Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-27-2013, 11:20 AM
 
13,277 posts, read 7,804,265 times
Reputation: 2138

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Nope. A yearly flu shot will not overrun your body with toxins. Most people ruin their bodies through bad diet. Ain't no thang.

Anti-vaccinators have zero understanding of the human body.
Squalene, injected, goes to places it would never go through any other mechanism such as eating or creating it.

Aluminum and mercury, and tweaked dead viruses, go EVERYWHERE your body never intended them to be.

Confused antibodies easily become "anti-personal"-"anti-corporate". A few micrograms of a Georgia peanut can cause an all out deadly attack on the person corporate.

Short term "results" are counter to long term "effects".

Dick and George's "Mission Accomplished" is a good example of global "attenuation".

Did you get your attenuation shot today?

If you did, you are less of a person for your "faith".

Last edited by Hyperthetic; 12-27-2013 at 12:12 PM..

 
Old 12-27-2013, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
36,962 posts, read 40,892,726 times
Reputation: 44883
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
Suzy, we are talking about mandatory vaccines for children aged 6 months and up. The studies on vaccinations in infants up to the age of 2 and vaccines shows that the vaccine worked as well as the placebo. That is where there is no evidence that they work for children under the age of two, the same age group that will be mandated to receive the vaccine, or else. At best, it shows that more research is needed, at worst it shows that there is no good reason at all to vaccinate this group.

Back to my comment regarding "should we mandate that all mothers breastfeed?" Because that would actually help and we know this but I think that most people recognize that we should not mandate behavior. I don't get why mandating vaccines is different. Your argument that we should mandate vaccines is not sound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
This is so true. We can't just rely on studies to tell us the whole story. Statistics can be manipulated and oftentimes the studies only support those conclusions that support the popular or mainstream view that vaccines are nothing but sunshine and roses. The studies that show a different side to the story do not get published. Scientists and researchers who have results or interpretations of the data that go against the mainstream view are quickly labeled as "Quacks". People don't think twice about getting their info from "pro vaccine" websites" but won't even look at a website that they deem as "anti-vaccine". It's not all as cut and dry as some like to pretend that it is. Based on what I know, I will not be getting a flu vaccine ever and neither will my children.
I think your anti-vaccine position is now clear. You prefer to believe there is a conspiracy to cover up adverse effects of vaccines. The effectiveness of influenza vaccine really has nothing to do with your stance.

And there is evidence that flu vaccine is effective in young children.

In this study, the effectiveness was 66% in children under the age of two. Flu was confirmed by laboratory testing.

Effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccine in children aged 9 months to 3 years: an observational cohort study : The Lancet Infectious Diseases

"Findings
We enrolled 631 children into our study with a mean age of 2·13 years (range 9—40 months). Seven (5%) of 154 fully vaccinated children and 61 (13%) of 456 unvaccinated children contracted influenza during the study (effectiveness 66%, 95% CI 29—84; p=0·003). In the subgroup of children younger than 2 years, four (4%) of 96 fully vaccinated children and 21 (12%) of 172 unvaccinated children contracted influenza (66%, 9—88, p=0·03). We were unable to record any adverse events associated with the vaccination of the children in our study.

Interpretation
Trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine was effective in preventing influenza in young children, including those younger than 2 years. Our findings suggest that influenza vaccine recommendations should be reassessed in most countries."
 
Old 12-27-2013, 01:22 PM
 
26,646 posts, read 13,572,771 times
Reputation: 19104
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
I think your anti-vaccine position is now clear. You prefer to believe there is a conspiracy to cover up adverse effects of vaccines. The effectiveness of influenza vaccine really has nothing to do with your stance.

And there is evidence that flu vaccine is effective in young children.

In this study, the effectiveness was 66% in children under the age of two. Flu was confirmed by laboratory testing.

Effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccine in children aged 9 months to 3 years: an observational cohort study : The Lancet Infectious Diseases

"Findings
We enrolled 631 children into our study with a mean age of 2·13 years (range 9—40 months). Seven (5%) of 154 fully vaccinated children and 61 (13%) of 456 unvaccinated children contracted influenza during the study (effectiveness 66%, 95% CI 29—84; p=0·003). In the subgroup of children younger than 2 years, four (4%) of 96 fully vaccinated children and 21 (12%) of 172 unvaccinated children contracted influenza (66%, 9—88, p=0·03). We were unable to record any adverse events associated with the vaccination of the children in our study.

