Quote:
Originally Posted by susie123
Wahay Gordon, tell it like it is!
No perhaps about it!
OK I've found those figures referred to in (1):
[I]In a study published in
Presumably the 1.5 of every 100 referred to is arrived at by subtracting 1.2 from 2.7. Surely what we should be doing is saying the vaccine prevented 1.5 fewer people getting the disease in every hundred so its efficacy is 1.5 divided by 2.7 - the number of unvaccinated per 100 who got ill. As a percentage that is 55.55 - not far from the "60% efficacy claim the media touts".
|
Correct, susie. If these so called experts can misrepresent simple statistics so badly to support their claims how can anyone believe them?
Also chrisSJ, your figures are from a report by a moron who tested on
42 ferrets and came to these shattering conclusions -valid experiment, do you think? So far the only 'controversy surrounding vaccines' you've shown so far has come from the lunatic fringe- show us some serious studies from a reputable medical body which support your claims and we may listen.
As for aluminium and formaldehyde- have you seen how much fluid is in a flue vaccine? You'd probably have to have the whole countries flue jabs before you got a significant amount.