Conquer Club

People I know, who have the flu got a flu shot, and their spouses, who have not had the shot; do not have the flu!

W
T
F
!!!

Yeah, it's a scam.

The government in conjunction with the drug companies are putting microchips in the shots so they know where you are at all times and can infect you to increase the consumption of the drugs they make.

Jay told me this.

notyou2 wrote:The government in conjunction with the drug companies are putting microchips in the shots so they know where you are at all times and can infect you to increase the consumption of the drugs they make.

Jay told me this.

I was just thinking they were injecting sugar water into everyone.

It's not entirely a scam, but it's only about 65% effective. So, put your money on red or black, but in this case black comes up twice as often as red, so unless it's really expensive in your area, you're probably better off getting it than not getting it.

Flu doesn't kill people. Secondary infections kill people.

Yeah, my problem has never been the flu. But it's been quite a few different illnesses besides it. Hell, I'll be in the same house for a week with 3 people who have the flu, and end up with bronchitis or something.

#1_stunna wrote:People I know, who have the flu got a flu shot, and their spouses, who have not had the shot; do not have the flu!

W
T
F
!!!

This seems to be the trend with people I know too but that could be confirmation bias.

Army of GOD wrote:

#1_stunna wrote:People I know, who have the flu got a flu shot, and their spouses, who have not had the shot; do not have the flu!

W
T
F
!!!

This seems to be the trend with people I know too but that could be confirmation bias.

Previous to our trip to Europe, a friend of mine took a 14 day defenses strenghtening treatment. I don't know of what it consisted but I know it was a pharmaceutical treatment. He wanted me to take one but I forgot to start it. In the 5th day of the trip he got a cold. I was next to him the whole trip and never got it until the NY flight-stop (25 days later). I had to buy an expensive ugly sweatshirt at JFK.

I've never received a flu shot and I've only had the flu once in 10 years or more. At least "full blown flu symptoms". Puking...fever...shivering...etc.

I think a lot of people get a bad common cold and think it's the flu.

Yo. It depends on what strains they've got in the vaccines. There are numerous different strains of influenza viruses and the powers that be decide which go into the pot (usually about three) each year depending on past records of infections and predicted recurrences (or the vaccine cultures are the wrong kind- I don't know if this happens often). Most likely those that get signs of flu are encountering strains which they've never had before or it's been so long that their memory B cell populations have decreased dramatically and they have to produce more. Or they have poor immune systems, or whatever other reasons.

The cultures they put into vaccines are weakened though, and it's pretty much impossible these days to catch something serious from a flu vaccine; if you get that immune response it's probable that it's going to be a lot less severe than if you caught flu the old-fashioned way. Plus, it's actually a good thing, it means your immune system is functioning properly in response to the antigens from the flu vaccine.

I've never had a flu vaccine, though. Haven't had the flu since I was a kid (>15 years).

-TG

It's a scam! Anything for the almighty Dollar.

http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influ ... eness.html

A new scientific study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza vaccines only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are injected with the flu vaccine. Yet, predictably, this report is being touted by the quack science community, the vaccine-pushing CDC and the scientifically-inept mainstream media as proof that "flu vaccines are 60% effective!"


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influ ... z2Hkr6YnV7

BTW: I was the 13th voter.

Viceroy63 wrote:It's a scam! Anything for the almighty Dollar.

http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influ ... eness.html

A new scientific study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza vaccines only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are injected with the flu vaccine. Yet, predictably, this report is being touted by the quack science community, the vaccine-pushing CDC and the scientifically-inept mainstream media as proof that "flu vaccines are 60% effective!"


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influ ... z2Hkr6YnV7

BTW: I was the 13th voter.

You're gullible or a troll. Good day, sir.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Yo. It depends on what strains they've got in the vaccines. There are numerous different strains of influenza viruses and the powers that be decide which go into the pot (usually about three) each year depending on past records of infections and predicted recurrences (or the vaccine cultures are the wrong kind- I don't know if this happens often). Most likely those that get signs of flu are encountering strains which they've never had before or it's been so long that their memory B cell populations have decreased dramatically and they have to produce more. Or they have poor immune systems, or whatever other reasons.

The cultures they put into vaccines are weakened though, and it's pretty much impossible these days to catch something serious from a flu vaccine; if you get that immune response it's probable that it's going to be a lot less severe than if you caught flu the old-fashioned way. Plus, it's actually a good thing, it means your immune system is functioning properly in response to the antigens from the flu vaccine.

I've never had a flu vaccine, though. Haven't had the flu since I was a kid (>15 years).

