As it is, government health bodies present the annual flu vaccine as something that every elderly person should have - and yet there is virtually no evidence to support this stridently optimistic approach.
The Cochrane Vaccines Field group first alerted doctors to the ineffectiveness of the standard flu jab when it discovered that it failed to prevent deaths from flu or pneumonia.
Despite this, governments have continued to spend millions of pounds and dollars on an ineffective vaccine, and have misled the public.
The only way of resolving the issue once and for all is to carry out proper trials among the elderly - and that's something nobody will be prepared to do, the researchers fear.
(Source: The Lancet, 2007; 370: 1199-1200).
Looks like mainstream needs to get it's stories and studies co-ordinated.
The Lancet version. published this month, argued that the mortality benefits of flu shots for the elderly have been greatly exaggerated because of a subtle bias and other methodologic problems in many of the relevant studies :
"The remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive from the vaccination programme," says the analysis by Lone Simonsen, PhD, of George Washington University in Washington, DC, and colleagues.
The Lancet Infectious Diseases authors offer several reasons for questioning the notion that flu immunization saves lives in the elderly population:
Simonsen and colleagues also write that since 1968, flu has accounted for an average of about 5% of all winter deaths in older people. Yet the results of cohort studies have prompted claims that flu vaccination reduces the risk of winter death from any cause by about 50% for community-dwelling people older than 65. "That influenza vaccination can prevent ten times as many deaths as the disease itself causes is not plausible," say Simonsen et al.
Regardless of the figures and interpretations, I contend that strong natural anti-virals and immune boosters are a better choice. I have never had a flu shot and never will - not even for the so-called Avian flu. People who do not take measures to keep their immune system strong and take anti-viral natural supplements like colloidal silver, olive leaf extract, garlic, onion, echinacea, etc. would perhaps be good candidates for a flu shot.
Yeah, mankind has gone from the vinyl record to the MP4 player the size of a watch that will hold entire record collections, from computers the size of houses to small laptops, black and white TV's to giant high definiition color plasma screens and from a wobbly Sputnik to Mars Rovers and what has medicine done for us in that same period of time? More drugs and more managed illness that only treats symptoms and cures nothing and has side effects leading to still more drugs.
I suppose you are telling me that the the fact that studies funded by mainstream companies are five times more likely to return positive results than independent ones is just a statistical aberration? It was a mainstream study that reported the discrepancy, btw. You really need to put aside the brainwashing and blinders and take a good objective look into the history of mainstream medicine and the world pharmceutical empire. It is evil and corrupt and it has chosen profit over humanity right down the line.
Look at the corrupt early head of the AMA Morris Fishbein and what he did to bury alternative treatments that could have saved millions of lives - after first trying to blackmail them into taking him on as a partner or selling out to him. Look at what the Carnegies and Rockefellers did to destroy naturopathic and homeopathic medicine, look at the history of FDA raids where they come in like storm troopers with guns drawn to take down harmless competition to their lords and masters, look at the formation of the IG Farben cartel and their stated purpose to control the world drug market and replace all natural medicatios with their own lab created onew around the turn of last century and then what happened to the upper managers of that group at Nuremburg.
What will advance medical science and knowledge is when the scientists and doctors are freed from the yokes of those who think they own our bodies so that they can pull their heads out of Big Pharma's arses and take a look at what nature has provided all along.
Let's take a real good look at the latest study promoting flu shots for the elderly - the one just published in the NEJM and which is being used to dispute the one in the Lancet. It claims a whopping 27% reduction in hospitialiaztion for those who are vaccinated with flu shots and an even larger 48% reduction in deaths for those who are hospitialized. Now look at how the mainstream magicians worked their magic:
"The per-season hospitalization rates for unvaccinated and vaccinated people were 0.7% and 0.6%, and the corresponding death rates were 1.6% and 1.0%. The figures translated into a 27% reduction in hospitalization rate for pneumonia and flu among the vaccinated (adjusted odds ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.77) and a 48% reduction in mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.55)."
So what they have done is take the difference between .0.7 and 0.6 percent and get a 27% reduction for hospitializations and take the difference betwee 1.6% and 1.0% and get a 48% reduction in death rates - which is true in and of itself
But look at what the figures really mean: you have a 99.3% chance of not being hospitalized without having a flu shot and risking all of it's possible side effects and a 99.4% chance of not being hospitialized if you do take the shot. A difference of 1/10th of 1 percent. And if you ARE hospitalized for the flu you have a 98.4% chance of not dying if you have not been vaccinated versus a 99% chance of not dying if you do. A difference of 4/10th of 1 percent.
