America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 2 years ago by DrafterX. 156 replies replies.
4 Pages<1234>
Flu shots.
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
DrafterX Offline
#51 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 2:46 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
I blame the media..... what was it a few years back, the asian bird flu or something..?? scared the country into getting all kinds of shots but in the end 50 times as many people died from the regular flu (average year) that the bird flu..... it's a conspiracy to sell drugs is what it is...... Not talking
Gene363 Offline
#52 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 2:57 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,814
DrafterX wrote:
uhhh ya..... that's exactly what I said alright.... Mellow


I broke my arm and had a displaced hip, hey I'm an orthopedic surgeon! Frying pan Frying pan Frying pan
CelticBomber Offline
#53 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 2:59 PM EST
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,786
DrafterX wrote:
uhhh ya..... that's exactly what I said alright.... Mellow



CelticBomber wrote:
I'm amazed to find so many PhD's on a cigar forum who know better than the people who spend their life studying and treating sick people.



no better way to learn than experience something.......

What else would that comment mean? Have me confused now.
DrafterX Offline
#54 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 2:59 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Gene363 wrote:

I broke my arm and had a displaced hip, hey I'm an orthopedic surgeon! Frying pan Frying pan Frying pan



I'm not an orthopedic surgeon but I can tell you a hell of alot about back surgury... new and old methods... why, cause I experienced it a few times... that's all I was saying... Mellow
DrafterX Offline
#55 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 3:01 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
CelticBomber wrote:
CelticBomber wrote:
I'm amazed to find so many PhD's on a cigar forum who know better than the people who spend their life studying and treating sick people.



no better way to learn than experience something.......

What else would that comment mean? Have me confused now.




why are you so sure people don't know what they are talking about..?? reasearch isn't reserved for just doctors... even you could learn some stuff if you wanted to.... Mellow
HockeyDad Offline
#56 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 3:10 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,130
Mrs.Tank wrote:
Tell that to the people that died.

18+ kids now.




This is just collateral damage. It's not like they were shot with an assault rifle or something. That would cause outrage and government intervention.
HockeyDad Offline
#57 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 3:12 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,130
DrafterX wrote:
I blame the media..... what was it a few years back, the asian bird flu or something..?? scared the country into getting all kinds of shots but in the end 5 times as many people died from the regular flu (average year) that the bird flu..... it's a conspiracy to sell drugs is what it is...... Not talking



That was a fun one. People were getting their temperatures taken to board aircraft and everyone had to fill out special immigration cards so they could track people backwards if they got sick. Medical masks were fashionable!
Gene363 Offline
#58 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 3:15 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,814
DrafterX wrote:
why are you so sure people don't know what they are talking about..?? reasearch isn't reserved for just doctors... even you could learn some stuff if you wanted to.... Mellow


So you would favor cigar recommendations from a guy that smoked one cigar over those from Arturo Fuente or Rockey Patel. Go for it, I'm sure it will all work out. horse
DrafterX Offline
#59 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 3:17 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Gene363 wrote:
So you would favor cigar recommendations from a guy that smoked one cigar over those from Arturo Fuente or Rockey Patel. Go for it, I'm sure it will all work out. horse



Ram sent me a IT Tomahawk once.... Mellow
bloody spaniard Offline
#60 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 3:24 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
I promised myself that I wouldn't take threads like this seriously anymore but I DO have one question.

Have they done an unbiased study (not funded by Pharma, the FDA, or CDC) on the number of casualties from the flu- vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated? Since they've practically sold out, er, run out of serum, they should have a good database of vaccinated participants vs the unvaccinated portion of the population. This should give us a good feel for it's effectiveness and whether or not it exarcerbated/worsened symptoms or caused death when it was introduced.
MACS Offline
#61 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 3:29 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,774
bloody spaniard wrote:
I promised myself that I wouldn't take threads like this seriously anymore but I DO have one question.

Have they done an unbiased study (not funded by Pharma, the FDA, or CDC) on the number of casualties from the flu- vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated? Since they've practically sold out, er, run out of serum, they should have a good database of vaccinated participants vs the unvaccinated portion of the population. This should give us a good feel for it's effectiveness and whether or not it exarcerbated/worsened symptoms or caused death when it was introduced.


That's a valid point, Ramon. Now you have me curious as to the answer, as well. Like I said, after all the inoculations I got in boot camp, all the shots we got for going over seas, and then the anthrax shots... I ain't letting any doctor stick needles in me with anything I do not need.
CelticBomber Offline
#62 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 3:34 PM EST
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,786
DrafterX wrote:
why are you so sure people don't know what they are talking about..?? reasearch isn't reserved for just doctors... even you could learn some stuff if you wanted to.... Mellow



I'll take my doctors word over the words of a layman. Look at all the idiots running around a few years ago saying research proved that immunizations cause Autism. Turns out that research was crap and because parents were afraid to get their kids immunized diseases like the mumps and measles started making a come back and in almost every case it was in a child who didn't receive the vaccines. You've got actors and politicians running around citing these research reports that respected and educated physicians dismissed because they knew the research was poorly done. So yeah I'll take the word of the mainstream medical establishment over the word of some actress who read some crackpot paper. This years flu vaccine is 62% effective against this years strains of flu according to the CDC. I think cutting your chances of getting sick by 62% is worth it.
Gene363 Offline
#63 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 3:36 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,814
DrafterX wrote:
Ram sent me a IT Tomahawk once.... Mellow


Durn, hard to argue with that.ram27bat
DrafterX Offline
#64 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 3:37 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
that 62% is only valid if you actually had the shot..... we were trying to figure out the percentage of those getting the flu who didn't get the shot... Mellow



and nobody is offering medical advice here... just opinions and personal experiences.... Mellow
MACS Offline
#65 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 3:39 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,774
Uh-oh... I hollered "Don't look, Bloody!" but it was too late...
bloody spaniard Offline
#66 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 3:42 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
LOL! You're a good man, Shawnsky!
Can't take these things too seriously. People do what they want to do for their own reasons regardless of evidence all around us. (shrugging shoulders)
DrafterX Offline
#67 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 3:42 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
MACS wrote:
Uh-oh... I hollered "Don't look, Bloody!" but it was too late...


ya.... it would really pay for some to do a little research around here..... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#68 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 4:27 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
DrafterX wrote:
that 62% is only valid if you actually had the shot..... we were trying to figure out the percentage of those getting the flu who didn't get the shot... Mellow



and nobody is offering medical advice here... just opinions and personal experiences.... Mellow


The 62% is if you are exposed to the flu virus and have the shot.
The percentage of people getting the flu who didn't get the shot is kind of irrelevant, because it's directly impacted by how many people get the shot (and not in the way you think).

Epidemiology has identified that the more people in a population who are vaccinated against something, the less likely the unvaccinated are of catching it (because there are fewer infected people to come in contact with).

So, your chances of getting the flu are based on two factors - 1- the virulence of the strain (if you are in direct contact with the virus, what are the chances of infection... and of course this varies with your personal hygiene habits, the number of viral particles you are exposed to, and the area of exposure) and 2 - your odds of being exposed to the flu.

I don't personally get the shot. But that's because I don't really need it. I don't touch children or go to places where there are sick people, and have a reasonably healthy immune system. Additionally the company I work for does produce one of the annual vaccines, and a large number of my co-workers get vaccinated, decreasing my potential exposure.
DrafterX Offline
#69 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 4:45 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
victor809 wrote:
The 62% is if you are exposed to the flu virus and have the shot.
The percentage of people getting the flu who didn't get the shot is kind of irrelevant, because it's directly impacted by how many people get the shot (and not in the way you think).

Epidemiology has identified that the more people in a population who are vaccinated against something, the less likely the unvaccinated are of catching it (because there are fewer infected people to come in contact with).

So, your chances of getting the flu are based on two factors - 1- the virulence of the strain (if you are in direct contact with the virus, what are the chances of infection... and of course this varies with your personal hygiene habits, the number of viral particles you are exposed to, and the area of exposure) and 2 - your odds of being exposed to the flu.

I don't personally get the shot. But that's because I don't really need it. I don't touch children or go to places where there are sick people, and have a reasonably healthy immune system. Additionally the company I work for does produce one of the annual vaccines, and a large number of my co-workers get vaccinated, decreasing my potential exposure.



cool... I didn't get one because I rarely get sick and don't work around alot of people... I guess if I flew more or was a bus driver or somethin I might consider it.... Think
HockeyDad Offline
#70 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 4:53 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,130
I never get flu shots. I never get the flu. Darwinism.
bloody spaniard Offline
#71 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 5:05 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
victor809 wrote:
The 62% is if you are exposed to the flu virus and have the shot.
The percentage of people getting the flu who didn't get the shot is kind of irrelevant, because it's directly impacted by how many people get the shot (and not in the way you think).

Epidemiology has identified that the more people in a population who are vaccinated against something, the less likely the unvaccinated are of catching it (because there are fewer infected people to come in contact with).

So, your chances of getting the flu are based on two factors - 1- the virulence of the strain (if you are in direct contact with the virus, what are the chances of infection... and of course this varies with your personal hygiene habits, the number of viral particles you are exposed to, and the area of exposure) and 2 - your odds of being exposed to the flu.

I don't personally get the shot. But that's because I don't really need it. I don't touch children or go to places where there are sick people, and have a reasonably healthy immune system. Additionally the company I work for does produce one of the annual vaccines, and a large number of my co-workers get vaccinated, decreasing my potential exposure.



1. I am interested in knowing the flu- related death rates for the inoculated vs. those left untainted/not inoculated;
2. Don't the odds of being exposed to the flu increase if you receive live viri?;
3. Perhaps some of us are not vaccinated in part due to your rationale which indirectly admits the body is subjected to some unknown variable of damage from a vaccine... better let others risk it?
victor809 Offline
#72 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 5:20 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
bloody spaniard wrote:
1. I am interested in knowing the flu- related death rates for the inoculated vs. those left untainted;

Don't know. Not sure if this is even tracked. Death from the flu is death from the flu, not sure how vaccination would change that.
Quote:

2. Don't the odds of being exposed to the flu increase if you receive live viri?;

Interesting you should say that. Only one company (the one I work for actually) uses live viral bodies. Your standard flu injection, which most of the world gets, is dead. The only way you're getting infected is if there is an incomplete inactivation of the virus, or a contamination, ie- manufacturing error. the live attenuated virus is a much different game, actually creating an infection site in the nasal passage. This is why it isn't recommended for anyone over 50 or under 2. The advantage to the live virus is it's theoretically more effective. But there IS a chance of you actually getting the flu.
Quote:

3. Perhaps some of us are not vaccinated in part due to your rationale which indirectly admits the body is subjected to some unknown variable of damage from a vaccine... better let others risk it?

I don't think it's particularly unknown... the vaccine is either injecting dead viral matter into your body, or spraying live attenuated virus up your nose... the anticipated physiological reactions from either of these actions are pretty well known. I don't think anything unanticipated (ie, turn blue) will happen. I don't do it because I just don't ever have time for health related things. I've got a list of a million things in line ahead of "vaccination".
tailgater Offline
#73 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 5:39 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
CelticBomber wrote:
I'll take my doctors word over the words of a layman. Look at all the idiots running around a few years ago saying research proved that immunizations cause Autism. Turns out that research was crap and because parents were afraid to get their kids immunized diseases like the mumps and measles started making a come back and in almost every case it was in a child who didn't receive the vaccines. You've got actors and politicians running around citing these research reports that respected and educated physicians dismissed because they knew the research was poorly done. So yeah I'll take the word of the mainstream medical establishment over the word of some actress who read some crackpot paper. This years flu vaccine is 62% effective against this years strains of flu according to the CDC. I think cutting your chances of getting sick by 62% is worth it.