-TG

Same here. Obviously, we are superior human beings. The rest can be weeded out--as evolution has dictated for those poor miserable weak humans.

Viceroy63 wrote:It's a scam! Anything for the almighty Dollar.

http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influ ... eness.html

A new scientific study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza vaccines only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are injected with the flu vaccine. Yet, predictably, this report is being touted by the quack science community, the vaccine-pushing CDC and the scientifically-inept mainstream media as proof that "flu vaccines are 60% effective!"


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influ ... z2Hkr6YnV7

BTW: I was the 13th voter.

You should try reading that before proclaiming it from the heavens. He can't even keep his figures or data straight:

The "treatment group" consisted of adults who were vaccinated with a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. Out of this group, according to the study, only 1.2% did not catch the flu.

So he's saying that 98.8% of the variable group caught the flu? That's, like, the most virulent strain of influenza, ever. Which is pretty amazing considering it's an inactivated culture. Scroll down a few lines and:

First, you take the 2.73% in the control group who got the flu, and you divide that into the 1.18% in the treatment group who got the flu. This gives you 0.43.

Why the disparity? Because he's a twat.

Try boning up on cell-mediated immunity before accusing others of ignorance when you so readily display it yourself.

-TG

edit: oh god, this guy is terrible at stats:

you are 400% more likely to be injured by the drug than helped by it! (Or 4 times more likely, which is the same thing stated differently.)

4x= 300% increase.

I laugh at their inferior constitutions.

-TG

It's almost as if we're talking about a virus.

My fav is the list of side-effects. This may stop your diarrhea, consider taking it three weeks before you travel abroad. Side effects include diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, chronic headaches, constipation, fever, bloating, internal bleeding, and death.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

Viceroy63 wrote:It's a scam! Anything for the almighty Dollar.

http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influ ... eness.html

A new scientific study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza vaccines only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are injected with the flu vaccine. Yet, predictably, this report is being touted by the quack science community, the vaccine-pushing CDC and the scientifically-inept mainstream media as proof that "flu vaccines are 60% effective!"


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influ ... z2Hkr6YnV7

BTW: I was the 13th voter.

You should try reading that before proclaiming it from the heavens. He can't even keep his figures or data straight:

The "treatment group" consisted of adults who were vaccinated with a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. Out of this group, according to the study, only 1.2% did not catch the flu.

So he's saying that 98.8% of the variable group caught the flu? That's, like, the most virulent strain of influenza, ever. Which is pretty amazing considering it's an inactivated culture. Scroll down a few lines and:

First, you take the 2.73% in the control group who got the flu, and you divide that into the 1.18% in the treatment group who got the flu. This gives you 0.43.

Why the disparity? Because he's a twat.

Try boning up on cell-mediated immunity before accusing others of ignorance when you so readily display it yourself.

-TG

edit: oh god, this guy is terrible at stats:

you are 400% more likely to be injured by the drug than helped by it! (Or 4 times more likely, which is the same thing stated differently.)

4x= 300% increase.

Tailgunner; I think that you need to slow down when you read something before you write all that nonsense that you wrote.

First of all, if you get the shot, you get the flu. Period. No matter how weak that strain is, you will get some flu symptoms if you take the shot. That 1 person out of 100 did not get any flu like symptom at all is the point that is being made in that article.

If you did not get a little flu like symptom then the flu shot would be no good since the point of the flu shot is to give your body some practice with a weak and dying flu virus in your system. To say that 60% did not get the flu is to say that the flu shot did not work 60% of the times.

The claim is that 60% of those who took the flu shot did not get the flu and that is the lie that the vaccine companies make and that they arrive at those figure by what is called "Massaging the Numbers."

Read the article again. Sometime you pick up on things better when you read it twice.

Symmetry wrote:It's almost as if we're talking about a virus.

No influenza virus has 99% virulence.

Viceroy wrote:Read the article again. Sometime you pick up on things better when you read it twice.

Hilarious. He says 1.2% percent contracted the flu, then he later says that same 1.2% didn't. Which is it?

First of all, if you get the shot, you get the flu. Period.

No. You clearly know nothing of the immune response. You don't get the "flu" until influenza viruses are so active they cause sickness. There's a difference between disease and infection. So technically with a vaccine you're "infected" with whatever the culture is (in this case influenza) but you don't (generally) contract the sickness associated with that specimen because they're weakened or inactivated.

