Flu vaccine 60% effectiveness" claim... 
befurther
13 y
1,205
The "control group" of adults consisted of 13,095 non-vaccinated adults who were monitored to see if they caught influenza. Over 97% of them did not. Only 357 of them caught influenza, which means only 2.7% of these adults caught the flu in the first place.
The "treatment group" consisted of adults who were vaccinated with a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. Out of this group, according to the study, only 1.2% did not catch the flu.
The difference between these two groups is 1.5 people out of 100.http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2811%2970295-X...
"massaging the numbers"
First, you take the 2.73% in the control group who got the flu, and you divide that into the 1.18% in the treatment group who got the flu. This gives you 0.43.
You can then say that 0.43 is "43% of 2.73," and claim that the vaccine therefore results in a "57% decrease" in influenza infections. This then becomes a "57% effectiveness rate" claim.
The overall "60% effectiveness" being claimed from this study comes from adding additional data about vaccine efficacy for children, which returned higher numbers than adults (see below). There were other problems with the data for children, however, including one study that showed an increase in influenza rates in the second year after the flu shot.
So when the media (or your doctor, or pharmacist, or CDC official) says these vaccines are "60% effective," what they really mean is that you would have to inject 100 adults to avoid the flu in just 1.5 of them.
Or, put another way, flu vaccines do nothing in 98.5% of adults.Guess who funded this study?
This study was funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the very same non-profit that gives grant money to Wikipedia (which has an obvious pro-vaccine slant), and is staffed by pharma loyalists.
For example, the Vice President for Human Resources and Program Management at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation is none other than Gail Pesyna, a former DuPont executive (DuPont is second in the world in GMO biotech activities, just behind Monsanto) with special expertise in pharmaceuticals and medical diagnostics. (http://www.sloan.org/bio/item/10)
The Alred P. Sloan Foundation also gave a $650,000 grant to fund the creation of a film called "Shots in the Dark: The Wayward Search for an AIDS Vaccine," (http://www.sloan.org/assets/files/a...) which features a pro-vaccine slant that focuses on the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, an AIDS-centric front group for Big Pharma which was founded by none other than the Rockefeller Foundation (http://www.vppartners.org/sites/def...).Problem) The Lancet is, itself, a pro-vaccine propaganda mouthpiece funded by the vaccine industry!
Need we point out the obvious? Trusting The Lancet to report on the effectiveness of vaccines is sort of like asking the Pentagon to report on the effectiveness of cruise missiles. Does anyone really think we're going to get a truthful report from a medical journal that depends on vaccine company revenues for its very existence?
More
- Flu Vaccines – The Mainstream Admits... befurther
13 y
1,119
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...
Original Hulda Clark
Hulda Clark Cleanses
This is a reply to # 1,874,327“We’re still mulling over exactly what we’ll say in our reporting – we definitely say “tens of thousands die from flu, on average, each year.” But whether we get more specific than that is still under discussion. Your ideas are welcome.”
http://liamscheff.com/2011/10/flu-vaccines-the-mainstream-admits-we-want-an-e...
- PUBMED: "Efficacy and effectiveness ... zoho
13 y
1,425
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...
Dr. Clark Shop
Hulda Clark Cleanses
Bio Cleanse Detox Kit
”I was surprised by the effectiveness of it, and I wasn’t hungry...
This is a reply to # 1,874,327Advertisement
Bio Cleanse Detox Kit
”This program is probably one of the best on the market, especially for the price.”
I just did a PUBMED search with the phrase "Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines" and...
561 references!
Why stop with just this one study? Plus - It's a "meta-analysis" which is the absolute weakest kind of study. The meta-analysis attempts to gather together and glean some sort of meaningful analysis from any kind of study. These studies may be “Apples to Oranges” comparisons, have variable quality or have a veritable quagmire of differing methodologies. Even a “good” meta-analysis of poorly designed and interpreted studies will still result in bad statistics. Quite unlike high quality individual studies, the meta-analysis can never follow the rules of hard science
Weaknesses include:
- Shared subjectivity instead of objectivity
- They can never be double-blind or controlled,
- Sources of bias are not controlled by the method
- Dangers of applying an “Agenda Driven Bias”
From an integrity perspective, researchers with a bias should strive to avoid meta-analysis and use a more independent form of research to retain credibility.
More
- No long term double blind flu vaccin... befurther
13 y
1,164
This is a reply to # 1,880,277
The subject. What are the long term effects?....Unknown.
"I just did a PUBMED search with the phrase "Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines" and...
561 references!"The terminology is restricted in the journals and on PUBMED, so that is no surprise
The majority of those studies don't have anything to do with actual effectiveness, Instead they are studies on "cost-effectiveness" or they deal with particular types of influenza vaccines on particular populations.
For example:
Safety and Efficacy of Neonatal Vaccination
Newborns have an immature immune system that renders them at high risk for infection while simultaneously reducing responses to most vaccines, thereby posing challenges in protecting this vulnerable population. Nevertheless, certain vaccines, such as Bacillus Calmette Guérin (BCG) and Hepatitis B vaccine (HBV), do demonstrate safety and some efficacy at birth, providing proof of principal that certain antigen-adjuvant combinations are able to elicit protective neonatal responses. Moreover, birth is a major point of healthcare contact globally meaning that effective neonatal vaccines achieve high population penetration. Given the potentially significant benefit of vaccinating at birth, availability of a broader range of more effective neonatal vaccines is an unmet medical need and a public health priority. This review focuses on safety and efficacy of neonatal vaccination in humans as well as recent research employing novel approaches to enhance the efficacy of neonatal vaccination.
Safety concernsConcerns that have been raised regarding vaccination of neonates and infants include: i) doubts about efficacy given the limited capacity of neonates to respond to many Ag; and ii) potential effects on immune system polarization, including potential for triggering autoimmunity via epitope mimickry or Aj effect [13, 14]. From a theoretical perspective, these concerns are in part mitigated by: i) the documented ability of newborns to respond to several vaccines including Bacillus Calmette Guérin (BCG) and hepatitis B vaccine (as outlined below), which serves as proof of concept that neonatal vaccination can be safe and effective and; ii) the presence of extensive immunologic mechanisms for central and peripheral tolerance that eliminates self-reactive T and B cells in newborns, coupled with; iii) evidence that multiple pediatric vaccines, including BCG, are not linked to allergy or autoimmunity [15]. Nevertheless, despite these conceptual reassurances, novel vaccines, as any new drugs, do have the potential of inducing side-effects and must certainly undergo rigorous and on-going safety analysis, including that provided in the U.S. by the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a program of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Indeed, safety concerns have prompted discontinuation and/or changes in some pediatric vaccines, with two examples discussed below. - Re: PUBMED: "Efficacy and effectiven... Michael B
13 y
1,174
This is a reply to # 1,880,277Advertisement
Bio Cleanse Detox Kit
”This program is probably one of the best on the market, especially for the price.”
A truly objective study will show that influenza "vaccines" cause the flu in people who wouldn't catch it if they didn't take the vaccine to begin with.
I spoke with several people who took flu vaccines every year but still got the flu despite taking it. When they finally realised "hey wait a minute: I am getting the vaccine and STILL getting sick so I might as well not take the vaccine." Voila. They stopped getting the flu.
Of course you are going to respond with "but what about all the people who took the vaccine and DIDN'T get the flu?" Haha. What about them? Have you looked at how often people get "sick"? They never LOSE the flu to begin with. The "flu" is just the body's way of fighting a viral infection, which there are innumerable varieties of and impossible to control with just 1 "flu shot" (even IF vaccines did actually work).
In fact these people are living in a perpetual state of viral infection with their immune systems occasionally putting up a fight- which they lose thanks to mercury poisoning, chemical laden nutrient depletely waste called "food" and every other intentionally created immuno-suppressant. What happens? they take "medicine" designed to suppress the immune system and combat the "symptoms" (which is actually the body fighting the infection), they lose the battle, the virus goes into its dormant stage after having its way.
Pubmed is brainwashing propaganda.
- No long term double blind flu vaccin... befurther
13 y
1,164
- Flu Vaccines – The Mainstream Admits... befurther
13 y
1,119
