Flu Flim Flam's First Victim

[Rouser2]

Item: "A 79-year-old woman who stood in line outside a supermarket for more than five hours waiting for a flu shot collapsed and later died, the woman's daughter said. "
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041016/ap_on_re_us/flu_vaccine_death_3

The public is now in full panic over what now has become a scarcity of the current Flu Vaccine, however dubious is its value. Does the Flu Vaccine even work? John Keller at Lou Rockwell.com digs into the maze of dubious stats issued by the CDC and the Flu Vaccine industry to panic-sell the public into acts of desperation to get their Flu shots:

Bottom Line:

* "The flu kills fewer than 1,000 people on average, not 36,000 (as advertised)"

* "Flu Vaccine is of highly dubious effectiveness"

* "The CDC and Vaccine Manufacturers are in closed door sessions with the primary stated purpose of boosting vaccination numbers by spreading fear "

http://www.lewrockwell.com/keller/keller20.html

[Eos of the Eons]

Oh bother, here we go AGAIN.

People will die hours afte a flu shot, or days, because they were going to die even if they didn't get the flu shot. Unless every person who got the flu shot dies after a few hours, then your little post here is completely pointless, as usual.

Yes, dig for every anti-vaccine argument you want, but it won't change the facts. The fact is that the flu kills. The flu vaccine does not.

Yawn. Nothing new here.

[kookbreaker]

FRom the article:


Franklin died from her injuries on Thursday, according to the country coroner's office. "She was standing the entire time, with nowhere to sit and no shade," Poulos said.


Pathetic, Rouser, just completely and utterly pathetic.

[Benguin]

post hoc ergo propter hoc.

If you don't reckon the benefits outweigh the risks, don't get the vaccine. We all have a choice.

I'm booked in for mine .... miniscule risk, and the benefit of not getting an inconvenient illness that nails me to the bed for a few days every year.

That Keller link is a joke. Can you seriously tell me you didn't see the flaws in it?

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Benguin
Can you seriously tell me you didn't see the flaws in it? When have mere flaws ever interfered with inflammatory agitprop?

[Suezoled]

It's a known fact that flu gives you cancer! She probably had a mammogram sometime in her life. And she was probably around things like microwaves, TV's, radios, etc etc etc. It was the cancer that killed her... and the flu shot was also full of cancer causing drugs that would ensure her demise.

[Zep]

Chain-yanker.

[Mojo]

As far as I can find out from the news coverage, she didn't actually receive the vaccine, but collapsed after queuing in the sun for several hours, and hit her head. Perhaps Rouser should start a campaign to abolish queues, or to have the sun switched off? Or perhaps to make crash helmets compulsory for senior citizens?

All we need now is for Kumar to turn up and claim she died of some kind of quantum or magnetic effect caused by proximity to the vaccine...

[BillHoyt]

Aw, come on guys, Rouser's onto something here. We should take advantage of it whenever we're confronted with the "no side-effects" arguments for alt med. We simply need to compile a list of all fatal accidents of people being alt med treated. Everybody who dies coincidentally. The numbers are staggering!

"Man dies in head-on collision while traveling to chiropractor's office." Score one against chiropractic.

"Woman chokes on gingko pill." Score one against DSHEA.

And on and on. Personally, I'm thrilled about the research possibilities here.

Stop frowning, Eos.

[Dr. Imago]

As a healthcare worker, it's important that I'm covered in case I'm exposed and so I can continue working taking care of sick people without the risk of passing the disease to them. It's a matter of priority and responsibility, and this necessitates a quantity of the extremely limited supply of vaccine this year going to those of us who will benefit not only ourselves but those we treat as well.

To that end, I got my flu shot this past Thursday and... nope... not dead yet (probably much to the chagrin of Rouser). :D

-TT

[Rouser2]

A Nation Of Sheep

Item:
"October 15, 2004 -- Hundreds of desperate seniors, shrugging off a steady drizzle that could give them a cold, endured a bone-chilling four hours yesterday to get flu shots at a city clinic in Chelsea...."Why does it take that long to get a shot?" fumed a frustrated Kathy Mitchell, who said she would try again today.
The seniors began lining up at the clinic at Ninth Avenue and 28th Street at 6 a.m. About 21/2 hours later, clinic employees gave out waiting-line numbers to about 250 of those in line.
Two hours later, three dozen of those who didn't have numbers left, saying they couldn't take it any more.
Among those who decided to wait was a woman whose adult son has leukemia.
"I will kill if I have to for a shot for my son," she said. "His immune system is flat."

""Am I happy? No," she said. "Is it worth it? Yes. I'm protected for another year."
It was still dark when Jude Hunt, 64, arrived at the Chelsea clinic at 6 a.m.
"I was 10th on line," said Hunt, 64, who suffers from severe asthma.
She got her shot four hours later.
"Because of my asthma it's worth it, but they knew this was going to be a problem," she said. "They should have worked it out."
The flu-shot crisis began last week"
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/30417.htm

Comment: A nation of sheep, desperate to get injected with:

Ethylene glycol (antifreeze)
Phenol,
Formaldehyde, a known cancer-causing agent
Aluminum, which is associated with Alzheimer's disease and seizures and also cancer producing in laboratory mice (it is used as an additive to promote antibody response)
Thimerosal (a mercury disinfectant/preservative) can result in brain injury and autoimmune disease..
And assorted animal tissues -- all in order to avail advertised protection from this year's hypthetical flu epidemic using last year's flu strains.

You can fool some of the people all of the time...

[Zep]

Rouser, those people fooled all of the time includes YOU. But you aren't fooling us. Try finishing your quotes properly next time:

The flu-shot crisis began last week when the British government, concerned about possible contamination, shut down the Chiron Corp. plant in Liverpool, where about half of the U.S. supply of vaccine is manufactured.

As a result, only 55 million of the usual 95 million doses will be available.

That sort of tactic of quoting out of context and misquoting for effect is typical fundie moron tactics.

[Eos of the Eons]

Geez Rouser, haven't you learned we check things out?

Well, considering you never learn anything...

Rats. So very predictable. I was hoping some people weren't hopeless lost causes, but I'll save that hope for somebody else that might come along sometime.

[anonimouse]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Ethylene glycol (antifreeze)
Phenol,
Formaldehyde, a known cancer-causing agent
Aluminum, which is associated with Alzheimer's disease and seizures and also cancer producing in laboratory mice (it is used as an additive to promote antibody response)
Thimerosal (a mercury disinfectant/preservative) can result in brain injury and autoimmune disease..
And assorted animal tissues -- all in order to avail advertised protection from this year's hypthetical flu epidemic using last year's flu strains.[/B]

You know the drill...most of those horrible additives of which you speak are in such minute quantities that they are unlikely to cause harm. I'm sure you're aware of that, yet continue to spew that list of "toxic chemicals" in a pathetic attempt to scare people out of vaccinating.

Would you rather see the elderly and babies die of the flu or flu-related complications (thus the 36,000 number - 1,000 or so die of the flu each year, but many more die of complications related to the flu) than those in high-risk groups be protected from the disease.?

