Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Flu shots? For them or against ?
Replies
-
get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.12
-
get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.
Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?2 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.
Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?
Several of the people actually arguing *against* the flu shot in this thread are located in the US, where the flu is an issue.3 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.
Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?
nope, sorry, not buying it.
The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.
Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.2 -
A cost benefit analysis done in 2010.
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000256
If a persons potential earnings a year tops $10,000, the flu shot provides economic advantage. Not that we want to put a price tag on a life.
The cost of a single immunization, under $2.00.
And, nobody is suggesting that Vitamin D is an either-or proposition with the flu shot. Anecdotally I think I caught fewer colds when I increased my Vitamin D.4 -
1918, people. The flu is everywhere. I did research on the family histories of a First Nations community in the remote foothills of the Canadian Rockies. The community was devastated by the Spanish Flu. There was a tragic story of a pair of orphans who lost two sets of foster parents before the epidemic wore itself out. That's six adults including their natural parents.3
-
Rosemary7391 wrote: »get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.
Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?
nope, sorry, not buying it.
The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.
Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.
Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.
Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?2 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.
Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?
nope, sorry, not buying it.
The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.
Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.
Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.
Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?
I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.
There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.
Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.
And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.
Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.6 -
Yes, I read them all. You just cherry pick a line or two so that you can hand wave it away. The science is clear, flu shots, while not perfect, prevent the flu.GaleHawkins wrote: »John are you even reading the links you are posting?
You do realize that EVERY study has limitations.Your link journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050211 states the below:
"..... Limitations of this study include the ecological study design, the nonspecific outcomes, difficulty in modeling baseline events, data quality and availability, and the inability to control for potentially important confounders.
Your dishonesty is on display again. You need to read the whole thing. Did you see the part about reduction in mortality? I'll show you here:Conclusions
Compared to targeted programs in other provinces, introduction of universal vaccination in Ontario in 2000 was associated with relative reductions in influenza-associated mortality and health care use. The results of this large-scale natural experiment suggest that universal vaccination may be an effective public health measure for reducing the annual burden of influenza.Influenza-Associated Mortality and Health Care Use
After UIIP introduction, influenza-associated mortality for the overall population decreased 74% in Ontario (RR = 0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20–0.34) compared to 57% in other provinces (RR = 0.43, 95% CI, 0.37–0.50) (ratio of RRs = 0.61, p = 0.002)
Mortality decreased by 74% in Ontario and 57% in other provinces. Do you know what mortality is? Mortality is death. I think preventing death is a benefit, not sure why you don't think so. Only a heartless monster wouldn't want to prevent death
Your poor aptitude at debate is a gift that keeps giving. I was waitng for the pharma shill gambit, which is another in a long line of logical fallacies by you. Just because someone is paid by a pharmaceutical company doesn't automatically invalidate their data. And their data is clear, flu shots prevent death, no matter how much you think it doesn't.You may want to read the full study details from your link including this:
"Funding: This study was supported by an operating grant from the Public Health Agency of Canada, a Fellowship Award (to JCK), a Canada Research Chair Award in Primary Care Research (to REGU), and a Chair in Applied Public Health (to DGM) from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and a Career Scientist Award from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (to DGM). The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) is supported in part by a grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The findings and conclusions in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, or Manitoba Health and Healthy Living.
Competing interests: AJM reports receiving travel grants from Sanofi Pasteur and Solvay Pharmaceuticals for speaking at meetings, and payment from Sanofi Pasteur for chairing a safety committee for a clinical trial."
ALL researchers with advanced degrees know you throw a marketing bone to the people paying your house and car payments. "May Be" terms about results are red flags to healthcare workers.
Grant results that dump on the ones paying for the studies can (not may be) put you at risk of getting your next research grant.
Now back to your laughable assertions:
Either provide proof for this nonsense or admit that you're a liar.The fact that MD's do not support requiring mandatory flu shots should be a clue to the lack of medical value of the flu shots
And still waiting for you to point out where in this study does it say that Vit D is better than the flu shot:
http://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6583
I've asked you like 4 times now and you keep ignoring it. So either show us with you advanced medical training or admit that you're a dishonest pseudoscientific hack.
13 -
You are seriously dishonest. I and others have posted numerous studies. You just conveniently ignore them because they don't agree with you ridiculous unsupportable narrativeGaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Still waiting for that study out of England showing that Vit D protects better than the flu shot.
Great posts, but also I'm wondering where it was made law that one can only take Vit D OR get a flu shot. I take Vit D in the winter, and no one told me I was doing that instead of the flu shot and therefore cannot get one
This Vit D distraction is 100% irrelevant to the thread.
The major distraction no one has posted medical proof that getting the flu shot is of any net medical value.