Although I've not done any research on the matter, I've heard (talked to people in the medical industry, and have seen internet reports that are at least 98.2% accurate) that the number of cases of adult chicken pox is growing almost exponentially.
The blame has been on immigration (legal and otherwise) and also the fact that barely anyone under 50 years old ever contracted the disease as a kid or was even exposed to someone with the sickness due to "successful" immunization.
The way it was described to me is that the people immunized as kids don't have as strong a resistance when they reach adulthood as somebody who contracted the disease as a kid.

Kinda interesting, if it's true.
rfenst Offline
#74 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 8:52 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,304
Mrs.Tank wrote:
Tell that to the people that died.
18+ kids now.
I have not had the shot. I did see my doc in November, and she tested me for the flu, but I tested negative.


You must have completely missed what I wrote about my beliefs on this:

rfenst wrote:
It is up to each individual whether the risk of the vaccine is worth taking when compared to the risk associated with the particular strains of influenza anticipated.
Gene363 Offline
#75 Posted: Tue, Jan 15 2013, 9:18 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,814
bloody spaniard wrote:
I promised myself that I wouldn't take threads like this seriously anymore but I DO have one question.

Have they done an unbiased study (not funded by Pharma, the FDA, or CDC) on the number of casualties from the flu- vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated? Since they've practically sold out, er, run out of serum, they should have a good database of vaccinated participants vs the unvaccinated portion of the population. This should give us a good feel for it's effectiveness and whether or not it exarcerbated/worsened symptoms or caused death when it was introduced.


Would you accept the results?
MrsSledn Offline
#76 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 12:48 PM EST
Joined: 12-06-2004
Posts: 8,490
Didn't get one this year or any year. Had the flu once, a few years ago. I was tested to make sure it wasn't the swine flu. It wasn't, but they put me on Tamiflu. While pregnant, I was told I really should get the shot. It would lesson the amout of time of the virus and also protect the baby for his first 6 months of life.

I still declined. I wasn't taking any chances with them injecting me with some crap that I have heard so many pros and cons about. They get so many other shots now as is.

I don't expose my children to those shots either. They are both healthy. If they get sick, they stay home and go see the doctor if not better in a day or two.
bloody spaniard Offline
#77 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 1:05 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
Hi, MrsSleddn! (very sensible)

Gene363 wrote:

Would you accept the results?


Yes, of course I would, Gene. Who am I NOT to accept credible, unbiased evidence?? The problem is, it doesn't exist.
For instance, I would love to know why we are not told why those killed (or dying) from the flu were vaccinated or not.
CelticBomber Offline
#78 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 4:29 PM EST
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,786
There was a time when vaccine's and antibiotics didn't exist. When family's would have 8 children and be considered lucky if two made it to adulthood. A time when a simple scratch could kill you because of an infection. A time when polio ravaged children's body's and crippled and even killed. Today Polio has been virtually wiped out in the U.S. and around the world. The Spanish Flu affected 1/5 of the worlds population and killed anywhere from 20 to 50 million. It wasn't children and the old it killed either it was healthy men and women between 20 and 40 years old it killed because it drove our immune systems into overdrive and our own body's attacked us. Kids and older people with weaker immune systems survived because their weakened immune systems didn't have the strength to kill them. Why anyone would want to go back to those days is beyond my comprehension. Calling it a scam so medical company's can make a profit. Thinking it's some evil plan to sterilize us and control the population. The Taliban is killing aid workers who are trying to vaccinate young children over there for exactly that reason. If any other corporation is price gouge, or making a profit in some unethical way, etc. and get called on it the accusers are called socalists or facists who are against free enterprise. But when a medical company sells a vaccine and makes a profit it's all just some evil scam and how dare they make money from this. The lead author of the paper which started this whole scare, Andrew Wakefield, had his medical license pulled because of his fraudulent research. Yet people still buy into it. I really don't understand why anyone would be against vaccines or antibiotics.
Gene363 Offline
#79 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 4:51 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,814
bloody spaniard wrote:
Hi, MrsSleddn! (very sensible)



Yes, of course I would, Gene. Who am I NOT to accept credible, unbiased evidence?? The problem is, it doesn't exist.
For instance, I would love to know why we are not told why those killed (or dying) from the flu were vaccinated or not.


LOL, I rest my case.
Gene363 Offline
#80 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 4:56 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,814
CelticBomber wrote:
There was a time when vaccine's and antibiotics didn't exist. When family's would have 8 children and be considered lucky if two made it to adulthood. A time when a simple scratch could kill you because of an infection. A time when polio ravaged children's body's and crippled and even killed. Today Polio has been virtually wiped out in the U.S. and around the world. The Spanish Flu affected 1/5 of the worlds population and killed anywhere from 20 to 50 million. It wasn't children and the old it killed either it was healthy men and women between 20 and 40 years old it killed because it drove our immune systems into overdrive and our own body's attacked us. Kids and older people with weaker immune systems survived because their weakened immune systems didn't have the strength to kill them. Why anyone would want to go back to those days is beyond my comprehension. Calling it a scam so medical company's can make a profit. Thinking it's some evil plan to sterilize us and control the population. The Taliban is killing aid workers who are trying to vaccinate young children over there for exactly that reason. If any other corporation is price gouge, or making a profit in some unethical way, etc. and get called on it the accusers are called socalists or facists who are against free enterprise. But when a medical company sells a vaccine and makes a profit it's all just some evil scam and how dare they make money from this. The lead author of the paper which started this whole scare, Andrew Wakefield, had his medical license pulled because of his fraudulent research. Yet people still buy into it. I really don't understand why anyone would be against vaccines or antibiotics.


+1,000,000

Now stand by for the anti vaccination hysteria. Thank God Smallpox was eliminated in the wild before this. Polio is so close to being eliminated it make me sick to think of people catching serious diseases that could be avoided.
DrafterX Offline
#81 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 4:58 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
if I were old and frail and stuff I'd think about gettting a flu shot..... Mellow



do you guys run out and buy all the 'New and Improved' stuff they advertise on tv..??? Huh
xibbumbero Offline
#82 Posted: Wed, Jan 16 2013, 10:22 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2002
Posts: 12,535
MACS wrote:
That's a valid point, Ramon. Now you have me curious as to the answer, as well. Like I said, after all the inoculations I got in boot camp, all the shots we got for going over seas, and then the anthrax shots... I ain't letting any doctor stick needles in me with anything I do not need.


Hope to hell you don't get it. I understand it ain't fun and full recovery may take several weeks. X Shame on you
CelticBomber Offline
#83 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 8:25 AM EST
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,786
DrafterX wrote:
if I were old and frail and stuff I'd think about gettting a flu shot..... Mellow



do you guys run out and buy all the 'New and Improved' stuff they advertise on tv..??? Huh



What does that even mean? Running out to buy all the New and Improved stuff? are you having half this conversation in your head and not including us?
HockeyDad Offline
#84 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 8:36 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,130
CelticBomber wrote:
There was a time when vaccine's and antibiotics didn't exist. When family's would have 8 children and be considered lucky if two made it to adulthood. A time when a simple scratch could kill you because of an infection. A time when polio ravaged children's body's and crippled and even killed. Today Polio has been virtually wiped out in the U.S. and around the world. The Spanish Flu affected 1/5 of the worlds population and killed anywhere from 20 to 50 million. It wasn't children and the old it killed either it was healthy men and women between 20 and 40 years old it killed because it drove our immune systems into overdrive and our own body's attacked us. Kids and older people with weaker immune systems survived because their weakened immune systems didn't have the strength to kill them. Why anyone would want to go back to those days is beyond my comprehension. Calling it a scam so medical company's can make a profit. Thinking it's some evil plan to sterilize us and control the population. The Taliban is killing aid workers who are trying to vaccinate young children over there for exactly that reason. If any other corporation is price gouge, or making a profit in some unethical way, etc. and get called on it the accusers are called socalists or facists who are against free enterprise. But when a medical company sells a vaccine and makes a profit it's all just some evil scam and how dare they make money from this. The lead author of the paper which started this whole scare, Andrew Wakefield, had his medical license pulled because of his fraudulent research. Yet people still buy into it. I really don't understand why anyone would be against vaccines or antibiotics.




Cured smallpox....
Cured polio....

No cure for the flu but they have a shot every year that might prevent you from getting the flu but, it might not. I wonder if they are working on a cure.

(
I sympathize with your profit defense. I work will big oil, natural gas, and electric utilities. Even the big pharma fans are mad when we make money.)
CelticBomber Offline
#85 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 2:29 PM EST
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,786
HockeyDad wrote:
Cured smallpox....
Cured polio....

No cure for the flu but they have a shot every year that might prevent you from getting the flu but, it might not. I wonder if they are working on a cure.

(
I sympathize with your profit defense. I work will big oil, natural gas, and electric utilities. Even the big pharma fans are mad when we make money.)



I think the fact that there are lots of different flu viruses that are mutating all the time and only 3 types of polio virus and 2 types of smallpox might have something to do with it.
Buckwheat Offline
#86 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 3:11 PM EST
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
bloody spaniard wrote:
I promised myself that I wouldn't take threads like this seriously anymore but I DO have one question.

Have they done an unbiased study (not funded by Pharma, the FDA, or CDC) on the number of casualties from the flu- vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated? Since they've practically sold out, er, run out of serum, they should have a good database of vaccinated participants vs the unvaccinated portion of the population. This should give us a good feel for it's effectiveness and whether or not it exarcerbated/worsened symptoms or caused death when it was introduced.


Who would pay for this study if not the three you listed? You also imply (or is it inferred) that studies funded by the FDA &/or CDC can’t be unbiased.Sarcasm
bloody spaniard Offline
#87 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 3:23 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
Buckwheat wrote:
Who would pay for this study if not the three you listed? You also imply (or is it inferred) that studies funded by the FDA &/or CDC can’t be unbiased.Sarcasm



I don't know, BW. Everyone who steps up with alternative theories or looking for funding of alternative studies is either blacklisted or had their integrity & reputation impugned.
Like I said, I would settle for an accurate count of those who died from flu-like symptoms after inoculations vs. those who died from the same symptoms WITHOUT inoculations. My guess is that there were many more deaths & complications from those vaccinated.
DrafterX Offline
#88 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 3:27 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
if we can figure this out we can do anything.....

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/17/lobsters-crabs-feel-pain-scientists-say/?test=latestnews



Mellow
jpotts Offline
#89 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 4:18 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
bloody spaniard wrote:
I promised myself that I wouldn't take threads like this seriously anymore but I DO have one question.

Have they done an unbiased study (not funded by Pharma, the FDA, or CDC) on the number of casualties from the flu- vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated? Since they've practically sold out, er, run out of serum, they should have a good database of vaccinated participants vs the unvaccinated portion of the population. This should give us a good feel for it's effectiveness and whether or not it exarcerbated/worsened symptoms or caused death when it was introduced.



The problem is that with something like influenza, you;re shooting at a moving target.

A long, long time ago I used to be invloved - peripherally (sp:?) - with things like medical research into virususususes and cancer. As it was explained to me, specific classifications of viruses tend to mutate relatively rapidly, which is the reason why you can't eliminate the virus through vaccination. It is also the reason why the Influenza outbreak in the early 20th century was so deadly, and nowadays is no worse than the symptoms of looking at nekked pictures ot teedubbya.

This is in contrast to something like smallpox, whose genetic structure makes it less likely to mutate, and thereby making innoculations far more effective in nearly wiping out the bug.

It is also complicated by the fact that Influenza tends to only be widspread in colder, drier environments, and has less frequency in wetter, warmer climes (and no, I'm not talking about MAC's skivvies).

So when they make the vaccine, they have to guess what strains of the flu will actually pop up that year, which is part of the reason why it is only 60% effective. It doesn't cover recently mutated strains of the virus.

The vaccination uses dead virus, which is detected in the body by the immune system, tagged, and then destroyed. The immune system them generates "memory" cells for the virus that linger in the body for an extended period of time. However, a slight mutation of the virus can avoid being detected by "memory" componets of your immune system, attack, and replicate inside of vulnirable cell.

So, you see, any study has to take into account a *lot* of facotrs when it comes to the effectiveness of a vaccination for something like the flu.
jpotts Offline
#90 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 4:22 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
CelticBomber wrote:
There was a time when vaccine's and antibiotics didn't exist. When family's would have 8 children and be considered lucky if two made it to adulthood.


Vaccines were used, albeit in a very primative form, in the Americas all the way back into the 18th Century.

And recent evidence has shown that antobiotics have existed since pre-history.
knokmdwn Offline
#91 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 4:32 PM EST
Joined: 04-13-2008
Posts: 8,849
Lol, "pre-history" ??

Isn't the stuff that happened before history just more history?

Maybe the stuff that happened in the 1600's was pre-history to the stuff that happened in the 1700's....... no.....I know I've heard that called history too........

d'oh!
CelticBomber Offline
#92 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 4:40 PM EST
Joined: 05-03-2012
Posts: 6,786
knokmdwn wrote:
Lol, "pre-history" ??

Isn't the stuff that happened before history just more history?

Maybe the stuff that happened in the 1600's was pre-history to the stuff that happened in the 1700's....... no.....I know I've heard that called history too........

d'oh!


Heh I'm glad it wasn't just me scratching my head trying to figure out what pre-history is.
DrafterX Offline
#93 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 4:42 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
it's a zero level class for dumbasses trying to get into college.... Mellow
bloody spaniard Offline
#94 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 4:47 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
I think he meant since before recorded history. I wouldn't doubt it. Strange things have been found in preserved mummies.
DrafterX Offline
#95 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 4:52 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
gerbils..?? Huh
bloody spaniard Offline
#96 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 4:58 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
^ No, more like in stomachs and/or the analysis of skin.

Think

Although if they ran out of pockets & accidentally fell into a glacier....
jpotts Offline
#97 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 5:02 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
knokmdwn wrote:
Lol, "pre-history" ??

Isn't the stuff that happened before history just more history?

Maybe the stuff that happened in the 1600's was pre-history to the stuff that happened in the 1700's....... no.....I know I've heard that called history too........

d'oh!


The formal definition of History, no matter how you slice it, involves a recorded chronicle of events. Whether it be an oral history, or a written record, when you use the word "history" you automatically mean recorded events.

An oral history can be lost if it is not carried on from one person to the next. Now if you can cite to me a oral history kept of plants and substances with antibiotic properties that predates the works fs people like Josephus and Herodotus, I'd sure like to hear it.

So, until then, consider the term "pre-history" to mean "pre-recorded history" as to say "pre-recorded history" is somewhat redundant.

Next time, Sunshine, please know that the meaning of a word actually means before criticizing my use thereof.
jpotts Offline
#98 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 5:03 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
By the way, the term "anibiotic" doesn't mean "comes from bread mold" either...
frankj1 Offline
#99 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 6:01 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
Buckwheat wrote:
Who would pay for this study if not the three you listed? You also imply (or is it inferred) that studies funded by the FDA &/or CDC can’t be unbiased.Sarcasm

Imply is correct.
frankj1 Offline
#100 Posted: Thu, Jan 17 2013, 6:06 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
wheelrite wrote:
you morons know Flu Shots arem only 60% effective in a good year,,,

two outta three ain't bad...
Meatloaf.

Wade Boggs went one outta three and made the Hall of Fame.

I got the shot.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234>
Back to Top