[Benguin]

Originally posted by sodakboy93

Would you rather see the elderly and babies die of the flu or flu-related complications (thus the 36,000 number - 1,000 or so die of the flu each year, but many more die of complications related to the flu) than those in high-risk groups be protected from the disease.?

I wonder in what way those numbers would be different if we weren't hospitalising thousand upon thousand old and vulnerable folk suffering from the flu every winter?

Yikes! maybe even more would be dying.

[Capsid]

The old nasty excipients card again.

Aluminium is in higher quantities in breastmilk than in vaccines.
Formaldehyde is in our blood stream in higher quantities too.
This has been published (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/6/1394)

It's all down to the concentrations. No one seems to complain about chlorine in our drinking water which is a pretty nasty poison in high enough amounts.

Both my son (9 years old, mildly asthmatic) and I (perk of job) have had the flu jab. It was entirely uneventful for both of us.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Capsid
The old nasty excipients card again.

Aluminium is in higher quantities in breastmilk than in vaccines.
Formaldehyde is in our blood stream in higher quantities too.
This has been published (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/6/1394)

It's all down to the concentrations. No one seems to complain about chlorine in our drinking water which is a pretty nasty poison in high enough amounts.

Both my son (9 years old, mildly asthmatic) and I (perk of job) have had the flu jab. It was entirely uneventful for both of us.

Comment: A careful reading of the reference, does not inspire confidence, the upbeat summary notwithstanding. A lack of evidence for an adverse reaction is not evidence that there are no adverse reactions. And there is indeed evidence for some adverse reactions as pointed out in the body of the abstract.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by sodakboy93
You know the drill...most of those horrible additives of which you speak are in such minute quantities that they are unlikely to cause harm. I'm sure you're aware of that, yet continue to spew that list of "toxic chemicals" in a pathetic attempt to scare people out of vaccinating.

Would you rather see the elderly and babies die of the flu or flu-related complications (thus the 36,000 number - 1,000 or so die of the flu each year, but many more die of complications related to the flu) than those in high-risk groups be protected from the disease.?

Probably your best chance of catching the Flu (whatever that is, or may be) is to avail yourself of a Flu shot.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Comment: A careful reading of the reference, does not inspire confidence, the upbeat summary notwithstanding. A lack of evidence for an adverse reaction is not evidence that there are no adverse reactions. And there is indeed evidence for some adverse reactions as pointed out in the body of the abstract.Exactly, just like lack of evidence of the teapot in orbit around Saturn is no evidence that it isn't really there.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Probably your best chance of catching the Flu (whatever that is, or may be) is to avail yourself of a Flu shot.

Interesting ... I'm about to get mine ... I normally get something with influenza like symptoms over winter. Please explain, with numbers how much more or less likely this is to happen this year (my first 'jabbed').

Show your working and necessary supporting evidence.

[anonimouse]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Comment: A careful reading of the reference, does not inspire confidence, the upbeat summary notwithstanding. A lack of evidence for an adverse reaction is not evidence that there are no adverse reactions. And there is indeed evidence for some adverse reactions as pointed out in the body of the abstract.

In other words - "there are selective quotes that if taken out of context prove my theory." I would be more skeptical of a paper if it didn't consider all sides of the issue.

[Capsid]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Comment: A careful reading of the reference, does not inspire confidence, the upbeat summary notwithstanding. A lack of evidence for an adverse reaction is not evidence that there are no adverse reactions. And there is indeed evidence for some adverse reactions as pointed out in the body of the abstract.

Then it comes down to a rsik/benefit ratio as with any drug. The rare incidence of an adverse reaction is not outweighed by the annual number of deaths from influenza infection.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Capsid
Then it comes down to a rsik/benefit ratio as with any drug. The rare incidence of an adverse reaction is not outweighed by the annual number of deaths from influenza infection.

Factoring in, of course, that doctors and hospitals save the lives of many more frail patients who fall ill with influenza.

[alfaniner]

Rouser2 --

when you are lying on the couch in a couple months, groaning, moaning, and unable to move, with every muscle aching from coughing so hard, you are going to be saying,

"Dang, wish I'd gotten that flu shot..."

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2
A lack of evidence for an adverse reaction is not evidence that there are no adverse reactions.
Sure it is, rouser. The difference is that (1) nurses and doctors actively monitor for reactions and (2) are asked to report any suspected adverse reactions to the VAERS system. This is not, then, a "absence of evidence" situation, by an "evidence of absence" situation.

[athon]

Originally posted by Zep
Rouser, those people fooled all of the time includes YOU. But you aren't fooling us. Try finishing your quotes properly next time:



That sort of tactic of quoting out of context and misquoting for effect is typical fundie moron tactics.

So why the misquote, Rouser? Did you need to exaggerate your claim with more nonsense?

As Zep said, this is typical of people who realise they have a weak opinion. You wonder why people here are so tired of your arguments...

Because we've seen it all before; hit and run postings where nothing is seriously argued, but multiple thread-bare proposals are made containing intangible connections between the claim and what is proposed as evidence.

This one has to be the lamest though. I'm teaching immunology in school at the moment, and had a discussion about immunisation, talking about herd immunity. Most of the kids were outraged that parents did not vaccinate.

I love being a teacher.

Athon

[Tony]

I've never had a flu shot and I've never had the flu. Everyone I've known who has gotten a flu shot has ended up getting the flu. In my experience the flu shot doesn't have a good track record.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Tony

I've never had a flu shot and I've never had the flu. Everyone I've known who has gotten a flu shot has ended up getting the flu. In my experience the flu shot doesn't have a good track record.
If we're going to look at samples that small, I can report with confidence that the flu shot is an effective tiger repellant. And since I started getting vaccinated, I haven't been struck by lightening once!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Dymanic
If we're going to look at samples that small, I can report with confidence that the flu shot is an effective tiger repellant. And since I started getting vaccinated, I haven't been struck by lightening once!

Anymore strawmen?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Tony
Anymore strawmen?

That's not the strawman fallacy, Tony. That was meant to point out the fallacy in your post.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
That's not the strawman fallacy, Tony. That was meant to point out the fallacy in your post.

Yes it is. He's bringing up irrelevancies to attack my position.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Tony
Yes it is. He's bringing up irrelevancies to attack my position.

That is not the defiinition of the strawman fallacy. Neither is it what he did. He gave you a sardonic response that points out your hasty generalization fallacy.

[rastamonte]

Originally posted by Capsid

No one seems to complain about chlorine in our drinking water which is a pretty nasty poison in high enough amounts.


My wife complains about chlorine in our drinking water. That is one of her reasons for drinking bottled water (another reason being flouride, I think.)

[Tony]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
That is not the defiinition of the strawman fallacy. Neither is it what he did. He gave you a sardonic response that points out your hasty generalization fallacy.

How is it a fallacy? Look at the facts:

1.I have never had the flu or the flu shot.

