Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Exactly. There is a big difference between saying a flu shot will 100% prevent one for getting the flu and say it increases you chances of prevention.
That's not what I said, and there is no implied rate of effectiveness inherent in the word "prevention". And, nobody I'm aware of has ever claimed any vaccine is 100% effective. So there is no difference whatsoever in using the phrase preventing infection (which is why people take vaccines) or the phrase that you seem to prefer "increasing chances of not being infected". None whatsoever, and you're doing nothing but playing semantical games. Happy .. Glad ... same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Well we have these things called super computer nowadays that lets us more accurately understand the intricate nature of our universe.... But I enjoy a good laugh so I'll read through the novel you got going on there.... which doesn't seem to have a single link to substantiate anything you say. But let's check it out....
Cool story. So you just assume that whenever someone dies in the hospital that nothing is documentated and they just operate on "feelings" and "intuition"? So you just assume that a margin of error isn't factored to any of the data? Or do you have some links to substantiate what you are claiming
I assume nothing ... I just explained to you how the data is collected, and the statements made are accurate. I said nothing about feelings and intuition ... so you can keep creating these imaginary straw man arguments all day long .. but it's just a lot of irrelevant posturing. If someone dies and the cause of death is listed as "pneumonia" .. that is the cause of death. That there are multiple causes of pneumonia, with pneumonia being a complication caused by some other factor is well understood ... but those deaths are not labeled as caused by bacteria type ZXY, leading to fluid build up in the lungs and respiratory failure .... it's simply classified as "pneumonia". There are exceptions of course, such as lung cancer, which the patient generally dies from pneumonia, but the cause of death may be listed as cancer, or it may not be .. it can still be labeled as pneumonia and usually is if the patient had undergone full cancer treatments, because it's better for the cancer treatment statistics. But that's another story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Links? Because they have tests to determine if you have the flu.
I can't do your homework for you. I've pointed you in the right direction and the rest is up to you. And I'm not about to play the link game, particularly as it relates to vaccines, since vaccine proponents only accept information from the very sources that are lying through their teeth, and any contradictory information or evidence is automatically dismissed ... so who's pulling who's leg here with the "Links ?" request? Try another tactic., that one won't work on me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Accurate according to who? You? Why are you more accurate than the CDC?
Well, it's not so much a case of accuracy as it is honesty. And it doesn't take much effort to be more honest than the CDC ... it's actually difficult not to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
So how do you know it was the flu? If it wasn't... that kinda rips apart your whole theory.
No, just because I was being honest about not having been clinically diagnosed with influenza virus either of those two suspected bouts with flu changes nothing. If it wasn't the flu, then my success rate for "not being infected" would simply increase from 95% to 100%. over that 40 year period. That would enhance my whole theory. Try to keep up will you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
I can't help it if the science is over your head.
And you choose to believe propganda from the anti-vaccination camp....
As for the data.... I can't make you understand it or look at it. But it is there and I'm sure you've been shown it.
I understand science very well .. and probably did so before you were born. I also know the entire debased history of the fraud called immunology and it's ugly history of causing tremendous harm, right from the beginning, with the mother of immunology, Smallpox vaccine.
Last edited by CaseyB; 01-20-2013 at 04:29 AM..
Reason: rude
I wasn't being sarcastic. What makes you think I was?
"Flu vaccines clear and present danger
According to the CDC, "The following substances are found in vaccines: aluminum,(brain toxin) antibiotics, egg protein, formaldehyde (now listed as carcinogenic), MSG or monosodium glutamate (a known neurotoxin),and thimerosal(neurotoxic mercury)."
See this is how people with no biological or biochemical background are easily duped or can easily dupe other people....
My favorite quite from Organic Chemistry was "the devil is in the dose." That is.... there are countless of toxins and radiation we are exposed to everyday but luckily the human body is very resilient. Getting a flu shot once a year will not effect the very large majority in any sort of negative way because the dose is so small and the frequency is far apart..... Nevermind that there are preservative free shots....
Unless you eat, drink, use, and/or wear everything organic/natural and heavily regulate the amount of sunlight that hits your body then you are hypocrite for not getting the shot.
No, bub, a killed virus vaccine CANNOT cause disease. That is not my opinion, it is fact.
was to this:
You've gone too far.
My response was directly addressing your comments about me not understanding "FluMist", which is the live virus vaccine, so I don't know why you're posturing ... you know darn well that we were discussing the FluMist vaccine, and not the killed virus injectable.
That's not what I said, and there is no implied rate of effectiveness inherent in the word "prevention". And, nobody I'm aware of has ever claimed any vaccine is 100% effective. So there is no difference whatsoever in using the phrase preventing infection (which is why people take vaccines) or the phrase that you seem to prefer "increasing chances of not being infected". None whatsoever, and you're doing nothing but playing semantical games. Happy .. Glad ... same thing.
Here is what you said:
Quote:
The heart of the matter (pun intended) is that there is no proof whatsoever that flu vaccines even prevent the freaking flu, let alone lead to better cardiac outcomes in vaccine recipients. Your problem (and you are not alone) is that no cockamamie story is too far fetched and absurd for you to consider reasonable. And that's not me saying this .. that's you proving this true in your rationalizations that are in fact, highly irrational.
The real truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is, that the only evidence that flu vaccines have any beneficial effect at all is in the same statistical hocus pocus used to suggest that vaccines can reduce plane crashes. If you can be convinced of the latter, the former is just a walk in the park.
That certainly implies some sort of rate of effectiveness... but whatever.
Quote:
I assume nothing ... I just explained to you how the data is collected, and the statements made are accurate. I said nothing about feelings and intuition ... so you can keep creating these imaginary straw man arguments all day long .. but it's just a lot of irrelevant posturing. If someone dies and the cause of death is listed as "pneumonia" .. that is the cause of death. That there are multiple causes of pneumonia, with pneumonia being a complication caused by some other factor is well understood ... but those deaths are not labeled as caused by bacteria type ZXY, leading to fluid build up in the lungs and respiratory failure .... it's simply classified as "pneumonia". There are exceptions of course, such as lung cancer, which the patient generally dies from pneumonia, but the cause of death may be listed as cancer, or it may not be .. it can still be labeled as pneumonia and usually is if the patient had undergone full cancer treatments, because it's better for the cancer treatment statistics. But that's another story.
I can't do your homework for you. I've pointed you in the right direction and the rest is up to you. And I'm not about to play the link game, particularly as it relates to vaccines, since vaccine proponents only accept information from the very sources that are lying through their teeth, and any contradictory information or evidence is automatically dismissed ... so who's pulling who's leg here with the "Links ?" request? Try another tactic., that one won't work on me.
Well, it's not so much a case of accuracy as it is honesty. And it doesn't take much effort to be more honest than the CDC ... it's actually difficult not to be.
No, just because I was being honest about not having been clinically diagnosed with influenza virus either of those two suspected bouts with flu changes nothing. If it wasn't the flu, then my success rate for "not being infected" would simply increase from 95% to 100%. over that 40 year period. That would enhance my whole theory. Try to keep up will you?
I understand science very well .. and probably did so before you were born. I also know the entire debased history of the fraud called immunology and it's ugly history of causing tremendous harm, right from the beginning, with the mother of immunology, Smallpox vaccine.
So..... you can't substantiate anything you claim because you can't "do my homework." Well GuyNTexas... Luckily you aren't on trial here defending your case because you have brought absolutely zero evidence to the table.
Because.... right now I'm supposed to disregard the CDC, medical institutions, and other institutions of higher learning over you and the few others on here?
It's ok if you're scared to post any links.... I would be too in your situation.
Quote:
It is evident that you, on the other hand, have no idea what you are talking about.
Let's test that theory out. In your own words, how does one's body protect itself from non-self?
See this is how people with no biological or biochemical background are easily duped or can easily dupe other people....
My favorite quite from Organic Chemistry was "the devil is in the dose." That is.... there are countless of toxins and radiation we are exposed to everyday but luckily the human body is very resilient. Getting a flu shot once a year will not effect the very large majority in any sort of negative way because the dose is so small and the frequency is far apart..... Nevermind that there are preservative free shots....
Unless you eat, drink, use, and/or wear everything organic/natural and heavily regulate the amount of sunlight that hits your body then you are hypocrite for not getting the shot.
Environmental exposure to toxins, which naturally occurs by inhalation, or consumed, or transdermal contact is quite different than injecting a toxin into your body, which is an artificial means of introduction to which the body has no naturally developed defense. Those who fail to recognize the difference are far less intelligent than they believe themselves to be.
One of the lame examples used by the junior pseudo-PubMed wannabe doctors and Scientists with a Wikipedia degree use that old "A can of tuna fish has more mercury than the vaccine" analogy, failing to note that no one has ever actually injected a can of tuna into their bloodstream. This is the cognitive disconnect suffered by those who are convinced that they are the brilliant ones.
Everyone knows that if you get the flu, you won't get the flu.
If you got the flu, you don't need to worry about anyone sneezing on you.
Hey, I just realized that "flu" and "you" rhyme.
I'm a poet and didn't know it.
You going to give a lecture on Dosing, now?
Guy said there is no way to show flu vaccine is effective because there is no way to know for sure that every person in a study was exposed to the flu virus.
In the study in my post everyone was deliberately exposed to the virus. It was squirted up their noses.
Flu vaccine does work.
And having one influenza infection does not prevent you from catching another one with a different strain.
People .... listen up .... these ghouls don't care about you ... the reality is, they are poisoning you, and a whole lot of them know it .
I agree....... I think its all a big pharma scam to bring them ALOT OF $$$$$ .. They know these vaccines often SUPRESS THE IMMUNE SYSTEM making people sick in other ways LATER which will bring them more $$$,its sick and disgusting!!!!
That certainly implies some sort of rate of effectiveness... but whatever.
No, it does not imply anything of the sort .... my statement was in response to the ridiculously absurd claim that flu vaccine reduces all-cause death ... including everything from heart disease to drive by shootings. I said that there is no evidence that flu vaccine even prevents flu. There is no implied rate of effectiveness, though there is an implied LACK of effectiveness, which would imply Z E R O effectiveness ... not the 100% you're trying to attribute to it ... which further supports my suspicion of backward thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
So..... you can't substantiate anything you claim because you can't "do my homework." Well GuyNTexas... Luckily you aren't on trial here defending your case because you have brought absolutely zero evidence to the table.
I do not need to substantiate anything ... if you wish to claim that something I've said is wrong, then it is up to you to support your claim. To tell you the truth, it's part of your backward thinking that makes this a contest, instead of using the information as an opportunity to learn something new.
When someone presents something that is new to me, I don't just attack it out of pure ignorance ... I go check it out ... and you might want to try that yourself. Or not ... keep taking the vaccines if that's your desire, but you really seem to have no idea how dumb it is to insult people that are trying to help you be more accurately informed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Because.... right now I'm supposed to disregard the CDC, medical institutions, and other institutions of higher learning over you and the few others on here?
When did I ever suggest that you or anyone else should "take my word" for anything? NEVER. I assume that people will either investigate the claims and become better informed, or just continue holding on to their existing beliefs. I cannot make you do anything. I can't force you to think. That's up to you. It's that lead a horse to water deal. If you think that you know everything you need to know now, and there is nothing left for you to learn, you're a walking dead person. It's this allergic reaction to new information that guarantees you'll be no smarter tomorrow than you were last week, and that is sad.
By the way .. it's not just a few others here .... do a search on "Dangers of Vaccines" and then you can choose among the 1 Million hits, which links you'd like to look at. My bet is, if it doesn't say cdc.gov or fda.gov you will probably ignore it, which is why I will leave it up to you to choose among the Million web pages available to further your knowledge of this subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
It's ok if you're scared to post any links.... I would be too in your situation.
Let's test that theory out. In your own words, how does one's body protect itself from non-self?
I have no idea what you are talking about with "protect itself from non-self". So I cannot respond.
Environmental exposure to toxins, which naturally occurs by inhalation, or consumed, or transdermal contact is quite different than injecting a toxin into your body, which is an artificial means of introduction to which the body has no naturally developed defense. Those who fail to recognize the difference are far less intelligent than they believe themselves to be.
One of the lame examples used by the junior pseudo-PubMed wannabe doctors and Scientists with a Wikipedia degree use that old "A can of tuna fish has more mercury than the vaccine" analogy, failing to note that no one has ever actually injected a can of tuna into their bloodstream. This is the cognitive disconnect suffered by those who are convinced that they are the brilliant ones.
Sigh... both the can of tuna and injection will have the same result. The urinary system filters waste in the bloodstream and produces urine in the kidneys.
To the the words in bold, how does the body differentiate between non-self and self? If I try a new food today why doesn't my body go into anaphylactic shock by introducing something my "body has no naturally developed defense", as you called it.
By the way .. it's not just a few others here .... do a search on "Dangers of Vaccines" and then you can choose among the 1 Million hits, which links you'd like to look at. My bet is, if it doesn't say cdc.gov or fda.gov you will probably ignore it, which is why I will leave it up to you to choose among the Million web pages available to further your knowledge of this subject.
Actually I look for .edu or .org when it comes to these matters.
Quote:
I have no idea what you are talking about with "protect itself from non-self". So I cannot respond.
Of course you don't.
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 register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
