Serious problems with flu shot safety and effectiveness

Bruce · 12 November 2018 11:40

His figures appear to be rubbish. Was any source quoted?

Realist · 12 November 2018 11:40

The problem there is that the numbers would be going down not up if the vaccine had any effect at all. Unfortunately the numbers are rising. QED the vaccine is useless and a possible suspect for the rising numbers.

Yes I have checked. I’ve done my research and provided you with all the links to the data. You obviously haven’t checked those links or bothered to look.

I would agree, ALWAYS BEWARE of anyone spouting utter crap who has absolutely no source references to backup their spiel. There’s an awful lot of it on this forum.

Myself however, I ALWAYS provide source links for the information I put up. It’s not anecdotal rhetoric, it is based in fact and there are source references given every time.

In respect of this particular issue, the number of deaths attributed to Influneza itself, one has to be careful. The gathering of statistics by some quarters is not “clinical”, not thorough and thus in some cases the death toll they cite is actually a huge mix of deaths caused by various conditions including Influenza itself, pneumonia, renal issues, other respiratory conditions and so on.

I have no axe to grind as you put it here. I’m happy to see people put numbers up for debate. What is very clear is that the waters can be seriously muddied by people not properly keeping the true statistics.

So, this said, let me once again do the work for you by again providing the links to the UK Government numbers for Influenza caused deaths, from the Office For National Statistics.

I’m providing the links to the raw data which ONS provide in Excel Spreadsheet form. In each case simply go to TABLE 2 in the spreadsheet and scroll down to the line for Influenza Deaths which is quoted for Male and Females separately.

Happy reading

Bruce · 12 November 2018 12:16

Your research is seriously flawed

You claim 79 deaths for 2009 yet other sources report deaths of over a hundred:

To tens of thousands:

“estimated excess of 13,058 influenza A all-cause deaths”

The BMJ reported 138 confirmed swine flu deaths in 2009

Again a figure at odds with your simplistic study

According to Centre for Clinical Vaccinology and Tropical Medicine, Churchill Hospital, University of Oxford.

“In the UK it is estimated that an average of 600 people a year die from complications of flu.”

Note that these are authoritative sources not some old bloke with too much time on his hands trawling through statistics that he doesn’t understand.

This is the problem with untrained people reading statistics that they are not skilled enough to use in any meaningful way. It could well be that deaths from flu are included in other categories.

And if you think I am going to plough through the nonsense you come up with then you are out of your tiny mind. It is so easily shown to be incomplete, ill advised drivel yet you expect people to take notice of this rubbish you spew out.

Julie1962 · 12 November 2018 12:27

Can we be sure numbers would go down as the number on the planet rises daily ? and many places don’t vaccinate at all so are vulnerable to all sorts of diseases ?

Realist · 12 November 2018 13:15

@Bruce

As I said, you are now playing with numbers, as my old Maths teacher would say, you are trying to compare apples with oranges.

I was very clear in what I said to you. There are mortality rates attributable SPECIFICALLY to Influenza. That is what the ONS numbers are.

There are also mortality rates attributable to a wide variety of other illnesses, complications and conditions, for example Pneumonia. The stats you are providing there fall into this latter category.

Let’s deal with them.

Firstly the Independent article I’m afraid is to be ignored. It’s a newspaper, not a medical authoritative body but the most damning element of the articles is that it FAILS TO CITE AND SOURCE REFERENCE for its numbers. It has to be ignored (whether it supported my numbers or not).

The second reference you cite, the NCBI link is providing numbers for ALL related causes and conditions as well as specific flu cause. It tells you this in the opening statement:

“The objective of this study was to estimate the impact of influenza on all-cause and cause-specific mortality during this period”

I have no problem with its numbers but you have to understand the numbers are NOT deaths SPECIFICALLY caused by Influenza (which is what the ONS numbers are).
They are numbers using certain algorithms to try and sift through the wide range of illnesses and conditions and come up with guesstimates of how many of those might have been linked to Influenza.

Again, let me be clear, I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever in looking at these different type of statistics or any others. Just as long as you understand them for what they are.

The same situation exists for the VX link you provided.

CONCLUSION

Nothing you have posted there contradicts or undermines the Death Mortality Rates provided by the UK Government ONS data. The ONS data is what it is. It is the number of people who have died SPECIFICALLY from Influenza. Nothing more, nothing less.

What is important is the trend of such statistics. If the trend is going up then the flu vaccines are not doing their job are they?!

If you wish, then by all means go and get hold of all the mortality statistics for ALL CAUSES, all illnesses, conditions, complications relating to or occurring after a bout of flu. Grab that data for every year in the UK and we’ll take a look.
We’ll be able to see if those numbers are going up or down.

Nope. Its not MY research, its the official data from the UK Government Office For National Statistics. They record every death in the UK (Coroner’s Reports etc) and log the cause of death. The numbers are not flawed as such, they just represent the deaths specifically caused by Influenza.

Other sources are reporting ALL conditions not deaths specifically caused by Influenza. Apples, bananas.

Realist · 12 November 2018 13:26

Reasonable question.

Here’s the official statement about the % take-up of the flu vaccine in the UK Julie:

“72.6% (7,426,917/10,235,533) for patients aged 65 years and over, compared to 70.5% in 2016 to 2017”

This is the source:

Seasonal influenza vaccine uptake in GP patients: winter season 2017 to 2018
Final data for 1 September 2017 to 31 January 2018

Genuine question.

Do you not think, honestly and sincerely, that IF the flu vaccine had any efficacy at all, and that if 72% of the older generation ARE having that vaccine, that the mortality rates from Influenza would be coming down rather than going up?

That’s a high take-up imho.

JBR · 12 November 2018 13:42

Well said.

I admit that I have disagreed with you before on different matters, but I will say that you have here provided clear evidence of your case.

I would rather accept official government figures than those found in newspapers.

It is a well known fact that ALL newspapers are biased one way or another.

Realist · 12 November 2018 14:24

Whilst that may be the case, the problem in this instance is that the newspaper article fails to cite its source for the numbers it provides. That’s a fundamental error on their part. It means no-one can examine the underlying data. We can’t tell for example what they are including and excluding from their numbers.

JBR · 12 November 2018 15:38

True.

Realist · 12 November 2018 16:40

For Julie

The link below is the official ONS report on ALL mortality in the UK, i.e. all causes of death:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/quarterlymortalityreports/januarytomarch2018

If you read through it you will see that they understand and have taken account of the rising number of people in the population, the point that you raised earlier.

Despite this the trends that their data shows is clear. The overall number of deaths in the UK (all causes) has been gradually dropping. Here are 2 of the charts in the article, separate charts for Males and Females, the trend is the same, mortality dropping.

So, given the above data, given that despite population increase, the number of deaths is going down, why is it then that the number of deaths SPECIFICALLY caused by Influenza have been going UP ?!

AnnieS · 12 November 2018 18:06

They would have made a big difference in mortalities from spanish flu. Many of those who died developed pneumonia.

Twink55 · 12 November 2018 18:18

That is very true Annie. What many people don’t realize is that it isn’t always the virus that kills you, it is the bacterial infections that you cannot fight whilst your immune system is so compromised from fighting a virus. That is why so many death certificates say the cause of death is pneumonia, when that wasn’t the original cause of the patients poor health.
Perhaps that is the reason that influenza is not quoted as the cause of death on many “flu patients” death certificates.

Realist · 12 November 2018 18:49

Yep which is why they use these special algorithms I mentioned earlier, algorithms to do a guesstimate on which deaths were associated with Influenza rather than specifically caused by it.

Google FluMOMO and EuroMOMO for more info on that.

AnnieS · 12 November 2018 19:16

You don’t need 100% efficacy to prevent the spread of flu. 20 to 30 % gives herd immunity. The higher the uptake the safer the population.

AnnieS · 12 November 2018 19:19

There are many variables as to why flu deaths rise. The question is are more people contracting flu? It seems there is no concrete data for that.

Realist · 12 November 2018 20:14

Well as you know the idea of the vaccine is to make the body develop antibodies which will fight flu when it happens.

Thus, the vaccine doesn’t actually prevent people catching flu in the first instance does it? What it is supposed to do is help people combat flu quickly when they get it.

That being the case how would you ever be able to count the number of people actually catching flu? If the vaccine worked (and we know it doesn’t) then those people catching flu who had the vaccine wouldn’t get badly sick, wouldn’t report it and likely wouldn’t even know or feel they had actually contracted flu.

So the only real data one can acquire and look at are the actual reported instances of Flu, the people presenting to their GPs and hospitals etc and the number of deaths caused by Flu.

We’ve talked about all that data before, I’ve posted it up in the threads. The trend is UP not down. At the start of 2018 the numbers of people presenting to their GPs with ILIs was up 150%. Deaths resulting directly from Flu are also going up as I have posted in most of these threads.

The vaccine is NOT working. We can dance around the issue indefinitely but the fact remains, the flu vaccines are useless.

That being the case we need to look long and hard at what damage they are actually doing, whether they are responsible for lowering elderly people’s immune systems, leaving them more vulnerable to bugs and viruses and whether vaccinated people spread the flu around more than unvaccinated people as that previous study suggested was the case.

AnnieS · 12 November 2018 21:02

Let’s see how the 1819 flu season goes.

It’s pretty clear that WHO did not guess the correct flu strains to vaccinate in 1718. Hopefully they have it right this year.

The elderly have a vaccine that is supposed to boost their immune response so that should help. Immune response decreases with age. A university of Bergen study published last year found that the vaccine does not reduce immune response.

AnnieS · 12 November 2018 21:12

Twink it’s scary how much we rely on antibiotics. We have been so lucky to have them. The EU is curbing the use of antibiotics on farm animals from 2022. But we need global regulation to stop anti-microbial resistance.

Realist · 12 November 2018 21:36

Why would you expect anything special from it? The vaccine being used, is FLUAD, a vaccine that has been around for many many years.

The same situation occurs just about every year. It’s just guesswork and that’s why the vaccine is largely useless.

The antibodies that vaccines “force” the body to create are nothing like the true antibodies that the body would create by itself when a person contracts the flu. Vaccine forced antibodies are far more fickle and don’t last.

Then there’s the problem of the very negative effects the vaccine has on people.

Cochrane Institute has this to say:

[i]"The underlying assumption that influenza vaccination does not affect the risk of non-influenza is contradicted by a recent report from the follow up of a trial by Cowling et al.8 In 115 participants, those who received trivalent influenza vaccines had higher risk of acute respiratory infection associated with confirmed non-influenza respiratory virus infection (RR, 4.40; 95% CI, 1.31–14.8) compared to placebo recipients. The agents were mainly rhinoviruses and coxsackie/echoviruses; ILI episodes occurred shortly after a peak of influenza activity.

Current yearly registration of candidate influenza vaccines is based on their ability to trigger a good antibody response. But antibody responses are poor predictors of field protection. This is another example of the use of surrogate outcomes in biomedicine, where effects on clinically important outcomes remain unmeasured or unproven from randomised trials: complications and death by influenza."[/I]

The study Cochrane is referring to is here:

We knew all this already though. Having the flu vaccine puts people at increased risk of contracting a range of ILIs and respiratory infections. Not really something the more vulnerable in the community want or need I would suggest !

Realist · 12 November 2018 21:50

What we need is global regulation which honestly and openly identifies and supports the wide range of natural antibiotics that exist in Nature.