Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comAlthough previous studies have demonstrated what scientists call "herd immunity," none have been so incontrovertible as a study of farming colonies in Canada.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Late starters can live longer if they get movingMom with flesh-eating disease had seven operationsU.S. HIV aid has prevented 741,000 deaths: studyLung cancer scans suggested for older heavy smokersNew York judge with cancer makes case for marijuanaKicking up the spice may help your heartPot groups hope Ore. race sends feds a messageParents buying off kids for good behaviorGeorgia woman with flesh-eating disease in "critical" conditionObesity fight must shift from personal blame: panel
Leave a Comment:
Vaccines are quite profitable as well. Imagine if they were made mandatory?
Not really. Manufacturing of the flu vaccine has to be subsidized by the government.
Wakehead, being subsidized by the government does indeed make it profitable to drug companies. Guaranteed money.
There are also pre determined out comes they make the data support their studies.
It is real easy to do a study when they control the audience.
If the vaccine prevented anything why is it that the five percent reportedly that were vaccinated got sick? It also does not tell you if the ones not vaccinated contracted the flu from those that got vaccinated.
All this study proves is if you have the money and backing from the feds you can say whatever you want. Why is it the feds do not give money to Doctors or groups wanting to prove vaccine are dangerous?
Look at the data from climate gate. The record of the truth is more believable then the pseudoscience authoritarians.
This story changes nothing.
Actually no its not, a single lawsuit would actually bankrupt the companies that manufacture them.
MKKC, doesn't mean they make very much money at all.
Beyond education, the main function of schools appears to be passing around flu, colds, and other diseases. Children in school are sick all the time. You can't vaccinate for everything. Good reason to homeschool.
I love children. But they are vectors for disease. People forget the high percentage of people that died in child hood as recently as 50 years ago.
Interesting take on children. Vectors for disease?
The problem isn't forgetting. The problem is remembering the context.
"Herd" so now we are nothing more than herds to be vaccinated like any other animals, I never get sick not even a cold, the last vaccine i had was over 30 years ago, explain that one Dr. Loeb.
Did you read the article? Reading>You
Because children (the main vectors of disease) are vaccinated, it keeps stupid adults like you healthy.
Ooo look, the vaccines worked!
Fakehead, BTW I do not get my children vaccinated either so explain that one you TROLL, maybe those who get sick are those who do nothing more than sit and watch tube and never go outside and do healthy things. You call me stupid you putz how many shots do you take that do nothing for you other than make vaccine manufacturers rich? How many do you know that get sick even though they get the shot? But then again stupid people like you never think for yourselves, what a sheep you are.
The majority of the other part of the community you live in gets vaccinated?
Herds, as in Lemmings? We have solid research showing that the nasal flu "spreads" the flu for a month. Also, the "WHO Confirms D225G Vaccine Failure" at http://www.recombinomics.com/News/11280901/WHO_D 225G_Vac.html , but they won't announce it here.
Robert F, Kennedy Jr. talks about the secret SimpsonWood Memo, which was about discussion by the CDC and 74 reps of the vaccine industry meeting in secret about the very solid Verstraeten Study which proved undeniably that autism/ADD/speech delays etc were *definitely caused* by the mercury in vaccines. The memo was leaked. At the end of the secret meeting they then discussed “how do we hide this”! http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16014 More background on Simpsonwood is here: http://www.autismhelpforyou.com/Simpsonwood_And_Puerto%20%20Rico.htm
Once MD/PHD Dr. Roby Mitchell read the actual package insert which comes with the vaccine and realized vaccine makers themselves admit it is untested and may cause a myriad of disorders to include paralysis, neurological damage, possible sterilization and may cause fetal harm in pregnant women he then recommended against getting it. http://labvirus.wordpress.com/
A peer reviewed Canadian study proved that prior seasonal vaccine shots doubled the chances of getting the swine flu. Most provinces even halted their seasonal program because of the study. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/study-prompts-provinces-to-rethink-flu-plan/article1303330/
Neil Z. Miller says in his book Vaccine Safety Manuel -- once the flu vaccine was given to small children in mass the death rate from flu increased 7-fold.10 Not surprising, since the mercury in the vaccine suppresses immunity.
Pediatric Flu Deaths by Year Made WORSE by Flu Vaccine:
* 1999 -- - 29 deaths
* 2000 -- - 19 deaths
* 2001 -- - 13 deaths
* 2002 -- - 12 deaths
* 2003 -- - 90 deaths (Year of mass vaccinations of children under age 5 years)
* 2006 -- 78 deaths
* 2007 -- - 88 deaths
* 2008 – 116 deaths (40.9% vaccinated at age 6 months to 23 months)11
Dr. Chris Shaw, a PhD neuroscientist of the University of British Columbia has solid research showing that male mice (reflecting gulf war syndrome populations) injected with proportionately same amounts of aluminum as the flu vaccine developed loss of motor function (ALS like) and many motor neurons in the brain were dead.In the squalene injected group they had memory failure and cognitive deficits. Large levels of neural degeneration. He noted on the vaccine label; No clinical testing for most targeted groups. No testing of vaccine interactions. Presence of tow proteins. Industry animal studies had terrible design and methods-samples were tiny, no control groups, no internal (surgery) analysis at end of experimentation...He was amazed at how sloppy the industry vaccine research has been. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJD69mH7gpU&feature=PlayList&p=6FFB11BDCEB3680E&index=0&playnext=1 also here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QBDbUBujes&NR=1
Thanks for providing the pediatric flu statistics.
So now one can see that there are relatively low flu deaths in peds. And this doesn't reflect the health status of the individuals(immune compromise, organ health, etc.,)Over 90% of deaths are in 65yo+. The majority of those are 80+.
So what this means is this group wants kids to take on the risk (and there are risks to the flu shot)without much benefit. According to this study the group that would benefit would be older adults. They are proposing that kids take the shot for the adults.
This is a MAJOR ETHICAL issue.
Its the preservative THIMERSOL in vaccinations that has ETHLY MERCURY, in it, where as we have METHLY MERCURY IN OUR SEAFOOD,ect. Go to the FDC and the CDC websites to see interesting info on Thimersol in vaccinations, which is mostly not in vaccinations now, BUT still present in the FLU SHOT. People really need to research BOTH types of Mercury, be informed, It is claimed that the mercury in Thimersol, the preservative, is not harmfull, Intersesting, Also look at what even small amounts of MERCURY IN SEAFOOD DOES TO A PREGNANT WOMANS' FETUS, sounds very much like the affects of AUTISM on a child.... Look at this info about vaccines at the following government sites: the CDC, the EPA, and FDA, they ALL have info on BOTH KINDS OF MERCURY....
Sounds like they're still trying to get rid of all those extra flu vaccines that We the Taxpayers bought. You'd think the Sheeple would stop buying into these flu scams every year.
H1N1 flu shots just how much money has been made the past year by the doctors, pharmacies and drug companies in order to protect us? Every season we get inundated with media hype over this and at the end of every season we wonder what all the fuss was about. How many people in their study ACTUALLY DIED from the flu previous years in the same communities.
I can summarize why I wouldn't want to give kids or pregnant women vaccines in two words: Bill Gates. Let's hear a few words from this wonderful "humanitarian" who has devoted 100's of millions of dollars to his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation:
Hmm... so how exactly do you reduce global population with new vaccines Bill? What's in those new vaccines that would reduce global population? The only answer I can come to is that there must be something in those new vaccines that causes sterility. Isn't Bill Gates wonderful? He's just doing it all for the women and children in Africa, and the third world. What great a guy huh?
I have a question regarding immunizations? If I am immunized does that mean that that flu virus just bounces off of me, or do I actually get infected with the virus but am able to fight it because of being immunized? Also, am I still able to transmit the virus to someone else when I have been immunized?
The actual mechanism is something closer to the second. Being "exposed to the flu" means that the flu virus has infiltrated your airways. If you have had the vaccine, your immune system will recognize the virus and fight it off.
Diseases have a latency period during which the virus or bacteria replicates up to the certain threshold that causes disease (this is why there is a delay between when you are exposed and when you get sick). If your immune system can fight off the infection before this threshold is reached, you will not get sick. Similarly, you are unlikely to spread the infection unless the virus or bacteria has reached a high enough concentration in the relevant secretion (saliva, mucous, excrement, etc). If you have been vaccinated and your immune system has successfully stopped the infection, you are unlikely to be contagious.
So I still have problems accepting some of the data that was presented. In a culturally isolated area like these people there is bound to be less health issues. Does anyone remember how the "white man" decimated the native americans when they started settling the "new world"? They had not been exposed to certain diseases. If they aren't exposed to illness, they are less susceptible. The same thing happened with the eskimos.
If they had been exposed to a disease, supposedly people build a natural immunity to it. So one could counter with the position that the elders had already been exposed and thus had a natural immunity and treated those more likely to get it - the kids.
Is that a valid test since they kept the test subjects isolated? The communities didn't intermingle like most societies and therefore one group may not have been exposed to the same contaminants as the other. So by their studies, the placebo is about 5 % effective in curing the flu.
In this particular study, it is the isolation of the study group that appears to have had more of an affect.
"Although previous studies have demonstrated what scientists call "herd immunity," none have been so incontrovertible, because they were done in less isolated places with more sources of flu passing through."
"...from a medical point of view, they live in communities of up to 160 people, own everything jointly, attend their own schools, eat in one dining hall and have little contact with the outside world."
It is a bogus study. Do they have less flu because of the flu vacine, or because they are isolated from the world? It appears the herd has no meaningful affect unless it is isolated in the wilderness. That is common sense. Why did they need a study to figure out that quarantining people helps prevent disease from spreading?
That's why there were control groups that got the hepA vaccine instead. This allows the scientists to measure the baseline level of flu in such isolated groups and compare it to the group that got the flu vaccine.
But the control group was exposed to a different environment and therefore skewed the data. If you run the test, the control group needs to be exposed to the same environment and conditions as the test group. Half of each community should have been given the placebo and half the vaccine. That would have been more believable data.
Why don't you try reading the study (jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/303/10/943?home)? The study was done using 49 communities that were randomly assigned to be either flu vaccinated (25 communities) or placebo vaccinated (24 communities). Because the treatments were randomly assigned to the communities, any variation in the environment would be averaged out over the multiple communities.
Random assignment does not necessarily remove the factor of the total environment being non-homogeneous. If they had randomly assigned the two groups within each community that would make the data more relevant. As it was, the placebo group only contacted the flu at a 10% rate while the vaccine group contacted at 5%. That is like saying a person in the placebo group is twice as likely to get the flu but only 1 in 10 chance of getting it at all. The vaccine group fared twice as well but only 1 in 20 chance.
Your analogy of averaging is like saying that if one studied the HIV rate in Africa and the HIV rate in America and saying that the two average out over the communities. That is true but there are influences that are different between the two related communities.
The entire point of the study was to test herd immunity (ie the immunity granted to those in the community that were not vaccinated through the vaccination of a specific subset, in this case only children were vaccinated and the amount of flu in the whole community was measured), so having the flu and placebo vaccinations in the same community would have completely defeated the purpose.
See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial): "Randomized control trials involve the random allocation of different interventions (treatments or conditions) to subjects. As long as the numbers of subjects are sufficient, randomization is an effective method for balancing confounding factors between treatment groups."
Rather than your analogy, the correct one would be selecting 49 semi-isolated small towns in rural America and randomly assigning them to treatment or placebo groups.
As for the results: The study found that you could halve the number of flu cases in a community just by vaccinating children (which amounted to about a third of each community). This is significant because models of infectious disease that assume random mixing of community members usually estimate the amount of vaccination needed for significant herd immunity to be at least 75%. This study is showing that you don't necessarily need to vaccinate that many people if you specifically target the members of a community that are most likely to spread infection.
HMMM. exposing one group to risk without much benefit (low mortality in children) to theoretically protect an at risk group?
This is an ethical quandry. Parent's should be told when they are vaccinating their child that it really isn't for them. It's for a theoretical 85 year old in the nursing home.
Or it's for their actual 85 year old grandparents or great-aunts and uncles who are in nursing homes. Or for the older members of their church. Or for their new baby cousin or sibling. Or it's simply because having a house full of sick kids for a week is more of a pain and risk (say for lost income if the parents work hourly or do not get many sick days) than getting them vaccinated. These are, of course, things that parents should weigh when they decide whether to vaccinate themselves or their kids for flu.
The protection to any actual person is theoretical. One cannot prove they were protected by the flu vaccine itself. Way too many confounders. Faith is required to bridge that gap. And that's fine but many in the medical think tank find it difficult to admit they make decisions based on faith.
The flu vaccine effectiveness to any one individual or household is factually unknown no matter how many studies of groups have been done.
The original argument is "does medicating one group(who don't need intervention) protect another group (who intervention hasn't worked).
You've now entered an argument for not death but days of work lost. This is an entirely seperate issue of values because one now has to reassess the benefit vs. risk. And again the true benefit is unknown to those making the decision.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2668629
Flu shots futile: study
"What we were looking for is proof that influenza ... is decreased. Didn't find it. We looked for proof that pneumonia is reduced. Didn't find it. We looked for proof deaths from pneumonia are reduced. Didn't find it."
The study tested whether vaccinating nursing-home staff decreased flu incidence in the residents. The rather obvious explanation (which I'm surprised the article didn't point out) is the current protocols for hand washing, sanitation, and staying home when sick that are practiced by the staff are working, since the staff are apparently not transmitting the flu to the residents when they have it (thus preventing flu in the staff has no effect).
So where is the flu in the elderly residents coming from? Most likely the residents are catching the flu from their visitors. Which dovetails nicely with the study here that says that vaccinating kids will decrease flu in adults.
Is it at all possible that vaccinating school children first with the H1N1 vaccine is what prevented it from spreading and killing more of the population. We will never know for sure but it seemed to be spreading and growing until they completed the school vaccinations and then it slowed down.
They didn't "complete" school vaccines.
Many parents did not want this vaccine. Polls showed that half of americans did not want this vaccine. Many states are trying to get rid of the ones they have because of expiration dates. Georgia supposedly has 2.5 million not used.
But you're right. We'll never know because of the guestimations that the Health authorities were giving us.
By last June, more than 10 percent of all the adults and children in colonies that received the placebo had had laboratory-confirmed seasonal flu. Less than 5 percent of those in the colonies that received flu shots had.
Another way to look at the same percentages (they didn't give actual data) is 90% of the placebo group didn't get flu. 95% of the vaccine group didn't get the flu.
A 5% difference. You can't build a policy around 5%, so they have to flip the numbers around to get a larger percentage to sell to peer-review, to sell to the public.
How about find out why 90% of the non flu vaccinated didn't get the flu.
Since the control groups are SUPPOSED to be similar one would have to assume that 90% of the the vaccinated reason for not getting the flu cannot be attributed to the vaccine. The most the vaccine can be attributed for is 5%.
Like I responded to earlier, why is it that the feds do not allow funding for Doctors or groups to do studies on the actual dangers and threats from vaccines? The reason is they do not support or fund the truth.
Their record proves they change the data to support their agenda.
Canada fortunately is not next door to Mexico where filth prevails and breeding so the circumstances are quite different from the USA being their neighbor. Illegals enter the USA with all types of diseases: known and yet to be discovered which are passed on to us through their illegal hiring as food workers/preparers; maids who touch the pillow which your head is placed at resorts. They even are hired to care for the wealthy whom have children and do not pay for the illegals medical care--we do the diminishing working US Citizens of Generations as taxpayers; they pick our fruit and vegetables: remember "Spinach recalls!" It isn't bad enough Communist China is poisoning everything they send us--we have diseased walk right in; alongwith AIDs globally which Obama after 30 years has said "come on in!" We will pay for your AIDS/HIV. Canada also benefits from the USA: they can work here, earn social security; even education; etc: the reverse does not exist for Americans there. You get ill-you pay! Anyone coming here gets ill heads to the USA ER's: we all pay...and will never earn what we owe...