The third biggest dummy in the anti vaccine movement within Australia has been opening his stupid yap at the promotion of the flu vaccine by the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne. Have a look;
This is scaremongering. And indeed, Dr Margie who runs the page pointed out that while the vaccines aren’t 100 percent preventative, they provide 70 percent protection. I would add to that the fact that the flu mutates. It’s a virus that tries to resist prevention by changing every year. And the only reason flu hospitalisations haven’t decreased is because idiots just refuse to vaccinate. If vaccination numbers were where they should be, we wouldn’t have that problem.
Of course Wells, being the idiot that he is, spouted the following in reply to the 70 percent statement;
No valid evidence? That is typical Wells – can’t see the nose despite the face! Try this;
There is plenty of valid evidence, and Wells won’t provide any countering evidence. He refuses to understand just how much damage the combination of ignorance of the flu (which in part I was guilty of until July 2014) and just flat out avoiding vaccinations. The latter has been more prominent in more recent times. That tiny little pin prick provides access to the body for a vaccine that provides as much protection as it can.
As far as Post Polio Syndrome goes, Wells is talking like it’s polio fighting back making the vaccine or even the recovery useless. You idiot!! PPS is NOT polio! It is the body’s delayed reaction to the long term physical effects of fighting the virus. When the body is attacked in any way and a part of the body has not recovered as it should have, there will be issues. For example, I am now vulnerable to disease because of my fight with the flu in 2014 – due to a renal and lung shut down. My lungs in particular haven’t been the same. It happens. My kidneys are working but the haemodialysis had an effect as well. Do I still have the flu? NO! I can still umpire football in spite of both.
So much for Well’s logic!
It was good to see Dr Margie strike back, although I would have preferred more aggression because that is what’s needed with Mr Stubborn here. She pointed to her blog which contains more information on top of what I gave with my link – but of course Wells wouldn’t have it;
I looked up the Cochrane Collaboration and Wells lied. Read this;
That is not a high quality study. It’s pure speculation with nothing definitive – and therefore of very low quality.
Yes, Wells there’s a difference. The difference is that RCH’s position makes perfect sense whereas YOURS is impossible.