Interpretation
Trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine was effective in preventing influenza in young children, including those younger than 2 years. Our findings suggest that influenza vaccine recommendations should be reassessed in most countries."
I'm shocked that you would deny the fact that studies that serve the industry get published over studies that do not serve the industry. Money is a very powerful tool. You can't be that naïve. Can you?

The effectiveness of vaccines is absolutely important to me, as are the adverse effects. I like to have all of the information when making a decision that is as important as this one. The information that I have seen thus far (both pro and anti vaccine) tells me that there is enough contradictory evidence regarding the flu vaccine and enough unknowns to not make it worth it for me or for my children. Like I've said before, there are valid reasons why vaccines are so controversial.

I believe that we are better off leading a healthy lifestyle and taking care of our immune systems so that if we do get hit with the flu, we can fight it. I also believe in frequent hand washing. I don't believe that injecting toxins and dead virus among other things is the best way to stay healthy. I'd greatly appreciate it if people like yourself and Mayor Bloomberg would not force your lifestyle choices on people like me who have a different point of view regarding health.
 
Old 12-27-2013, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
36,962 posts, read 40,892,726 times
Reputation: 44883
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
I'm shocked that you would deny the fact that studies that serve the industry get published over studies that do not serve the industry. Money is a very powerful tool. You can't be that naïve. Can you?

The effectiveness of vaccines is absolutely important to me, as are the adverse effects. I like to have all of the information when making a decision that is as important as this one. The information that I have seen thus far (both pro and anti vaccine) tells me that there is enough contradictory evidence regarding the flu vaccine and enough unknowns to not make it worth it for me or for my children. Like I've said before, there are valid reasons why vaccines are so controversial.

I believe that we are better off leading a healthy lifestyle and taking care of our immune systems so that if we do get hit with the flu, we can fight it. I also believe in frequent hand washing. I don't believe that injecting toxins and dead virus among other things is the best way to stay healthy. I'd greatly appreciate it if people like yourself and Mayor Bloomberg would not force your lifestyle choices on people like me who have a different point of view regarding health.
How do you account for the studies that have no financial ties to industry whatsoever?

The "controversy" is manufactured by the anti-vaccine folks, like yourself. To the scientists, there is no controversy about the value of vaccines.

You can live your "healthy lifestyle" and still get very ill from the flu.

No one will force you to vaccinate yourself or your family. However, if you exercise that choice, some public services may not be available to you. You just have to accept that more people believe the scientists than internet woo.
 
Old 12-27-2013, 03:12 PM
 
14,808 posts, read 8,458,266 times
Reputation: 7280
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
This is so true. We can't just rely on studies to tell us the whole story. Statistics can be manipulated and oftentimes the studies only support those conclusions that support the popular or mainstream view that vaccines are nothing but sunshine and roses. The studies that show a different side to the story do not get published. Scientists and researchers who have results or interpretations of the data that go against the mainstream view are quickly labeled as "Quacks". People don't think twice about getting their info from "pro vaccine" websites" but won't even look at a website that they deem as "anti-vaccine". It's not all as cut and dry as some like to pretend that it is. Based on what I know, I will not be getting a flu vaccine ever and neither will my children.
I'm not sure of the underlying motives of certain posters on this forum, as they continue to post mainstream "statistics" in defense of vaccines. Whether it is ignorance or malevolence is difficult to say, but one thing is all too clear ... for a growing majority, the lies are becoming too overt to mistake for anything other than what it is ... bald faced lies. As a result, people are justifiably rejecting this "company line" on vaccines, partly because of other lies about health that are falling apart at the seams, yet still being promoted by these same "trustworthy" mainstream sources.

For years, decades even, the typical "quack attack" tactic had worked very well in assassinating the characters of those courageous enough to go against the mainstream grain, however, these tactics are also failing, as the consensus science sources ignore new findings.

A new study by Harvard researchers CONFIRM the dangers and debilitating affects of fluoride, even at low doses deemed safe by the EPA, used as the baseline for water fluoridation programs. This can no longer be ignored, while it confirms the legitimacy of those "quacks" who have been warning the public of those very dangers for years, only to be relentlessly attacked by the consensus crowd who continues to insist on the safety and benefits of this absurd act of adding toxic waste to drinking water under the guise of good health.

Consequently, those same "quacks" who have warned of the dangera of fluoride, and who now warn of the dangers of vaccines, must be taken more seriously, as all of the data on fluoride are proving them correct, and crushing the credibility of the fluoride proponents who are also the proponents of vaccines.

One of the most knowledgable and most frequently attacked consensus busters ... Dr. Russell Blaylock, a board certified Neurosurgeon, as well as other credentialed professionals like Mercola, Tenpenny, Null, and others, have been warning of the dangers of MSG, Aspartame, fluoride, vaccines for years, and they are being proven correct, while the attacks on their characters and expertise are losing effectiveness, as people are witnessing the very results those people have been warning of.

Statistics notwithstanding, there is not a shred of credible evidence that any vaccine, be it flu or otherwise, proving the effectiveness and safety of these chemical cocktails of poison, with all claims being based on tainted studies paid for by the makers of this crap, along with assumptions and anecdote as it's only support.

The truth is, vaccination is based on fraudulent 1800's myth and wives tale, starting with smallpox vaccination that utilized an entirely different virus (cowpox) as the innoculating agent that could not have provided any benefit against the smallpox virus. While we are told that in order to be effective, a vaccine must use the exact virus for which one seeks protection, the one exception to this rule just so happens to be the mother of all vaccines ... smallpox. In complete contradiction, the mainstream establishment contends that coxpox virus was "close enough" to the smallpox virus to have worked. Why was that possible in this one exceptional instance? Because it had to be, else the fraud of vaccination erradicating smallpox would crumble to dust, and the domino effect would spell disaster for the entire industry of immunology.
 
Old 12-27-2013, 03:21 PM
 
Location: A safe distance from San Francisco
12,350 posts, read 9,627,178 times
Reputation: 13890
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
I'm shocked that you would deny the fact that studies that serve the industry get published over studies that do not serve the industry. Money is a very powerful tool. You can't be that naïve. Can you?

The effectiveness of vaccines is absolutely important to me, as are the adverse effects. I like to have all of the information when making a decision that is as important as this one. The information that I have seen thus far (both pro and anti vaccine) tells me that there is enough contradictory evidence regarding the flu vaccine and enough unknowns to not make it worth it for me or for my children. Like I've said before, there are valid reasons why vaccines are so controversial.

I believe that we are better off leading a healthy lifestyle and taking care of our immune systems so that if we do get hit with the flu, we can fight it. I also believe in frequent hand washing. I don't believe that injecting toxins and dead virus among other things is the best way to stay healthy. I'd greatly appreciate it if people like yourself and Mayor Bloomberg would not force your lifestyle choices on people like me who have a different point of view regarding health.
And I believe you are absolutely right - well spoken.
 
Old 12-27-2013, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Northeast
1,886 posts, read 2,210,798 times
Reputation: 3758
Quote:
Originally Posted by MangoMarie View Post
Who might that be?

Those who work in hospitals most likely to get flu shot - UPI.com

"More than 92 percent of physicians said they had gotten an influenza vaccine, 89 percent of pharmacists did, 88.5 percent of nurse practitioners/physician assistants did and 84.8 percent of nurses did.
Influenza vaccination coverage was highest among hospital-based healthcare personnel at 83 percent and was lowest among healthcare personnel at long-term care facilities at 58.9 percent"


Even among nursing personnel, the group with the lowest rate of flu shots, the vast majority still got vaccinated.
According to your reference..this tidbit was useful "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted an Internet panel survey of 1,944 self-selected healthcare personnel

Read more: Those who work in hospitals most likely to get flu shot - UPI.com

I don't find 1944 self-selected healthcare personal from an internet survey to be that statistically significant.

Are infants and the elderly more at risk when it comes to the flu..YES..

What about the different strains of the virus that common flu shot will do nothing in helping against. Not that it does anything anyway..

And also, you asked "who might that be" well that might be the nurses and some doctors I've talked too
about this issue, as I'm in the ER a few times a year from some construction accident or even during my
routine physicals..

The doctors (and even pharmacies) try and jam it down your throat. YOU WANT THE FLU SHOT!! Like OMG, I'm gonna die if i don't get it. Unless there is some serious strain of flu virus that is killing more than the usual, I'll always refuse and let my immune system do it's job, that and some good old chicken soup!

Last edited by brienzi; 12-27-2013 at 04:45 PM..
 
Old 12-27-2013, 03:55 PM
 
26,646 posts, read 13,572,771 times
Reputation: 19104
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
How do you account for the studies that have no financial ties to industry whatsoever?

The "controversy" is manufactured by the anti-vaccine folks, like yourself. To the scientists, there is no controversy about the value of vaccines.

You can live your "healthy lifestyle" and still get very ill from the flu.

No one will force you to vaccinate yourself or your family. However, if you exercise that choice, some public services may not be available to you. You just have to accept that more people believe the scientists than internet woo.
The studies that support the industry will be published no matter where the funding comes from. The studies taken as a whole are contradictory. They do not all stand in agreement that the flu vaccine is very effective and very safe. Another thing worth noting is that there is still a lot of unknown about the flu vaccine and others. Some things just have not been studied yet. I posted one link that shows some scientists questioning long held beliefs about vaccines. That means they don't all agree.

You can still get the flu vaccine and get very ill from the flu. I fully accept that I mat get the flu, no matter how I live my life and that I may get very sick. Trying to maintain a healthy lifestyle is my goal so that I can have the ability to fight it and avoid serious complications. They may happen anyway. Life is risky.

Mayor Bloomberg would be trying to force my children to become vaccinated if I lived in his city. He is a very wealthy man and he has tried to force issues in places other then NYC with his money. If it can happen in NYC, it can happen here. It is arrogant to force others to comply with your beliefs by taking away services that we all pay for in taxes.
 
Old 12-27-2013, 04:04 PM
 
Location: Northeast
1,886 posts, read 2,210,798 times
Reputation: 3758
There is no statistical evidence that the flu shot saves any lives. Study after study comes back showing the same dismal results: the flu vaccines are not an effective method of prevention of the flu, and they do not save lives. As mentioned earlier, they may even be responsible for an increased death rate in some groups.
In most cases the cause of death is the pneumonia, not the flu..

Just as the abortion debate "keep your hands off my body to the MAN" I'll decide what i need for myself thanks!
 
Old 12-27-2013, 04:05 PM
 
26,646 posts, read 13,572,771 times
Reputation: 19104
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
For years, decades even, the typical "quack attack" tactic had worked very well in assassinating the characters of those courageous enough to go against the mainstream grain, however, these tactics are also failing, as the consensus science sources ignore new findings.

A new study by Harvard researchers CONFIRM the dangers and debilitating affects of fluoride, even at low doses deemed safe by the EPA, used as the baseline for water fluoridation programs. This can no longer be ignored, while it confirms the legitimacy of those "quacks" who have been warning the public of those very dangers for years, only to be relentlessly attacked by the consensus crowd who continues to insist on the safety and benefits of this absurd act of adding toxic waste to drinking water under the guise of good health.

Consequently, those same "quacks" who have warned of the dangera of fluoride, and who now warn of the dangers of vaccines, must be taken more seriously, as all of the data on fluoride are proving them correct, and crushing the credibility of the fluoride proponents who are also the proponents of vaccines.

One of the most knowledgable and most frequently attacked consensus busters ... Dr. Russell Blaylock, a board certified Neurosurgeon, as well as other credentialed professionals like Mercola, Tenpenny, Null, and others, have been warning of the dangers of MSG, Aspartame, fluoride, vaccines for years, and they are being proven correct, while the attacks on their characters and expertise are losing effectiveness, as people are witnessing the very results those people have been warning of.
Agreed, Guy. People often dismiss and label those who fall outside of the mainstream point of view, "quacks" despite their credentials. Many people just don't want to, choose not to or can't handle that their mainstream sources might not have all of the answers. They will never admit that they also might not have their best interest in mind. I prefer to look at issues from all sides and then make my conclusions based on what makes the most sense. There is always more to it then just reading studies and statistics and taking them at face value.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top