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.
Well there's the problem, you believe that flu vaccinations prevent the "freaking flu", when they just give you a higher chance of not getting the "freaking flu".
Is this some sort of Orwellian word game you're trying to play here, or does your mind really work this way? So, you're trying to tell me that there is a big difference between trying to prevent getting the flu and increasing the chances of not getting the flu? OKAY, what ever you say Winston. But I gotta tell you, the only difference is trapped in those gears between your ears that seem to be turning backwards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
As to the last bolded statement, that is simply false. There is plenty of empirical evidence stating the benefits of flu vaccination. I think you just don't understand and want to understand it is not 100% effective, I believe this years vaccination is just above 60% effective.
Really? That's an amazing declaration, since it is absolutely impossible to make any sort of assessment of that nature, and those who believe this nonsense simply do not understand how these figures are derived. If you did know, you would be better able to understand the bogus nature of such claims. So let me clear up this confusion with real facts rather than the false beliefs you are currently operating under.
Since the only actual "evidence", from a mortality perspective, are the raw figures of reported deaths from all secondary causes which "can be" associated with influenza, though not necessarily caused only by the flu, this empirical evidence you claim is nothing more than an assumption, bordering on wild guess. Because the flu does not cause death per se, but only leads to occasional secondary infections which do result in death, most often pneumonia, it is impossible to claim with any degree of scientific certainty, that any of those deaths, let alone ALL deaths from pneumonia were caused by influenza infection, except in the rare cases where influenza infection was clinically typed by laboratory culture .. and the majority of cases are not clinically diagnosed. That's why that data is simply not part of the collection criteria, when calculating deaths from influenza infection. So all pneumonia deaths are counted as deaths from flu during the flu season, even though the flu is but one of MANY possible causative agents. Do you realize that in people with less than optimal health, the common cold can result in the same outcome? Have you no experience with a cold developing into bronchitis and a horrible cough that lasts for weeks? In weaker people, children and the elderly ... this can certainly lead to pneumonia. And there are many nasties that can do the same thing that are not influenza viruses.
So it seems that you are the one who is operating on a foundation of false beliefs if you think the number of reported deaths, or even incidence rates of flu being reported is actual evidence. It's simply not true. The total reported incidence rates of the flu each season, is just as much an assumption as are the death rates, because only a very small percentage of alleged flu infections are actually clinically diagnosed. People with one or more of the common symptoms are simply assumed to have the flu, and are counted as such.
So, armed with accurate information about how these incidence rates are reached, it should be easier to begin seeing how grossly asinine and impossible it is to calculate the rates of efficacy and prevention of the flu by the vaccine. It's laughably idiotic. How can you look at raw figures (which are guesses to begin with) and differentiate between those whom the flu vaccine protected from the flu, versus those who simply were not exposed to the virus? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Those who say differently are LIARS.
Let me give you a hard cold, wake up and smell the freaking coffee example of what I'm trying to get you to understand ..... I have never taken the flu vaccine, EVER ... and over the course of the last 40 years, I've had the flu twice ... or I should say, I came down with what certainly looked and felt like the flu, but was never cultured and proven to be influenza. That gives me a 95% success rate for preventing the flu by taking NO VACCINE, compared to these wonderful figures of 60% effectiveness of the vaccine that you have cited. If you want to draw any conclusion from these facts, the only possible one is that doing nothing is 35% more effective than taking the vaccine ... or the direct corollary of that being that taking the vaccine INCREASES your chance of getting the flu by a whopping 35%.
Of course, I'm not trying to make the claim that the vaccine increases infection rates, because there is no legitimate way of proving that ... I'm just illustrating the point that you can use statistics to support any argument you want to. The truth is, I have no way of knowing, and neither does anyone else know when and if they are exposed to the flu virus, unless they actually get the flu. So it is absurd to suggest that the vaccine had a 60% effectiveness rate simply because those 60% didn't get the flu. No one can determine if any of those 60% were actually exposed to the virus, since the vast majority of the entire population are like me, and don't get the flu shot or the flu, and can go for years without getting the flu.
The bottom line is ... you believe a lot of propaganda that comes from the people who want to stick a needle in you ... but have no legitimate data that proves it does anything other than make them money while subjecting you to the risks of some pretty nasty and sometimes fatal side effects.
But this is America and everyone has the right to remain ignorant.
I repped you, mistakenly thinking you were trying to be helpful instead of sarcastic.
MSG is dangerous, and should be avoided. I did not realize it was in tvp, so I thank you for that.
Don't know why we're talking about MSG, which has nothing to do with flu shots.
