Posted on 10/14/2009 8:27:27 AM PDT by mlizzy
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
What follows is my point-by-point summary of this groundbreaking article by Shannon Brownlee [and Jeanne Lenzer], originally published in The Atlantic. My opinion statements are shown in brackets and italics.
• Vaccination is the core strategy of the U.S. government's plan to combat the swine flu.
• The U.S. government has spent roughly $3 billion stockpiling vaccines and anti-viral drugs.
• The CDC is recommending that 159 million Americans receive a swine flu vaccine injection (as soon as possible).
• What if vaccines don't work? More and more researchers are skeptical about whether they do.
• Seasonal flu (that's the regular flu) currently kills an estimated 36,000 people each year in the United States. [But most people who die are already suffering from existing diseases such as asthma.]
• Most "colds" aren't really caused by the flu virus. As few as 7 or 8 percent (and at most, 50 percent) of colds have an influenza origin. There are more than 200 viruses and pathogens that can cause "influenza-like" illnesses (and therefore be easily mistaken for the flu).
• Viruses mutate with amazing speed, meaning that each year's circulating influenza is genetically different from the previous year.
• The vaccine for each upcoming flu season is formulated by health experts taking a guess [a wild guess, at times] about what strain of influenza might be most likely to circulate in the future.
• The 1918 Spanish Flu infected roughly one-third of the world population and killed at least 40 million.
• In the U.S., the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology predicted that H1N1 influenza could infect up to one-half of the U.S. population and kill 90,000 Americans.
[Keep reading, the good part is coming...]
• Of those who have died from the Swine Flu in the U.S., roughly 70 percent were already diseased with some serious underlying condition such as asthma or AIDS.
• Public health officials consider vaccines to be their first and best weapon against influenza. Vaccines helped eradicate smallpox and polio. [I don't agree with that assessment. Vaccines did relatively little compared to improvements in public sanitation.]
• Each year, 100 million Americans get vaccinated, and vaccines remain "a staple" of public health policy in the United States.
That's a stupid statement. Cool, I can leap from a 100 story building, crash 100 mph into a brick wall, or swim with hungry sharks and have an excellent chance of living!
In the absence of clinical trials showing that flu vaccines reduce the cahnce of getting the flu, I say no.
Is this your statement?
If it isn't, do you agree with it?
Because if so, it proves you are so ill-informed about vaccines in general that your opinion is useless.
It’s not a stupid statement, it’s just a statistic.
People who receive the flu shot are half as likely to die that winter.
What may be stupid is what you infer from it, or what you believe they are implying by it.... and to that, i think you are probably right.
Obviously the flu shot is not going to protect you from all things dangerous. What that statistic probably indicates is a correlation between those people who have access to, or who go out of their way for, a flu shit... are the type of people who lead safer lives and take more health and safety precautions
But do you agree with it?
That statement is so outrageously inaccurate that it calls into question the understanding of vaccines of the author.
The comment is directed at the vaccines used for ‘flu’. If you had read the article you would have realized that. The vaccines for things such as whooping cough and polio and small pox and other such diseases are well documented as being effective.
There is NO such double blind gold standard for the ‘flu’ vaccines.
Your response I am sure was a quick one that was off the cuff.
The statement does not say that people who take the vaccine are, because of the effects of the vaccine, half as likely to die from any cause.
The statement says that statistics demonstrate that, from a random sample, half as many of those who take a flu shot are likely to die as those who don’t.
As already pointed out, there can be other factors involved. People who take the trouble to get a flu shot and perhaps pay for it or carry insurance that pays for it are likelier to be better health prospects than people who don’t. Perhaps they are more careful, more affluent, less likely to be homeless people, and so on.
The statistic is presumably accurate. Possibly the samples were not entirely random. Possibly the reasons for better health among those who received the shots are multiple.
Did you comprehend the statement when you read it? Because I do not think you did. It shows YOUR lack of understanding about vaccines in general and ‘flu’ vaccines in particular
Or if you read the article, that those who take the vaccine are also known as ‘healthy users’.
Is anyone out there having a shortage in their area of the yearly flu vaccine?
Our area is did not get its allotment at all.
They cancelled all schedule after it came out and do not expect the shipment untill mid November.
Which for us is ok since our Asthma/allergies have been really bad for the last 2 weeks we were not planning to get it untill our brochial issues got back to the normal zone.
Almost every one is. AND please note that the German Army is using the American made vaccine ( without mercury or adjuvants) because they fear side effects from the European made vaccines ( think Glaxo-Smith)
The nasal H1N1 is a live vaccine. The shot is "dead". Let's wise up....
Maybe I missed it (long article, read most, scanned some) but the authors apparently miss a few potential reasons for flu shots reducing fatalities.
First, cross immunity and stimulated immunity. A flu shot, I suspect, can rev up one's immune system making it go after some other pathogens. I suspect that a bout of the flu weakens the patient for subsequent opportunistic infection from different pathogens.
And, second, the effects of influenza can be disabling in various ways, such as making driving more dangerous, operating machinery, etc. (Suggesting that yes, flu shots can reduce car accidents.)
Me?
