Re: Flu Jab time
Sorry but this is all nonsense. Clearly there are some on here who will continue through life with their fingers in the ears going "Waah Waah Waah I can't hear you". Fair enough. Each to their own.
There are however a number of open-minded people here who have in other threads expressed a desire to learn, have their views challenged and to assess new information they were not previously aware of. For those people I will provide the following info.
This comes from The Cochrane Database which is a collection of scientific controlled studies and trials covering a wide range of areas. Their general website is here:
http://www.cochranelibrary.com/
Use the search function to look for studies for any given areas, for example search for "sugar" and so on.
Here is the link to their study on the usefulness/efficacy of flu vaccines:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....pub5/abstract
Here's the "cut to he chase" results
"Influenza vaccines have a very modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost in the general population"
"The preventive effect of parenteral inactivated influenza vaccine on healthy adults is small: at least 40 people would need vaccination to avoid one ILI case . . . and 71 people would need vaccination to prevent one case of influenza. Vaccination shows no appreciable effect on working days lost or hospitalisation"
"The effectiveness of live aerosol vaccines on healthy adults is similar to inactivated vaccines: 46 people . . .would need immunisation to avoid one ILI case."
As can be seen the vaccine is largely worthless. You are literally playing "vaccine lottery" when you have a jab, hoping that YOU will be the 1 in 71 people that it will help.
If you are handing money over for these jabs then imo you are a mug.
Worse still though are the controversial ingredients in the cocktail that you are allowing to be put into your body. Neurotoxins, thimerosol and mercury among them.
Here's another very good article which contains a transcript from a live radio show which tackled the issue of whether flu vaccines are just snake oil.
http://chriskresser.com/the-truth-ab...to-do-instead/
Some extracts from the above:
"a very low percentage of doctors and nurses actually volunteer to get them [jabs], something like 26% to 28%. So what do they know that the general public doesn’t know?"
"Now, one of the problems with flu vaccination is that it tends to not work very well if the strains of flu in the vaccine don’t match the strains of flu in the environment, but even when the match is perfect, 1% of flu-vaccinated individuals end up with an infection, compared to 4% of unvaccinated individuals, but that’s very rare actually to have a perfect match between the strains of the flu and the vaccine because viruses adapt and evolve very quickly, and it’s hard for vaccine producers to keep up. So, when there’s only a partial match of the vaccine with infecting strains, which is usually the state of affairs, the figures are even worse. 1% of vaccinated individuals end up with an infection versus 2% of unvaccinated individuals, so in other words, the true reduction in flu risk in the population in the vast majority of cases in healthy adults is a mere 1%."
"So, let’s put this in perspective. I’ve talked before about the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction. The news media report on this study might say: Flu vaccine cuts your risk of getting the flu in half! Now, that’s technically true because the risk relatively went down from 2% to 1%, but what they don’t tell you is that the absolute risk reduction went down from 2 in 100 to 1 in 100, which is an overall absolute risk reduction of 1%.
So this means that you’d need to treat approximately 100 people to prevent a single case of flu, or put another way, of 100 people that get the flu shot, 99 of them won’t benefit at all."