The chemical cocktail that makes up the flu vaccines began life as collected mucous from sick people in three cities (this year those are Wellington, New Caledonia and Shanghia) and then was propagated in chicken eggs that may or may not have been screened for avian leucosis (bird leukemia), and then ultimately came to include mercury, formaldehyde, a spermicide from Union Carbide and anti-freeze (Polyethylene Glycol).
Is it worth subjecting yourself to that for an actual benefit of between 0.1 and 0.4%? I think not!
"The "Healthy News Service" appears to get its medical opinions from spin doctors."
Is that frying bacon I smell? The article I posted originated from The Lancet, about as mainstream as you can get. Are you saying that The Lancet is a bunch of spin doctors? Do tell us more!
And for your edification, the RSS feed on the TBYIL Health News Page is from Medical News Today and you will see that every day it clearly contains mostly mainsteam articles. Do you EVER bother checking out what you post about instead of just grabbing the mainstream hook, line and sinker and rushing to throw their self serving propaganda into this non-mainstream forum?
The article you quoted is NOT from the Lancet, it is from a second study that also came out this month from the NEJM. The site in your post has a story that combines both studies and attempts to refute the first one with the second one. I think it is mainstream medicine who needs to get their two studies together and put a pretty pro-vaccine spin on the issue.
Regardless of the study or who funded it or what their purposes are, it has to chaff the apologists mightily when mainstream medicine itself cannot agree on vaccines. And we have seen just how much they disagree in previous posts here that debated the issue quite thoroughly. As I recall, the huge consensus was much to the discredit of the falsely hyped mainstream propaganda about vaccines.
"The winter flu shot myth is based entirely on junk science designed to serve the interests of pharmaceutical companies who sell the vaccines.
"An honest look at the science reveals the unavoidable truth about flu shots -- they're virtually worthless at preventing the flu," Adams said. "People would be much better off to skip the shots and engage in healthier exercise and dietary habits." what you have posted.
- Mike Adams, Newstarget
And now we have humor too? I mean, it really is roll-on-the-floor funny to see YOU accuse any other person or organization of spreading misinformation when by definition, your posting of the mainstream doctine makes YOU the one who spreads misinformation. And when you attempt to spread it here you are attempting to pass it off to an audience who has come here because they have rejected mainstream medicine's unconsicionable campaign of lies designed purely for profit so they can continue their monopoly on our bodies, steer us away from safer, more effective and less expensive solutions that work and doom us to a lessened quality of life in a lifetime of managed illness.
OK, despite my vows to cut back on pork in general and friend bacon in particular, let me get the frying pan back out and make a note to do some serious artery flushing. You ready to sizzle? Here goes:
Did you happen to note the date on the article you quoted and linked to in your original report? Hmmmmm? Just a trifling detail:
Sep 23, 2005 (CIDRAP News) and Jefferson T, Rivetti D, Rivetti A, et al. Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in elderly people: a systematic review. Lancet 2005;Sep 22
The article I posted here in the "breaking news" forum came from the study published in the Lancet THIS MONTH:
Simonsen L, Taylor RJ, Viboud C, et al. Mortality benefits of influenza vaccination in elderly people: an ongoing controversy. Lancet Infect Dis 2007 Oct;7:658-66
Ruh Roh! (or should I say "OINK!"?)
I am sure that mainstream medicine and their minions consider Healthy News Service and it's sister publication What Doctors Don't Tell You "fringe websites devoted to various scare stories and misinformation", but those who seek answers beyond the control of an industry whose top managers were sent to prison at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity (and have not gotten any more benevolent or caring when it comes to profits versus humanity) would view such sites in a much different light.
