Re: Medicine's true dark ages - Facts and greed versus (science) fiction

I took the time to read your whole rant waiting for you to present some facts.  Instead all I got was more wild proclamations about Nuremberg (Goodwin Award Winner), conspiracies, illogical arguments and emotional appeals.  You worship at the false gods of paranoia and ignorance.  There are no gods in science, and a single field of science has learned more about nature in the past 100 years than the sum of all knowledge in the previous 5900 years.  The reason your ancient beliefs do not change (in this they are much like a religion) is that there is no research done on them and any research; like the NEJM study; that contradicts is quickly ignored. 

It is funny that you bring Medicine of the Dark ages, a time when hanging worms around your neck cured colds, ingesting mercury was a common treatments, so was bleeding, trepanning,  astrology was often blamed, magic spells, and the four humors were all the rage.  Islamic, Chinese medicine of the time wasn't much better.  Maybe you should bother reading up on these things before you start worshiping them.

It is difficult to follow your arguments because you go from subject to subject like a Kangaroo hopped up on speed.  Try to stick to a single subject and avoid your emotional pleas, though if you did that your post would have been only a few sentences long. I guess you need the  filler.  You are so busy trying to evoke emotion with statements like  "The chemical cocktail that makes up the flu vaccines began life as collected mucous from sick people in three cities" , It is no wonder people can't think rationally.  It is well known that emotions prevent people from using reason and this is seen in the posts of people supporting your cause.  They all rely on the old bogey-man to support their claims.

As to your poor understanding of math.  You do a nice job of massaging the math to make the differences seem trivial, when in fact they are quite marked and distinct.  I suggest you find your old stats book and redo the problem.

I consider the advantage of reducing my Grandparents chance of being hospitalized by the flu by 27% to be worth it

I consider reducing their chance of dying from the flu by 48% worth it.

Maybe I just value the elderly more than you do.