Flu "experts" often guess wrong. For example, in 1994 they predicted
that Shangdong, Texas, and Panama strains would be prevalent that year,
thus millions of people were vaccinated with a flu shot that contained
these viruses. However, when winter arrived, the Johannesburg and
Beijing strains of influenza circulated through society. The vaccine was
ineffective. This happened again in 1996, and again in 1997. More
recently, the vaccine created for the 2003-2004 flu season contained flu
strains that did not circulate through society that year. Officials were
once again forced to admit that millions of people were vaccinated with
an ineffective vaccine. Yet, flu fatalities did not increase during
these years. For example, in 1996, 857 people died from the flu; in
1997, 745 people died from the flu -- typical annual numbers.

In 2004, flu vaccine manufacturers were unable to produce enough flu
shots to accommodate everyone who wanted a flu vaccine. (Several batches
were contaminated and had to be destroyed.) Thus, only half of the
population that is normally vaccinated against influenza (approximately
45 million people versus 90 million during an average year) received the
vaccine. If influenza is truly a deadly disease, as officials claim, the
2004-2005 flu season should be catastrophic. If, as the CDC claims,
36,000 people die every year from the flu when 90 million people are
vaccinated against the disease, how many more will die when only 45
million people are "protected?" I predict that flu fatalities will not
increase. In fact, flu (and pneumonia?) fatalities may even decrease
during this rare period when the American population is
"under-vaccinated" against influenza.


Note: The article above was written in early 2005. On December 10, 2005,
the British Medical Journal published a report acknowledging the
veracity of this article by substantiating the claim that CDC flu death
figures are completely bogus, hyper-inflated to scare the public and
sell more flu vaccine.

http://www.thinktwice.com/flu_lie.htm

A 1992 study published in The American Journal of Epidemiology shows
that children die at a rate 8 times greater than normal within three
days after getting a DPT vaccination.

A preliminary study by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) found
children who received the HiB vaccine ... were found to be 5 times more
likely to contract the disease than children who had not received the
vaccine.

In the New England Journal of Medicine July 1994 issue a study found
that over 80% of children under 5 years of age who had contracted
whooping cough had been fully vaccinated.

In 1977 Dr Jonas Salk (inventor of the Salk polio vaccine) testified
with other scientists that 87% of the polio cases which occurred in the
US since 1970 were the by-product of the polio vaccine.

The Sabin oral polio vaccine (OPV) is the only known cause of polio in
the us today.

The February 1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical
Association found that 90% of obstetricians and 66% of pediatricians
refused to take the rubella vaccine.

chardonnay9 wrote:

A 1992 study published in The American Journal of Epidemiology shows
that children die at a rate 8 times greater than normal within three
days after getting a DPT vaccination.

Search Pubmed for '"Am J Epidemiol" 1992 diphteria': No items found.

A preliminary study by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) found
children who received the HiB vaccine ... were found to be 5 times more
likely to contract the disease than children who had not received the
vaccine.

A Pubmed search for '"Centers for Disease Control" "hepatitis B"
vaccination children morbidity' turns up 77 references, but none seem
to back up your assertion here. Can you be more specific?

In the New England Journal of Medicine July 1994 issue a study found
that over 80% of children under 5 years of age who had contracted
whooping cough had been fully vaccinated.

Now, this one is true. It's hardly news that vaccine failures occur,
though. (Quick, name three reasons a vaccine failure might occur!
Bet you can't :-).)

N Engl J Med. 1994 Jul 7;331(1):16-21.

The 1993 epidemic of pertussis in Cincinnati. Resurgence of disease
in a highly immunized population of children.

Christie CD, Marx ML, Marchant CD, Reising SF.

Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, OH.

