[segno]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Now back to the H1N1 vaccine. Did anyone stop to think(and then start again for that matter) that IF some people still get the flu because they already had the bug before the shot, or the shot hasn't had time to fully "protect" them, that we're potentially giving this strain more genetic material with which to mutate to an even more virulent form?
Not like THAT hasn't happened before with other viruses and bacteria

Not an issue...

First, the vaccine used in Canada is a 'dead' virus. Its not going to be invading cells so there's no way that its genetic material can cross with the live strain.

Secondly, even if you did have the case of the live and dead (vaccine) strain in the body at the same time in the same cell, they are already pretty similar, so there's no real point for one virus to 'borrow' genetic material, since it already has pretty much the same genome. (Kind of like taking the engine out of one Honda Civic and putting it in another... same parts, no difference.)

The greater risk of mutation is to NOT get vaccinated, to be exposed to a virus (that you could have been vaccinated against), catch the flu, and become a virus-producing factory for a few weeks, churning out new (and possibly mutated) copies of the virus.

$1:

As opposed to all the wiki "sources" that have been posted in here?

Ah yes, the old 'wikipedia' accusation... one that can be debunked just by spending a few minutes browsing though the threads on this forum.

I've already pointed out that the vast majority of my references have been to:
- peer-reviewed scientific journals
- University (accademic) sources
- Mainstream media sources
- Raw statistics
If I remember correctly, I myself have published ONE link to a wikipedia article, and that was just for some historical data. Amazing on how you fixate on that one little reference, and ignore the multitude of other references that have been provided.

$1:

And if you'd even bother to have checked the link to the CDC's own site, you'd see that they have admittedly fudged flu numbers for over 20 years now!

Nope... the fact that YOU don't understand epidemiology doesn't mean that they don't understand epidemiology.

$1:

Save your invective and insults for someone who actually gives a shit what you think about them.

Frankly, I don't think you'd care about what evidence any opposing viewpoint had, regardless of how 'nicely' it was stated.

And the fact that you'd repeat information that appeared, word for word, on a holocaust-denial web site should be

$1:

I understand the fundamentals of science,

Well, congratulations on keeping your understanding well hidden.

Does your understanding of the 'fundamentals of science' include actually reading references in scientific literature? After all, you claimed that vaccines were tested 'only' on 120 people, even though earlier you were given references to studies containing over 10 times that number. Why did you make the claim (or at least agree with another poster who made it) when the data was so readily available?

(And furthermore, it was in a link that was not a wikipedia entry!)

$1:

apparently YOU have an issue with understanding the fundamnetals of Capitalism. Fact: Pharma companies are run by businessmen NOT doctors! Fact: pharma companies, like any other public company have shareholders to answer to. They do NOT answer to you or me.

FACT: If a market is profitable, new competitors will enter the market. If a market is not profitable, companies will leave
FACT: The number of companies manufacturing influenza vaccines is a fraction of what it was back in the 1970s

So... if influenza vaccine manufacture is so lucrative, why exactly have so many companies left the market?

$1:

Fact: ANY company will pay for "reports" that are favourable to them.

Strange... not one university researcher, not one referee in a peer reviewed journal, not one government scientist, has ever come forward with any claim that they were offered any sort of "bribe" for favourable reports.

There have been hundreds of reports published over the years regarding vaccinations, involving thousands of scientists that are not direct employees of the drug companies. Yet not one of them has come forward with any proof of any kickback scheme.

$1:

Fact: doctors and scientists are NOT above having a price they can be bought for despit the high esteem we hold them up to. Is this a "conspiracy"? Get a grip, it's called business as usual in a Capitalist nation.

Actually, bribery is not actually part of a "capitalist nation" as we know it. It is an illegal act, and is punishable.

$1:

And unlike YOU I am NOT forcing my opinion down other people's throats.

Nope, you're just making wild accusations with no actual real evidence.

