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.
I think the problem is that people don't want to take the effort to make a FULLY informed choice. They just want to do as they are told. It means that they don't have to think or make a decision. And they don't want anyone else to question, it because they do not want their viewpoint changed. They want to think they are right and that information never changes. So if they were right 15 years ago, well, they are right TODAY, because well, they are right. Doesn't matter if they are wrong because of new information.
I remember back in high school, everyone had to debate. We had to research BOTH sides of the issue, looking at POVs that we had no prior knowledge of or even agreed with, and at documents that we had never heard of. We had to look at the FACTS. People don't do that now.
Yes, that's correct. But your immune system doesn't need to be "trained" somehow to be able to work, like one has to be "trained" to be able to ride a bike, for ex. Your immune system knows how to respond to an invader. You don't need to have contracted serious diseases such as measles, etc to "teach" your immune system to do what it's supposed to do.
Again: That is EXACTLY the reasoning behind vaccines. You train the immune system to recognize it so your system in the hypothetical future will respond in kind.
With a 10% effectiveness.............. Why inject poisons for 10% effectiveness?
No, not better protection for all, equally endangering all.
Many people do believe the shot gives them the flu, thus the lower percentages of people getting the shots every year. I think it is around only 40% even bothering now.
We use natural medicine also. The last thing we would do is go to the doctor where we would be guaranteed to get the flu by sitting with other infected people, but hey, that keeps those dollars rolling in for medical workers and big pharma!
I suggest everyone make an informed choice, and using the CDC won't get you that. A world of information is available at everyone's fingertips that is reading my post, use that information to make informed choices about your health. https://steemit.com/truth/@tremendos...pharma-con-job
Building your immune system is your best defense, and vaccines will not do that. I don't personally know a single person that doesn't think that the flu shot generally causes the flu. They put up the sign "Get Your Flu Shot", and I have heard of no one having the flu. In 2 to 3 weeks.............yep, the flu is spreading, and earlier this year here.
The 10% figure is part of the misinformation. That was the efficacy rate for the H3N2 portion of the vaccine in Australia in their winter (our summer last year). There are some differences between the US and Australia that mean the number may be different here. Australia only provides vaccine for people >65 and a few high risk groups, everyone else including small kids (ie, their parents) has to pay for it out of pocket. So mostly elderly got that vaccine. Efficacy is known to be lower in the elderly.
Well, they're wrong. As Neal De Grasse Tyson says, " “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” "https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/340727-the-good-thing-about-science-is-that-it-s-true-whether
But failure to vaccinate, rather than vaccine failure can certainly make this epidemic worse.
Again: That is EXACTLY the reasoning behind vaccines. You train the immune system to recognize it so your system in the hypothetical future will respond in kind.
That's the *science* behind vaccine use.
But this below is untrue. You do not improve your immune sysem by being exposed (and contracting) many illnesses. The bold statement is totally untrue. That's the science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
Being exposed to a lot of illness in my lifetime from measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, scarlet fever, countless flues, colds, etc.
You artificially take away illnesses you take away a human's natural ability to fight off ANY illness.
The 10% figure is part of the misinformation. That was the efficacy rate for the H3N2 portion of the vaccine in Australia in their winter (our summer last year). There are some differences between the US and Australia that mean the number may be different here. Australia only provides vaccine for people >65 and a few high risk groups, everyone else including small kids (ie, their parents) has to pay for it out of pocket. So mostly elderly got that vaccine. Efficacy is known to be lower in the elderly.
Well, they're wrong. As Neal De Grasse Tyson says, " “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” "https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/340727-the-good-thing-about-science-is-that-it-s-true-whether
But failure to vaccinate, rather than vaccine failure can certainly make this epidemic worse.
The CDC actually has a wealth of information.
And lies and misinformation are still lies and misinformation if you believe them. /shrug/
Get off the CDC propaganda cite and do your OWN research using primary sources.
Not CDC *factss* that are cite within a cite within cite within a cite within a cite (they love to do this) where the information is so far from the original source that it is incorrect (like with their statistics in rape, which are false IF you take the time to trace it aaaaaallllllllllllllllllllll the way back to the original document).
Or you can just parrot back lies, misinformation and talking points cuz Dad, er, CDC said so.
The flu vaccine was said to be 10% effective this year, how could anyone gauge anything from that?
Considering potentially unknown side effects over time, who would be impressed with a 10% effectiveness of injecting substances into their body? Only those that follow a herd mentality or worse yet the CDC
This year's vaccine is less effective than average. That does not mean it is totally ineffective. The lowered effectiveness is only for one of the components of the vaccine, not the entire vaccine, and we do not yet know what the figure will be for the US this season.
The "substances" in the vaccine are not dangerous. The risk of a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine is about one in a million.
Quote:
With a 10% effectiveness.............. Why inject poisons for 10% effectiveness?
There are no poisons in vaccines.
Quote:
No, not better protection for all, equally endangering all.
Herd immunity denialism puzzles me. Herd immunity helped eradicate smallpox, is on the verge of eradicating polio, and has eliminated some diseases, such as measles, in the US.
If you do not want to vaccinate your family you should encourage everyone else to do so, because herd immunity is what protects them from vaccine preventable diseases.
Quote:
Many people do believe the shot gives them the flu, thus the lower percentages of people getting the shots every year. I think it is around only 40% even bothering now.
You do not get influenza from the vaccine. You can't, because the virus has been inactivated and cannot replicate and cause an infection. The most common side effect from the vaccine is a sore arm.
Some people can have flu like symptoms from the shot. Those are due to the immune system doing its job. If that happens from the tiny dose of a vaccine, imagine what would happen with a full blown wild flu infection.
Quote:
We use natural medicine also. The last thing we would do is go to the doctor where we would be guaranteed to get the flu by sitting with other infected people, but hey, that keeps those dollars rolling in for medical workers and big pharma!
Guaranteed to get the flu? Not much confidence in your "natural" medicine it sounds like.
For those who think they may have the flu and whose symptoms suggest a visit to the doctor would be prudent, make an appointment, call the office when you arrive, and ask if you may wait in your vehicle until it is your turn to be seen. Then you are neither exposing others nor being exposed to others.
Quote:
I suggest everyone make an informed choice, and using the CDC won't get you that. A world of information is available at everyone's fingertips that is reading my post, use that information to make informed choices about your health.
If you read only anti-vax sources you will be unable to make an informed choice.
Quote:
Building your immune system is your best defense, and vaccines will not do that. I don't personally know a single person that doesn't think that the flu shot generally causes the flu. They put up the sign "Get Your Flu Shot", and I have heard of no one having the flu. In 2 to 3 weeks.............yep, the flu is spreading, and earlier this year here.
Then everyone you know is misinformed.
Yes, you see "Get Your Flu Shot" signs before flu season starts. That is because the best time to get vaccinated is ... before flu season starts.
And lies and misinformation are still lies and misinformation if you believe them. /shrug/
Get off the CDC propaganda cite and do your OWN research using primary sources.
Not CDC *factss* that are cite within a cite within cite within a cite within a cite (they love to do this) where the information is so far from the original source that it is incorrect (like with their statistics in rape, which are false IF you take the time to trace it aaaaaallllllllllllllllllllll the way back to the original document).
Or you can just parrot back lies, misinformation and talking points cuz Dad, er, CDC said so.
Please give a specific example of a CDC "lie" about influenza vaccine. Thank you.
And lies and misinformation are still lies and misinformation if you believe them. /shrug/
Get off the CDC propaganda cite and do your OWN research using primary sources.
Not CDC *factss* that are cite within a cite within cite within a cite within a cite (they love to do this) where the information is so far from the original source that it is incorrect (like with their statistics in rape, which are false IF you take the time to trace it aaaaaallllllllllllllllllllll the way back to the original document).
Or you can just parrot back lies, misinformation and talking points cuz Dad, er, CDC said so.
Please tell me what primary sources you've used. Do not hijack this thread to talk about rape.
Please tell me what primary sources you've used. Do not hijack this thread to talk about rape.
I'm not.
I'm talking about how when going on CDC webpages, it uses references.
Say info point 1 uses reference A.
Then when you look at reference A, you realize that info point 1 is itself referenced to another journal article. Let's call that reference B.
So you look in reference B, and find that it also is NOT the original study for info point 1 and is cited to reference C.
When you look at reference C, you can find info point 1 -- no further citations. You have found the PRIMARY source.
Except info point 1 is NOT the same as the way it's presented on the CDC webpage. The numbers are different, it may have a different patient population, it may be very specific where the CDC webpage information is vary vague so as not to apply to 85% of the public.
That's a primary source. The true basis of info point 1.
And you need to find them in whatever it is YOU want to talk about. (I was using the rape stats as an example because that 1 in 5 number> is not true when you trace it back to the original primary source as dictated by information in the studies themselves).
Research. Not parroting back TALKING POINTS. Because talking points aren't science, especially when they are 3 refs removed from the primary study.
I'm talking about how when going on CDC webpages, it uses references.
Say info point 1 uses reference A.
Then when you look at reference A, you realize that info point 1 is itself referenced to another journal article. Let's call that reference B.
So you look in reference B, and find that it also is NOT the original study for info point 1 and is cited to reference C.
When you look at reference C, you can find info point 1 -- no further citations. You have found the PRIMARY source.
Except info point 1 is NOT the same as the way it's presented on the CDC webpage. The numbers are different, it may have a different patient population, it may be very specific where the CDC webpage information is vary vague so as not to apply to 85% of the public.
That's a primary source. The true basis of info point 1.
And you need to find them in whatever it is YOU want to talk about. (I was using the rape stats as an example because that 1 in 5 number> is not true when you trace it back to the original primary source as dictated by information in the studies themselves).
Research. Not parroting back TALKING POINTS. Because talking points aren't science, especially when they are 3 refs removed from the primary study.
Primary sources. Go find them.
Discussions here do not work that way. It is your responsibility to provide sources that support your "talking point".
Please provide an example of what you are describing, preferably about influenza vaccine.
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.
