Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 55,855
- 13,974
- 146
HardcoreRobot
Lifer
- Nov 7, 2000
- 16,404
- 3
- 81
been getting shot the for years, never had the flu
and i have had the flu, so i know the pain, just in the years i didnt get the shot
and i have had the flu, so i know the pain, just in the years i didnt get the shot
eits
Lifer
the cdc is in the pocket of the pharmaceutical companies... not only that, but the cdc distributed a flu vaccine that they knew was ineffective, yet they still told everyone to get it because it was effective against getting the flu for that year.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=747
http://www.medicalconsumers.org/pages/FluVaccineisRarelyEffective.html
http://www.rifeenergymedicine.com/flushotinfo.html
http://www.jrussellshealth.com/fluvacc.html
http://www.doctorbob.com/vd--flu-shot-season.html
etc.
i could go on, but i think you get the idea... but, then again, you might not. you seem to be the kind of guy who typically agrees with whatever an authority says.
Are you people f-ing serious? You think a flu shot needle hurts? And some of you would rather get the flu for a week than get a simple shot? It's like a bug bite and you don't notice it after about 20 seconds. Pvssies.
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
The CDC doesn't receive money from pharmaceutical companies.
Since influenza A varies from year to year, the vaccines must vary from year to year, thus we should expect the effectiveness to also vary from year to year. Some years may not be so good, most years are. You're pointing out one year and concluding all years must therefore be ineffective.
Additionally, the vaccine includes more than one subtype. So even if it's ineffective against the most common type for the year, the other subtypes, which can and do still cause infections, will be protected against.
Note that the vaccine also includes influenza B every year. Influenza B does not vary from year to year (unlike influenza A, it does not undergo genetic shift). So there's at least some reason to get the vaccine even they're completely off on the A strain.
But then again, IIRC, weren't you the one who claimed calcium fluxes caused mutations? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 55,855
- 13,974
- 146
I am the kind of guy who agrees with valid, peer reviewed and repeated evidence. None of which you have here.
You are mistaking one bad year for a normally occuring event.
Sure, they will miss on guessing which strains will be prevelent some years. But MOST years they guess right, and the shot is 70-90% effective in preventing the flu.
In fact, the first two links you posted had disclaimers to this effect.
Your second link suggests people go to the National Vaccine Information Center. A quack anti-immunization advocacy group. If we followed their advice millions would still be dying of Small Pox. This rules them out as a valid source.
The third is Mercola, a known quack and not worth discussing.
Same for the forth. Jane Russel is a complete quack.
And the fifth??? Are you fscking kidding me? The guy is worse than Mercola and Russel, and that's hard to do.
The only somewhat valid link you have is the first. And they only studied one year and admit fault in that.
Again, you're wrong.
May I suggest you use more critical thinking when choosing who to believe?
eits
Lifer
no, iirc, i think i said that free radicals cause mutations. the only role calcium plays is in cell death. if i did say that calcium caused mutations, i was wrong and i'm sorry if i misspoke.
and, yes, there are different strains of the flu that the cdc has to try and anticipate, but the truth is that the flu vaccine is primarily for immunocompromised people (infants, elderly). according to what i've read, most people who end up getting the flu never got it... they've had it and their immune system dipped low enough that the flu manifested itself.
like i said, you're no more likely to get the flu by getting a flu shot than you are drinking a glass of water everyday. keeping your immune system running at a higher level is a much more effective safeguard from getting sick from the flu or cold or pneumonia, etc. and is general good practice.
edit: i realized that i typoed... i said "you're more likely to get the flu by getting a flu shot than you are drinking a glass of water everyday"... what i really meant was "you're no more likely to NOT get the flu by getting a flu shot than you are drinking a glass of water everyday"... sorry for the confusion. totally changes everything hehe. basically, what i was saying was that the chances of you getting the flu is no greater or less if you drank a glass of water rather than got a flu shot (except for infants or the elderly).
Ditto. In my whole life I've only had Tetanus shots and I usually go a year or two between colds.
all i wanted to do was up my post count a little bit (j/k 
) by posting this... didnt mean to start a flame war
) by posting this... didnt mean to start a flame war 
sygyzy
Lifer
- Oct 21, 2000
- 14,001
- 4
- 76
Originally posted by: RossMAN
Originally posted by: LolaWiz
interesting. I got it in the left arm... am right handed. my office said they do it whatever arm is not their primary arm.
I would think the same. However my wife was told to get it in the arm which is the most active. That also makes sense.
How does that make any sense?
eits
Lifer
you don't really need a tetanus shot unless you get stuck by something rusty that could have come in contact with dirt/feces... gg clostridium tetani.
eits
Lifer
Originally posted by: LolaWiz
all i wanted to do was up my post count a little bit (j/k
wherever you see asumed, you'll find a flame war... it's pretty much automatic.
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
Okay, I dug it up. Text
It's a comedy of misunderstanding. Plus, in the same thread, you mentioned phosphatases will degrade DNA. Which you also retracted and apologized for. While I must give you some props for admitting you were wrong, you've demonstrated a clear ability to claim bullsh!t as fact, unequivocally and without any reservation.
You are just as wrong now as you were then. For instance, you stated that you thought any vaccine effects were attributable to placebo effects. Completely ignoring trials done with placebos and the exquisite specificity known to exist in antibodies developed in response to vaccines.
Now, let's examine the conspiracy theory. If the pharms have really bought off the CDC and the FDA, they could therefore really deliver and sell ineffective vaccines. Don't you think they would've come out with an HIV vaccine? It would be worth mega-bajillions, way more than protease inhibitors since you could sell it to healthy people. But no one's managed to get a vaccine past trials yet. There's a reason for that, and it has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory.
Edit: forgot to add, you're still wrong (or, perhaps, just mis-speaking, but it's still not a mistake anyone with a clue should make) about calcium, it has numerous roles besides cell death.
eits
Lifer
i know calcium has many roles besides cell death... i was just nutshelling what i thought i said a long time ago. i didn't realize i had to list off the many rolls calcium plays in the body/cells.
as for the flu vaccinations, read this
also, i never said that the flu vaccine was, without a doubt, a placebo. i said that it was my opinion that, for many people, there's a placebo effect getting a flu shot.
i still believe that most people can keep from getting sick from the flu by simply doing little things to boost their immune system.
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
You know that? Why did you not choose your language to reflect it? What you call nutshelling is still egregiously, stupidly wrong. You completely contradicted yourself and both statements are wrong in any case. Anyone with a clue wouldn't make such a mistake.
Did you actually read this? Do you think it supports your position?
Here are your own words:
Which eits are we supposed to believe?
Your opinion is based on what evidence? Be specific and if you quote "Dr. Bob" again you just look worse.
There's no evidence, theoretical or observed, that I'm aware of that supports immune status (vaccines, previous infections, and the rare HLA allele excepted) to be preventive to contraction of an influenza infection. Of course it can affect the outcome of such an infection, but that's not the point here. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please let us all know. But make it peer-reviewed.
Penultimately, some advice -- please quit posting this pseudo-scientific made up fantastical crap. I'll be here for the foreseeable future to call your BS and I suspect Amused and others will be also. Don't use obvious snake oil clowns like "Dr. Bob" as support for any point you care to make. You'll just be considered a fool. Go to pubmed if you want to support your argument. If you can't find support there, it doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but you should at least reconsider your position and not post it on the intraweb or qualify it accordingly.
Finally: your keyboard probably has a caps key. It probably works. It might be a good idea to learn how to use it. But of course it's your decision as to how you wish others to interpret your typing.
eits
Lifer
ugh... that wasn't what i meant. i meant that pertaining to what we were talking about a long time ago, i only brought calcium up in its role in cell death. go back to the thread you linked... you should see that i explained some of the roles calcium plays intracellularly (i haven't checked the link you posted... i'm going by vague memory).
it supports that you can't say definitively that flu shots are good for everyone. it's still debatable.
wtf are you talking about? i said the same thing in both quotes you posted... i never said that the flu shot was definitively a placebo... i said that it was my opinion that the flu shot had a placebo effect. maybe that's where you're getting caught up... you probably thought i was implying that patients might as well be shot up with saline or something. i wasn't... i was saying that to most people, it doesn't have much of an effect on whether or not they get the flu. one could draw a correlation to say that it could be because most people who care enough to get a flu shot care enough about their bodies to life a healthier lifestyle than most of those who don't care to get the flu shot (that's not to say that there aren't healthy people who choose not to get a flu shot, like me... someone who hasn't had the flu since he was about 9 or 10 years old).
i never posted any pseudoscientific stuff... saying that boosting your immune system will keep you just about as safe as a flu shot would from getting the flu this season is something that doctors have been telling patients for years... especially when there's a shortage of flu shots. they tell everyone that the elderly are really the main people who should get the flu shot and that if you wash your hands, stay healthy, and drink water and antioxidants, you'll be fine.
i didn't post any bs, either. amused is an ass hat who likes to cause fights with whomever, so he'll try and argue anything with anyone... it's just his nature.
look, it's my opinion that you don't really need a flu shot unless you're a kid or elderly (or are at high risk). i feel that if you live a healthy way of life, you will be just as likely to catch or not catch the flu as if you were to have had a flu shot. http://passavant.upmc.com/HealthyLifestyleCenter.htm
http://www.parents.com/parents/story.jh...rents/story/data/5591.xml&catref=prt26
are you honestly disagreeing that living a healthy lifestyle will is very effective against contracting a communicable disease like the flu?
