Really? Because I'd barely gotten into the article when this gem jumped out at me...
"They want you (and mainstream media journalists) to mistakenly believe that ZERO deaths occurred in those who were vaccinated." (emphasis on zero not mine but the author's)
It's complete and utter bull, since 'they' warn you about side effects, less than 100% effectiveness, and the possibility of getting sick in the first weeks when your immunity is not developed yet. Anyone who has actually paid attention when looking into the immunization debate knows that.
He follows that gem up immediately with this one...
"Being vaccinated against H1N1 swine flu offers absolutely no reduction in mortality from swine flu infections."
No kidding... what it does offer is a reduction in risk of getting infected in the first place, not to prevent the infection from being more severe if it does slip past the vaccine.
Then he points out that there have been roughly (by him guessing by the numbers), 2200 deaths. and he emphasizes this with a ! . What he fails to do is go back and hold that against the number originally vaccinated... 61 MILLION. So, when docs and vaccination clinics are being up front about the fact that it is not 100% effective against catching the flu, are we really supposed to be surprised and appalled that 2200 people died despite vaccines?
The author poses the question.... "How do I know that swine flu vaccines don't reduce infection mortality?"
Uhmmm... perhaps because no one claims it does. Not one vaccine manufacturer will tell you that the H1N1 vaccine will make a breakthrough infection less virile.
And from there he just keeps playing with numbers and a faulty line of logic that are flawed in the first place