Articles

302 thoughts on “Swine Flu Vaccine Fearmongering

  1. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2,
    Gardasil doesn’t cause warts.
    You don’t seem to understand the difference between a virus that can cause an illness and an antigen that can stimulate an immune response. The antigens in the flu vaccine cannot cause influenza.

    Let me see if I can oversimplify this to get the point across. We start with a virus, take it apart, and use a small piece of it (an antigen) in a vaccine. The body learns to respond to that small piece, and when it is later exposed to the whole virus, it recognizes that small piece of the virus and is able to eliminate the whole virus so it doesn’t cause an infection. The small piece of the virus is not capable of causing an infection by itself.

  2. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl508,

    1. “Proteins. As I said earlier, the vaccine is made up of viral proteins including neuraminidase and hemagluttinin. But any protein would have the potential to elicit the same response. I could inject you with ovalbumin, a chicken egg product, and your body could have a similar general immune response including fever depending on the severity of the response.”
    ———————————————————————————–
    Try to be more specific and don’t get off-topic. So you agree that flu shots contain at least 3 strains of influenza viral antigens? Are these not the causative agents for causing the flu symptoms and the production of antigen-specific antibody?

    2. “The whole point of exposing children to a live, attenuated virus is to allow their immune systems to practice and then be able to easily repel the actual virulent, deadly virus.”
    —————————————————————————–
    In short, you want the NON-DISEASED to become DISEASED by exposing them to vaccines. For there will be no immunity without exposure to diseases. So what is the difference between a natural MV and a live MV from the vaccine in the setting of exposure and immunogenicity in humans?

    3. What kind of immunity do TH17 and Treg bring about?

  3. Th1Th2 says:

    Harriet,

    “The small piece of the virus is not capable of causing an infection by itself.”

    You mean non-infectious state of the disease or asymptomatic infection, right?

  4. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl508,

    “The basis of vaccines and your whole immune system is memory.”

    Where did this superstitious belief come from? Do you have any idea of what you’re saying? Do you know that “immunologic memory” is NOT the primary and ultimate function of the immune system. It may be the logic behind vaccination but this concept is totally useless let alone physiologically devastating.

  5. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl508,

    “The really scary things are the diseases that used to kill lots of children.”

    Drugs, vaccines and malnutrition are the reasons children die. Common childhood diseases are benign and self-limiting. Complications only arise when they became patients in the hospital in the hands of allopathic doctors.

  6. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2 said,

    “The small piece of the virus is not capable of causing an infection by itself.” You mean non-infectious state of the disease or asymptomatic infection, right?

    No, I mean the small piece of the virus is not capable of causing any kind of infection, symptomatic or nonsymptomatic. It is only capable of stimulating an immune response.

    ““The basis of vaccines and your whole immune system is memory.”Where did this superstitious belief come from?

    Not superstition, but metaphor. “Memory” is used metaphorically to indicate that the immune system had prior exposure to an antigen and now is capable of responding to it.

  7. Sid Offit says:

    @th1th2

    I like the cut of your jib. We could use you over at
    scienceblogs.com/insolence/ – a mecca of vaccine idolatry

    ========

    @Archangl508
    ——————————————————————————-
    I would first like to suggest you change your screen-name as recent advances in immunology have shown that the immune responses are much more complex than “TH1 vs. TH2″ responses. You know also should include TH17 and Treg cells as well. So a more appropriate name would be Th1Th2Th17Treg.
    ——————————————————————————–

    See that’s the problem we’re playing around with a system we know very little about to prevent in, healthy children, mild diseases.

    —————————————————————————-
    good luck when he/she dies from measles.
    —————————————————————————-

    It very hard to die from the measles – about a 1 in 10,000 chance – based on 400=500 deaths occurring in the pre-vaccine era when the CDC estimated entire birth cohorts contracted the “disease” each year. And that risk is further attenuated by easily controllable lifestyle factors

  8. Sid Offit says:

    Is this thing on?

  9. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2 said,

    “Common childhood diseases are benign and self-limiting. Complications only arise when they became patients in the hospital in the hands of allopathic doctors.”

    I have lost patience. This is the most arrant bullshit.

    I’m beginning to wonder – Th1Th2, are you for real, or are you a spoofer trying to perpetrate a Sokal-type hoax on us?

  10. Chris says:

    Th1Th2:

    Drugs, vaccines and malnutrition are the reasons children die. Common childhood diseases are benign and self-limiting. Complications only arise when they became patients in the hospital in the hands of allopathic doctors.

    This is person who cannot be reasoned with. After being asked several times for evidence, he produces stuff that he does not understand, writes several posts in a row (spamming) and then concludes with this bit.

    He is a troll, and should be treated as such. Trolls are best ignored (or treated like pec).

  11. Chris says:

    Also, the same goes for “Sid Offit”, who is a troll that just tries to pick fights. Which is why he as taken on the last name of “Offit”, and the initials for “Sudden Infant Death” (even though there is not evidence that vaccines contribute to SIDS, and may actually be preventative).

  12. Chris says:

    (see my moderated comment to get the context of my latest non-moderated comment — this place has a very random spam bucket!)

  13. Sid Offit says:

    @ Harriet

    I have lost patience. This is the most arrant bullshit.

    Stay calm, it’s not good for a doctor to lose her “patients”

  14. Sid Offit says:

    @Chris

    Which is why he as taken on the last name of “Offit”, and the initials for “Sudden Infant Death” (even though there is not evidence that vaccines contribute to SIDS, and may actually be preventative).

    I never even thought of SIDS in regards to the name. It would have been in poor taste. It actually came from the wrestler Sid Justice/Vicious – a stark contrast to the mild mannered Paul Offit and therefore a template for an alter ego

  15. Sid Offit says:

    @Harriet

    I have lost patience. This is the most arrant bullshit.

    Stay calm. It’s bad for a doctor to lose her “patients”

  16. Archangl508 says:

    “Try to be more specific and don’t get off-topic. So you agree that flu shots contain at least 3 strains of influenza viral antigens? Are these not the causative agents for causing the flu symptoms and the production of antigen-specific antibody?”

    I was completely on topic. If you would like an explanation of flu pathogenesis, disease pathology of the influenza virus, and subsequent immune response please read the following review article:

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2504709

    “3. What kind of immunity do TH17 and Treg bring about?”

    See the following websites for discussions of helper T cell biology.

    http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/Th1_Th2.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_T_cell

    “Common childhood diseases are benign and self-limiting. Complications only arise when they became patients in the hospital in the hands of allopathic doctors.”

    I must now turn to my esteemed Congressman Barney Frank and say, “Continuing to argue with you is like having an argument with my dining room table.”

  17. Harriet Hall says:

    “It very hard to die from the measles”

    Not so hard: 197,000 managed to die of it in 2007.
    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2008/pr47/en/index.html

  18. Sid Offit says:

    @Harriet
    Not so hard: 197,000 managed to die of it in 2007.

    Not the Africa gambit. When I move to the Gambia I’ll worry

  19. Th1Th2 says:

    Harriet,

    “No, I mean the small piece of the virus is not capable of causing any kind of infection, symptomatic or nonsymptomatic. It is only capable of stimulating an immune response.”
    ———————————————————————-
    An infection, whether natural or vaccine-induced, is also an immune response unless you believe otherwise.

    “Not superstition, but metaphor. “Memory” is used metaphorically to indicate that the immune system had prior exposure to an antigen and now is capable of responding to it.”
    ———————————————————————————-
    They target the antigen, but they don’t kill.

  20. Sid Offit says:

    Enjoy the weekend everyone. See ya’ll back here on Monday.

  21. Harriet Hall says:

    Sid Offit said, “Not the Africa gambit. When I move to the Gambia I’ll worry.”
    If all you anti-vaccine people got your way, we would soon have a resurgence of measles and would have our own Gambia. Wakefield’s alarmist proclamations in the UK has already allowed a return of endemic measles there. Children have died.

  22. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2 said,

    “An infection, whether natural or vaccine-induced, is also an immune response unless you believe otherwise.”

    Infections trigger immune responses; so do antigens without infection. Flu vaccines DO NOT induce an infection. How many times do we need to explain this before you get it?

    “They target the antigen, but they don’t kill.”

    What do you mean? The immune system is sensitized by the vaccine so that when the actual virus appears it is “killed” – it is not allowed to multiply and cause infection.

  23. daedalus2u says:

    No h1h2, an infection can occur in the complete absence of an immune response and even in the absence of an immune system. Athymic mice are used all the time to grow things without an immune response. Athymic mice have to be kept in sterile conditions because virtually any type of bacteria will kill them.

    An infection cannot occur in the absence of infectious living microorganisms. Killed vaccines such as flu, do not contain living microorganisms, so they cannot cause an infection, no matter what immune response they stimulate.

  24. Th1Th2 says:

    daedalus2u,

    “No h1h2, an infection can occur in the complete absence of an immune response and even in the absence of an immune system. Athymic mice are used all the time to grow things without an immune response. ”
    —————————————-
    Surely, you have not heard about innate and adaptive immune system. The thymus gland is just one organ that plays a role in the human immune system. Anything else? I have not seen nor heard of a post-thymectomy patient living in a sterile world, have you?

    ——————————————-
    “An infection cannot occur in the absence of infectious living microorganisms. Killed vaccines such as flu, do not contain living microorganisms, so they cannot cause an infection, no matter what immune response they stimulate.”
    ——————————————–

    What do these infectious living microorganisms have? Antigens, right? Like these influenza viral antigens in the vaccine for example:

    A/Brisbane/59/2007, IVR-148 (H1N1), A/
    Uruguay/716/2007, NYMC X-175C (H3N2), (an A/Brisbane/10/2007-like strain), and B/Brisbane/60/2008
    http://www.afluria.com/docs/pi.pdf

    Unless you deny they exist.

  25. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2,

    I tried to explain this to you in the simplest terms. Try reading it again:

    “Let me see if I can oversimplify this to get the point across. We start with a virus, take it apart, and use a small piece of it (an antigen) in a vaccine. The body learns to respond to that small piece, and when it is later exposed to the whole virus, it recognizes that small piece of the virus and is able to eliminate the whole virus so it doesn’t cause an infection. The small piece of the virus is not capable of causing an infection by itself.”

    What part of this do you not understand?

  26. daedalus2u says:

    Antigens don’t cause an infection, infectious and (usually) replicating organisms do.

    Are you denying the germ theory of infectious disease? Are you saying it should be the antigen theory of infectious disease?

  27. dedicated lurker says:

    Th1Th2 – you want to know what happens when you’re born without a thymus? Google SCID.

  28. nitpicking says:

    I go away for one day and I’m declared a coward who has abandoned his point?

    When I said that the influenza vaccine contained no active viral particles, I was referring to the injected one, which contains only purified proteins and some trace stuff. I was not aware until seeing your reference that Flumist was an attenuated virus vaccine, which does in fact contain active viruses. Someone given the nasal spray vaccine does in fact get a (minor) viral infection which it is reasonable to call “the flu”.

    Note: this is what grownups do when they get new information: they say “Oh. That’s true.”

  29. David Gorski says:

    I go away for one day and I’m declared a coward who has abandoned his point?

    I know the feeling. Certain commenters have seemed to think that I should be continuously monitoring the comments and that if I don’t respond within an hour or two I must be a coward who has abandoned the argument. :-)

  30. Harriet Hall says:

    nitpicking said, “Someone given the nasal spray vaccine does in fact get a (minor) viral infection which it is reasonable to call “the flu”.”

    The CDC says otherwise:”The nasal-spray flu vaccine — a vaccine made with live, weakened flu viruses that do not cause the flu (sometimes called LAIV for “live attenuated influenza vaccine” or FluMist®). ”

    http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/protect/keyfacts.htm

    Is this perhaps why Th1Th2 was confused? I thought he was talking about the injectable vaccine.

  31. Chris says:

    Dr. Hall,

    Th1Th2 is not technically confused. As a troll he is obtuse. No amount of data or reasoning will work on him.

  32. Deetee says:

    @Wales:
    Since about 4 million children are born each year in the US, there must be 4 million pregnant women at any given time.”

    I think you’ll find that works out at 3 million pregnant at any given time…..

  33. Todd W. says:

    @Dr. Hall

    I have to agree with Chris. Th1Th2 ignores requests for evidence. He still has not provided his citation showing that even one individual has contracted influenza from a vaccine. Instead, he just shifts the argument around, trying to take the focus off of his lack of evidence. He’s quite adept at doing the two-step, it would seem.

