U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: Do you plan on getting the H1N1 vaccine shot?
Yes 25 23.58%
No 60 56.60%
Maybe 9 8.49%
Not Sure 12 11.32%
Voters: 106. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Old 09-16-2009, 07:04 PM
 
Location: chicagoland
1,636 posts, read 2,656,661 times
Reputation: 1042

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by haggardhouseelf View Post
Something that I find very frustrating when trying to discuss the issues of vaccines on an online forum such as this, is that we all have our suspicions and questions and skepticisms and uncertainties... doubts and fears... but it seems none of us are able to find or produce any proof or means to back up anything or prove anything as authentic or not. It's very frusterating. It's very easy to get generalized opinions, but very hard to find honest facts presented in a way that non-medical people will understand. (I've tried reading a few studies I've found online published in med journals and university research sites and it was all Greek to me!)

So maybe it boils down to gut feeling mixed with logical reasoning...

And something I was thinking while reading one of the above posts... the poster was saying that most of the medical care workers that she knew didn't get flu shots.... and she was also saying that hospitals make people sick. So I'm wondering if more health care workers were to get the shots, would less people get sick by being exposed to them at the hospitals? Maybe this is why there is so much pressure on health care workers to get the shots even though tens of thousands refuse annually to do so? (that number is from a recent article published in the chicago tribune...)

I mean... one of the main reasons doctors and health organizations push vaccines is to prevent the spread of disease and to prevent huge outbreaks... if only a small percentage of a population follows their advice and gives their bodies opportunities to create the antibodies neccesary to successfully fight off the bad bugs and therefor not catch it and spread it around further... it's not working. People at hospitals would have a better chance of not getting sick if more people were vaccinated, it seems. If you don't get vaccinated, and you get the disease... then you're also passing it around some more. If you get vaccinated, you most likely won't get it, and won't pass it around, and you've not only helped yourself but everyone who will come into contact with you or things you've touched/breathed on/etc.

I'm still undecided though... even though the trials for the swine flu might now show that the vaccine is effective in having the human body producing the antibodies within the person (within about 2 - 3 weeks, I think is what I read) so that they (hopefully) will not then get sick with the flu and pass it around to others... It still is so new that there has not been enough time to see if there are any negative health consequences from getting the shot.

The people I work with who DON'T get the flu shots DON'T get the flu. Therefore they spread it no more no less than those who have the flu shot via skin to skin contact. However, those I know are extremely clean and washing hands is a huge deal where I work.

When I said hospitals are where people get sick I meant with "super bugs" like MRSA/STAPH infections. I meant that is where already sick people go to get SICKER because their immune systems are strained already and the hospital has OTHER sick people and they spread to each other.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-16-2009, 07:40 PM
 
350 posts, read 2,044,612 times
Reputation: 460
I think instead of advocating flu shots, that masks should be advocated instead, the way hospitals are doing when they are making flu shots mandatory (employees who don't take them have to wear masks for the entire flu season). I think this is a better idea than the shots. Why not have the general public all wear masks? That way, there is no risk of adverse effects from a vaccine, and yet people are still protected.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2009, 08:00 PM
 
Location: chicagoland
1,636 posts, read 2,656,661 times
Reputation: 1042
Most masks protect the sick person from spreading the disease rather than the healthy from contracting the disease.

This flu is MILD.

This flu is NOT killing people like the seasonal and defintely NOT babies and elderly.

Death rate is a mere .007-.045% down from when this whole thing started!

"It's mildest in kids."

Expert: H1N1 death rate similar to seasonal flu - Swine flu- msnbc.com

They need to promote BREASTFEEDING ALONE OR ALONG WITH VACCINES to keep kids/babies healthy. The WHO says that 1.3 million babies die each year because they weren't breastfed.

The cdc says that babies who are formula fed have a greater risk from serious complications from the flu than breastfed infants.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2009, 11:31 PM
 
5,581 posts, read 8,292,894 times
Reputation: 5641
hey miasmommy... it would help me, and maybe others I don't know, to better understand where you're coming from if you were to back up your claims with real sources. You are so filled with passion which is great, so few people are these days. So many people are just too complacant and braindead and just do whatever the media persuades them to do. I've always appreciated your posts in the past in other areas of city-data because they've seemed so well-informed. But for some reason in this thread you're coming off as kind of militant. I do want to understand what you're saying, but personally it would help to hear more ethos and logos and way less pathos if you know what I mean? And sometimes you contradict yourself which is confusing. For example, one post you're saying you don't trust the CDC then in another post you're sourcing them to try to back-up a claim you are making. It's confusing. Or maybe I'm confusing you with someone else?

Anyway, I do enjoy reading your posts, if anything they make a person want to question things and do their own research, which is inspiring!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2009, 07:45 AM
 
Location: chicagoland
1,636 posts, read 2,656,661 times
Reputation: 1042
Quote:
Originally Posted by haggardhouseelf View Post
hey miasmommy... it would help me, and maybe others I don't know, to better understand where you're coming from if you were to back up your claims with real sources. You are so filled with passion which is great, so few people are these days. So many people are just too complacant and braindead and just do whatever the media persuades them to do. I've always appreciated your posts in the past in other areas of city-data because they've seemed so well-informed. But for some reason in this thread you're coming off as kind of militant. I do want to understand what you're saying, but personally it would help to hear more ethos and logos and way less pathos if you know what I mean? And sometimes you contradict yourself which is confusing. For example, one post you're saying you don't trust the CDC then in another post you're sourcing them to try to back-up a claim you are making. It's confusing. Or maybe I'm confusing you with someone else?

Anyway, I do enjoy reading your posts, if anything they make a person want to question things and do their own research, which is inspiring!

I provided the link in the last post.

