My plan is to take vitamin C and Zinc along with vitamin D (I live in the Northeast). I plan to continue to eat healthy fresh fruits and vegetables, get out into the cold fresh air and exercise. And as a contingency plan we are stocking up on home made chicken soup. We will ask those around us who find it necessary to go out in the public when they are sick to stay away…If we get sick we will isolate ourselves. And we will do things that alleviate stress.. and watch a few good funny movies…..

And significantly cut out any sugar in our diets…

Sorry, but I disagree. Health care workers should protect themselves because their job puts them in direct contact. Nothing is being done to take the opportunity to teach people how to stay healthy in the first place. We are fostering fear and a climate of dependency on drugs/vaccines that have not been proven.

The same goes for antivirals.

People are running out and getting inoculated with out the proper information. People think this reduces death by up to 50% but it does not…That is the point….The entire population of the US are not going to get vaccinated. But that seems to be o.k. with everybody, because apparently some people are more equal than others.

If everyone who should get inoculated do not, then what effectiveness does this have?

Herd mentality…..not herd immunity…

At the end of the day, no more lives were spared in places in the world where winter season is winding down…

Good points, and much to be considered. Too bad you didn’t read the entire article though…

You should focus on what the Cochran institute said, that is the important part. You know the part about the studies were not well formed.

This is the part I like:

“Yet while other flu researchers may not like what Jefferson has to say, they cannot ignore the fact that he knows the flu-vaccine literature better than anyone else on the planet. He leads an international team of researchers who have combed through hundreds of flu-vaccine studies. The vast majority of the studies were deeply flawed, says Jefferson. “Rubbish is not a scientific term, but I think it’s the term that applies.” Only four studies were properly designed to pin down the effectiveness of flu vaccine, he says, and two of those showed that it might be effective in certain groups of patients, such as school-age children with no underlying health issues like asthma. The other two showed equivocal results or no benefit.”

And the other part I liked was:

“There’s some merit to this reasoning. Unfortunately, the very people who most need protection from the flu also have immune systems that are least likely to respond to vaccine. Studies show that young, healthy people mount a glorious immune response to seasonal flu vaccine, and their response reduces their chances of getting the flu and may lessen the severity of symptoms if they do get it. But they aren’t the people who die from seasonal flu. By contrast, the elderly, particularly those over age70, don’t have a good immune response to vaccine—and they’re the ones who account for most flu deaths. (Infants with severe disabilities, such as leukemia and congenital lung disease, and people who are immune-compromised—from AIDS, or diabetes, or cancer treatment—make up the rest. As of August8, only 36 deaths from swine flu had been confirmed among children in the U.S., and the overwhelming majority of those children had multiple, severe health disorders.)”

Or how about this part….

“The annals of medicine are littered with treatments and tests that became medical doctrine on the slimmest of evidence, and were then declared sacrosanct and beyond scientific investigation. In the 1980s and ’90s, for example, cancer specialists were convinced that high-dose chemotherapy followed by a bone-marrow transplant was the best hope for women with advanced breast cancer, and many refused to enroll their patients in randomized clinical trials that were designed to test transplants against the standard—and far less toxic—therapy. The trials, they said, were unethical, because they knew transplants worked. When the studies were concluded, in 1999 and 2000, it turned out that bone-marrow transplants were killing patients. Another recent example involves drugs related to the analgesic lidocaine. In the 1970s, doctors noticed that the drugs seemed to make the heart beat rhythmically, and they began prescribing them to patients suffering from irregular heartbeats, assuming that restoring a proper rhythm would reduce the patient’s risk of dying. Prominent cardiologists for years opposed clinical trials of the drugs, saying it would be medical malpractice to withhold them from patients in a control group. The drugs were widely used for two decades, until a government-sponsored study showed in 1989 that patients who were prescribed the medicine were three and a half times as likely to die as those given a placebo.”

But the most serious part:

““Vaccines give us a false sense of security,” says Sumit Majumdar. “When you have a strategy that [everybody thinks] reduces death by 50 percent, it’s pretty hard to invest resources to come up with better remedies.” For instance, health departments in every state are responsible for submitting plans to the CDC for educating the public, in the event of a serious pandemic, about hand-washing and “social distancing” (voluntary quarantines, school closings, and even enforcement of mandatory quarantines to keep infected people in their homes). Putting these plans into action will require considerable coordination among government officials, the media, and health-care workers—and widespread buy-in from the public. Yet little discussion has appeared in the press to help people understand the measures they can take to best protect themselves during a flu outbreak—other than vaccination and antivirals.”

This woman obviously has an opinion that she is trying to get out.

That said, I completely agree with what she wrote in a recent Q&A for the Atlantic:

Q: Isn’t vaccination helpful for “herd immunity”—to protect the elderly and those with immune deficiency—from exposure to flu?

A: One of the most compelling arguments for flu vaccination is to provide herd immunity. In other words, by keeping young healthy people from getting sick it is believed that we can slow the spread of the disease to others. That could help to protect those who can’t benefit from a vaccine due to a weak immune system. Studies in nursing homes suggest that there is benefit to the elderly when caretakers are immunized along with residents. The current recommendation to give annual flu shots to infants and children, however, has not been tested to ensure that the strategy is safe in the long term for children and that it actually confers benefit to the elderly. Focused strategies of immunizing those in close contact with the elderly and those who are immune compromised are fairly widely endorsed and may be helpful.

Read the article first, no sense debating unless you’ve read the article….

There is no proof, that the flu vaccines work. I am not talking about other vaccines, which I have had and which we made sure our children had.

So, since you didn’t read the article you have construed an argument here that has no basis what so ever.

We must save society, that’s a good argument. We can do that better with health care reform. 44 million Americans do not enjoy the right to affordable health care. If we could do better with prevention education for everyone, just like the benefits you claim of H1N1, prevention, then we would all be better off no?

Enjoy your shot, not surprised you would be on the side that wishes to keep the propaganda machine going…

I suggest you do a little digging on the number of deaths among infants attributed to things like meningitis, measles, and chicken pox. “Post-modern” enlightened westerners argue that these vaccines cause no social benefit and result in autism. The epidemiological evidence simply does not support this what-so-ever. Vaccines have a great societal benefit and have nearly eradicated a number of deadly diseases. I suspect that if the death rate for H1N1 were closer to the bird-flu panic from a couple of years ago, you would be scrambling to get the vaccine regardless of what the evidence had to say!

Vaccinations are an interesting study in social medicine because they benifit both the reciever of the vaccine as well as society. By getting the H1N1 vaccine, I am reducing the likelyhood that I’ll get the disease — but I’m also reducing the likelyhood that my neighbors, family, and friends will get it (ie, there is one less person they come in contact with that can spread it)

read the article

Fascinated to understand more.
C

I think that is the point being made here. The folks like you and others in the trenches are being served a raw deal…you are in the same boat as the patients you are supposed to serve - you and they are the proletariat. The big cheeses are the bourgeoisie who play us all like pawns on a chess board.

Harry, you sound like an “insider”…..

Pretty nasty business, when you consider the government handed them the “gift” of H1N1….What a windfall…..