_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 whyWhat 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 statisticsThis 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 liesAt 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