I always get the seasonal flu shot.
I'll pass on the H1N1 for reasons that I believe that other versions of H1N1 in flu shots past will conform some cross immunity (in a few years, epidemiologists will be able to tell if this assumption was correct).
.
Here is the statement I am referring to, cut-and-pasted from the original post:
• Public health officials consider vaccines to be their first and best weapon against influenza. Vaccines helped eradicate smallpox and polio. [I don't agree with that assessment. Vaccines did relatively little compared to improvements in public sanitation.]
The comment is obviously directed at polio and smallpox.
I made no statement about that. My statement was in response to the assertion that improvements in sanitation were responsible for decreased in the incidence of polio and smallpox.
You must have me confused with another poster.
“• Public health officials consider vaccines to be their first and best weapon against influenza. Vaccines helped eradicate smallpox and polio. [I don’t agree with that assessment. Vaccines did relatively little compared to improvements in public sanitation.] “
Smallpox and polio were contained more by sanitation than vaccines?
NO IT DOES NOT. You do not know how to read. The comment is “public health officals consider vaccines to be their FIRST and BEST weapon against INFLUENZA”. The comment in parens refs to that. Fact is washing your hands has always been the best defense against the flu. Wash often, dry thouroughly, stay hydrated, get enough sleep. Those are the things that work. Read the article you might learn something.
I just don’t like the idea of Barack H. Obama giving me an injection with Nancy Pelosi holding the syringe. Sorry, no takers here.
I'll repost the entire quote for those who don't know what is being discussed:
• Public health officials consider vaccines to be their first and best weapon against influenza. Vaccines helped eradicate smallpox and polio. [I don't agree with that assessment. Vaccines did relatively little compared to improvements in public sanitation.]
The author (from "Natural News") is obviously referring to smallpox and polio, otherwise, why even include that statement? It makes no sense.
I saw your tagline re walking. It reminded me that years ago my mother used to quote an elderly gentleman who said that he had two doctors: his left leg and his right leg. Thought you might appreciate that. :)
You say, “Most “colds” aren’t really caused by the flu virus.” They don’t say that in the article. They use the word ‘flu.’ Most people do not equate flu and cold.
And as I stated, given their gross ignorance of the issue of vaccines (I'm aware of Mercola, and he is a first-rate quack), giving their ideas any credence greatly hurts your arguments. If Glenn Beck said something so egregiously inaccurate, I wouldn't believe a word he said.
You are a useless tool. Did you read the context in the article? It specifically says that smallpox, whooping cough, polio etc are examples of good vaccines where actually death tolls diminish.
Public-health officials consider vaccine their most formidable defense against the pandemic—indeed, against any flu—and on the surface, their faith seems justified. Vaccines developed over the course of the 20th century slashed the death rates of nearly a dozen infectious diseases, such as smallpox and polio, and vaccination became one of medicine’s most potent weapons. Influenza virus was first identified in the 1930s, and by the mid-1940s, researchers had produced a vaccine that was given to soldiers in World WarII. The U.S. government got serious about promoting flu vaccine after the 1957 flu pandemic brought home influenza’s continuing potential to cause widespread illness and death. Today, flu vaccine is a staple of public-health policy; in a normal year, some 100 million Americans get vaccinated.
But while vaccines for, say, whooping cough and polio clearly and dramatically reduced death rates from those diseases, the impact of flu vaccine has been harder to determine. Flu comes and goes with the seasons, and often it does not kill people directly, but rather contributes to death by making the body more susceptible to secondary infections like pneumonia or bronchitis. For this reason, researchers studying the impact of flu vaccination typically look at deaths from all causes during flu season, and compare the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.
That is directly from the article. Twist it any darned way you want. You are incorrect
You do realize there are two seperate articles in the original post, don't you? There is the one from The Atlantic, and then there is the "summary" in the space for comment from the thread poster, from Natural News.
You would be best served by looking at the original post more closely (and the anti-vax sentiments from Natural News even closer) before you embarass yourself further.
Doesn’t matter for me...
Woke up yesterday with a sore, scratchy throat and some lung discomfort.
By 5 PM or so my temp was going up and I had various aches and pains...
Made chicken soup at 3 AM, loaded up on the B6, Zinc, C, D, and A, temp topped out at 100.1 (my usual is 96.7 - 97.3)
Haven’t coughed up anything green
yet...
miserable, but not as bad as flus I’ve had in the past, one time in the 90’s I was IN BED FOR 8 DAYS STRAIGHT!
However, when the leaders exhibit zero (no pun intended) integrity, how can I trust their recommendation when it involves injecting a chemical into my body?
I'd much rather take my chances with the flu.
This is just one down side of becoming a banana republic.
That's an awful "long march" back from that statement....
Still marching?
I think that apology you need to use might be right over the next hill....
POPULATION CONTROL
"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
- John Holdren, Obama's "science czar" on how to introduce population control drugs into the water supply
Vaccine May Be More Dangerous Than Swine Flu
Squalene: The Swine Flu Vaccine’s Dirty Little Secret Exposed
Swine Flu Vaccine Linked to Killer Nerve Disease:Guillain-Barré syndrome
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