BACKGROUND. In 1993 there was a resurgence of pertussis in the United States.
Altogether, 6335 cases were reported, the most in 26 years. METHODS. Using
active microbiologic surveillance, we investigated the epidemic of pertussis
in Greater Cincinnati in 1993. The population of 1.7 million in this area
is served by a single children's hospital and pertussis laboratory. We
prospectively followed patients given a new diagnosis of pertussis in July
through September 1993 to determine the characteristics of the epidemic.
RESULTS. From 1979 to 1992, there was a cumulative total of 542 cases of
pertussis. In 1993, 352 cases were diagnosed, an increase of 259 percent
over the 1992 total. Sixty-three percent of the cases had positive cultures
for Bordetella pertussis, 18 percent were positive on direct fluorescent-
antibody testing only, and 19 percent were diagnosed clinically. The
outbreak began in the suburbs during the summer and spread through Greater
Cincinnati. Of 255 total cases diagnosed in July through September (195
excess cases over the maximal base-line level of 20 per month in the
previous 14 years), 75 percent were in white patients and 67 percent
of the patients had private insurance or paid for care out of pocket.
In 1993, as compared with 1979 through 1992, there was a shift in incidence
from younger infants to older children; the percentages of cases according
to age group were as follows: 0 to 6 months, 53 percent from 1979 through
1992 and 35 percent in 1993 (P 0.001); 7 months to 5 years, 33 percent
and 43 percent (P 0.002); 6 to 12 years, 5 percent and 11 percent (P
0.001); and more than 12 years, 5 percent and 11 percent (P 0.003).
Immunization records revealed that 74 percent (75 of 101) of the children
with pertussis who were 19 months to 12 years old had received four or
five doses of the combined diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) vaccine,
and that 82 percent (103 of 126) of those 7 to 71 months old had received
at least three doses of DPT vaccine. The whole-cell vaccines used came
from both of themajor manufacturers (Connaught Laboratories and Lederle
Laboratories). Disease was not severe, but 80 of the 255 children (31
percent) given diagnoses during the three epidemic months were hospitalized.
There were no deaths. CONCLUSIONS. Since the 1993 pertussis epidemic in
Cincinnati occurred primarily among children who had been appropriately
immunized, it is clear that the whole-cell pertussis vaccine failed to
give full protection against the disease.

In 1977 Dr Jonas Salk (inventor of the Salk polio vaccine) testified
with other scientists that 87% of the polio cases which occurred in the
US since 1970 were the by-product of the polio vaccine.

The Sabin oral polio vaccine (OPV) is the only known cause of polio in
the us today.

Both of these are absolutely true. That's because the polio vaccine had
successfully eradicated "wild-virus" polio by 1979.

During the period 1951-1959, there were 224,155 US cases of polio
reported to the CDC. During 1991-1999, there were a total of 49 cases.
Now, you can *try* to use those numbers to argue "the polio vaccine is
a bad thing", but.... personally I'd think that one would be a pretty
tough sell :-).

The February 1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical
Association found that 90% of obstetricians and 66% of pediatricians
refused to take the rubella vaccine.

Search Pubmed for '"J Am Med Assoc" rubella 1981': No items found.

More complete references to the articles I couldn't track down would
be appreciated. Thanks.

Dianne

(null) wrote:

More complete references to the articles I couldn't track down would
be appreciated. Thanks.

Kiss my ass!

chardonnay9 wrote:
I wrote:

More complete references to the articles I couldn't track down would
be appreciated. Thanks.

Kiss my ass!

Oh. So you'd just copied & pasted something that you found somewhere
without bothering to confirm or comprehend it first. Gee, what a
surprise...

Dianne

In article ,
(null) wrote:
Oh. So you'd just copied & pasted something that you found somewhere
without bothering to confirm or comprehend it first. Gee, what a
surprise...

It also means that she's relying on secondary rather than
primary sources, herself. Or tertiary or something. Again,
no surprise.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

chardonnay9 wrote:
(null) wrote:

More complete references to the articles I couldn't track down would
be appreciated. Thanks.

Kiss my ass!

I googled on that and got 1,910,000 hits, but I don't think that
was what Diane was looking for. In the few I examined there was
no mention of a vaccination for this affliction.

(I couldn't find the full references to the items she mentioned
either. Are they for real?)

FurPaw

--
Why do people who embrace Social Darwinism object to teaching the
theory of evolution?

To reply, unleash the dog.

Melinda Shore wrote:
wrote:

Oh. So you'd just copied & pasted something that you found somewhere
without bothering to confirm or comprehend it first. Gee, what a
surprise...

It also means that she's relying on secondary rather than
primary sources, herself. Or tertiary or something. Again,
no surprise.

Well, I'll give her credit on this one for at least searching
for things that actually looks like they came from the actual
medical literature, even though this post was still obviously
just another of her cut & paste jobs. Too bad she didn't bother
to give actual cites, though. I for one would've at least looked
up the abstracts.

It does further strain her credibility that most of the articles
listed in her cut & paste job don't appear to exist, though.

Dianne