Covid-19 News

    Many of you are confused about flu vaccines. Let's get this done with.


    Flu vaccines (inactivated vaccines in general) give you strong antibody responses.


    Natural infections give T cell immunity. This gives you cross protection to other flu strains(CD8 immunity). They lower viral shedding by 2/3.

    To spell this out: you are protected from other strains, and you confer herd immunity to the population. Getting natural infection is a population affect. You can thank the people who don't get the flu vaccine for creating herd immunity year after year.


    However, if you get a flu vaccine you get OAS - your body remembers how to respond to the flu from that shot. Meaning, you are now "in the program". You don't have cross immunity, you will shed the virus. Antibody responses don't create non-spreading asymptomatics! The program has f'd you up, and you will need the vaccine the next year.


    Ironically, it is the vaccinated person who is at risk of pandemics because they don't have cross immunity.


    By analogy, you can create a strong secure operating system, or you can buy virus protection year after year. Guess which one old Gates likes? He's smarter than the average joe and conniving.


    Everything you need to know to question the entire paradigm is in this post. If you go into the literature you will find this all has evidence. The information is all out there.




    Quote from THHuxleynew

    More Wyttenfacts!


    I said 30-60%


    You said anti vaxer 100% off. You said vaccines work. A car that works 30% does not work you need something close to 98%.

    Seems that you THH now agree that flu vaccines do not work at all (30%!) . Next time please use the correct wording and say: Flue vaccines barely work and are not a protection for you.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I reserve that for those who falsely and ludicrously claim vaccines are much more dangerous than they really are. like W saying that taking Flu vaccine , for most people, is worse than getting Flu. Obviously untrue.


    THH: A professional XXXX

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Vaccines against flue were never effective in the sense that these are a real protection. Many people get more sick form the flue vaccine than from the flue.


    It seems that he most of the time just spins and produces FUD. Very very ugly.


    Normally such people get banned for producing fake info !


    Numbers are needed to estimate these effects. And your post has NO NUMBERS.


    Here is a sophisticated analysis, which I think includes all of your speculative "bad effects" of vaccines. Flu vaccination still wins (not by as much as would be the case given a naive analysis).


    https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/170/5/650/102527


    Method:


    To differentiate vaccine effects from bias, we traced the vaccination-mortality association day by day—before, during, and after flu season—at Kaiser Permanente in Northern California. The usual strategy for minimizing bias is to seek good measures of potential confounders and then adjust for them. However, usually it is not feasible to track weekly changes in frailty and function as they attenuate the propensity to obtain flu shots near the end of life.

    Our alternative strategy was to focus on a “difference in differences” (this term and general approach are often used by economists (16)). If the flu vaccine really does prevent deaths, then in a large population there should be a detectable difference between 2 differences: 1) the difference in the odds of prior vaccination between decedents and survivors that is observed on days when flu is circulating and 2) the difference in the odds of prior vaccination between decedents and survivors that would be expected on the same calendar dates if flu were not circulating. To examine such a difference in differences (or the corresponding ratio of odds ratios), we fitted a logistic regression model with a novel case-centered specification.

    Our goals were to: 1) examine the propensity to obtain a flu shot in relation to predictors of mortality, 2) estimate the effect of flu shots on mortality, and 3) present and discuss case-centered logistic regression.


    Results:



    We found that flu shots reduced all-cause mortality among elderly Kaiser Permanente members by 4.6% during 9 laboratory-defined flu seasons in Northern California. Other researchers have reported that flu shots reduce mortality by much greater amounts. In a meta-analysis of results from 20 cohort and case-control studies, Voordouw et al. (6) found that flu shots reduce winter deaths by 50%, on average; and in a more recent study, Nichol et al. (19) reported a 48% reduction in all-cause mortality among the elderly during flu season. However, Simonsen et al. (11, 12, 20) found that excess mortality attributable to influenza has only been 5%–10% on average during flu seasons in the past several decades. They argued that flu shots could not possibly have prevented more deaths than the 5%–10% of deaths that were flu-related (11–13). Our estimate of excess mortality during flu season was 7.8%, which is consistent with Simonsen et al.’s nationwide estimate but lower than estimates made by others (21–23).

    This excess mortality of 7.8% is what we found in a population with over 60% vaccine coverage. Our findings suggest that had none of the elderly been vaccinated, excess mortality during flu season would have averaged about 9.8%. We infer that our 4.6% VE estimate amounts to a 47% reduction (4.6/9.8 = 47%) in the number of flu-attributable deaths that would have occurred had none of the elderly been vaccinated.


    Best wishes,


    Don't forget to get your Flu jab!


    THH


    I think the board admins can see this clear example no real interest in serious debate. My post was immunological not numbers. This is truly inane and you are wasting my time. Likely, in my opinion, anything of actual serious importance has THH banging away to cause the good stuff to be scrolled away into later pages.


    Suggestion to admins, you have FUD threatening your forum, as much as you want to look away, it is in your face.

    W - you assert that:


    Many people get more sick from vaccine than Flu.


    Would you care to qualify this ambiguous statement and remove the spin?


    1. If you mean in the population - then it is both true and profoundly stupid. Why bother saying it? Obviously everyone who does not get Flu and does get vaccinated will get more sick from vaccination than Flu. even if only from the pain of a needle prick. I did you the credit of assuming you were not making obviously irrelevant remarks like this, but if you wish to assert this now i will agree with you and point out that you are guilty of spin - saying something that sounds good but is meaningless


    2. If you select for "those who are vaccinated (on the one hand) or have Flu without vaccine (on the other)" We are now comparing vaccine side-effects with Flu. In a large population there will be a very few people with severe vaccine side effects, for whom those are worse than Flu. If you call this "many" when it is a miniscule fraction (I estimate < 0.1%) of the total, then again i will allow you your point, but also point out you are guilty of spin.


    3. If, finally, you mean that there are many people who are vaccinated, have side effects, then (the same people) catch mild Flu, and the flu is less bad than the side effects. This is interesting. I still assert that even mild Flu is worse than nearly all of the vaccine side effects. Only 1-2% of people given the vaccine end up with a temperature, and it lasts for at most 1-2 days - if I remember right from a US side effect description. BUT it is apples with pears. Vaccinations reduce the severity of Flu even when they do not prevent it, so these same people without the vaccine might have got much more severe Flu.


    Thank you for highlighting the extreme ambiguity of your comment. Now choose: are you, with this statement, an anti-vaxer (peddling lies) or a spin doctor saying things that are misleading but true?


    THH

    Quote from Navid

    I think the board admins can see this clear example no real interest in serious debate. My post was immunological not numbers.


    I'm interested in immunology too. The problem is that only empirical data can tell how significant the speculative theoretical effects actually are. I can see that for you a nice theory trumps (no - I promise - no pun intended) science.


    A good analogy would be a clever scientist in the times of Pasteur questioning the paradigm of antibiotic use because of development of resistance, or destruction of gut bacteria. True, in theory, but a much healthier 20th century tells you we are still better off with antibiotics than without, even though now we are really starting to see the effects of resistance that 50 years of over-prescribing have made.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    he problem is that only empirical data can tell how significant the speculative theoretical effects actually are. I can see that for you a nice theory trumps (no - I promise - no pun intended) science.


    Idiocy. These aren't speculated they are in the research. The speculation is yours. You are speculating that we are using some nice theory against "your science." It is always a red flag when spin doctors hold up the science flag. Put the flag down "Mr. Science."


    Post repeated (Bodewes 2011, Hayward 2015 are two references in "the science")


    1) Flu vaccines (inactivated vaccines in general) give you strong antibody responses. They "work" yes.


    2) Natural infections give T cell immunity. This gives you cross protection to other flu strains(CD8 immunity). They lower viral shedding by 2/3.

    To spell this out: you are protected from other strains, and you confer herd immunity to the population. Getting natural infection is a population affect. You can thank the people who don't get the flu vaccine for creating herd immunity year after year.


