"Jeff" wrote in message ...
"john" wrote in message
...
[PROVE Note by DR: The following article is nothing more than another one
of the contrived media manipulations by flu vaccination proponents. Just
as
it is outlined in the CDC blueprint presentation on how to artificially
scare people into getting the flu vaccine that we sent out last week,
(http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upl..._flu_nowak.pdf) this
article claims that there has been a "substantial climb" in
hospitalizations
because of the flu. This article is being sent out because of one very
important line tucked away that needs to have the spotlight shining
brightly
on:

"the researchers used a broader category of flu-related illnesses to reach
the new estimate."

That's right - broaden the category to confuse and needlessly scare
people.
However, last flu season according to the CDC themselves, only 18.9% of
the
circulating flu-like illnesses out there were of the three strains
selected
to be in the vaccine.
(http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weekly...-04summary.htm)

You are confusing flu-like illness with the flu. A lot of illnesses cause
flu-like symptoms, which include things like simple colds.

By "flu-like illnesses," John is simply referring to new viral strains
of influenza resulting from antigenic drift, previously unidentified,
for which vaccines have no effective action, as the CDC report
explains. The exception (supposedly) is when sufficient time allows
for the vaccine to be updated with the new strain. Thus, influenza
incidence (and severity) can be as great with the vaccine as without,
evening assuming innoculation successfully modifies an otherwise
inadequate immune response, which is clearly the problem with vaccine
efficacy to begin with (ie., how do you engender an adequate immune
response in persons with overall poor endogenous immunology?
Vaccination is the equivalent of a viral slap in the face, sort of
like throwing a rock at a cop from a window so he might draw his gun
before thugs around the corner approach. But if he's too dumb to be
aware on his own, how successful will he be against the real attack?
There are many micro and macro factors conspiring against successful
inoculation.)

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthi.../aa011604a.htm

In
other words, last winter, 4 out of 5 times, the sniffles, fever or aches
were not caused by anything a vaccine can prevent.

4 out of 5 times, it is an illness that is not potentially as serious as
influenza.

Now Jeff, you know better. He is referring to the 80% (4 of 5)
unrecognized strains of *influenza.*

However, about 20% of the time is potentially a serious illness, especially
for older people.

The idea is to get a sample of all illnesses that might be influenza. It is
better to check 5 times as many people and catch all the cases.

Ideas are marvellous, aren't they Jeff? Unfortunately, antigenic
drift alters the strains after vaccination campaigns begin. You might
say viruses are smarter than vaccines. And immunology involves far
more than just anti-body production.

And the number of cases would have been higher if it were not for the
vaccine. Remember, the people who got the vaccine are just as likely to get
illnesses that are not influenza, but far less likely to get influenza.

Care to back any of that up with real data? Except for the middle
comment, your statement is not based in fact.

The media manipulation
campaign continues to irrationally scare people into the vaccine.

Actually, the irrationality of people who don't understand vaccines are the
ones scaring people. For example, they say that it is not effective or has a
higher rate of side effects than it does.

In the words of Mark Twain: "There are 3 types of lies - lies, damn lies,
and statistics."]

And you just demonstrated how statistics can be used to mislead. Thanks.

Actually, he stuck to the facts, whereas you did not.

The fact of the matter is that the influenza vaccine saves thousands of
lives every year by preventing influenza in people who get the vaccine.

Sayin' it don't make it so.