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.
Have you ever had a blood test for the flu? I know I haven't.
It's not even a common practice to test for flu. How many pill mills just write scripts for antibiotics for any and everything? Docs do this without running ANY test to rule out bacterial infection
It is common practice to test for flu. It can be done quickly in the office.
Docs these days discourage use of antibiotics unless there is a clear indication to use them. Often patients still pressure to get them. Some will doctor shop until they find someone who will give them what they want - preferably over the telephone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by armory
Close all drug stores as all marketed 'medications' will be banned for the reason death is a side effect of most, if not all.
Lots of sinus and antihistamine medications are already kept behind the counter to verify age.
A handful of aspirin can kill you but marijuana won't.
Sinus medications containing ingredients that can be used to make meth are kept behind the counter. Their being dangerous has nothing to do with it. Antihistamines like Benadryl are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowrimol
I'm going to take a page from your book and ask you where this came from. Is it from the Fluarix Quadrivalent Alent or one of the other ten package inserts. And what section? You do know that the current years formula contains previous year's vaccines, or a modification there of, right?
It does your argument no good when you refuse to admit that the efficacy for a specific vaccine can only be determined after that year's flu season is over. For flu vaccines, the efficacy will depend on how well the vaccine matches the circulating strains. So you cannot assume a new vaccine will have the same efficacy as a previous one.
I'm going to take a page from your book and ask you where this came from. Is it from the Fluarix Quadrivalent Alent or one of the other ten package inserts. And what section? You do know that the current years formula contains previous year's vaccines, or a modification there of, right?
How can you attempt to use NVIC when you completely discredited them earlier? You are all over the place!
YOU suggested I look at the link YOU posted from NVIC that had LINKS to the package inserts to RE-READ said inserts (as I have already read those that our office uses). So I clicked on the PACKAGE INSERT link from Fluarix and found the data.
NVIC is a sham, but the links to actual package inserts, not something they made up, are OK. You're quite a piece of work, to tell me to check your link and then try to discredit me for doing so.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 12-23-2013 at 08:37 AM..
It is common practice to test for flu. It can be done quickly in the office.
Docs these days discourage use of antibiotics unless there is a clear indication to use them. Often patients still pressure to get them. Some will doctor shop until they find someone who will give them what they want - preferably over the telephone.
Sinus medications containing ingredients that can be used to make meth are kept behind the counter. Their being dangerous has nothing to do with it. Antihistamines like Benadryl are not.
It does your argument no good when you refuse to admit that the efficacy for a specific vaccine can only be determined after that year's flu season is over. For flu vaccines, the efficacy will depend on how well the vaccine matches the circulating strains. So you cannot assume a new vaccine will have the same efficacy as a previous one.
It does your argument no good to make efficacy claims about flu vaccines that you can't possibly make ... at any point, beit before or after the fact ... unless you admit that the claim is speculative, based on certain assumptions that are equally speculative.
The hard cold fact is, such claims are a fraud at face value when presented as fact. Speculations based on other speculation is not remotely factual evidence.
Of those who take a flu vaccine and don't get the flu, and those who don't take the vaccine and don't get the flu ....what difference is there between the former group and the latter? None. The latter group can just as easily serve as evidence that doing nothing is just as effective as the vaccine, if we are to label speculation as fact.
I agree with GuyNTexas. The claims about the efficacy rate of the flu vaccine are not cut and dry. They are speculative. There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine's efficacy rate and those questions cannot be answered until we see larger studies. In the mean time, I'm going to wash my hands because research proves that to be an effective measure against the flu. I wonder what Mayor Bloomberg would say about hand washing? Should we ban children from daycare until they are of hand washing age?
^^There is research about "attack" rates, e.g. how many are exposed get the disease. In fact, much of the information Tex claims is simply untrue. When people are diagnosed with the flu by testing, which, as suzy says can be done in the office, one of the first questions asked is "did you get a flu shot?" Believe it or not, people go to grad school to learn how to do this kind of calculation. Of course, CD posters with no health care background always know more.
While good handwashing is always recommended, it does little to actually prevent flu as the flu virus is airborne.
Again, Mayor Bloomberg did not make this decision, the NYC BOARD OF HEALTH did.
^^There is research about "attack" rates, e.g. how many are exposed get the disease. In fact, much of the information Tex claims is simply untrue. When people are diagnosed with the flu by testing, which, as suzy says can be done in the office, one of the first questions asked is "did you get a flu shot?" Believe it or not, people go to grad school to learn how to do this kind of calculation. Of course, CD posters with no health care background always know more.
While good handwashing is always recommended, it does little to actually prevent flu as the flu virus is airborne.
Again, Mayor Bloomberg did not make this decision, the NYC BOARD OF HEALTH did.
I've read a lot of the studies regarding the efficacy of the flu vaccine. Don't worry, I'm not just going to take anyone's word for it. The data speaks for itself.
Everyone who sits on Bloomberg's "Board of Health" was personally appointed by Bloomberg himself. This is not the first controversial move on the Board's part. The soda ban came from them as well. Mayor Bloomberg may not have directly voted on the vaccine requirement or the soda ban but those laws most definitely came from his administration under his leadership due to his appointments.
Do people really want to live in a world where the government mandates what they must and must not put into their bodies? I don't really care where you stand on the flu vaccine but laws like this take it too far.
I've read a lot of the studies regarding the efficacy of the flu vaccine. Don't worry, I'm not just going to take anyone's word for it. The data speaks for itself.
Everyone who sits on Bloomberg's "Board of Health" was personally appointed by Bloomberg himself. This is not the first controversial move on the Board's part. The soda ban came from them as well. Mayor Bloomberg may not have directly voted on the vaccine requirement or the soda ban but those laws most definitely came from his administration under his leadership due to his appointments.
Do people really want to live in a world where the government mandates what they must and must not put into their bodies? I don't really care where you stand on the flu vaccine but laws like this take it too far.
Right, on anti-vax websites like NVIC, right?
Prove that Bloomberg appointed all the BOH members. A BOH is usually not a political patronage job.
I am talking about the actual studies, not websites.
Proof that all members were appointed by Bloomberg can be found on the NYC department of health website, here. New York City Board of Health
Usually, the studies are on the websites. Unless, that is, you go to a library and read them in the hard copy journal.
I copied and pasted the link (thanks for being so helpful, and giving a live link, not), and found that the commissioner was appointed before Bloomberg was elected. I couldn't find a list of the other members of the BOH, let alone when they were appointed.
^^There is research about "attack" rates, e.g. how many are exposed get the disease. In fact, much of the information Tex claims is simply untrue. When people are diagnosed with the flu by testing, which, as suzy says can be done in the office, one of the first questions asked is "did you get a flu shot?" Believe it or not, people go to grad school to learn how to do this kind of calculation. Of course, CD posters with no health care background always know more.
I don't know if you really think any of what you just said has any relevance to the debate, or you are just relying on people's gullibility to accept such circular arguments.
But first, it is not a valid form of debate to simply claim "what tex said isn't true". What did I say that isn't true? That I've only had the flu 3 times in 56 years? That I've never taken a flu shot? That doing nothing apparently protected me 95% of the time? Those are true statements.
Secondly, for those who go to the doctor with flu symptoms who may test positive for the flu means what exactly? That they caught the flu ....that's it ... nothing else can be gathered from that. Whether they had or had not received a flu shot is not remotely relative to any point about the efficacy of the vaccine ... other than a lack thereof, unless you choose to assume that those infected persons that were not vaccinated caught the flu because they were not vaccinated? That's a pretty wild and self serving assumption, don't you think?
The truth is, the only people you could cite as those for whom the vaccine worked, are people that don't get the flu, and those people who don't get the flu don't go to the doctor .... be they vaccinated or not ..... so how can you count those people? The simple facts are, you have no way of counting the people who don't get sick, and even if you could count them, you couldn't possibly know why they didn't get sick?
The other less flattering truth is that you only "know" what you have been told, and apparently that doesn't include any type of rational analysis on your part.
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.
