The Dr. Oz Bait for Vaccines: Why Did He Do It?

[Revmitchell]

................Study after study keeps coming to the same conclusion: Flu vaccines DO NOT WORK, and in many cases do more harm than good.

In fact, before the CDC advocated vaccinating children under the age of five, the number of children dying from the flu was very low, and on the decline. Then, in 2003, just after children aged five and under started getting vaccinated, the number of flu deaths skyrocketed.

For this year’s flu season, five biopharmaceutical companies have been awarded massive contracts by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for development and production of more than 195 million doses of swine flu vaccine, in addition to the seasonal flu vaccine.

The companies -- Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, MedImmune, Australian drug maker CSL, and Sanofi-Pasteur -- will likely make a great deal of money.

CSL has contracts to supply $180 million worth of bulk antigen to the U.S. MedImmune will supply 40 million doses of its live attenuated nasal spray swine flu vaccine for more than $450 million. And Sanofi-Pasteur is providing more than 100 million doses of monovalent swine flu vaccine, a $690 million order.

More Here

 

[Johnv]

... Flu vaccines DO NOT WORK, and in many cases do more harm than good...

That's an outright falsehood. The OP site Mercola, a quack "natural medicine" site.

 

[annsni]

I agree that Mercola is not a reliable source for information.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Totally false information in the OP. People should be ashamed to post such disinformation.

 

[Martin]

................Study after study keeps coming to the same conclusion: Flu vaccines DO NOT WORK, and in many cases do more harm than good.

==That is simply not true. O, you can find some nutty professor or M.D. out there who will say it is. After all, you can find someone who promotes almost anything nowadays. The fact is that flu shots do work. Are they perfect? No, but the immunization provided by the shots is far better than no immunization at all.

In fact, before the CDC advocated vaccinating children under the age of five, the number of children dying from the flu was very low, and on the decline. Then, in 2003, just after children aged five and under started getting vaccinated, the number of flu deaths skyrocketed.

==Evidence?

Any numbers you are using may be affected by changes in CDC monitoring. For example, in the 04-05 season the CDC widened its monitoring of pediatric hospitalizations. The CDC clearly states that "Influenza-associated pediatric mortality was first made a nationally notifiable condition for the 2004-05 influenza season. Due to the length of time this system has been in place, and because state participation may vary, it is not feasible to compare the number of deaths from season-to-season" (LINK). Still, just by looking at the numbers, there does not appear to have been a major spike in flu related deaths in the years since 2003. This year there has been a spike in pediatric flu deaths due to Swine Flu (H1N1) infections. However that was expected and is not linked to the seasonal flu shot or the H1N1 shot since, to my knowledge, those children who have died did not recieve the H1N1 vaccine.

For this year’s flu season, five biopharmaceutical companies have been awarded massive contracts by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for development and production of more than 195 million doses of swine flu vaccine, in addition to the seasonal flu vaccine.

The companies -- Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, MedImmune, Australian drug maker CSL, and Sanofi-Pasteur -- will likely make a great deal of money.

==Since I believe in Capitalism, I see nothing wrong with that. Those companies provide a service that is in demand at this time and will therefore see a rise in their profits. That is the way things work in an economy where supply and demand plays a major role in profits. The demand for the vaccine is there, so they are pumping up the supply to meet that demand.

 

[Martin]

Totally false information in the OP. People should be ashamed to post such disinformation.

Should be? Yes. Are they? No. Why? Because they don't have to prove anything. Anyone can come on a board like this and make any type of claim without solid evidence. If they were required to provide proof, they would be slower to post such misleading information.

 

[Revmitchell]

The fact that some opposing view gets posted on this forum is not validation of any claims. And the fact that it gets posted is not in error or wrong. What gets posted here is for discussion. The fact that there is such offense to the op wrong or otherwise is odd and immature. And just because someone posts something does not mean they believe any of it or part of it. Quite a few assumptions get made about that on a regular basis. Grow up

 

[Johnv]

Translation: "I wasn't gossipping, I just repeated what someone else said".

Grow up

You first.

 

[Martin]

The fact that some opposing view gets posted on this forum is not validation of any claims. And the fact that it gets posted is not in error or wrong. What gets posted here is for discussion. The fact that there is such offense to the op wrong or otherwise is odd and immature. And just because someone posts something does not mean they believe any of it or part of it. Quite a few assumptions get made about that on a regular basis. Grow up

==You posted the OP. If you don't believe the outrageous statements in the OP then you should say so. Otherwise we must assume you believe what you post.

Btw, I'm still waiting on your evidence. Or are you backing away from the claims in the OP already?

 

[Revmitchell]

==You posted the OP. If you don't believe the outrageous statements in the OP then you should say so. Otherwise we must assume you believe what you post.

This is a fallacy. You do not have to believe anything about what the poster believes,however you want to becaue it gives you an object of attack and relief form your anxiety of this issue. But because the info makes you angry (for reasons reasonable people do not understand) then you have to attack the poster.

Btw, I'm still waiting on your evidence. Or are you backing away from the claims in the OP already?

I do not have anything to back away from. I never posted anything in support of it. I am not the originator of the info in the op. I suppose that my backing away from the op (as you say) would give you some relief from your anxiety over this. Well I am not the person to provide that relief. You will have to find that on your own.

 

[Nonsequitur]

................Study after study keeps coming to the same conclusion: Flu vaccines DO NOT WORK,

NOT TRUE......everyone who got the free flu shots in my company over the years has ALWAYS got the flu.
Only the ones who did not get them did not have to go through the flu problem.
I myself have not had the flu since I was a teen-ager.
flu shots DO work....at making sure you get the flu.

 

[Martin]

This is a fallacy. You do not have to believe anything about what the poster believes,however you want to becaue it gives you an object of attack and relief form your anxiety of this issue. But because the info makes you angry (for reasons reasonable people do not understand) then you have to attack the poster.

==So, you do or you do not believe the information you posted in the OP? I'm still not clear on this.

I do not have anything to back away from. I never posted anything in support of it. I am not the originator of the info in the op. I suppose that my backing away from the op (as you say) would give you some relief from your anxiety over this. Well I am not the person to provide that relief. You will have to find that on your own.

==Still not clear. Do you, or do you not, support the information in the OP? If you don't, why did you post it without some sort of note clarifying your disagreement with the information?

It has been some time since I posted on BB, but it does seem like we have gone down this road before. Am I wrong about that? Maybe your "I am not the originator of the info in the op" clause is a way of avoiding having to provide evidence?

 

[Revmitchell]

==Still not clear. Do you, or do you not, support the information in the OP? If you don't, why did you post it without some sort of note clarifying your disagreement with the information?

It has been some time since I posted on BB, but it does seem like we have gone down this road before. Am I wrong about that? Maybe your "I am not the originator of the info in the op" clause is a way of avoiding having to provide evidence?

Why don't you just defend your position instead of trying to derail this thread. Something you have yet to do.

 

[poncho]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuhzrrp-WFQ&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VBPV8uN7bI&feature=related

 

[Revmitchell]

==That is simply not true. O, you can find some nutty professor or M.D. out there who will say it is. After all, you can find someone who promotes almost anything nowadays. The fact is that flu shots do work. Are they perfect? No, but the immunization provided by the shots is far better than no immunization at all.



==Evidence?

Any numbers you are using may be affected by changes in CDC monitoring. For example, in the 04-05 season the CDC widened its monitoring of pediatric hospitalizations. The CDC clearly states that "Influenza-associated pediatric mortality was first made a nationally notifiable condition for the 2004-05 influenza season. Due to the length of time this system has been in place, and because state participation may vary, it is not feasible to compare the number of deaths from season-to-season" (LINK). Still, just by looking at the numbers, there does not appear to have been a major spike in flu related deaths in the years since 2003. This year there has been a spike in pediatric flu deaths due to Swine Flu (H1N1) infections. However that was expected and is not linked to the seasonal flu shot or the H1N1 shot since, to my knowledge, those children who have died did not recieve the H1N1 vaccine.




==Since I believe in Capitalism, I see nothing wrong with that. Those companies provide a service that is in demand at this time and will therefore see a rise in their profits. That is the way things work in an economy where supply and demand plays a major role in profits. The demand for the vaccine is there, so they are pumping up the supply to meet that demand.

 

[Revmitchell]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuhzrrp-WFQ&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VBPV8uN7bI&feature=related

Yea this is my concern:

1. The vaccination is being pushed before the studies are completed
2. The studies being completed are being done so devoid of the adjuncts
3. The adjuncts have been associated with illnesses and other crazy things.


I do not know what is right or wrong but the lack of clarity on this is is a big concern.

 

[poncho]

"Foreign policy? SCARE the people to death, great fear! Then you can do what you want.

Economic crisis? SCARE the people to death then you can socialize the economy.

In medicine. SCARE the people to death and then you'll say ooh! The only people who can take care of us is the government. We're already on our way to socialized medicine and I think alot of that is happening so we're scaring the people saying the only people who can take care of us is the government."

Ron Paul

Are y'all SCARED enough to gve the government total control yet?

 

[Martin]

Why don't you just defend your position instead of trying to derail this thread. Something you have yet to do.

==Nice try Rev, but that stunt will not work. I first asked you to support your claims. You have, to this point, refused to do so. I provided explanation for my position, all you have done is give reasons why you don't need to. I am still waiting for you to back up the information you posted in the OP.

Now back to "Dirty Jobs" on Discovery.

 

[Revmitchell]

==Nice try Rev, but that stunt will not work. I first asked you to support your claims. You have, to this point, refused to do so. I provided explanation for my position, all you have done is give reasons why you don't need to. I am still waiting for you to back up the information you posted in the OP.

Now back to "Dirty Jobs" on Discovery.

I have made no claims. Posting and article is not equal to making a claim of personal opinion or fact. You don't like it so you work to distract from it. It is a dirty trick and you should be embarrassed.

 

[Nonsequitur]

"Foreign policy? SCARE the people to death, great fear! Then you can do what you want.

Economic crisis? SCARE the people to death then you can socialize the economy.

In medicine. SCARE the people to death and then you'll say ooh! The only people who can take care of us is the government. We're already on our way to socialized medicine and I think alot of that is happening so we're scaring the people saying the only people who can take care of us is the government."

Ron Paul

Are y'all SCARED enough to gve the government total control yet?

Pocho, you have a Revolutionary Minute Man as your avatar.
And yet, you worry about the people who are SCARED.
If they are so SCARED about what the government is doing, why do you care?
Shouldn't you be uniting the ones who are not? Shouldn't you have a task force of 'extraordinary magnitude' that no one knows about?
(Ten points for the first one that can tell me what movie that came from.)
Who are you trying to impress/scare?
What is the phrase?.......Those of you who think that they know it all are very irritaing to us that do.
Just kidding. Keep up the good work.
(We know who you are.):tongue3: