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)
View Poll Results: Are you opposed to getting a flu shot?
Yes 94 38.06%
No 153 61.94%
Voters: 247. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-19-2018, 09:49 AM
 
21,382 posts, read 7,902,269 times
Reputation: 18149

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
Thank you Katarina! This certainly casts great doubt on Hammond's credibility. He appears to be anti-vaxxer in the broad sense and that, I think, is sheer stupidity. More importantly, that attitude poses a worldwide health risk. If his arguments against the flu vax are just more of the same drivel, then I am back to supporting the flu vax.

But there is an important "if" here. I don't want to committee the fallacy of attacking the arguer instead of the argument. What I would need to see now are specific refutations of his specific arguments against the flu vax. The link you posted raises important warning flags, but it does not contradict Hammond's specific claims in the article posted by GuyNTexas. So, for now, I have to remain on the fence.

The key issue in my mind is this: We already know that virtually all medical procedures carry some risks. The flu vax is no exception. The question is the overall cost/benefit ratio. Anecdotal evidence of certain individual getting sick from the shot, or still getting the flu after the get the shot, is just a red herring. No one doubts that such individual stories will exist. Statistically, such stories are practically inevitable. What matters is the overall comparative risks: Likelihood of serious complications from the flu shot vs. likelihood of getting the flu without the shot. There is no way I'm going to have time to personally investigate this. My hope is that some of you who have already jumped into this debate can offer some references that specifically address the points being made by Hammond. If his specific claims don't hold water, then the anti-flu-vax attitude loses a great deal of credibility (in my mind, at least).
Which is why it should be left to the person involved to make their own decision. But provaxxers want to make the decision for everybody.

And THAT is the problem. If YOU want it? GO get it. If someone else doesn't? Leave them alone.

But provaxxers are blinded ... if they want it everyone must have it !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
Old 12-19-2018, 10:03 AM
 
19,490 posts, read 12,122,052 times
Reputation: 26256
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
I never remember them pushing the flu shot so much when I was growing up. I also agree...who the heck knows what's really in those shots. I also agree that their effectiveness is questionable.

I don't like Bill Maher, but every now again he nails it:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPrLCIoxe8Y
Spot on. I note the defensiveness from the panel to Maher's basic logic. Chris Matthews and the governor didn't even know what mercury amalgam fillings are, even though they have them. I'm not sure how you can even begin a rational discussion with people who choose to stick their heads in the sand.
 
Old 12-19-2018, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,475,124 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamajane View Post
Spot on. I note the defensiveness from the panel to Maher's basic logic. Chris Matthews and the governor didn't even know what mercury amalgam fillings are, even though they have them. I'm not sure how you can even begin a rational discussion with people who choose to stick their heads in the sand.
LOL! "Defensiveness", the cardinal sin of mental health according to some posters. "Logic" doesn't always work in research. Facts are what you need. Maher is full of it.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/11/04...nowledge-10407
"Mr Maher has chosen to fill his neurons with pseudoscience. He continues to be one of the most visible and influential anti-vaxxers. While bizarrely claiming to be pro-vaccine, in 2015, Mr Maher praised Robert F. Kennedy, Jr for publicizing the myth that vaccines cause autism. . .Mr Maher has also questioned the germ theory of disease, a bedrock of medical microbiology."

Plus much more!

See this as well: https://vaxopedia.org/2016/10/15/bil...r-on-vaccines/
"Bill Maher is well known for his anti-vaccine views.

On his own show, Real Time with Bill Maher, and when appearing on other shows, he has said that:

A flu shot is the worst thing you can do. (Larry King Live)
I don’t believe in vaccination either.
Measles is not really that deadly a disease.
I don’t understand why this is controversial? Why we have this emotional debate about something that—there is science there. It astounds me that liberals, who are always suspicious of corporations… and defending minorities, somehow when it comes to this minority that’s hurt, it’s like, ‘You know what? Shut the **** up and let me take every vaccine that Merck wants to shove down my throat.’
I’ve never argued that vaccines don’t work. I just don’t think you need them… (Playboy interview)"


Again plus much more. It is not Maher's critics who need to get their heads out of the sand.
 
Old 12-19-2018, 10:13 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,475,124 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
Thank you Katarina! This certainly casts great doubt on Hammond's credibility. He appears to be anti-vaxxer in the broad sense and that, I think, is sheer stupidity. More importantly, that attitude poses a worldwide health risk. If his arguments against the flu vax are just more of the same drivel, then I am back to supporting the flu vax.

