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.
No scientific evidence can be found anywhere that vaccines are "controversial" or harmful. These anti-immunization websites are totally lacking in scientific rigor. To repeat, there is no question about the science of vaccines.
This is absolutely backwards. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a person is any safer by taking a flu vaccination. Considering the amount of people the big pharmas are employing, the potential profit and the massive budget to buy/disseminate friendly science it's telling that there's no empirical evidence as you claim. Sometimes I feel sorry for those who believe everything they're told & sometimes I think you guys must be paid shills of the pharmas/corporations. No one with an IQ over 90 could actually be this afraid of the flu.
Why do you keep mentioning thimerosal? If you have done any "research" at all, you should be able to determine that thimerosal is no longer used in vaccines except multidose flu vaccine vials. You do not have to get any thimerosal if you do not want it. However, there is no scientific evidence that thimerosal in vaccines is dangerous.
Focusing on the substances that are present in minute amounts in vaccines and which have extremely tiny, virtually impossible to quantify risks while ignoring the much greater risks of diseases prevented by vaccines results in terribly flawed opinions about vaccines, including flu vaccine.
The problem with catching the flu is that a significant number of people end up dead from it.
A "significant number of people end up dead" from the flu, really? What do you consider "significant"? The CDC itself (who obviously has horse in this race) claim an average of 36,000 deaths from the flu annually (.001% of population) in the U.S., but admits it counts "flu related deaths" into that number such as pneumonia, respiratory and circulatory deaths and that those are basically just guesses. What they do is take a % of those deaths and just attribute them to the flu without ever verifying that they were flu related. Now, if their unsubstantiated/enhanced figure of .001% of the population dies because of the flu (which it doesn't), but only a small fraction of those deaths are people outside of infants, the elderly and the already ill....how "significant" is this really?
Direct from the CDC's website....
Why doesn’t CDC base its seasonal flu mortality estimates only on death certificates that specifically list influenza?
Seasonal influenza may lead to death from other causes, such as pneumonia, congestive heart failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It has been recognized for many years that influenza is infrequently listed on death certificates and testing for seasonal influenza infections is usually not done, particularly among the elderly who are at greatest risk of seasonal influenza complications and death. Some deaths — particularly in the elderly — are associated with secondary complications of seasonal influenza (including bacterial pneumonias). Influenza virus infection may not be identified in many instances because influenza virus is only detectable for a short period of time and/or many people don’t seek medical care until after the first few days of acute illness. For these and other reasons, statistical modeling strategies have been used to estimate seasonal flu-related deaths for many decades, both in the United States and the United Kingdom. Only counting deaths where influenza was included on a death certificate would be a gross underestimation of seasonal influenza’s true impact.
When your actions affect others, I think it is reasonable for those your actions will affect to have a say in limiting those effects. So, yes, I approve of required vaccines in public schools, including day care facilities.
If you choose not to vaccinate, would you be willing to be quarantined during an epidemic? That means you could not leave your home for any reason.
Why would the un vaccinated need to be quarantined. If the vaccine works, the others are in no danger.
Because the vaccine is not 100% effective. Children interacting in close quarters, who have not yet learned good hygiene (covering a sneeze, for example), are more likely to catch and spread respiratory viruses. If you take the vaccine and get sick, I am willing to accept that. If you do not take the vaccine, then I am not willing to accept your making no effort to protect yourself and others.
The vast majority of vaccine refusers base their rejection of vaccines on a faulty understanding of risk. They fear complications that never happen, like autism, or that are extremely unlikely to happen, like Guillain Barre Syndrome. They completely deny the risks of the diseases themselves.
For every vaccine we have, the risk of death or disability from the disease itself is many times greater than the risk of the vaccine.
For everyone that takes a vaccine, their risk of death is higher than those that don't take the vaccine.
Pharma is the number 1 cause of death in the USA.
Well, if anti-contaminancy of vaccines was dependent upon an amount of mercury included as a preservative, and that amount was lowered, has the CDC decided to risk the user with the heretofeared contaminants? Or, has the CDC decided to settle for reduced vaccine efficacy as a bending to public outcry?
Removing thimerosal does increase the risk of bacterial growth. However, if the vaccine is supplied in single dose form, the risk is small because the dose is administered as soon as it is opened. That is why thimerosal is still used in multiple dose vials.
Removal of thimerosal does nothing to the efficacy of the vaccine.
Quote:
Mercury, aluminum and squalene are used more as offensive provocateurs to the immune system than as preservatives.
Silver is a great preservative.
Trouble is, it isn't much of a hazard/provocateur.
You can put a silver dollar in a quart of milk to preserve it from going sour for an extended time, but when you drink the preserved milk, no illness happens to the drinker.
This is much better than putting a broken thermometer in your milk.
If you are going to employ offensive agents to stimulate the immune system, you should use offensives that do not accrue and diminish the overall health and immunity of the host.
You shouldn't replace one bout of measles with a lifetime of allergies.
When a person contracts an illness, the ENTIRE immune system responds in a coordinated effort.
The entire immune system is strengthened and educated by this activity.
The entirety of the immune system is beyond the comprehension of the current biological community.
The CDC has been faking it for years.
Drink enough silver and you will turn blue.
Elemental mercury is actually poorly absorbed, so ingestion of the mercury from a thermometer would probably do you no harm. Inhalation of the vapor from mercury can be harmful, though. Do you know the biggest source of inhaled mercury for most of us? Good old air.
For the remainder of your comments, can you support them with a link, please? Reference an immunology textbook? Any scientific source that provides evidence that vaccines "diminish the overall health and immunity of the host? Anything except anti-vaccine websites?
Why should the people who study vaccines and immunology "fake it"? I get it, it's this gigantic international conspiracy, right? Yeah, sure.
Sorry, I'll take the word of folks who actually study biology.
This is absolutely backwards. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a person is any safer by taking a flu vaccination. Considering the amount of people the big pharmas are employing, the potential profit and the massive budget to buy/disseminate friendly science it's telling that there's no empirical evidence as you claim. Sometimes I feel sorry for those who believe everything they're told & sometimes I think you guys must be paid shills of the pharmas/corporations. No one with an IQ over 90 could actually be this afraid of the flu.
If there were no vaccines, big pharma would be even bigger. It would be much more profitable to treat sick people than it is to prevent them from getting sick in the first place. You can pay for a lot of vaccine for what a single day in an ICU would cost.
The nurses who post here will tell you they have never seen a death from a vaccine. Some have seen babies die from whooping cough, though.
Every vaccine that is developed undergoes analysis to make sure it is economically advantageous to use it. If the cost cannot be justified, the vaccine will not be produced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason3000
A "significant number of people end up dead" from the flu, really? What do you consider "significant"? The CDC itself (who obviously has horse in this race) claim an average of 36,000 deaths from the flu annually (.001% of population) in the U.S., but admits it counts "flu related deaths" into that number such as pneumonia, respiratory and circulatory deaths and that those are basically just guesses. What they do is take a % of those deaths and just attribute them to the flu without ever verifying that they were flu related. Now, if their unsubstantiated/enhanced figure of .001% of the population dies because of the flu (which it doesn't), but only a small fraction of those deaths are people outside of infants, the elderly and the already ill....how "significant" is this really?
Direct from the CDC's website....
Why doesn’t CDC base its seasonal flu mortality estimates only on death certificates that specifically list influenza?
Seasonal influenza may lead to death from other causes, such as pneumonia, congestive heart failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It has been recognized for many years that influenza is infrequently listed on death certificates and testing for seasonal influenza infections is usually not done, particularly among the elderly who are at greatest risk of seasonal influenza complications and death. Some deaths — particularly in the elderly — are associated with secondary complications of seasonal influenza (including bacterial pneumonias). Influenza virus infection may not be identified in many instances because influenza virus is only detectable for a short period of time and/or many people don’t seek medical care until after the first few days of acute illness. For these and other reasons, statistical modeling strategies have been used to estimate seasonal flu-related deaths for many decades, both in the United States and the United Kingdom. Only counting deaths where influenza was included on a death certificate would be a gross underestimation of seasonal influenza’s true impact.