    However, if you get a flu vaccine you get OAS - your body remembers how to respond to the flu from that shot. Meaning, you are now "in the program". You don't have cross immunity, you will shed the virus. Antibody responses don't create non-spreading asymptomatics! The program has f'd you up, and you will need the vaccine the next year.


    Ironically, it is the vaccinated person who is at risk of pandemics because they don't have cross immunity.

    I want to finalize this section - so there really is no more debate - that vaccines cannot generate herd immunity. For reasons already stated they don't work on the correct type of immunity we seek.


    Even 100% vaccination won't get rid of the disease, but conversely they are shifting the diseases to later years when the diseases are more problematic. This is evidenced in China which has very high immunization rates, but incidence of measles is increasing and the age is shifting to teen years (Shi 2011)


    This is complex stuff which even the vaccine Gods admit is true, and thus they argue for a new generation of vaccines and tinkering.


    What if our bodies were meant to fight disease and are pretty good at it? What if the risks are greater than the rewards?

    It's not Idiocy but "something else".


    ---------------------------------------------

    https://i.imgflip.com/16qnwt.jpg

    Last post, if you want to understand vaccine failure you must understand


    1) Primary vaccine failure

    2) Secondary vaccine failure

    3) Vaccine variants / Vaccine "escape"


    Trivia question for spin doctors:


    Those with agammaglobulinemia survive natural measles just fine, but those with HIV can silently die from measles (nobody will know). Why is this relevant and

    astounding fact which questions the entire vaccine paradigm?

    Quote from Navid

    I want to finalize this section - so there really is no more debate - that vaccines cannot generate herd immunity. For reasons already stated they don't work on the correct type of immunity we seek.


    It makes sense that someone who relies on proof by assertion can’t stand people who dare to wave “the science flag”...

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Would you care to qualify this ambiguous statement and remove the spin?


    A professional spin doctor asking ?? Most bad joke of the weak...



    Quote from THHuxleynew

    We are now comparing vaccine side-effects with Flu.


    As you might know vaccine side effects are not traced. Would be too costly for big pharma... I know a bout a dozen of cases that got a worse flu from vaccination than of a flue they had earlier. Nobody is tracking lost labor time due to flu vaccinatio. May be we should change the law.


    What about your lie?? No comment about this ?

    Quote from Zeus46

    It makes sense that someone who relies on proof by assertion can’t stand people who dare to wave “the science flag”...


    The problem is people who wave science flags and engage in microdebates and legalistic argumentation.


    The reason for this vaccine debate is mythology, false trust in science, and a blindness to the obvious, not obscure science.


    Increasing transportation = More nutrition and produce = Better nutrition = Less vitamin deficiencies = Strong immune system

    Increasing wealth = No Malnutrition = Less immunocomprimised people

    Increasing energy = Better living conditions = Less susceptible people

    Increasing child labor laws = Less abuse of children = Less disease and mortality

    Increasing sanitation = Clean water = Not drinking sewage water = Less disease and mortality


    All of these is what "saved the world" not vaccines. The data is vast and obvious, go read it. The UK looks exactly like this graph of the US.


    Quote from Navid

    2) Natural infections give T cell immunity. This gives you cross protection to other flu strains(CD8 immunity). They lower viral shedding by 2/3.


    Sigh.


    Oxford COVID Vaccine - T-cell response

    https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020…es-strong-immune-response


    (Newer) Flu vaccines have strong T-cell response

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5192353/


    I'm not denying natural infections give T-cell immunity - if they don't kill you - just saying vaccinations do now too!


    THH


    Thank you for agreeing with the science - although accidentally.


    In young children, who are often immunologically naïve to influenza virus, inactivated vaccines may even hamper the induction of cell-mediated immunity that would be otherwise induced by natural (disease causing) infections [22]. Hence, the big challenge in influenza vaccine development remains the induction of broadly neutralizing antibodies and long-lasting heterosubtypic cellular immune responses.


    Our bodies can do this already, folks. More tinkering required to get the flu vaccine "right". Maybe one day....

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.