Johns Hopkins Scientist Reveals Shocking Report on Flu Vaccines

originally posted by: luthier

Is the scientific paper (not article) no longer valid? Can you find good studies without a conflict of interest that disproves it? Otherwise its just a genetic fallacy on your part.

What is the mortality rate of healthy people under the age of 65 without exsisting medical conditions? I am just wondering if you have any science on that or are just making assumptions?

I am not against vaccines. However because of the speed this virus drifts and the currwnt structure of the vaccine the herd mantality here doesnt work. Thr flu mutates regionally and airplanes bring the virus to all over the globe. Not to mention the shift uses interspecies merging of two strains. Which the vaccine is not effective at providing immunity to. Even the drifts bring the effectiveness way down which is why you can get sick later in the season.

Not a lot of data for the public that doesnt come from literary studies from drug company trials. Not a lot of lab and blood work independent studies out there easy to obtain by imdependent sources.

People flocked to the polio vaccine because it worked. This vaccine requires constant promotion because like last year the flu shot is often completely useless.

Did a lot of healthy people die last year from the flu? How many people in the mortality rate of the flu die anyway from something besides the flu in a relatively close proximity timeline?

Sorry but until they have success genetically altering the flu to make it effective like a vaccine that doesnt require yearly educated guesses by the cdc i dont need it. Nobody i know has died from the flu.

How dare anybody question what they put in there body....

I should load my kid up with adderol too because some studies show it has temporary benefits......drs tell people to give their kids speed even though long term studies show it doesnt work over time....yet most of the medical community supports it because....KaaChing it makes a lot of money. Forgive me for questioning the flawless medical community.

The paper certainly was valid at the time, over a quarter of a century ago but what would be interesting would be to see the same research repeated now with current vaccines.

However, that point is moot since you've conveniently ignored the important aspect of having to contract the illness the vaccine protects against to enable that "natural" immunity.
Did you miss that point as it's the absolute crux of the issue?

And why are you talking about mortality rates when I was talking about morbidity rates?
You do know the difference don't you?

And as for the money thing, it costs a hell of a lot more to treat someone in hospital just from a pharmacological perspective that the cost of a vaccine.
So are YOU the pharma shill?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
Yo! Don't bother with Pardon? he's a straight up pro-vax shill. If you look at his activity you'll see all he does is troll vax threads. Here's my last encounter with him:
ATS Vax Thread

It doesn't matter how much evidence you present, or how reliable the sources are, he will respond like you're nuts to question vaccines.

Debate at your own risk.

Haha thanks. Its ok. People expose themselves through dialogue. I have some formal training in debate so I am not too scared.

If you're debating medicine I would expect you to have some formal training in medicine rather than just debating.
But there's the kicker, people who have no training do think there is a debate when scientifically, there isn't.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
Yo! Don't bother with Pardon? he's a straight up pro-vax shill. If you look at his activity you'll see all he does is troll vax threads. Here's my last encounter with him:
ATS Vax Thread

It doesn't matter how much evidence you present, or how reliable the sources are, he will respond like you're nuts to question vaccines.

Debate at your own risk.

I would infer from your comment that you also "troll vax threads" and are against vaccination.

Perhaps we should call you a shill and suggest that we exclude you from debate too?

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
Yo! Don't bother with Pardon? he's a straight up pro-vax shill. If you look at his activity you'll see all he does is troll vax threads. Here's my last encounter with him:
ATS Vax Thread

It doesn't matter how much evidence you present, or how reliable the sources are, he will respond like you're nuts to question vaccines.

Debate at your own risk.

Haha thanks. Its ok. People expose themselves through dialogue. I have some formal training in debate so I am not too scared.

If you're debating medicine I would expect you to have some formal training in medicine rather than just debating.
But there's the kicker, people who have no training do think there is a debate when scientifically, there isn't.

Is that a fact? A fallacy is a fallacy. When you commit to one in reason it doesnt matter your backround.

For instance the genetic fallacy you point out in the old lab study which includes actual science. Did you attack the substance? Not at all.