Thanks for explaining how the CDC estimates flu deaths. That you apparently do not understand the methodology does not mean it is not true. If the original illness is influenza and the patient dies from a superimposed bacterial pneumonia which he would not have had if the flu had not come first, that is legitimately counted as a flu death.
If one person in a thousand dies because he got the flu, that is very significant. It sounds as if you do not think an infant dying from influenza means anything. That's just sad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoOBama
Why would the un vaccinated need to be quarantined. If the vaccine works, the others are in no danger.
It's really a personal freedom.
Because vaccines are not 100% effective. Despite that, those who are not vaccinated are more likely to catch the disease and spread it. Also, there are those who cannot be vaccinated because they are too young or have true medical contraindications.
It is not just your "personal freedom". It affects everyone in the community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoOBama
For everyone that takes a vaccine, their risk of death is higher than those that don't take the vaccine.
Pharma is the number 1 cause of death in the USA.
I have already responded to this.
Both statements are untrue. Either support them or withdraw them.
Well, that would depend on which chelator is used for the delivery, wouldn't it?
Quote:
Inhalation of the vapor from mercury can be harmful, though. Do you know the biggest source of inhaled mercury for most of us?
From mercury amalgam fillings constantly vaporizing.
Quote:
For the remainder of your comments, can you support them with a link, please? Reference an immunology textbook? Any scientific source that provides evidence that vaccines "diminish the overall health and immunity of the host? Anything except anti-vaccine websites?
Mercury, like bleach, has no biological friends. It doesn't play well with any.
Quote:
Why should the people who study vaccines and immunology "fake it"? I get it, it's this gigantic international conspiracy, right? Yeah, sure.
Scientists study what they are funded to study. The CDC, however, is a bureaucratic organization, more than a scientific organization.
Quote:
Sorry, I'll take the word of folks who actually study biology.
They really do have a hard time distinguishing a cold from a flu, don't they?
Last edited by Hyperthetic; 12-24-2013 at 10:41 PM..
Well, that would depend on which chelator is used for the delivery, wouldn't it?
From mercury amalgam fillings constantly vaporizing.
Mercury, like bleach, has no biological friends. It doesn't play well with any.
Scientists study what they are funded to study. The CDC, however, is a bureaucratic organization, more than a scientific organization.
They really do have a hard time distinguishing a cold from a flu, don't they?
Blah blah blah, anti vaccination websites pushed by supplement companies and hippies apparently carry more weight than bureaucracies and funded studies to you....
I see you are lacking in citations and heavy on rhetoric....
Why do you keep mentioning thimerosal? If you have done any "research" at all, you should be able to determine that thimerosal is no longer used in vaccines except multidose flu vaccine vials. You do not have to get any thimerosal if you do not want it. However, there is no scientific evidence that thimerosal in vaccines is dangerous.
Focusing on the substances that are present in minute amounts in vaccines and which have extremely tiny, virtually impossible to quantify risks while ignoring the much greater risks of diseases prevented by vaccines results in terribly flawed opinions about vaccines, including flu vaccine.
The problem with catching the flu is that a significant number of people end up dead from it.
Why do I keep mentioning thimerosal? I haven't. I mentioned it just once in this thread. Make that twice since I said it in this post as well.
Blah blah blah, anti vaccination websites pushed by supplement companies and hippies apparently carry more weight than bureaucracies and funded studies to you....
I see you are lacking in citations and heavy on rhetoric....
Maybe I'm not as dependently authoritarian as you.
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.
What do you consider "significant"? The CDC itself (who obviously has horse in this race) claim an average of 36,000 deaths from the flu annually (.001% of population) in the U.S., but admits it counts "flu related deaths" into that number such as pneumonia, respiratory and circulatory deaths and that those are basically just guesses. What they do is take a % of those deaths and just attribute them to the flu without ever verifying that they were flu related. Now, if their unsubstantiated/enhanced figure of .001% of the population dies because of the flu (which it doesn't), but only a small fraction of those deaths are people outside of infants, the elderly and the already ill....how "significant" is this really? 
