Well I believe the "guessing" part is accurate. There are many strains of influenza, and each year it differs of which one is the one to be spread. My sister went to college for some nursing degree or something like that and thats what they told her about the flu vaccine. Only instead of 5 strains that they picked 3.. this was quite a few years ago so maybe it has changed since.
The only flu shots I got were when I was young enough for my parents to tell me I had too, and guess what... most those years I ended up getting the flu. Now I don't get the shot and I still haven't gotten it (knock on wood). I try to keep my immune system strong and try to live healthy, and so far it seems to be working better than the flu shot ever did for me before.
Also found this on the vaccine.gov 's website.
Quote:
What does the 2012-2013 flu vaccine protect against?
Flu vaccines are designed to protect against three flu viruses that experts predict will be the most common during the upcoming season. Each year, one flu virus of each kind is used to produce the seasonal flu vaccine.
so yes he was wrong in a sense, he said they use 5 when they say they use 3. I didn't really take much time to read the rest of his article
Last edited by pbf98; January 15th, 2013 at 08:09 AM.
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Yeah, he's wrong about the 5, but that's the least harmful of what he says. His other statements that are wrong:
Quote:
The vaccine, he pointed out, contains formaldehyde and thimerosal – an organic compound containing mercury, which impairs the neurological and immune systems – along with detergents, antibiotics and allergens that cause infertility.
Statement is completely false. No empirical evidence at all linking vaccines with any of those things. Then he goes on further to say:
Quote:
But when you’re older and you get ALS or Alzheimer’s disease or MS, or you watch your kid develop seizures, or your kid becomes autistic, God forbid, what are you going to say?”
The relationship between the vaccine and any one person acquiring these diseases can’t be known for certain. But why increase the chances of inducing such illnesses in yourself and your children?”
This argument is completely bogus. There is no link between vaccines and alzheimers and the argument linking vaccines and autism has been thoroughly and completely dis-proven.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to A.Nonymous For This Useful Post:
All I need to do is just consider the source: some guy with a website and an obvious bias. His claims are no more trustworthy than those of any given person looking to profit from telling tall tales.
The medical doctors who I know and trust, and even my own personal experience says that getting a flu shot is a good idea. So far nothing credible says anything different. It's common sense.
I’ve never had a flu shot but have gotten no end of grief from people like my ma. There’s something suspicious to me about anything that causes such a herd mentality.
I've never had a flu shot, just out of laziness, but this guy is scaring people from doing something that saves lives, all for some ridiculous conspiracy theory and irrational distrust of the government. Tin foil hat alert!
The Following User Says Thank You to Gmash For This Useful Post:
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja
Ah yes, who do I trust, the government, or a blogger with a history and deliberate and harmful misinformation.
At least when a democratic government misinforms its usually because they think its for the best. These guys are just sociopaths through and through.
Fortunately we live in an Internet age where we don't have to choose who we believe. We just have to fire up the Internets and see who's actually telling the truth.
Scaned his article. He got one thing right: don't trust the government. However its not government who determines which flu virus will hit us, its scientist and it is a shot in the dark. It is no different then rolling dice and trying to guess what number comes up, thats as good as it gets.
Now about the shot and falsehoods people hear and believe. You do not get a live virus from the shot so they do not give you the flu. Think about it that would be kind of crazy. In the 60's they did and it caused a lot of problems but they learned over the years how to avoid that.
Now the other falsehood, if you get the shot you will not feel any effects. That is bull too. Some people do not. I get a very mild reaction for some reason and it can last up to 24 hours. It says on the shot information this is normal, its not the flu. And its not something that puts me sick in bed or not able to work.
Do yourself a favor and get the shot annually to prevent the worse case scenario. More and more people are dying from not getting the shot and having no protection. I haven't had the flu in 20 years or more, just those mild symptoms I mentioned is all.
The Following User Says Thank You to Imfubared For This Useful Post:
That claim applies to both sides, pro- and anti-flushot.
Err .. one side has centuries (first vaccine was used in 1774) of scientific evidence backing it up, the other has the rantings of some nut job so no, the claim does NOT apply to both sides.
Not even close.
Same thing applies to global warming, the moon landings, Kennedy, alien visits etc etc etc. Take your tin hat off and join the real world.
The other would be that drug company that put out the tainted steroids. How do we know which companies are on the up and up?
Why would they not be on the up and up given that if they are not the feds will drop on them like a ton of bricks not to mention the class action suit and individual suits they would face? Not being on the up and up pretty much ensures that they will be bankrupt and likely in jail.
Last edited by A.Nonymous; January 23rd, 2013 at 07:23 AM.
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey
You should dispute it. A virus is indeed a living organism.
I've heard some argue that it isn't because it doesn't appear to be capable of independent thought and is therefore not "alive". Viruses do self-replicate and adapt to their environments as best they can so to me they are alive.
I've heard some argue that it isn't because it doesn't appear to be capable of independent thought and is therefore not "alive". Viruses do self-replicate and adapt to their environments as best they can so to me they are alive.
Organisms do not need to be capable of independent thought to be alive. Forget those that argue the point because they do not know much. A virus is a living organism, period.
Do yourself a favor and get the shot annually to prevent the worse case scenario. More and more people are dying from not getting the shot and having no protection. I haven't had the flu in 20 years or more, just those mild symptoms I mentioned is all.
Or be like me, a man who to his knowledge never had anything to do with flu shots since 1973 or so. Never had the flu, just the occasional cold every three or five years.
The other would be that drug company that put out the tainted steroids. How do we know which companies are on the up and up?
A friend of mine got narcolepsy from the Swine Flu jab. Given the potential mortality rates predicted at the time, seems like a mild risk that made sense to be taken.
I dunno. I might dispute that. Depends on your definition of life I guess.
My definition is the same definition that's commonly accepted by the scientific community: function, reproduction, some kind of movement.
A blob of DNA or RNA that is totally unable to do anything, not even metabolize, without a host to provide all of the living components simply doesn't meet the definition of a living organism. It's a neat trick, but it ain't alive.
The Following User Says Thank You to Speed Daemon For This Useful Post:
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon
My definition is the same definition that's commonly accepted by the scientific community: function, reproduction, some kind of movement.
A blob of DNA or RNA that is totally unable to do anything, not even metabolize, without a host to provide all of the living components simply doesn't meet the definition of a living organism. It's a neat trick, but it ain't alive.
A virus would fill all of those categories. It has a function, it reproduces and moves on its own. To argue that it needs a host to survive is kind of silly if you ask me. Many organisms need hosts to survive. By that definition a bacterium is not a live either.
A virus would fill all of those categories. It has a function, it reproduces and moves on its own. To argue that it needs a host to survive is kind of silly if you ask me. Many organisms need hosts to survive. By that definition a bacterium is not a live either.
There is a definition of life:
Excretion, movement, growth, reproduction, reaction, some other things I forget.
A virus would fill all of those categories. It has a function, it reproduces and moves on its own. To argue that it needs a host to survive is kind of silly if you ask me. Many organisms need hosts to survive. By that definition a bacterium is not a live either.
I have better things to do, so I'll wrap this up by saying that everyone who has at least taken and passes a biology course knows what I'm talking about. You don't, and that's not my problem. This isn't a topic that you can "win" by incessant arguing.
The fact remains that the Influenza vaccine does not contain any living organisms.
Getting a flu shot is a good idea for everyone. Even someone who hasn't been sick a day in their life can be a carrier for disease that can be lethal to the young, old and infirm. I'm all for freedom of choice, but I will never understand what motivates people to be so selfish and self-serving that they will go to such extremes to avoid doing the Right Thing.
I guess I may as well jump in with my 2 cents on the vaccine
first let me say I think if someone wants to get vaccinated...... go for it....in 'most' cases it may be beneficial to you
I think those high risk candidates..... such as the elderly...... can certainly benefit from a little extra protection
for the overwhelming majority of people just practicing simple precautionary steps keeps you just as safe
just a few numbers from the CDC site for those wondering.... since I seen some discussion about the guesswork involved
number of flu shots given annually in the US: 45%-50% of population
number of flu cases annually in the US: 5%-20% of population
number of times the 3 virus types selected for use in vaccine was a total mismatch: 4 of last 22 seasons...... thats 80% accurracy..... those 4 seasons the vaccine provided little to no protection at all against the flu....... 4 out of 5 is great for dentists recommending gum... I wouldnt call that guesswork spectacular for life saving however
efficacy of the vaccine against the flu: the vaccine is about 65% effective at preventing or reducing the symptoms of the flu
those were just a few numbers I found interesting with a cursory glance at the CDC website....... they dont necessarily prove anything one way or the other..... just found them interesting.... and informative
my personal opinion...... and its simply that... my opinion....... a healthy individual who doesnt have any high risk behaviour and practices good hygiene and precautionary steps has no greater risk of contracting the flu either with or without the vaccine
however.... a person who has an elevated risk of contracting the flu could certainly see some reduced risk by getting the vaccine
being a healthy individual who is somewhat of a germophobe and takes great steps to avoid contamination..... I personally have never gotten the flu (knock on wood).... Ive never gotten a vaccine...... and I dont plan to get a vaccine until such time as my risks are elevated..... perhaps when I become part of the 'elderly' lol
I just dont see a reason for me to get vaccinated given the statistics
almost left out a part...... I also believe given the statistics..... that if a person is at high risk for contracting the flu...... the risks of side effects are minimal enough to be far outweighed by the possible prevention of death or serious illness (although according the CDC and VAERS data there are definitively known serious side effects at minimal levels)... that getting a vaccine is warranted
Yesterday it was reported on the major news channels that this year's flu vaccine has proved to be less effective than normal. That's a shame. Unfortunately because of the time it takes to produce the vaccine, doctors must make an educated guess about what they think will be the most threatening strains six months plus in the future. It's a far-from-perfect system, but it's still vastly better than just letting a preventable disease kill people without even trying to do anything about it.
I hope that a major breakthrough comes that will make the whole process a lot better one day. Preferably sooner than later. That will only come if we invest in the process though. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater just because a small number of people who are as determined as they are wrong would be a giant step back to the Dark Ages.
3Likes
Michael Savage: Don't trust feds on flu shot