Surprise, surprise, another logical fallacy, this time a Red Herring. You claim that Vit D prevents flu better than the vaccine, and now your trying to distract from that because you realize you have no way to support that line of BS.In the USA access to Vitamin D3 is not under the control of our government. While there is evidence Vitamin D3 can be of value for many medical conditions its main use seems to prevent our bones from thinning and breaking as we age.
Now for the fifth time, point out in the study you keep bleating on about, where it says Vit D protects better than the flu:
http://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6583
6 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Still waiting for that study out of England showing that Vit D protects better than the flu shot.
Great posts, but also I'm wondering where it was made law that one can only take Vit D OR get a flu shot. I take Vit D in the winter, and no one told me I was doing that instead of the flu shot and therefore cannot get one.
This Vit D distraction is 100% irrelevant to the thread.
The major distraction no one has posted medical proof that getting the flu shot is of any net medical value.
In the USA access to Vitamin D3 is not under the control of our government. While there is evidence Vitamin D3 can be of value for many medical conditions its main use seems to prevent our bones from thinning and breaking as we age.
I'm not sure what you've been reading for the past 32 pages but a lot of people have posted this, and multiple people have asserted that you've just ignored it.
Notice I said "any net medical value". I am still looking to find a study that does prove the net value of flu shots.
If one wants to take the flu shots I think they should because if doing so brings some peace of mind then it could be of net medical value. It seems most medical conditions may be triggered first from a mental state over time.
Citation needed. Or share your personal story how your own medical condition was caused by your personal mental state.
4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Still waiting for that study out of England showing that Vit D protects better than the flu shot.
Great posts, but also I'm wondering where it was made law that one can only take Vit D OR get a flu shot. I take Vit D in the winter, and no one told me I was doing that instead of the flu shot and therefore cannot get one.
This Vit D distraction is 100% irrelevant to the thread.
The major distraction no one has posted medical proof that getting the flu shot is of any net medical value.
In the USA access to Vitamin D3 is not under the control of our government. While there is evidence Vitamin D3 can be of value for many medical conditions its main use seems to prevent our bones from thinning and breaking as we age.
I'm not sure what you've been reading for the past 32 pages but a lot of people have posted this, and multiple people have asserted that you've just ignored it.
Notice I said "any net medical value". I am still looking to find a study that does prove the net value of flu shots.
If one wants to take the flu shots I think they should because if doing so brings some peace of mind then it could be of net medical value. It seems most medical conditions may be triggered first from a mental state over time.
Citation needed. Or share your personal story how your own medical condition was caused by your personal mental state.
no no no. the real cause of medical conditions is thetans. everybody knows that.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Still waiting for that study out of England showing that Vit D protects better than the flu shot.
Great posts, but also I'm wondering where it was made law that one can only take Vit D OR get a flu shot. I take Vit D in the winter, and no one told me I was doing that instead of the flu shot and therefore cannot get one.
This Vit D distraction is 100% irrelevant to the thread.
The major distraction no one has posted medical proof that getting the flu shot is of any net medical value.
In the USA access to Vitamin D3 is not under the control of our government. While there is evidence Vitamin D3 can be of value for many medical conditions its main use seems to prevent our bones from thinning and breaking as we age.
I'm not sure what you've been reading for the past 32 pages but a lot of people have posted this, and multiple people have asserted that you've just ignored it.
Notice I said "any net medical value". I am still looking to find a study that does prove the net value of flu shots.
If one wants to take the flu shots I think they should because if doing so brings some peace of mind then it could be of net medical value. It seems most medical conditions may be triggered first from a mental state over time.
Citation needed. Or share your personal story how your own medical condition was caused by your personal mental state.
This is such a vague claim that it's impossible to verify. That's the "advantage" of it. You can never disprove that your medical condition wasn't caused by some "mental state." If anyone says anything to the contrary, Gale can just insist that they're lying or they don't know their own mind.
3 -
Logical fallacy time again, argument from ignorance. There were studies posted you just choose to ignore them. Continuing to deny them makes you look more and more foolish.GaleHawkins wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Still waiting for that study out of England showing that Vit D protects better than the flu shot.
Great posts, but also I'm wondering where it was made law that one can only take Vit D OR get a flu shot. I take Vit D in the winter, and no one told me I was doing that instead of the flu shot and therefore cannot get one.
This Vit D distraction is 100% irrelevant to the thread.
The major distraction no one has posted medical proof that getting the flu shot is of any net medical value.
In the USA access to Vitamin D3 is not under the control of our government. While there is evidence Vitamin D3 can be of value for many medical conditions its main use seems to prevent our bones from thinning and breaking as we age.
I'm not sure what you've been reading for the past 32 pages but a lot of people have posted this, and multiple people have asserted that you've just ignored it.
Notice I said "any net medical value". I am still looking to find a study that does prove the net value of flu shots.
I doesn't just bring some piece of mind, it can prevent serious illness and death.If one wants to take the flu shots I think they should because if doing so brings some peace of mind then it could be of net medical value.
What are talking about? You're going to have to provide some serious proof for this steaming pile of horse excrement.It seems most medical conditions may be triggered first from a mental state over time.
I am flabbergasted by the fact that you can claim to have some sort of advanced medical training. Over and over you make the most absurd and laughable assertions without any evidence and when pressed for evidence... crickets. You do realize that you have zero credibility and that you're pretty much considered a joke on these forums?
7 -
nope, sorry, not buying it.
The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.
Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.
^^ This is exactly right. We do live in a very interconnected planet.
Many historians believe this is how the deadly 1918 flu that killed 50 million people traveled around the world. Some articles came out a few years ago that said the epidemic likely began with infected workers in China who were hired and shipped on boats around the world to places like Europe -- because many of the local people had joined the military to fight in WWI and factories etc. were left without workers. These ships of infected, hired Chinese workers spread the flu from country to country.
Here's one article about it out of many: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140123-spanish-flu-1918-china-origins-pandemic-science-health/
2 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.
Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?
nope, sorry, not buying it.
The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.
Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.
Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.
Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?
I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.
There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.
Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.
And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.
Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.
Bold - so have I. I'm not against vaccines, just don't see the point in getting ones that aren't recommended for me in the situation I'm in (which includes the general health guidance in my country and travel advice). I would have to pay for it regardless of income because it isn't recommended for me. Saying there is no reason not to get one is not the same as a reason to get one.
Glad you don't care about convincing anyone, but not sure why you're so keen on continuing to post "get your shots" unless you want me to do that! I'm not after warm fuzzy terms, I'm after a little bit of thought rather than blind "everyone must do this because it is the situation where I am/for me/in my country". I could probably do a fair job of explaining the colour of the sky myself, thanks...
Italic - I'm not anti science, anti vaccine or anti anything else. I follow my doctors' advice - NOT random strangers on the internet. I think that's a pretty good position to encourage. Why should I listen to you more than my country's health service? Do you really want to encourage people to do otherwise!?2 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.
Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?
nope, sorry, not buying it.
The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.
Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.
Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.
Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?
I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.
There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.
Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.
And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.
Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.
Bold - so have I. I'm not against vaccines, just don't see the point in getting ones that aren't recommended for me in the situation I'm in (which includes the general health guidance in my country and travel advice). I would have to pay for it regardless of income because it isn't recommended for me. Saying there is no reason not to get one is not the same as a reason to get one.
Glad you don't care about convincing anyone, but not sure why you're so keen on continuing to post "get your shots" unless you want me to do that! I'm not after warm fuzzy terms, I'm after a little bit of thought rather than blind "everyone must do this because it is the situation where I am/for me/in my country". I could probably do a fair job of explaining the colour of the sky myself, thanks...
Italic - I'm not anti science, anti vaccine or anti anything else. I follow my doctors' advice - NOT random strangers on the internet. I think that's a pretty good position to encourage. Why should I listen to you more than my country's health service? Do you really want to encourage people to do otherwise!?
you make it seem like your doctor told you not to get a flu shot. Is this true? Did they give a reason? Maybe I missed a post by you. I've never had a doctor not recommend a flu shot every year.1 -
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Still waiting for that study out of England showing that Vit D protects better than the flu shot.
Great posts, but also I'm wondering where it was made law that one can only take Vit D OR get a flu shot. I take Vit D in the winter, and no one told me I was doing that instead of the flu shot and therefore cannot get one.
This Vit D distraction is 100% irrelevant to the thread.
The major distraction no one has posted medical proof that getting the flu shot is of any net medical value.
In the USA access to Vitamin D3 is not under the control of our government. While there is evidence Vitamin D3 can be of value for many medical conditions its main use seems to prevent our bones from thinning and breaking as we age.
I'm not sure what you've been reading for the past 32 pages but a lot of people have posted this, and multiple people have asserted that you've just ignored it.
Notice I said "any net medical value". I am still looking to find a study that does prove the net value of flu shots.
If one wants to take the flu shots I think they should because if doing so brings some peace of mind then it could be of net medical value. It seems most medical conditions may be triggered first from a mental state over time.
Okay great, so you're for flu shots.
End of discussion.
Why do you say that when you and others that have been reading my posts for three years knows it is not true?
I am for FREE WILL for mankind and against cyber bulling geared to limikt the FREE WILL of mankind.
Having just picked up a 2010 Subaru Forster that I am currently detailing for a daily driver I ran across an ad that comment that said the new Ford Escape is better than the new Subaru it the same class. It naturally caught my attention UNTIL I saw Ford Motor Co paid for the research.
If I find solid evidence from indepent sources that the risk reward ratio of the flu shots are positive I will revisit my personal decision not to get the flu shot. Strangely yesterday getting a free flu shot was not offered by the staff or MD at my annual health exam. That was a first. In the past there had been some bullying going on. As more people become aware of the nature of the evidence I guess we are seeing policy changes. The MD did spend an hour with me and most of the time was spend going step by step over my annual lab results highs and lows and the graphs of the past 5 years of results. I may be protected from the flu this winter since my Vit D came in at 155 ng. I will let that work back down into the 60-80 ng range. I do not expect taking Vit D3 offers more protection against the flu unless one is under that range.
5 -
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.
Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?
nope, sorry, not buying it.
The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.
Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.
Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.
Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?
I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.
There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.
Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.
And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.
Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.
Bold - so have I. I'm not against vaccines, just don't see the point in getting ones that aren't recommended for me in the situation I'm in (which includes the general health guidance in my country and travel advice). I would have to pay for it regardless of income because it isn't recommended for me. Saying there is no reason not to get one is not the same as a reason to get one.
Glad you don't care about convincing anyone, but not sure why you're so keen on continuing to post "get your shots" unless you want me to do that! I'm not after warm fuzzy terms, I'm after a little bit of thought rather than blind "everyone must do this because it is the situation where I am/for me/in my country". I could probably do a fair job of explaining the colour of the sky myself, thanks...
Italic - I'm not anti science, anti vaccine or anti anything else. I follow my doctors' advice - NOT random strangers on the internet. I think that's a pretty good position to encourage. Why should I listen to you more than my country's health service? Do you really want to encourage people to do otherwise!?
What country do you live in?
I'm wondering what government wouldn't recommend getting a flu vaccine?
Someone posted upthread, before someone hijacked it to evangelize about their latest miracle cure, that in their country the flu is not as much of a problem, and his doctor confirmed it is only recommended there for people over 65 or those who have a compromised immune system. I don't remember which country though.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Still waiting for that study out of England showing that Vit D protects better than the flu shot.
Great posts, but also I'm wondering where it was made law that one can only take Vit D OR get a flu shot. I take Vit D in the winter, and no one told me I was doing that instead of the flu shot and therefore cannot get one.
This Vit D distraction is 100% irrelevant to the thread.
The major distraction no one has posted medical proof that getting the flu shot is of any net medical value.
In the USA access to Vitamin D3 is not under the control of our government. While there is evidence Vitamin D3 can be of value for many medical conditions its main use seems to prevent our bones from thinning and breaking as we age.
I'm not sure what you've been reading for the past 32 pages but a lot of people have posted this, and multiple people have asserted that you've just ignored it.
Notice I said "any net medical value". I am still looking to find a study that does prove the net value of flu shots.
If one wants to take the flu shots I think they should because if doing so brings some peace of mind then it could be of net medical value. It seems most medical conditions may be triggered first from a mental state over time.
Citation needed. Or share your personal story how your own medical condition was caused by your personal mental state.
This is such a vague claim that it's impossible to verify. That's the "advantage" of it. You can never disprove that your medical condition wasn't caused by some "mental state." If anyone says anything to the contrary, Gale can just insist that they're lying or they don't know their own mind.
Oh, of course.
But seeing as Gale has a medical condition himself (ankylosing spondylitis), he has the opportunity to illustrate just how this theory of his worked in his case. And he can show his proof that way.
I figure if he's going to assert this horse manure for everyone else, he can lead the way by showing us all how it worked in his case.3 -
We also know that pretty much everything you say is not true as you are very dishonest.GaleHawkins wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Still waiting for that study out of England showing that Vit D protects better than the flu shot.
Great posts, but also I'm wondering where it was made law that one can only take Vit D OR get a flu shot. I take Vit D in the winter, and no one told me I was doing that instead of the flu shot and therefore cannot get one.
This Vit D distraction is 100% irrelevant to the thread.
The major distraction no one has posted medical proof that getting the flu shot is of any net medical value.
In the USA access to Vitamin D3 is not under the control of our government. While there is evidence Vitamin D3 can be of value for many medical conditions its main use seems to prevent our bones from thinning and breaking as we age.
I'm not sure what you've been reading for the past 32 pages but a lot of people have posted this, and multiple people have asserted that you've just ignored it.
Notice I said "any net medical value". I am still looking to find a study that does prove the net value of flu shots.
If one wants to take the flu shots I think they should because if doing so brings some peace of mind then it could be of net medical value. It seems most medical conditions may be triggered first from a mental state over time.
Okay great, so you're for flu shots.
End of discussion.
Why do you say that when you and others that have been reading my posts for three years knows it is not true?
Logical fallacy, red herring.I am for FREE WILL for mankind and against cyber bulling geared to limikt the FREE WILL of mankind.
Logical fallacy, shill Gambit.Having just picked up a 2010 Subaru Forster that I am currently detailing for a daily driver I ran across an ad that comment that said the new Ford Escape is better than the new Subaru it the same class. It naturally caught my attention UNTIL I saw Ford Motor Co paid for the research.
We all know this is completely false, you're a true believer, no amount of evidence will change your mind, it would be too uncomfortable to admit that your wrong. Which you are by the way.If I find solid evidence from indepent sources that the risk reward ratio of the flu shots are positive I will revisit my personal decision not to get the flu shot
Here's another study showing the effectiveness of the flu vaccine:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19776407
I don't know why I waste my time, your going to hand wave it away and because it doesn't agree with your fixed narrative.
Logical fallacy, Argument by anecdote. Base on your history this could be completely made up.Strangely yesterday getting a free flu shot was not offered by the staff or MD at my annual health exam. That was a first. In the past there had been some bullying going on. As more people become aware of the nature of the evidence I guess we are seeing policy changes. The MD did spend an hour with me and most of the time was spend going step by step over my annual lab results highs and lows and the graphs of the past 5 years of results.
To the bolded:
Wrong, the evidence is clear, the flu shot is effective. So no policy changes. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, which I'm sure you can easily provide, correct?
Nope, Vit d doesn't protect against the flu. You were given multiple opportunities to show that and you failed. Again, when you are as dishonest as you it's very hard to back up what you say.I may be protected from the flu this winter since my Vit D came in at 155 ng. I will let that work back down into the 60-80 ng range. I do not expect taking Vit D3 offers more protection against the flu unless one is under that range.
I'm still waiting for proof that MDs dont support flu vaccines
And waiting for evidence that most medical conditions may be triggered first from a mental state over time.
Or you could try to gain back a little credibility by admitting that you lied about the above.
6 -
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.
Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?
nope, sorry, not buying it.
The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.
Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.
Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.
Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?
I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.
There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.
Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.
And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.
Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.
Bold - so have I. I'm not against vaccines, just don't see the point in getting ones that aren't recommended for me in the situation I'm in (which includes the general health guidance in my country and travel advice). I would have to pay for it regardless of income because it isn't recommended for me. Saying there is no reason not to get one is not the same as a reason to get one.
Glad you don't care about convincing anyone, but not sure why you're so keen on continuing to post "get your shots" unless you want me to do that! I'm not after warm fuzzy terms, I'm after a little bit of thought rather than blind "everyone must do this because it is the situation where I am/for me/in my country". I could probably do a fair job of explaining the colour of the sky myself, thanks...
Italic - I'm not anti science, anti vaccine or anti anything else. I follow my doctors' advice - NOT random strangers on the internet. I think that's a pretty good position to encourage. Why should I listen to you more than my country's health service? Do you really want to encourage people to do otherwise!?
What country do you live in?
I'm wondering what government wouldn't recommend getting a flu vaccine?
Someone posted upthread, before someone hijacked it to evangelize about their latest miracle cure, that in their country the flu is not as much of a problem, and his doctor confirmed it is only recommended there for people over 65 or those who have a compromised immune system. I don't remember which country though.
This is the case where I am in the UK. I've just checked and that also tallies with the WHO advice - it's recommended for certain groups at higher risk.
I know it would do no harm (bar the cost/time, which might not be trivial given insurance wouldn't cover it) but I do think it's dangerous to start folk down the path of listening more to stuff on the internet than their own medical professionals. This is harmless - the next thing might not be! I'm quite concerned in general about a decrease in trust of experts amongst the general public. It's not possible for anyone to weigh up the risk/benefits of everything that they do, so it's vital that we have people to make recommendations for complicated things and that we trust them.3 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.
Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?
nope, sorry, not buying it.
The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.
Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.
Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.
Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?
I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.
There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.
Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.
And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.
Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.
Bold - so have I. I'm not against vaccines, just don't see the point in getting ones that aren't recommended for me in the situation I'm in (which includes the general health guidance in my country and travel advice). I would have to pay for it regardless of income because it isn't recommended for me. Saying there is no reason not to get one is not the same as a reason to get one.
Glad you don't care about convincing anyone, but not sure why you're so keen on continuing to post "get your shots" unless you want me to do that! I'm not after warm fuzzy terms, I'm after a little bit of thought rather than blind "everyone must do this because it is the situation where I am/for me/in my country". I could probably do a fair job of explaining the colour of the sky myself, thanks...
Italic - I'm not anti science, anti vaccine or anti anything else. I follow my doctors' advice - NOT random strangers on the internet. I think that's a pretty good position to encourage. Why should I listen to you more than my country's health service? Do you really want to encourage people to do otherwise!?
What country do you live in?
I'm wondering what government wouldn't recommend getting a flu vaccine?
Someone posted upthread, before someone hijacked it to evangelize about their latest miracle cure, that in their country the flu is not as much of a problem, and his doctor confirmed it is only recommended there for people over 65 or those who have a compromised immune system. I don't remember which country though.
This is the case where I am in the UK. I've just checked and that also tallies with the WHO advice - it's recommended for certain groups at higher risk.
I know it would do no harm (bar the cost/time, which might not be trivial given insurance wouldn't cover it) but I do think it's dangerous to start folk down the path of listening more to stuff on the internet than their own medical professionals. This is harmless - the next thing might not be! I'm quite concerned in general about a decrease in trust of experts amongst the general public. It's not possible for anyone to weigh up the risk/benefits of everything that they do, so it's vital that we have people to make recommendations for complicated things and that we trust them.
As I mentioned before, the UK has the highest death rate from flu in Europe. It's not that flu is rare there, it's that your health service is not taking care of people. Death is often a good indication that medical professionals might be mistaken.10 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.
Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?
nope, sorry, not buying it.
The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.
Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.
Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.
Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?
I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.
There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.
Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.
And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.
Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.
Bold - so have I. I'm not against vaccines, just don't see the point in getting ones that aren't recommended for me in the situation I'm in (which includes the general health guidance in my country and travel advice). I would have to pay for it regardless of income because it isn't recommended for me. Saying there is no reason not to get one is not the same as a reason to get one.
Glad you don't care about convincing anyone, but not sure why you're so keen on continuing to post "get your shots" unless you want me to do that! I'm not after warm fuzzy terms, I'm after a little bit of thought rather than blind "everyone must do this because it is the situation where I am/for me/in my country". I could probably do a fair job of explaining the colour of the sky myself, thanks...
Italic - I'm not anti science, anti vaccine or anti anything else. I follow my doctors' advice - NOT random strangers on the internet. I think that's a pretty good position to encourage. Why should I listen to you more than my country's health service? Do you really want to encourage people to do otherwise!?
What country do you live in?
I'm wondering what government wouldn't recommend getting a flu vaccine?
Someone posted upthread, before someone hijacked it to evangelize about their latest miracle cure, that in their country the flu is not as much of a problem, and his doctor confirmed it is only recommended there for people over 65 or those who have a compromised immune system. I don't remember which country though.
This is the case where I am in the UK. I've just checked and that also tallies with the WHO advice - it's recommended for certain groups at higher risk.
I know it would do no harm (bar the cost/time, which might not be trivial given insurance wouldn't cover it) but I do think it's dangerous to start folk down the path of listening more to stuff on the internet than their own medical professionals. This is harmless - the next thing might not be! I'm quite concerned in general about a decrease in trust of experts amongst the general public. It's not possible for anyone to weigh up the risk/benefits of everything that they do, so it's vital that we have people to make recommendations for complicated things and that we trust them.
Even if they are making recommendations for complicated things using what they learned 30 years ago only?3 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.
Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?
nope, sorry, not buying it.
The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.
Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.
Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.
Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?
I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.
There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.
Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.
And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.
Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.
Bold - so have I. I'm not against vaccines, just don't see the point in getting ones that aren't recommended for me in the situation I'm in (which includes the general health guidance in my country and travel advice). I would have to pay for it regardless of income because it isn't recommended for me. Saying there is no reason not to get one is not the same as a reason to get one.
Glad you don't care about convincing anyone, but not sure why you're so keen on continuing to post "get your shots" unless you want me to do that! I'm not after warm fuzzy terms, I'm after a little bit of thought rather than blind "everyone must do this because it is the situation where I am/for me/in my country". I could probably do a fair job of explaining the colour of the sky myself, thanks...
Italic - I'm not anti science, anti vaccine or anti anything else. I follow my doctors' advice - NOT random strangers on the internet. I think that's a pretty good position to encourage. Why should I listen to you more than my country's health service? Do you really want to encourage people to do otherwise!?
What country do you live in?
I'm wondering what government wouldn't recommend getting a flu vaccine?
Someone posted upthread, before someone hijacked it to evangelize about their latest miracle cure, that in their country the flu is not as much of a problem, and his doctor confirmed it is only recommended there for people over 65 or those who have a compromised immune system. I don't remember which country though.
This is the case where I am in the UK. I've just checked and that also tallies with the WHO advice - it's recommended for certain groups at higher risk.
I know it would do no harm (bar the cost/time, which might not be trivial given insurance wouldn't cover it) but I do think it's dangerous to start folk down the path of listening more to stuff on the internet than their own medical professionals. This is harmless - the next thing might not be! I'm quite concerned in general about a decrease in trust of experts amongst the general public. It's not possible for anyone to weigh up the risk/benefits of everything that they do, so it's vital that we have people to make recommendations for complicated things and that we trust them.
As I mentioned before, the UK has the highest death rate from flu in Europe. It's not that flu is rare there, it's that your health service is not taking care of people. Death is often a good indication that medical professionals might be mistaken.
headshot6 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.
Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?
nope, sorry, not buying it.
The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.
Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.
Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.
Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?
I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.
There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.
Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.
And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.
Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.