Quote:
U.S. Government Food Safety Warning. The transport of MSG is controlled by the Bioterrorism Act of 2002. [PDF source] Because there is so much concern about MSG, the FDA commissioned a study be conducted by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB). The study resulted in a 350 page report completed on 31 July 1995 [this report mysteriously deleted from public archives]. The research determined that MSG consumption can result in the following side-effects:
burning sensation in the back of the neck, forearms and chest
numbness in the back of the neck, radiating to the arms and back
tingling, warmth and weakness in the face, temples, upper back, neck and arms
facial pressure or tightness
chest pain
headache
nausea
rapid heartbeat
bronchospasm (difficulty breathing) in MSG-intolerant people with asthma
Because MSG damages the brain and alters the ability of the brain to respond to the signal from the hormone leptin that satiety has occurred, it is a prime culprit in the epidemic of obesity that has everyone scratching their heads as to cause. Several research studies have shown that ingestion of MSG induces obesity in rats. In fact, when researchers want to fatten up lab rats for experiments, they feed them MSG because its effect is so predictable and rats will bulk up with regularity. MSG destroys the hard wiring in the brain of a rat like it does in the brain of a person.
Is this some sort of Orwellian word game you're trying to play here, or does your mind really work this way? So, you're trying to tell me that there is a big difference between trying to prevent getting the flu and increasing the chances of not getting the flu? OKAY, what ever you say Winston. But I gotta tell you, the only difference is trapped in those gears between your ears that seem to be turning backwards.
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.
Quote:
Really? That's an amazing declaration, since it is absolutely impossible to make any sort of assessment of that nature, and those who believe this nonsense simply do not understand how these figures are derived. If you did know, you would be better able to understand the bogus nature of such claims. So let me clear up this confusion with real facts rather than the false beliefs you are currently operating under.
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....
Quote:
Since the only actual "evidence", from a mortality perspective, are the raw figures of reported deaths from all secondary causes which "can be" associated with influenza, though not necessarily caused only by the flu, this empirical evidence you claim is nothing more than an assumption, bordering on wild guess. Because the flu does not cause death per se, but only leads to occasional secondary infections which do result in death, most often pneumonia, it is impossible to claim with any degree of scientific certainty, that any of those deaths, let alone ALL deaths from pneumonia were caused by influenza infection, except in the rare cases where influenza infection was clinically typed by laboratory culture .. and the majority of cases are not clinically diagnosed. That's why that data is simply not part of the collection criteria, when calculating deaths from influenza infection. So all pneumonia deaths are counted as deaths from flu during the flu season, even though the flu is but one of MANY possible causative agents. Do you realize that in people with less than optimal health, the common cold can result in the same outcome? Have you no experience with a cold developing into bronchitis and a horrible cough that lasts for weeks? In weaker people, children and the elderly ... this can certainly lead to pneumonia. And there are many nasties that can do the same thing that are not influenza viruses.
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/
Quote:
So it seems that you are the one who is operating on a foundation of false beliefs if you think the number of reported deaths, or even incidence rates of flu being reported is actual evidence. It's simply not true. The total reported incidence rates of the flu each season, is just as much an assumption as are the death rates, because only a very small percentage of alleged flu infections are actually clinically diagnosed. People with one or more of the common symptoms are simply assumed to have the flu, and are counted as such.
Links? Because they have tests to determine if you have the flu.
Quote:
So, armed with accurate information about how these incidence rates are reached, it should be easier to begin seeing how grossly asinine and impossible it is to calculate the rates of efficacy and prevention of the flu by the vaccine. It's laughably idiotic. How can you look at raw figures (which are guesses to begin with) and differentiate between those whom the flu vaccine protected from the flu, versus those who simply were not exposed to the virus? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Those who say differently are LIARS.
Accurate according to who? You? Why are you more accurate than the CDC?
Quote:
Let me give you a hard cold, wake up and smell the freaking coffee example of what I'm trying to get you to understand ..... I have never taken the flu vaccine, EVER ... and over the course of the last 40 years, I've had the flu twice ... or I should say, I came down with what certainly looked and felt like the flu, but was never cultured and proven to be influenza. That gives me a 95% success rate for preventing the flu by taking NO VACCINE, compared to these wonderful figures of 60% effectiveness of the vaccine that you have cited. If you want to draw any conclusion from these facts, the only possible one is that doing nothing is 35% more effective than taking the vaccine ... or the direct corollary of that being that taking the vaccine INCREASES your chance of getting the flu by a whopping 35%.
So how do you know it was the flu? If it wasn't... that kinda rips apart your whole theory.
Quote:
Of course, I'm not trying to make the claim that the vaccine increases infection rates, because there is no legitimate way of proving that ... I'm just illustrating the point that you can use statistics to support any argument you want to. The truth is, I have no way of knowing, and neither does anyone else know when and if they are exposed to the flu virus, unless they actually get the flu. So it is absurd to suggest that the vaccine had a 60% effectiveness rate simply because those 60% didn't get the flu. No one can determine if any of those 60% were actually exposed to the virus, since the vast majority of the entire population are like me, and don't get the flu shot or the flu, and can go for years without getting the flu.
I can't help it if the science is over your head.
Quote:
The bottom line is ... you believe a lot of propaganda that comes from the people who want to stick a needle in you ... but have no legitimate data that proves it does anything other than make them money while subjecting you to the risks of some pretty nasty and sometimes fatal side effects.
But this is America and everyone has the right to remain ignorant.
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.
No, a flu shot cannot cause flu illness. The influenza viruses contained in a flu shot are inactivated (killed), which means they cannot cause infection. Flu vaccine manufacturers kill the viruses used in the vaccine during the process of making vaccine, and batches of flu vaccine are tested to make sure they are safe. In randomized, blinded studies, where some people get flu shots and others get salt-water shots, the only differences in symptoms was increased soreness in the arm and redness at the injection site among people who got the flu shot. There were no differences in terms of body aches, fever, cough, runny nose or sore throat.
The ability of the flu mist vaccine to transmit flu has been shown to happen at a day care facility. However, the bold is a logic failure on your part, trying to twist what I have said.
But for the record, if you don't like me highlighting these distortions, then stop doing it. Because this post is another blatant example of it ...
I responded to your comment that said, and I quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
You know, Tex, rereading your post, you don't get the Flu Mist at all. No one said the flu mist couldn't cause the flu.It is a live virus vaccine. "Everyone" who works with vaccines knows there is a potential for a live virus vaccine to cause the disease, especially in immunocompromised people. However, actual transmission has been rare, and linked to day care centers where the hygiene is not exactly stellar, despite the best efforts of the staff.
My response was: Now I must admit that I'm floored by you conceding the point that a live virus vaccine can cause the disease, because it is a significant departure from the official position which you generally defend at all costs. So, I'm not sure if this is simply a tactical error on your part, or a sign of willingness to be honest. Be that as it may, this line of reasoning needs to be explored in more depth.
Then your next post totally distorts the matter No, bub, a killed virus vaccine CANNOT cause disease. That is not my opinion, it is fact. .... insinuating that we were talking about a killed virus vaccine, and not the live virus one that was ABSOLUTELY what we were discussing.
Last edited by CaseyB; 01-20-2013 at 04:46 AM..
Reason: response to deletion
No, bub, a killed virus vaccine CANNOT cause disease. That is not my opinion, it is fact.
was to this:
Quote:
You know ... you have this annoying tendency to present your beliefs as representing the official consensus stance on these matters, when nothing could be further from the truth. Like the idea that there is "no question about the science" which totally ignores a decades long raging debate that has been ongoing, and building to an explosive head in recent years. The same is true of the official position regarding flu vaccine being able to cause the disease, which is strenuously denied by the so-called experts, while proffering the defunct circular reasoning that side effects from the vaccine may produce all of the symptoms of the flu, but doesn't show one actually got the flu from the vaccine.
I repped you, mistakenly thinking you were trying to be helpful instead of sarcastic.
MSG is dangerous, and should be avoided. I did not realize it was in tvp, so I thank you for that.
Don't know why we're talking about MSG, which has nothing to do with flu shots.
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)."
"In studies comparing FluMist with a placebo vaccine, there were no differences in the frequency of reported cough, runny nose, sore throat, muscle aches, fever, chills, or decreased activity in children. A small number of adults who have received FluMist do report a slightly greater frequency of runny nose, sore throat, and nasal congestion, but there were no differences in the number of reported flu-like illnesses between the two groups. While people may report a flu-like illness after receiving FluMist, remember that many respiratory “cold” viruses that can cause a flu-like illness circulate in the winter months. FluMist, and the flu shot for that matter, do not cause influenza."
Yes Suzy, I am well aware of the claims, and have previously pointed this out ... specifically the rather inane nature of claiming that the vaccine does not cause the flu, but may produce side effects that mirror flu-like symptoms. I think it to be expected that the manufacturer would not admit that those side effects were a result of flu infection, but it is also fairly self evident that there is a bit of gamesmanship and word play going on.
Better that the manufacturer and the medical community at large be honest and simply admit that the live virus vaccine can induce a milder flu infection than that of the full strength virus in certain prone individuals ... i.e., those with less optimal immune function, because that is clearly what is occurring. The reason they don't is obvious, and I pointed that out as well, in the example of potential infection spread by administration of this live virus vaccine in settings like WalMart. To admit that the vaccine can induce infection, however mild, would be the death of that vaccine's marketability. No one would take it, so they insist on maintaining the ridiculous position that side effects and flu symptoms may be the same, but not the same.
