range.
>> Obviously, you can't be bothered reading the them.
>
>> Doesn't it strike you odd that the 36,000 figure never changes, year to year?
>
> Thats a lie with the CDC data.
But the CDC data doesn't give that number; its numbers are in the
50,000-60,000 range.
>>>> It’s sometimes given as deaths from pneumonia and flu combined.
>>>> Other times it’s given as deaths from flu alone. (They can’t even
>>>> tell a consistent lie.)
>
>>> Its nothing like as black and white as that.
>
>> According the the CDC data, it is.
Go here, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf, Table
10, page 3 of the five-page pdf file.
It gives deaths for all ages:
Influenza and pneumonia: 52,717
Influenza: 411
Pneumonia: 52,306
>
> You're lying, again.
>
>> Read the references.
>
> Doesnt say anything like that.
You still refuse to actually read the CDC data.
>>>> In either case, the number is wrong.
>
>>> Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate the claim that its bogus.
>
>> The data is take directly from CDC publications.
>
> That claim about the 36K number isnt.
Then where did it come from? And why isn't the CDC actively, publicly
calling for a retraction or correction?
>>>> The true number of flu deaths and pneumonia deaths in all age
>>>> groups, right from the government’s Centers for Disease Control
>>>> reports, are as follows:
>
>>>> Deaths from 2003(1) 2004(2) 2005(3) 2006(4) 2007(5)
>>>> Pneumonia & flu 65,163 59,644 63,001 56,326 52,717
>>>> Pneumonia alone 63,371 58,564 61,189 55,477 52,306
>
>>> Thats a flagrantly dishonest misrepresentation of what the CDC reports actually say.
>
>> Please substantiate your claim.
>
> Read the reports.
I did read them. They are in my references. Which ones do you want me to
read? Which tables?
>>>> Flu alone 1,792 1,100 1,812 849 411
>
>>> And that in spades.
>
>> It's simple subtraction.
>
> And that is a flagrantly dishonest misrepresentation of what the CDC actually says.
What does the CDC say? You talk in generalities, but give no references
to support your denials.
>> Take a remedial course in basic arithmetic.
>
> Take Bullshitting 101.
>
>>>> That’s right, flu deaths ranged from 1,792 in 2003 to 411 in 2007.
>
>>> The CDC doesnt say that.
>
>> If you do the subtracion,
>
> The CDC isnt stupid enough to do that.
They already did. Their numbers give the combined total as well as the
separate flu and pneumonia numbers.
>> that's exactly what it does say. Read the references.
>
> There is no subtraction done by the CDC.
Yes, there is. See my above comment.
>>>> The five-year average is 1,192 per year!
>
>>> Or that either.
>
>> If you add the five numbers above for flu-alone deaths, they total 5964. Divide that by five, and you get 1192.8 as
>> the five-year average.
>
> Pity the CDC says nothing like that.
It's just a matter of applying basic arithmetic to the numbers that the
CDC does provide.
>> You should have paid attention to basic arithmetic. Maybe you can get a 10-year-old to explain it to you.
>
> Any 2 year old can bullshit better than that pathetic effort.
My data a backed by referenced government data. You offer nothing to
support your claims or denials.
> Get one to help you before posting again, if anyone is actually stupid enough to let you anywhere near one.
What is your basis for saying that I am a threat (of any nature) to a
2-year-old? Just because you don't believe my analysis of published
data? In the dreamworld you live in, that's a rational reason, isn't it?
>>> And you havent even considered how many more would have
>>> died of flu if there had not been any flu vaccinations anyway.
>
>> What is the number?
>
> No one knows. It isnt even possible to know that.
Then why raise the issue? What if the number were only 100?
>> If you read this article from Sept 2,
>> http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vaccines_junk_science.html,
>> you'll see that the vaccines don't work in 99 out of 100 people.
>
> Pity that is a bare faced lie.
>
> There might just be a reason that smallpox was completely eliminated from
> the wild and polio is now no longer a serious problem in the first world.
>
>> So at best they relieve symptoms in only 1 out of 100.
>
> Another bare faced lie.
Once again, you've shown that you haven't read the source material in
the Cochrane report given here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001269/frame.html
To make it easy for you, here are the conclusions:
"Authors' conclusions
Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms
and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect
complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission."
That should be clear enough even for someone like you (a lazy,
closed-minded denialist) to understand.
>
>>> None of the rest of this even more mindless silly shit worth bothering with.