Bold - so have I. I'm not against vaccines, just don't see the point in getting ones that aren't recommended for me in the situation I'm in (which includes the general health guidance in my country and travel advice). I would have to pay for it regardless of income because it isn't recommended for me. Saying there is no reason not to get one is not the same as a reason to get one.
Glad you don't care about convincing anyone, but not sure why you're so keen on continuing to post "get your shots" unless you want me to do that! I'm not after warm fuzzy terms, I'm after a little bit of thought rather than blind "everyone must do this because it is the situation where I am/for me/in my country". I could probably do a fair job of explaining the colour of the sky myself, thanks...
Italic - I'm not anti science, anti vaccine or anti anything else. I follow my doctors' advice - NOT random strangers on the internet. I think that's a pretty good position to encourage. Why should I listen to you more than my country's health service? Do you really want to encourage people to do otherwise!?
What country do you live in?
I'm wondering what government wouldn't recommend getting a flu vaccine?
Someone posted upthread, before someone hijacked it to evangelize about their latest miracle cure, that in their country the flu is not as much of a problem, and his doctor confirmed it is only recommended there for people over 65 or those who have a compromised immune system. I don't remember which country though.
This is the case where I am in the UK. I've just checked and that also tallies with the WHO advice - it's recommended for certain groups at higher risk.
I know it would do no harm (bar the cost/time, which might not be trivial given insurance wouldn't cover it) but I do think it's dangerous to start folk down the path of listening more to stuff on the internet than their own medical professionals. This is harmless - the next thing might not be! I'm quite concerned in general about a decrease in trust of experts amongst the general public. It's not possible for anyone to weigh up the risk/benefits of everything that they do, so it's vital that we have people to make recommendations for complicated things and that we trust them.
As I mentioned before, the UK has the highest death rate from flu in Europe. It's not that flu is rare there, it's that your health service is not taking care of people. Death is often a good indication that medical professionals might be mistaken.
No. A higher death rate from flu in the UK than Europe doesn't imply that the NHS "isn't taking care of people". It might, but that isn't enough evidence - it's more complicated than that. I can think of a few factors outside the control of the NHS that could be a reason - for instance, we might have a higher proportion of at risk population than other countries, our weather might be a factor in increasing complications. Factors that might or might not be the fault of the NHS could include the general health of our population (but that is also kind of the responsibility of the population too...) and poor uptake of the vaccine in at risk groups (I found a few figures around 40% to 70% for various at risk groups). Most likely it's a combination of all these things and a lot more! Even if the NHS is at fault, a focus on increasing vaccine uptake among the at risk groups might easily prove to be more beneficial than trying to vaccinate everyone.
It isn't straightforward. This is why we need people who can deal with the complexities to spend a lot of time analysing data to figure out the best way forward.4 -
Controversial opinion warning:
As someone with an impaired immune system, those who don't protect themselves aren't just risking their own health, they're putting people like me (also infants and elderly) at risk. Usually because of something like "well, my cousin Sheila read this article saying someone in Detroit got sick from getting a flu shot, so I'm not going to get them anymore"; Excuse my language but f*** your cousin Sheila - your cousin Sheila's a God d*** b**** (apologies to anyone who has a cousin named Sheila).
- If you're allergic to something in the chemical compound, ask your doctor about alternatives (there are oral immune boosters, though less effective).
- If you worry about getting sick from the shot, there's actually not really enough substantial scientific basis for that concern.
- If you had an adverse reaction to a shot before, that's actually completely normal! Most shots introduce dead cells of the illness and live cells with the cure into your body, so your reaction is your body learning to fight the illness (though the 'fight' is fixed), which increases your body's knowledge of how to protect itself if it encounters that type of illness again.
Please know that I'm NOT condemning anyone, you absolutely have a right to make choices about your own body (even is the US government doesn't think so, but I digress). I just want to remind you that we at higher risk of illness ALSO have a right to be healthy. So PLEASE be courteous and don't spend time around people with impaired immune systems, children, or elderly if you haven't had flu (or especially vaccine) shots. We appreciate that sort of consideration.
Remember: unless you're already a health care professional, then always consult with your doctor in order to make choices that are best for you (they spend 6-10 years studying for their Masters/PhD for a reason).
I don't apologize if this offends anyone; my opinion has been formed after spending years sick in and out of hospital, prompting me to study health care, results of research test groups, and scientific developments in medicine (and research forwarded to me by my brother who is pre-med with a masters in science), HOWEVER I'm always open to respectful debate - especially if someone has new knowledge to share with me.11 -
Angel49kitty wrote: »
don't spend time around people with impaired immune systems, children, or elderly if you haven't had flu (or especially vaccine) shots.
The thing is, who can tell if someone has an impaired immune system? I have no idea if my neighbours or people in the street/shop/library have impaired immune systems. I'm immunosuppressed but you can't tell by looking at me. I don't go around waving a flag shouting out that my immune system is compromised. The only people who know this about me are my immediate family, my GP and my consultant. I don't go around telling people as it's none of their business and why would they want to know, anyway. The only people who care about it are my family and I.
I can't say that I worry overly about exposure to bugs; if I'm going to catch something then I'm going to catch it. That's life, unfortunately. I don't avoid seeing people just in case, or even if they do have a virus. However, I do avoid visiting my parents if my children or I have a virus as they are old and they don't need an extra illness to cope with on top of what they are already dealing with.
As far as the flu jab goes though, I have it, my three older children have it because of my immunosuppression (their choice, I hasten to add), my husband has a health condition that puts him at greater risk therefore he has the flu jab, and my youngest has it as she's in the age group that's currently regarded (in England) as being at higher risk. My parents have it because they are old, therefore at higher risk.1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.
Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?
nope, sorry, not buying it.
The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.
Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.
Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.
Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?
I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.
There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.
Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.
And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.
Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.
Bold - so have I. I'm not against vaccines, just don't see the point in getting ones that aren't recommended for me in the situation I'm in (which includes the general health guidance in my country and travel advice). I would have to pay for it regardless of income because it isn't recommended for me. Saying there is no reason not to get one is not the same as a reason to get one.
Glad you don't care about convincing anyone, but not sure why you're so keen on continuing to post "get your shots" unless you want me to do that! I'm not after warm fuzzy terms, I'm after a little bit of thought rather than blind "everyone must do this because it is the situation where I am/for me/in my country". I could probably do a fair job of explaining the colour of the sky myself, thanks...
Italic - I'm not anti science, anti vaccine or anti anything else. I follow my doctors' advice - NOT random strangers on the internet. I think that's a pretty good position to encourage. Why should I listen to you more than my country's health service? Do you really want to encourage people to do otherwise!?
What country do you live in?
I'm wondering what government wouldn't recommend getting a flu vaccine?
Someone posted upthread, before someone hijacked it to evangelize about their latest miracle cure, that in their country the flu is not as much of a problem, and his doctor confirmed it is only recommended there for people over 65 or those who have a compromised immune system. I don't remember which country though.
This is the case where I am in the UK. I've just checked and that also tallies with the WHO advice - it's recommended for certain groups at higher risk.
I know it would do no harm (bar the cost/time, which might not be trivial given insurance wouldn't cover it) but I do think it's dangerous to start folk down the path of listening more to stuff on the internet than their own medical professionals. This is harmless - the next thing might not be! I'm quite concerned in general about a decrease in trust of experts amongst the general public. It's not possible for anyone to weigh up the risk/benefits of everything that they do, so it's vital that we have people to make recommendations for complicated things and that we trust them.
As I mentioned before, the UK has the highest death rate from flu in Europe. It's not that flu is rare there, it's that your health service is not taking care of people. Death is often a good indication that medical professionals might be mistaken.
Actually, the NHS is not tracking deaths from flu. They are estimating them using same process as the CDC. This process is based on simply counting up extra deaths that happen during "flu season" without actually looking at death certificates or anything. There is NO actual tally of flu deaths. They don't even know if the flu vaccine has reduced deaths from flu in the UK or the US.2 -
I posted on this ages ago with lots of references. Basically, I am pro vaccination but I assess each vaccine on its own merits. It is not logical to assume all vaccines are effective or to assume they are all ineffective. The flu vaccine is a shot in the dark. There are over a million flu viruses out there and they continue to mutate rapidly. The flu vaccine is at most effective against four strains. A Canadian study done during the swine flu pandemic showed that those who were unvaccinated with the annual flu shot were LESS likely to catch this new flu strain, than were those who had had the annual flu jab. This caused the recognition that the flu jab has a negative immunity cost to it towards all those strains not in the vaccine ( the other 999,996). Obviously the vaccine protects against the strains it vaccinated against...but not completely because it often mutates between the time they produce the flu jab and the actual flu season, hence the infrequent deaths of people dying from the very strain they were supposedly vaccinated against.
The CDC and NHS are not actually tracking flu hospitalisations and deaths. I posted some links on this as well earlier up the thread. It is all estimates based on general information...like everyone that died of respiratory failure. They don't even know for sure that flu deaths have decreased since the vaccine was introduced...again it's just estimates.
To everyone whinging on about immunity and immune compromised individuals...I'm one of them and I'm fine with it. Yep I have chronic bronchitis and asthma and have had the flu before. Don't feel guilted into getting the jab on my account. Please
To all those whining about herd immunity and me passing the flu to them...if you've had your jab, then I can't pass those flu strains on to you can I? If you think I can, then that means the flu jab isn't working, which according to you it works like a charm. If you truly believe the flu jab works great, then you're immune to the flu and can't catch any of the strains you've vaccinated against from me. If you do catch a flu virus from me, then it wasn't one you were vaccinated against and you would have caught it anyway.7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions