OT: government study on flu shot effectiveness

Hi,

Interesting study showing the link between increased vaccination for seasonal flu and higher flu deaths:

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

from the jamanetwork study:

"we conclude that observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit."

The study author affiliations:

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) (Dr Simonsen) and Fogarty International Center (Drs Viboud and Miller), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md; and Entropy Research Institute, Boston, Mass (Dr Reichert).

So obviously this study was mostly covered up, but it is the governments own scientists who stumbled across this!

This matches other studies showing better immunity and health in unvaccinated people, vaccines are sold as a free lunch to protect against disease, but really the evidence shows that they are detrimental. If you want to have the best immunity a healthy diet and preparing for beating illness naturally is the best bet!

More info on naturally fighting diseases with diet and supplements ie vitamin C:

formatting link

cheers, Jamie

Reply to
Jamie M
Loading thread data ...

lderly-after-all/

Mainly because the elderly population was getting older at the same time, s o more of them were vulnerable to flu.

Not in the studies referred to - the elderly who were less likely to get va ccinated were frail and harder to get to the places where they could be vac cinated. They weren't being vaccinated because they were less healthy.

Because people tried progressively harder to get them vaccinated, the propo rtion not vaccinated fell, but the proportion who had been vaccinated were increasingly drawn from the pool of the less healthy.

Jamie is turning the study on it's head to make the point he wants to make, which isn't the point that the study illustrates.

the > evidence shows that they are detrimental.

Not the evidence presented here. If you are old enough, your immune system doesn't work well, and priming it by vaccination - while it provides additi onal protection - doesn't provide much extra protection because the elderly immune system can't do all that much, even when well-primed.

How does one prepare to beat illness "naturally"? Drinking raw milk exposes you to extra illnesses, and doesn't seem to do anything positive - except to label you as a nut and warn others to keep their distance.

Taking Jamie's advice on selecting "the best bet" wouldn't be wise, mainly because he's a deluded idiot with an axe to grind.

Clinical trials of Linus Pauling recommended levels of vitamin C - around t he

1 gram per day level - have never shown any significant health benefits.

Linus Pauling's argument - as recycled by Suzanne Humphries - that animals that have retained the capacity to synthesise their own vitamin C tend to s ynthesise it to get that sort of level - is persuasive, but the counter-arg ument, that an excess is a lot less damaging than a deficit, so animals ten d to over-produce - doesn't get much airtime, least of all from the air-hea ds that Jamie follows.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 7:23:26 PM UTC-7, Jamie M wrote: ...

That's SO silly. Firstly, this is a publication, not a coverup. Secondly, 'the government' doesn't own any scientists, it merely hires them. Thirdly, a scientist who discovers something worth publishing hasn't 'stumbled', he has made deliberate progress.

One ought not apply so much spin that the message turns incoherent.

Reply to
whit3rd

Jamie is incoherent. He doesn't understand the message well enough to be able to get the bits to fit together in a way that makes coherent sense of them.

Since he's not interested in finding any message other than the health nut message he wants to spread, this doesn't worry him - or wouldn't if he had enough sense to realise what he was doing.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

That's a gross statistical study, pretty much meaningless. The proper study would compare the mortality rate of vacinnated vs un-vacinnated individuals. The appropriate quote is

" A meta-analysis of 20 such case-control and cohort studies concluded that vaccination reduces the total number of winter deaths from any cause among people 65 years or older living in community settings by an astonishing 50%."

Reply to
John Larkin

elderly-after-all/

Can't you even read the research literature, knucklehead? That quote is the debunked study. Their conclusion was:

-Because fewer than 10% of all winter deaths were attributable to influenza in any season, we conclude that observational studies substantially overes timate vaccination benefit.-

Winter mortality stays essentially flat despite the substantial increase in vaccination rate. Dumbass Jamie somehow construed this to mean increased v accination rate results in higher mortality, it doesn't, increased vaccinat ion rate does not affect mortality with any statistical significance.

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

-elderly-after-all/

so more of them were vulnerable to flu.

vaccinated were frail and harder to get to the places where they could be v accinated. They weren't being vaccinated because they were less healthy.

portion not vaccinated fell, but the proportion who had been vaccinated wer e increasingly drawn from the pool of the less healthy.

e, which isn't the point that the study illustrates.

y the > evidence shows that they are detrimental.

m doesn't work well, and priming it by vaccination - while it provides addi tional protection - doesn't provide much extra protection because the elder ly immune system can't do all that much, even when well-primed.

es you to extra illnesses, and doesn't seem to do anything positive - excep t to label you as a nut and warn others to keep their distance.

y because he's a deluded idiot with an axe to grind.

the

s that have retained the capacity to synthesise their own vitamin C tend to synthesise it to get that sort of level - is persuasive, but the counter-a rgument, that an excess is a lot less damaging than a deficit, so animals t end to over-produce - doesn't get much airtime, least of all from the air-h eads that Jamie follows.

I think it's only been recently that the medical profession is using high d osed influenza vaccines on the elderly. Unless the vaccination is followed up by a blood test a few weeks later, there is no way of knowing the vaccin e induced an antibody response. Sometime along the way they found the norma l dose was not working for a substantial number of seniors and they moved t o doing high dose.

formatting link

"People 65 years and older have two flu shots available to choose from - a regular dose flu vaccine and a newer flu vaccine designed specifically for people 65 and older with a higher dose. (The nasal spray vaccine is not app roved for use in people older than 49 years.) The "high dose vaccine" conta ins 4 times the amount of antigen as the regular flu shot and is associated with a stronger immune response following vaccination (higher antibody pro duction). Preliminary studies suggest this may translate into greater prote ction against flu disease. For example, one recent study published in The N ew England Journal of Medicine indicated that the high-dose vaccine was 24.

2% more effective in preventing flu in adults 65 years and older relative t o a standard-dose flu vaccine. (The confidence interval for this result was 9.7% to 36.5%). At this time, CDC and its Advisory Committee on Immunizati on Practices have not expressed a preference for either vaccine for people 65 and older, however, there are ongoing studies looking into this issue an d new findings will be considered in ACIP's future policy deliberations."

So there were a few decades there when older people were under-protected. J amie's references are dated.

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

OK, you and Jamie can avoid vaccines if you like.

Reply to
John Larkin

in-elderly-after-all/

t

the debunked study. Their conclusion was:

nza in any season, we conclude that observational studies substantially ove restimate vaccination benefit.-

in vaccination rate. Dumbass Jamie somehow construed this to mean increase d vaccination rate results in higher mortality, it doesn't, increased vacci nation rate does not affect mortality with any statistical significance.

formatting link

Reply to
Lasse Langwadt Christensen

we conclude that observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit.-

Dumbass Jamie somehow construed this to mean increased vaccination rate results in higher mortality,

it doesn't, increased vaccination rate does not affect mortality with any statistical significance.

Darn, I thought it was a government conspiracy to extend the life of the money in the Social Security lock box. Mikek

Reply to
amdx

in-elderly-after-all/

t

the debunked study. Their conclusion was:

nza in any season, we conclude that observational studies substantially ove restimate vaccination benefit.-

in vaccination rate. Dumbass Jamie somehow construed this to mean increase d vaccination rate results in higher mortality, it doesn't, increased vacci nation rate does not affect mortality with any statistical significance.

Another retarded response...the conclusion is that the improvement is too s light to tease out a correlation of any significance. The Baysian condition al of influenza death is buried below the cumulative of all the other causa tions at that point in life. Stick with electronics ...

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

These sorts of bulk statistical studies are essentially worthless. Studying the outcomes of vacinnated vs unvacinnated individuals makes a little more sense. Flu is tough to study, because epidemics spike in random decades-long time frames, and the vaccines are just a guess about which strain will be the next big one. I don't get vaccinated because I don't get flu. But I do get vaccinated for pneumonia, tetanus, shingles, nasty stuff like that.

I have a book around here, "Flu", about the great 1918ish epidemic. That could happen again. Scary.

formatting link

This *is* an electronics newsgroup. You are welcome to discuss that.

Reply to
John Larkin

Exactly. Smallpox and Polio used to be great scourges on humanity. Smallpox is extinct and polio almost gone. Childhood diseases and associated mortality are way, way down. Vaccines did that.

There seems to be an ebola vaccine that works even after exposure.

Reply to
John Larkin

:

ve-in-elderly-after-all/

,

diet

er

ed

ded

y

is the debunked study. Their conclusion was:

luenza in any season, we conclude that observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit.-

ase in vaccination rate. Dumbass Jamie somehow construed this to mean incre ased vaccination rate results in higher mortality, it doesn't, increased va ccination rate does not affect mortality with any statistical significance.

o slight to tease out a correlation of any significance. The Baysian condit ional of influenza death is buried below the cumulative of all the other ca usations at that point in life.

They did that, retard, by comparing mortality from years when the vaccinati on rate was less than 15% to years when the vaccination rate was 75% or som ething. Can't you read?

The epidemic spread was due to factors not present in the modern era. The b ooks are popular garbage used to make money off the gullible. There will be no repeat. No more black death either.

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

Hey, Fred, what do you do for fun?

Reply to
John Larkin

Could one stupidly extend that by use of a placebo vaccination to protect aged public from "anything" including cancer?

Reply to
Robert Baer

Hi,

The coverup aspect comes from the government restricting the scientists who did the study from being interviewed about it, and the stumbled aspect comes from the admitted initial bias of the scientists going into the study.

See this page:

formatting link

Stumbled upon: "The authors of the study admitted a bias going into the study. ... the NIH launched an effort to do ?the? definitive study that would actually prove, for the first time, once and for all, that flu shots were beneficial to the elderly. ... no matter how they crunched the numbers, the data kept telling the same story: flu shots were of no benefit to the elderly. Quite the opposite. The death rate had increased markedly since widespread flu vaccination among older Americans. "

Coverup: " In 2006, lead author Lone Simonsen spoke with me on the phone and agreed to do an on camera interview with me on her study results, which she felt were very important. However, her bosses at the National Institutes of Health blocked the interview. I ended up finding one of her co-authors who was independent from the government and was able to interview him. These study authors who were honest, at their own career peril, should be commended.

After the Simonsen study, many international studies also arrived at the same conclusion. "

cheers, Jamie

Reply to
Jamie M

coherent sense of them.

or wouldn't if he had enough sense to realise what he was doing.

Hi,

I merely reference a study that described results that go against what your mainstream knowledge accepts as correct, so in response you used "creativity" to come up with your own theory to explain the study results and then shot the messenger (me) just in case. Just another day in a volunteer Monsanto/pharmaceutical lobbyist life right Bill? :D

cheers, Jamie

cheers, Jamie

Reply to
Jamie M

be vaccinated. They weren't being vaccinated because they were less healthy.

were increasingly drawn from the pool of the less healthy.

additional protection - doesn't provide much extra protection because the elderly immune system can't do all that much, even when well-primed.

except to label you as a nut and warn others to keep their distance.

tend to synthesise it to get that sort of level - is persuasive, but the counter-argument, that an excess is a lot less damaging than a deficit, so animals tend to over-produce - doesn't get much airtime, least of all from the air-heads that Jamie follows.

Hi Bill,

I found a Monsanto paid shill disguised as a University professor:

formatting link

cheers, Jamie

Reply to
Jamie M

ndly,

e able to get the bits to fit together in a way that makes coherent sense o f them.

nut message he wants to spread, this doesn't worry him - or wouldn't if he had enough sense to realise what he was doing.

It doesn't. What you think you see in the results isn't in fact there.

I didn't need any creativity to explain what the results meant, and not muc h to point out that your interpretation was another of your self-serving de lusions.

The problem was not that you were the messenger, but that you had tried to hijack the story and impose you own message on it.

ht

Monsanto does pay lip-service to rational thinking, which is more than you can manage, but I see my voluntary work at chopping up fools as working for the good of society as a whole. I'd be just as happy to lay into Monsanto representatives if they presented the kind of transparent nonsense that you make a habit of coming up with.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.