>
>> At least you are admitting that you haven't bothered reading the references
>
> Didnt say that.
Did you check ANY of my numbers with the references I provided, just to
be sure I'm not lying or distorting?
> I JUST said that I didnt bother to comment on the rest of your lies.
>
>> and even if you had, you consider the CDC's data to be shit.
>
> You're lying, again.
>
>> How much does Big Pharma pay you
>
> Not a cent.
>
>> to publicly embarrass yourself with you nonsensical rantings?
>
> Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.
>
>> Besides not understanding basic arithmetic, you don't even understand
>> basic spelling, either. Learn to use an apostrophe in a contraction.
>> (Sorry to use that big three-syllable word.)
>
> Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.
You might also learn to use a hyphen with a compound adjective or noun.
(Adjective? Noun? What the hell are they?)
Twayne
amount of misinformation, none of which is verifiable from any reliable
source.
In news:4c7d500b$0$31266$607e...@cv.net,
Rebel1 <Reb...@optonline.net> typed:
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Ray K wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> (As an aside, Mike Adams, also known as the Health Ranger, makes
>>>>> a good case that nobody dies in the U.S. from flu because none of
>>>>> the deaths are confirmed by lab data; fascinating perspective.
>>>> No he doesnt make a good case, because they either died of the flu
>>>> or they didnt, doesnt matter whether that has been confirmed by
>>>> lab data or not.
>>> Why doesn't it matter?
>> Because its obvious that many do die of flu.
> Obvious by what criteria?
What they died of. You dont die of the common cold.
> Put a figure on "many."
250K-500K world wide, millions in pandemic years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza
>>> If they didn't die from flu,
>> They did. That wasnt confirmed with lab tests, thats all.
> So how do you know that for a FACT?
Because you dont die of the common cold and pneumonia is common with flu.
I've deleted all your puerile attempts at insults any 2 year old could leave for dead.
>>> why bother with flu vaccinations?
>> Because heaps get flu.
> How do you know that for a FACT?
Because flu is widely monitored because it can kill huge numbers in the worst epidemics.
> How many are "heaps"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza
>>> How can you know for sure there are only two alternatives, flu, or no flu?
>> No one ever said anything like that.
> When you said "they either died of the flu or thy didnt..." that's exactly what you did say.
Everyone can see that you are lying, again. Thats saying nothing like that later claim of yours.
>>> There are no other illness anywhere on the planet with the same symptoms?
>> Corse there are. There isnt any point in confirming which one they died of with lab tests tho.
> If you are using deaths or major complications as the justification for an expensive mass vaccination program, then
> the true nature of the "enemy" must be known.
Yes, but it is very well known indeed without confirming what every single individual died of.
> The so-call AIDS epidemic in Africa isn't based on lab tests.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> The diagnosis is based on symptoms shared by many other Africa diseases.
Pity about all the HIV/AIDS outside africa.
> And the definition of AIDS in Africa is not the same as used in the US.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> It's considerably broader, to exaggerate the risk and attract
> funds to support researcher parasites and enrich drug companies.
> http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/africa.html
Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel.
>>>>> http://www.naturalnews.com/026169.html)
>>>>> ************************************************************************
>>>>> Once again the government and its press lackeys are circulating lies
>>>> And this is where your prejudices stand out like dogs balls.
>>>>> about the alleged number of annual U.S. flu deaths in an attempt
>>>>> to scare the population into getting flu shots of questionable value.
>>>> Why would they bother?
>>> The next sentence answers that simple question.
>> Like hell it does.
>>>>> Nobody in Congress challenges the number, because Big Pharma
>>>>> makes substantial “contributions” to their reelection campaigns.
>>>> Mindlessly silly.
>>> Actually your are naive if you assume there are no politics in medicine.
>> Never assumed anything of the sort.
>>> I suggest you subscribe to free newsletters from mercola.com and
>>> naturalnews.com for the wakeup call you desperately need.
>> No thanks, I use rigorous science instead.
> Be specific: Name the sources of "rigorous science" that you rely on.
The CDC.
> Why do you put your blind faith in those particular sources?
It isnt blind faith, I know what rigorous science is about.
> How you you KNOW they are objective?
Because its completely trivial to test for influenza.
> How do they get the revenue to pay their overhead (salaries, publication expenses, etc.)?
The CDC is govt funded.
> How do you KNOW that those revenue sources don't slant the editorial content in their favor?
Because I know how the CDC operates and it gets the same results
as the other first world govt funded operations that do that sort of work.
>>>>> FDA decision-makers don’t make waves because their silence is often rewarded with lucrative jobs at Big Pharma
>>>>> companies after leaving government.
>>>> Even sillier.
>>> Obviously, the phrase "revolving door" doesn't mean anything to you.
>>> Google on "FDA revolving door" (no quotes) and read for yourself.
>>> http://www.goodhealthinfo.net/cancer/fda_cozy_relationship.htm
>>> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Government-industry_revolving_door
>>> http://www.psrast.org/ecologmons.htm
>> Just because some fool claims something doesnt make it gospel.
> That scam works remarkably will for religion and all the people who
> believe the nonsense in the holy books of any organized religion.
Irrelevant to whether thats how the CDC works.
I've deleted all your puerile attempts at insults any 2 year old could leave for dead.
>>>>> Advertising-supported popular magazines and even medical
>>>>> journals dare not expose the truth; just count the number of
>>>>> advertising pages for drugs and figure it out yourself.
>>>> Peer reviewed scientific journals dont have any drug advertising.
>>> Really?!
>> Yes, really.
>>> You are not only naive but in denial.
>> We'll see...
>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16523984
>>> It says that the advertising-to-editorial ratio in the NEJM is nearly unity, and the the JAMA, about 0.3.
>> Doesnt say that about DRUG advertising.
I've deleted all your puerile attempts at insults any 2 year old could leave for dead.
I've deleted all your puerile attempts at insults any 2 year old could leave for dead.
>>>>> 36,000 DEATHS PER YEAR
>>>>> That’s the bogus number typically circulated.
>>>> Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate the claim that its bogus.
>>> The sources of data in the original post are all from the CDC and cited in the references.
>> Pity they dont substantiate that particular claim.
> If you are you talking about the claim of 36,000, just read any article in the popular media or presented on TV shows.
That aint the CDC, thats stupid journos.
> If you are talking about the claim of bogus, the CDC's data show the numbers in the 50,000-60,000 range.
So much for your previous lies about the 36K figure.
>>> Doesn't it strike you odd that the 36,000 figure never changes, year to year?
>> Thats a lie with the CDC data.
> But the CDC data doesn't give that number; its numbers are in the 50,000-60,000 range.
So much for your previous lies about the 36K figure.
>>>>> It’s sometimes given as deaths from pneumonia and flu combined.
>>>>> Other times it’s given as deaths from flu alone. (They can’t even
>>>>> tell a consistent lie.)
>>>> Its nothing like as black and white as that.
>>> According the the CDC data, it is.
> Go here, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf, Table
> 10, page 3 of the five-page pdf file.
> It gives deaths for all ages:
> Influenza and pneumonia: 52,717
> Influenza: 411
> Pneumonia: 52,306
All that means is that most who get the flu get pneumonia too.
>> You're lying, again.
>>> Read the references.
>> Doesnt say anything like that.
> You still refuse to actually read the CDC data.
You are lying, again.
>>>>> In either case, the number is wrong.
>>>> Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate the claim that its bogus.
>>> The data is take directly from CDC publications.
>> That claim about the 36K number isnt.
> Then where did it come from?
It clearly circulates amoungst stupid journos who dont bother to do
any real research and just keep repeating what other journos say.
> And why isn't the CDC actively, publicly calling for a retraction or correction?
They just provide the real numbers.
You get to like that or lump it.
>>>>> The true number of flu deaths and pneumonia deaths in all age
>>>>> groups, right from the government’s Centers for Disease Control
>>>>> reports, are as follows:
>>>>> Deaths from 2003(1) 2004(2) 2005(3) 2006(4) 2007(5) Pneumonia & flu 65,163 59,644
>>>>> 63,001 56,326 52,717
>>>>> Pneumonia alone 63,371 58,564 61,189 55,477 52,306
>>>> Thats a flagrantly dishonest misrepresentation of what the CDC reports actually say.
>>> Please substantiate your claim.
>> Read the reports.
> I did read them. They are in my references. Which ones do you want me to read? Which tables?
The ones that include that data.
>>>>> Flu alone 1,792 1,100 1,812 849 411
>>>> And that in spades.
>>> It's simple subtraction.
>> And that is a flagrantly dishonest misrepresentation of what the CDC actually says.
> What does the CDC say?
That most who get flu get pneumonia too.
> You talk in generalities,
Everyone can see you are lying, again.
> but give no references to support your denials.
Everyone can see you are lying, again.
>>>>> That’s right, flu deaths ranged from 1,792 in 2003 to 411 in 2007.