$1:

There is not ONE post where I've said NO ONE should get the shot.

Yet you've willingly spread false information which, if someone were to actually believe you, might result in them avoiding getting vaccinated (and possibly lead to sickness or death.)

To me, spreading such false information is just as bad, even if you don't come right out and say "don't get the shot".

$1:

But insult away if you think THAT'S gonna get your point across

Again, I doubt you'd actually be willing or able to address the actual real scientific evidence, regardless of how 'nice' we were when we presented it.

[segno]

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

Yes I was... mostly because I suggested that an individual who favoured exposing their children to diseases that claim hundreds of lives a year was not necessarily acting i the best intrest of her children.

I did appologize to the moderator over it, and told him that if he feels it necessary to ban me, I will graciously accept... however, I will not change my opinion that exposing children to potentially deadly situations is not something a parent should be doing.

I think, that to be a "good mother" in your eyes, I better lock my kids up, not take them to school, and not drive with them in the backseat of my car, because HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people get killed in traffic every year...

Nope, wouldn't think that at all.

You see, I believe that there are some rewards in sending children to school (after all, an education will help them have a more productive life). I also believe there are some rewards in having children in the car. (You can transport them to doctor's appointments, go on vacations which serve as time for family bonding, etc.) So, whatever risks there are from sending them to school, driving with them in the car, etc. are balanced by the benefits.

On the other hand, there is no such 'reward' for not getting your child vaccinated. There is no scientific evidence that the immunity built up through a 'natural' infection is, in any significant way, superior to the immunity derived from a vaccine. (Nor is there any evidence of signifcant risks of side effects.) So, to not get your child vaccinated is to give them a risk (many childhood diseases can be fatal) with no reward.

Now, I don't necessarily think that you're an 'evil' person. I'm sure you think you're doing what's best for your children. I just think you're mis-informed. And who knows? In every other way, you could be the greatest mother in the world... kind, patient with the children, a good role model and teacher. But given a choice, I think a parent who is kind and patient and a good role model and believes in vaccinations is a better parent than one who is also kind and patient and a good role model, but doesn't appreciate the risks to not vaccinating.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

And yet another BIG dodge from the forum's newest troll. First off pinhead, the wikipedia phrase you quoted wasn't referring to YOU specifically. IF you think it did, you must really think everyone thinks about you, even when yer not here. That's quite the ego you have there.

So I guess when the CDC admitted to fudging flu numbers for about 20 years, that's because I don't understand epidemiology.

As for the holocaust denial website dealie..save yer breathe. A person's politics has no bearing on what he knows about something. And ummm if you wanna throw the whole holocaust thing into this, and act like you have a medical licence or something, a fair bit of the knowledge we have in medicine and biology have came from those Nazi experiments. Ghastly as it is, it's a reality. So save your horror for someone that's as dimwitted as you are.

I am also aware that there were more than 120 tests done. I was making a sarcastic comment that ONE enitity took on such responsibility. Maybe you should take your own advice. I've provided links to the CDC, the MSDS webpage for Thimerosal, in some cases within the original source. But that's ok, trolls never really bother to look anyway.

If you gotta ask me again why so few companies are in the flu vaccine market when one of your VERY own posts answered your very question, then I really have to question your comprehension skills. Or maybe actually READING what you post will help, not sure really.

Now, we're not talking about bribes here either. Dunno where you get that from. Altho if you think it doesn't happen, again I say look at the tobacco industry in the US throughout its history. On to the topic at hand, its not bribery, it's called a contract. Pretty hard to screw the people over that are paying your way.
And why do you insist on dragging the government into issues of health and how much they care? Tobacco is still legal. 'Nuff said about the government.

And finally, if you are going to accuse me of disseminating false information you better make fucking sure you KNOW that for a fact. Fucking troll.

[segno]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

$1:

people like PublicAnimalNo9 have illustrated both an incredible lack of ability to understand the fundamentals of science, AND an inability to acutally learn, understand and reason.

PublicAnimal has displayed nothing that you describe

Poof: you're on ignore. It's obvious you're a poser.

Hey wow, my first 'ignore'. Is there anything I should be doing to celebrate?

Never mind that I can illustrate exactly how PublicAnimal as done exacly what I've said he's done...

But, I guess he's better off finding excuses to avoid actually dealing with real issues.

However, I will address some of the points he brought up, in case people want to see how and where his arguments fail.

$1:

Oh stfu. You sayu this after providing guesses as 'proof'?

$1:

Not to mention being 100% wrong about the side effects, even after those effects were published here by the producer of the vaccine. Now you prance around like a puppy with a bone acting like an arrogant grad student talking out of his depth.

Actually, I'm not wrong about the side effects of the vaccine... The reason why I haven't considered them to be significant factor is because, while they may be common, they are also transient. The only one that actually has a significant lasting impact is Guilliam-Barre.

$1:

...meanwhile others here tell me they're getting the vaccine becasue there's a 1 in 3 chance of getting the flu.

I wasn't the one that made that claim. However, the estimate of 1 in 3 being affected is not just some random number pulled out of the air. Some of the early estimates suggested that that was a possible end result. Although that may have been an upper-estimate, its not that unreasonable to quote that number.

From: http://www.reuters.com/article/domestic ... 6Y20090830
Every year, seasonal flu infects between 5 percent and 20 percent of a given population...Because hardly anyone has immunity to the new H1N1 virus, experts believe it will infect far more people than usual, as much as a third of the population.

$1:

$1:

In the past, the only serious side effect has been Guillme-Barre syndrom, a neurological disease that might be caused when the immune system reacts to the vaccination. (This problem may be serious, but it is very rarely fatal.)

No. I posted the actual study that shows us the side affects.

The reason why I didn't feel it was necessary to consider the symptoms referred to in the study that was referenced as significant is that the effectst that are most common are temporary and usually disappear within a day or 2.

$1:

You may consider anything short of death 'not serious' but I have a different opinion. As the document points out (by the company producing the vaccine BTW) I would have a 1 in 1000 chance of experiencing convulsions.

The reason why I concentrated only on mortality is because it was the only way that a 'fair' comparison can be done.

But hey, if you want to consider other symptoms that are 'less serious' than death, why not consider, lets say, days spent in hospital?

Australia had over 4 thousand people in the hospital due to H1N1 infections. I believe the average hospital stay was around 10 days. What about the days spent in hospital due to dide effects of the flu vaccine? Rather suspect that number is, oh, close to 0.

Just out of curiosity, wonder just how "bad" he thinks those side effects are. Does he somehow thing one case of 'convulsions' lasting a few mintues/hours (due to the vaccine) is exactly equivalent to a death caused by an actual H1N1 infection?

$1:

$1:

Lets look at the results in Australia. Their flu season occurs earlier in the year than ours. (And they went through the majority of their flu season with no available vaccine). In addition, their demographics are similar to ours, and they have a modern health care system.

Now, as of mid-September, Australia had 131 deaths associated with H1N1 (confirmed). However, since so many people have claimed "I'm a healthy adult, I don't need the vaccine", lets only consider those in their mid-teens to 65 years, ignoring the elderly and young children. According to the statistics, 54 individuals in that age range died. There are 14.4 million people in that age range. Therefore, the change of dying from H1N1 is 0.00038%.

Seems to me you only make my point for me here.

Actually, you seem to have cut out, and completely ignored the point that you're 6 times more likely to die from H1N1 than vaccine side effects.

$1:

$1:

Well, there are a couple of reasons why the "sky didn't fall"...
- It is incorrect to say that there was "no" vaccine. The fact is, the vaccine did exist, just that production problems meant that not as many got the vaccine. But, many many people did.
- we may have got 'lucky'... the strains that were circulating probably were similar enough to the strains circulating the previous year that people may have had a partial immunity from previous year's vaccinations
- The flu itself may not have been a very severe strain, or easy to transmit

Wow. You sound pretty self-assured considering how many times you use the word 'may' there.
Face it: that's three guesses, not 3 reasons.

The reason why I didn't give any specific reasons is because, frankly, there was some confusion over the dates that were given. (Add to that some strange claims about not having vaccines in some years... there haven't been any years with no vaccine, but there have been shortages. I didn't want to make any assumptions though.)

If I had a clear picture of the exact years you were refering to and the particular claims you were making for that year, I could have given more definative answers.

[segno]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

And yet another BIG dodge from the forum's newest troll. First off pinhead, the wikipedia phrase you quoted wasn't referring to YOU specifically. IF you think it did, you must really think everyone thinks about you, even when yer not here. That's quite the ego you have there.

Actually, go back to the other thread in the health section, find a post dated 2009-10-25, 15:30:37. You will find this exact statement:
Ya know segno. I could write about all that's oh so wrong about your post but I just haven't got days and days to waste doing it. So I'll do it in point form.
...
C)Using wiki as a source for facts about something that is controversial is hardly what I'd call your best use of internet "investigation".

So, you directed a post at me, and in that post, you used the word 'your' to specify wikipedia entries.

Gee... I wonder how I could have misunderstood that. Maybe 'segno' is actually has some definition meaning 'all the other posters on line'.

$1:

So I guess when the CDC admitted to fudging flu numbers for about 20 years, that's because I don't understand epidemiology.

Pretty much, yeah.

$1:

As for the holocaust denial website dealie..save yer breathe. A person's politics has no bearing on what he knows about something.

Being a holocaust denialialist is not about politics. It is about someone who, for whatever reason, does not rationally examine the evidence for the deaths of millions of jews. Its not about how someone may vote, its about their ability to rationally examine evidence.

If someone says "I don't think the Nazis deliberatley murdered 6 million jews" (despite the evidence they provided), I'd question their ability to think critically about anything.

$1:

And ummm if you wanna throw the whole holocaust thing into this, and act like you have a medical licence or something, a fair bit of the knowledge we have in medicine and biology have came from those Nazi experiments.

Irrelevant point. Its not about what nazi researchers did, it was about people who, for whatever reason, are willing to ignore all the evidence that nazis deliberatly murdered jews.

(At this point, I would suggest you examine the wisdom of both originaly quoting stuff that appears on that site, and now trying to defend your use of the site. Because as much of a jerk that some people think I am, throwing your hat in with Zundel will make you look worse.)

$1:

I am also aware that there were more than 120 tests done. I was making a sarcastic comment that ONE enitity took on such responsibility.

Really? could have fooled me. Considering all of the mistakes you've made in the past, I figure you'd want to do things to avoid being misunderstood.

By the way, were you also being sarcastic in the other thread when you claimed that the Czech government thought the vaccine was 'unsafe', despite the fact that they've recently purchased 1 million doses?

$1:

If you gotta ask me again why so few companies are in the flu vaccine market when one of your VERY own posts answered your very question, then I really have to question your comprehension skills. Or maybe actually READING what you post will help, not sure really.

No, actually my post never 'answered my own question'. Its still one of these things that you've never justified.

$1:

Now, we're not talking about bribes here either. Dunno where you get that from. Altho if you think it doesn't happen, again I say look at the tobacco industry in the US throughout its history. On to the topic at hand, its not bribery, it's called a contract.

I see... so, you say you're not 'talking about bribes', but then you turn around and say "well, it DOES happen...".

Oh, and yes, you don't use the term 'bribe', but I'm pretty sure most people would assume that that's what you meant when you used the terms:
Fact: doctors and scientists are NOT above having a price they can be bought for
Hmmm... a doctor or scientist, having a 'price' they can be 'bought for'. Sounds pretty much like a bribe to me (even if you want to use the word 'contract')

Edited to add:
I should also point out that in the other thread, you used this sentence:
Sadly, neither does receiving big fat checks and kickbacks from big pharma for shoving meds down our throats.
The definition of kickback (from businessdictionary.com) is: Portion of an income demanded as a bribe by an official for facilitating the job or order from which the income is realized..

$1:

And finally, if you are going to accuse me of disseminating false information you better make fucking sure you KNOW that for a fact. Fucking troll.

Hmmm... and the ironic thing is that I'M thought of as being rude.

Thing is, I'm not going to ask for an apology. Not my way. Its just words on a screen.

[martin14]

Proculation Proculation:

That would be more the pharmacist since it's him who gives you the generic or branded med. I always get the generic when going to the pharmacy. I understand that there are cases where doctors and pharmacists may get a return from a pharma to prescribe its drug instead of another but that's not widespread. So a vast conspiracy with almost all the doctors/scientists/governments/etc. involved is laughable !

I'll just jump on this one for a second.

I have had pharma clients for the last 10 years,
worked with top managers in those firms.


Truly, Proc, you have no idea what goes on in this chain of pharma, doctors,
pharmacists, government.. it would really shock you.

It's not a conspiracy, it's business.

[segno]

Yogi Yogi:

[huh] So. How ya gonna know if this 'flu shot' actually works or not? Not everyone is going to contract any strain of flu this year, with or without a shot. I'm thinking that the only way to find out if it helps is if you get the shot, but contract the flu anyway, then I guess it don't work, eh? Cuz, if you do get the shot, and don't contract the flu, does that mean the vaccine works, or is it possible that you weren't going to get the flu anyways?

Its impossible to actually tell, on an individual by individual basis, whether the flu shot 'worked'...
- the vaccine may have given immunity to some people who never actually get exposed to the virus
- A vaccinated person can get sick from a second circulating version of the flu, making it seem like the vaccine 'didn't work' (even if it might have
- an un-vaccinated person may never get exposed to the live virus (making it look like the vaccine "wasn't needed", when a person might have gotten sick otherwise)
- An individual may receive a cold that gets mis-diagnosed as a flu because of similarity of symptoms
- An unvaccinated individual may still derive some benefit from others around them who have gotten vaccinated (a concept known as 'herd immunity')

Typically, the best way they determine how well the vaccine works is to look at large scale studies where they have one 'control' group (that receives no vaccine) and one test group that does get the vaccine. If you have enough people in the study (and you divide the groups up randomly), you should start to see statistically fewer cases in the test group that received the vaccine than in the control group that received no vaccine.

And, that pretty much what has happened in other years when they've run such studies.

For example, here is a study they did for the seasonal flu vaccine a few years ago:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/ab ... 281/10/908
Purpose: To determine the effectiveness of trivalent influenza vaccine in reducing infection, illness, and absence from work in young, healthy health care professionals.
Design: Randomized, prospective, double-blind, controlled trial over 3 consecutive years, from 1992-1993 to 1994-1995.
Result: Among influenza vaccinees, cumulative days of reported febrile respiratory illness were 28.7 per 100 subjects compared with 40.6 per 100 subjects in controls (P=.57) and days of absence were 9.9 per 100 subjects vs 21.1 per 100 subjects in controls (P=.41).

So, in this study, even though some health care people got sick (likely with other strains of the flu), ON AVERAGE people who didn't get vaccinated were 40% more likely to get sick.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

That's exactly what I mean Martin. There's no conspiracy, it's called doing business.
And despite what SOME on here may feel, pharma companies are NOT run by warm, fuzzy, hug-ya-til-you-feel-better kind'a people. They are run by business people that have a job to do, turn a profit. Do people honestly think that pharma companies don't want to sell you their products as badly as GM or other companies do? Can these people really be that naive?

Now segno, since you want to play stupid(or maybe yer not playing) I guess I'll have to spoonfeed you your own post.
In one of your posts you had a source which you quoted. It basically stated that the reason there are only 2 companies that produce flu vaccines is the HIGH liability rate. There, now does THAT answer your question or do I have to hold your hand and guide you to your own post?
You still dodged the fact that you claim that the government wouldn't let big pharma pull off any funny stuff and risk our health, yet tobacco is STILL legal, even after everything we know about it. Yep, your above reproach government is really looking out for people's health. Oh, but wait a second, since this government approved and sanctioned industry is still claiming that cigarettes aren't really all that bad for you, I guess we should take the body of work on tobacco and throw it out the window. After all, the government wouldn't let them sell anything harmful to us right????
I guess Dr. Ben Kim's stance on smoking holds no credibility either since by your logic, his opinions are tainted because he's a holocaust denier right? Hey everyone, good news. A holocaust denier says smoking is bad for us and the tobacco industry says it isn't, so I guess that means we can all light up safely.
As for the wiki comment. You already mentioned that to me and I haven't referred to you and wiki since. However YOU are not the only other one posting in this thread. Seeing as how I was talking to Proc at the time I have no idea how you could think I was referring to you. *cough* egomaniac *cough*

I gotta love your logic here. Because the CDC ADMITTED they fudged the flu numbers for about 20 years, that just means I don't underatand epidemiology. What this really demonstrates is you have no clue what fudged means. By your logic, because an MP admitted to fudging on his taxes, that means it's just because I don't understand math? The British Journal of Medicine can verify the veracity of that claim about the CDC by they way. But I guess that just means no one there understands epidemiology either. Apparently you know more about epidemiology than the CDC and the BJM combined. *cough* more ego tripping *cough*

Now, onto the holocaust. You claim that because a doctor denies it happened, their opinions and or/findings in any other field are suspect at best. Yet many doctors and scientists that worked in the death camps also denied their involvement. Those that didn't deny it, still didn't think they were doing anything wrong because it was in the "name of science". Yet we've built on their body of work, and in some cases, that "work" sped up certain researches that we benefit from today. Now, if a body of work done by doctors and scientsist that were there, but denied it ever happened, is relevant, then my bringing it up to refute your point about deniers is quite relevant. Kinda funny how we've also expanded on "Dr" Mengele's body of work and yet he was one of THE most wanted men for almost 40 years. .

Now, onto the fun part. You try and garner sympathy about being called rude, while you've had rude comments thrown your way. Let's see, you basically called Brenda a bad mother. You've insulted myself and others the 2 days you've been here because we don't agree with you. All WITHOUT provocation I might add. I even let your first nasty post to me slide on by but you just had to keep it up. You've accused me of disseminating false information, and in a veiled accusation, essentially inferred that I've thrown my lot in with the holocaust deniers. All because you wanna hold onto your little Care Bear world where pharma companies voluntarily hold themselves to a higher ethical standard than other US industries and would never, EVER try to profit from an opportunistic environment such as flu season.
You know something? Yer right, yer not rude, yer a fucking asshole.
Feel free to respond but I have no inclination to speak another word to you.
Now where's that ignore button

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Hope this shit works

[Brenda]

segno segno:

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

Yes I was... mostly because I suggested that an individual who favoured exposing their children to diseases that claim hundreds of lives a year was not necessarily acting i the best intrest of her children.

I did appologize to the moderator over it, and told him that if he feels it necessary to ban me, I will graciously accept... however, I will not change my opinion that exposing children to potentially deadly situations is not something a parent should be doing.

I think, that to be a "good mother" in your eyes, I better lock my kids up, not take them to school, and not drive with them in the backseat of my car, because HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people get killed in traffic every year...

Nope, wouldn't think that at all.

