Re: Flu jabs

This is an old topic Tarantula. If you search you will find other threads discussing the flu jab.

I'm curious as to why you think it is a "worthwhile thing to do"

The facts, peer reviewed facts, involving over 2000 studies covering over 8 million people tested, reveal that the flu jab is one the biggest marketing scams in modern history.

Unless you did your research beforehand you wouldn't have known this. If you trusted your GP then time to rethink imo. The medical industry is simply a big business now and GP's must follow the party line and that line in this instance is to push flu jabs aggressively.

What you need to know:


1) The Cochrane Library is the Interntionally respected benchmark organisation for reviewing all things medical. They have reviewed studies for all manner of things. They have reviewed the flu jab.

2) The results of the 2000+ studies which involved over 8 million people concluded that the flu jab is only likely to benefit approx 1 person in every 100.

That is, for every flu jab given, 99 people will get no benefit at all, and only 1 will.

Here is the link to the report:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....pub5/abstract

3) Flu jabs contain a mercury based compound called Thimerosal. The concentration of this compound is particularly high. Mercury is one of THE most toxic substances to the human body. Thimerosal is 50% mercury.
The levels of Thimerosal in a flu jab are allegedly very small and many claim that it can do no harm. My take on this is that if only 1 in 100 people benefit from the flu jab, why take the risk at all?

Here are some detail of mercury levels found in life:

Mercury levels

ppb = parts per billion

2ppb = Maximum mercury contaminant level in drinking water set by the EPA

250 ppb = Typical mercury level in Tuna

51,000 ppb = Mercury level found in Flu shots


4) Because Big Pharma effectively control the politicians and food and drug administrations they have seen to it that the law does NOT require vaccines to be properly tested.

Here is a photo of an actual Flu Jab packet which openly admits there has been no testing and that there is no proof that it helps with influenza:



Here is a picture of the insert sheet inside the packet which highlights that :

a) The SAFETY and effectiveness of the flu jab have not been established
b) The levels of Mercury in it
c) It has not been tested for carcinogenic and mutagenic potential or for impairment of fertility



CONCLUSIONS

I will pull no punches here so please forgive me if this offends.


1) If you took a flu jab and didn't bother to research what it was - imo you are very unwise

2) If you took a flu jab and didn't ask to see the packet and didn't read the ingredients and information - imo you are very unwise

3) If you took a flu jab on the basis that you might just be that 1 person in 100 that benefits whilst taking on the risk of having Thimerosal in your system - imo you are unwise

Flu jabs are a total scam. The scientific peer reviewed data exists to prove that, but the medical industry continues to pump out jabs in order to make $millions. They control everything from the top down. The medical staff and the whole of the NHS is a part of that machine and they have to tow the line with this.

In the end you must do what is right for you but it is vitally important to be completely informed.

ATB

Re: Flu jabs

Trantula - I recommend you also look at this presentation which was done by Glen Nowak, Ph.D.Associate Director for Communications National Immunization Program at the CDC.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19212191/2004-flu-nowak


This is a presentation that was made with a carefully laid out campaign of how to purposefully convince a nation to take up the flu vaccine. It is staggering.

In short the presentation is instructing staff to embark on a "fear campaign" to make people believe that this year's flu strain will be particularly bad, that some people will die from it, that kids will be effected nd so on. The entire marketing focus for the flu jab is predicated on a fear campaign.

The pages of interest begin at about slide 27 which is entitled:

"the Seven-Step Recipe for Generating Interest in, and Demand for, Flu(or any other) Vaccination"

This is a planned "fear" campaign designed to make people worry and to cause alarm, underpinned by an onslaught of co-ordinated media and medical publicity

That "recipe" follows on slide 30 onwards and runs like this:

------------------------------------------------------------------
“RECIPE THAT FOSTERS HIGHER INTEREST AND DEMAND FOR INFLUENZA VACCINE"

[I]1.Influenza’s arrival coincides with immunization “season” (i.e., when people can take action)

2.Dominant strain and/or initial cases of disease are:

–Associated with severe illness and/or outcomes –Occur among people for whom influenza is not generally perceived to cause serious complications (e.g., children, healthy adults, healthy seniors) –In cities and communities with significant media outlets(e.g., daily newspapers, major TV stations)

3.Medical experts and public health authorities publicly (e.g., via media) state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes)–and urge influenza vaccination.

4.The combination of ‘2’ and ‘3’ result in:

A. Significant media interest and attention
B. Framing of the flu season in terms that motivate behaviour (e.g., as “very severe,” “more severe than last or past years,” “deadly”)

5.Continued reports (e.g., from health officials and media) that influenza is causing severe illness and/or affecting lots of people–helping foster the perception that many people are susceptible to a bad case of influenza.

6.Visible/tangible examples of the seriousness of the illness(e.g., pictures of children, families of those affected coming forward) and people getting vaccinated (the first to motivate, the latter to reinforce)

7.References to, and discussions, of pandemic influenza– along with continued reference to the importance of vaccination.


