Skanky Sylveon

34 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

I thought they were cuttlefish

Also, @Razor Blade

9 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

*Consent not required in Japan. 

I got bored. 

2 hours ago, abharga2 said:

Hey guys! I'm Abhishek, one of the cofounders of Vectordash and I wanted to respond to this just to clarify a couple things.

Hello Abhishek.  I'm glad that you decided to make an account to clarify a few things. 

First off, welcome to the fourms!  And second, some of your answers raised a few questions that I would like you to awnser for me if you can.

2 hours ago, abharga2 said:

First, the owners of the GPUs have full flexibility over what they do with the GPUs. People can also take their machines offline whenever they want, as long as there isn't an active stream.

Will the hardware owners in question know if there is an active stream or not?  I could see that definitely being a potential problem if someone turns off a machine unknowingly while a stream is happening. 

2 hours ago, abharga2 said:

especially a distributed model where we can deliver much lower latency than similar providers. 

So your company's plan is to rent hardware throughout the United states,  instead of having all of the hardware in a centralized location, then connect said hardware to clients within a relatively close proximity?

That would definitely help with overall ping.  The closer the connection is, the better.  For the most part. 

2 hours ago, abharga2 said:

Finally, the payout quoted in the bitcoinist article is actually incorrect. We're planning to pay out between $60-$105 / GPU / month depending on utilization. 

That's definitely better, a minimum of 2 dollars a month is much more reasonable.  How is the pay calculated?  Is it by hardware?  Client use?  Or some other factor?  Is an entire system needed, so CPU, motherboard, RAM, etc?

I'm asking that last question because the bitcoinist stated that miners could use their old GPUs that was used for mining as a part of your GPU rendering service.  The only issue with that is most mining setups are quite different from most gaming rigs.  Mining setups tend to have many GPUs hooked up to a single motherboard via PCIe x1 or even USB connections, all running off a low power, relatively low performance CPU.  Meaning that a mining setup wouldn't necessarily make a good gaming setup. 

Thanks again, and I look forward to hearing your reply. 

https://bitcoinist.com/gpu-miners-may-soon-have-another-way-to-make-money/

Quote

Vectordash is looking to allow people with underpowered rigs not meant for gaming — such as Apple computers — to experience quality PC gaming with the help of individuals willing to rent their spare power for cloud rendering. This means that, in theory, even those with a Macbook Air could game at 4K resolution and 60 frames-per-second, given their internet bandwidth is capable of handling that amount of data.

I decided to bold and color a rather relevant sentence in my opinion.  Many US citizens don't have the required internet speeds in order to take advantage of such a service, and even then, internet speeds are a rather inconsistent beast, especially if you have faimly that may be watching videos or playing games themselves at the same time.

But rather obvious concerns aside, let's talk about the main headline of the article, that cryptocurrency miners may have another revenue source.  I think that the biggest concerns with such a statement is that whether or not GPUs will become scarce again, while people are grabbing them up to make a quick profit.  I doubt it, while existing miners may take advantage of this offer (those who didn't just immediately sell their stock due to most miners being concerned about short term profits only) I don't see people pulling the trigger on this as much due to.

1: This being more of a business partnership thus a lack of control on what the owners of said GPUs can do.

2: The lack of evidence that there is a strong market for GPU rendering services. 

3: The fact that customers are involved, once you start serving others, it becomes an entirely different matter.  A bunch of clients get frustrated because you have poor ping because you are using satellite internet?  Vectordash will probably cut you off.

4: This is somewhat of a branch of number 3, but the GPU owners must have very good internet, at least the ones who have several hundred GPUs from mining. 

Let's take me for example. 

Ping is rather good, download speeds are good, upload speeds are ok, a bit lacking, but my property is business/residential, meaning I can get business service for around 150 a month (which would match my upload speeds with my download speeds), more then twice what I'm paying for currently, but let's see how much Vectordash is paying those who rent out their GPUs.

Quote

On the other side of the deal, GPU renters stand to make about $0.60 per day 

That equates to 18 dollars and 60 cents a month, if said month is 31 days.  I am assuming that goes by per GPU, if that's the csse, I would need 9 GPUs to just about break even 167 dollars and 40 cents, and even then I would need to equate the power consumption that I would need to pay.  Furthermore, these services tend to be full blown systems, so you would probably need a beefy enough CPU to virtualize that many desktops, which most miners probably dont have.  Mining isn't exactly CPU intensive, and that's assuming that they have the luxury of decent internet, it's quite possible that they do not.

So rant aside, I find the title rather silly, so I changed it.  To be fair, Vectordash is thinking outside of the box, and the possibility of renting out old hardware would be a nice way to make a few bucks, but I don't see this gaining too much traction.  I don't find these computer streaming rental services catching on in general actually, but maybe I'm wrong. 

9 hours ago, laminutederire said:

Your example is irrelevant for comparison.

My example's purpose was to show the difference between a small amount of light bounces between a large amount of light bounces on an otherwise identical render.  I even stated that Blender was using a different technique all together. 

So no, it's not irrelevant. 

8 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

 

And with Async Compute, there is no reason to assume that AMD is not able to implement it, especially since they already talked about it and that in theory all more modern cards can be enabled for Raytracing (My guess would be Polaris and VEGA, but also Tahiti is posible as well, though with higher performance impact).

Nvidia themselves stated that their GTX lineup can use the same raytracing techniques that their RTX lineup is capable of,  just that the lack of Tensor cores means that the framerate would tank (well, tank more then the RTX cards do) if it was enabled.  With that knowledge in mind, I can't see why AMD wouldn't be capable of the same thing.

7 hours ago, colonel_mortis said:

You're welcome to post the video - it's just posting your own videos that isn't allowed, and even then it's not as strict as "never except in status updates".

Oh, ok.  I wasn't super sure so I decided to be safe, I will update the topic to include the video. 

6 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

if it's already committed to cryengine's next release it'll probably be out by the next game that uses it ._.

The question is, how long until a commercial game includes it?

4 hours ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

Because at some point if you're going to spend as much effort to cheat on the effect as it does to do the effect itself, you may as well do the effect.

Having actual hardware may allow for more impressive rtrt effects down the line as well.

22 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

But anyway, the proof is in the pudding that CryTek did something impressive. However I want to know how that pudding was made.

I'm not sure how willing they are when it comes to sharing that information. 

23 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

I'm wondering if this is an evolution of previous single bounce reflections (since they've been a thing for a while) and there's a basic ray tracing component in it. Since there is some ray-tracing component in it, marketing is free to use the term "ray tracing." After all, Guerilla said their reflection system for Killzone: Shadow Fall uses "ray tracing"

Interesting, there are many ways to implement ray tracing though, so not too surprising. 

1 hour ago, VegetableStu said:

my thoughts are similar to Mira's. there's a possibility they're using a lighter raytracing algorithm (1-reflection or 2-reflection limits)

Let's do some tests, shall we?

The gif that I'm going to link should be self explanatory. 

Blender uses pathtracing, which is more complex then raytracing, but is the same basic thing.

The render uses 500 samples, is the same resolution with each render, the only difference is the number of light bounces.

The render that has the higher number of light bounces clearly has more highlights and just "pops" more.  Now let's check some of the rtrt examples in the form of glorious screenshots.

It seems that the rtrt reflections are the same, they "pop" less then the original.  The reflections do look a bit "smeared" or had some ghosting like @Mira Yurizaki stated, not entirely sure why it's there, but my guess is that the raytraced reflections are using a rather low sample rate, and there is some kind of blurring used to mask the pixelated look that a low sample rate would provide. 

Quote

Crytek has built a real-time ray tracing system that doesn’t care about special hardware, and they’ll be implementing it into CryEngine to let any game developer build their games with ray tracing for free.

https://www.techspot.com/amp/news/79221-much-rtx-crytek-reveals-real-time-ray-tracing.html

I was informed thag posting a YouTube video is appropriate in this instance, so below you will see a video demo that was using a Vega 56 to render a partally raytraced scene, not unlike Nvidia's own real time raytracing. 

That's definitely interesting.  Perhaps this will be the gateway for rtrt with AMD users.  I have my doubts though, this so far is just a demo, which isn't necessarily indicative of real time performance, second off, as the article itself says. 

Quote

Nvidia has said before that GeForce GTX cards can render ray traced scenes, but they are several times slower than RTX graphics cards. 

We are still not sure whether this particular form of rtrt will benefit from Nvidia's specialized rtrt hardware, even though, it seems to run well on AMD cards if the demo has anything to say about it. 

However, this is Crytek, the same company that developed/created Crysis, which was revolutionary and pushed what hardware could do at the time to it's limits, so it wouldn't surprise me if they manage to make rtrt possible for non RTX users.

2 hours ago, floofer said:

I get my honey fresh from the hives or the farmers market and it blows away any jam (even strawberry). Not to mention the health benefits.

I was a bee keeper, some tweakers kept on opening up the hives and was fucking with them.

Have yet to start up a hive here.

10 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Um, that stuff is awesome

You are objectively wrong.

It depends on what it's on.  Mint jelly is common on lamb for example. 

I don't like grape that much though. 

And now to disgust everyone. 

America, this is why people laugh at you, and this is coming from an American!

33 minutes ago, TopHatProductions115 said:

The second article is especially important due to how people use immunisation and vaccination interchangeably now. Stop it. It's wrong. Here's more clarification:

The purpose of vaccination is to help give someone immunity to a specific illness, usually by introducing a weakened (or more commonly) a deactivated form of the virus in question. 

So yeah, immunity with minimal risk is the vaccine's ultimate goal, it's not always successful and people can a lot of times still get sick so they are usally unsuccessful at giving full immunity (this is also dependent on the type of vaccine), but they more often then not give some form of resistance so said illness doesn't affect the host as badly. 

The question is how important said resistance is, those of poor health and/or on immuno compromised would in general benefit more then a healthy adult. 

This is also not talking about the potential side effects said vaccine can cause.

TLDR, vaccines do have their place, I do question the necessity of vaccinating healthy adults against influenza, but I have no problems with someone deciding to be vaccinated.  What I do have a problem with is people who demonize those who decide not to get vaccinated. 

8 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

But I am curious about something: As you refuse to vaccinate for legitimate medical reasons, herd immunity is even more important for you. So shouldn't it irritate you when people refuse to vaccinate without legitimate medical reasons?

I shouldn't and can't control other people's decisions, and vaccination isn't the only method of preventing illness, maintaining good health and hygiene goes a long way, washing hands when potentially being exposed and whatnot.  Those are measures that I can take to mitigate the chances of getting ill.

So instead of complaining about what others do, something that I cannot control, I focus on what I can control.

13 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

If the default stance were that it does exist, then the only way to refute it would be to prove a negative.

The default stance is that GBS can be caused by vaccines, I questioned the claim that the flu is more likely to cause GBS rather then a vaccine. 

So my stance on not to vaccinate is against the norm, but I have sufficient evidence to back up my decision. 

8 minutes ago, TopHatProductions115 said:

I personally have chosen to receive vaccines. But, the person next to me does not have to do so if they do not want to.

And that was what I was trying to say all along.  You can do whatever you want, and I can do whatever I want.

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You are using irrational arguments. You are dismissing the research in favor of an anecdotal claim. let alone addressing the conspiracies you promote, so of course I am dismissing that is not enough proof.  It isn't enough proof.  When you  have much more evidence pointing to some other cause it is illogical to be blinkered into thinking it is the one small thing that only carries plausible linkage and not a statistically significant correlation.

You're repeating yourself again, I'm done wasting my time with you.  At this point the debate isn't going anywhere. 

Have a nice day.

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You really are just repeating your self, I have already addressed that and explained that those doctors you trust get their information from that research.  Stop ignoring that.

I am repeating myself because you are doing the same.

Everything that I have stated you have either dismissed, claimed that it's not enough proof, or are simply ignoring. 

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It does not matter that you are trying to claim doctors said it, you are repeating it and promoting it like it is a cold hard fact,  you are arguing from authority. That is you are endorsing those claims as if they have more merit than the 3 articles and ninds link I provided.  This makes it your claim and your making them in an absolute manner.

Your article didn't have definitive cause for the majority of cases, and there's a reason why I stated that's what I was told by doctors.  You interpreted my words in the worst possible way when I was fully disclosing where I was getting my information from.

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Keep telling yourself that, you said absolutely that you would trust the treating doctors over the ninds insinuating the ninds was funded by pharma, I pointed out that treating doctors get all their information on such conditions from ninds and their research.  You have yet to explain or address that.

And I would trust them over most research papers, I explained that personal experience can give valuable insight in something like this, you're just not satisfied with that statement. 

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I did, you cherry picked some quotes and failed to understand the core conclusions.  Now you are ignoring the rest. 

 

You have made claims as I have already pointed out that many people (mostly rational people) will not accept,  you can argue as much as you want  but just saying "because my doctor said" does not make your claims valid.

