Sacrifice the children to protect the herd?

Found this, appears that swine flu was extremely widespread, despite all the evidence to the contrary!


www.cidrap.umn.edu...

I assume that all that means something, I can't pretend to understand much of it (perhaps I'm not meant to?).

HOWEVER I think I understand exactly what they mean in the last paragraph:-

"results also highlight the role of children in flu transmission and that extending seasonal flu vaccination to this age-group has the potential to protect young people and help provide herd immunity to the larger population."

Mooo, Mooo.

reply to post by Icerider


Yeah?

Well, i say screw the herd, and protect the children.

It is common knowledge that vaccinations are only effective in AT MOST 10% of all those vaccinated...and the figure of 10% is pretty much as good as it gets...so much so that is 10% were so, it would be a virologists 'wet dream' of a figure.

It is also known that the younger a person is, the LOWER this percentage falls.
Until you get to a point where it is so ineffective on children, that it is pointless.

All i see is a golden opportunity from the drugs pushers point of view to make untold millions per year more profit, while killing that many more people through..ahem..side effects..

They really are bastards. Almost to the point of being inhuman.

reply to post by Icerider


What you find is that these people create studies which are then used to justify what they wanted to do anyway, but for a completely different reason. They're sterilizing us from the youngest upwards.

reply to post by spikey


10% according to US studies which I would question. In Quebec, Canada the results where that getting any flu shot made you more likely to catch the flu, can't imagine any other one being different.

reply to post by Unity_99


Yeah, i know. Strange that isn't it. (sarcasm)

The phrase 'self perpetuation' springs to mind.