Interesting article. Also, interesting that the only time someone else had presented any scientific study, it also involved the elderly but in a nursing home. In it, the vaccination appeared to reduce the effects of one disease but increase the effects of another.

Do vaccinations only partially benefit the elderly or is this an example where the elderly, especially when confined, can be specifically targeted.

Also, it was unclear from just the abstract, whether pneumonia and congestive heart failure are associated with the flu or a side benefit from taking the vaccine. I suppose it could be related. But, 48 to 57 percent and 43 percent does not seem like you could say it "works" to me if the idea is prevention, and when it says it reduces hospitalization, the benefits are further diluted.

Now, maybe there is an argument for the dollars saved, and that could be why so many are urging, without question, a drug which has not been adequately subjected to the scientific method. But I question if those dollars are really saved or if they reappear elsewhere.

Bechamp was the name I was thinking of who lost out to marketing maneuvers.
Here's an interesting segment about smallpox on page 197:
Bechamp Or Pasteur: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology

Would you suggest we vaccinated as the originally did? Did it work? Why not do it the same way? If our current methods are "better", are they right?

Principles of Vaccination & what Jenner did:
http://www.therealessentials.com/vaccination-princ.html

I had read before how they got this from calves.
Living calves.

A book quoting the situation 150 years ago and an article on a website which just happens to have a commercial interest in discrediting scientifically tested medicine? kland, honestly, if you want to think vaccine is unhealthy for you, it is your right to do so.

If something started whether 15 years ago or 150, and it's never been subjected to the scientific method, wouldn't it be useful to go back and see what was happening then as to why it came into being accepted without question? What if the base assumption was faulty? Is that a possibility? Or shall we just assume vaccination must be work, it has to be true, surely it must be scientifically tested or the ones in power would have told us differently?

I've read elsewhere that even the government is saying certain vaccinations aren't being effective, therefore they must step up coverage. Kind of reminds me that going into debt isn't causing the economy to recover, so we must put forth more effort to go further into debt.

If vaccinations work, or as you say, reduce the worse effects, and one area either bans it or no longer forces it against the will of the people (UK), then wouldn't you see an increase in the disease? But, from what I've read, the disease went down. Or in third world countries, where they are vaccinating the people but not providing clean water and sanitation, the disease still is high.

And as far as commercial interest go, you can find sites which aren't selling things, but really, who has the biggest commercial interest in this: the pharmakon industry or someone selling essential oils who also has articles on their website?

All I'm saying is to think, don't assume. Whether it's to do with our health or our religion. Ellen White says that the health message is the right arm of the third angel's message. Shall we pharm it out to industry?

As few as 3 posts ago I shared one link to research subjected to the scientific method verifying the effect of vaccine, yet you already are claiming it has never been done.

You shall not assume anything about vaccines working for you have already made up your mind that they do not. Is there a purpose to further discussing this?

The link showed the scientific method was used to help show that vaccines reduced the negative effects of illness, but showed that vaccines did not prevent disease. Hence, my conclusion that they do not "work" meaning prevention.

Yes, you are right in showing that it is much easier to get the desired results if one takes the liberty to decide how to define key words (eg work) according to what the present situation requires.

That does sound bad if I'm taking liberty to change the meaning of "works". Maybe you could give a good definition. Because, when I search about vaccines, I often see the word "prevention". Which I then take "works" to mean "prevents". I see recent articles in the paper from the health department talking about how vaccines prevent diseases. They didn't mentioned anything about reducing the effects of disease. So, I'm open to if you have a common definition of the purpose of vaccination. I say "common", as otherwise, that would mean the common people have been deceived.

kland, I wonder, did you notice this article?
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d22.full
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347

So one of the "evidence based medicine is evil" groups darling studies, that vaccination cause autism is not only false. It was manufactured. And neither was it manufactured for some idealistic causes but its author was bought for almost half a million British punds by lawyers who wanted to make money by suing vaccine companies.



While this by itself does not speak on the function of vaccine, it does show that the "evidence based medicine is evil" groups out there are not only lightly regarding medicine, but also evidence.


On your last question, it is difficult to comment on the contents of articles you recently read. Provide some links or at least quote references and preferably both so I can see how the word is used in the literature you read.

Your links demonstrate why I don't ever support that mercury causes autism. Mercury is bad on it's own and does not have to be shown to cause a certain specific disease to be kept out of vaccines. Creationists have fraudulently created things to "prove" creation. But committing fraud doesn't disprove creation. Interesting how published research can be shown to be fraud. Suppose it works both ways?

Regarding "prevent", how about this about meningitis vaccines (amazing how many vaccines there are!) from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/meningitis/about/prevention.html

That someone commits fraud to defend a point of view might not say anything about the point of view, but it says much about the person. And it does suggest that there might not be all that much of substance to say if fraud was necessary. The doctor should have done some real research to prove his point if he actually believes in it, rather than only believing in the "almighty dollar".
The difference between published research and statements of faith is that published research welcomes, even requires criticism of this kind. All kinds of ideas are thought up and they are put to the test, and the ones that survive the best attacks of its strongest critics goes down to history. Although any idea that survived yesterdays critics may fall to new knowledge tomorrow. This is not a weakness of science, it is the greatest strength of science. It is really a biblical principle, to try all things and claim the good ones. A principle that is surprisingly often rejected on matters of faith. So I am just waiting for you to say that because the vaccine prevents only 2 of the 3 most common strains of the meningitis bacteria, and does nothing for viral meningitis, it does not "work".