People are allowed to make their own conclusions from the article that you linked me, I disclosed where I got all of my information from,  and no one needs (nor do I really care) to accept said claims. 

5 hours ago, Volbet said:

That is not a default stance and therefore it requires evidence. Just having some doctors tell you something is not evidence, 

So because my stance isn't the norm I need to "prove myself"?  Fuck off, I'll have whatever stance and viewpoints that I want.

5 hours ago, Volbet said:

And you haven't earned the right to any evidence for a counter claim, since you've yet to provide any evidence for your own claim. 

Just becuase you're opponent can't provide any evidence for their claim it doesn't translate into your position being correct. That's the fallacy of excluded middle. 

And just because you don't agree with my stance doesn't make it false either. 

5 hours ago, Volbet said:

I didn't call you anything of the sort, and therefore it's completly irrelavant. 

It didn't serve any purpose and didn't strenghten your argument. 

I wasn't reffing to you, why don't you read the rest of the thread?

5 hours ago, Volbet said:

What you seem to forget is that I'm not arguing for any position, nor do I care what other people have said. What I care about is your faulty reasoning, and the complete lack of a proper argument and evidence from your side. 

And I have not seen evidence from the other side as well.  The only way that I can give conclusive evidence about myself is if I release personal medical history, which I'm not about to do.

3 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

If someone doesn't want to vaccinate their kids (@Skanky Sylveon don't worry, not talking about you here),

Well, I didn't think that you were talking about me since I stated that I would vaccinate my kids.

Anyway, I understand your viewpoint and reasoning, I don't fully agree with it, but you at least seem to understand where I'm coming from. 

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

When you make a claim (especially absolute claims) you have to remember that you are only entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to the facts.

I didn't make absolute claims, the closest to absolute was when I stated that it was more than a "small number of cases".

32 minutes ago, mr moose said:

have stated that the vast majority of patients who got GBS recently had a vaccine

That is what you put in bold, and I bolded "have stated", and it was a fact that I was told that, so calling me a liar won't make you look any better. 

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'm not trying to make you look like a hypocrite, your are making you look like a hypocrite.  If I can show you several of your posts that contradict what you are trying to claim then they are your words coming back to bite you,  I did not force you to say anything nor did I engineer the conversation to make it look that way. 

 

It's a little sad that you are now trying to blame me for your failures in the discussion.  Is it really that hard to admit your opinion doesn't have much supporting it?

The thing is, I didn't change my story, I didn't petal back on anything, and I certainly didn't lie.

I stated my injury, you said that GBS is more common with the flu then in vaccines, I asked you to state actual research papers, then i decided to disclose my (admittedly biased) opinions about the United states pharmaceutical company, as well as state the doctors experience.  You then showed me a few articles, all which were inconclusive, I stated that,  and for some reason that indicates that I backtracked on my previous statement for some reason.  Meanwhile, you are trying to prove that I'm either a conspiracy theorist or a hypocrite by showing previous statements which is quite amusing to be frank. 

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No,  claiming an Entire field of doctors and researchers have been paid off by big pharma made you a conspiracy theorist.

Are you talking about this?

16 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

I would trust someone with the actual experience of treating said disease over an entity that is probably in the pocket of big pharmaceutical companies, yes.

Or this?

Quote

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case honestly.  Call me a tin foil hatter, I really don't care what you think about me.

I suppose I did tell you to call me a tin foil hatter if you wished.

Anyway, everything that I said previously stands here as well. 

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Your argument has changed as I have presented evidence, until you got to the point where the evidence suggested something you didn't like.

 

Remember these:

How is my story now?  Said rehab hospital gets most of the GBS patients in the area, and that's what they said.  I don't see how I changed my story. 

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

you are directly making claims here that are wrong, you claim to have the evidence to support it (which is only anecdotal) while dismissing every peer reviewed study I linked and the official publication from the ninds.

 

you then went on to say:

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Here you are literally dismissing all the major researchers and experts on the topic out of hand using the catchall "BIG PHARMA" cry.

What's your point?  I don't care whether you believe me or not, that's my stance on the pharmaceutical company.  Hence why I said stuff like.

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I would trust someone with the actual experience of treating said disease over an entity that is probably in the pocket of big pharmaceutical companies, yes.

That's my personal viewpoint on the matter.  You don't have to like it, and you certainly don't have to agree with it.

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to pull, perhaps since you didn't have concrete evidence you are now trying to make me look like a hypocrite. 

10 minutes ago, Volbet said:

You did pose it as an argument for your position on the risk of vaccines. 

You're basing you thesis on an anecdote, but you never really leave that position. You have written several times that you trust your doctors over other doctors, meaning you push their anecdotal experiences to the forefront of your argument for the risk of vaccines. 

 

Even if there's a risk by being vaccinated you're anecdote is not evidence of that risk. 

Even the research papers that I was presented confirmed that vaccination is a potential risk.

11 minutes ago, Volbet said:

When you bring up anecdotes as your only source, and you're basing your entire argument around them, then you're presenting them as evidence for your claim. 

Something you have no basis for. 

I asked for evidence for a counter claim.

12 minutes ago, Volbet said:

It's absolutly not irrelavent, since it shows that you're capable of critical thinking, but are either unwilling or incapable of extending that critical thinking to your own experience. 

So I repeat what a doctor said, and all of a sudden I'm a conspiracy theorist?

You can interpret my reasoning skills all you want, I don't care what a stranger on the internet thinks about me.

14 minutes ago, Volbet said:

It does. Becuase it means your stance is unreasonable.

If you're ademant about 2+2=5, and I disporve that, then it's unreasonable to keep to that position eventhough I can't provide the correct answer. 

My stance was that vaccines could cause complications, which nobody argued against, and that people should have the freedom to choose whether to be vaccinated or not, which people did argue with me against. 

Also just how large the risk of complications was, which wasn't really my stance to begin with. 

16 minutes ago, Volbet said:

That's completely irrelavent and borders on being an argument from authority.

When somebody calles me an anti vaxxer, it's very relevant. 

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It seems you don;t know what anecdotal evidence is,  you telling me you got it after having a vaccine is anecdotal evidence, the ninds and the 3 papers I linked are not.

What's not anecdotal is the fact that 60% of sufferers get upper respiratory like symptoms.

What is anecdotal is stating that 60% of the causes of GBS is caused by the flu.

2 minutes ago, Volbet said:

This is a completly unreasonable and hypocritical stand to take. You're basing your entire argument on anecdotal evidence, yet you expect other people to do more than that

My argument being?  My stance was simply that vaccines can have potential side effects that should be disclosed, and that people should be free to make their own decisions. 

4 minutes ago, Volbet said:

 You don't know if the nameless doctors you cite has a bias

Which is why I didn't state it as fact, and just said that the doctors alleged experiences don't line up.

5 minutes ago, Volbet said:

(although, your fast to point a completely unfounded conspiracy theory), or have any other kind of error in their data gathering. 

Your own personal experience, however tragic and debilitating it has been, count for absolutly nothing, since the sample size and data is completely impossible to do anything with. 

The conspiracy theory is largely irrelevant, I mostly cited the reason the doctors gave me because good luck trying to get financial compensation for said injury. 

As far as my experience goes, I'm not using it as a sample size, I am not saying that vaccines are bad, all I'm saying is that people should stop blindly attacking anti vaxxers. 

8 minutes ago, Volbet said:

Even if no one else in this thread have no conclusive evidence for the contrary to your point, then that doesn't mean your point is correct. It's not like your personal experince (and the alleged experience of unnamed doctors) is the default position on this topic.  

It doesn't invalidate my stance either though.  And keep in mind that you are talking to someone that has rabies vaccines in his fridge, so clearly I'm not against vaccines. 

Oooo look at the big bad anti vaxxer having RABIES VACCINES IN HIS REFRIGERATOR so I can help contribute in preventing a serious infectious disease that's mostly eradicated in the United states.  Aren't I such a selfish person?

40 minutes ago, mr moose said:

There is substantial correlation pointing in one direction but you are adamant the cause lies in a different direction with much fewer cases and more anecdotal evidence.

At this point I feel the same way towards you, and I didn't state that GBS was largely caused by vaccines, I stated that's what the doctors who treated me have experienced, and I asked you to give solid proof about your statement about GBS being more common with getting the flu over a vaccine.  Instead I got anecdotal evidence, with the majority of causes being inconclusive.  Correlation doesn't equal causation, something that you were willing to point out when I had a reaction in the right timeframe for it to be flu shot related. 

29 minutes ago, thinwalrus said:

But its not only your choice if you live in a populated area. Your choice affects other people too.

