• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did you know that aborted fetuses are used in the making of many vaccines?

Ikari said:
There should be no religious exemptions allowed for public schools. There are some pretty extreme Christian sects who may be against immunizations, but they aren't the only religion that has pockets of crazies in them. Public schools shouldn't be put at greater risk because someone cannot abide by proven science. Washington just recently put through a law removing exemptions for immunizations for public school, and that is right and proper.
Click to expand...

As far as my opinion on education is concerned, education in this country is literally nothing but a corporate capitalist indoctrination program that trains mindless drones, not productive human beings that are members of society.

Religion is a poison and has no place, in -any- capacity, in public school.
 
Obscurity said:
Flamebait. There are a few marxists on the left, but I assume you don't know enough about marxism to make the claims you're making.
Click to expand...

Marxists = socialists. Not that hard.
 
OscarLevant said:
Did you know that many states are removing the 'religious exemption' for vaccinations?


If you are religious, then you must object to vaccines that use aborted fetuses in the making of them, and demand a religious exemption for those vaccines.


Proof?

Here ya go....


View attachment 67271860
Click to expand...

Yes, by all means put yourself at risk to catching something that can cripple or kill you. That said you are responsible for your child's welfare and if harm comes to them due to your actions you should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law
 
Mashmont said:
Marxists = socialists. Not that hard.
Click to expand...

No. Marxism is a critique of capitalism. Socialism existed BEFORE marxism although modern versions of socialism have some marxist influences.

The philosophy of Marx was used to CREATE the political system Communism; Marx didn't invent that, he simply processed his philosophy and critique of capitalism which led to Communism in a variety of flavors.

Now you've been mildly educated in the nuance. Socialism can be applied to single industries; communism really can't.
 
OscarLevant said:
Since they are a risk, even small, it is my view that vaccinations cannot be forced.
Click to expand...

That's a BS argument. By the same logic, nothing should be ever forced. Because there is always some small risk.

E.g.
- we should never force people go to prison because there is always some small risk they could actually be innocent.
- we should never force people to pay taxes because there is always some small risk they may overpay.
- we should never force people to take driving tests for a driver's license because there is always some small risk they may crash and die while doing so.

OscarLevant said:
The only people risking your children are those with infectious diseases, which occur in all classes people, vaccinated and unvaccinated.

There is no proof that vaccinations make your child healthier than non vaccinated.
Click to expand...

Sorry, wrong again. There is plenty of proof but apparently you refuse to follow the science. Here is just one link to help.

OscarLevant said:
History is replete with outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations.
Click to expand...

Which means absolutely nothing. For the most part vaccines help, and do so significantly and without shadow of a doubt, but they do not eradicate something completely. So, there will always be some examples where outbreaks are still possible. Further some outbreaks are simply on a different strain. E.g. flu vaccines protect you from strains A and B but not C. If you get the flu after the vaccine, you may claim it did not work. But it did - you might have gotten strain C.

OscarLevant said:
historical stats show that vaccines were introduced long after a couple of centuries of decline, and the diseases were on their way out, anyway, noting that right alongside those decline stats, are diseases for which there are no vaccines, and thus the "proof" for their effectiveness is thin
Click to expand...

Wrong. See link above again. Studies show significant dropoffs in vaccinated populations, way faster that the slow declines you allude to.

OscarLevant said:
I'm not into hysteria, I'm into hard DATA.
Click to expand...

Really? Well, here is some data for you then:

vaccines_work.jpg
 
Last edited:
More information on the two fetuses in question:

News & Views: Why Were Fetal Cells Used to Make Certain Vaccines? | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

One was male, the other female, and had they not been aborted they would likely be in their mid or late 50's today. Their cells were cultured and the cell line kept going. In effect, vaccines are used today with the 'descendants' of these two fetuses's cells.

The male's line is known as MRC-5, and is used today in Hep A, chickenpox and shingles vaccines. The female's line is called WI-38 and is used in polio, rubella and rabies vaccines.

The female fetus's father was known to drink and had been in prison, but was otherwise in good health.

Yuck.
 
Slavister said:
That's a BS argument. By the same logic, nothing should be ever forced. Because there is always some small risk.

E.g.
- we should never force people go to prison because there is always some small risk they could actually be innocent.
- we should never force people to pay taxes because there is always some small risk they may overpay.
- we should never force people to take driving tests for a driver's license because there is always some small risk they may crash and die while doing so.
Click to expand...

You don't inject prisons into your body.
You don't inject money into your body.
You don't inject automobiles into your body.

Therefore, specious reasoning. Forced vaccinations is tyranny. Who owns your body, the state, or you?

I'm not say no to vaccinations, I'm saying they shouldn't be forced.

The "stats" you present are based on relative comparisons.

The absolute values will paint an entirely different picture.

For example, on the average, the CDC reports that the flu vax is 67% effective.

However, the absolute values, they don't report, which are, on the average, 7 in 100 get the flu if not vaccinated,
and about 2 in 100 get the flu if vaccinated, and these vary from one year to the next, and with senior citizens, this average does not hold, they are much less effictive.

That's in improvement of 5 points, which has a different meaning than saying they are 67% effective.

The Toxic Science of Flu Vaccines - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

The decline in diseases for which there are no vaccines have declined in proportion to the diseases for which there are vaccines.

The decline of these diseases was on a long downward slope before the vaccines were introduced.

If they are effective, the decline rate will show an acceleration. It shows that with measles, but only one in 10,000 die from measles.

While so-called vaccine preventable diseases are decline, and they were declining a century or two before the introduction of vaccines:
kids today are sicker than when I was a kid
We're getting sicker: More Americans have a chronic health condition - Vitals

Young Americans Are Sicker Than Ever | Psychology Today

Children Sicker Now Than in Past, Harvard Report Says (Update1) - Bloomberg

Currently ( this is as of a couple of years ago, it's probably worse by now )

1 in 9 has asthma
1 in 10 has ADHD
1 in 12 has food allergies
1 in 20 has seizures
1 in 45 boys have autism
1 in 68 children have autism

So whatever vaccines are doing, one thing they are NOT doing is making kids healthier .

These are your vaccine makers:
Fraud

List of largest pharmaceutical settlements - Wikipedia

Merck Hit With Antitrust Class Action Over Vaccine Data - Law360

Merck to Pay $950 Million in Vioxx Settlement - WSJ

GlaxoSmithKline to Plead Guilty and Pay $3 Billion to Resolve Fraud Allegations and Failure to Report Safety Data | OPA | Department of Justice

conflicts of interests
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126053/#ref15


Please take a moment and listen to the testimonies of parents of vaccine injured children.

http://tinyurl.com/owflz8k

Excuse me if I do not Trust the data coming from the vaccine promoting community who are backed by big pharma, noted above.
 
Last edited:
Rickeroo said:
More information on the two fetuses in question:

News & Views: Why Were Fetal Cells Used to Make Certain Vaccines? | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

One was male, the other female, and had they not been aborted they would likely be in their mid or late 50's today. Their cells were cultured and the cell line kept going. In effect, vaccines are used today with the 'descendants' of these two fetuses's cells.

The male's line is known as MRC-5, and is used today in Hep A, chickenpox and shingles vaccines. The female's line is called WI-38 and is used in polio, rubella and rabies vaccines.

The female fetus's father was known to drink and had been in prison, but was otherwise in good health.

Yuck.
Click to expand...

Is it true that there are vaccines produced using aborted fetuses? | Bioethics Research Library
 
Casper said:
Yes, by all means put yourself at risk to catching something that can cripple or kill you. That said you are responsible for your child's welfare and if harm comes to them due to your actions you should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law
Click to expand...

And if the dangers were limited to just their kids, then perhaps it could be excused as some Darwinism mechanism. The problem is that when people start not vaccinating, they start putting others at risk as well. I don't think that society should be held hostage by anti-science fanatics.
 
OscarLevant said:
You don't inject prisons into your body.
You don't inject money into your body.
You don't inject automobiles into your body.
Click to expand...

Not relevant. I gave you an analogy to your way of thinking that if there is a small chance of something bad happening to you, you should not be forced to do anything.

OscarLevant said:
Therefore, specious reasoning. Forced vaccinations is tyranny. Who owns your body, the state, or you?
Click to expand...

Noone is actually physically forcing you to do this. But we as a society don't want you unvaccinated kids near ours. You can keep them at home or private schools that don't require vaccinations, if there are some.

OscarLevant said:
The "stats" you present are based on relative comparisons.

The absolute values will paint an entirely different picture.

For example, on the average, the CDC reports that the flu vax is 67% effective.

However, the absolute values, they don't report, which are, on the average, 7 in 100 get the flu if not vaccinated,
and about 2 in 100 get the flu if vaccinated, and these vary from one year to the next, and with senior citizens, this average does not hold, they are much less effictive.

That's in improvement of 5 points, which has a different meaning than saying they are 67% effective.
Click to expand...

I am sorry but you really need to think this through.

The only reason "only" 7-in-100 get the flue if not vaccinated is BECAUSE other people around them tend to be vaccinated. Do you have any idea how many people died from flue before vaccine was developed?

I have to run but may get back to rest of your post later, though I am not sure I want to spend too much time on refuting non-peer-reviewed crap for fear mongering.

My family member went into comma when a young child after a vaccine. They are now the biggest proponent of vaccines because she is now a Dr and knows the science behind them. Your testimonials are not science.
 
OscarLevant said:
If you are religious, then you must object to vaccines that use aborted fetuses in the making of them, and demand a religious exemption for those vaccines.
Click to expand...

That is already a thing.

There are people on the left who are anti-vaxxers because they are as essentially anti-science as the AGW deniers, and then there are various religious objections. Some people won't even take a lifesaving blood transfusion.

The lattermost: natural selection.

But **** anti-vaxxers unless they have a legitimate medical reason. They endanger all of us.





OscarLevant said:
I"ve been thoroughly vaccinated when I was in the Navy.

Thing is, a friend of mine's daughter went into anaphylactic shock immediately following an HPV vax and began to experience
seizures to which she still suffers.

Therefore, I'm against mandatory vaccinations, but I'm not against vaccinations in principle.
Click to expand...

Those are two single anecdotes. They do not form a basis for anything.

And if something in a vaccine really did cause shock, it would not be the cells used to inoculate. One could always do an allergy test for all other components if one wanted to be very careful.
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
Did you know that many states are removing the 'religious exemption' for vaccinations?


If you are religious, then you must object to vaccines that use aborted fetuses in the making of them, and demand a religious exemption for those vaccines.


Proof?

Here ya go....


View attachment 67271860
Click to expand...

Oscar, this is low, really low.
 
OscarLevant said:
Is it true that there are vaccines produced using aborted fetuses? | Bioethics Research Library
Click to expand...


This is an overly and falsely sensationalized piece of nonsense.
Yes, a handful of fetuses were used decades ago but your post and most of this thread seems to create a false scenario where an assembly line of millions of aborted fetuses are .... are .... WHAT, ground up into paste and spurted into test tubes or something?

Yeah right, a handful of fetuses, likely ones that would not have even survived, had their cells harvested, and the cell lines continue to this day, not unlike a grandmother who keeps a line of yeast going for decades for baking purposes.

This kind of troll bait tactic is beneath you, or at least, I thought it was.
 
OscarLevant said:
Did you know that many states are removing the 'religious exemption' for vaccinations?


If you are religious, then you must object to vaccines that use aborted fetuses in the making of them, and demand a religious exemption for those vaccines.


Proof?

Here ya go....


View attachment 67271860
Click to expand...

Are you aware of the history behind those fetuses? They are more than 50 years old, before the Roe decision, and older than the mothers and possibly grandmothers.

Several common vaccines are made by growing the necessary viruses in fetal embryo fibroblast cells. These cells originally came from tissue obtained from two fetuses that were legally and electively aborted in the early 1960s. The same cells have continued to grow in a laboratory and are still used to make vaccines today. No additional fetal cells have been harvested since then, but the topic is controversial because of the original source.
Click to expand...
 
I do not disagree. That said I look at the children first. The entire idea of ignoring science is just beyond Logic in my Opinion.
 
Mashmont said:
Hideous and unnecessary. And of course all it does is create a 'demand' for more abortions, which is the intent of the Marxist left.
Click to expand...

this is the world we live in... you have to list ingredients but there seems no shame in listing these ones... omg...

Beam me up Jesus...
 
OscarLevant said:
The decline in diseases for which there are no vaccines have declined in proportion to the diseases for which there are vaccines.

The decline of these diseases was on a long downward slope before the vaccines were introduced.
Click to expand...

Yet another myth. Here is one rebuttal:

Statements like this are very common in anti-vaccine literature, the intent apparently being to suggest that vaccines are not needed. ... But looking at the actual incidence of disease over the years can leave little doubt of the significant direct impact vaccines have had, even in modern times.

For example, there have been periodic peaks and valleys throughout the years, but the real, permanent drop in measles incidence coincided with the licensure and wide use of measles vaccine beginning in 1963. Other vaccine-preventable diseases show a roughly similar pattern in incidence ... showing a significant drop in cases corresponding with the advent of vaccine use. ... Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine is another good example, because Hib disease was prevalent until the early- to mid- 1990s, when conjugate vaccines that can be used for infants were finally developed...

Are we expected to believe that better sanitation caused incidence of each disease to drop just at the time a vaccine for that disease was introduced? Since sanitation is not better now than it was in 1990, it is hard to attribute the virtual disappearance of Hib disease in children in recent years in countries with routine Hib vaccination (from an estimated 20,000 cases a year to 1,419 cases in 1993, and dropping in the United States of America) to anything other than the vaccine.

Finally, we can look at the experiences of several developed countries after they allowed their immunization levels to drop. Three countries —Great Britain, Sweden and Japan — cut back the use of pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine because of fear about the vaccine. The effect was dramatic and immediate. In Great Britain, a drop in pertussis vaccination in 1974 was followed by an epidemic of more than 100,000 cases of pertussis and 36 deaths by 1978. In Japan, around the same time, a drop in vaccination rates from 70% to 20%-40% led to a jump in pertussis from 393 cases and no deaths in 1974 to 13,000 cases and 41 deaths in 1979. In Sweden, the annual incidence rate of pertussis per 100,000 children of 0-6 years of age increased from 700 cases in 1981 to 3,200 in 1985.
Click to expand...

From another source, here are some handy graphs for you:

vaccines_measles_1912_2001.jpg

vaccines_pertussis_1922_2001.jpg

vaccines_polio_1912_2001.jpg

vaccines_chickenpox_1972_2011.jpg

vaccines_diphtheria_1912_2001.jpg
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
This is an overly and falsely sensationalized piece of nonsense.
Yes, a handful of fetuses were used decades ago but your post and most of this thread seems to create a false scenario where an assembly line of millions of aborted fetuses are .... are .... WHAT, ground up into paste and spurted into test tubes or something?

Yeah right, a handful of fetuses, likely ones that would not have even survived, had their cells harvested, and the cell lines continue to this day, not unlike a grandmother who keeps a line of yeast going for decades for baking purposes.

This kind of troll bait tactic is beneath you, or at least, I thought it was.
Click to expand...


I was injured in the Navy by vaccines, I have a friend whose daughter went into anaphylactic shock and now has recurring seizures because of a vaccine.


I don't know about the abortion thing, but my hope is to get enough right wingers to write to their senators to get vaccines to stop being mandatory. They respond to this type of reportage, and that's fine with me, because my objective is to put and end to vaccination tyranny.

I'm not saying no to vaccines, some are good, some are not so good, but people have been injured, people have died, and there is TONS of evidence for this fact, noting that much of it is being suppressed. People need to know all the information that is available, sensible, data driven information, and not all of his is completementary, and I can't help that fact, but truth is truth and much of it is being suppressed.

So, not saying "no" , I'm saying, that mandating vaccines, because there is a risk, and there is a risk, that mandating vaccinations is tyranny.

It should be up to doctors and their patients to decide what is appropriate, the state should stay out of it.

I know there is no way in hell I can convince liberals of this, but there might be some hope with republicans, who are more open to not mandating vaccinations, because there are more libertarians on the right than on the left, as far as I can tell .

I have been documenting stuff on vaccines for years, and if I had to print it all, it would, if the papers were stacked, go from the floor to the roof of any gymnasium.

There just isn't enough space here to deal with it all.


on youtube, search the hashtag #hearthiswell and listen to the heart wrenching testimonies of parents of vaccine injured children, noting that some $4 billion has been awarded by the vaccine injury court thus far.
 
Last edited:
Slavister said:
Not relevant. I gave you an analogy to your way of thinking that if there is a small chance of something bad happening to you, you should not be forced to do anything.
Click to expand...
Entirely relevant. Injecting something into your body without your consent is tyranny, period.
Noone is actually physically forcing you to do this. But we as a society don't want you unvaccinated kids near ours. You can keep them at home or private schools that don't require vaccinations, if there are some.
Click to expand...
Many poor people cannot afford homeschooling. They must work and hire babysitters, but hiring teachers is far more expensive.
Either allow them to attend school or pay for homeschooling.
I am sorry but you really need to think this through.

The only reason "only" 7-in-100 get the flue if not vaccinated is BECAUSE other people around them tend to be vaccinated.
Click to expand...
A good portion of adults are no up to date on boosters, or do not have the flu shot.

I haven't had the flu in 40 years. If I got the shot, it wouldn't prove that it prevented me from getting the flu.

You are just speculating. You are, on one hand, claiming "science", but you just stated something that wasn't scientific.
Do you have any idea how many people died from flue before vaccine was developed?
Click to expand...
Flu deaths reportage by the CDC is highly misleading.

The CDC's False Interpretation of Flu Deaths Data: Mind Control on a Vast Scale - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
I have to run but may get back to rest of your post later, though I am not sure I want to spend too much time on refuting non-peer-reviewed crap for fear mongering.

My family member went into comma when a young child after a vaccine. They are now the biggest proponent of vaccines because she is now a Dr and knows the science behind them. Your testimonials are not science.
Click to expand...

Ahh, "science". I recall 'thalidomide', that was science, and do you want more?

Your accusation that "I've not thought it through" is not science. See, if you want to claim "science", you'd best
stop making assumptions.

Garbage in is garbage out, that is also a scientific concept.


There is mentality pervasive in the vaccine promoting community , that "vaccines are the greatest medical advance".

The true story of vaccines is long and complicated. Non-complementary information about vaccines are being suppressed.

"Peer reviewed" often suffers from a bandwagon mentality, not in every field, subject, but especially on the subject of vaccines.

That bandwagon mentality exists because of ""vaccines are the greatest medical advance" mentality. Medical scientists need something they can pat themselves on the back on, and the mentality is so pervasive that countering data gets brushed off, as if it's not significant, and big pharma is driving the show.

there are competent people using data that are challenging the vaccine hypothesis, on every level. Using science, believe it or not.

There is a solid counter position on almost every pro-position you can take, but if you are not curious, you will never find it, because of suppression.


Here is an interesting video, and it's only indirectly related to vaccines.

 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
Entirely relevant. Injecting something into your body without your consent is tyranny, period.

Many poor people cannot afford homeschooling. They must work and hire babysitters, but hiring teachers is far more expensive.
Either allow them to attend school or pay for homeschooling.

A good portion of adults are no up to date on boosters, or do not have the flu shot.

I haven't had the flu in 40 years. If I got the shot, it wouldn't prove that it prevented me from getting the flu.

You are just speculating. You are, on one hand, claiming "science", but you just stated something that wasn't scientific.

Flu deaths reportage by the CDC is highly misleading.

The CDC's False Interpretation of Flu Deaths Data: Mind Control on a Vast Scale - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization


Ahh, "science". I recall 'thalidomide', that was science, and do you want more?

Your accusation that "I've not thought it through" is not science. See, if you want to claim "science", you'd best
stop making assumptions.

Garbage in is garbage out, that is also a scientific concept.


There is mentality pervasive in the vaccine promoting community , that "vaccines are the greatest medical advance".

The true story of vaccines is long and complicated. Non-complementary information about vaccines are being suppressed.

"Peer reviewed" often suffers from a bandwagon mentality, not in every field, subject, but especially on the subject of vaccines.

That bandwagon mentality exists because of ""vaccines are the greatest medical advance" mentality. Medical scientists need something they can pat themselves on the back on, and the mentality is so pervasive that countering data gets brushed off, as if it's not significant, and big pharma is driving the show.

there are competent people using data that are challenging the vaccine hypothesis, on every level. Using science, believe it or not.

There is a solid counter position on almost every pro-position you can take, but if you are not curious, you will never find it, because of suppression.


Here is an interesting video, and it's only indirectly related to vaccines.

Click to expand...


I'm old enough to remember the thalidomide episode. It was a clinical mistake and negatively affected only pregnant women for whom it was prescribed. It is still used to treat certain cancers and skin conditions such as leprosy.
 
OscarLevant said:
Your graph starts at 1912, go back a century and then see what the graph looks like
Click to expand...

I don't know what novax.org is - I can't read what looks like Arabic. Their graphs do not show the true source of the information - the website on the graph itself leads to a blog by the anti-vaxxers and there is no more information on where this "data" comes from on that website either. In fact the data sets are suspect because their US graphs show some lines from BEFORE when US started tracking this data.

At the end of the day, you are making exact same arguments as global warming deniers - there is vast conspiracy on GLOBAL scale. Other countries are not beholden to US pharma. You don't care about peer-reviewed work because you think academia is also part of this conspiracy. You rely on questionable sources instead whose whole purpose is to confuse you.

All the anecdotes and personal stories are not scientific and do not present the big picture. How many hundreds of millions of stories are you missing along the lines of "Oh, I am so glad I never got measles that I would have gotten if I and those around me were not vaccinated"?

And not surprisingly, anti-vaxxer movement is fueled by ... wait for it ... same Russian propaganda units that interfered with 2016 elections.

Here is a link from non-political source
Here is a link from the left-leaning source.
Here is a link from the right-leaning source.

Imagine that - the left and right agree on something...

And that's who you align yourself with on this issue.


OscarLevant said:
Entirely relevant. Injecting something into your body without your consent is tyranny, period.
Click to expand...

Locking someone up for life (or even killing) is also tyranny, period. Yet we, as society, do this despite the small risks that we sometimes convict innocent people.

OscarLevant said:
You are just speculating. You are, on one hand, claiming "science", but you just stated something that wasn't scientific.
Click to expand...

What I stated was that your numbers, even taken at face value, make no sense because you did not account for obvious factor of MANY people around in fact are vaccinated.

OscarLevant said:
Flu deaths reportage by the CDC is highly misleading.
Click to expand...

It's highly misleading to pseudo-science anti-vaxxers who look for conspiracy theories. Just like the article you quoted, they make it like some sort of conspiracy that pneumonia has been included as part of "flu deaths". The truth is, life is complicated and so is medicine. The truth is most people who have flu don't die from it right away but instead die from secondary condition (often pneumonia but sometimes others) that develop in large part (but again not 100%) due to flu. It's messy and the only way to know true death toll is to do models and complex analysis that lay people don't understand. So anti-vaxxers love this complexity to cause confusion. There are other factors to this complexity too.

Here is what CDC says in FAQ:

CDC does not know exactly how many people die from seasonal flu each year. There are several reasons for this. First, states are not required to report individual flu illnesses or deaths among people older than 18 years of age to CDC. Second, influenza is infrequently listed on death certificates of people who die from flu-related complications. Third, many flu-related deaths occur one or two weeks after a person’s initial infection, either because the person may develop a secondary bacterial co-infection (such as bacterial pneumonia) or because influenza can aggravate an existing chronic illness (such as congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Also, most people who die from flu-related complications are not tested for flu, or they seek medical care later in their illness when influenza can no longer be detected from respiratory samples. Sensitive influenza tests are only likely to detect influenza if performed within a week after onset of illness. In addition, some commonly used tests to diagnose influenza in clinical settings are not highly sensitive and can provide false negative results (i.e. they misdiagnose flu illness as not being flu.) For these reasons, many flu-related deaths may not be recorded on death certificates. These are some of the reasons that CDC and other public health agencies in the United States and other countries use statistical and mathematical models to estimate the annual number of flu-related deaths.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom