The flu shot is largely worthless and possibly dangerous

Every year, the “gubment” cajoles us to get our flu shots.  It’s our civic duty!


The only problem is that studies have shown that the flu shot is either worthless or almost worthless.



On average, past flu vaccines have been about 42 percent effective, though that number can range anywhere from 10 to 60 percent in a given year[.] … [T]his year’s flu shot may not be up to the task.  It is the same formulation that was used during Australia’s most recent flu season – which typically sets a pattern for what the U.S. will face – and it was only 10 percent effective there.


Ten percent!


Dr. Pardis Sabeti, a Harvard professor and infectious disease expert[, says,] “Even 10 percent effective is better than nothing.”


Wow, a Harvard professor says even ten percent is better than nothing!  Far be it from me to challenge a Harvard professor (something I used to do quite frequently), but where does this ten percent figure come from?


Take a study that claimed 67% effectiveness for the flu shot.  One group of 5,103 people got the flu shot, and 49 of those caught the flu (almost 1%).  A control group of 2,549 people took a placebo, and 74 people got the flu (3%).


Based on a statistical analysis of the 1% who caught the flu who were vaccinated and the 3% who caught it when unvaccinated, statisticians concluded by analysis (you can read it here) that the flu shot has “effectiveness” of 67%.


However, most laymen would conclude that most people, whether vaccinated or not, did not catch the flu and that the difference between those vaccinated and those unvaccinated was only 2%.  In fact, due to standard deviations, it is possible that the gap between the vaccinated and unvaccinated is even smaller.


The bottom line is that even if the flu vaccine is effective, it helps a very small number of people.  That still might make it worthwhile to inoculate people if it were 100% safe.  Unfortunately, that’s not entirely clear, according to a scientist at Johns Hopkins:


Although the CDC  implies that flu vaccines are safe … an Australian study … found [that] one in every 110 children under the age of five had convulsions following vaccinations in 2009 for H1N1 influenza.  Additional investigations found that the H1N1 vaccine was also associated with a spike in cases of narcolepsy among adolescents.


Another doctor points out:


The mercury contained in vaccines is such a strong immune depressant that a flu shot suppresses immunity for several weeks.  “This makes people highly susceptible to catching the flu,” he says.  “They may even think the vaccine gave them the flu, but that’s not true – it depressed their immune system and then they caught the flu.”


 Mercury overstimulates the brain for several years, says Dr. Blaylock, and that activation is the cause of Alzheimer’s and other degenerative diseases.  One study found that those who get the flu vaccine for three to five years increase their risk of Alzheimer’s disease 10-fold.


Those who defend the flu shot point out that when the flu vaccine is made, it’s based on a variation of last year’s flu and that the flu virus mutates, so they will never get a 100% match for next year’s flu.  But from the looks of these statistics, they aren’t coming anywhere close to 100%.  They also claim that even if you do catch the flu, you will catch a less severe version of it if you have a flu shot.  To that I offer a pill that, if taken, will cure most common colds within 1-2 weeks.


Most people get the flu shot and don’t get the flu and then falsely conflate correlation with causation, and then they keep getting the flu shot without questioning the efficacy of it.  Given the marginal, at best, benefit of the flu shot and the possible risk, an inoculation program aimed at everyone, without regard to risk versus benefit, makes no sense.


Ed Straker is the senior writer at Newsmachete.com.


Every year, the “gubment” cajoles us to get our flu shots.  It’s our civic duty!


The only problem is that studies have shown that the flu shot is either worthless or almost worthless.


On average, past flu vaccines have been about 42 percent effective, though that number can range anywhere from 10 to 60 percent in a given year[.] … [T]his year’s flu shot may not be up to the task.  It is the same formulation that was used during Australia’s most recent flu season – which typically sets a pattern for what the U.S. will face – and it was only 10 percent effective there.


Ten percent!


Dr. Pardis Sabeti, a Harvard professor and infectious disease expert[, says,] “Even 10 percent effective is better than nothing.”


Wow, a Harvard professor says even ten percent is better than nothing!  Far be it from me to challenge a Harvard professor (something I used to do quite frequently), but where does this ten percent figure come from?


Take a study that claimed 67% effectiveness for the flu shot.  One group of 5,103 people got the flu shot, and 49 of those caught the flu (almost 1%).  A control group of 2,549 people took a placebo, and 74 people got the flu (3%).


Based on a statistical analysis of the 1% who caught the flu who were vaccinated and the 3% who caught it when unvaccinated, statisticians concluded by analysis (you can read it here) that the flu shot has “effectiveness” of 67%.


However, most laymen would conclude that most people, whether vaccinated or not, did not catch the flu and that the difference between those vaccinated and those unvaccinated was only 2%.  In fact, due to standard deviations, it is possible that the gap between the vaccinated and unvaccinated is even smaller.


The bottom line is that even if the flu vaccine is effective, it helps a very small number of people.  That still might make it worthwhile to inoculate people if it were 100% safe.  Unfortunately, that’s not entirely clear, according to a scientist at Johns Hopkins:


Although the CDC  implies that flu vaccines are safe … an Australian study … found [that] one in every 110 children under the age of five had convulsions following vaccinations in 2009 for H1N1 influenza.  Additional investigations found that the H1N1 vaccine was also associated with a spike in cases of narcolepsy among adolescents.


Another doctor points out:


The mercury contained in vaccines is such a strong immune depressant that a flu shot suppresses immunity for several weeks.  “This makes people highly susceptible to catching the flu,” he says.  “They may even think the vaccine gave them the flu, but that’s not true – it depressed their immune system and then they caught the flu.”


 Mercury overstimulates the brain for several years, says Dr. Blaylock, and that activation is the cause of Alzheimer’s and other degenerative diseases.  One study found that those who get the flu vaccine for three to five years increase their risk of Alzheimer’s disease 10-fold.


Those who defend the flu shot point out that when the flu vaccine is made, it’s based on a variation of last year’s flu and that the flu virus mutates, so they will never get a 100% match for next year’s flu.  But from the looks of these statistics, they aren’t coming anywhere close to 100%.  They also claim that even if you do catch the flu, you will catch a less severe version of it if you have a flu shot.  To that I offer a pill that, if taken, will cure most common colds within 1-2 weeks.


Most people get the flu shot and don’t get the flu and then falsely conflate correlation with causation, and then they keep getting the flu shot without questioning the efficacy of it.  Given the marginal, at best, benefit of the flu shot and the possible risk, an inoculation program aimed at everyone, without regard to risk versus benefit, makes no sense.


Ed Straker is the senior writer at Newsmachete.com.






via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/1c2jbfc

Report: Expect ‘Full Trump,’ Unchained, in 2018

Report: Expect ‘Full Trump,’ Unchained, in 2018



If you thought President Donald Trump was great in 2017, you ain’t seen nothing yet: wait until Trump 2018, a report from Axios’s Mike Allen on Friday morning argues.

Citing multiple sources who have met or spoken recently with the president, Allen reports that those in the know in Washington should expect the “full Trump” in 2018—the president’s upcoming second year.

“If you ask some close to President Trump what worries them most about 2018, it’s not Robert Mueller’s probe,” Allen writes under a headline saying to expect Trump to be “unchained” in 2018. “It’s that establishment guardrails of 2017 come down — and Trump’s actual instincts take over.”

“Next year will bring ‘full Trump,’ said one person who recently talked to the president,” Allen adds.

Allen notes that most of Trump’s major 2017 achievements could have been made by any old traditional Republican, from the tax cuts plan to Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and cutting regulations.

“Most of those in his current decision-making circle — even if they’re not mainstream Republicans — are defending mainstream Republican principles like free trade and an internationalist view of foreign policy,” Allen writes. “But top officials paint a different portrait of Trump when it comes to what he really wants on trade, immigration and North Korea — but has been tamped down by skeptical staff and Cabinet officials.”

Privately, Trump is throwing down entirely with the economic nationalist roots of his presidency.

“Trump keeps asking for tariffs — on steel and aluminum, in particular,” Allen writes. “He wants a trade war, and has for many years. His economic and diplomatic advisers persuaded him to delay trade actions in 2017.”

And while 2017 was defined by behind-the-scenes who’s up, who’s down power struggles in the administration and West Wing over which policies would win out, Allen notes that 2018 seems to be heading in the direction of a place where it doesn’t matter which measly globalist advisers are riding high at any given moment.

“Those advisers recognize that the day of reckoning will come in 2018, regardless of whether economic adviser Gary Cohn and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — who advocated restraint — stay or go,” Allen writes.

Allen specifically pointed to a couple of recent Trump comments—one via Twitter and the other via his New York Times interview—on China, where the president ripped China on trade and North Korea.

“China’s hurting us very badly on trade, but I have been soft on China because the only thing more important to me than trade is war. O.K.?” Trump told the New York Times.

On Twitter, he wrote:

Allen says that Trump has trade actions planned next month, too, something that other reports indicate are splitting Trump from GOP leaders. A recent headline in the Hill newspaper read, “GOP frustration rises with Trump on trade.”