2. People I have known who got the shot ended up getting the flu.

3. In my experience, the flu shot has a bad track record.


Now, please point out the fallacy.

[Eos of the Eons]

Lesseee, chlorine or microbes that can kill you...I'll take the chorine, and yeah, you can get filters or bottled water that has gone through a filter.

Unless anybody can suggest a safer way to make sure our water is clean when it comes through the tap.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Tony

1. I have never had the flu or the flu shot.

2. People I have known who got the shot ended up getting the flu.

3. In my experience, the flu shot has a bad track record.

Now, please point out the fallacy.

The fallacy is called: "generalizing from a small sample". This is something we all do to one extent or another (well, all the people I know do it, anyway).

[Benguin]

wave a magnetically aligned crystal over the tap?

I'm all for flourine ... I don't see what the beef is about that.

I actually react to chlorine (in a swimming pool context) but tap water has no effect, there is hardly any there, and if you want rid of it it is as easy as pouring a jug full and leaving it in the fridge a few hours for the chlorine to evaporate. So I'm told. Forgive me if I just woo-ed ...

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by athon [/i]


>>So why the misquote, Rouser? Did you need to exaggerate your claim with more nonsense?
As Zep said, this is typical of people who realise they have a weak opinion. You wonder why people here are so tired of your arguments...

Alas, there was no misquote. You don't know what you are talking about.


>>This one has to be the lamest though. I'm teaching immunology in school at the moment, and had a discussion about immunisation, talking about herd immunity. Most of the kids were outraged that parents did not vaccinate.


Yeah, well be sure to tell them all about the history of Flu vaccinations -- and the guess-work contents of each vaccine. And be sure not to skip the Swine Flu fiasco in the US. Then have some discourse on just how it is that people can be so easily conned.

[Hellbound]

Tony:

Sorry, but they're right. An N=1 sample is meanignless. Just because .01% of the population doesn't get the flu or the shot ( or .1%, or 1%, or even 10%) does not mean that the shot does not help. Even in those cases where people develop flu-like symptoms after recieveing the shot, they are of shorter duration and lower intensity than if they had gotten the flu.

If we're going to rely on personal experience, I can shoot your argument down. I've been a medic in the military for several years. It's a requirement for servicemembers to get the flu shot every year. The latest was for our COmpany in Iraq (about 200 people). Those who got the flu shot did not get the flu, and only one of the flu-shot group got ill at all (a minor, single-day illness that passed quickly). We had some who did not get the shot due to being away on missions or medical reasons. We had three of those catch the flu, which developed into pneumonia, with one requiring hospitalization twice during the course of illness.

Of course, even my sample of 200+ people who were operating in similar conditions at the same time is not statistically significant. That was the point people were making. Your experience does not encompass a large enough sample of the target group to be a reliable guide. Neither does mine. It is exactly the same as claiming a blue rock works as a tiger repellant, because none of the people you know who carry blue rocks have ever been attacked by tigers. It's also similar to claiming that a red shirt attracts lightning, because a person you knew got struck by lightning while wearing a red shirt.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Tony
I've never had a flu shot and I've never had the flu. Everyone I've known who has gotten a flu shot has ended up getting the flu. In my experience the flu shot doesn't have a good track record.

Modern Medicine is not interested in your real life experiences. The official statistics prove that your reality, is make-believe.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Benguin
wave a magnetically aligned crystal over the tap?

I'm all for flourine ... I don't see what the beef is about that.

I actually react to chlorine (in a swimming pool context) but tap water has no effect, there is hardly any there, and if you want rid of it it is as easy as pouring a jug full and leaving it in the fridge a few hours for the chlorine to evaporate. So I'm told. Forgive me if I just woo-ed ...

In many city systems, the chlorine is removed from the water before it gets to your house, or greatly reduced. Even the highest concentrations are tiny. Guidelines for water purification from an unclean source (i.e.-a pond) range from 5 ppm (parts per million) if the water is clear to 15ppm if it's opaque. For public systems starting with water that has been processed a residual of 1 ppm is all that is required to maintain it as clean.

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Tony
How is it a fallacy? Look at the facts:

1.I have never had the flu or the flu shot.

2. People I have known who got the shot ended up getting the flu.

3. In my experience, the flu shot has a bad track record.


Now, please point out the fallacy.


The "in my experience" bit itself is a fallacy. From the scientific point of view, your experience does not matter unless it is supported by well-documented data. Do you have results of a randomised control trial supporting your claim?

edited for typo

[Rolfe]

It was reported yesterday that it had been hoped that some of the condemned vaccine stock might still prove to be usable, and tests were undertaken to see if any of it could be salvaged. However, no joy. Turned out that the whole lot was a bust and had to be dumped.

This is of course in the category of "***** happens", and demonstrates that at least the regulatory and quality assurance systems are working, and potentially dangerous product didn't get as far as the patients. Nevertheless, there will be some way for Rouser to spew his anti-medicine bile, never fear.

Rolfe.

[Sarah-I]

I don't quite understand why someone who is young, fit, healthy and with a good immune system would want to bother having a flu vaccination? I can understand the very young, the very old and those with chronic diseases having vaccinations and I can see the point in this very much.

The way I look at it is that I am still young, fit and healthy, so by not having a flu vaccine, there is more for those that really need it. The last time I had a proper dose of flu was about 30 years ago. No kidding either. Yes, I have had bad colds in between, but not flu.

Surely, if you have a good immune system and are young, fit, active and healthy, then you don't need a flu jab.

I won't be having one!! :D

[Eos of the Eons]

Argument from ignorance. The flu bug does not care how fit or young you are, you can still get sick enough to end up with secondary infections and things like pneumonia. You have less chance of dying, but you still get very sick. You can try avoiding other humans and washing your hands a lot, but if you get the bug, you will get sick unless you've had it before or got the vaccine.

If you are around people who are susceptible you can stop the spread of the disease by getting vaccinated.
.(1) Pneumonia accounts for nearly 600,000 Medicare patient hospitalizations utilizing more than 4.5 million inpatient days each year.(1,2) In 1993, more than $3.5 billion was spent on inpatient care of Medicare patients with pneumonia.(3) Pneumonia also is the principal reason for more than 500,000 emergency department visits by Medicare patients each year.(2) The incidence of pneumonia increases with age, and more than 90 percent of deaths due to this condition are in the population aged 65 and older.(1,4,5).
http://www.stratishealth.org/health-care/inpatient-immunization.html

1997 rates for Influenza/Flu hospitalization in NY City

These are the people that ended up in hospital, not just the ones the got sick.

10 - 17 year olds 56.4/100,000 (396)

18 - 24 year olds 68.8/100,000 (420)

25 - 44 year olds 172.7/100,000 (4, 251)

44- 65 year olds 336.1/100,00 (5, 293 people)

It's hard to get stats on how many people were sick, but easy to find out how many people ended up hospitalized after getting sick. Extrapolate these figures to the whole of USA, and that's a lot of people every year in the hospital.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/data/chau-appa.pdf

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
I don't quite understand why someone who is young, fit, healthy and with a good immune system would want to bother having a flu vaccination? I can understand the very young, the very old and those with chronic diseases having vaccinations and I can see the point in this very much.

The way I look at it is that I am still young, fit and healthy, so by not having a flu vaccine, there is more for those that really need it. The last time I had a proper dose of flu was about 30 years ago. No kidding either. Yes, I have had bad colds in between, but not flu.

Surely, if you have a good immune system and are young, fit, active and healthy, then you don't need a flu jab.

I won't be having one!! :D Good Lord! Sarah said something sensible!

However, one of the reasons for someone young, fit and healthy getting the vaccine is because they are healthcare workers, who need to be able to work with flu victims and not catch it, and (just as important) not pass it on to other patients.

What is it you're doing with yourself at the moment, Sarah?

Rolfe.

Edited to add: Eos, what Sarah said is perfectly sensible. Young fit and healthy people aren't called for flu vaccinations, and they won't get them free in this country. It's just that there are some exceptions, and Sarah keeps telling us that she's in one of the obvious exception categories.

[Eos of the Eons]

For sure, but if I had the choice, I would avoid it and get the vaccine. If there was enough vaccine to go around, younger folks still have to pay. It costs about $25/person here.

Why would someone young, fit, and healthy get the vaccine? Because you're still going to get sick, and you're still going to feel like crap if you get it. Just because you're young, etc, it doesn't mean you won't end up hospitalized in x amount of cases. That costs the system a lot of money. Cheaper to get the vaccine.

You have less chance of ending up in hospital, and less chance of dying, but the bug will still make you sick.

Wash your hands whenever possible, and you lessen your chances of getting it even more.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Sarah-I
I don't quite understand why someone who is young, fit, healthy and with a good immune system would want to bother having a flu vaccination? I can understand the very young, the very old and those with chronic diseases having vaccinations and I can see the point in this very much.

The way I look at it is that I am still young, fit and healthy, so by not having a flu vaccine, there is more for those that really need it. The last time I had a proper dose of flu was about 30 years ago. No kidding either. Yes, I have had bad colds in between, but not flu.

Surely, if you have a good immune system and are young, fit, active and healthy, then you don't need a flu jab.

I won't be having one!! :D Well, that's very noble, but perhaps rather silly too. Soldiers don't head into battle naked these days - they wear all the armour they can reasonably carry, and for very good reason. Certainly you may think you are more likely to be able to withstand the effects of flu if you are young and healthy, but it is no picnic at any age, as Eos has pointed out.

Consider, for example, your own susceptibility to the virus. You may be one of those unfortunate people for whom, despite their youth and vigour, the flu virus is an awful or even tragic experience. You may get hospitalised, for all you know. Sure, last year's strain of the flu virus may have been shaken off with a lemon-and-honey tea, but this year's may be much more devastating. And even just running the course of a flu infection probably means you are off work - you suffer, your work suffers - it costs money to be sick, and not just to pay the medical bills.

Or if you battle on and turn up in the workplace while sick, you may easily pass the flu virus on to more susceptible people there, including elderly people and possibly even pregnant women. If not protected, their sicknesses can greatly affect work productivity, not to mention their personal discomfort and expenses.

Sarah, you said you are a medical practioner of some sort, a person who personally examines lots of different people daily, young and old, in close proximity. You having the flu in such a position would be unnecessarily exposing those people who are already sick to the likelihood of additional debilitating illness. Do you think that's an ethical thing to do?

So remember, the flu vaccine significantly reduces the risks of these things happening.

If it makes any difference, I won't be having a flu vaccine either, but not because I don't want it. Simply, I am allergic to the medium on which they make the vaccine, and I would go into shock if I was injected with it. Otherwise I would be lining up too. As it is, I have to suffer through the winter season being VERY careful not to get near flu-carriers...like you might be.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Zep
If it makes any difference, I won't be having a flu vaccine either, but not because I don't want it. Simply, I am allergic to the medium on which they make the vaccine, and I would go into shock if I was injected with it. Otherwise I would be lining up too. As it is, I have to suffer through the winter season being VERY careful not to get near flu-carriers...like you might be.

In other words, your only chance of being spared 'flu is herd immunity ...

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Modern Medicine is not interested in your real life experiences. The official statistics prove that your reality, is make-believe.
"Modern Medicine" has to be interested in everyone's real life experience, not just Tony's. Hence the use of statistics. The statistics don't "prove that [Tony's] reality, is make-believe," merely that it is not representative of the population as a whole.

To use an analogy, I recently walked across a road without looking (I was thinking about something else at the time) and didn't get hit by a car. Does this mean that the government shouldn't run road safety campaigns?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Mojo [/i]

>>"Modern Medicine" has to be interested in everyone's real life experience, not just Tony's. Hence the use of statistics. The statistics don't "prove that [Tony's] reality, is make-believe," merely that it is not representative of the population as a whole.


What Tony's experience should suggest is the dubious nature of government statistics.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Tony
Now, please point out the fallacy.

Nobody I know has ever been bitten by squirrels. Therefore, squirrels don't bite.

I've never seen a pigeon die. Have you? No, see, they are immortal.

Don't be obtuse.

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Mojo [/i]

>>"Modern Medicine" has to be interested in everyone's real life experience, not just Tony's. Hence the use of statistics. The statistics don't "prove that [Tony's] reality, is make-believe," merely that it is not representative of the population as a whole.


What Tony's experience should suggest is the dubious nature of government statistics.

1) Sample size of thousands shows in general X
2) Sample size of 1 shows Y

Case 1 is obviously worthless as case 2 is proof of a conspiracy theory :rolleyes:

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Mojo [/i]

>>"Modern Medicine" has to be interested in everyone's real life experience, not just Tony's. Hence the use of statistics. The statistics don't "prove that [Tony's] reality, is make-believe," merely that it is not representative of the population as a whole.


What Tony's experience should suggest is the dubious nature of government statistics.

No. It does by that statement, however, highlight your poor grasp of statistics.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Rouser2
What Tony's experience should suggest is the dubious nature of government statistics.
No, it doesn't. Statistics are not used to make predictions about individual cases: they predict the behaviour of large populations.

So, for example, statistics don't predict that if Tony doesn't have the flu jab he will get flu; they predict that if nobody has a flu jab then X% of the population will get flu.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Stitch
1) Sample size of thousands shows in general X
2) Sample size of 1 shows Y

Case 1 is obviously worthless as case 2 is proof of a conspiracy theory :rolleyes:

Sample size of thousands is put out by a cabal of vested interests which has been often found to be based on dishonest research and reporting, while the sample size of 1 may be reported by a person with no vested interest but a track record of integrity. The lesson is, weigh both in the balance, but trust no one.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Mojo
No, it doesn't. Statistics are not used to make predictions about individual cases: they predict the behaviour of large populations.

So, for example, statistics don't predict that if Tony doesn't have the flu jab he will get flu; they predict that if nobody has a flu jab then X% of the population will get flu.

In the great Swine Flu panic of the 70s, if nobody had gotton the flu shot, there would have been zero deaths and paralysis from it.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Rouser2
The lesson is, weigh both in the balance, but trust no one.

:rolleyes:

You must really lead a desperately sad and lonely life.

:(

-TT

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Rouser2
In the great Swine Flu panic of the 70s, if nobody had gotton the flu shot, there would have been zero deaths and paralysis from it.

During the 1918-1919 fall period the number of Americans who died from influenza is estimated at 675,000. Of those, almost 200,000 deaths were recorded in the month of October 1918 alone.

http://www.ninthday.com/spanish_flu.htm

I don't know why I try to convince someone who is completely incapable of grasping the concept of "preventive medicine" let alone reality.

-TT

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin [/i]


>>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the 1918-1919 fall period the number of Americans who died from influenza is estimated at 675,000. Of those, almost 200,000 deaths were recorded in the month of October 1918 alone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ninthday.com/spanish_flu.htm

>>I don't know why I try to convince someone who is completely incapable of grasping the concept of "preventive medicine" let alone reality.

And strangely, this pandemic came just after mass vaccinations came into common practice during WW I.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Rouser2
And strangely, this pandemic came just after mass vaccinations came into common practice during WW I. Really? They commonly vaccinated people for influenza in WWI? Can you show me a reference to that, please? I'd LOVE to see that.

[Capsid]

And strangely, this pandemic came just after mass vaccinations came into common practice during WW I.
Yes, very strange indeed. I wonder how millions died from influenza in countries where mass vaccination was not undertaken at that time.

By mass vaccination I presume you mean smallpox vaccination? However, variolation had been used for many years before this pandemic.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Zep
Really? They commonly vaccinated people for influenza in WWI? Can you show me a reference to that, please? I'd LOVE to see that.

No, not for influenza. After all, the term had not yet been invented. Nor did anyone know what influenza even was. And they still don't. The "Flu" is just a name for a bunch of symptoms that fit a whole lot of diseases. And the pandemic of 1918 was really bad -- so bad that people may indeed have had a whole bunch of diseases -- diseases which may well have been caused by mass innoculations.

A commentary from one contemporary observer::

"When doctors had tried to suppress the symptoms of the typhoid with a stronger vaccine, it caused a worse form of typhoid which they named paratyphoid. But when they concocted a stronger and more dangerous vaccine to suppress that one, they created an even worse disease which they didn’t have a name for. What should they call it? They didn’t want to tell the people what it really was — their own Frankenstein monster which they had created with their vaccines and suppressive medicines. They wanted to direct the blame away from themselves, so they called it Spanish Influenza. It was certainly not of Spanish origin, and the Spanish people resented the implication that the world-wide scourge of that day should be blamed on them. But the name stuck and American medical doctors and vaccine makers were not suspected of the crime of this widespread devastation — the 1918 Flu Epidemic. It is only in recent years that researchers have been digging up the facts and laying the blame where it belongs..."

"The disease had the characteristics of the black death added to typhoid, diphtheria, pneumonia, smallpox, paralysis and all the diseases the people had been vaccinated with immediately following World War 1. Practically the entire population had been injected "seeded" with a dozen or more diseases — or toxic serums. When all those doctor-made diseases started breaking out all at once it was tragic."

From Swine Flu Expose
by Eleanora I. McBean, Ph.D., N.D.
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sf1.html

[Dr. Imago]

Rouser,

I just went to the link you posted. I didn't even bother reading your snip. And, when I did, the very first sentence in the article from this supposed "authority" on this subject reads thusly:

As has been stated before, all medical and non-medical authorities on vaccination agree that vaccines are designed to cause a mild case of the diseases they are supposed to prevent.

This is just such a gross oversimplification and false statement, that it's really not worth taking anything else this person says with much seriousness. Still, I find it extremely insightful of your motives that you selective quote from the "lunatic fringe" of medicine. Doctors are bad, unless they happen to be wackos who agree with you.

I didn't bother with the rest of the article or what you quoted. If I'm going to waste my time, I'd rather do it watching re-runs of "The Jeffersons" or playing Windows Solitaire or staring at spots on the wall. All are far more entertaining and informative than what you offer.

-TT

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Rouser2
No, not for influenza. After all, the term had not yet been invented. Nor did anyone know what influenza even was. And they still don't. The "Flu" is just a name for a bunch of symptoms that fit a whole lot of diseases. And the pandemic of 1918 was really bad -- so bad that people may indeed have had a whole bunch of diseases -- diseases which may well have been caused by mass innoculations.

A commentary from one contemporary observer::

"When doctors had tried to suppress the symptoms of the typhoid with a stronger vaccine, it caused a worse form of typhoid which they named paratyphoid. But when they concocted a stronger and more dangerous vaccine to suppress that one, they created an even worse disease which they didn’t have a name for. What should they call it? They didn’t want to tell the people what it really was — their own Frankenstein monster which they had created with their vaccines and suppressive medicines. They wanted to direct the blame away from themselves, so they called it Spanish Influenza. It was certainly not of Spanish origin, and the Spanish people resented the implication that the world-wide scourge of that day should be blamed on them. But the name stuck and American medical doctors and vaccine makers were not suspected of the crime of this widespread devastation — the 1918 Flu Epidemic. It is only in recent years that researchers have been digging up the facts and laying the blame where it belongs..."

"The disease had the characteristics of the black death added to typhoid, diphtheria, pneumonia, smallpox, paralysis and all the diseases the people had been vaccinated with immediately following World War 1. Practically the entire population had been injected "seeded" with a dozen or more diseases — or toxic serums. When all those doctor-made diseases started breaking out all at once it was tragic."

From Swine Flu Expose
by Eleanora I. McBean, Ph.D., N.D.
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sf1.html

So your 'evidence' from that incredible site (go look, it's great www.whale.to (www.whale.to) ) is that the typhoid vaccine created some weird disease based on typhoid that doctors called spanish flu to divert attention?

What (apart from it also being a hairy pile of steaming woo poo) has that got to do with your claims about flu and the flu vaccine?

[Capsid]

and all the diseases the people had been vaccinated with immediately following World War 1

eh? Which vaccines were these then? Immediately means 30-40 years later I suppose?

Nor did anyone know what influenza even was. And they still don't

Or maybe it's caused by the influenza virus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza)

edited for typos

[Mojo]

I noticed, in the last paragraph of the page rouser linked to:
One soldier who had returned from overseas in 1912 told me that the army hospitals were filled with cases of infantile paralysis and he wondered why grown men should have an infant disease.(italics in original)

Either McBean PhD ND doesn't know that "infantile paralysis" is in fact a synonym for polio, or she's relying on the ignorance of her perceived audience (which presumably includes people like Rouser).

[Zep]

Originally posted by Rouser2
And strangely, this pandemic [the 1918-1919 Spanish influenza pandemic] came just after mass vaccinations came into common practice during WW I.
Originally posted by Rouser2
No, [the vaccinations were] not for influenza.
Oh. Then your point is...??

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Benguin
So your 'evidence' from that incredible site (go look, it's great www.whale.to (www.whale.to) ) is that the typhoid vaccine created some weird disease based on typhoid that doctors called spanish flu to divert attention?

What (apart from it also being a hairy pile of steaming woo poo) has that got to do with your claims about flu and the flu vaccine?

Only that it might be wise to think twice.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Zep [/i]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
And strangely, this pandemic [the 1918-1919 Spanish influenza pandemic] came just after mass vaccinations came into common practice during WW I.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
No, [the vaccinations were] not for influenza.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Oh. Then your point is...??

That the so-called Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 may have in fact been several diseases caused by mass innoculations for those diseases. Get it now???

[Zep]

Originally posted by Rouser2
That the so-called Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 may have in fact been several diseases caused by mass innoculations for those diseases.Oh. So the scientists in 1918/19 couldn't distinguish between influenza and any other diseases, nor even between those other diseases either. They didn't have microscopes or anything scientific like that, and the symptoms of all diseases then were identical and thus indistinguishable. So the doctors just decided to CALL whatever disease(s) that were happening "influenza" to try and fool everyone.

Is that what you are saying, Rouser?

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Rouser2
That the so-called Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 may have in fact been several diseases caused by mass innoculations for those diseases. Get it now???

Yeah, we get it. You don't like facts.

The 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic was not caused by, as the ridiculous assertion put forth by your so-called source attempts to state, "mass innoculations" for other diseases.

Here's the proof:

Recently, this laboratory reported the isolation of fragments of RNA from the 1918 influenza virus from preserved lung tissue of a victim of the deadly fall wave of the pandemic. Sequence from 5 of the virus's 10 genes indicated that the strain was of the H1N1 subtype and different from any other sequenced influenza strain.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=15547

Who am I to believe? Some crackpot naturopath half-off her rocker or the National Institutes of Health in the U.S.?

Hmmm... tough choice.

-TT

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
Yeah, we get it. You don't like facts.

The 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic was not caused by, as the ridiculous assertion put forth by your so-called source attempts to state, "mass innoculations" for other diseases.

Here's the proof:



http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=15547

Who am I to believe? Some crackpot naturopath half-off her rocker or the National Institutes of Health in the U.S.?

Hmmm... tough choice.

-TT

Well now, anyone who challenges the Medical Establishment is by definition a "crackpot" thus allowing no further thinking. Perhaps the study is onto something; perhaps not. I note that the primary cause of death was not the flu virus...

"The majority of individuals died of secondary acute bacterial pneumonia, the most common cause of death in the 1918 pandemic (10); most of the samples taken from these individuals were not analyzed further, because they were extremely unlikely to retain influenza virus,'

Thus, though this was the major cause of death, they apparently retained no virus. Also of note is the apparent fact that the early severe cases were military -- we can infer, innoculated with all manner of stuff prior to contracting the disease.

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.members.shaw.ca/eostory/Chair-Fall1.gif

These idiotic claims about the Spanish flu are hilarious, yet sad.

I know why Whale is used in the website address, that site has whoppers that go beyond fish tales, they tell a whale of a tale every time. The conspiracy theories have me laughing and angry at the same time.


Rouser, when are going to get that crackpot theories and crap alternatives are nothing against the actual facts and effectiveness of real medical care?

Your groping for arguments is seriously failing. Can't you let reality sink in for once? Look at your tactic for gosh sakes. Really sad.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Well now, anyone who challenges the Medical Establishment is by definition a "crackpot" thus allowing no further thinking. Perhaps the study is onto something; perhaps not. I note that the primary cause of death was not the flu virus...

"The majority of individuals died of secondary acute bacterial pneumonia, the most common cause of death in the 1918 pandemic (10); most of the samples taken from these individuals were not analyzed further, because they were extremely unlikely to retain influenza virus,'

Thus, though this was the major cause of death, they apparently retained no virus. Also of note is the apparent fact that the early severe cases were military -- we can infer, innoculated with all manner of stuff prior to contracting the disease.

Rouser,

There's really no point arguing with you when you don't even have a basic understanding of pathophysiology. Secondary bacterial invasion occurs in the natural course of the influenza disease. I'm not going to try to explain to you why because you will simply go on some harangue or tirade about how I've been spoonfed bad information in medical school, but suffice it to say that the way the body eliminates viruses is by the immune system's activations towards it's own cell line. Yes, the immune system - when human cells are invaded by a virus - attacks and destroys its own cells before the virus can replicate and proliferate. This then leaves the denuded endothelial surfaces prone to bacterial superinfection in the intervening time between when the normal tissue architecture is broken down by this process and is repaired by the various systems that restore us to our health.

This is not new information, nor is it poorly understood - except by people such as yourself and your naturopath source who have no real medical training.

Furthermore, exhumed patients were found to have the viral RNA. Your source's ideas are therefore, by defintion, crackpot and are no more supportable scientifically (or otherwise) than any other conspiracy theory which happens to fall outside the realm of reasonable conjecture.

-TT

[Capsid]

OK let's think twice about this as Rouser suggests. Vaccines were not available during WWI, only the smallpox vaccine. I'm not sure if the troops even got this either. What was given to them was serum therapy for tetanus arising from wound infections. The serum was of equine origin and administered in hospitals ie not prophylactically. Horse serum does run the risk of immediate or delayed allergic reactions. This might explain the deaths reported in the article from the whale website (IF the US soldiers were given serum therapy).

So was influenza virus infected horse serum the cause of the 1981 pandemic? Well influenza pandemics have been associated with concurrent disease in horses. The 1918 outbreak occurred simultaneously in the USA and Europe (where serum therapy would have been used) but also Africa (where serum therapy was not likely to be used?), but the virus was H1N1 related to swine influenza not horse. Yet we know that the virus can jump across species and become more virulent.

So an interesting concept or is it flawed? I could not confirm if the virus is spread by blood/serum, but I don't see why not. Does anyone have thoughts on this?

A further note, influenza A and B viruses were not isolated until 1933 and 1940 respectively although a filterable agent had been identified as early as 1901.

Source of my information is mostly Topley & Wilson's Microbiology and Microbial Infections, Ninth Edition

[athon]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
Rouser,

There's really no point arguing with you when you don't even have a basic understanding of pathophysiology.
-TT

And how. It is senseless arguing with somebody whose primary line of attack is that we are all fed nonsense by the BBG (big bad government). It assumes we have no ability to discern credible information based on our own studies.

Athon

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin [/i]

>>Furthermore, exhumed patients were found to have the viral RNA. Your source's ideas are therefore, by defintion, crackpot and are no more supportable scientifically (or otherwise) than any other conspiracy theory which happens to fall outside the realm of reasonable conjecture.


So where then did the victims pick up the viral RNA??? Is it just possible, possible they picked it up from innoculations? Yes or no? Or perhaps from other innoculated people? Be honest. That's just how polio has been spread in many cases during the past 50 years -- from people who had been vaccinated. And note, the "mild" caes of Spanish Flu reported in the Spring of 1918. And how does anyone really know what substances were in all those mass innoculations given at that point in time? Moreover, my "crackpot" source confirms that many of the Flu patients had symptoms of pneunomia the same as your source. Does that make your source a crackpot too???? And I just don't know how one can be sure that the alleged pneumonia was a secondary infection if there was no evidence of the primary infection found in the majority of exhumed victims.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Capsid [/i]

>>OK let's think twice about this as Rouser suggests. Vaccines were not available during WWI, only the smallpox vaccine. I'm not sure if the troops even got this either. What was given to them was serum therapy for tetanus arising from wound infections.


Vaccines were indeed available and anti-typhoid vaccinations were required.

"Vaccination now topped the Army's hierarchy of anti-typhoid weapons. In June 1911, the War Department designated such prophylaxis as compulsory for all troops entering federal service."
http://www.med.virginia.edu/hs-library/historical/typhoid/panel12.html

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Rouser2
So where then did the victims pick up the viral RNA??? Is it just possible, possible they picked it up from innoculations? Yes or no? Or perhaps from other innoculated people? Be honest. That's just how polio has been spread in many cases during the past 50 years -- from people who had been vaccinated. And note, the "mild" caes of Spanish Flu reported in the Spring of 1918. And how does anyone really know what substances were in all those mass innoculations given at that point in time? Moreover, my "crackpot" source confirms that many of the Flu patients had symptoms of pneunomia the same as your source. Does that make your source a crackpot too???? And I just don't know how one can be sure that the alleged pneumonia was a secondary infection if there was no evidence of the primary infection found in the majority of exhumed victims.

Are you seriously interested in answers to these questions? Because, I can answer every single one of them without some silly, half-baked, crackpot theory not supported by anything other than wild conjecture. Or, is this just more rhetorical posturing? Please tell me before I waste my time.

-TT

[rppa]

Originally posted by Rouser2
In the great Swine Flu panic of the 70s, if nobody had gotton the flu shot, there would have been zero deaths and paralysis from it.

And if there were never any treatments given for malaria, dehydration, broken bones, bacterial infections, or car accidents the rate of deaths from treatment would be zero as well.

And if we closed all hospitals entirely, the rate of deaths in hospitals would go to zero.

What exactly is your point?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
Are you seriously interested in answers to these questions? Because, I can answer every single one of them without some silly, half-baked, crackpot theory not supported by anything other than wild conjecture. Or, is this just more rhetorical posturing? Please tell me before I waste my time.

-TT

The answer to the very first question would be a good start:

So where then did the victims pick up the viral RNA??? Is it just possible, possible they picked it up from innoculations? Yes or no?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by rppa
And if there were never any treatments given for malaria, dehydration, broken bones, bacterial infections, or car accidents the rate of deaths from treatment would be zero as well.

And if we closed all hospitals entirely, the rate of deaths in hospitals would go to zero.

What exactly is your point?

Pretty simple; fairly obvious, that is, one should never blindly trust authority especially when it comes to issues of one's own health or the health of loved ones. In all medical matters, one should make it one's business to weigh all options, to consider all biases, to give some weight to tradition, past experiences, and even gut feelings before blindly accepting what some figure of authority claims is "science," especially in view of the frequency of past medical debacles based on such claims. In other words,
THINK TWICE.

[alfaniner]

Oh, too bad.

The above was edited before I could quote it --

it said "THNIK TWICE ".

Perfect.

[Capsid]

Vaccines were indeed available and anti-typhoid vaccinations were required
Thank you Rouser. The link you posted only talks of a single typhoid vaccine (an inactivated preparation for oral administration) but this is hardly the mass vaccination against a whole slew of diseases mentioned in the whale article. It's highly unlikely that you would get influenza virus from a killed bacterial preparation in answer to your question to TT.

[anonimouse]

Originally posted by alfaniner
Oh, too bad.

The above was edited before I could quote it --

it said "THNIK TWICE ".

Perfect.

thinktwice.com is a notorious anti-vaccination website. I smell deep, delicious irony.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
THINK TWICEYeah, I'd do that if I were you (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3746056.stm).

Rolfe (still imagining Rouser still thinking while the sun grows cold and the universe enters heat-death....)

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Capsid
Thank you Rouser. The link you posted only talks of a single typhoid vaccine (an inactivated preparation for oral administration) but this is hardly the mass vaccination against a whole slew of diseases mentioned in the whale article. It's highly unlikely that you would get influenza virus from a killed bacterial preparation in answer to your question to TT.

"unlikely" is one of the non-quantitative terms used in the Modern Medical lexicon which has no quantitative meaning -- just like the words "rare," "very rare," and "extremely rare." No one really knows what was in those vaccines. Have vaccines ever been known to have been contaminated? Is the Pope Catholic? There are still raging arguments that AIDS was first introduced via the polio vaccine.


Fact is, it could have happend. One way or another. And what should be of interest to a medical detective is the timeline of the beginning (1914) and the end (Spring of 1918) of WW I, and the beginning (spring of 1918) of the mild form of Spanish Flu and the raging pandemic (fall of 1918). Could soldiers innoculated with whatever, have come home only to become passive carriers? Seems to me it's in the realm of possiblitiy especially in face of the fact that nobody really seems to know where this alleged virus came from.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Rouser2
The answer to the very first question would be a good start:

So where then did the victims pick up the viral RNA??? Is it just possible, possible they picked it up from innoculations? Yes or no?

How about this - the answer to your question is not only "no" it's impossible for them to get the influenza RNA from the vaccines... unless... there was cross-contamination, shared needles, innoculation via respiratory droplets from the person admininstering the other vaccines (i.e., she/he had the flu and coughed on the person receiving the vaccine), etc.

So, to answer your question flatly: no, under normal conditions it is not possible to get the virus as you suggest. Now, if you want to divagate away from the principle of Ockham's razor and put forth wild suppositions as "Dr. Whale.to" has done, I guess anything is possible (just like little green men coming down from the sky bringing purple unicorns). But, probable? Even remotely likely? And, given such mass numbers affected. No, I don't think so.

Somehow, methinks that answer is still not going to be good enough for you though.

-TT

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Rouser2
"unlikely" is one of the non-quantitative terms used in the Modern Medical lexicon which has no quantitative meaning -- just like the words "rare," "very rare," and "extremely rare."

If this were the case, then you'd have a few people affected, not the hundreds of thousands (and millions in other parts of the world) that were.

(see my previous response)

-TT

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2
"unlikely" is one of the non-quantitative terms used in the Modern Medical lexicon which has no quantitative meaning -- just like the words "rare," "very rare," and "extremely rare."
Uh, no, rouser. The "modern medical lexicon" borrowed the language from the sciences, who borrowed it from the statisticians. The terms are not "non-quantitative," but are "fuzzy." The exact numbers being alluded to vary to some degree with the context.

Don't try to smear linguistic imprecision as conspiratorial. Neither try to pin it on medicine as if it is uncommon, unusual in the sciences, or otherwise indicative of an evil empire. Save this crap for paranoid woos.

[Capsid]

I use the term unlikely as I can't give you an exact figure, no one can. I thought you might appreciate my honesty in admitting that there is a possibility but it is of low probability for the reasons I gave.

We do no where the pandemic viruses originate from; this is by recombination of human and animal viruses. Horses could be a likely source since these were in great numbers during the Great War and were in close proximity to large numbers of troops.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin [/i]


>>How about this - the answer to your question is not only "no" it's impossible for them to get the influenza RNA from the vaccines... unless... there was cross-contamination, shared needles, innoculation via respiratory droplets from the person admininstering the other vaccines (i.e., she/he had the flu and coughed on the person receiving the vaccine), etc.
So, to answer your question flatly: no, under normal conditions it is not possible to get the virus as you suggest. Now, if you want to divagate away from the principle of Ockham's razor and put forth wild suppositions as "Dr. Whale.to" has done, I guess anything is possible (just like little green men coming down from the sky bringing purple unicorns). But, probable? Even remotely likely? And, given such mass numbers affected. No, I don't think so.
Somehow, methinks that answer is still not going to be good enough for you though.

Oh, the answer is just fine. Even though you don't include every possiblity such as animal tissue contaminations. But what you are saying is that under 'normal" conditions, it is not possible... but what you are really saying is that it cannot happen, unless it happens. Shall we bring up the history of vaccine contamination? And how the "abnormal" so frequently is the norm???? Even without little green men from the sky and purple unicorns???

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Shall we bring up the history of vaccine contamination? And how the "abnormal" so frequently is the norm???? Even without little green men from the sky and purple unicorns???

"so frequently" is one of the non-quantitative terms used in the woo lexicon which has no quantitative meaning -- just like the words "rare," "very rare," and "extremely rare."

A taste of your own alt medicine.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Benguin
In other words, your only chance of being spared 'flu is herd immunity ... I can't RELY on that.

And guess what - I got the flu this year, didn't I.

[Eos of the Eons]

The flu season started early this year. Senior citizens are dying before they can get their shots.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/10/15/669927.html
Secondary infections kill. The flu shots keep these infections away and prolongs lives.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons


The flu season started early this year.
It may be a little soon to announce that. There is always some sporadic offseason activity, and CDC and LCDC show flu at low levels across both the US and Canada at the end of week 40. One thing for sure, it's going to start. Wash, wash, wash those hands!

[Eos of the Eons]

That's not my opinion. That is the "official" opinion of the persons involved. Read the article. The flu season started earlier this year. People started getting sick sooner."Because this came so early, no one had a chance to be immunized yet...

most outbreaks don't hit until November or December, Johnson said.
"

Read the reference before making your conclusions. I did.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons


That's not my opinion. That is the "official" opinion of the persons involvedI respectfully suggest that you misinterpreted what was said. In saying "Because this came so early", the person was referring to the specific incident, and did not imply that this meant the flu season had started early.
Read the reference before making your conclusions. I didActually, as I indicated in my last post, I did a lot more than that (being in the high risk category makes this a topic of special interest to me, so I always do). This isolated incident may signal the beginning of the season, and then again it may not. The "official" position is that flu levels are still below seasonal baseline.

[Eos of the Eons]

Isolated incident....hmmm, didn't think of it that way. The seniors just caught the flu, nobody that came in contact with them passed it on to them? I find that a stretch of the imagination. :p :D The "official" position is that flu levels are still below seasonal baseline

Where is this at? I'm not singling you out here. I ask this of everyone that posts "official" business without letting us know how you know (left feeling like I'm in the dark).October is early for the flu season to begin, but he says the flu started early last year, too.

http://www.kpax.com/Global/story.asp?S=2437364

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons


Isolated incident....hmmm, didn't think of it that way. The seniors just caught the flu, nobody that came in contact with them passed it on to them?If it makes you feel any better, I can easily see how it could be taken the way you suggested. Even during the offseason, a few people here and there always have the flu. If one person in a nursing home type setting gets it, it wouldn't be a big surprise to see it spread to other residents.

-----------------------
The "official" position is that flu levels are still below seasonal baseline
------------------------
Where is this at?

This is a pdf file from BC Laboratory Centre for Disease Control (http://www.bccdc.org/downloads/pdf/epid/reports/Number1Weeks40-41.pdf)

This one just updated, includes the incident you linked. (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/fluwatch/04-05/w42_04/index.html)

U.S. CDC map, just updated today (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/usmap.htm)

[Eos of the Eons]

Thank you, I wasn't having much luck finding such specific information.

They say it is below for Europe. Anyways, arguing semantics is silly. The flu is here, the strain is out and about. The season is starting early this year, like last year. There are outbreaks in Europe, Canada, USA, etc. It's here. This is not "offseason". It's late October. They suggest get vaccinations early.

I'm hoping this means a mild year this year, with the vaccine shortage and all. It did kill seniors that weren't vaccinated though.

What is the prediction for the severity this year?

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Dymanic
U.S. CDC map, just updated today (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/usmap.htm)

How come the date is:

Week ending October 9, 2004

Here's a link for Canada for Oct. 10-16

http://dsol-smed.phac-aspc.gc.ca/dsol-smed/fluwatch/fluwatch.phtml?FluWeek=wk200442&Submit=View+Maps&operation=Dual&province_left=lw&province_right=rw

My area is the only showing localized activity instead of sporadic. Why here? [mock rage] Who did this! Somebody came back from vacation sick?[/mock rage].

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons


This is not "offseason". It's late October. Well that's true, sort of. The baseline level is different for different times of year. (Last night I found a really cool graph of that, but I forget where... somewhere in one of those sites I think). It starts going up about week 38-39, so we're just heading up slope, but still not near where the real fun begins (usually).
I'm hoping this means a mild year this yearMe too. Last year was perfect, actually. The peak hit here while the kids were out of school for the holidays, and that probably helped. One thing that makes it hard to avoid the flu is that it is contagious before the actual onset of symptoms. (I go into what I call "Howard Hughes mode" during the peak -- I try to avoid everybody). (If it looks like it may be bad this year, I'm thinking about giving up bathing for like a month. That should do the trick.)
What is the prediction for the severity this year?Media people may be able to get this or that health official to speculate on that in front of a microphone, but I think it's all pretty much guesswork until enough cases emerge to enable them to get a good look at which strain is getting traction.

How come the date is:
------------------------------------------
Week ending October 9, 2004
------------------------------------------I have no explanation for why you are seeing that. I see it as Week ending October 16. I noticed that Montana was listed as 'sporadic', whereas last night it was 'no activity'.

[Eos of the Eons]

I wonder what it will say for today's date once we get to see it. I don't even want to see my area's. Ack.

I did a "refresh" and it went to the 10-16. I don't know why I had to do this. Will be deleting some cookies darn it.