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.
That's essentially what I said, though. They attempt to protect against strains that are already out there, meaning that if the virus mutates again within the same year or after a vaccine is created, there's not much they can do about it until the next round of vaccines. A lot of people seem to believe that the vaccine is good for all flu strains, and I think that misinformation is partly why there is such distrust with it. People who take vaccines can and do still get the flu, but they don't realize that they didn't take a vaccine for that particular strain, so they just assume the vaccine's a scam. And that's how conspiracy theories get started.
Actually, no reliable source says anything of the kind. Most people are simply looking for an excuse not to get it. Here is a typical media piece for lay people:
https://www.solvhealth.com/blog/flu-shot-guide "Each year, the World Health Organization (WHO) conducts research on which influenza viruses are most likely to spread, which are making people ill, and how effective the previous year’s vaccines were at protecting against those viruses. The WHO then gives their findings to the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), who makes the final call on which flu vaccine viruses will be included in the upcoming season’s flu shots."
80,000 flu deaths last year.
"Last year, 80 percent of pediatric deaths occurred in children who were unvaccinated, according to the CDC."
Learn how to critique science before you attempt to post it. If you don't know how to control for the glaring variables in your statement, then you shouldn't be posting it.
So, over 40% of Americans refuse to get a flu shot.
I am one of those 40%. Why? Who knows what is in that shot? Also, it appears that it is just a mildly educated wild guess about what the next flu strain might be and that they usually gets it wrong.
No doubt this is a big winner for pharmaceutical companies, just like erectile dysfunction pills, opiods for the masses and statins (supposedly for high cholesterol). But that does not inspire me at all.
Never ever had a flu shot and have never ever had the flu, in 55 years
I use to fake a cold now and then to get out of school, but being bored all day I learned that wasn't fun.
That's essentially what I said, though. They attempt to protect against strains that are already out there, meaning that if the virus mutates again within the same year or after a vaccine is created, there's not much they can do about it until the next round of vaccines. A lot of people seem to believe that the vaccine is good for all flu strains, and I think that misinformation is partly why there is such distrust with it. People who take vaccines can and do still get the flu, but they don't realize that they didn't take a vaccine for that particular strain, so they just assume the vaccine's a scam. And that's how conspiracy theories get started.
It's not a conspiracy to say that the flu shot is ineffective.
If you want to talk about WHY it is ineffective, well, that's another story.
Anyone who says, "I don't want it because it really doesn't work" is correct. Efficacy of the shot is garbage.
Actually, no reliable source says anything of the kind. Most people are simply looking for an excuse not to get it. Here is a typical media piece for lay people:
https://www.solvhealth.com/blog/flu-shot-guide "Each year, the World Health Organization (WHO) conducts research on which influenza viruses are most likely to spread, which are making people ill, and how effective the previous year’s vaccines were at protecting against those viruses. The WHO then gives their findings to the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), who makes the final call on which flu vaccine viruses will be included in the upcoming season’s flu shots."
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 4 days ago)
35,612 posts, read 17,940,183 times
Reputation: 50639
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Never ever had a flu shot and have never ever had the flu, in 55 years
I use to fake a cold now and then to get out of school, but being bored all day I learned that wasn't fun.
Me too.
I also don't believe in vaxing for chicken pox, I think healthy kids should be exposed to their friends when they get chicken pox and let the illness run its course.
It's different for people with compromised immune systems, though. They should strongly consider getting vaxed.
Many of the kids who were vaccinated for chicken pox back 20 years ago are now getting chicken pox, because the vaccine wears off, which they of course couldn't predict.
Not my kids. They won't have chicken pox again.
I do believe in vaxing for small pox, measles, rubella and rubeola, and polio.
Not for the small stuff most people's immune systems can handle.
Contrary to many accusations on this thread and others, I am not getting paid to post the pro-vaccine POV. So, I do not have all day to surf the web to refute all of your and Hammond's points. I would suggest you read Hammond's primary sources instead of his interpretation of them. You might be surprised. Much of the Cochrane stuff is complaints about how studies were set up and the like, not complaints about the science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
You are doing exactly what the "pro-disease" (since apparently some of the vaccine abstainers don't like to be called 'anti' anything) people do, raise FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).
I don't know why you so tenaciously misrepresent my remarks (I'm wondering if sometimes you might be confusing me with someone else?) but what I've said is clear so I'm not going to rehash stuff. What I would like to do is highlight what you said above: "I would suggest you read Hammond's primary sources instead of his interpretation of them." This is an excellent idea. It is exactly the sort of thing I've been insisting that I personally need to do, and it is exactly what I have not yet had time to do. But until I do, all I'm saying is that I'm not going to simply assume that Hammond is full of BS.
Personally, I get a flu shot every year and I encourage most people to do so. But in a discussion that involves specific claims made by specific people, I'm not going to pretend that I personally know that all of Hammond's claims are pure BS. If I don't know something, then I will say that I don't know. I had hoped that other credible people might have already specifically refuted Hammond's specific claims. If so, their work might save me some time. (Not to say I'd trust them 100% either, but their preliminary work could still save me lots of time.) But so far it seems that the burden falls on me to personally do some searching and plow through Hammond's primary sources. Unfortunately, that probably won't happen anytime soon.
I think it is important to note, however, that Hammond, Mahar, etc., are a likely to be a significant source of the continuing anti-vax sentiment. Average folks who are curious about the controversy will stumble upon this sort of stuff and, skimming over the surface, it looks impressive. If Hammond had not listed primary sources, I would have more likely just blown it off. But I was impressed that he did list primary sources (an art form that is becoming disturbingly rare in modern internet discourse), so until I know more about his primary sources, I have to withhold judgment on his interpretation of those sources. I don't feel comfortable just automatically saying he has to be wrong (or right).
You may not like it, but I think that my skepticism of contemporary medical and pharmaceutical industries is a logical and healthy sort of skepticism.
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.