  34. Th1Th2 says:

    daedalus2u,

    “Antigens don’t cause an infection, infectious and (usually) replicating organisms do.”

    The antigen load is the direct reflection of viral replication such as in natural MV infection or the live MV in the MV vaccine. In the absence of replication such as in killed or inactivated vaccines, the degree of immunogenicity and symptomatology of the disease depends on the amount of the antigen load present in every dose of the vaccine. This transmutation (killed, inactivated, attenuated, subunit, VLPs) is a significant process to make these pathogens less virulent thus lesser symptoms of the disease.

    In short, vaccines are NOT placebos. They contain the pathologic evidence of the disease.

    (Hint: Read the package insert and look for the MAIN INGREDIENT)

  35. weing says:

    I think that he has been exposed to information about vaccines and has developed a humoral response to those bits of information and is now immune or allergic to learning.

  36. wales says:

    Dee Tee: Good point, what with multiple births. That would mean pregnant women comprise 1.0% of the US population and revises the CFR guesstimate to 6 in 10,000 or 0.06% based upon the CDC’s estimate of 1 million cases between April and June. Still less than ½ of 1% and significantly less than the 3 in 20 figures posted earlier.

  37. daedalus2u says:

    Wales I believe the calculation was based on a pregnancy lasting 3/4 of a year (at most).

    Th1Th2, killed pathogens are not “less virulent” than living pathogens, they are non-virulent.

    Calling the immune response from a killed virus vaccine “the same” as the disease is simply wrong.

    You are deliberately distorting things by using false definitions for terms which have clear and well accepted meanings. The immune response to a killed vaccine is not a disease or an infection and the killed vaccine is not a pathogen.

  38. Th1Th2 says:

    daedalus2u,

    “Th1Th2, killed pathogens are not “less virulent” than living pathogens, they are non-virulent.”
    ——————————————————————–

    Even a killed vaccine can provoke antigenic stimulation to the immune system causing clinical symptoms specific of the disease or infection. Of course, the symptoms exhibited from killed vaccines are milder compared to other vaccine prepared with live viruses.

    And even the CDC knows this BASIC fact. Read this.

    Prospects for Universal Influenza Virus Vaccine

    Vaccine-induced or natural upper respiratory tract infection in humans may not engender an optimally protective memory Tc-cell population because of insufficient number or composition.”
    http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no04/05-1020.htm

    Now tell me why do you think vaccines are PLACEBOS?

  39. wales says:

    Deetee and Daedalus: Regarding pregnancy statistics, there are actually about 6 million pregnancies in the US annually, with about 4 million resulting in live births. 2 million are miscarried or aborted probably most near the first trimester mark. So 3-4 million through full term gestation, another 2 million through only the first trimester, kind of evens out.

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/03facts/pregbirths.htm

  40. daedalus2u says:

    You tell me why you are lying and putting words into my mouth? Why are you lying and misrepresenting what a “disease” is? Why are you lying and saying that anyone here has said that vaccines are a placebo?

    “Having symptoms of a disease” and “having a disease” are two completely different things. I showed you a list of over 100 things that cause “flu-like symptoms”. Are you telling me that TB causes flu because it causes “flu-like symptoms? Does inhaling metal fume particles cause flu? Does Percocet withdrawal cause flu because it causes flu-like symptoms? Does food poisoning cause flu?

    Why do they have all those different diseases that all have “flu-like symptoms”? Why don’t they just call them all “flu” the way that you want to? The reason is because real health care clinicians and everyone else who understands the germ theory of disease appreciates that similarity of symptoms does not necessarily mean that they are all caused by the same thing, or that the treatment is the same. TB is caused by a specific organism and requires specific treatment for recovery. Similarly flu is also caused by a specific organism that is different than the organism that causes TB. Treatments for TB won’t cure flu. Treatments for flu won’t cure TB.

    If you cared about the health of individuals you would try and understand the science that is used to produce effective treatments. You don’t care, so you wallow in your ignorance and spout transparently foolish lies.

  41. qetzal says:

    From now on, I think Th1Th2 should be called Humpty Dumpty.

  42. Th1Th2 says:

    daedalus2u,

    Why don’t you argue with what the CDC stated regarding “vaccine-induced upper respiratory tract INFECTION”? Is this statement enough to debunk your belief that ” antigens don’t cause an infection”?

  43. gr8blessings says:

    Th1Th2,

    You just don’t learn do you? We’ve had this discussion before and you were wrong then and you are wrong now.

    The paper you refer to, if you read the whole thing, talks about a vaccine containing an attenuated virus, and not killed virus. The attenuated virus can cause an infection because it is a live virus that replicates inside cells, not because it is an antigen. The vaccine strain does contain antigens, but it is NOT the antigens that are causing the infection. It is the virus that is causing the infection.

    Please come back when you have improved your reading comprehension to at least a high school level.

  44. Michelle B says:

    Th1Th2 probably does not mean that the posters here who do understand the science behind vaccination regard vaccines as authentic placebos. His ignorant confusion coupled perhaps with an innate inability to grasp the science behind vaccination (he/she seems to be focused/stuck on a very primitive grasp on how human physiology interacts with its outside environment) is ‘guiding’ him/her to conclude that it is ridiculous that toxins/germs do not behave in the way that his misunderstanding is telling him/her that they should.

    Hence, if they do not act that way, if instead they act the way informed scientists are telling him/her, then they are not acting the ONLY way they can, that is, as arbiters of disease. In other words, vaccines are unwittingly being called placebos, that is inert substances without any significant effect. Th1Th2, knowing that we do not think that, is trying to jar us into comprehending his ‘point’ that vaccines act the only way that they can act (based on his misunderstanding of the science). If not, they they do not act at all. He/she is trying to help us see something that is obvious to her/her (based on his/her misunderstanding of the science) He/she is stuck in a vicious circle.

    He/she is unable/resistant to understanding that vaccination can achieve acquired immunity without the patient becoming diseased. You would think that the alternative medicine crowd would embrace something as clever and health-preserving as vaccinations! I am afraid these anti-vaxers are violating their own concept of the importance of assisting our bodies in fighting diseases by helping out the immune system–for vaccinations, it is to give the body acquired resistance to specific diseases through a very scientific-based approach, via a non-infective, non toxic acquainting of the immune system to antigens, so antibodies can be produced NATURALLY by our own bodies for future protection against getting very ill. And we won’t even mention the additional bonus of herd immunity.

    Anyways, I learned heaps from all the valiant responses to Th1Th2 comments, esp from Daedalus.

  45. Todd W. says:

    @quetzal

    Agreed. He certainly seems to share similar qualities.

    @Th1Th2

    Still waiting on that citation showing influenza contracted from the vaccine.

    Then again, you appear to be using the crank tactic of “If I can’t actually answer the question, I’ll just ignore the person asking.”

  46. Th1Th2 says:

    gr8blessings,

    “The vaccine strain does contain antigens, but it is NOT the antigens that are causing the infection. It is the virus that is causing the infection.”
    —————————————————————————–

    Your argument is laughable. The virus itself whether live or killed will remain antigenic and antigenic stimulation of the immune system will cause manifestation of clinical symptoms of the disease. Obviously, killed vaccines pose fewer symptoms of the disease. Even a grade-schooler knows this basic fact:

    ——–
    “Antigens are any substance that stimulates the immune system to produce antibodies. Antigens can be bacteria, viruses, or fungi that cause infection and disease.

    When a foreign substance enters the body for the first time, symptoms of disease may appear while the immune system is making antibodies to fight it.

    Immunization is the process of making a person immune to a disease by inoculating them against it. Inoculation is the introduction of an antigen into the body—usually through an injection—to stimulate the production of antibodies.”

    Read more: http://www.scienceclarified.com/Al-As/Antibody-and-Antigen.html#ixzz0R3w9UNT0
    ——–

  47. Th1Th2 says:

    Michelle B.,

    “for vaccinations, it is to give the body acquired resistance to specific diseases through a very scientific-based approach, via a non-infective, non toxic acquainting of the immune system to antigens, so antibodies can be produced NATURALLY by our own bodies for future protection against getting very ill.”

    Resistance?? Are you dreaming? That is certainly NOT resistance, instead vaccination is a violation and destruction of the normal physiology of the human body. Like I said, vaccines are NOT vitamins for children. Yeah you’re right, vaccines transmit a “non-infective and non-toxic” form of the disease to someone who never had previous exposure to the disease.

    Read:

    Fever, malaise, myalgia, and other systemic symptoms can occur following vaccination and most often affect persons who have had no prior exposure to the influenza virus antigens in the vaccine (eg, young children).
    https://www.vaccineshoppe.com/image.cfm?doc_id=10205&image_type=product_pdf

    That’s for you too Todd W.

  48. Th1Th2 says:

    gr8blessings,

    “The attenuated virus can cause an infection because it is a live virus that replicates inside cells, not because it is an antigen”

    I don’t know whether Harriet Hall or daedalus2u will agree with you this time. One characteristic of some vaccine apologists is that they don’t know what they are saying thus, creating misunderstanding and confusion among themselves.

  49. weing says:

    Only someone who doesn’t know any immunology or medicine would find confusion and misunderstanding in gr8blessings’ statement.

  50. Todd W. says:

    @Th1Th2

    Yet again, you fail to provide a citation to any case of an individual developing an influenza infection from the vaccine. Let me point this out, since you did not seem to get it last time: the package insert is not a case.

    So, I will continue waiting.

  51. Archangl508 says:

    “Your argument is laughable. The virus itself whether live or killed will remain antigenic and antigenic stimulation of the immune system will cause manifestation of clinical symptoms of the disease.”

    So by your definition, an immune response is what defines an infection. If I inject you with the chicken protein ovalbumin, which will most likely cause an immune reaction with the potential for flu-like symptoms, you are now suffering from an ovalbumin infection?

    The actual definition of infection, from Wikipedia, is :

    “An infection is the detrimental colonization of a host organism by a foreign species.”

    Antigens alone are not capable of colonization. So antigens on their own can not cause an infection. They can cause an immune response, but not an infection.

    If all your arguments are going to be based on semantical nonsense, can you at least do a better job with your semantics?

    “Resistance?? Are you dreaming? That is certainly NOT resistance, instead vaccination is a violation and destruction of the normal physiology of the human body. Like I said, vaccines are NOT vitamins for children.”

    Where on here did anyone say vaccines are vitamins for children? How is vaccination destruction of the normal physiology of the immune system? Vaccinations take advantage of the exact mechanisms of your immune system to produce long lasting immunological memory and immunity to disease. If vaccines don’t work, how do you explain the eradication of smallpox?

  52. daedalus2u says:

    According to Th1Th2

    The normal physiological state of an individual naive to a disease is susceptibility. A vaccination against that disease renders the individual non-susceptible thereby destroying the initial normal physiological state of susceptibility.

    Of course it needs to be realized that some physiological states should be destroyed, for example the physiological state of hunger is destroyed by giving food. The physiological state of thirst is destroyed by giving water. The physiological state of disease susceptibility is destroyed by giving vaccines. The physiological state of ignorance is destroyed by giving knowledge.

    Of course if an individual does not have an immune system sufficiently capable of coping with a vaccine, then vaccination is unable to provide them with immunity and so they must depend on the herd immunity of those who can be vaccinated. Similarly when an individual does not have a brain that is sufficiently capable of coping with knowledge, they must rely on the “herd intelligence” of those who do understand that knowledge.

    The normal physiological state of an individual is ignorance. Ignorance is a bad thing, but many people can’t handle being in a non-ignorant state.

  53. Th1Th2 says:

    daedalus2u,

    “The physiological state of disease susceptibility is destroyed by giving vaccines.”
    ——————————–

    The physiological state of disease susceptibility is destroyed by giving good food and clean water. You just said it, how come you missed it? Unbelievable.

    When did vaccines become man’s physiologic need? You are comparing “crap” from food and water. It makes no sense. What kind of nourishment will vaccines give to the malnourished children? You see all you have to do is read and don’t fantasize.
    ————————————
    Archangl508,

    Antigens alone are not capable of colonization. So antigens on their own can not cause an infection. They can cause an immune response, but not an infection.

  54. Th1Th2 says:

    daedalus2u,

    “The physiological state of disease susceptibility is destroyed by giving vaccines.”
    ——————————–

    The physiological state of disease susceptibility is destroyed by giving good food and clean water. You just said it, how come you missed it? Unbelievable.

    When did vaccines become man’s physiologic need? You are comparing “crap” from food and water. It makes no sense. What kind of nourishment will vaccines give to the malnourished children? You see all you have to do is read and don’t fantasize.
    ————————————
    Archangl508,

    “Antigens alone are not capable of colonization. So antigens on their own can not cause an infection. They can cause an immune response, but not an infection.”

    Oh you mean like the antigens found in a killed vaccine wouldn’t cause infection?

    Read:

    FLULAVAL is an inactivated influenza virus vaccine indicated for active immunization of adults 18 years of age and older against influenza disease caused by influenza virus subtypes A and type B contained in the vaccine. (1)

    ADVERSE REACTIONS
    Therefore, spontaneous adverse event reports were more frequent in this trial. As indicated in Table 2, upper respiratory infection, arthralgia, myalgia, nasopharyngitis, back pain, injection site erythema, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and nasal congestion were each reported by ≥5% of the recipients of FLULAVAL in the Canadian study.

    Adverse events described here are included because: a) they represent reactions which are known to occur following immunizations generally or influenza immunizations specifically; b) they are potentially serious; or c) the frequency of reporting.

    Infections and Infestations: Pharyngitis, rhinitis, laryngitis, cellulitis.
    http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_flulaval.pdf

    Now you see what an antigen from a killed vaccine can do to the body? It is not just INFECTION but INFESTATION.

    Vaccination is indeed a form of infestation. Res ipsa loquitur.

  55. gr8blessings says:

    Th1Th2 says

    “Antigens alone are not capable of colonization. So antigens on their own can not cause an infection. They can cause an immune response, but not an infection.”

    By george, perhaps we are getting through.

    Now lets take another baby step and repeat “the killed flu virus vaccine only contains antigens. Antigens alone are not capable of colonization, so antigens can not cause an infection. They can cause an immune response, but not an infection. Thus the killed flu virus vaccine does not cause the flu.”

  56. Harriet Hall says:

    How could you answer someone who insisted apples were airplanes? I think Th1Th2 has removed himself from the realm of possible rational discourse and does not deserve any more of our attention. His behavior and his handle remind me of the disruptive mischief-makers Thing One and Thing Two in Dr. Seuss’s “Cat in the Hat.”

  57. Th1Th2 says:

    gr8blessings,

    I didn’t say that, you have mistaken me for someone else. Check that again.

  58. gr8blessings says:

    Th1Th2,

    darn, I see that you screwed up your quotes and you were actually quoting Archangl. Archangl is the smart one and you went on to add the nonsense afterwards in a subsequent post. Sadly, I’m afraid Harriet is right.

  59. Th1Th2 says:

    gr8blessings,

    You don’t know anything about vaccines. You’re just pretending. You don’t even know how to read a package insert and you’re evading to answer why a killed vaccine like FLULAVAL would cause INFECTION and INFESTATION.

    Harriet once stated from the CDC: that FLuMist, which is a live attenuated vaccine, cannot cause the flu. But you said otherwise.

    You two should make up your mind. It’s quite embarrassing.

  60. Chris says:

    Troll1Troll2:

    You don’t even know how to read a package insert

    You are a bit slow, aren’t you? I recommended that you to re-read some posts, but it seems you never read them in the first place:
    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1296#comment-30883

  61. gr8blessings says:

    Again, Th1Th2, you are mistaken. I did not say that an attenuated vaccine caused the flu. I said that the attenuated virus is capable of replicating inside cells, which is an infection. There is no evidence that this replication leads to the disease. This is consistent to what Dr. Hall has said.

    I’m afraid you are the one that doesn’t know anything about vaccines. You have been proven wrong again and again and again by several people. Todd W explained to you how to read a package insert. The package insert does not state that the vaccine caused infection and infestation. We are still waiting for your evidence that a killed vaccine causes infection of any kind.

  62. Th1Th2 says:

    gr8blessings,

    “Again, Th1Th2, you are mistaken. I did not say that an attenuated vaccine caused the flu. I said that the attenuated virus is capable of replicating inside cells, which is an infection. There is no evidence that this replication leads to the disease. This is consistent to what Dr. Hall has said.”

    OK. This is really funny. You claimed that attenuated vaccines can cause an infection, right? But at the same time it will not cause the flu, right? WTH does that mean?

    1. You certainly believed in vaccine-induced infection.
    2. Influenza, according to you, is NOT an infection and at the same time, not a disease.

    What’s going on here?

    Do you have any idea what influenza viral strains in an attenuated vaccine replicate inside the cells?

  63. Sid Offit says:

    @daedalus2u,

    Your child-like attempt at logic amuses me.

    ————————————————————————
    the physiological state of hunger is destroyed by giving food. The physiological state of thirst is destroyed by giving water. The physiological state of disease susceptibility is destroyed by giving vaccines.
    ————————————————————————–

    When we destroy hunger by giving food and water substitutes such as formula, pizza, fries and soda we encounter adverse affects. The body has not evolved to handle such harmless looking substitutes.

    Natural infection causes the immune system to act naturally while artificial “infection” subjects the body the detrimental affects that accompany anything for which humans have not evolved.

  64. Sid Offit says:

    When is this site going to get software that allows posts to appear in a timely manner?

  65. Sid Offit says:

    @daedalus2u

    Your attempt at logic amuses me
    ———————————-
    the physiological state of hunger is destroyed by giving food. The physiological state of thirst is destroyed by giving water. The physiological state of disease susceptibility is destroyed by giving vaccines.
    ———————————–

    When we give apparently harmless food and water substitutes such as formula, pizza, fries and soda we affect the body negatively. We’ve evolved with very specific needs. Small alterations induce unintended consequences. Simply refining grains and sugar demonstrates this. When we induce unnatural “immunity” by bypassing normal avenues we take the same risk for, in healthy populations, negligible benefits

  66. Sid Offit says:

    @Sid Offit

    —————————————————————————–
    When we give apparently harmless food and water substitutes such as formula, pizza, fries and soda we affect the body negatively. We’ve evolved with very specific needs. Small alterations induce unintended consequences. Simply refining grains and sugar demonstrates this. When we induce unnatural “immunity” by bypassing normal avenues we take the same risk for, in healthy populations, negligible benefits
    —————————————————————————-

    That’s spot on. I agree totally. Why can’t these vaccine acolytes understand?

  67. gr8blessings says:

    No, Th1Th2, it is you that is unable to understand the complex host-pathogen relationship.

    An attenuated virus is able to replicate within a cell, but this replication is limited and easily controlled by the immune response, thus damage is minimal and there is no disease.

    You are wrong on premise #2. Influenza is a disease (I never claimed that it wasn’t) caused by the influenza virus. The wild virus has a greater virulence and is not so easily controlled by the immune system. This causes greater damage and thus infection with the influenza virus leads to influenza, the disease. The disease is caused by damage resulting from both the replication of the virus and the host response to that replication.

    So, WTH does that mean? It means that infection and disease are different concepts, which you fail miserably in understanding. It means you don’t understand the difference between an attenuated strain and a wild strain of the same virus. It means you don’t understand the concept of virulence. It means that you don’t understand the role of host defenses in controlling an infection and preventing disease. It means that you don’t understand basic virology.

    What is going on here is your complete and lack of comprehension and the lack of intelligence to understand what is being explained to you. Everyone else grasps the concepts. You don’t. Instead you make up your own definitions of well-defined concepts and these definitions have no foundation in any science because you can’t backup any of your claims with any scientific studies despite being asked repeatedly to provide them.

    Your last question makes absolutely no sense and indicates that you don’t understand the vocabulary.

    But if my responses are so laughable and funny to you, how about you have a go. Please explain your understanding of what causes influenza and how it can be prevented. You will be sure to back up your explanation with published, peer-reviewed primary literature and make a point of how your point of view is better supported than the current scientific explanation.

  68. nitpicking says:

    I love the unsupported and rather implausible assertion that vaccinations have all these horrible effects. The many studies showing that negative effects actually range from the mild to the extremely rare are irrelevant–mere facts, after all.

    And Troll1Troll2′s assertion that good eating habits can prevent the flu is remarkably silly. I now suspect it’s an actual troll that doesn’t believe what it’s posting.

  69. Archangl508 says:

    Gr8blessings,

    “darn, I see that you screwed up your quotes and you were actually quoting Archangl. Archangl is the smart one and you went on to add the nonsense afterwards in a subsequent post. Sadly, I’m afraid Harriet is right.”

    Thanks. I like to think I am a smart one ;-)

    Th1Th2,

    “ADVERSE REACTIONS
    Therefore, spontaneous adverse event reports were more frequent in this trial. As indicated in Table 2, upper respiratory infection, arthralgia, myalgia, nasopharyngitis, back pain, injection site erythema, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and nasal congestion were each reported by ≥5% of the recipients of FLULAVAL in the Canadian study.”

    In any clinical trial, it is mandated by the FDA that any and all adverse events be reported to the the FDA and included in the prescribing instructions for the doctor. You are correct in what is written in the package insert, however, you are woefully in correct in your conclusions that you draw from that. I will try to explain using small words so as to not further confuse you.

    Those increases in adverse events shown occur when the patients, all over 50 years old, are followed for 6 months. During that time any and all adverse events would be reported, regardless of whether the vaccine is implicated in causing the adverse event or not. Nowhere in the package insert does it say that the vaccine caused these infections, nor is there even any inference that that is the case. Correlation is not causation. If I drink a glass of milk tomorrow morning, then 4 months from now have a respiratory infection, did the milk cause that infection? At best you could argue that a very small percentage of those immunized with the vaccine become more susceptible to respiratory infection, but that is not the same as saying that the vaccine itself is causing the infection, and certainly not terming it an infestation. You still haven’t offered any proof or immunological evidence or citation showing how an antigen can act as an infectious agent. Again, you are using semantics and altered definitions to try to make a claim, but you are still failing to do so. I find it hard to believe your grasp of the English language is quite so poor.

  70. Archangl508 says:

    “When we induce unnatural “immunity” by bypassing normal avenues we take the same risk for, in healthy populations, negligible benefits”

    Are the millions of people saved from smallpox and the eradication of that disease a negligible benefit?

    How about polio?

    Tetanus?

    Diphtheria?

  71. weing says:

    It is unnatural to prevent those diseases. It is natural to have the diseases, die from them or survive them with or without sequelae.

  72. Th1Th2 says:

    gr8blessings,

    You are obviously confused and don’t know how to characterize an influenza. You are desperately trying to evade humiliation, I guess.

    1. “An attenuated virus is able to replicate within a cell, but this replication is limited and easily controlled by the immune response, thus damage is minimal and there is no disease.”

    ——Since you never mentioned infection either, then influenza, according to you, is NOT a disease and infection caused by attenuated vaccine.

    2. “I said that the attenuated virus is capable of replicating inside cells, which is an infection.”
    ——-Here you are saying that attenuated virus can, indeed, cause infection.

    Are you still there? Hello.

    OK, I will give you a chance to justify all your superstitious beliefs regarding influenza.

    Is influenza:

    A. a disease.
    B. an infection.
    c. an infectious disease.
    d. none of the above.

    “Please explain your understanding of what causes influenza and how it can be prevented.”

    The causative agents are here right under your nose.

    Each 0.5–mL dose contains 15 micrograms (mcg) hemagglutinin (HA) of each of the following 3 influenza viruses: A/Brisbane/59/2007, IVR-148 (H1N1), A/Uruguay/716/2007, NYMC X-175C (H3N2) (an A/Brisbane/10/2007-like virus), and B/Brisbane/60/2008.
    http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_flulaval.pdf

    You can prevent influenza, if you avoid the causative agents.
    Now you can use your imagination.

  73. daedalus2u says:

    flulval is a killed virus vaccine. It even says so in the link you provided.

    “FLULAVAL is an inactivated influenza virus vaccine”

    “inactivated” means “killed”.

    Flulaval also contains thimerosal which would kill any virus present if if wasn’t dead already.

    It contains the antigens from several different viruses, Hemagglutinin is an antigen, it is one of the proteins that flu viruses make that cause bad stuff to happen. By vaccinating an individual with it, the individual’s immune system mounts an immunological response that inactivates the hemagglutinin before it can do that bad stuff.

  74. Todd W. says:

    @All

    I would agree with Dr. Hall. Th1Th2 is not interested in learning or having any sort of meaningful discussion. My suggestion is to not respond at all, or, if you must, respond simply by asking for the evidence that the influenza vaccine has resulted in an influenza infection in an individual, and reminding him that a package insert is not such evidence, since, as he quoted himself (emphasis added):

    Adverse events described here are included because: a) they represent reactions which are known to occur following immunizations [not just flu vaccines] generally or influenza immunizations specifically; b) they are potentially serious; or c) the frequency of reporting.

    There is nothing in the insert that points to a causal connection for every AE reported.

  75. Th1Th2 says:

    daedalus2u,

    “It contains the antigens from several different viruses, Hemagglutinin is an antigen, it is one of the proteins that flu viruses make that cause bad stuff to happen.”

    This is the problem with some vaccine apologists they really don’t know what they are talking about. They can’t even say the word they want to say because they will be contradicting themselves if they do. OK, could you possibly explain what “bad stuff” mean? According to you, what causes the “bad stuff” is the protein (HA) and not the “killed” virus, is this true? If a virus is non-replicating, can it possibly cause the “bad stuff”? (attn: gr8blessings)

  76. daedalus2u says:

    If you looked up the definition of hemagglutinin, you would understand that it is defined as something that causes red blood cells to clump together. Normally red blood cells don’t clump together, so something that causes them to clump together is understood to cause “bad stuff”.

    I think (but this is only a guess) that the reason the vaccine manufacturer reported the quantity of hemagglutinin is because it is easy and straightforward to assay. You take a certain amount, put it in with some red blood cells and see how fast they clump together. Then you know how much hemagglutinin there is in the killed virus preparation you are using. Then you can standardize and give a lot of individuals the same dose and then track their responses.

    I don’t know that much about hemagglutinin, so I did what every scientist does in that circumstance, I went to the literature. I went to PubMed, and using hemagglutinin as a search term found 16,126 hits. When I don’t know that much about a topic, I often like to start at the beginning. Hit 16,125 was a paper titled: “Absence of Hemagglutinins in Certain Viruses.”

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17648116

    It is available open access, so I downloaded it and read it. Turns out that HA can be used to measure the quantity of virus present, but that not all viruses have it. The paper references a paper using it to assay a strain of swine flu. Not bad for 1945, after all, there was a war on. This paper wasn’t clear if killed viruses still retain active hemagglutinin. I presume that depends on how they are killed. The point of using inactivated virus for a vaccine is to retain the immunogenic properties while losing the infectious properties. So I looked a little more and found this paper.

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=9990079

    Also open access. It is a nice piece of work. They recovered flu virus RNA from victims of the 1918 Spanish flu and sequenced the gene for hemagglutinin to see where it fits with the other hemagglutinin genes from other flu strains. Now they can make vaccines to the 1918 flu too.

    So what is your point? Oh, that’s right, you don’t have one other than that you are afraid of vaccines and will say and do anything to magnify and justify that fear. That is anything but trying to learn and understand the actual science.

  77. daedalus2u says:

    I found a nice review paper on flu

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2504709

    It does talk about the pathology, which is sometimes characterized by thromboses, which explains the interest in hemagglutinin (which by causing red blood cells to clump together can cause thromboses).

    It is not hard to find good and reliable information on flu. Why you are spending so much effort trying to shield yourself from that good and reliable information is not something that I understand.

  78. OZDigger says:

    Not everybody is convinced on the vaccine. Look at the results of a poll of Healthcare workers in the U.S.

    http://www.medscape.com/px/instantpollservlet/result?PollID=3201&src=mp&spon=17&uac=121842PR

  79. Todd W. says:

    @OZDigger

    And your point would be? The results just show that healthcare workers can have the same unjustified fears as non-healthcare workers. It’s not surprising, though. I mean, there are doctors and nurses who subscribe to other baseless ideas, such as therapeutic touch, homeopathy, etc. The poll says nothing about the actual safety or efficacy of the vaccine.

    I’d note, though, that the majority are likely to get it.

  80. Harriet Hall says:

    OZDigger employs another logical fallacy, the argument from popularity. As if scientific truth could be determined by vote! In fact, the link undermines his own argument: it indicates that a majority are likely to get the vaccine.

    I suspect that many more will decide to get the vaccine as they respond to peer pressure, to the concerns of the infection control committees at the institutions where they work, and to the requirement that the unvaccinated protect patients by using cumbersome masks and gloves. At least one medical center has said that getting the vaccine will be a condition of employment – employees will have to either get it or leave.

  81. OZDigger says:

    Your egos are too fragile. All I was pointing out was that there is some disquiet amongst the medical fraternity about the flu vaccine. It points out the 45% of health care workers in the U.S. have yet to be persuaded about the validity of the vaccine. So, with all the “science” you are subjecting them too, only 55% are going to get the vaccine. Hardly convincing. It would be really interesting to see a breakdown of professions choosing not to receive it. e.g. nurses, M.D., D.O. etc.
    Now that would be science in the terms of statistics. Might be a bit much for you.

  82. Chris says:

    And they are just opinions and anecdotes. The plural of anecdote is not data, and says nothing as to the safety or effectiveness of the vaccine.

  83. Michelle B says:

    Fragile egos? That’s a good one coming from OZ. There may very well be some fragility with our egos (after all, we are humans), but at least our egos are not so fragile that they need to reject evidence so we can remain ignorant of reality.

  84. Todd W. says:

    @OZDigger

    In addition to the poll being totally irrelevant as to the S&E of the vaccine, another factor that we do not know is the reason for people in the 45% to be unlikely to get the vaccine. For example, those who are allergic to eggs would be included there.

    In the end, the poll is pretty much useless as far as an evaluative tool for whether the vaccine is good or not and whether one should get it or not.

  85. zaidey1 says:

    well im no doctor or a medical worker but i do know that my head and my heart tells me not to take this vaccine..

    i truly do believe on all levels that this vaccine isnt for the good of us all…

    there are too many doctors scienists from all over the world stating on record that theres more to this vaccine than most of us would know…

    this isnt a some random statement and a belief that all doctors are out to get us…but a belief in my own mind that something doesnt ring true with this vaccine..

    what i did find amazing was that the british medical council meet with eu/who advisers over 2 years ago and agreed a set price for doctors to give the vaccine currently 7.50 per shot…(this has only just been released in the press)

    anyways i really hope my gut is wrong and people dont get hurt with this vaccine..

    i know i wont be taking the vaccine and i wish us all good luck in the coming months…

    btw i know this is going to sound crazy as hell but look up fema coffins on youtube…they currently have 20million plastic coffins ready for use outside most usa citys…hmmmm

    as i said maybe this vaccine isnt going to work/or maybe it is depnding on what you want the vaccine to do..

  86. loparn says:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/study-prompts-provinces-to-rethink-flu-plan/article1303330/

    “Report suggests people who get vaccinated are more likely to catch H1N1″

    Ann-Cathrin Engwall (born Svensson) a Swedish PhD in molecular cell biology has suggested that the reason for these findings could be that cell-mediated generated immunity will not be as well developed with continous flu vaccination programmes which tend to prevent natural immunization by infection to occur. Natural immunization gives a much broader protection than the one caused by vaccination.

    Several, also inner, components of different influenza viruses may be recognized as similar or the same in different influenza viruses and may thus cause a cell-mediated immune response even if the actual virus – such as the A/H1N1 swine flu virus – is categorized as “new”. This would well explain why people in Sweden born before 1980 as a group so far seem far less (< 1/4-1/6 or so) likely to catch the swine flu. They have often encountered the Asiate and/or Hongkong flues during the 1950´ies and 1960´ies, whereas the younger age groupes have not. Even if these influenzas were of different A/HxNy-types (which the vaccine manufacturers have to focus on) the inner virus components may to some extent be the same or similar with A/H1N1 according to Ann-Cathrin Engwall.

    This is also why a mass vaccination programme is suboptimal for a generally healthy population assuming influenza viruses cannot be totally exterminated from earth. As a group the mass vaccinated loose more protection in the longer term than they gain in the short term. The herd natural immunity thus will diminish compared to if there was no mass vaccination programme at all. Therefore an optmimal influenza vaccination programme probably should focus on the high risk groups with people that have a special underlying desease that make them highly at risk if they get infected by the influenza virus.

    This is of course not what the pro mass vaccination propaganda people want to here. Therefore even in Sweden where the authorities want to vaccinate the whole population they try to "hush" inconvenient conclusions like this one.
    In Sweden some 1000-4000 die in seasonal flu every year and so far only a few deaths in A/H1N1 have occured, both with an underlying severe desease.

    There is interestingly enough also an older american study that confirms the suggested explanation by Ann-Cathrin Engwall.

    http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-3/Benefits-of-flu-vaccine-substantially-overestimated-says-study-6985-2/

    These findings could suggest that the same mechanism of the cell-mediated generated immunity or rather the lack of it in vaccinated people as briefly explained above could be the reason.

    One may add that since the influenza virus changes fast mass vaccinationation against that type of virus (or against the common cold) naturally is less efficient than in e. g. the polio case where it of cource is appropriate.

    The suggestion or theory, which is based on commonly known scientific evidence, that Ann-Cathrin Engwall has proposed may seem too simple but it matches with experience and also seems to do so with both of these cited studies

  87. Harriet Hall says:

    loparn said
    “Natural immunization gives a much broader protection than the one caused by vaccination.”

    Does it? Reference, please.

  88. Joe says:

    Harriet Hall on 18 Oct 2009 at 11:43 am “loparn said “Natural immunization gives a much broader protection than the one caused by vaccination.”

    Does it? Reference, please.”

    Yes, reference please …

    It seems the (unvaccinated) ones who don’t die the first time around are merely luckier than the unvaccinated ones who do die of the disease the first time around; they could have benefitted from the vaccine. Whether or not the unvaccinated have a better immune response subsequently; they relied on dumb luck the first time around.

  89. loparn says:

    According to Dr Ann-Cathrin Engwall the basics were taught in her education in the 1980´ies and 1990´ies, so it should be common knowledge among other specialists in immunology and virology.

    I have learned that vaccines against influenza virus mostly can generate an immune response to the HxNy components of the surface of the virus since the virus inner parts is protected by a 3-D “shell”. It is well enough for a new influenza virus.

    Natural immunization i.e. when you get infected is generally the only time when all of the virus parts are presentented on the infected cell surface causing a so called cell-immediated immune response to all parts of the virus not just the HxNy surface proteins. That is very important to know !

    The advantage is that the cell-mediated immunity thus is broader and may recognize so called new viruses but which could have common inner components with previously encountered influenza viruses. This is one reason that you do NOT get sick in the flu that may times in your life even if you never have vaccinated against it.
    And it seemes (?) that mass vaccination programmes (I referr to the US link above) have had little success in reducing influenza sickness long term.

    The natural immunity lasts long and is quite efficient even if you cannot avoid getting the flu some times.

    People with underlying severe sickness of course should consider vaccination before every flu, if they are at high risk otherwise.

    —————————

    For the moment I have only this Wikipedia information about cell-mediated immunity

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell-mediated_immunity

    I do believe though there must be other scientists than A-C Engwall who has begun to think in similar patterns.

  90. loparn says:

    I may add or emphasize that IF the population has been influenza mass vaccinated before several times it implies that the natural broader immunization process has been reduced on all those occassions so that you get more likely to catch a new flu compared with a similar population which has not undergone such vaccination programmes.

    Therefore of course there will be a higher risk for persons in the first population NOT to get vaccinated before future influenzas. The will get more dependant on vaccine programmes…
    If that is the case in the USA today I understand that you may need mass vaccination…

  91. loparn says:

    This rather new link deals with the cell-mediated system

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327266.000-mystery-immunity-could-boost-swine-flu-protection.html

    “Seasonal H1N1 infection may have primed another part of the immune system, called cell-mediated immunity, which may not prevent infection but limits the severity of the disease. This could be why the pandemic has spread fast but remained mild in many people, though not all.”

    This is in line with what I have stated before.

  92. loparn says:

    You could predict then, if Dr Ann-Cathrin Engwall´s theory is reasonable or correct, that countries with historically relatively high vaccination programmes penetration ought to have a higher incidence of swine flu sickness in the population know, all other factors equal.

    Such a study though may be difficult to make just by the reported figures but maybe you would get a hint ?

    I noticed on one A/H1N1 international statistics site that USA seems to have a rather high portion of swine flu sickness, whereas Germany with recently just ONE person who had died.

    Maybe they have had different influenza vaccination strategies in the last few decades ?

  93. weing says:

    Just give it time.

Comments are closed.