Quoted from madtown:
It says the last two years vaccines were not effective against the predominate strain of the flu
Everyone agrees that effectiveness rates were bad the last two years, but I'm not sure that translates to "not effective" (which at least to me reads as 0% effective). Here's the relevant quote from the article:
"In both of the previous two flu seasons, the flu vaccine performed poorly against the nasty predominant virus."
Not what it says. That's referring to one New Orleans hospital, not the whole state. From the article:
"Children's Hospital New Orleans has already seen more flu cases this fall than it saw all of last winter.... Last month was the busiest ever at the hospital's emergency department.... '[The flu] is definitely causing symptoms that will put you in bed for a week,' including fever, vomiting and diarrhea. But the hospital has not had any deaths and is not seeing many serious complications."
Also, if you make your way to the following paragraph (this is in reference to the entire US, not just New Orleans):
"[CDC] on Friday estimated that there have already been 1.7 million flu illnesses, 16,000 hospitalizations, and 900 flu-related deaths."
Like the man said, you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
This comes back to a fundamental disconnect on the meaning of the word "worthless." You and Sack hold vaccines (or at least the flu vaccine) to a robust standard, 100% effective or it's worthless. Of course no medical intervention on earth is 100% effective, and neither are most other things. You're free to call any or all of them worthless, but I'd submit that you're using the term differently than most people do.