My science backround is acoustics. Does a lab expirement that is true some how become untrue past a certain date? Are you saying new information negates the study (scientific paper)? If so that is your argument not the time of the study. The laws of physics didnt suddenly change after a date but they were expanded upon. Thing is you did not argue that approach. You commited a genetic fallacy.

Now I am supposed to believe you some how have medical training because you said so? You made a remarkable statement that you only get partial immunity from contracting the flu. Could you explain this? Do you mean because every year i dont get the new drifted virus?

You have provided me with no evidence you know anything about science. You engaged my comment with no substance.


Yes i know the difference and i misread your comment or lumped it with another.

How many years did the cdc provide accurate tracking of vaccines? How did they determine this? Is it er visits alone? I know the past couple years havent been great.

Do you know what they have changed in the vaccine since 1989 that somehow made them better? I am not aware of any but am very open minded show me. I know they are working on a new typw of flu vaccine now that will be much better and not require the cdc to guess what regional flu is going to be mainstream.

If you have no answers previous to your comments you are the one just debating nonsense to be oppositional.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: luthier

Is the scientific paper (not article) no longer valid? Can you find good studies without a conflict of interest that disproves it? Otherwise its just a genetic fallacy on your part.

What is the mortality rate of healthy people under the age of 65 without exsisting medical conditions? I am just wondering if you have any science on that or are just making assumptions?

I am not against vaccines. However because of the speed this virus drifts and the currwnt structure of the vaccine the herd mantality here doesnt work. Thr flu mutates regionally and airplanes bring the virus to all over the globe. Not to mention the shift uses interspecies merging of two strains. Which the vaccine is not effective at providing immunity to. Even the drifts bring the effectiveness way down which is why you can get sick later in the season.

Not a lot of data for the public that doesnt come from literary studies from drug company trials. Not a lot of lab and blood work independent studies out there easy to obtain by imdependent sources.

People flocked to the polio vaccine because it worked. This vaccine requires constant promotion because like last year the flu shot is often completely useless.

Did a lot of healthy people die last year from the flu? How many people in the mortality rate of the flu die anyway from something besides the flu in a relatively close proximity timeline?

Sorry but until they have success genetically altering the flu to make it effective like a vaccine that doesnt require yearly educated guesses by the cdc i dont need it. Nobody i know has died from the flu.

How dare anybody question what they put in there body....

I should load my kid up with adderol too because some studies show it has temporary benefits......drs tell people to give their kids speed even though long term studies show it doesnt work over time....yet most of the medical community supports it because....KaaChing it makes a lot of money. Forgive me for questioning the flawless medical community.

The paper certainly was valid at the time, over a quarter of a century ago but what would be interesting would be to see the same research repeated now with current vaccines.

However, that point is moot since you've conveniently ignored the important aspect of having to contract the illness the vaccine protects against to enable that "natural" immunity.
Did you miss that point as it's the absolute crux of the issue?

And why are you talking about mortality rates when I was talking about morbidity rates?
You do know the difference don't you?

And as for the money thing, it costs a hell of a lot more to treat someone in hospital just from a pharmacological perspective that the cost of a vaccine.
So are YOU the pharma shill?

"Right now the entire country runs on fear and we don't need to live like that," said Catharine A. Kopac, a Georgetown University (search) gerontology researcher. "We somehow think we should be disease-free all the time. If you're leading a healthy life and you get sick with the flu, you're probably going to get through it."

For instance, a 2013 study from the CDC found that that year's flu vaccine was not very effective in adults ages 65 and over: Older people who got the vaccine were just as likely to visit the doctor for flu symptoms as those who did not get the vaccine.

Already showed it was18-23 percent effective in 2014-2015

Why is it so unreasonable to not get a flu shot?

They are not required for a reason. The flu isnt that bad for healthy people.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Pardon?

If you're debating medicine I would expect you to have some formal training in medicine rather than just debating.
But there's the kicker, people who have no training do think there is a debate when scientifically, there isn't.

Is that a fact? A fallacy is a fallacy. When you commit to one in reason it doesnt matter your backround.

For instance the genetic fallacy you point out in the old lab study which includes actual science. Did you attack the substance? Not at all.

I'm almost certain I said it was valid but that I'd like to see an updated version

My science backround is acoustics. Does a lab expirement that is true some how become untrue past a certain date? Are you saying new information negates the study (scientific paper)? If so that is your argument not the time of the study. The laws of physics didnt suddenly change after a date but they were expanded upon. Thing is you did not argue that approach. You commited a genetic fallacy.

Studies get disproven all the time.
That's how science progresses.
You committed one or two fallacies in that paragraph. See if you can find them.

Now I am supposed to believe you some how have medical training because you said so? You made a remarkable statement that you only get partial immunity from contracting the flu. Could you explain this? Do you mean because every year i dont get the new drifted virus?

I'm not too bothered what you believe about me but I am concerned about non-medically trained people thinking they know more than they do. Especially in public forums.
The "partial" referred to the percentage of people gaining immunity, not the actual immunity itself.

You have provided me with no evidence you know anything about science. You engaged my comment with no substance.

Ditto except you're the one making the claims.

Yes i know the difference and i misread your comment or lumped it with another.

It was a glaring error. Someone who is supposedly science based should not have made such a mistake.
Like I said, THAT is the crux of the issue and one which anti-vaxxers skirt around like it's on fire.

How many years did the cdc provide accurate tracking of vaccines? How did they determine this? Is it er visits alone? I know the past couple years havent been great.

What do you mean about "accurate tracking of vaccines"? Consequently the rest of your paragraph makes little sense.

Do you know what they have changed in the vaccine since 1989 that somehow made them better? I am not aware of any but am very open minded show me. I know they are working on a new typw of flu vaccine now that will be much better and not require the cdc to guess what regional flu is going to be mainstream.

If you have no answers previous to your comments you are the one just debating nonsense to be oppositional.

H1N1 vaccines were introduced in 2009.
The quadrivalent flu vaccine was introduced in 2013.
Flublok was also introduced in 2013.
The last one is very different to the flu vaccine available in 1989 and protects against drift variants which is why I'd like to see that study updated to include it and the other newer ones.

And remember, to gain "natural" immunity you have to have caught the disease first.
Vaccines protect you from that.
That's why they're given.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Pardon?

If you're debating medicine I would expect you to have some formal training in medicine rather than just debating.
But there's the kicker, people who have no training do think there is a debate when scientifically, there isn't.

Is that a fact? A fallacy is a fallacy. When you commit to one in reason it doesnt matter your backround.

For instance the genetic fallacy you point out in the old lab study which includes actual science. Did you attack the substance? Not at all.

I'm almost certain I said it was valid but that I'd like to see an updated version

My science backround is acoustics. Does a lab expirement that is true some how become untrue past a certain date? Are you saying new information negates the study (scientific paper)? If so that is your argument not the time of the study. The laws of physics didnt suddenly change after a date but they were expanded upon. Thing is you did not argue that approach. You commited a genetic fallacy.

Studies get disproven all the time.
That's how science progresses.
You committed one or two fallacies in that paragraph. See if you can find them.

Now I am supposed to believe you some how have medical training because you said so? You made a remarkable statement that you only get partial immunity from contracting the flu. Could you explain this? Do you mean because every year i dont get the new drifted virus?

I'm not too bothered what you believe about me but I am concerned about non-medically trained people thinking they know more than they do. Especially in public forums.
The "partial" referred to the percentage of people gaining immunity, not the actual immunity itself.

You have provided me with no evidence you know anything about science. You engaged my comment with no substance.

Ditto except you're the one making the claims.

Yes i know the difference and i misread your comment or lumped it with another.

It was a glaring error. Someone who is supposedly science based should not have made such a mistake.
Like I said, THAT is the crux of the issue and one which anti-vaxxers skirt around like it's on fire.

How many years did the cdc provide accurate tracking of vaccines? How did they determine this? Is it er visits alone? I know the past couple years havent been great.

What do you mean about "accurate tracking of vaccines"? Consequently the rest of your paragraph makes little sense.

Do you know what they have changed in the vaccine since 1989 that somehow made them better? I am not aware of any but am very open minded show me. I know they are working on a new typw of flu vaccine now that will be much better and not require the cdc to guess what regional flu is going to be mainstream.

