That used to happen Jem when they used a live vaccine now it’s dead so it cannot cause flu and usually most anyone will have is an achy arm.
You live your life your way I will live mine my way oddly I seem to have survived so far with my way.
[/B]
. . or on rats, mice, monkeys and Beagles. 
Nothing odd about it at all. The Flu Jab has no effect so if we were testing, we ought to find no difference to normal life. You are proof positive.
This notion you and some others have that, because you haven’t had flu lately, the vaccine must be working is I’m afraid bad thinking. The reason can simply be determined by looking at the number of flu cases globally each year. These figures are given to us by the World Health Organisation (WHO) here:
"Influenza occurs globally with an annual attack rate estimated at 5%–10% in adults and 20%–30% in children. Illnesses can result in hospitalization and death mainly among high-risk groups (the very young, elderly or chronically ill). Worldwide, these annual epidemics are estimated to result in about 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness, and about 250 000 to 500 000 deaths
Let’s just look at that again to be sure. Globally, across the entire world, there are, WORSE CASE, 5 million cases of severe illness.
Currently there are 7.3 BILLION people in the world.
So out of those 7.3 BILLION people, there will be, WORSE CASE, 5 million cases of severe illness.
As a percentage that is :
5,000,000 / 7,300,000,000 * 100
or 0.068%
That is less than 1/100th of a percent of the global population that will get a severe case of illness.
To put it a different way, you have a 1 in 1460 chance of getting a serious case of illness each year.
That’s pretty good odds. It means you are extremely unlikely to get the virus. By your own admission, this is exactly the result you are seeing. The fallacy is that you are attributing this result to the flu vaccine when in fact it is simple published fact that there are few cases each year relative to the global population.
Of course you won’t be interested in such numbers as that falls in the rational rather than emotional domain. You won’t dispute the numbers but you won’t acknowledge them either. Such is your prerogative.
The numbers are pretty staggering. The percentage of people getting a serious illness is 0.068% and people are having flu vaccinations which themselves only help 1 in 100 people, just to protect themselves from that less than 1/100th % chance ! Quite alarming what people can be made to believe.
I will err on the side of caution, thank you.
Given that I have reached this stage of life without ever having 'flu, and given that I have not even had a cold of any kind for about 30 years - I am not going to worry !
Bring on the chicken and garlic soup!!
You are very lucky ST I seem to get every cold going, Steven fills vending machines in two hospitals so every bug going he brings home and the kids have regularly brought things home from school to kindly share with me. I am not saying the flu jab has helped but it seems since Steven and I started having them our colds hardly come to anything slight sniffle is all and his hay fever symptoms have lessened greatly - much less sneezing etc. Something is working and it all coincided with us getting the flu jab.
I am not taking any notice of nay sayers as we both seem to be benefiting from the flu jab and we are not the only ones I have heard have found these things to be true.
Some of us are not so lucky ST and have various medical conditions including damaged lungs and if we do contract a virus like flu may go on to develop a secondary bacterial infection which further damages the lungs or worse .
I have episodes of a lung condition which does not respond to most antibiotics and I will do as advised by my Consultant with regard to vaccinations.
Julie 
I don’t take any notice of people I consider to be ill informed either.
On member here keeps going on about the Cochrane Study which was I think a study of ''Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults’’ totally ignoring the fact that we are no all healthy.
As they say ‘a little knowledge can be dangerous’.
True what some may survive can be a killer for others I was told in no uncertain terms another chest infection as severe as my last could be my last, so I took the advice given and have the jabs recommended.
My husband saw how much better I was coping with colds etc and had one too and has had the same effect on him. That to me is how I judge these things.
Here is an alternative view Wishbone we can all search for items to cut and paste to prove a point…
SIMPLE MATH BEHIND SCARY FLU VACCINE INGREDIENTS
2015/05/27 THE ORIGINAL SKEPTICAL RAPTOR 272 COMMENTS
When dealing with those pushing pseudoscience, like the antivaccination cult, the most frustrating thing is that they tend to ignore and deny the most basic tenets of science. If denying the fact of gravity would further their goals of “proving” vaccines are neither effective nor safe, they would do so. For all I know, they have.
If the antivaccination movement didn’t lead to epidemics of long-gone diseases, which can harm and kill children, the conversation would be over. I would just put the vaccine deniers in the same group as evolution deniers (creationists) or gravity deniers (there has to be some, somewhere). I would mock their pseudoscience, and move on. Of course, their denialism does lead to deaths of children, so we have to do what is right, and stop their lies, misinformation and ignorance in every forum we can.
Mathematics and science
For some, mathematics is the foundation of all science. Biology is dependent upon chemistry which is dependent upon physics which is dependent upon mathematics. Of course, I’m oversimplifying the relationships between the various branches of basic science, but my own scientific education moved in roughly the direction of advanced mathematics through basic physics to organic and physical chemistry to biology, cell biology, biochemistry and physiology.
Without mathematics, the scientific method might not make sense, because it requires statistical analysis to find small changes or differences. Though it is long lost from my brain, advanced statistics was necessary in every analysis I performed in my science life. It allowed me to find biological changes with tiny amounts of a hormone or growth factor. I didn’t observe the changes directly, only through mathematical analysis did it become apparent.
Vaccine ingredients
Above is a photo circulating around social networks that attempt to point out all of the scary flu vaccine ingredients. Of course, if one has an understanding of A) basic human physiology, and B) basic mathematics, including how small numbers are really small, this photo with the scary ingredients highlighted would be laughable. Well, I do have and understanding of both, and this is laughable. I mean so laughable, it’s possible I pulled a muscle.
Formaldehyde and vaccines
Let’s start with with first highlighted ingredient, formaldehyde. This simple bio-organic molecule is used in the purification of the vaccine (the last thing we want is contamination from viruses or bacteria)– 99.9% of which is removed during the final steps of manufacturing.
The package labeling does not include the amount of formaldehyde in the vaccines because it is so tiny, so minuscule, so veritably invisible, that the amount actually cannot be measured. It’s possible that there is actually no formaldehyde in solution, because it cannot be measured, but the chances are good there is some because the manufacturing process can’t dilute out the vaccine sufficiently to guarantee that every picogram (that’s one trillionth of a gram) is removed, because it would dilute the vaccine’s antigen too.
But I can tell you where formaldehyde can be measure. The normal blood level of formaldehyde is 2.74 +/- 0.14 mg/L. A normal child has a blood volume of 2-3 L, so a normal child has 5-9 mg of formaldehyde floating in her blood, about 1,000,000X more than found in a dose of vaccine. Is that math clear? It would take probably 10-20 million doses of vaccines to just slightly increase the formaldehyde level in your child.
Now you might think “how did that evil formaldehyde get into my sweet child whom I feed organic foods, and don’t let them touch vaccines.” Well, not only do your math skills suck (let me remind the reader, 10 million doses of vaccines to measurably move the formaldehyde level–all at once), but so does your physiology knowledge. The body produces formaldehyde as a byproduct of metabolizing alcohols (not necessarily just from a beer, but the alcohol that is produced in the body and in other foods). And lots of foods contain formaldehyde, including fruits, nuts, and other yummy things.
In addition, formaldehyde is filtered from the blood rather quickly (since it is toxic), and its half-life, that is the average time one-half of the molecules of formaldehyde stay in the blood, is around 1 minute. It does not accumulate, so even if you got that 10-20 million doses of vaccines, the tiny amount of formaldehyde injected would be gone in 1-2 minutes. It is simple math.
Yes, formaldehyde is a carcinogen, it can cause cancer. However, the reference dose (that is the maximum daily dose over a lifetime that would be considered safe) for formaldehyde is around 0.2 mg/kg weight/day. In other words, an average child, let’s say 20 kg (about 48 lbs), could consume 4 mg of formaldehyde a day safely. Again, about 1 million times more formaldehyde than in a single dose of vaccines. And as far as I know, even amongst the most enthusiastic and ardent vaccine supporters, not one of them is demanding that we give children 1 million vaccinations. Every day. For the rest of their lives.
Once again, it is just the math.
Are we clear on this? The math doesn’t support the ludicrous claims that formaldehyde in vaccines is poisoning our children.
Thiomersal and vaccines
So let’s move on to the other highlighted flu vaccine ingredients, and that’s the old canard, dangerous thiomersal (or thimerosal in the USA–my education is 100% US based, but for some reason I’ve used the non-USA spelling for 30 years). Let’s make some points clear right now. This is NOT mercury in its elemental form, which you might remember from old-style medical thermometers. So there isn’t a pool of mercury in the vaccine vial. Moreover, thiomersal is ONLY used, at least in vaccines, in multi-use vials, these days, only the flu vaccine.
Thiomersal is a toxic compound, there is no denying that. But let’s get back to math. The toxicity of compounds is measured through an analysis called the dose-response relationship, which describes the change in effect on an organism caused by differing doses of a compound after a certain exposure time. Table salt is tasty and safe in small amounts, but could kill you if taken in huge amounts. The dose-response relationship provides a graph that mathematically establishes what amounts of a compound causes what effects. This would seem to be a logical, and easily understood concept, but for many individuals, a bad substance is always bad.
First of all, the half-life of thiomersal in blood is around 2.2 days. That might seem long, but it means half is gone in a couple of days, cleared out by the kidneys. It does not accumulate.
But the math is even more telling. This flu vaccine, given once a year, has a maximum dose of 25 micrograms of mercury (but not elemental mercury). According to the thiomersal Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), the LD50, that is, the approximate dose at which 50% of organisms will die (in this case a mouse), is 5011 mg/kg body weight.
So, a 20 kg child would get 25 micrograms of non-elemental mercury in one injection once a year. The theoretical LD50 dose for that same child would be around 100 grams of thiomersal, or about 4 million times higher than the amount of thiomersal in one vaccine dose–if vaccines used in children actually had thiomersal, which it doesn’t.
So, you would have to inject your child 4 million times a day, every day, to make it potentially toxic. And no, dose-response relationships are not linear. That doesn’t mean that there’s some tiny risk of death from even a small dose of thiomersal–there is actually NO risk. And again, since there’s no thiomersal in pediatric vaccines this argument is ridiculous.
But more than all that, we have solid scientific data that show us that thiomersal is totally unrelated to autism, and is completely safe in vaccines. This illogical removal of thiomersal from vaccines makes it nearly impossible to have multi-use vials, so every vaccine has to be in a single-use prefilled syringe, which has rapidly driven up the costs of vaccines. Wait. That’s more evidence that antivaccination lunatics are in the pockets of Big Pharma. They pushed to get rid of thiomersal to make more profits for Big Pharma. That was an awesome move on their part.
Conclusions
So there it is. Simple math shows us that these are not dangerous toxins being injected into our kids. Sadly, simple math may not be in the list of skills of vaccine deniers.
More simple math problems for vaccine deniers in my follow up article.
It is a very personal choice which has to factor in all that you have mentioned. I would never presume to advise anyone for or against as I have no knowledge of their medical history. 
Very true which is why I hope no one is put off by all the vast posts to tell people not to do it, it has to be a personal choice and scaremongering could kill.
Very wise,We must make up Our Own minds and do what We think best
I had a wee dilemma some time back when My cholesterol was a bit high,and the Nurse suggested I may want to go on statins to lower it,but as My overall health is good re’ blood pressure,blood sugar etc’,I decided after reading up on it all to decline…My decision,My choice…Even though a lovely Person on here said if I happened to have a heart attack,then I should be denied NHS treatment,and another (a nurse) agreed with Her…Aren’t some Folks just too kind ;~)
I remember that and remember hoping never to be nursed by anyone who could think that :shock:
Aye well,Everyone’s entitled to Their opinion…I suppose it’s much like saying if You don’t go for the jab,and You are unlucky to catch a bad bout of flu’ which makes You very ill,then You too should not be entitled to be treated by the NHS…same thing …not nice at all :~(
Meg
Thanks for the link and congratulations on being the first person to actually try and put up some kind of “research” to support your view. That is, imo, the correct way to conduct debate and discussion rather than the lame anecdotal nonsense being peddled by some here.
I read through the article and read through various responses to it by other people and have the following comments to make.
My comments concern:
Any Agenda of the site/author itself and any links to the vaccine institutions
The author’s Approach to the issue and whether or not that is rational, scientific and evidential
The actual evidence presented to support the case/view
Agenda
Reading the various comments by other people there are statements that :
“Skeptical Raptor is tied to the medical industry, which is tied to the government, FDA, CDC, and the AMA.”
and
“your income and career depend on the AMA and their crooked affiliations with the drug companies”
This suggests that the author could have a level of bias and would be unwilling to debunk or challenge the very institutions that he works for/with.
Nevertheless, agenda or no, we can still read his points and assess them objectively.
Approach
The author claims on his home page that:
“In common vernacular, a skeptic is someone who requires extraordinary evidence before accepting extraordinary claims”
This is a useful definition and admission from the author from which we can reasonably expect that the author will set out in full copious amounts of evidence in regards to the flu vaccine. So we should see cited numerous studies and randomised controlled tests all done with large amounts of actual humans.
The author also states:
“As a skeptic, I don’t accept the existence of a god or gods, I don’t accept magical claims in medicine and science, and I don’t accept claims made by politicians who don’t provide adequate support for their claims”
Again this is encouraging and so I look forward to the “adequate support” for any claims he makes.
Evidence
This is where things get somewhat disappointing. Firstly there is not one single case study cited in terms of clinical tests of the vaccine itself. So this guy, and his site, are of no help whatsoever in helping us determine whether or not the flu jab is nothing more than quack medicine or snake oil.
We can perhaps forgive this because the article is more about the debate concerning the ingredients in the vaccine rather than whether the thing is of any benefit to anyone.
His approach to the ingredients debate and people’s claims that the vaccine contains toxic ingredients is to look at the maths behind the ingredients.
Sadly, again, he gets himself in a bit of a mess with this. In particular, the key toxic ingredient, Thimerosal (mercury containing) is the one he completely gets in a mess.
He freely (and rightly!) concedes that Thimerosal is a toxic compound and that each vaccine dose has up to 25 micrograms of the toxic compound in it. What he then goes on to do is cite the “Thimerosal Material Safety Data Sheet” which he provides a link to and claims from it that the Lethal Dose (at which 50% of organisms will die) is 5011 mg/kg body weight.
Rather laughably his material data sheet is not for Thimerosal at all but for a completely different chemical called Dimercaptosuccinic Acid ! Oooops.
His entire math and reasoning from this point on are fatally flawed as he is using the wrong data.
When you look at the correct data things are quite different. Here’s the correct link to that data sheet:
(it’s actually a PDF file so select Save As and save it as msds.pdf)
https://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php%
In there the real figures are:
Thimerosal: ORAL (LD50): Acute: 75 mg/kg [Rat]. 91 mg/kg [Mouse].
Wow ! Some difference! So the lethal dosage is just 75-91 micrograms (for rat/mouse) and each flu vaccine dose has up to 25 micrograms of this stuff and thus chump is trying to make a case for this toxic substance not being harmful ! Just wow!
The guy can’t get his references correct and has made ridiculous claims about the content level of a very dangerous substance in the vaccines based on that faulty data. In short, this is not the work of a professional person and can not be relied on in any shape or form. His math and research are so badly wrong that other people have added comments to his article to explain in finite detail just how stupid he has made himself look.
I shall post those comments in the next post as they are quote long.
Overall the situation remains unchanged and the internationally respected studies of the Cochrane Library stand and the statistics of the World Health Organisation stand. Thus the Flu Vaccine only benefits approx. 1 in every 100 people who have it, it contains dangerously high levels of the toxic compound Thimerosal and either way, only 5 million severe cases of flu occur globally each year in a population of 7.3 BILLION meaning you have less that 1/100th of a percent chance of catching it.
Here is the response to the article from more knowledgeable people:
"I read this article and the math for thimerosal doesn’t appear to be correct. 5000mg/kg is the LD50 for Dimercaptosucchinic Acid which is unrelated to Thimerosal.
For comparison purposes here are the LD50 values for Methylmercury and Ethylmercury and Thimerosal.
Methylmercury: Intraperitoneal (monkey) LD50: 5.6 mg/kg
Methylmercury: Intraperitoneal (rat) LD50: 11 mg/kg
Methylmercury: Oral (rat) LD50: 29.915 mg/kg
Ethylmercury: LD50 Oral – rat – 40 mg/kg
Thimerosal: ORAL (LD50): Acute: 75 mg/kg [Rat].
https://www.spectrumchemical.com/MSDS/T3380.pdf
So you can see that in rats Methylmercury is 30% more toxic(deadly) than Ethylmercury and it is far more toxic when it is injected intraperitoneally and it is twice as toxic in monkeys.
Thimerosal is 50% Ethylmercury by weight and Thimerosal gets metabolised to Ethylmercury very quickly in our body.
So we can safely assume that in mammals Ethylmercury is more deadly than Elemental mercury.
Now we take the oral LD50 values for Ethylmercury in rats (40mg/kg) and adjust them.
Keep in mind that the mercury in flu shots is injected and we have seen above mercury was twice as toxic in monkeys.
In the above example injected mercury was 6 times more toxic in monkeys than oral mercury in rats.
40mg/6= 6.6mg
So we could expect the LD50 values for injected Ethylmercury in monkeys to be around 6.6mg/kg.
For a 20kg human the LD50 would be 133mg Ethylmercury that is 5300 flu shots that would be needed to cause death.
That is 300.000 times less than what would find.
Another problem with your calculation:
You write the LD50 value would be needed to make it potentially toxic or before it can do any harm.
The LD50 value means that it is potentially DEADLY. A substance can be potentially TOXIC long before it is potentially deadly.
If you want to know the lowest dose where toxic effects can occur you would have to look at the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL)
In mercury toxicity the LOAEL is only a small fraction of the LD50 which means you will get toxic effects long before you see death. While it is unethical to study this in humans it is sadly allowed with animals and there are many animal studies that show this.
If you want to know if a specific dose is likely to be safe for humans you would want to compare the acute reference dose(RfD):
A reference dose is the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum acceptable oral dose of a toxic substance.
There aren’t any available reference doses for ethylmercury.
There are reference doses for elemental mercury and organic mercurials(mostly chronic i believe) but it is not known how well they would apply to acute ethylmercury exposure. Generally most of the more toxic known mercury species including elemental mercury are fairly toxic and the reference doses are not surprisingly quite low and in the microgram/kg range.
http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm
Your simple math makes the mercury in the flu shot look at least 1 million times less toxic than it actually is.
According to your calculations you would have to give 4 million shots a day -that would be 1.4 billion shots/year – to cause any harm in one single child.
In reality your “patient” would have a 50% chance of dying after the the first 5000 shots and would likely have some brain damage after the first 250 shots.
With the thimerosal from 1.4 billion shots you could actually kill over 100.000 children.(That is based on either the published LD50 value for Ethylmercury or the LD50 of Thimerosal and assuming 25mcg Ethylmercury per shot- see link below) .
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM305089.pdf
So the calculations are far off and have nothing to do with real-world scenarios.
"
Arthur this wasn’t a debate as far as I was a aware it was a post with a question for others who usually have the flu vaccination as to the timing.
You can discuss it all you like, I have no intention of ‘discussing’ anything with you.
See my earlier post…
For those interested here is another “Material Safety Data Sheet” for the toxic compound Thimerosal which contains organic Mercury and is in Flu Vaccines.
http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/media/1.13.pdf
Please read and judge for yourself whether this is harmless!
Note that the level of Thimerosal in vaccines is up to 25 mcg (micrograms)
Some good salient points from Section 11 onwards:
ACUTE EXPOSURE
Oral: Rat, median lethal dose 73 mg/kg, reduced activity, drooping eyelids, weakness.
Intravenous: Rat, median lethal dose estimated greater than 45 mg/kg, mortality
CHRONIC EXPOSURE
Thimerosol is a mercuric compound. Toxicity data for thimerosal and mercury are presented.
Target Organ Effects:
Thimerosal - Kidney effects (tubule necrosis), lung effects (tissue changes).
Mercury - Nervous system effects (insomnia, tremor, anorexia, weakness, headache), liver effects
(jaundice, digestive effects (hypermotility, diarrhea).
Other Effects:
Thimerosal - Decreased weight gain.
Reproduction:
Thimerosal - Decreased offspring survival.
Mercury - Changes in sperm production, decreased offspring survival, and offspring nervous system
effects including mild to severe mental retardation and motor coordination impairment.