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.
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
That's possible. I always chuckle at those trials where the number of side effects is as high or higher in the placebo group.
And there are pre-trials, called washouts, where the drug companies give participants the drugs, and those in the placebo group who spontaneously get better are eliminated from the study. This helps skew the data in favor of drug treatment, as they show that the only people who got better were those taking the drug.
And that is a fact. Do you chuckle at that and look at all the info? Or just the info that supports your provaccine stance?
BTW: Are you for mandatory vaccinations? Yes or no?
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.
You have an odd way of interpreting my posts. I'm trying to be clear, but apparently I'm failing. I knew influenza, but given the common use of the term 'flu' I wasn't sure if "flu shot" was intended to cover anything other than just influenza. You've cleared that up nicely. Thank you. And you are right. Confusion between the technical term and the common usage could explain why some people keep insisting they get "the flu" from the shot. That, really, is what I was aiming at. And I certainly didn't mean to even remotely suggest that the CDC didn't know the difference.
Quote:
Why would you think there ISN'T a "fairly strong scientific consensus" for flu vaccine?
There is an important difference between believe that "there ISN'T" and "I don't know personally know that there is." My uncertainty stems from the fact that, as I've said, I have not looked into it well enough myself. Also, there is a difference between claiming a scientific consensus and there actually being a consensus. This gap leaves some room for doubt, and I have not done what I need to do to fill in the gap. For what it is worth, I am strongly inclined to believe you on this point. But until I have some time to follow up, I consciously and purposefully hold on to a bit of skepticism.
Quote:
Hammond isn't a scientist. ... Why would his "arguments" carry any weight at all?
The more I learn about him, the less weight he carries for me, but the reason I don't completely ignore him brings us back to the difference between claiming consensus and being consensus. Hammond was offering references to supposedly back up his claim that actual science did not support the claim of a consensus. I have not had time to follow up on his evidence, so I cannot honestly say that his arguments are empty. Again, I try to avoid logical fallacies like attacking the person and/or arguing from authority. Pointing out Hammond's background and his associations with other people does not serve as a substitute for specific arguments against his specific claims. (And, again trying to be clear: I'm not saying I expect you to provide everything; I'm simply saying that I have not done the legwork.)
I try to be careful not to say that I "know" X, or even "believe" X until I feel confident that I have been exposed to some of the best evidence for and against X. But, for what it's worth: I fully plan to get my flu shot again next year, and I would encourage most people to do so. I have not significantly wavered from that opinion at any point in this thread.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 12-20-2018 at 12:59 PM..
You are doing exactly what the "pro-disease" (since apparently some of the vaccine abstainers don't like to be called 'anti' anything) people do, raise FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).
As for your misunderstanding of flu/influenza, it's a common one; it's been explained in this thread several times and even one of the pro-disease crowd members acknowledged it's not a gastrointestinal disease. Just because YOU didn't know any different, that doesn't mean there isn't a difference or that the CDC doesn't know the difference. I will say, kids often vomit/get diarrhea with just about everything, but it's not the main symptom of influenza (flu) even in kids.
When I was doing patient education, there was a saying "the only dumb question is the one you don't ask" but I'm really beginning to wonder since posting on CD. Why, if flu doesn't have anything to do with stomach bugs, would the vaccine cover them? Do you expect polio vaccine to protect against say, hand, foot and mouth disease?
Again, why would you think there isn't a strong scientific consensus for the vaccine? The health agencies of several countries, not just the US, recommend it for everyone, and many (most?) other countries recommend it for the elderly and other high risk groups. Flu vaccine has been around since the 1940s, and recommended for the elderly and other high risk people at least since the 1970s. Why do you think the insurance companies in the US, and the universal health payors in most other developed countries, pay for the flu shot if there's not a "strong scientific consensus"?
And there are pre-trials, called washouts, where the drug companies give participants the drugs, and those in the placebo group who spontaneously get better are eliminated from the study. This helps skew the data in favor of drug treatment, as they show that the only people who got better were those taking the drug.
And that is a fact. Do you chuckle at that and look at all the info? Or just the info that supports your provaccine stance?
BTW: Are you for mandatory vaccinations? Yes or no?
Do provide a citation from a primary source, that is, not "Natural News", "Age of Autism" and other such media.
Just more anti-science nonsense. If you don't want the vaccine, that's your choice. There are pros and cons. The flu vaccine protects only against the most recent strains, usually the previous year's. But because the virus mutates constantly, each year's vaccine is not a guarantee that you won't get the flu from another strain. The vaccine does NOT cause the flu. It's like putting on a seatbelt. It protects you from some accidents, but not all, and not always. Getting the annual vaccine is about lowering your risk of contraction, which is definitely a positive, even if it is not a guarantee. And because the flu can be deadly even in weaker forms, you could actually help save some lives by not becoming an active spreader.
But hey, do what you want because you heard on some nut's YouTube channel that it causes autism or something.
Just more anti-science nonsense. If you don't want the vaccine, that's your choice. There are pros and cons. The flu vaccine protects only against the most recent strains, usually the previous year's. But because the virus mutates constantly, each year's vaccine is not a guarantee that you won't get the flu from another strain. The vaccine does NOT cause the flu. It's like putting on a seatbelt. It protects you from some accidents, but not all, and not always. Getting the annual vaccine is about lowering your risk of contraction, which is definitely a positive, even if it is not a guarantee. And because the flu can be deadly even in weaker forms, you could actually help save some lives by not becoming an active spreader.
But hey, do what you want because you heard on some nut's YouTube channel that it causes autism or something.
Agree with all but the bold. For the second time (at least), now strains are chosen for the vaccine: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season...-selection.htm "The influenza viruses in the seasonal flu vaccine are selected each year based on surveillance data indicating which viruses are circulating and forecasts about which viruses are the most likely to circulate during the coming season."
The flu vaccine is developed based on the evidence available at the time when the vaccine is developed. While it doesn't always guarantee 100% immunization against one year's strain, even receiving the vaccine can at the very least minimize the severity of the flu if contracted.
To claim the flu vaccine doesn't work or that is causes harm is simply anti-science ignorance.
Agree with all but the bold. For the second time (at least), now strains are chosen for the vaccine: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season...-selection.htm "The influenza viruses in the seasonal flu vaccine are selected each year based on surveillance data indicating which viruses are circulating and forecasts about which viruses are the most likely to circulate during the coming season."
That's essentially what I said, though. They attempt to protect against strains that are already out there, meaning that if the virus mutates again within the same year or after a vaccine is created, there's not much they can do about it until the next round of vaccines. A lot of people seem to believe that the vaccine is good for all flu strains, and I think that misinformation is partly why there is such distrust with it. People who take vaccines can and do still get the flu, but they don't realize that they didn't take a vaccine for that particular strain, so they just assume the vaccine's a scam. And that's how conspiracy theories get started.
I’ve been forced to receive it at my workplace for almost 10 years now with no adverse reactions. Only had the flu once in that time.
I've never had it and haven't had the flu in well over 10 years.
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.