Go fuck off with that logic.  Tell you what, you loose the ability to walk for 2 years and then go tell me that.

And even so, most people get their flu shot, so they should be protected, or are you saying that vaccines are ineffective at mitigating the flu?

How dare I put you at risk, aren't you so special?  Tell you what, why doesn't the entire American workforce allow people to rest and get better when sick?  It's quite a problem here you know.  Call me selfish, but I reserve the right to do what I want with my body, minimize the spread of infection by washing my hands and whatnot, and you can choose to vaccinate so you can protect yourself from people like me?

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

????

I know it's hard to read these papers but at least try.   You are literally taking snippets and applying your own understanding and not reading why the conclusions are presented the way they are.  Millions of people get the flu but not millions of people get GBS, therefore the flu itself is not the cause, that is why they say it is infrequent, not because there is a low correlation, there is in fact a high correlation between GBS and the flu (edit, this mention of the flu just confuses the message, ignore it) amongst other respiratory infections (respiratory infections is the key in this sentence).  In fact there is a higher correlation 60% of GBS after respiratory infection than there is any other correlating condition including vaccines.

 

It appears you just don't like the idea that vaccines are not main cause and that the specific cause (beyond it being an immune issue) is still largely unknown.

I read the papers, most of the causes were non conclusive, an upper respiratory infection usally happening before symptoms appear doesn't lead to any solid evidence, furthermore, you stated that the flu was a more common way to get GBS then vaccines like it was fact when the cause was largely inconclusive.  Especially when a common side effect of vaccines is upper respiratory like symptoms. 

19 minutes ago, thinwalrus said:

You really think you can reason with anti-vaxxers? It's a waste of time as they are like religious people. You would have to prove a negative. And vast majority of them would still reject that proof based on some paranoid ramblings of a non scientist.

Why don't you read my previous posts before jumping to conclusions.  Due to my reaction to a vaccine, I will never get one again, and pretty much every doctor that I met agreed. 

I would still vaccinate my children though, at least from the major stuff, I also vaccinate my pets with pretty much everything available.  My only objection is with people like you that like to mock others for their choices on what they decide to put in their body, and perhaps to keep an open mind to others opinions.

EDIT:

Why would an anti vaxxer have vaccines in his fridge?  HMMMMM.

27 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Are you ignoring these on purpose?

Quote

Conclusions. Influenza viruses are infrequent triggering agents of GBS but may play a significant role during major influenza outbreaks. Influenza-related GBS displays specific features and is not associated with antiganglioside antibody response, which suggests the presence of underlying immune mechanisms.

Quote

Suffice to say Zika virus can be added to our list of viruses that can cause Guillain-Barré syndrome, and investigation of these cases should include tests for Zika when there is a possibility of infection by that virus. Whether Zika will be proven to pose a greater threat in causing Guillain-Barré syndrome than its various flavivirus cousins remains to be determined.

We declare no competing interests.

Quote

Background. In Western countries, the cause of 60% of all Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) cases remains unidentified. 

Quote

Methods. Of 405 patients with GBS who were admitted to a French reference center during 1996–2004, 234 had cases caused by an unidentified agent. We used time-series methods to study the correlation between the monthly incidence of such cases and influenza-like illnesses reported by the Sentinelles surveillance network. We analyzed anti-influenza antibodies using complement fixation testing and hemagglutination-inhibition assays. We studied etiological subgroups using Wilcoxon and Fisher's exact tests.

Quote

GBS occurs after acute infectious disease (usually respiratory tract infection [RTI] or gastrointestinal illness [GI]) in 60%–70% of patients [3]. Campylobacter jejuni and cytomegalovirus are the most commonly identified infectious causes in Western countries, accounting for 13%–39% and 10%–15% of GBS cases, respectively [1, 4, 5]. Other possible infectious causes include Epstein-Barr virus, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Haemophilus influenzae [1, 4, 5]. Vaccinations have also been implicated in GBS; an example is the influenza vaccine used during the mass vaccination campaign against swine influenza in the United States from 1976 through 1977 [6]. However, 60%–70% of GBS cases in Western countries remain without any identified cause.

What you sent me simply suggests the possibility that vaccines could help reduce GBS, a 60% - 70% non conclusive cause is hardly conclusive. 

The flu vaccine is known to cause upper respiratory like symptoms as well since it, you know, tricks your body into thinking that you are suffering from an active infection, thus creating the appropriate antibodies.