If you have no answers previous to your comments you are the one just debating nonsense to be oppositional.

H1N1 vaccines were introduced in 2009.
The quadrivalent flu vaccine was introduced in 2013.
Flublok was also introduced in 2013.
The last one is very different to the flu vaccine available in 1989 and protects against drift variants which is why I'd like to see that study updated to include it and the other newer ones.

And remember, to gain "natural" immunity you have to have caught the disease first.
Vaccines protect you from that.
That's why they're given.

Again more argueing of semantics at best. How effective is the flu vaccine? Does it change year to year. If the vaccine protects against drifting how was it only 18-23 percent effective last year?

This vaccine does not provide immunity like other vaccines do.

Again this is not a science board. I read your morbidity rate in a car on the way to the recording studio (not driving). So it was my error. I admit i should know better. I am not a scientist however but a sound engineer.

The flu is not bad. The bad flu or antigenic shift comes around I will get a shot. The one in current circulation would not protect against such a shift would it? I know there is evidence it may help.

The flu kills roughly 36,000 people in the US. How many of those people would have died from an infection anyway is unknown. The shot may have saved them.

I am healthy and have never been hospitilized from illness of any kind.

I will get the shot in a few years after they fix the problems they have with tracking the right flu.

Again not an antivaxer.

My dr. Does not think I need the flu shot and has never pushed me to get it. I used to compete in judo and wrestling, have three kids and coach wrestling in middle school. Never had a problem with the flu. If my body gets weaker someday maybe i will feel the need.

Did you know you can also get a vaccine when you actually start getting sick....i havent had the flu for a few years so I guess my immune is good with the drifted virus too.

Here are some good food for thought articles.

m.ft.com...

www.ibtimes.co.uk...

And here is a kicker you will love..
www.bbc.com...


This too

"Annual vaccination against influenza is effective but may have potential drawbacks that have previously been underappreciated and that are also a matter of debate," write lead author Rogier Bodewes, DVM, from Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and coauthors.

The annual flu vaccine can weaken children's resistance to other types of influenza virus, including those that could cause a pandemic, according to a study published in the November issue of the Journal of Virology

By the way never called you a shill so name calling is just another detraction from proving a point.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
Yo! Don't bother with Pardon? he's a straight up pro-vax shill. If you look at his activity you'll see all he does is troll vax threads. Here's my last encounter with him:
ATS Vax Thread

It doesn't matter how much evidence you present, or how reliable the sources are, he will respond like you're nuts to question vaccines.

Debate at your own risk.

I would infer from your comment that you also "troll vax threads" and are against vaccination.

Perhaps we should call you a shill and suggest that we exclude you from debate too?

I'm not anti-vax. I'm pro-vax. But I'm also pro-honesty (about vax side effects) and pro-intelligent decision making (as in one size does not fit all). And I also participate in a variety of threads on here. I'm still irked with Pardon? because I spent a lot of time and effort in an attempt to answer his questions when he had no intention of even considering the points I was making. It's one thing to have a firm opinion on a topic. It's another thing to only attend threads of that topic for the sole purpose of belittling people who may have a differing opinion.

I just don't want anyone to make the same mistake I did and actually waste time on an intelligent debate, or present links or what not to back themselves up when this is such an obvious MO for Pardon?

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
Yo! Don't bother with Pardon? he's a straight up pro-vax shill. If you look at his activity you'll see all he does is troll vax threads. Here's my last encounter with him:
ATS Vax Thread

It doesn't matter how much evidence you present, or how reliable the sources are, he will respond like you're nuts to question vaccines.

Debate at your own risk.

I'm flattered I've made such an impact on you.

But the shill gambit?
Really?
I thought you were better than that (not that you showed you were, just that I'm the type of person who sees good in everyone).

So does somebody pay you to do this? Or is it just some twisted hobby?

PS I spent a lot of time finding legitimate sources to back up every point I made. You really should be up front with people, like your signature should be 'Pro-vax and proud of it. Everyone else is an uneducated baboon. Don't bother presenting evidence to the contrary as there is no way I will even consider it.'

