You are one of the lucky 99.94%...

Actually, and I don't believe this myself, most of them look at things like the Georgia Stones and the autobiographies of those in power and read about how they want to limit the worlds population and constantly talk about it at private functions. And think they base their policies of it. Like when bill gates said that he was glad his vaccines would help population control.

Of course most of this can be attributed to greed and a lack of morals by various company heads and politicians who are willing to trade people's lives for just a little more power or money...

was the tat a bulls eye cuz that would make the story a little funny

Just a reality check...

From the CDC's website: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/flushot.htm

Death rate from flu shot is between 1 and 2 people per million, so 0.000002%. Even then, it is not the flu shot that is lethal, but rather that someone who has not been diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome has developed it (the rate is 0.000002%) has taken a flu shot. If you massively overestimate, this should mean that there are between 313 and 626 deaths each year from the flu shot. Now, according to the CDC, between 3,000 and 49,000 people die each year from the flu (depending on the severity). They estimate that the flu vaccine has a 60% effectiveness (with a confidence of 95% - which is pretty good, that means 95% of the time, the 60% figure works).

So, if we apply the 60% figure to even the 3,000 person figure, that makes 1,800 people each year that could have died from the flu, but don't thanks to the vaccine.


CONCLUSION: In the worst-case scenario world (most deaths from flu-shot vs fewest deaths from flu), taking the flu shot is still more effective (not dead vs dead) than not taking the flu shot. These are the straight numbers, right from the CDC. You have every right to say that the CDC is lying to you, but then you will need a whole fifty metric tons of evidence to really have any grounds against.


So our OP is actually part of the lucky 99.9998% that don't die from the flu shot... rather than the slightly more lucky 99.9995% that don't die from the flu.

can you believe that science has reduced a 12% chance to a 0.000002% in what, a few days? Truly we are living in an age of wonders.

You are only including Guillain-Barré syndrome in those numbers. There could be severe anaphylactic shock from any number of adjuvants, egg allergies, caterpillar allergies, etc...etc... So your 0.000002% is only a small part of the number of people that die each year from vaccines.

Also simply taking vitamin D supplements (as I linked in other posts) has been proven to be much more effective than vaccines in preventing the flu. So most of the deaths you mention could be prevented at a much higher rate by simply taking vitamins or getting enough sunlight each day. The relevant study is here. It showed a reduction of 58% in Influenza A, which is the more dangerous flu. Influenza B was not affected, but is a much milder form that rarely ends up deadly or with medical side effects. Vitamin D has no known side effects, especially ones that hospitalize or kill.

Your numbers are a bit off though on the prevention rates. This study shows that those that take the vaccines are only 3% less likely to get the flu, not 60% less likely. So 3% compared to 58%. I'll take the no risk 58% over the 3% with a chance of death any day.

Nice try though. Extra points for actually finding statistics on deaths caused by vaccines. Those things are super hard to find. Your post is a good response with actual data. I applaud you for your efforts and the clarity of your argument. This is how people should try to refute arguments with facts...

Actually it was a typo because of my crappy swipe keyboard mid range processor with low range RAM (its a 1ghz single core processor with 300mb of ram phone).

It reduced from 2% to 0.02%. I've refuted the 0.000002% figure...

This is of course all without counting that getting vaccinated for one strain actually makes your reaction worse for other strains...

You've changed your numbers every time someone called you out on **** but please do continue to drive that tractor tugging the goalposts farther and farther.

Also from one of the studies you just linked:

This is NOT a 3% reduction in acquiring the flu after a shot. You're 4 times more likely to develop the flu without a vaccine compared to with if you got the specific vaccine needed against hat strain of influenza and only twice as likely with mismatched flu/vaccine.

You should probably stop citing studies that state the opposite of your point.

Yes, overall you have around a 4% chance to get the flu in the first place without a vaccine. If you get a vaccine that gets reduced to 1%, that's with a chance to have a severe reaction. That's only if the vaccine matches the strain you catch. If it doesn't that number goes from 2% to 1%. Now you have a 58% reduction in flu if you simply take vitamin D in high doses. If we correlate those numbers what happens is that 4% * 58% is 2.32%. This means that you can have nearly the same effectiveness with a mid dose of vitamin D (much lower than health experts recommend) with zero side effects. That's from one vitamin D study though using 1200 IUs of vitamin D.

Another study that used 2000 IUs of vitamin D had different results: "Only one of the 104 test subjects had cold/influenza symptoms during the final year of the trial, when they took 2,000 IU of vitamin D per day". That's 0.96153846153846% infection rate when using 2,000 IU's of vitamin D. Many professionals now recommend around 8,000 IU's of vitamin D to fight infections and flu. As far as I know no one has done a study on that high a dosage though. So 2,000 IUs have been shown to be much more effective than the vaccines with zero side effects.

So you agree with me that the flu vaccine has some effectiveness, even if it is not as important as proper nutrition, diet, and rest during flu season. That much vitamin D per day may not be available to some people while a flu shot is and is much easier to keep up with, and the flu shot has zero to negligible side effects assuming you don't have Guillain-Barré Syndrome. 50% reduction in flu chance (2% to 1%) from one shot each season and 1.6 deaths caused per million doses due to Guillain-Barré Syndrome.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/drug ... l/929.html

Nope, again you are trying to pin the numbers on a single side effect rather that the numerous negative side effects that can happen.

Vitamin D is easily obtainable at every dollar store in the U.S. for a couple dollars. I've lived below the poverty line and I could still afford it most of the time. It also has many other positive effects such as general improved health.

In your link they bold the words 'possibly unsafe' when taking doses over 4000 units per day. This links shows much better evidence that it is safe to take in high doses.

You've negelected to provide convincing evidence that these side effects even exist so

You must have missed the post I made linking a huge list of the vaccine inserts that are included with each vaccine shot. Please review that list again...

Which one? You've made a lot of posts and referenced a lot of studies and links and most of them I rolled my eyes at because they linked to websites that told me about 10 miracle foods the government doesn't want me to know fight weight gain but I'll be happy to review that one again.

Ah so you've been ignoring my links making the classic Ad Hominem mistake that because they might believe one thing that you don't agree with, everything else they believe must also not be true.

Here is the link: http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm

There is a difference between saying your argument is bad because <insert insult about your character> and saying that your argument is bad because it's stupid.

Being fancy and quoting wikipedia articles isn't an argument.

rstnme please report back if you have any feelings of death or autism.