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.
This is what I do not understand. Childhood deaths from the flu, most notably pneumonia, were 186 out of millions of children in this county. Child death rates are required to be tracked. Does that mean that millions of children are in the 90%+ range getting their flu shots? Adult deaths are not required to be tracked. So approximately 79,800 adults died from complications from the flu? How do they get that number? Count every adult death from pneumonia as being from complications from the flu? Is that during Flu Season or Year round? The ONLY way to catch Pneumonia is from catching the Flu?????? Which strain of pneumonia is causing all these flu complication deaths? There are multiple strains and no vaccine for all of them, let alone a flu shot preventing them.
These numbers, especially for adults, are just meant to terrify people into compliance.
This is what I do not understand. Childhood deaths from the flu, most notably pneumonia, were 186 out of millions of children in this county. Child death rates are required to be tracked. Does that mean that millions of children are in the 90%+ range getting their flu shots? Adult deaths are not required to be tracked. So approximately 79,800 adults died from complications from the flu? How do they get that number? Count every adult death from pneumonia as being from complications from the flu? Is that during Flu Season or Year round? The ONLY way to catch Pneumonia is from catching the Flu?????? Which strain of pneumonia is causing all these flu complication deaths? There are multiple strains and no vaccine for all of them, let alone a flu shot preventing them.
These numbers, especially for adults, are just meant to terrify people into compliance.
Likely statistical sampling. The same technique used for TV ratings.
Perfect example of the Transfer/Association technique used in Propaganda campaigns. And no; I’m not accusing Katarina of being a propagandist. I am saying she is reiterating propaganda:
Is there a reason that vaccines; a product of science: Are supported by propaganda; an influencer of opinion?
Are you labeling the poster above as an evil “anti-vaxxer”? Is he not intelligent enough to utilize his own reading comprehension & cognition to decide what is “loony”?
“Your not one of us if; you agree with him, her, them, that ...” Good grief.
But carry on if you must; conservative Republicans who are in favor of immunizations have already felt alienated here on this thread by this tactic.
Can a pro-vaccine argument be won without the use of propaganda? Meaning no use of labels, transfer or Bandwagoning? Meaning that nobody gets called an anti vaccine anything: Scientists are scientists. Doctors are doctors. Parents are not “poor historians” looking for “someone to blame”. Whistleblowers are not “just a disgruntled employee”.
Can that happen? Can vaccines, as a product of science; stand on its own two feet by virtue of the science? All the science?
Project much, coschristi? Now I'm not accusing you of name-calling (sarc font). The HELL you're not accusing me of propagandizing. You can try to weasel out of it by saying "she" (as if I died and went away, no such luck) is reiterating propaganda, but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
Just who did I call a name? Gaylenwoof said s/he is not antivax in post #325. I said if you're not antivax, you can't go along with Jeremy Hammond. Hammond, yes, I called him a loon. He wrote that piece for Robert F. Kennedy Jr, a known anti-vaxer (though he claims he's "fiercely pro vaccine while reviling numerous vaccines, claiming there is still mercury in vaccines, etc.).
But, I've been accused on this very thread of getting paid to post pro-vaccine information; I was falsely accused of supporting mandatory, no make that MANDATORY (how it was posted) vaccines (post since removed). I have neither the time nor inclination to go back through the whole 377 posts to see who called who names, but I can assure you, it's not all one sided.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 12-19-2018 at 07:26 PM..
Just to be clear, the article says he got GBS from the shot. It does not say he got the flu from the shot.
Another thing that is becoming clear to me: We really ought to do a lot more research on ways to identify who is more likely to be at risk for various sorts of bad drug reactions. We can't realistically make any drug 100% safe, but we probably could figure out how to identify potential problems prior to getting the drug or vaccine. From what I can see, the current risks from vaccines are statistically small, but considering the severity of some of the potential side effects, it would be worth it to reduce the risk even more. Hopefully our increasing knowledge of genetics could eventually play a role in this? Judging from the story above, it might be good to do an extensive study of links between autoimmune disease and drug side effects. (For all I know, such studies might have already been done but, if not, they ought to be).
What makes you think such research is not being done?
Remember when studies proved cigarettes were not only safe, but healthy and pushed by MDs?
Ahh, the good old days of medical science.
No, and neither do you! Post a study that says cigarettes are safe and healthy. Post a recommendation from an MD for smoking. None of that happened. The ad agencies got doctors to say nice things about certain brands of cigarettes but even they never said cigarettes were safe. By the early 1950s, the public wasn't buying it any more. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470496/
I’m 51 now and some people do have better immune systems then other that’s just a fact. Like some people who have smoked cigarettes and drank alcohol all thier lives and never missed a beat.
Yes, some do have better immune systems than others, but no one is born with immunity to flu. These stories of smokers and drinkers are greatly embellished, just like all these stories of people with lung cancer who supposedly never smoked (but in reality did for the most part).
What makes you think such research is not being done?
Absolutely nothing. I would assume that such research is being done. My point is that it should be a high priority. (And perhaps it is actually a high priority. I'm saying I don't personally happen to know at the moment.) If, for example, the risk of a certain drug is 1/1,000,000 for most of the population, but 1/100 for some identifiable portion of society, then this would be extremely important to know.
Absolutely nothing. I would assume that such research is being done. My point is that it should be a high priority. (And perhaps it is actually a high priority. I'm saying I don't personally happen to know at the moment.) If, for example, the risk of a certain drug is 1/1,000,000 for most of the population, but 1/100 for some identifiable portion of society, then this would be extremely important to know.
Thank you Katarina! This certainly casts great doubt on Hammond's credibility. He appears to be anti-vaxxer in the broad sense and that, I think, is sheer stupidity. More importantly, that attitude poses a worldwide health risk. If his arguments against the flu vax are just more of the same drivel, then I am back to supporting the flu vax.
But there is an important "if" here. I don't want to committee the fallacy of attacking the arguer instead of the argument. What I would need to see now are specific refutations of his specific arguments against the flu vax. The link you posted raises important warning flags, but it does not contradict Hammond's specific claims in the article posted by GuyNTexas. So, for now, I have to remain on the fence.
The key issue in my mind is this: We already know that virtually all medical procedures carry some risks. The flu vax is no exception. The question is the overall cost/benefit ratio. Anecdotal evidence of certain individual getting sick from the shot, or still getting the flu after the get the shot, is just a red herring. No one doubts that such individual stories will exist. Statistically, such stories are practically inevitable. What matters is the overall comparative risks: Likelihood of serious complications from the flu shot vs. likelihood of getting the flu without the shot. There is no way I'm going to have time to personally investigate this. My hope is that some of you who have already jumped into this debate can offer some references that specifically address the points being made by Hammond. If his specific claims don't hold water, then the anti-flu-vax attitude loses a great deal of credibility (in my mind, at least).
Let me share with you a personal story ... OK?
About 20 years ago, my sister was pregnant. I provided her with a substantial amount of information regarding the dangers of vaccination, particularly regarding infants, whose fragile, still immature immune systems often struggle with side effects of vaccination. She chose to ignore that info, and proceeded to follow the advice of her pediatrician. At around the age of 2, and subsequent to the next round of vaccinations, this little boy began displaying the more severe symptoms that were documented in the previous info I had provided his mother, while pregnant. From 2, to 4, this child was evaluated and tested by physicians, hearing specialists, and even a damned psychiatrist.... by the age of 6, he was still unable to formulate an entire sentence ... among other symptoms. Medical Diagnosis- full blown autism, special needs for life, no effective treatment available.
My pleas to have her take him to see an alternative medicine professional (often labeled quacks by the gatekeepers of mainstream medicine) were also ignored, until I called a family meeting, and presented an ultimatum to the entire family .. grandma included. Take this child to be evaluated and treated, or I will disown the lot of you. So they did.
Over the following 2 years of extensive treatments that centered on heavy metal detoxification, and nutritional supplements, Ryan made a miraculous recovery. Even being so far behind educationally, he caught up, and ultimately graduated high school, with honors. His teachers found him to be well above average, to gifted. This, from a 6 year old diagnosed as special needs for life, who couldn’t communicate in full sentences!
So people can make whatever claims they choose to make ... I have first hand experience in this matter, and the damned cure (heavy metal detoxification) proves the cause (heavy metal poisoning by vaccines). PERIOD, END OF DEBATE.
THIS CURING OF THE INCURABLE certainly destroyed the false claims of the physicians who insisted that the vaccines played no part in this child’s health crisis, that it was a genetic abnormality as the root cause.
While I was overjoyed by his remarkable recovery, I am equally saddened when contemplating how many thousands of children have lost the opportunity for a normal life, by being denied effective treatment. Because you see, this treatment cannot be allowed to proliferate among the masses, because it implicitly points to the cause.
Now, it’s hard for many to discern the truth, when bombarded with so many so-called experts who insist there is no link between vaccines and autism .... I KNOW THE TRUTH, BECAUSE I LIVED IT.
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.