As far as the actual topic goes: Every time I've gotten the flu shot I've ended up with the flu. Not from the shot itself, but at some point during that season. There's no possible way they can cover all strains or predict which strain will be the most prevalent in the upcoming season. So I gave up on it, just took my chances with the real world.
If you're young and healthy you can probably handle the flu just fine. And if you're immune compromised, then it's up to you to weigh the benefits v. risks.

I never get the flu shot and never get the flu. My mom always gets the flu shot, and also, shockingly, always gets the flu.

a reply to: AstronautCliffTarpey


I never got the flu shot and always got the flu. Now I get the flu shot (through a work programme) and don't get the flu.
Many of my colleagues who didn't get the flu shot this year got the flu, but because I had the flu shot, I didn't get the flu.

There's Jenna Jameson, and then there's quality science.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
Yo! Don't bother with Pardon? he's a straight up pro-vax shill. If you look at his activity you'll see all he does is troll vax threads. Here's my last encounter with him:
ATS Vax Thread

It doesn't matter how much evidence you present, or how reliable the sources are, he will respond like you're nuts to question vaccines.

Debate at your own risk.

I would infer from your comment that you also "troll vax threads" and are against vaccination.

Perhaps we should call you a shill and suggest that we exclude you from debate too?

I'm not anti-vax. I'm pro-vax. But I'm also pro-honesty (about vax side effects) and pro-intelligent decision making (as in one size does not fit all). And I also participate in a variety of threads on here. I'm still irked with Pardon? because I spent a lot of time and effort in an attempt to answer his questions when he had no intention of even considering the points I was making. It's one thing to have a firm opinion on a topic. It's another thing to only attend threads of that topic for the sole purpose of belittling people who may have a differing opinion.

I just don't want anyone to make the same mistake I did and actually waste time on an intelligent debate, or present links or what not to back themselves up when this is such an obvious MO for Pardon?

Fair enough, that sounds quite reasonable and I apologize for jumping to confusions.

originally posted by: luthier

Again more argueing of semantics at best. How effective is the flu vaccine? Does it change year to year. If the vaccine protects against drifting how was it only 18-23 percent effective last year?
This vaccine does not provide immunity like other vaccines do.

You would say semantics, I would call them details.
And details are quite important in medicine.
Yep, they cocked-up big time last year with their prediction of which strain it was going to be so irrespective of whether a vaccine protects against drift, if they get the genotype wrong in the first place then it's not going to do much is it?
Still, even 20% protection is better than 0% isn't it?

Again this is not a science board. I read your morbidity rate in a car on the way to the recording studio (not driving). So it was my error. I admit i should know better. I am not a scientist however but a sound engineer.

Good for admitting your error.

The flu is not bad.

But it can be. Really it can.
And in apparently healthy people too.
I was at a meeting last year when the Mater hospital in Dublin presented a case of a 30 y.o. woman who contracted the swine-flu and had to be treated with ECMO (extra-corporeal membranous oxygenation en.wikipedia.org...) for a period of several months. She had no underlying disease.
Had she been an isolated case then fair enough but the rate of ECMO usage went up dramatically worldwide during that outbreak.
ECMO is extremely labour and medication intensive and costs a fortune.

The bad flu or antigenic shift comes around I will get a shot. The one in current circulation would not protect against such a shift would it? I know there is evidence it may help.

Fair enough.

The flu kills roughly 36,000 people in the US. How many of those people would have died from an infection anyway is unknown. The shot may have saved them.

Even if the flu shot provides only 20% protection 7000 of those may have lived.
But as you said, who knows...

I am healthy and have never been hospitilized from illness of any kind.

Congratulations.

I will get the shot in a few years after they fix the problems they have with tracking the right flu.

Again not an antivaxer.

My dr. Does not think I need the flu shot and has never pushed me to get it. I used to compete in judo and wrestling, have three kids and coach wrestling in middle school. Never had a problem with the flu. If my body gets weaker someday maybe i will feel the need.

I'll accept that.

Did you know you can also get a vaccine when you actually start getting sick....i havent had the flu for a few years so I guess my immune is good with the drifted virus too.

For a vaccine to provide full immunity it needs to be administered at least two weeks prior to being exposed to infection.
Are you perhaps thinking of anti-virals?
www.cdc.gov...

Here are some good food for thought articles.

m.ft.com...

That needs a login.

www.ibtimes.co.uk...

Difficult one to understand without seeing the data.
As it stands from the article and the links contained in it it's a case of "our word against theirs".

And here is a kicker you will love..
www.bbc.com...

That one would cement the earlier study from 1989 if it showed that the people with enhanced T-cell responses got that from being exposed to the flu.
It doesn't.
It also concludes that whilst symptoms of the flu would be less than usual, they still contracted it so were not fully immune.
Plus only 2 virus types were tested.
www.nhs.uk...

This too

"Annual vaccination against influenza is effective but may have potential drawbacks that have previously been underappreciated and that are also a matter of debate," write lead author Rogier Bodewes, DVM, from Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and coauthors.

The annual flu vaccine can weaken children's resistance to other types of influenza virus, including those that could cause a pandemic, according to a study published in the November issue of the Journal of Virology

www.medscape.com...

By the way never called you a shill so name calling is just another detraction from proving a point.

I know, it was in response to your reply to the other poster who's argument consists of my being a shill.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
Yo! Don't bother with Pardon? he's a straight up pro-vax shill. If you look at his activity you'll see all he does is troll vax threads. Here's my last encounter with him:
ATS Vax Thread

It doesn't matter how much evidence you present, or how reliable the sources are, he will respond like you're nuts to question vaccines.

Debate at your own risk.

I would infer from your comment that you also "troll vax threads" and are against vaccination.

Perhaps we should call you a shill and suggest that we exclude you from debate too?

I'm not anti-vax. I'm pro-vax. But I'm also pro-honesty (about vax side effects) and pro-intelligent decision making (as in one size does not fit all). And I also participate in a variety of threads on here. I'm still irked with Pardon? because I spent a lot of time and effort in an attempt to answer his questions when he had no intention of even considering the points I was making. It's one thing to have a firm opinion on a topic. It's another thing to only attend threads of that topic for the sole purpose of belittling people who may have a differing opinion.

I just don't want anyone to make the same mistake I did and actually waste time on an intelligent debate, or present links or what not to back themselves up when this is such an obvious MO for Pardon?

Calling yourself pro-vax is as disingenuous as the misinformation you push.
As can be seen from this page in the thread you highlighted earlier, even though I explained to you why the information you posted wasn't valid you took no notice whatsoever.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And then when I countered your other claims you went quiet.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So I showed that your "legitimate" cases weren't as legitimate as you thought.
And that you were severely misinformed and were using anti-vax sites for reference material.

And then the tired old response that I must be a shill.
Grow up.
I'll re-post what I put on the last post of that thread. Let's see if you understand it this time.
"

I wouldn't say I'm pro-vax, just anti anti-vax and very against the misinformation, dishonesty and downright lies they use to propagate their anti-health crusade.
The decision to vaccinate should be a very easy one but there's so much of the above out there that it confuses people.
So if I see deliberate misinfo posted then I'll counter it.
So feel free to call me what you will, if it makes you feel better but also be aware that the misinfo you believe in and push is harmful.

"

a reply to: Agartha

The term effective is a misnomer. What they mean by effective is that your body had a reaction (produced an antibody) to the vaccine, not that it prevented you from getting sick. If you read their studies, they eventually tell you that is what they mean when they say, "Effective".

In the video above, he explains that the flu shot causes Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and that the flu shot is not very effective in preventing the flu. He also explains that the CDC does not follow the law for vaccines in requiring long-term safety testing for the influenza vaccine like they do with other vaccines, as it is impossible to test a vaccine that changes every year. So the flu vaccine is basically an experimental vaccine that they want to give out to 300 million people every year. There are also no studies showing the safety of giving the flu vaccine to the same person every single year. However, Dr. Geier points out that the CDC is in the business of distributing flu vaccines, because they represent 300 million doses per year, whereas all the childhood vaccines together only number 20 million.

cont.

For those who will read this and began the Dr. Geier myths that have been going around the net one being he’s had his licensed revoked for improper activities-read this: HUGE Victory For Mark and David Geier…
Maryland Medical Board, and the Individual Employees involved, ULTIMATELY SANCTIONED by District Court – a Total Finding For the Plaintiff. Damages Hearing to Follow:

HUGE Victory for Mark and David Geier

originally posted by: Pardon?

And as for the money thing, it costs a hell of a lot more to treat someone in hospital just from a pharmacological perspective that the cost of a vaccine.
So are YOU the pharma shill?

Not when you consider they are forcing / pushing vaccines on millions of people and spending billions on developing them to turn around and make more billions off of selling them for a flu virus they don't know will hit, cannot prove efficacy because it cannot be tested because they don't know what virus will hit, and the numbers just don't add up. Watch the video I just posted and tell me where Dr. Geier is wrong. There is are is a reason he won.

It looks like the coeliac disease is actually a biological weapon invented by the US and EU militaries and used by the spies to control you by controlling your supply of gluten-free food.

originally posted by: UnifiedSerenity
a reply to: Agartha

The term effective is a misnomer. What they mean by effective is that your body had a reaction (produced an antibody) to the vaccine, not that it prevented you from getting sick. If you read their studies, they eventually tell you that is what they mean when they say, "Effective".

In the video above, he explains that the flu shot causes Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and that the flu shot is not very effective in preventing the flu. He also explains that the CDC does not follow the law for vaccines in requiring long-term safety testing for the influenza vaccine like they do with other vaccines, as it is impossible to test a vaccine that changes every year. So the flu vaccine is basically an experimental vaccine that they want to give out to 300 million people every year. There are also no studies showing the safety of giving the flu vaccine to the same person every single year. However, Dr. Geier points out that the CDC is in the business of distributing flu vaccines, because they represent 300 million doses per year, whereas all the childhood vaccines together only number 20 million.

cont.

For those who will read this and began the Dr. Geier myths that have been going around the net one being he’s had his licensed revoked for improper activities-read this: HUGE Victory For Mark and David Geier…
Maryland Medical Board, and the Individual Employees involved, ULTIMATELY SANCTIONED by District Court – a Total Finding For the Plaintiff. Damages Hearing to Follow:

HUGE Victory for Mark and David Geier

Sorry, my idea of science isn't watching someone just give their opinion on a YouTube video.
It may be yours but it definitely isn't mine.
And yes, I did watch it.
But no, nowhere did I see anything to back up what he said. You know, like evidence.

And when it's from one of the Geiers I take even less notice.

The Geiers believe that mercury in vaccines causes autism even though the science says there's no link.
Why do they believe this (and yes, it's a belief not a fact).
They believe it because they sell "autism cures" which remove the mercury which has allegedly been deposited by the naughty vaccines.
They do this in two ways, by chelation and by using a drug more commonly used for chemical castration, Lupron.
Guess what, neither chelation nor Lupron has any effect whatsoever in treating autism.
Why?
Well in their case because mercury does not cause autism and vaccines do not cause autism.
Even the questionable Autism Speaks "charity" states that vaccines do not cause autism.

Mark Geier was stripped of his medical licence some years ago.
Hi brother, David was charged for practising medicine without a licence.
www.mbp.state.md.us...
And you believe them?

Oh, Tim Bolen used to be the promoter for Hulda Clark, the one who used to say her zapper could cure everything, from baldness to cancer.
After she died of cancer Tim then went on to promote the Geiers...

Flu is commonly used by EU governments to kill people that either know too much, or that are becoming a danger to the rule of the degenerate ruling class of Europe. That doesn't mean it always works.
In any case what they do, is to weaken the immune system of the subject and then use a common flu to kill someone they perceive either as a threat or a future threat.

originally posted by: Flanker86
Flu is commonly used by EU governments to kill people that either know too much, or that are becoming a danger to the rule of the degenerate ruling class of Europe. That doesn't mean it always works.
In any case what they do, is to weaken the immune system of the subject and then use a common flu to kill someone they perceive either as a threat or a future threat.

Do you have anything to back this outlandish statement up or did you just come up with it all on your very own?