Let's take a look at all the radical "fringe" scare stories posted there right now:
|Doctors Name Healthiest School Lunch Programs in United States (10/16/2007)
|Genetically Modified Corn Better for Agribusiness, May Harm Environment (10/12/2007)
|Kaiser Permanente Study Shows One in Seven Women are Depressed Before, During, or After Pregnancy (10/11/2007)
|Flu Shots: They don't protect the elderly, new data reveals (10/11/2007)
|Asthma: Around 15 per cent of cases caused by cleaning sprays (10/11/2007)
|Fluoride in Our Water: Governments push it despite lack of evidence (10/11/2007)
|Heart Attack: Stress at work can cause it, and again (10/11/2007)
|High Blood Pressure: If you want to know the truth, test it at night (10/11/2007)
|Appendix: It's not useless after all (10/11/2007)
|CDC Presents First State–by–State Data on Work Limitations Caused by Arthritis (10/11/2007)
|Biofuels Worse for the Environment Than Fossil Fuels (10/11/2007)
|Parabens In Cosmetics: Friends or Foes? (10/11/2007)
|What's Really in Your Food? (10/10/2007)
|Breast Cancer Deception: New Report from Mike Adams Reveals Profit Motive Behind the Pink Ribbons (10/10/2007)
|Data on Life Expectancy Show Many Countries Clustered in High Mortality Traps (10/10/2007)
|Is the USDA Really 'On the Job'? (10/9/2007)
|Survey Finds Steady Decline in Businesses Offering Health Benefits to Workers Since 2000 (10/9/2007)
|Great American Smokeout 2007 - Let Acupuncture Help You to Quit (10/9/2007)
|A Crusader at Pitt Tells How Cancer Prevention Was Stymied (10/6/2007)
|Executive Order Paves the Road to 'Interoperable' Medical-Records Tracking of 100 Million Americans (10/5/2007)
|National Health-Policy Q&A (10/5/2007)
|Tobacco Taxes to Fuel Expansion of Children’s Federal Health Program (10/5/2007)
|Compulsory Universal Health Insurance: Neither a New Idea nor a Good On (10/5/2007)
|NCCAM Expands Centers of Excellence in CAM Research Program (10/5/2007)
|Vaccine Damage: Parents receive $2B compensation pay-outs (10/5/2007)
|Nut Allergy: It's because they never eat nuts (10/5/2007)
|Prostate Cancer: Therapy may spread the disease (10/5/2007)
|Annual Check-up: It's a waste of time and money, say doctors (10/5/2007)
|Heart Attack: It makes your doctor proud (10/5/2007)
|Drug Trials: Nobody checks, nobody knows (10/5/2007)
|Migraine: Not Just a 'Woman's Disease' (10/4/2007)
|National Massage Therapy Awareness Week (10/4/2007)
|Farmers Struggling to Cope with Rising Healthcare Costs (10/4/2007)
|Deficiency of Immune System Peacekeeper Pinpointed in Mice as Cause of Ulcerative Colitis (10/4/2007)
|Smoking Rates Highest Among People with Disabilities (10/4/2007)
|U.S. Food Safety: Recipe for Disaster (10/4/2007)
|Bush Veto of Child Healthcare Bill Leaves Mercury in Vaccines (10/4/2007)
|Significant Advances in Dietary Supplement Research Highlighted in 2006 Annual Bibliography (10/1/2007)
|Burns: The trace elements that can aid healing (9/30/2007)
|Teenage Suicides: Are antidepressants the unrecognized cause? (9/30/2007)
|Anaemia: Hormone drug is dangerous (9/30/2007)
|Avandia: Major danger is in the first year, says new study (9/30/2007)
|Cough Remedies: Don't give them to the under-2s (9/30/2007)
|Breast Cancer: Just because your mother had it, it doesn't mean you will (9/30/2007)
|Mental Health: Just 18 per cent of Americans are ever treated (9/30/2007)
|Diabetes: Try green tea instead (9/29/2007)
|Heart Attack: Traffic pollution increases the risk (9/29/2007)
|Bottled Water: Now they can put fluoride in it (9/29/2007)
|Breast Cancer: Western diet could be to blame (9/29/2007)
|White House Declares Science Priorities for FY 2009 — Engineering Over Environment, Applied Over Basic, Corporate Over Public (9/27/2007)|
Those aren't scare stories, buddy - those are just informational articles, albeit a lot of which some whose hindquarters bear your lip prints would love to see buried. The folks over here want to see exactly that kind of information - and I bet you that a large number of them will be looking at one or more of those stories when they see this post. Thanks for yet another opportunity for me to pass such information along.
Now, why don't you follow up with a post on the NEJM study also published this month that ballyhoos how effective Flu Shot are? I have an answer ready when you do.
Better still, how about re-thinking your strategy. You are playing to a tough crowd here when you try to peddle mainstream bullcrap. They by and large came here in the first place because they rejected being fed lies, false promises and dangerous drugs. Maybe you should consider a more friendly audience and pursuit. Like selling white hooded robes in the hood or maybe Doc Martin boots outside the Synagogue?
P.S. I did recently post some "old news" of a much more pleasant kind. Think of it as medicine for the soul:
Why would anyone revoke your posting privileges? Misquoting a study? We all make mistakes - I know I surely do. Maybe carrying on a debate in the news forum? Many of these threads that become overly long should probably be moved to a debate forum and a note left explaining that it was moved.
Personally I can see no reason for revoking your posting privileges and would never do so if it were up to me. I may disagree with you, but as far as I can see you are always civil and mostly respectful in your posts. I kind of have fun debating you actually - and probably should have taken less license with poking fun at you than I have. But I certainly do not dislike you, even when some of what you post irks me a bit!
In my opinion, educating and not medicating implies learning how to avoid medicating to the greatest and safest extent possible, and that includes flu shots if there are better alternatives - which I believe that there are.
I am a great lover of science and always have been. I just hate to see science misused for profit instead of being allowed to make truly objective studies and a system designed to prevent objective studies into natural alternatives and anything else that represents a threat to the trillion dollar industry that is big pharm and mainstream medicine.
In an ideal world, science and medicine would work hand in hand with nature for the benefit of all mankind, but it is not an ideal world. And nature is not the one to blame.
I hope that whoever told you that your privileges were being revoked re-considers (unless there is some infraction I am unaware of).
“by definition, your posting of the mainstream doctine makes YOU the one who spreads misinformation.”
By whose definition? Paranoid anti-science nuts?
“ designed purely for profit so they can continue their monopoly on our bodies,”
Another lie. There is far more profit in having people hospitalized and caring for them for weeks.
“I am sure that mainstream medicine and their minions”
Haven’t you called Lancet on many occasions part of the big pharma/gov’t conspiracy? Now that there is a flawed study whose conclusion you like, now it is a reliable paper? A bit of selective bias on your part.
“but those who seek answers beyond the control of an industry whose top managers were sent to prison at
You are laying on the rhetoric really thick. It must be a record for Goodwin’s Law.
Are you calling me a liar?
Each and every one of your points is easily debateable, and has in fact already been amply covered here in this forum. As I said, you need to take off the blinders and go make an objective research into the history of mainstream medicine and world pharma.
Apparently you also need to go back and review the many posts on the subject of vaccinations here on this forum - including the ones with reams of quotes from those in the medical profession about the truth about vaccinations.
If mainstream medicine and science were so concerned with our health and our lives then they would remove the barriers to natural alternatives and recognize that mankind has spent well over 6000 years learning how to use nature to prevent and treat illness and it is highly presumptious for them to try to assume superiority over nature with only a relative handfuls of decades of concocting creations in their labs.
Beyond that it is pointless to rehash the same debate over and over again and I have no desire to lower myself to the level of someone who resorts to calling his opponent a liar just because he disagrees with what was said.
When it comes to lying, mainstream medicine has no equal, and they admit it:
"I am part of a profession that is systematically lying to people." - Dr Mark Donohoe
"The greatest lie ever told is that vaccines are safe and effective" - Dr. Len Horowitz
"We have no real proof of the boasted effectiveness of any form of anti-toxin or vaccine or serum... If such a vaccinated or immunised person contracts the disease which he is supposed to be protected, it is pretty good evidence that such "protection" is valueless, isn't it? Surely people do contract disease against which they are supposed to be immunised, as we all know.... Well, are you satisfied that WE ARE QUACKS? In the eyes of those who are willing to forgot the present prestige of medicine, such as it is, with all its dignity, its scientific jargon, its pratings of altruism, its great endowment, its well heralded "achievements," we are most assuredly quacks, professing to do things we cannot do, and yes, taking money under this pretence." Dr. Paul M. Koonin, D.D.Sc.
"We doctors have been talking this medicine stuff into the people till they believe it." Dr. Schweningen (Physician to the late Prince Bismark)
Are you calling me a liar?
No. I said the statement was a lie, you may be ignorantly repeating it.
Each and every one of your points is easily debateable, and has in fact already been amply covered here in this forum.
You may be able to debate any point, though you can’t do it convincingly. What I have seen is much rhetoric, accusations, conspiracy notions – a lot of emotion, very little facts.
As I said, you need to take off the blinders and go make an objective research into the history of mainstream medicine and world pharma.
This is Ironic advice from someone who has the biggest blinders anywhere. You pick and choose which studies you believe based on your personal preference. I acknowledge the one study you support but when weighed to all the other studies that indicate otherwise, it makes for a very weak argument against vaccinations.
recognize that mankind has spent well over 6000 years learning how to use nature to prevent and treat illness
For most of these 6000 years disease was blamef on spirits, demons, magic or gods. It does not really inspire confidence in their ability to deal with illness. Especially when you consider that we know enjoy 2X the lifespan of the people you so admire.
I have no desire to lower myself to the level of someone who resorts to calling his opponent a liar just because he disagrees with what was said.
I won’t sink to your base level and argue your misrepresentation of my position. I called the statement a lie. I don’t think you are a liar, just unaware of the facts.