Let me get this straight for you. If you're given an inactivated virus, you cannot get sick from it, unless:
1) the virus culture hasn't been inactivated
2) the virus culture somehow becomes magically activated
3) contamination

1) alleges that there's a grand conspiracy or gross incompetence on the part of health orgs, 2) is ridiculous, and 3) is possible but not likely.

-TG

Results So Far

Of people who received the flu shit, 1 in 3, or 33.3% got the flu.

Of people who did not receive the flu shit, 2 in 11, or 18.2% got the flu.



Before jumping to conclusions, like the flu shot is ineffective, remember that there are many factors to consider. As an example, it is possible that only sickly people get the flu shot, and those people were much more susceptible to getting the flu that the group of healthier people who didn't get the flu shot.



MFers.

In prison, they gave us the flu shot each year, i then watched as whole cellblocks got the flu. These were mainly healthy young men.

_sabotage_ wrote:In prison, they gave us the flu shot each year, i then watched as whole cellblocks got the flu. These were mainly healthy young men.

Thank you sir for speaking up and sharing and for speaking the truth most of all.

Some people just don't realize that the whole reason for the flu shot is to make one sick with the Flu in the first place. The idea is that your healthy body immune system gets some practice fighting off the flu. Only not the strong flu but a weaken strained subjected to radiation and dying off so that your body doesn't get too sick.

It's like a practice fire drill for you immune system where the system gets to beat up on some old and dying influenza viruses and this way practice for the real thing. So everyone injected with the flu shot is going to get the flu only not the full blown influenza that could potentially kill one if not treated in time. In most cases the body can even fight off the full blown influenza virus all on it's own. Only in a few cases do people need some kind of treatment and assistance.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:No influenza virus has 99% virulence.

Hilarious. He says 1.2% percent contracted the flu, then he later says that same 1.2% didn't. Which is it?

The article never stated what you are claiming above. The article was speaking of two groups and both groups had the flu. Only the group that did not get the vaccine did not all get sick. I urge you to please read it again only this time slowly and with your glasses on OK.

Try and notice that one group, The Control group, got the flu naturally all on their own as it does happen in nature when you simply share the same germs with a flu victim, while the other group is the TREATED group. The TREATED group is the group that received the vaccine.

Shock vaccine study reveals influenza vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults (not 60% as you've been told)
Read the full article at the link below.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influ ... z2Hpwft9ji


(NaturalNews) A new scientific study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza vaccines only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are injected with the flu vaccine. Yet, predictably, this report is being touted by the quack science community, the vaccine-pushing CDC and the scientifically-inept mainstream media as proof that "flu vaccines are 60% effective!"

This absurd claim was repeated across the mainstream media over the past few days, with all sorts of sloppy reporting that didn't even bother to read the study itself (as usual).

NaturalNews continues to earn a reputation for actually READING these "scientific" studies and then reporting what they really reveal, not what some vaccine-pushing CDC bureaucrat wants them to say. So we purchased the PDF file from The Lancet and read this study to get the real story.

The "60% effectiveness" claim is a total lie - here's why
What we found is that the "60% effectiveness" claim is utterly absurd and highly misleading. For starters, most people think that "60% effectiveness" means that for every 100 people injected with the flu shot, 60 of them won't get the flu!

Thus, the "60% effectiveness" claim implies that getting a flu shot has about a 6 in 10 chance of preventing you from getting the flu.

This is utterly false.

In reality -- and this is spelled out right in Figure 2 of the study itself, which is entitled, "Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis" -- only about 2.7 in 100 adults get the flu in the first place!

[Note]
For those of you without your glasses, this 2.7 is about the general population that gets the flu naturally by sharing germs in the first place. You must read the full article and Figure 2 to see where this is coming from. We see these same figures in the controlled group mentioned below.

See the abstract at:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanin ... -3099%2811%2...

Flu vaccine stops influenza in only 1.5 out of 100 adults who get the shots
Let's start with the actual numbers from the study.

The "control group" of adults consisted of 13,095 non-vaccinated adults who were monitored to see if they caught influenza. Over 97% of them did not. Only 357 of them caught influenza, which means only 2.7% of these adults caught the flu in the first place.

The "treatment group" consisted of adults who were vaccinated with a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. Out of this group, according to the study, only 1.2% did not catch the flu.

The difference between these two groups is 1.5 people out of 100.

So even if you believe this study, and even if you believe all the pro-vaccine hype behind it, the truly "scientific" conclusion from this is rather astonishing:

Flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of every 100 adults injected with the vaccine!

Note that this is very, very close to my own analysis of the effectiveness vaccines as I wrote back in September of 2010 in an article entitled, Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vacci ... ience.html)

In that article, I proclaimed that flu vaccines "don't work on 99 out of 100 people." Apparently, if you believe the new study, I was off by 0.5 people out of 100 (at least in adults, see below for more discussion of effectiveness on children).

So where does the media get "60% effective?"
This is called "massaging the numbers," and it's an old statistical trick that the vaccine industry (and the pharmaceutical industry) uses over and over again to trick people into thinking their useless drugs actually work.

First, you take the 2.73% in the control group who got the flu, and you divide that into the 1.18% in the treatment group who got the flu. This gives you 0.43.

You can then say that 0.43 is "43% of 2.73," and claim that the vaccine therefore results in a "57% decrease" in influenza infections. This then becomes a "57% effectiveness rate" claim.

The overall "60% effectiveness" being claimed from this study comes from adding additional data about vaccine efficacy for children, which returned higher numbers than adults (see below). There were other problems with the data for children, however, including one study that showed an increase in influenza rates in the second year after the flu shot.

So when the media (or your doctor, or pharmacist, or CDC official) says these vaccines are "60% effective," what they really mean is that you would have to inject 100 adults to avoid the flu in just 1.5 of them.

Or, put another way, flu vaccines do nothing in 98.5% of adults.

But you've probably already noticed that the mainstream media won't dare print this statistical revelation. They would much rather mislead everybody into the utterly false and ridiculous belief that flu vaccines are "60% effective," whatever that means.

How to lie with statistics
This little statistical lying technique is very popular in the cancer industry, too, where these "relative numbers" are used to lie about all sorts of drugs.

You may have heard, for example, that a breast cancer drug is "50% effective at preventing breast cancer!"

But what does that really mean? It could mean that 2 women out of 100 got breast cancer in the control group, and only 1 woman out of 100 got it in the treatment group. Thus, the drug is only shown to work on 1 out of 100 women.

But since 1 is 50% of 2, they will spin the store and claim a "50% breast cancer prevention rate!" And most consumers will buy into this because they don't understand how the medical industry lies with these statistics. So they will think to themselves, "Wow, if I take this medication, there is a 50% chance this will prevent breast cancer for me!"

And yet that's utterly false. In fact, there is only a 1% chance it will prevent breast cancer for you, according to the study.

Minimizing side effects with yet more statistical lies
At the same time the vaccine and drug industries are lying with relative statistics to make you think their drugs really work (even when they don't),...

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influ ... z2Hpvhss5y

Let me clarify some terms for you, Viceroy.

INACTIVATED VIRAL VACCINES- The viruses are destroyed. Parts of the capsids are intact, with antigen proteins on the surfaces. In order to contract diseases from viruses, they must be able to breach the cell wall and replicate (i.e. they must be intact and functional). You cannot get sick from inactivated vaccines, assuming no contamination and proper inactivation. It's why boosters are needed. The vaccine that was uses in the study you're blathering on about was an inactivated vaccine.

ATTENUATED VIRAL VACCINES- The virus are 'weakened', usually by making them less virulent through mutation and strain selection. You can get sick from these although it's rare.

There are others but they aren't as common.

Inactivated vaccines only trigger memory B cell production of the B cell with the proper antibody, which will remain for years to come. Essentially it skips the actual primary infection and gives you all the benefits. You can die from a primary infection.

Okay, so when you get signs and symptoms from an INACTIVATED vaccine, that is not a true disease; swelling, ache, etc, is a by product of the immune response and is the body making clones of the B cell antibody/antigen pairing. This is not dangerous unless you're immunocompromised or you have a freakish excessive response.

So now that we've got that cleared up--

The article never stated what you are claiming above. The article was speaking of two groups and both groups had the flu.

How are you not getting this? We agree, there's one (1) control group, and one (1) treatment group. Please spot for me the difference between these two phrases-

only 1.2% did not catch the flu.

So here he says 98.8% of the treatment group caught the flu.

1.18% in the treatment group who got the flu.

Notice it yet? Either 1.2% of the treatment group contracted the flu, or 98.8%. Pick one.

Okay, point three-- This guy is a major hypocrite. The abstract that he sourced gathered data from 31 studies, yet he cherry picks one study (which he can't even keep straight). There's no mention of whether the control group had resistance conferred from herd immunity, or past infection, etc.

-TG

#1_stunna wrote:People I know, who have the flu got a flu shot, and their spouses, who have not had the shot; do not have the flu.

The flu shot is not an instant fix, it takes two weeks for the antibodies to develop and create the immunity. Also a flu shot is not a 100% effective.