>>>> The CDC doesnt say that.
>>> If you do the subtracion,
>> The CDC isnt stupid enough to do that.
> They already did. Their numbers give the combined total as well as the separate flu and pneumonia numbers.
Doesnt mean what you claimed that means.
>>>>> The five-year average is 1,192 per year!
>>>> Or that either.
>>> If you add the five numbers above for flu-alone deaths, they total
>>> 5964. Divide that by five, and you get 1192.8 as the five-year average.
>> Pity the CDC says nothing like that.
> It's just a matter of applying basic arithmetic to the numbers that the CDC does provide.
Its completely pointless to do that, which is why the CDC doesnt do that.
> My data a backed by referenced government data.
That 36K claim isnt.
> You offer nothing to support your claims or denials.
Everyone can see you are lying, again.
I've deleted all your puerile attempts at insults any 2 year old could leave for dead.
>>>> And you havent even considered how many more would have
>>>> died of flu if there had not been any flu vaccinations anyway.
>>> What is the number?
>> No one knows. It isnt even possible to know that.
> Then why raise the issue?
Because its crucial to your stupid claim that influenza vaccination is pointless.
> What if the number were only 100?
It isnt. We know that because MILLIONS died before vaccination was even possible.
>>> If you read this article from Sept 2,
>>> http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vaccines_junk_science.html,
>>> you'll see that the vaccines don't work in 99 out of 100 people.
>> Pity that is a bare faced lie.
>> There might just be a reason that smallpox was completely eliminated from the wild and polio is now no longer a
>> serious problem in the first world.
>>> So at best they relieve symptoms in only 1 out of 100.
>> Another bare faced lie.
> Once again, you've shown that you haven't read the source material in the Cochrane report given here:
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001269/frame.html
Just because some fool claims something like that doesnt make it gospel.
> To make it easy for you, here are the conclusions:
> "Authors' conclusions
> Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence
> that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission."
Just because some fool claims something like that doesnt make it gospel.
I've deleted all your puerile attempts at insults any 2 year old could leave for dead.
>>>> None of the rest of this even more mindless silly shit worth bothering with.
>>> At least you are admitting that you haven't bothered reading the references
>> Didnt say that.
> Did you check ANY of my numbers with the references I provided, just to be sure I'm not lying or distorting?
I already knew what the CDC etc state about influenza.
>> I JUST said that I didnt bother to comment on the rest of your lies.
>>> and even if you had, you consider the CDC's data to be shit.
>> You're lying, again.
>>> How much does Big Pharma pay you
>> Not a cent.
I've deleted all your puerile attempts at insults any 2 year old could leave for dead.
Rebel1
> TROLL ALERT! THAT POSTcontains nothingi but erroneous information and a huge
> amount of misinformation, none of which is verifiable from any reliable
> source.
Be specific as to which items are "misinformation." I'll let you off
easy: just name five items in the tables, and say why each is not
verifiable.
All the data is referenced, and most comes from CDC data. Are you saying
that CDC data are unreliable?
You sound like a Big Pharma stooge.
Twayne
Rebel1 <Reb...@optonline.net> typed:
No - much of it is misquoted. See the existing posts; no need to chew it
twice. Easy to check for yourself.
Relayer
> Innews:4c816e46$0$20175$607e...@cv.net,
Bottom line, if you have a physical disability, it's best to have
oone, along with a Pneumonia shot. I'vee had sepsis 6-7 times and
endocarditis, although different from the flu, it's no fun. As a
transplant person, I had both the H1N1 and regular one. It was
required. Either I did it or they wouldn't treat me anymore.
Mrs Irish Mike
> “Influenza vaccination was associated on average with substantial
> reductions in hospitalizations for pneumonia and for influenza (vaccine
> effectiveness, 27%) and in death (vaccine effectiveness, 48%). Estimates
> varied from season to season and across the 18 cohorts). In the two
> seasons with a poor match between the vaccine and the virus strain,
> vaccine effectiveness was lower for reducing death (in seasons with a
> poor match, vaccine effectiveness was 37%; in seasons with a good match,
> vaccine effectiveness was 52%) but not for reducing hospitalization.”
>
Substabtial reductions in hospitalization... Sounds good to me.
I've had the flu so bad I was begging to be put out of my misery. For
twenty bucks I'd like to reduce my chances. I figure a 100:1 chance of
me avoiding a bout with the flu and the money is well spent.