I find the above utterly shocking and abhorrent.

Re: Flu jabs

Flu is a terrible thing and if the flu jab keeps it away, which it has done in our case, so far, I am all for it. There are scare stories about everything, one has to do weigh up the pros and cons and do what one thinks best.

Re: Flu jabs

Oh gawd what ever next? Vaccinations cause Autism? Scare campaigns about Aspartame?

What a load of twaddle! of course they have all those warnings on them, It's FLU, it mutates every year, it can't have clinical trials lasting years but it uses proven techniques for production of effective vaccines.

A World Health Organization (WHO) expert review found no evidence to suggest that thiomersal in vaccines has caused, or could cause, any serious harmful effects. Nonetheless, thiomersal was removed from childhood vaccines as a precautionary measure.

Concerns had been raised that giving children thiomersal-containing vaccines could expose them to unsafe amounts of mercury.

Mercury can cause toxic effects, but only when it reaches certain levels in the body. Whether this happens depends on the person’s body weight and the amount of mercury that they are exposed to over time. The concern was that if small infants were exposed to thiomersal, they might accumulate unsafe levels of mercury.

After investigating all the data, these concerns were found to be unsupported. Importantly, the form of mercury contained in thiomersal is called ethylmercury. Most reports of safety problems with mercury occurred with a different form called methylmercury, which takes much longer to leave the body.

Re: Flu jabs

I am with you on this Tarantula and , over the last 20 years of having the flu jab, I have never caught flu. Being diabetic I would be at serious risk if I did catch it, so I prefer to protect myself.
If we believed everything we read on the web we would all be totally confused, so I will make my decisions on what I believe is common sense. I don't choose to argue with people who think differently, because it is up to them to make their own decisions, but they will not change my mind.

Re: Flu jabs

Peer reviewed data studies by the internationally respected Cochrane Library are NOT scare stories. That's a silly statement to make.

That's a fairly strong statement which I am certain has no basis in fact.

1) "The flu jab keeps the flu away"

It doesn't. That is fact. I provided the link to the studies that have proved this. If you choose to ignore the facts then discussion is pointless unless you are going to attempt to provide serious data which questions the credibility of the most internationally respected medical study organisation.

2) "it has done in our case, so far"

Again I would suggest there is no scientific basis for that statement. How many years have you had the jab, how many people were involved in this "sample". Likely the answer is just a few years and maybe 2 people were involved.

I suggest that the reason you didn't catch flu was because your immune systems were in good order. Attributing your success with the flu jab is tenuous at best and superstititious at worst.

If you can show me some studies which involve many 1000s of people that deomstrates that the flu jab is effective, then I will objectively and rationally appariase them and take note.

If you are going to offer anecdotal evidence of a couple of people as some kind of proof, then further discussion is pointless.

The facts of the ineffectiveness of the flu jab are there in black and white, reviewed, respected, understood by most of the industry. Millions of people involved in the tests.

By all means exercise your free choice to ignore the facts.

Re: Flu jabs

I had the flue jab last Monday, and I have been having it for each year for a long time.
Also I must be the 1 in 100 as I can't remember when I last had a dose of flue.
I am also going this comming Monday for the shingles jab.

Re: Flu jabs

Being diabetic or not in no way alters what the flu jab is and how effective or not it is.

Not true and a poor argument. The more you read the more information you have to make an informed decision. Yes you will read information on both sides of every fence, yes there will be scare stories and yes there will be plain simple data that has been officially reviewed. Sifting through the vailable data is what Due Diligence is all about. Your health is the most imprtant thing in your life. If you aren't going to exercise due diligence there, where will you do it?

To help cut the thread down and prevent it simply repeating past threads on this topic I will happily agree to ignore the issue of Thimerosal in flu jabs.

My primary point here is that the jab is useless. A marketing scam at best and will help only 1 in 100 people. Happy for anyone to put up evidence to the contrary.

Re: Flu jabs

Again this is just anecdotal evidence Emjay. Meaningless.
A study of 1 person ovr a few years not done in any controlled manner. Where is your benchmark case where there was no flu-jab.

I have never had Shingles, and I carry a small multi-tool around in my pocket wherever I go. Does that mean the multi-tool has prevented me from having Shingles?

Re: Flu jabs

I'm going to bow out of further discussison here as existing forum members have previously stated the same anecdotal sound bites before and it doesn't progress a sensible discussion regarding the Flu Jab.

To engage in such a discussion one has to understand the basics of anecdotal evidence vs scientific evidence and many on this forum don't know what that means.

I've posted up the real evidence. That evidence is NOT disputed. It isn't disputed by the wider scientific community and to-date, it hasn't been disputed by any OFF member on any past thread on this topic.

If it is not going to be disputed then everything else is just silly wishy washy anecdotal nonsense. Thus, end of real thread discussion.

By all means chew the fat anecdotally.