You see, I believe that there are some rewards in sending children to school (after all, an education will help them have a more productive life). I also believe there are some rewards in having children in the car. (You can transport them to doctor's appointments, go on vacations which serve as time for family bonding, etc.) So, whatever risks there are from sending them to school, driving with them in the car, etc. are balanced by the benefits.

On the other hand, there is no such 'reward' for not getting your child vaccinated. There is no scientific evidence that the immunity built up through a 'natural' infection is, in any significant way, superior to the immunity derived from a vaccine. (Nor is there any evidence of signifcant risks of side effects.) So, to not get your child vaccinated is to give them a risk (many childhood diseases can be fatal) with no reward.

Now, I don't necessarily think that you're an 'evil' person. I'm sure you think you're doing what's best for your children. I just think you're mis-informed. And who knows? In every other way, you could be the greatest mother in the world... kind, patient with the children, a good role model and teacher. But given a choice, I think a parent who is kind and patient and a good role model and believes in vaccinations is a better parent than one who is also kind and patient and a good role model, but doesn't appreciate the risks to not vaccinating.

You are SO full of shit.... How condescending can you be?

Let me guess, you don't have children, do you

[Brenda]

$1:

Thing is, I'm not going to ask for an apology. Not my way. Its just words on a screen.

That is low, even for you.

[Yogi]

How are the people who decide not to get the vaccine putting anyone at risk?

[Brenda]

Yogi Yogi:

How are the people who decide not to get the vaccine putting anyone at risk?

Not only that, we are murderers too!
(I have no idea why, because all those "smart" people who do get the shot CANNOT get sick, but hey, I am just a stupid mother, so I guess I am talking bs anyway )

[PublicAnimalNo9]

You mean I could be a murderer too because I don't get the shot? Wow, I better quit driving then too because one day I might accidentally hit someone. As a matter of fact, since the odds of getting killed in a car accident are significantly higher than dying from the flu, if you all don't start taking mass transit like I'm going to do, and quit driving, you are all just a bunch of selfish bastards, bad parents and would be murderers. I demand that you obey me or I shall insult you again

[Akhenaten]

sengo:
I say:

$1:

...meanwhile others here tell me they're getting the vaccine becasue there's a 1 in 3 chance of getting the flu.

You screw up in the first 7 words of your response to this after quoting it:

sengo sengo:

I wasn't the one that made that claim.

"Darrrh"
This is why you can't be taken seriously: you're trying very hard to sound a lot smarter than you're ever going to be.

$1:

Every year, seasonal flu infects between 5 percent and 20 percent of a given population...Because hardly anyone has immunity to the new H1N1 virus, experts believe it will infect far more people than usual, as much as a third of the population.

I've said this 3 times now and no one wants to take me up on it: Iwill bet my right arm that 1 out of 3 of non-vaccinated people will NOT get the flu.

Just like they didn't last year.

Or the year before.

Or the year before that.

Every year a slightly new strain and a doomsday prediction. Every year it blows over, with or without a vaccination. I don't think vaccination is a dirty word. I don't think people shouldn't be vaccinated. If I were over 55 or had children I would probably vaccinate. But I'm not taking a 1 in 3 chance by not vaccinating. The suggestion is laughable. At least it is for anyone with a memory that stretches back more than 12 months.

Further to people who say your immune system is of no consequence: please shut up. I personally have had two doctors tell me (lately - I've read and had doctors tell me this in the past too), that a good immune system is your best defence. Do you really believe your body hasn't encountered the virus already? You simply cannot avoid the germs. You can wash your hands with boiling water 18 times a day and the first time you're given a few coins in change or pick up some bills from the automatic teller you'll be subjected to all manner of bacteria and germs. You immune system is your first defence. This is NOT suggesting you are/can be immune but that the immune system is working 24/7 to keep your risk of infection down. Those with bad immune systems will be affected the most; those with healthy immune systems will have a lower chance of contracting the flu. I repeat: this is NOT the same thing as being immune.