I use the CDC because that seems to be one of the few sources some trust. If I provided any other source they would cry how it was bunk and not credible.

I'm using a sourse "They" trust.

babies die breastfed UNICEF - Nutrition - Breastfeeding could save 1.3 million infants each year


does breastfeeding protect from flu http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/infantfeeding.htm
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2009, 08:41 AM
 
Location: NJ
2,073 posts, read 5,581,912 times
Reputation: 925
I find that on this thread and other threads, it seems like we're in a court of law requiring backup info. This a forum to express opinions and thoughts. I was going to get both vaccines but when I see the controversy, I do my own research, and find it's not just on here but controversy and reluctance all over. People, lighten up. I for one appreciate the "thoughts" and feelings and do not need hard facts as some others require. If some express feelings on a subject, I find my own facts and you know what, there really isn't much. Sometimes hearsay and gut feelings are also good feedback for me. I for one did not know there was mercury or aluminum in the vaccine. If there is some evidence the vaccine(s) is/are not good to take, and there is, I'm not getting them.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2009, 09:05 AM
 
Location: somewhere
3,667 posts, read 5,314,709 times
Reputation: 2051
I don't think anyone on here wants anyone to do what they say but more to research your options, we have to be proactive in our own health, after all it is our health and noone knows each of us better than ourselves.

FWIW I do vaccinate my kids and there wasn't enough info for me to doubt the MMR. But for shots that can be a hit or miss such as the flu vaccines I tend to be alittle more cautious, it is common knowledge that they don't always get the right strain in the seasonal flu shots and people end up getting the flu even with the vaccine. If the H1N1 were to mutuate as some are predicting then how much protection would the vacccine then offer? Also some of us may have already been exposed just not getting sick or being mildly sick and not attributing it to the H1N1 strain so wouldn't we also have an immunity?

I think this calls for common sense and by all means if you are in the high risk group then it should definately not be dismissed as an option but if one is healthy I would be more prone to just take my chances. This was just a for what is was worth opinion, I am by no means advocating for or against the shot.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2009, 11:01 AM
 
5,581 posts, read 8,292,894 times
Reputation: 5641
Quote:
Originally Posted by miasmommy View Post
I provided the link in the last post.

I use the CDC because that seems to be one of the few sources some trust. If I provided any other source they would cry how it was bunk and not credible.

I'm using a sourse "They" trust.
Ah, OK. Thanks for explaining that.

The thing is, too, is that I am in total agreement with you about a lot of the things you've said here. But there were also things that seemed contradictory that I wasn't quite sure about. I also wondered if you had anything to back-up what you were saying because you seemed so dead-set on it, as if you had some facts on you. So many of the things you were saying I believe, too, but I don't have the facts to back my beliefs up. Just gut feeling or instinct. Anyway - thanks for explaining.

(And I'm a huge advocate of breastfeeding, too, and do believe that it helps immensely. I believe this from experience, having breastfed for a total of about 5 years myself, how much happier and healthier our babies can be when you give them mama's milk which is intended for them as opposed to the nasty formula crap. My babies never got sick, never had ear infections, never spit up, and also never got diaper rash. They also rarely cried - until they started teething. People would often comment about how remarkably happy our babies were. I personally believe a lot of this was because we breastfed exclusively and I was very careful with my own diet while doing so. But I think this is all probably off-topic so I'll be quiet now! )
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2009, 11:56 AM
 
3,441 posts, read 5,041,935 times
Reputation: 2319
My take is that if people want to inject themselves with substances they know nothing about simply because there "doctor" says so; fine, go right ahead and do it Mod cut: language. I mean, after all, people allow there body's to absorb cocaine, china white, Black Tar heroin, and alcohol in large/near lethal amounts so who cares (shrug's shoulders).



Where I draw the line, is if I pick up a newspaper and I'm told that shots are mandatory or I will be fined and/or thrown in jail! The US government may have a right to my straw man name but not to my living body that is completely separate from maritime law and has sovereign rights given by God.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2009, 08:17 PM
 
3,441 posts, read 5,041,935 times
Reputation: 2319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
I do put my trust in those that are far more educated in the field. For instance, I use a CPA to do my taxes - as they know more about tax laws then I do. I take my car to the Dealership for repairs - as they have a lot more training in my model car than I do and can fix it and service it far better than I can.

The same with my physic-ans. They are far more knowledgeable than I am about medicine. I while I am known to want and get, second opinions, I trust my Doctors more than I.


This is what I call "fragmented thinking" and not everybody subscribes to it, including myself. I never subscribed because learning only one form of knowledge leads to compartmentalized thinking which leaves you at the mercy of somebody else to solve (sometimes simple) problems in your life. This is not really good for YOUR survival (or your pockets) but it's great for government/corporate Americas survival.





For example, and I will use your "dealer" as an example, and my mother can bare witness to my story:


Well, a woman I know has a 50k model luxury car. The check engine light came on and she asked me about it; she said the car also had a rough idle periodically. Let me point out that I'm a autodidact and I have no degree nor am I ASE certified.


Anyway, I went online and did MY OWN research and found that her particular model has been having problems with ignition coils. I told her to take it to the dealer just to have them run a simple test which will pull up the codes to see whats wrong. They confirmed what I discovered and the dealer also told her it would cost her 400.00 dollars to replace EACH coil; she has 8, so the total bill would have been around 3200.00!


So once again, I did MY OWN research and found that I could buy the exact part the dealer would have gotten brand new for 75 bucks EACH shipped to my door, so I helped her order 8 ignition coils and put them on myself right in the street and saved her 2,600.00! Her car runs FINE now and this was about 6 months ago.


So my point is, don't be so quick to assume that government or corporations will always have YOUR best interest at heart or that you can't figure out how to solve a problem that you did not go to school for on your own.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top