In reply to your two posts,1) Of course Dr Blaylock can cherry pick studies to advance the arguments that will help him advance his cause and sell his books. If you want a credible discussion on vaccine safety, there are plenty of non-quack sources, e.g. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/basic/history.htmthough I suspect that you would find the CDC or other established, reputable sources of information somehow flawed.2) Yes, of course viruses mutate, and if they do mutate far enough away from the strain on which the vaccine was prepared, effectiveness will drop. This does happen not-infrequently in seasonal flu vaccines, where the immunity given is partial (but often better than nothing). Studies have indicated that this isn't the case for the swine flu vaccine, at least not yet. I'm going off of the research in studies summarized in articles such as these:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...But again, I doubt you trust studies cited by the Washington Post, Newsweek, NPR, etc. if they contradict those cited by Dr Blaylock, so this may be futile. Anti-vax hysteria aside, there is an endless supply of BS that people can "google and see." The fact that someone a) has a degree, b) can assemble a website, and c) can be found via a search engine does not alone give scientific credibility to their arguments. It is a good sign, but not sufficient, to have consensus in the scientific community. The key is the scientific validity and the reasoning employed, looking at the results and reporting them objectively. Certainly, lone wolves pushing an agenda and picking data and facts to advance a cause do not meet this criteria.If you want to discuss the poll about health care workers, please give specifics of the study you cite. It would be worth exploring whether the method employed are reasonable, and further, what the implications of the result really are. What fields in health care are included? What actual level of expertise do those polled have in immunology, and is their rationale supported?Finally, about your point on Guillain-Barré, sure, it is inevitable that even extremely low probability events will occur when you roll the dice hundreds of millions of times. Again, I think you overestimate the threat posed by the vaccine and underestimate the threat posed by the swine flu. As an interesting side note, Guillain-Barré can be actually be brought upon by the flu itself. If we are going to roll the dice hundreds of millions of times, the risks from the flu cannot be ignored.