But there is an important "if" here. I don't want to committee the fallacy of attacking the arguer instead of the argument. What I would need to see now are specific refutations of his specific arguments against the flu vax. The link you posted raises important warning flags, but it does not contradict Hammond's specific claims in the article posted by GuyNTexas. So, for now, I have to remain on the fence.

The key issue in my mind is this: We already know that virtually all medical procedures carry some risks. The flu vax is no exception. The question is the overall cost/benefit ratio. Anecdotal evidence of certain individual getting sick from the shot, or still getting the flu after the get the shot, is just a red herring. No one doubts that such individual stories will exist. Statistically, such stories are practically inevitable. What matters is the overall comparative risks: Likelihood of serious complications from the flu shot vs. likelihood of getting the flu without the shot. There is no way I'm going to have time to personally investigate this. My hope is that some of you who have already jumped into this debate can offer some references that specifically address the points being made by Hammond. If his specific claims don't hold water, then the anti-flu-vax attitude loses a great deal of credibility (in my mind, at least).
Contrary to many accusations on this thread and others, I am not getting paid to post the pro-vaccine POV. So, I do not have all day to surf the web to refute all of your and Hammond's points. I would suggest you read Hammond's primary sources instead of his interpretation of them. You might be surprised. Much of the Cochrane stuff is complaints about how studies were set up and the like, not complaints about the science.
 
Old 12-19-2018, 10:42 AM
 
Location: New York Area
34,744 posts, read 16,767,477 times
Reputation: 29883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
I broke one of my primary personal rules in this thread, and for that I must now apologize (while wiping egg from my face). I experienced a knee-jerk reaction then jumped in and stated a personal opinion without first tracking down the BEST arguments and evidence against my position. Shame on me. I will let this post stand as a testament to why this is a good general policy, and as an example of what can happen when one fails to uphold it.

There is a bit of extra irony here because I have been a long-time skeptic of big pharma, the medical industry and, more generally, anything where entrenched profit-motive-interests could be driving public paradigms and policies (which seems to include practically everything these days) so this topic should have triggered red flags for me all over the place. But in this case I got just plain lazy and broke my personal vows and now I have to pay for it. Thanks to GuyNTexas for posting the link that awoke me from my lazy slumber and made me feel foolish.

WARNING: I have still not done a good personal investigation of the actual scientific evidence, and I cannot personally attest to the credibility of the article by Jeremy R. Hammond, so I'm not totally flipping over to "the flu vaccine is worthless or dangerous," but I am, for the moment, landing squarely in the camp of "I don't know." Whatever Hammond's personal agenda, credibility, or expertise might be, he does seem to be offering good arguments and evidence for his conclusions, and that carries a lot of weight with me. Perhaps now someone can offer some good counter-arguments that are specific to the claims made by Hammond. If enough of his key points can be refuted, I may go back to my previous position. If not, I might join the ranks of the flu-vax skeptics.

Just to be clear: I'm focusing only on the flu vax here. I still think it is foolish for people to be anti-vax in general (but, as always, I'm open to good evidence and arguments to the contrary). I would hate to see anyone hastily generalize from "the flu vax is a scam" to "all vaxs are scams" or "all science is a scam" etc. - that logical fallacy leads to sheer stupidity and a lot of unnecessary suffering.
Certainly, the evidence that a flu vaccination is a dire necessity is underwhelming.
 
Old 12-19-2018, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,429 posts, read 2,723,455 times
Reputation: 1667
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
I applaud your open mindedness, and glad you found the article informative. While I could stealthfully navigate the topic touting an equally open mind, I must be honest. Given my extensive review of material (pro and con) over the past 25 years, I am at this point convinced that immunology as a medical science began as a fraud, and continues to be.
And I will have to be honest too. This is starting to strike me as just plain baloney. I have a few years of college-level credits in biology, so I understand the basics of immunology. I am not even remotely an expert on the subject, but to convince me that immunizations have not been highly effective against things like smallpox, measles, and polio, I will need to see some extensively well-confirmed peer-reviewed research leading me to this conclusion.

And although I find history interesting, the bottom line for me will need to rest on contemporary research and publications. The entire science of chemistry had sketch beginnings in alchemy, but that doesn't mean that modern chemistry is bogus. If the science of smallpox vax had sketchy origins, it would not follow that modern immunology is bogus.

If you can offer an example or two of the BEST - most well-documented and verified - research showing that the smallpox vax was not (or logically could not have been) responsible for the virtual disappearance of smallpox, I would be happy to take a look at it. My mind remains open but, as I see it, a very heavy burden rests on the anti-vaxxers.
 
Old 12-19-2018, 10:54 AM
 
19,490 posts, read 12,122,052 times
Reputation: 26256
When I am elderly I will get a yearly flu shot. I am not there yet and have low contact with the public so low risk. Last flu was about five years ago and I got through it fine. I felt sick for a good while but I understand my immune system was working for me just the way it should.

I am more concerned that when I developed a raging finger infection the doctor refused to give me antibiotics. Grateful for that healthy immune system.
 
Old 12-19-2018, 11:05 AM
 
79,908 posts, read 44,064,775 times
Reputation: 17204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
And I will have to be honest too. This is starting to strike me as just plain baloney. I have a few years of college-level credits in biology, so I understand the basics of immunology. I am not even remotely an expert on the subject, but to convince me that immunizations have not been highly effective against things like smallpox, measles, and polio, I will need to see some extensively well-confirmed peer-reviewed research leading me to this conclusion.

And although I find history interesting, the bottom line for me will need to rest on contemporary research and publications. The entire science of chemistry had sketch beginnings in alchemy, but that doesn't mean that modern chemistry is bogus. If the science of smallpox vax had sketchy origins, it would not follow that modern immunology is bogus.

If you can offer an example or two of the BEST - most well-documented and verified - research showing that the smallpox vax was not (or logically could not have been) responsible for the virtual disappearance of smallpox, I would be happy to take a look at it. My mind remains open but, as I see it, a very heavy burden rests on the anti-vaxxers.
To say that vaccines have done good things but just because they have doesn't mean every vaccine should be for everyone and disagree that you should just accept that, does not make one anti-vaccine.

Considering who is involved and their track record as a whole, people have every reason to be leery.
 
Old 12-19-2018, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,429 posts, read 2,723,455 times
Reputation: 1667
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice View Post
Which is why it should be left to the person involved to make their own decision. But provaxxers want to make the decision for everybody.
If the science shows that vaccines provide a significant public health benefit (as, I think, is clearly true with smallpox, measles, polio, etc.), then people who refuse the vaccines are posing a significant health risk to the public (especially if a sizable percentage of the public falls into this category). It would be a tragedy if pseudoscience and conspiracy-theory paranoia convinced a significant number of parents to refuse to allow their children to be vaccinated. Children would be suffering and dying for totally preventable reasons (which happens enough as it is, without adding anti-vax foolishness to the list). Once adulthood is reached, I might agree that individual choice should be the default, but even there the choice should be made after exposer to claims made by real science, not just pseudoscience.

Obviously, with human lives literally at risk, we are all morally responsible for thinking critically based on the BEST arguments and evidence available on both sides of the controversy. In the case of the flu vax, I'm still on the fence, but if the anti-flu-vax movement turns out to be driven primarily by misunderstanding of immunology in general, then I will lose whatever sympathy I may have briefly gained for the anti-flu-vaxers, base on the Hammond article.
 
Old 12-19-2018, 11:13 AM
 
79,908 posts, read 44,064,775 times
Reputation: 17204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
If the science shows that vaccines provide a significant public health benefit (as, I think, is clearly true with smallpox, measles, polio, etc.), then people who refuse the vaccines are posing a significant health risk to the public (especially if a sizable percentage of the public falls into this category). It would be a tragedy if pseudoscience and conspiracy-theory paranoia convinced a significant number of parents to refuse to allow their children to be vaccinated. Children would be suffering and dying for totally preventable reasons (which happens enough as it is, without adding anti-vax foolishness to the list). Once adulthood is reached, I might agree that individual choice should be the default, but even there the choice should be made after exposer to claims made by real science, not just pseudoscience.

Obviously, with human lives literally at risk, we are all morally responsible for thinking critically based on the BEST arguments and evidence available on both sides of the controversy. In the case of the flu vax, I'm still on the fence, but if the anti-flu-vax movement is driven primarily by misunderstanding of immunology in general, then I will lose whatever sympathy I may have briefly gained for the anti-flu-vaxers, base on the Hammond article.
Science has determined that the flu vaccine should be optional.
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.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:46 AM.

© 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