Is this some sort of Orwellian word game you're trying to play here, or does your mind really work this way? So, you're trying to tell me that there is a big difference between trying to prevent getting the flu and increasing the chances of not getting the flu? OKAY, what ever you say Winston. But I gotta tell you, the only difference is trapped in those gears between your ears that seem to be turning backwards.
Really? That's an amazing declaration, since it is absolutely impossible to make any sort of assessment of that nature, and those who believe this nonsense simply do not understand how these figures are derived. If you did know, you would be better able to understand the bogus nature of such claims. So let me clear up this confusion with real facts rather than the false beliefs you are currently operating under.
Since the only actual "evidence", from a mortality perspective, are the raw figures of reported deaths from all secondary causes which "can be" associated with influenza, though not necessarily caused only by the flu, this empirical evidence you claim is nothing more than an assumption, bordering on wild guess. Because the flu does not cause death per se, but only leads to occasional secondary infections which do result in death, most often pneumonia, it is impossible to claim with any degree of scientific certainty, that any of those deaths, let alone ALL deaths from pneumonia were caused by influenza infection, except in the rare cases where influenza infection was clinically typed by laboratory culture .. and the majority of cases are not clinically diagnosed. That's why that data is simply not part of the collection criteria, when calculating deaths from influenza infection. So all pneumonia deaths are counted as deaths from flu during the flu season, even though the flu is but one of MANY possible causative agents. Do you realize that in people with less than optimal health, the common cold can result in the same outcome? Have you no experience with a cold developing into bronchitis and a horrible cough that lasts for weeks? In weaker people, children and the elderly ... this can certainly lead to pneumonia. And there are many nasties that can do the same thing that are not influenza viruses.
So it seems that you are the one who is operating on a foundation of false beliefs if you think the number of reported deaths, or even incidence rates of flu being reported is actual evidence. It's simply not true. The total reported incidence rates of the flu each season, is just as much an assumption as are the death rates, because only a very small percentage of alleged flu infections are actually clinically diagnosed. People with one or more of the common symptoms are simply assumed to have the flu, and are counted as such.
So, armed with accurate information about how these incidence rates are reached, it should be easier to begin seeing how grossly asinine and impossible it is to calculate the rates of efficacy and prevention of the flu by the vaccine. It's laughably idiotic. How can you look at raw figures (which are guesses to begin with) and differentiate between those whom the flu vaccine protected from the flu, versus those who simply were not exposed to the virus? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Those who say differently are LIARS.
Let me give you a hard cold, wake up and smell the freaking coffee example of what I'm trying to get you to understand ..... I have never taken the flu vaccine, EVER ... and over the course of the last 40 years, I've had the flu twice ... or I should say, I came down with what certainly looked and felt like the flu, but was never cultured and proven to be influenza. That gives me a 95% success rate for preventing the flu by taking NO VACCINE, compared to these wonderful figures of 60% effectiveness of the vaccine that you have cited. If you want to draw any conclusion from these facts, the only possible one is that doing nothing is 35% more effective than taking the vaccine ... or the direct corollary of that being that taking the vaccine INCREASES your chance of getting the flu by a whopping 35%.
Of course, I'm not trying to make the claim that the vaccine increases infection rates, because there is no legitimate way of proving that ... I'm just illustrating the point that you can use statistics to support any argument you want to. The truth is, I have no way of knowing, and neither does anyone else know when and if they are exposed to the flu virus, unless they actually get the flu. So it is absurd to suggest that the vaccine had a 60% effectiveness rate simply because those 60% didn't get the flu. No one can determine if any of those 60% were actually exposed to the virus, since the vast majority of the entire population are like me, and don't get the flu shot or the flu, and can go for years without getting the flu.
The bottom line is ... you believe a lot of propaganda that comes from the people who want to stick a needle in you ... but have no legitimate data that proves it does anything other than make them money while subjecting you to the risks of some pretty nasty and sometimes fatal side effects.
But this is America and everyone has the right to remain ignorant.
Actually, efficacy studies have been done in which volunteers were deliberately exposed to influenza:
When exposed to influenza A of the same type as the vaccine, protection was 96%. Even when the vaccine strain was different from the strain used as a challenge, protection ranged from 70 to 90%. That is because some strains are closely related enough for the vaccine to work.
So there are "legitimate data showing flu vaccines work.
When exposed to influenza A of the same type as the vaccine, protection was 96%. Even when the vaccine strain was different from the strain used as a challenge, protection ranged from 70 to 90%. That is because some strains are closely related enough for the vaccine to work.
So there are "legitimate data showing flu vaccines work.
Well, yeah!
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.
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)."
oh cool. I guess where you said msg gives us headaches. As you are aware, it does a lot more than that.
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.
