For gods sake get a flu shot

[Raphael]

How many people diagnosed with the flu really have the flu?

ANSWER . VIRTUALLY NONE



Peter Doshi writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal)

Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.

This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies.

So they don’t have the flu.

Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases.

The vaccine couldn’t possibly work.

The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.

Here’s the exact quote from Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):

“…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.

“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.

Inject with that .
And cut the crap .

[Ahso!]

You're going to get booted again if you don't include links to your sources. I'd not like to see that happen.

[Raphael]

Your general comprehension is non existent
The most precise links are provided .
You simply neither read and/or understand . Read the post and note .

Just for the record , I banned the Forum for 14 days . I was not banned .
I have returned for an hour to see what you old people have learned .
Nothing . You are ignorant and lazy .
.

[Betty Boop]

Your general comprehension is non existent
The most precise links are provided .
You simply neither read and/or understand . Read the post and note .

Just for the record , I banned the Forum for 14 days . I was not banned .
I have returned for an hour to see what you old people have learned .
Nothing . You are ignorant and lazy .
.

You need a link or I will ban you again. Did you miss your infraction message from the ban you claim you didn't get? I could copy and paste it up here for you to see if not.

The forum rules are that you have to provide a link, not just a reference to a journal, you need to prove where you copied and pasted from. That's not debatable.
Spot or Ahso will help you if you don't know how to provide a link because they are friendly and helpful guys like that.

Now, welcome to the forum, be nice and stop calling people names.

[spot]

The most precise links are provided .

Perhaps it might help if I explain why.

What the author did with "Peter Doshi writing in the online BMJ" is paraphrasing. You, in copying that text, provided no quotes whatever. Speaking just for myself, I think if there is anyone called Peter Doshi writing on the BMJ (and I have no reason to think there is) his version and your copied paraphrased version of the story differ markedly. As far as I can see what you actually did was to copy a Facebook post from Dr. Christiane Northrup direct and unaltered onto the thread without any acknowledgement. The actual text, from my cursory search, appears to be hers and subsequently copied onto other areas of the Internet by any number of cranks - many of them either fundamentalist Christians or copycat trolls.

Which is why we demand - not just request, but demand - a simple unequivocal hyperlink to the actual source material of the posted text if asked for. We consider it good manners to provide one without being asked, when quoting, in the first place, but if asked the matter is non-negotiable.

As for the quotation from the BMJ article, could I highlight "Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive". I'm not sure how that figure relates to the number who were genuinely protected from the influenza "every year". There are tens of millions vaccinated in the US annually, not hundreds of thousands.

• Were the hundreds of thousands those with symptoms, tested as much to eliminate influenza as a cause as to determine that it was, of whom only 16% turned out to be unwell by reason of influenza?
  
  
• Were millions untested because the vaccine protected them after infection and they consequently remained asymptomatic?

I fail to see cause and effect in the quoted numbers, as far as I can see the figures argue just as cogently that the protection was astoundingly effective. I think that in fact different figures are needed if the efficacy of the vaccination is to be determined. You need to test randomly across the population and correlate for all sampled individuals whether they test positive, whether they were vaccinated and whether they were asymptomatic. That would do it.

In other news / meanwhile / by the way / on an unrelated note / oh, and / tangentially, you are still leaking your name, your address and your phone number out of your adware cookie store with every web access, for goodness sake - updating from El Capitan would save you a lot of embarrassment. If I abbreviate the cookies to rr-24-70 would that help focus your mind?

[spot]

Which killed more, the First World War or the influenza epidemic the year after?

What makes you think the people did not die of illness in “the good old days”?

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d64...9dfae4aaf6.pdf is interesting.