Yep.The vaccine reduces my risk of catching flu by 30% or more. That's a hugely greater reduction in risk than from side effects. Maybe 100 times greater, maybe 1,000 times, maybe more.
I can see why vaccines are scary - there is a known, tiny, risk because you know you've been vaccinated. If you don't understand risk, catching flu might seem less risky as you might not get it. You have to run the numbers to realise that it's by far the opposite, but in my experience most people can't really take in numbers
So.. first thought: pharma companies are to be viewed with suspicion because they profit from the fear of viruses; in order to sell vaccines. However, a vaccine lawyer's site is OK because they're definitely not profiting from the fear of vaccines?From Attorney Leah Durant | Vaccine Lawyer
3. Flu Shot Injury Claims are Most Common, But More DTP Claims Involve Fatal Injuries
Of the 19,021 claims filed, over 4,000 involve flu shot-related injuries (including 197 fatal injuries). However, while flu shot injury claims are most common, the most claims involving fatal injuries result from vaccinations for diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DTP). Since October 1988, 696 families have sought compensation for fatal injuries and illnesses linked to DTP vaccinations.
4. Vaccine Injury Claims are on the Rise
The number of vaccine injury claims filed under the VICP has risen each year since 2011, and 2017 saw a 13-year high in the number of claims filed. In total, 1,243 individuals and families filed claims for compensation in fiscal year 2017. So far, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has already received 339 claims for the 2018 fiscal year.
Now that's what I call a reply, not one snide comment or personal attack.So.. first thought: pharma companies are to be viewed with suspicion because they profit from the fear of viruses; in order to sell vaccines. However, a vaccine lawyer's site is OK because they're definitely not profiting from the fear of vaccines?
Anyway - let's say that the claim of 197 fatal injuries (directly related to flu shots) is true - I suspect that number may be dubious, but let's just run with it. Figures from Public Health England estimate that an average of 17,000 people died each year from the flu (between 2014 and 2018).
Yearly effectiveness of the flu vaccine varies (and varies by the virus type); however, something around 50% appears to be a reasonable average.
Based on that data, even if there were 197 deaths per year in the US (I'm assuming the 197 figure above is probably a total over several years), it would still be much safer to get a flu shot (with the low risk of an adverse reaction) than the risk of death by flu.
What other figures I could find for deaths caused by flu shots (usually a result of allergic reactions) were tiny; in the order of <2 per million. If only 2 people per million in the UK died (from catching the flu) then flu death numbers would be <150 per year (the actual figure is over 100x larger).
Point being; life is 100% fatal; something will kill you - but the evidence would suggest it's unlikely to be a vaccine. The virus the vaccine protects you against however...
Measles for example.Now, people dying of TB, as they used to, would be a lot more visible
Yes, I'm still alive, having been jabbed last week. My knees hurt and my back aches a bit more than in the past, when I wasn't eligible for free jabs, but I think that may be correlation without causation.The deed is done, my arm was perforated an hour ago. So far so good.
But I promise to report back if it kills me.
I would admit to being a bit sarcastic about the motives of a vaccine lawyer, but on this subject (pros and cons of vaccines) there isn't really any need to insult or base things on opinion; there's so much data available that shows the risks from vaccines are minuscule, and much, much, lower than the risks posed by the viruses they aim to prevent.Now that's what I call a reply, not one snide comment or personal attack.
Your Lawyer analogy didn't quite stand up. Because he is not causing fear in the first place, just lining his pockets after the damage is done.I would admit to being a bit sarcastic about the motives of a vaccine lawyer,
Isn't that lawyer something of the definition of an ambulance chaser?Your Lawyer analogy didn't quite stand up. Because he is not causing fear in the first place, just lining his pockets after the damage is done.
But I was so chuffed with a civil and thought out approach, I went on to work with a somewhat renewed faith in human nature
Indeed. Ignoring the subject, the controversy, and the impact; the fact is that the original paper was an absolutely terrible piece of research; that didn't meet even basic standards to have been taken seriously. The problem is that the Lancet smelled a big story and rushed to be the one that carried it first. Had they done even a basic review of the paper it would have set off major alarm bells; so they certainly deserve some of the blame for the mess it caused.Wakefield? What a debacle that was:
Astonishing that the Lancet accepted, and published, a paper where n=12!!
By 1998 I, and thousands of other A level teachers, had, for over two decades, been drumming into future doctors, surgeons, dentists, scientists, the perils of deducing ANYTHING from miniscule sample sizes, as we taught basic statistics ( χ2, t test, Student's t, confidence limits, etc). Then the Lancet, of all journals, goes and gives page space - and thereby credence - to what was later " to go down as one of the most serious frauds in medical history". WHERE WERE THEIR REVIEWERS??? WHAT WERE THEY ON?? Feet of clay, no doubt, and a serious pall cast over the ability to employ - and enforce - simple rules of scientific rigour by the so-called medical specialists.