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.
You are lying about me again. I have not used the term "science deniers". If I have, please source it.
I did not say that about flu vaccine. You are once again lying about me. I have always emphasized that there are NO mandatory vaccines for anything in the US.
I can see that you want to get the thread closed, because I'm not putting up with people telling blatant LIES about me.
So, I'll ask the question directly: Do you believe the flu vaccine should be mandatory for everyone?
If not, why are you so terrified of the fact that people refuse it?
[This question is based on your hundreds of pro vaccine posts across all topic threads in CD (health & wellness, parenting and POC, to name a few), demanding people to go get the vaccine, now's the time to get the vaccine, everyone should get the vaccine, it's not to late to get the vaccine.]
In his defense I asked, in response to his saying that drug companies need to be prosected, what they should be prosecuted for.
OK, I guess there were a couple conversations going on and pknopp responded to me when he should have responded to you.
For everyone's edification, there are no fines or jail sentences for failure to vaccinate for anything here in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person
I don't remember the details but I seem to remember that last year's vaccine wasn't as effective due to the strains of flu. It may have been due to a mutation in one strain after the vaccine was formulated and distributed.
The predominant strain of flu circulating last year was "A" H3N2. There was H3N2 vaccine in the shot, but it wasn't very effective for many reasons. The H3N2 componenet of vaccine has been changed for this year. There was so much mininformation in the media last year it's no wonder people got confused.
Glad to hear it I was expecting a SWAT team to descend on my house any time now.
Anyway if the vaccine works so well, the flu should only be spread among the miscreants who don't get their shot.
I called them off. Actually, if the vaccine is 50% effective, some people that got shots will still get the flu. https://www.beckershospitalreview.co...udy-finds.html "The study included 5,806 participants, and efficacy of IIV4 was demonstrated for 4,980 participants. IIV4 vaccine efficacy was 50.98 percent against influenza caused by any A or B type and 68.4 percent against influenza caused by vaccine-like strains."
I don't get the flu shot just based off of personal experience, not science. I don't care what science has to say. When I was active duty I had to get a flu shot each year and sometimes I got sick after, sometimes I didn't. Each time I was told that it was a dead virus and I cant get sick from it, but many times I did. I haven't had a flu shot in almost 10 years now, and in that time I haven't had the flu. I am not anti vaccination, but the flu shot is one that I wont get because I don't feel the need to.
[b][color="purple"]... It's interesting that you don't know what the flu vaccine is meant to cover, yet you have argued pretty much against it in this thread.
It seems you have completely misunderstood the majority of my posts. I started out lumping opposition to the flu vax into the same category as anti-vax and anti-science in general. Then I briefly expressed some uncertainty about the flu vax in one post after reading the article by Hammond, but even then I tried to emphasize that I was merely questioning - not "against" it. Then, when you pointed out that Hammond is a general anti-vaxxer, I leaned back closer to my original position, but ultimately emphasized that I just don't really know about the flu vax because this is not something I've investigated much.
"I don't know" is not the same as "I'm against" - it is, plain and simply, an admission of I don't know.
If there is, in fact, a fairly strong scientific consensus, then I'm strongly inclined to believe the science because they know a lot more about this stuff than I do. But as to whether there really is a true scientific consensus, I'm a little less certain because, frankly, I haven't looked into it enough. Sometimes popularizers and people who have various personal agenda's will spin the science in misleading ways. As I've said several times, I'm confident in vaccines in general, but I'm uncertain about the flu vax in particular. But, again, "uncertain" doesn't mean "against" - it is, plain and simply, a confession of my own ignorance on the particular questions surrounding the flu vax.
What I'd really like to see are some good specific arguments against the specific claims made by Hammond and others specifically against the flu vax.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 12-20-2018 at 11:38 AM..
Each time I was told that it was a dead virus and I cant get sick from it, but many times I did.
This makes me wonder if there could be a "placebo" effect at work. If people fear that the shot will make them sick, they could end up with symptoms simply for that reason. (The term 'nocebo' is relevant here. Sometimes people in drug trials will get sick from the placebo - apparently stemming from mind/body relations that are still somewhat mysterious.)
It seems you have completely misunderstood the majority of my posts. I started out lumping opposition to the flu vax into the same category as anti-vax and anti-science in general. Then I briefly expressed some uncertainty about the flu vax in one post after reading the article by Hammond, but even then I tried to emphasize that I was merely questioning - not "against" it. Then, when you pointed out that Hammond is a general anti-vaxxer, I leaned back closer to my original position, but ultimately emphasized that I just don't really know about the flu vax because this is not something I've investigated much.
"I don't know" is not the same as "I'm against" - it is, plain and simply, an admission of I don't know.
If there is, in fact, a fairly strong scientific consensus, then I'm strongly inclined to believe the science because they know a lot more about this stuff than I do. But as to whether there really is a true scientific consensus, I'm a little less certain because, frankly, I haven't looked into it enough. Sometimes popularizers and people who have various personal agenda's will spin the science in misleading ways. As I've said several times, I'm confident in vaccines in general, but I'm uncertain about the flu vax in particular. But, again, "uncertain" doesn't mean "against" - it is, plain and simply, a confession of my own ignorance on the particular questions surrounding the flu vax.
What I'd really like to see are some good specific arguments against the specific claims made by Hammond and others specifically against the flu vax.
In point of fact, you showed you did not know what flu is, what flu vaccine is supposed to prevent, and you don't (didn't) think the CDC knew that either and that is what I was addressing.
Why would you think there ISN'T a "fairly strong scientific consensus" for flu vaccine? Many of us have posted such evidence, from real scientists. Hammond isn't a scientist. He probably hasn't taken a science course since college, when he took the minimum requirement "soft science" course. He's supposedly a foreign policy "expert" and he was an ESL teacher. He works for Robert Kennedy, Jr. who still hasn't gotten the memo about mercury! (Probably b/c Kennedy doesn't know anything about science either.) Why would his "arguments" carry any weight at all? https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeremyrhammond
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
This makes me wonder if there could be a "placebo" effect at work. If people fear that the shot will make them sick, they could end up with symptoms simply for that reason. (The term 'nocebo' is relevant here. Sometimes people in drug trials will get sick from the placebo - apparently stemming from mind/body relations that are still somewhat mysterious.)
That's possible. I always chuckle at those trials where the number of side effects is as high or higher in the placebo group.
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.
