> I did provide the links: Neither one of these pages supports your two statement I referred to: that the flu shot (a killed vaccine) actually causes the flu. Or that dystonia is a proven side effect found when testing the vaccine.
It is also *very* important to consider the source. I talked in the atheist thread about this kind of bias in science. People pick and choose and even distort and make up information to benefit their own point of view, then claim the "science" supports their view. The first link you provide for instance has this information about the author: "His second book, Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life, covers the common basis of all diseases, nutritional protection against diseases of aging, protection against heavy metal toxicity, the fluoride debate, pesticide and herbicide toxicity, excitotoxin update, the vaccine controversy, protection against heart attacks and strokes. " Gee, wonder where his bias is? I would be FAR more willing to trust information from someone that isn't trying to sell books based on scaring people about all the ways society is trying to kill them. I'm not saying the information on the pages is incorrect...it's for instance a known fact that this flu pandemic is nowhere near the level of some earlier ones. But I find much of it projected a very distorted and not the very balanced view that most doctors have. > So isn't the real question whether or not the risk justifies > injecting people with a potentially harmful substance? This is a question people should evaluate with their own doctor, not based on information from dubious sources. I personally don't usually get the flu shots, as I am not at high risk and don't have much exposure to other people, and don't believe in vaccinating just for the sake of it. The problem with the fear mongering type of stuff that you are trying to do is that it is intended to scare *everyone* off of having the shot (geez, if I get a shot, I may never walk right again!) There are plenty of people for whom getting it is far more beneficial than not, but these sites hardly give that more balanced view of vaccination. > Can you explain specifically how this new untested H1N1 vaccine is > materially different from the 1976 version? I'm not going to waste time on the rest of this post which has nothing to do with the current situation (we know far more about the current flu and how widely it is spread than applied in 1976 just for a start), and again, is quite clearly misreading the facts to fit your personal bias. I guess you thought the JFK shooting was a conspiracy too, right? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:307073 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
