How Do You Feel About The Flu Shot?

To all the people who think the common cold is the flu, you have never had the flu or seen someone you care about with flu.

It kills lots of people every year.

The vaccine does not give you flu it is dead. The people who says it did got a cold as these often get passed around at the same time of year as the flu vaccine.

All the talk of keeping your immune system strong with supplements instead is total nonsense, the best way of preventing viruses is washing your hands and not touching your face.

As someone already said if you are sick with anything contagious stay at home. Keep away from your loved ones and keep hydrated.

Herd immunity is vital as some people cannot have vaccines. If you can have any vaccine then my opinion is that you should.

I can't have the shot. I can't have any shots. If I could. I would have the flu shot.

I look forward to hearing findings in the next ten years on the effects the flu shot has had.

Why 10 years from now? We've been vaccinating people for influenza since the 1940s.

And new health problems have been popping up ever since. Native Americans are plagued with health problems. Before technology and modern medical science influenced their lifestyles they were a culture that was relatively free of sickness and disease. African Americans have one of the highest rates of skin cancer in America, yet tribes in Africa that stand in the sun for 15 hrs. a day straight have very low rates of skin cancer, if no skin cancer at all. The variables are obvious.

Now you're just making stuff up? Not sure what skin cancer even has to do with vaccines (answer: nothing), but I did my PhD in melanoma biology. African Americans have a skin cancer rate of less than 2 per 100,000 people for either sex. White American males have a skin cancer rate of about 25 per 100,000, and white American females have a skin cancer rate of about 17 in 100,000. (http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htm) Tribes in Africa don't "die" from "skin cancer" because there's no doctor to diagnose it and no autopsy to provide a cause of death. The rare person there that does actually die from skin cancer just dies. And Native Americans are plagued with health problems because of adopting a western diet, not technology or western medicine.

I am anit-flu shot and always will be

I don't trust them, I never will. I got one this year because of the line of work I'm in...but as soon as I'm out of here (within a year or so...) I will NEVER get one again.

I look forward to hearing findings in the next ten years on the effects the flu shot has had.

Why 10 years from now? We've been vaccinating people for influenza since the 1940s.

And new health problems have been popping up ever since. Native Americans are plagued with health problems. Before technology and modern medical science influenced their lifestyles they were a culture that was relatively free of sickness and disease. African Americans have one of the highest rates of skin cancer in America, yet tribes in Africa that stand in the sun for 15 hrs. a day straight have very low rates of skin cancer, if no skin cancer at all. The variables are obvious.

Now you're just making stuff up? Not sure what skin cancer even has to do with vaccines (answer: nothing), but I did my PhD in melanoma biology. African Americans have a skin cancer rate of less than 2 per 100,000 people for either sex. White American males have a skin cancer rate of about 25 per 100,000, and white American females have a skin cancer rate of about 17 in 100,000. (http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htm) Tribes in Africa don't "die" from "skin cancer" because there's no doctor to diagnose it and no autopsy to provide a cause of death. The rare person there that does actually die from skin cancer just dies. And Native Americans are plagued with health problems because of adopting a western diet, not technology or western medicine.

You don't have proof that is only western diet, and not a combination of all of the above. You just don't have the proof and you never will. I believe in science, but I don't have faith in it. People who have PhD's and think they can play God are just not to be trusted. Not all Doctors are bad people, but just because you have a PhD doesn't make you a good person, doesn't make you know everything, and doesn't make you correct about everything. Statistics and research can be manipulated. You give some valid points though about no doctors in Africa to diagnose. But I do believe there was a study of a tribe in Africa(can't find it) where these people have relatively no shade 365 days a year, and from that suggested that environment of African Americans was conducive for health problems. To me it's obvious that modern science does just as much harm as it does good.

And new health problems have been popping up ever since. Native Americans are plagued with health problems. Before technology and modern medical science influenced their lifestyles they were a culture that was relatively free of sickness and disease. African Americans have one of the highest rates of skin cancer in America, yet tribes in Africa that stand in the sun for 15 hrs. a day straight have very low rates of skin cancer, if no skin cancer at all. The variables are obvious.

Now you're just making stuff up? Not sure what skin cancer even has to do with vaccines (answer: nothing), but I did my PhD in melanoma biology. African Americans have a skin cancer rate of less than 2 per 100,000 people for either sex. White American males have a skin cancer rate of about 25 per 100,000, and white American females have a skin cancer rate of about 17 in 100,000. (http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htm) Tribes in Africa don't "die" from "skin cancer" because there's no doctor to diagnose it and no autopsy to provide a cause of death. The rare person there that does actually die from skin cancer just dies. And Native Americans are plagued with health problems because of adopting a western diet, not technology or western medicine.

You don't have proof that is only western diet, and not a combination of all of the above. You just don't have the proof and you never will.

Oh really?

"The price that Native Americans pay for turning their back on their traditional diet in terms of their rate of diabetes is tremendous. They are 2.6 times more likely to have diabetes than non-Hispanic whites of similar age. " http://www.mendosa.com/native.htm

"Removed from their lands and forced to assimilate into Western culture, many native people no longer live in their traditional territories nor do they eat their traditional foods. Sugar, flour, cheese and domesticated meats have become the staple diet, and nutritional-related diseases such as Type II diabetes have become epidemics as native people become more and more dependent on foreign Western foods that our bodies were never meant to manage." http://www.nativeland.org/native_circle.html

"The Indian Health Service Diabetes Program believes that Type II Diabetes can be effectively treated and possibly even prevented by appropriate lifestyle modifications. The Program lists the four causes for diabetes as follows: genetic tendency, inactivity, obesity, and a diet high in sugar." http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant570/Papers/King/king.htm

So, the Indian Health Service and tribal groups all seem to agree that dietary changes have been primarily responsible for the rapid increase in health problems (mostly related to diabetes) among Native Americans. Now, where is your proof that vaccines are the cause?

The following is my opinion - it is not intended to discount anyone else's opinion on this board... I'm always happy to participate in an open discussion where various people have various opinions, and I believe every person here has a right to what they believe.

It is obvious that opinions on this issue are passionate - mine is no less. So in the interest of education, I offer the following information. (If you don't want to read through all of this, please at least take a peek at the chart at the bottom - I find this information very significant!)

For the "vaccines cause autisim" issue -

http://www.examiner.com/grandparenting-in-national/dr-andrew-wakefield-of-vaccines-cause-autism-notoriety-barred-from-practicing-medicine-uk

This article is about the doctor that first published his "research' that "proved" this link. His research has since been completely disproven and discredited, and he was found guilty of a variety of professional misconduct behaviors, and his license has been completely revoked.

Unfortunately because of the information he published, there was a sharp decline in the use of the measles vaccine in children - and now there are kids that have DIED from the measles that didn't have to.

As for hospitals requiring the flu shot for their employees - it is unfortunate the we live in such a litigious society, but that is a fact. If a patient is in the hospital for something non-infectious, say a broken bone... and they happend to also have asthma... then they come down with the flu and die... and the flu was linked to a healthcare worker at the hospital who was offered a flu shot but declined it... and the patient that died was YOUR loved one... would you not want to sue the hell out of that hospital AND that employee that transmitted the flu to your loved one? Would that not be considered an unnecessary death from the flu, that was directly caused by a healthcare worker, in a place that you would expect the safest of care?

Vaccinating employees that come in contact with patients is not just needed to prevent lawsuits... but because it's the right thing to do for the patient population. Providing a save environment includes traning employees on washing their hands, wearing gowns and gloves when dealing with infectious patients, and vaccinating healthcare workers.

This article outlines the SHEA paper on the subject, recommending vaccination for all Health Care Personnel, comparing workers that refuse to vaccinate to someone that refuses to scrub up before participating in an operating procedure:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/656558

As for the flu vaccine causing the flu itself - There is no existing credible research that proves the flu shot causes the flu. I could just as easily say "I used my microwave oven this morning, then this afternoon I was sick with the flu, so my microwave oven must have caused it". Those with personal experience of catching the flu after getting the vaccine were likely incubating the flu virus when they received the vaccine, or came in contact with it shortly after receiving the vaccine - which takes 2 weeks to take full effect - they would have likely come down with the flu without getting the vaccine since they were already infected. This again is my opinion, based on the available medical research that I have reviewed. Here's an article discussing this and other flu myths:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-09-25-flu-myths_x.htm

And here's a general-info page on Influenza complications:

http://www.nfid.org/pdf/influenza/leadingcomplications.pdf

Now I'm going to repeat some things I posted earlier...

Vaccines save lives. Statistics prove this. (see chart posted below).

Vaccines are safe. There are very, very few true vaccine-related injuries/illnesses.

No vaccine is 100% safe. Read that again if you have to... I"m totally PRO vaccine, but I'm not gonna lie... NO vaccine is 100% safe. BUT..., very few medical interventions are 100% safe. SO... you've gotta think about the risk vs the results.

Statistically speaking, the risks associated with ANY vaccine are much, MUCH lower than the risk of outcomes of getting the disease, or spreading the disease to someone with a compromised immune system.

Financially speaking, vaccines save money. According to an extensive cost-benefit analysis by the CDC, every dollar spent on immunization saves $6.30 in direct medical costs, with an aggregate savings of $10.5 billion. When including indirect costs to society -- a measurement of losses due to missed work, death and disability as well as direct medical costs -- the CDC notes that every dollar spent on immunization saves $18.40, producing societal aggregate savings of $42 billion

One more point - check out this chart that shows the diseases that are GONE GONE GONE, BECAUSE of vaccines:



I'm an RN, I wash my hands constantly, I use gowns and gloves to protect my patients, and I get my flu vaccine every year. I also have my Measles titer checked regularly and receive that vaccine when my titers are low - I think I've had the Measles vaccine 3 or 4 times over my 30 year career I also JUMPED at the chance to get the Tdap vaccine a few years ago (Tetanus, Diptheria, And Pertussus).

Stay Healthy everyone!

:drinker: :drinker: :drinker:

Ice

I look forward to hearing findings in the next ten years on the effects the flu shot has had.

Why 10 years from now? We've been vaccinating people for influenza since the 1940s.

And new health problems have been popping up ever since. Native Americans are plagued with health problems. Before technology and modern medical science influenced their lifestyles they were a culture that was relatively free of sickness and disease. African Americans have one of the highest rates of skin cancer in America, yet tribes in Africa that stand in the sun for 15 hrs. a day straight have very low rates of skin cancer, if no skin cancer at all. The variables are obvious.

If you're looking for the obvious variables, then SURELY you mean the HUGE dietary and lifestyle changes at large that have happened also in that time frame, not to mention the intruduction of new peoples with new genes and new viruses.

I'm sorry, but you guys lose me so quickly. I'm pretty hippy. I won't say how long I breastfed for. LOL But surely you know by now that correlation does not prove causation? It is so short-sighted to think any of the above is convincingly linked to vaccinations. And conveniently leaving out how many countless lives have been saved by them, no less.

The proof is in the pudding. You can't pick and choose what variables you see fit for an honest debate, unless you are manipulating.

I actually don't disagree with THAT statement, but that's not what you said, you implied real clearly that vaccines were the "obvious" change in society, and therefore the reason problems exist that didn't before.

Ignoring the fact that new populations were introduced (mixing not only germs, but DNA), new lifestyles & diets adoped, all kinds of huge changes, which frankly are a lot more likely suspects, just logistically thinking, than vaccinations. Of course also ignoring the historical fact that things simply weren't dX'd "back then," and that's as big an issue. Take Autism, people like to make this connection to vaccinations which has NEVER been clinically shown by anything convincing, and people think it didn't exist back then, ignoring the reality of the fact that Autistic kids would have simply been tragically undiagnosed "back then," unless they were practically catatonic. It seems likely that there weren't as many kids with Autism then, but the number simply can't be known.

There have been such a myriad of changes, it can't truly be known right now *why* my mom (for instance) has MS now, which didn't exist then-- if it's diet, lifestyle, environmental, vaccinations, some mix of the above, or anything else, JUST AS LIKELY is the FACT that "back then" she would have just been dXd as old, tired, or lazy, and would have died undX'd & not gone in any books as an MS patient. MS is actually a good example, because it seems more logical that it might be related to taxing the immune system than something like skin cancer or your other examples. Another thing people fail to weigh in thier thoughts sometimes is how she might well be dead of Polio, without the vaccination she took.

So at the end of the day, I'm not super pro-vax in theory, but in practice, the PROVEN, KNOWN good (great) outweighs the feared, possible, maybe/someday, mostly imaginary bad to me. I don't think people should legally be required to get the flu shot, but I think it's kind practice to avoid passing it to others it will kill.

I look forward to hearing findings in the next ten years on the effects the flu shot has had.

Why 10 years from now? We've been vaccinating people for influenza since the 1940s.

And new health problems have been popping up ever since. Native Americans are plagued with health problems. Before technology and modern medical science influenced their lifestyles they were a culture that was relatively free of sickness and disease. African Americans have one of the highest rates of skin cancer in America, yet tribes in Africa that stand in the sun for 15 hrs. a day straight have very low rates of skin cancer, if no skin cancer at all. The variables are obvious.

If you're looking for the obvious variables, then SURELY you mean the HUGE dietary and lifestyle changes at large that have happened also in that time frame, not to mention the intruduction of new peoples with new genes and new viruses.

I'm sorry, but you guys lose me so quickly. I'm pretty hippy. I won't say how long I breastfed for. LOL But surely you know by now that correlation does not prove causation? It is so short-sighted to think any of the above is convincingly linked to vaccinations. And conveniently leaving out how many countless lives have been saved by them, no less.

The proof is in the pudding. You can't pick and choose what variables you see fit for an honest debate, unless you are manipulating.

I actually don't disagree with THAT statement, but that's not what you said, you implied real clearly that vaccines were the "obvious" change in society, and therefore the reason problems exist that didn't before.

Ignoring the fact that new populations were introduced (mixing not only germs, but DNA), new lifestyles & diets adoped, all kinds of huge changes, which frankly are a lot more likely suspects, just logistically thinking, than vaccinations. Of course also ignoring the historical fact that things simply weren't dX'd "back then," and that's as big an issue. Take Autism, people like to make this connection to vaccinations which has NEVER been clinically shown by anything convincing, and people think it didn't exist back then, ignoring the reality of the fact that Autistic kids would have simply been tragically undiagnosed "back then," unless they were practically catatonic. It seems likely that there weren't as many kids with Autism then, but the number simply can't be known.

There have been such a myriad of changes, it can't truly be known right now *why* my mom (for instance) has MS now, which didn't exist then-- if it's diet, lifestyle, environmental, vaccinations, some mix of the above, or anything else, JUST AS LIKELY is the FACT that "back then" she would have just been dXd as old, tired, or lazy, and would have died undX'd & not gone in any books as an MS patient. MS is actually a good example, because it seems more logical that it might be related to taxing the immune system than something like skin cancer or your other examples. Another thing people fail to weigh in thier thoughts sometimes is how she might well be dead of Polio, without the vaccination she took.

So at the end of the day, I'm not super pro-vax in theory, but in practice, the PROVEN, KNOWN good (great) outweighs the feared, possible, maybe/someday, mostly imaginary bad to me. I don't think people should legally be required to get the flu shot, but I think it's kind practice to avoid passing it to others it will kill.

I implied that health problems have been popping up ever since and that you don't know what the causes are, so how can you eliminate vaccinations as a problem. You can't. It's an ongoing study. It's scientific research, not medical law.

I look forward to hearing findings in the next ten years on the effects the flu shot has had.

Why 10 years from now? We've been vaccinating people for influenza since the 1940s.

And new health problems have been popping up ever since. Native Americans are plagued with health problems. Before technology and modern medical science influenced their lifestyles they were a culture that was relatively free of sickness and disease. African Americans have one of the highest rates of skin cancer in America, yet tribes in Africa that stand in the sun for 15 hrs. a day straight have very low rates of skin cancer, if no skin cancer at all. The variables are obvious.

If you're looking for the obvious variables, then SURELY you mean the HUGE dietary and lifestyle changes at large that have happened also in that time frame, not to mention the intruduction of new peoples with new genes and new viruses.

I'm sorry, but you guys lose me so quickly. I'm pretty hippy. I won't say how long I breastfed for. LOL But surely you know by now that correlation does not prove causation? It is so short-sighted to think any of the above is convincingly linked to vaccinations. And conveniently leaving out how many countless lives have been saved by them, no less.

The proof is in the pudding. You can't pick and choose what variables you see fit for an honest debate, unless you are manipulating.

I actually don't disagree with THAT statement, but that's not what you said, you implied real clearly that vaccines were the "obvious" change in society, and therefore the reason problems exist that didn't before.

Ignoring the fact that new populations were introduced (mixing not only germs, but DNA), new lifestyles & diets adoped, all kinds of huge changes, which frankly are a lot more likely suspects, just logistically thinking, than vaccinations. Of course also ignoring the historical fact that things simply weren't dX'd "back then," and that's as big an issue. Take Autism, people like to make this connection to vaccinations which has NEVER been clinically shown by anything convincing, and people think it didn't exist back then, ignoring the reality of the fact that Autistic kids would have simply been tragically undiagnosed "back then," unless they were practically catatonic. It seems likely that there weren't as many kids with Autism then, but the number simply can't be known.

There have been such a myriad of changes, it can't truly be known right now *why* my mom (for instance) has MS now, which didn't exist then-- if it's diet, lifestyle, environmental, vaccinations, some mix of the above, or anything else, JUST AS LIKELY is the FACT that "back then" she would have just been dXd as old, tired, or lazy, and would have died undX'd & not gone in any books as an MS patient. MS is actually a good example, because it seems more logical that it might be related to taxing the immune system than something like skin cancer or your other examples. Another thing people fail to weigh in thier thoughts sometimes is how she might well be dead of Polio, without the vaccination she took.

So at the end of the day, I'm not super pro-vax in theory, but in practice, the PROVEN, KNOWN good (great) outweighs the feared, possible, maybe/someday, mostly imaginary bad to me. I don't think people should legally be required to get the flu shot, but I think it's kind practice to avoid passing it to others it will kill.

I implied that health problems have been popping up ever since and that you don't know what the causes are, so how can you eliminate vaccinations as a problem. You can't. It's an ongoing study. It's scientific research, not medical law.

You're right, and I can't prove it wasn't aliens, either. No proving negatives.

But in all seriousness, I do agree with this most recent quote of yours. No, I can't prove it wasn't vaccinations. But I have to weigh the very real benefits with the possible, implied, maybe/someday costs. Still, I know what you're saying, and I do agree with that part.

You seem pretty level headed:) Some people say" well I'm not a Doctor so I'll just do what the Doctor says." I feel as if that is apathetic and that education doesn't equate wisdom and truth. It's dangerous when people give up on thinking for themselves and trust a strangers words just because of a plaque on his/her wall. It creates a situation to where it becomes status quo to just do what somebody else says, in a world where corporate greed have their hands all over the world of medicine.

Go to healthnews.com with Mike Adams and search for "flu shots". You'll find plenty of counter research that suggests flu shots are harmful, unproven, and dangerous. In fact one study shows influenza shots were effective in 1.5 out of 100. Big pharma claims much higher than that at around 60%.

I went to healthnews.com and searched for "flu shots" as you directed. All I found were articles on 1) the CDC urging people (particularly health care workers) to get flu shots, 2) a survey stating that most US doctors plan to get them, 3) research stating that flu shots are safe for pregnant women and that they provide benefits to the baby as well, 4) research showing a connection between flu shots and reduced risk of heart attack in the elderly, 5) research into a 'universal' flu shot that people would only have to get once instead of seasonally.

In fact, from your own recommended site, I also found a study that showed that the effectiveness of the flu vaccine ranged from 63-84%:
"Over six months, 42 Optaflu recipients -- or 1.1 percent of the group -- reported flu-like symptoms and had a flu infection confirmed by objective testing. That figure was 1.3 percent in the conventional-vaccine group and 3.6 percent in the placebo group. Overall, the cell-based vaccine was 84 percent effective against the three flu strains included in the shot, versus the placebo; the conventional vaccine was 78 percent effective. When it came to all circulating flu strains for the season, both vaccines, predictably, were less effective: the cell-based shot was 69 percent effective, compared with the placebo, and the conventional vaccine 63 percent." http://www.healthnews.com/en/news/Newer-flu-vaccine-as-effective-as-traditional-one/1ZYA3fssX9iAU$vEwA50Sz/

So, I think I'm done here.

Oh I meant naturalnews.com. Sorry.

How many people are harmed by influenza vaccines?

Much the same is true with vaccines. In this influenza vaccine study just published in The Lancet, it shows that you have to inject 100 adults to avoid influenza in just 1.5 adults. But what they don't tell you is the side effect rate in all 100 adults!

It's very likely that upon injecting 100 adults with vaccines containing chemical adjuvants (inflammatory chemicals used to make flu vaccines "work" better), you might get 7.5 cases of long-term neurological side effects such as dementia or Alzheimer's. This is an estimate, by the way, used here to illustrate the statistics involved.

So for every 100 adults you injected with this flu vaccine, you prevent the flu in 1.5 of them, but you cause a neurological disorder in 7.5 of them! This means you are 500% more likely to be harmed by the flu vaccine than helped by it. (A theoretical example only. This study did not contain statistics on the harm of vaccines.)

Much the same is true with mammograms, by the way, which harm 10 women for every 1 woman they actually help (http://www.naturalnews.com/020829.html).

Chemotherapy is also a similar story. Sure, chemotherapy may "shrink tumors" in 80% of those who receive it, but shrinking tumors does not prevent death. And in reality, chemotherapy eventually kills most of those who receive it. Many of those people who describe themselves as "cancer survivors" are, for the most part, actually "chemo survivors."


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influenza_vaccines_effectiveness.html#ixzz1di0h8FcQ

Go to healthnews.com with Mike Adams and search for "flu shots". You'll find plenty of counter research that suggests flu shots are harmful, unproven, and dangerous. In fact one study shows influenza shots were effective in 1.5 out of 100. Big pharma claims much higher than that at around 60%.

I went to healthnews.com and searched for "flu shots" as you directed. All I found were articles on 1) the CDC urging people (particularly health care workers) to get flu shots, 2) a survey stating that most US doctors plan to get them, 3) research stating that flu shots are safe for pregnant women and that they provide benefits to the baby as well, 4) research showing a connection between flu shots and reduced risk of heart attack in the elderly, 5) research into a 'universal' flu shot that people would only have to get once instead of seasonally.

In fact, from your own recommended site, I also found a study that showed that the effectiveness of the flu vaccine ranged from 63-84%:
"Over six months, 42 Optaflu recipients -- or 1.1 percent of the group -- reported flu-like symptoms and had a flu infection confirmed by objective testing. That figure was 1.3 percent in the conventional-vaccine group and 3.6 percent in the placebo group. Overall, the cell-based vaccine was 84 percent effective against the three flu strains included in the shot, versus the placebo; the conventional vaccine was 78 percent effective. When it came to all circulating flu strains for the season, both vaccines, predictably, were less effective: the cell-based shot was 69 percent effective, compared with the placebo, and the conventional vaccine 63 percent." http://www.healthnews.com/en/news/Newer-flu-vaccine-as-effective-as-traditional-one/1ZYA3fssX9iAU$vEwA50Sz/

So, I think I'm done here.

Oh I meant naturalnews.com. Sorry.

Sigh. Okay I'll bite one last time. I assume you're referencing http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influenza_vaccines_effectiveness.html, which is referencing http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(11)70295-X/fulltext.

Your article is trying to make something sensational about the distinction between ABSOLUTE and RELATIVE risk reduction, and conflating it with efficacy. There's nothing shocking here. Yes, the absolute risk reduction of the flu vaccine, for people who were actually exposed to influenza during the season they were vaccinated, is about 1.5 per 100. But the size of the pooled studies is sufficiently large that we can assume that roughly equal numbers were exposed to the virus in both groups (2.7%, based on the control group. That's the whole PURPOSE of the control group - to know what the prevalence is in the population, because it's fairly unethical to deliberately infect people with influenza). The relative risk reduction is therefore roughly 60% - meaning you have a 60% less chance of contracting the flu with the vaccine than without. The vaccine is 60% EFFECTIVE at preventing influenza (the Lancet article says 59%).

But risk is meaningless unless we look at both sides of the coin. For every million people we vaccinate, we will have 15,000 fewer cases of the flu and approximately 4 vaccine-induced injuries (allergic reaction, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and encephalomyelitis). For every 100 vaccine induced injuries, there will be approximately 6 deaths. So we would have to vaccinate 25M people to statistically have 100 vaccine-induced injuries and 6 deaths. But we will have prevented 375,000 cases of influenza and 375 influenza-related deaths (seasonal influenza has a mortality rate of 0.1%). The flu vaccine is therefore 63,000% safer than the flu.

I've provided actual numbers, instead of all of your made-up numbers.