The Swiney thingy again

Public support for the swine flu vaccine is evaporating by the day as the rationale for the vaccine appears increasingly ludicrous to anyone paying attention. Moms, nurses, day care workers and members of the general public are increasingly realizing that arguments for swine flu vaccination just don’t add up.

Of course, if things dramatically change, there could be increasingly strong reasons for considering a vaccine. If the H1N1 virus mutates into a virus with a very high fatality rate, something that cannot happen overnight, things might be different. If the vaccine were proven safe with adequate long-term testing, that would be something working in its favor. If the vaccines were scientifically shown to actually protect you from the virus, then that would be different, too. Some officials claim this to be true, that it is properly tested and that it do protect you. Searching the net and reading official statements, I can hardly agree with such claims.

The vaccines haven’t been properly tested. There’s no evidence demonstrating that it protect you from the swine flu at any higher levels. And the flu has such a low fatality rate, why does a vaccine matter in the first place?

And the even more reasonable question is if all this vaccination really is necessary?

To start with, swine flu is far milder than any seasonal flu, so the case for vaccinating millions of healthy adults against a disease that is no more unpleasant than a bad cold is highly questionable. I’ve had this flu, and so have many of the people I work with in Scotland. Only one out of many had symptoms enough to keep her in bed. The rest of us had a slight headache, felt a wee tired but other than that nothing. If we vaccinated ourselves for any disease of this magnitude, we would be needed to stick a needle in the arm each week.

There is a so so argument for vaccinating those at greater risk, such as those with lung, heart or kidney disease, those with suppressed immune systems, pregnant women and children under 5 — but only if the vaccine works, is safe and it is not rushed into people with allergies against eggs and such which may cause fatalities. Also, we do know that the immunisation offers no more than a modest benefit in the elderly; indeed, the effectiveness of the vaccine is known to decrease sharply after 70 years of age. Some argue this is because of natural protection, they’ve already had the flu a time or several times before, and apparently survived.

We already know of several cases of people dying from suspected vaccination causes. Some people show very strange affects from the vaccine, often enough, like in cases before; those effects can be shown in bodily motor functions and in a neurological way. Even though such people may be within the normal statistic, it still goes to show how dangers may exist.

To summarize, why take a risk, although a very slim one, with a vaccine that is not 100% properly tested and is not 100% protective, when we are facing a flu which is the mildest ever seen? The risk of dying from the Swine Flu if you are not among the risk-groups is about the same, slightly higher, as the chance of winning the lottery. I suggest you use the time you think you have left in this life and play the numbers instead of taking the vaccine. Not a single person, with the exception for a nurse I know, will take the vaccine. Why would you?