The piece from Alex Bolton quotes several Senate Republicans, including Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), who raise concerns with President Trump and his administration’s efforts to put America first on trade.

But Allen notes that while Trump may have delayed acting on some of his economic nationalist instincts in 2017 to appease advisers’ demands, expect him to move forward with or without the useless advisers in 2018.

“Look for Trump to take action on trade in the next month. It probably won’t be next week, so as not to disrupt the afterglow of the tax cut. But nothing is final,” Allen writes, adding, “Trump still wants his wall, and tighter restrictions on legal immigration. He’s a true believer on this stuff, and knows intuitively that it keeps his base stoked.”

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/uktKj3

After 1 Year of Trump’s Presidency, Police Death Numbers Are In

The year 2016 was a deadly one for police officers in the United States. It was so deadly, that according to Breitbart News, 2016 “saw more deaths than in the five previous years.” It was also President Obama’s last year in office.

Then Donald Trump became president, and everything changed.

The year Trump took office, 2017, police deaths on duty neared a 50-year low.

According to a report by USA Today, preliminary numbers show that there were 128 deaths in the line a duty; 2013 was the only year with fewer deaths, coming in at 116.

Traffic accidents made up the bulk of the deaths, with 47 in 2017. That’s a 15 percent decline from 2016.

TRENDING: After Cali Promotes Secession, They’re Faced With Biggest Threat Yet

There’s a lot of speculation regarding the “whys” behind the decline, but the police advocacy group Blue Lives Matter attributes it to a “greater awareness of officer safety.” Blue Lives Matter spokesman Randy Sutton told USA Today that the focus on safety includes “change in how officers approach arrests because of the controversial high-profile shootings over the years.”

In essence, officers are more aware of the potential dangers as they approach dangerous situations.

Breitbart reports that National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund President and Chief Executive Craig Floyd said, “In my 33 years doing this, I’ve never seen (this) amount of awareness given to officer safety and wellness.”

“I think that’s definitely been paying off and will continue to help make law enforcement a significantly safer profession.”

One can’t help but ask, though, does part of the decline have to do with the way police are treated from national leadership? As leadership guru John Maxwell says, “Everything rises and falls on leadership.”

When you compare the leadership of Barack Obama and Donald Trump, you can’t help but notice the stark difference in their attitudes toward police officers.

Remember, Ferguson, Missouri, Michael Brown, and “Hands up don’t shoot” back in 2014? Obama immediately took to his podium and teleprompter then to criticize law enforcement.

The Washington Times reports him saying, “In too many communities around the country, a gulf of mistrust exists between local residents and law enforcement. Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement — guilty of walking while black or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness.”

RELATED: Ex-Obama Official Turns Into Laughingstock With Sick Claim About Obama and ISIS

The result?

Rising numbers of police officers “feloniously killed” — up to 66 in 2016. That was “the highest single-year figure since 1997,” according to Breitbart.

Contrast this to just a few days ago, where President Trump paid for the Christmas meals of the military and law enforcement personnel charged with protecting him over the holidays.

Numbers don’t lie, and the truth is, police officers’ deaths have fallen dramatically this last year. As stated earlier, there are a number of factors, but you can’t deny that Trump’s pro-police, and pro-military actions have surely helped this number.

Hopefully, we’ll be able to see this number continue to drop in the coming years, because one police officer death in the line of duty is one too many.

H/T Breitbart

Please like and share this post on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about the decline in police deaths.

How do you think President Trump’s actions contributed to the decline in deaths? Scroll down to comment below!

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2gEOIzE

Trump: Post Office Should Charge Amazon More Money for Delivery

Trump: Post Office Should Charge Amazon More Money for Delivery



President Donald Trump believes that the post office should charge Amazon more money for delivering its packages across the world.

“Why is the United States Post Office, which is losing many billions of dollars a year, while charging Amazon and others so little to deliver their packages, making Amazon richer and the Post Office dumber and poorer?” Trump wrote on Twitter on Friday. “Should be charging MUCH MORE!”:

The president’s comment on Twitter continued his ongoing frustration with Amazon after they received record profits in 2017.

A 2017 Citigroup analysis revealed that each package from Amazon gets a government subsidy of $1.46.

The modern post office has lost billions of dollars every year, with few options for recovering its debt. From 2007-2017, the post office has lost $65.1 billion.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/uktKj3

NINE YEARS AGO… Al Gore Predicted North Pole Would Be Completely Ice Free by Today

NINE YEARS AGO… Al Gore Predicted North Pole Would Be Completely Ice Free by Today

NINE YEARS AGO THIS MONTH—
Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years.

Gore made the prediction to a German audience in 2008. He told them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.”

“Five Years”

This wasn’t the only time Gore made his ice-free prediction. Gore’s been predicting this since 2007.

According to Al Gore the North Pole should be completely melted by now.

Junk scientist Al Gore also made the same prediction in 2009.

From the video:

Former Vice President Al Gore references computer modeling to suggest that the north polar ice cap may lose virtually all of its ice within the next seven years. “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” says Gore.

In January 2006, Al Gore posited “within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return” and “a true planetary emergency” due to global warming.

Of course, this turned out to be nothing more than complete lunacy.

At least 8 Dire Predictions from the movie never happened – not even close.

This week the continental US is suffering through another deep freeze.

Ed Driscoll found the original Gore video from 2008.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/SIPp5X

Trump Is About To Repeal Obama-Era ‘Fracking’ Regulations

Banning Barack, it’s fracking good.

Via Daily Caller:

President Donald Trump’s administration will give a belated gift to American energy producers and repeal former President Barack Obama-era regulations for hydraulic fracturing operations on federal lands.

The Interior Department is expected to publish a repeal of the rule in the Federal Register on Friday, and already the oil and gas industry are celebrating. Producers challenged were locked in court battles over the rule since it was finalized in 2015.

“It was clear from the start that the federal rule was redundant with state regulation and politically motivated, as the prior administration could not point to one incident or regulatory gap that justified the rule,” Kathleen Sgamma, president of Western Energy Alliance, said in a statement.

Interior will publish the repeal of the rule two days after the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed an attempt to revive the Obama-era regulation. The court gave Interior until mid-January to repeal the rule.

Keep reading…

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2s3tLUa

NFL’s War On Christmas: Saints’ Kamara Shares NFL Fine Letter For Santa-Themed Cleats

But cops as pigs socks are cool?

Via Washington Times:

A pair of Christmas cleats recently worn by NFL running back Alvin Kamara will cost him a pretty penny in fines.

The New Orleans Saints secured their first playoff berth since 2013 on Christmas Eve, but its rookie running back clinched a fine from NFL commissioner Roger Goodell’s league. The athlete, who ran for 32 yards on 12 carries against the Atlanta Falcons, shared an image of his fine letter with Twitter followers on Thursday.

“Tis the season,” he tweeted. “I’ll start the @gofundme later, stay tuned lol.”

Kamara knew the fine was coming, but tweeted an image of the stocking-like shoes on Dec. 23.

“We talkin bout Christmas??!! Lemme show y’all some different flavors. @adidasFballUS #teamadidas #NewSpeed,” he wrote.

Keep reading…

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2s3tLUa

Vanity Fair Sparks Liberal Meltdown After Calling for Hillary Clinton to Take Up Knitting

Liberal outlet Vanity Fair sparked a liberal freakout this week after calling for failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton do something other than politics in 2018 — including take up knitting.

The outlet published a video on its Twitter page, featuring a number of millennials offering recommendations to Clinton — who has spent much of 2017 relitigating the 2016 election — to stay away from politics and to do something else.

“Get someone on your tech staff to disable autofill on your iPhone so typing in ‘f’ doesn’t become ‘form an exploratory committee for 2020,’” jokes one millennial on the video.

“Take up a new hobby in the new year. Volunteer work, knitting, improv comedy, literally anything that will keep you from running again,” another contributor says.

While the video was no doubt supposed to be a light, comedic ribbing — with Vanity Fair an unlikely backer for President Trump — and expressing in a light-hearted form the sentiment among many Democrats that Clinton may be a drag on the party in 2018 and 2020, Clinton-backers were not impressed.

As with most criticisms of Clinton, even those that come from women, the sexism card was quickly thrown down by those offended by the jokey video.

Actress Patricia Arquette requested that the outlet “STOP TELLING WOMEN WHAT THE F-CK THEY SHOULD DO OR CAN DO. “

Arquette also said that the video was “asking for shit.”

Author Summer Brennan somehow managed to play the race card (Clinton is white.)

She wasn’t the only one:

Others just let loose with their anger:

Quickly #CancelVanityFair became a trending topic on Twitter, leading Clinton cronies such as sycophant Peter Dao to hop on board, calling her “one of the most accomplished women in the history of the United States.”

Former Clinton adviser Adam Parkhomenko was similarly unimpressed:

Apparently, the vitriol became so bad that the writer who suggested the knitting hobby had to lock her account. Journalist Glenn Greenwald said it was because she was “subjected to the most foul vitriol and abuse, endlessly, over several days.”

Vanity Fair later backed down on the video, with a spokeswoman telling the Washington Post.  “It was an attempt at humor and we regret that it missed the mark.”

Adam Shaw is a Breitbart News politics reporter based in New York. Follow Adam on Twitter: @AdamShawNY.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/uktKj3

Trump Puts Obama to Shame With Special Police Request During Holiday Visit

The holidays are a time to show respect for those who serve us. President Trump just did this in a major way — and it put Barack Obama to shame.

As most of you likely know, the president is spending his Christmas break down at his Mar-a-Lago resort down in Florida. That takes a considerable amount of security presence, and not just by the Secret Service.

What you probably didn’t know, however, is how the Trumps treated those who were assigned to the security detail. It didn’t get a lot of play in the press — although CNN’s Noah Gray tweeted about it.

Take a look:

TRENDING: Trump Makes Alaska Great Again, Brings Back Gold Mine Obama Nearly Buried

Yes, police, Secret Service and the people of the White House Military Office were all treated to “a full Christmas spread” at the request of the president — and all out of the president’s pocket, without a dime apparently spent for the dinner by taxpayers.

They even made sure that every shift got a meal by offering meals from 1 p.m. to 7 p.m.

That’s a pretty big move to begin with, but it looks positively great when you consider the previous White House’s acrimonious relationship with the nation’s police.

It was so bad that in summer of 2016, right after five Dallas police officers were shot and killed during a Black Lives Matter march, the executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations said that then-President Obama had engendered a “war on cops.”

William Johnson said that the “continued appeasements at the federal level (by the Obama administration) with the Department of Justice, their appeasement of violent criminals, their refusal to condemn movements like Black Lives Matter, actively calling for the death of police officers, that type of thing, all the while blaming police for the problems in this country has led directly to the climate that has made Dallas possible.”

RELATED: Trump’s Message To Military On Christmas Had 1 Major Difference From Obama’s Presidency

As 2017 comes to an end, it’s always a good time to reflect on what made this year different than last year — especially in politics.

At least at the White House, one thing that’s very different is a palpable respect for law enforcement. That newfound level of respect has made itself known in a number of ways, but the spread paid for out of the president’s pocket is a pretty effective synecdoche for the whole thing.

What the Trumps did on Christmas wasn’t the kind of thing that the Obamas were known to do. The last president and his family kept their distance from law enforcement and those assigned to protect them. Trump, apparently, is changing that in a huge way.

H/T The Daily Caller

Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter with your thoughts on what the president did.

Have you noticed a difference in how police are treated under Trump? Scroll down to comment below!

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2gEOIzE

NYT’s Paul Krugman: ‘Pink Pussy Hats’ Are the ‘Symbol of Our Delivery from Evil’

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman clowned it up on Tuesday by suggesting that the “pink pussy hats” of the Women’s March in January “should be the symbol of our delivery from evil.” Just put a pussy hat on the Statue of Liberty and call it a day! His column was titled “America Is Not Yet Lost.”

Early this year the commentator David Frum warned that the slide into authoritarianism would be unstoppable “if people retreat into private life, if critics grow quieter, if cynicism becomes endemic.” But so far that hasn’t happened.

What we’ve seen instead is the emergence of a highly energized resistance. That resistance made itself visible literally the day after Trump took office, with the huge women’s marches that took place on Jan. 21, dwarfing the thin crowds at the inauguration. If American democracy survives this terrible episode, I vote that we make pink pussy hats the symbol of our delivery from evil.

At least Krugman wasn’t silly enough to call David Frum a “conservative.”

Like a capital-D Democrat, Krugman warned that Evil would prevail as long as Republicans held majority power: “Let’s be clear: America as we know it is still in mortal danger. Republicans still control all the levers of federal power, and never in the course of our nation’s history have we been ruled by people less trustworthy….as long as Republicans control Congress, constitutional checks and balances are effectively a dead letter.” So Democrats will have to vote them out.

Krugman began by proclaiming Trump is just as horrible as expected:

Donald Trump has been every bit as horrible as one might have expected; he continues, day after day, to prove himself utterly unfit for office, morally and intellectually. And the Republican Party — including so-called moderates — turns out, if anything, to be even worse than one might have expected.

This is a bit comical….since conservative Twitter recalled what Crystal Ball Krugman originally expected after Trump emerged victorious was that the stock market would never recover:

It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?

Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.

Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2v7eUfC