I think it's worth remembering that people's views are often more varied than they seem here. Pointing out inaccuracies in a claim is not the same as touting a vaccine, let alone all vaccines, as flawless.
I know I've been critical to varying extents of some vaccines in poss before.
Regardless, lets not get sucked into some pro vs anti spitting match.
Wow. So many reactions to my saying what I THINK. Yet someone's statement about how headlines like this surely turn people against vaccination makes just as many assumptions, but doesn't get challenged. Interesting.
Some very cursory research leads me to believe that the kind of fluoride used in manufacturing aluminum and the kind used in drinking water are different. Also, fluoridation takes place all over the world, not just in the us. The WHO recommends it.
And I'm a little confused because your quote is from the review in vaccinating health care workers and is only relevant to trying to vaccinate health care workers to prevent flu in patients. But your link is to the review on flu vaccine in healthy adults.
Maybe you could share those studies from mainstream sources.One scientists says =\= what the cochrane collaboration says. No matter who the scientist is.Here's a more complete discussion of the results of the review of flu vaccine in healthy adults.http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001269/vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adultsThey did in fact find it was effective in reducing flu. Nowhere does it say flu immunization programs are a waste of time and resources.