Society benifits from me getting the vaccine. As the number of people
who get a vacine increases, the chance of the unvacinated getting the
disease decreases. I don't know the numbers and I'm not going to
bother to look it up, but if 50% of the population gets vaccinated the
disease rate drops by something like 75%.
Vaccine is one of the few things modern medicine does well. Of course
we have been doing it for at least 200 years.
I am in agreement that too much money is spent in the last year of a
person's life. That's what happens when the profit motive comes from
illness and doctors need to be paid like rockstars.
Rod Speed
> On Aug 31, 11:55 am, Rebel1 <Reb...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> “Influenza vaccination was associated on average with substantial
>> reductions in hospitalizations for pneumonia and for influenza
>> (vaccine effectiveness, 27%) and in death (vaccine effectiveness,
>> 48%). Estimates varied from season to season and across the 18
>> cohorts). In the two seasons with a poor match between the vaccine
>> and the virus strain, vaccine effectiveness was lower for reducing
>> death (in seasons with a poor match, vaccine effectiveness was 37%;
>> in seasons with a good match, vaccine effectiveness was 52%) but not
>> for reducing hospitalization.”
>>
>
> Substabtial reductions in hospitalization... Sounds good to me.
>
> I've had the flu so bad I was begging to be put out of my misery. For
> twenty bucks I'd like to reduce my chances. I figure a 100:1 chance of
> me avoiding a bout with the flu and the money is well spent.
>
> Society benifits from me getting the vaccine. As the number of people
> who get a vacine increases, the chance of the unvacinated getting the
> disease decreases. I don't know the numbers and I'm not going to
> bother to look it up, but if 50% of the population gets vaccinated the
> disease rate drops by something like 75%.
> Vaccine is one of the few things modern medicine does well.
That claim is completely silly.
It also does dealing with heart attacks very well indeed, and diabetes in spades.
It also deals with some cancers much better than used to be the case too.
> Of course we have been doing it for at least 200 years.
Not with influenza we havent.
> I am in agreement that too much money is spent in the last year of a
> person's life. That's what happens when the profit motive comes from
> illness and doctors need to be paid like rockstars.
Nope, its what happens when the individual doesnt have to pay for that work being done.
George
I believe lots of docs would be very happy to be paid like rockstars.
According to this Bono earned $108,000,000 last year:
http://www.salary-money.com/u2-salary-108000000.php
A typical doc working at the big regional health health care system in
my area gets paid ~ $170,000
Jack
news:4c7d500b$0$31266$607e...@cv.net:
> The Flu Vaccine Scam Rears Its Ugly Head Again in 2010
What's needed is a worldwide, fatal flu epidemic that will thin the
population by eliminating the sort of shit-for-brains idiots that have
nothing better to do with their time than to start threads like this on the
UseNet.
h
"Jack" <Jack@ASSD_cesspool.com> wrote in message
news:i5uui4$efc$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> What's needed is a worldwide, fatal flu epidemic that will thin the
> population by eliminating the sort of shit-for-brains idiots that have
> nothing better to do with their time than to start threads like this on
> the
> UseNet.
>
We have a winner...I was really hoping that pig flu would do it last year.
Oh well.
Bottom line, if you don't want to get sick, stay away from children and
their parents. Little kids are walking germ vectors.
Clams
Last week, I saw a mother washing her children's hands from a bottle of
sanitizer as they were leaving the library. Hopefully (it would have
been much more effective overall) she used it upon entering the library.
tmclone
>
Nah...this is the same type of woman who won't flush a public toilet
or touch anything she doesn't absolutely HAVE to when out in public.
She's all about herself and her own larva. The upside is that all the
overuse of hand-sanitizer by idiotic breeders will result in a
generation with no immune systems. If you refuse to control over
population, nature will do it for you. We can only hope!
tmclone
>
> No - much of it is misquoted. See the existing posts; no need to chew it
> twice. Easy to check for yourself.
You're assuming any of the above morons can actually read. They can't.
tmclone
Because it's all bullshit. Less than 500 people a year die from the
flu, or even complications from the flu. It's all about making big
pharma rich.
m...@privacy.net
>Because it's all bullshit. Less than 500 people a year die from the
>flu, or even complications from the flu. It's all about making big
>pharma rich.
That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life!
Clams
Well duh - Most everyone with risk is getting flu shots.
Twayne
tmclone <tmc...@searchmachine.com> typed:
Try not to project your own problems onto others; you'll feel better for it.
h
carole
Haha ....they're all in denial mode.
carole
www.conspiracee.com