EDIT: wow... this is stupid. i've got midterms all week and i'm sitting here bickering about this stupid, stupid issue (and, yes, it is a stupid issue... me telling people that i think flu shots are worthless for most of the population and you relentlessly arguing with me on it is ridiculous). i'm just going to ask that you agree to disagree... i feel like being healthy is a great way from keeping from getting sick and you think getting a shot is a better choice. that's fine... you're in the majority and i'm in the minority. i'm totally cool with that, are you?
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 55,855
- 13,974
- 146
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/11/15/heart.flu.reut/index.html
Flu vaccine helps cut heart attacks, deaths nearly in half
POSTED: 6:20 p.m. EST, November 15, 2006
CHICAGO, Illinois (Reuters) -- Getting a flu shot can reduce the incidence of death, heart attack or unplanned procedures to open clogged heart arteries in patients with coronary artery disease, Polish researchers said Wednesday.
The study adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that people with heart trouble should get a flu shot every year.
"We know that people die of flu who have underlying cardiopulmonary disease. It's only logical that if you are able to prevent flu with vaccine, you can prevent these deaths," said Dr. Arnold Monto, professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan.
"Flu puts these people over the edge," said Monto, who serves on the World Health Organization's Influenza Pandemic task force.
The study, which was conducted in Poland and presented at the American Heart Association meeting in Chicago, involved 658 patients with coronary artery disease. Of those, 325 received an active flu vaccine and 333 received a placebo.
After 296 days, patients who did not receive the vaccine were nearly twice as likely to have a heart attack, undergo an unplanned angioplasty to open blocked arteries or die from heart-related causes.
Monto said the study was significant because it compared groups who received the vaccine and groups who did not.
He said such a trial would be considered unethical in the United States because of U.S. guidelines recommending that heart patients get flu shots.
Flu is responsible for 36,000 deaths and 225,000 hospitalizations in the United States each year, yet only one in three adults with heart disease got flu shots last year, according to the American College of Cardiology.
"The study reinforces the principle that patients who have underlying cardiac disease -- particularly coronary artery disease -- are somewhat protected by having the influenza vaccine," said Dr. Leroy Rabbani, a cardiologist at Columbia University Medical Center in New York,
Rabbani said other studies have shown a link between inflammation and heart attacks. "Anything that can decrease the opportunity for infection such as flu vaccine will be beneficial," he said.
The American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology in September issued a scientific advisory asking heart doctors to give flu shots to their patients.
Coronary artery disease occurs when the arteries that supply blood to the heart muscle become hardened and narrowed. It is the most common type of heart disease and the leading cause of death in the United States in both men and women.
Flu vaccine helps cut heart attacks, deaths nearly in half
POSTED: 6:20 p.m. EST, November 15, 2006
CHICAGO, Illinois (Reuters) -- Getting a flu shot can reduce the incidence of death, heart attack or unplanned procedures to open clogged heart arteries in patients with coronary artery disease, Polish researchers said Wednesday.
The study adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that people with heart trouble should get a flu shot every year.
"We know that people die of flu who have underlying cardiopulmonary disease. It's only logical that if you are able to prevent flu with vaccine, you can prevent these deaths," said Dr. Arnold Monto, professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan.
"Flu puts these people over the edge," said Monto, who serves on the World Health Organization's Influenza Pandemic task force.
The study, which was conducted in Poland and presented at the American Heart Association meeting in Chicago, involved 658 patients with coronary artery disease. Of those, 325 received an active flu vaccine and 333 received a placebo.
After 296 days, patients who did not receive the vaccine were nearly twice as likely to have a heart attack, undergo an unplanned angioplasty to open blocked arteries or die from heart-related causes.
Monto said the study was significant because it compared groups who received the vaccine and groups who did not.
He said such a trial would be considered unethical in the United States because of U.S. guidelines recommending that heart patients get flu shots.
Flu is responsible for 36,000 deaths and 225,000 hospitalizations in the United States each year, yet only one in three adults with heart disease got flu shots last year, according to the American College of Cardiology.
"The study reinforces the principle that patients who have underlying cardiac disease -- particularly coronary artery disease -- are somewhat protected by having the influenza vaccine," said Dr. Leroy Rabbani, a cardiologist at Columbia University Medical Center in New York,
Rabbani said other studies have shown a link between inflammation and heart attacks. "Anything that can decrease the opportunity for infection such as flu vaccine will be beneficial," he said.
The American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology in September issued a scientific advisory asking heart doctors to give flu shots to their patients.
Coronary artery disease occurs when the arteries that supply blood to the heart muscle become hardened and narrowed. It is the most common type of heart disease and the leading cause of death in the United States in both men and women.
OrganizedChaos
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2002
- 4,525
- 0
- 0
just got my first yesterday forfree at the town hall. i get sick every year and i'm hoping for a change.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter