Scary ... if it's true

We all know no such thing.

I wasn't inferring that this was one of those quick fixes mentioned for reason I've outlined; fast tracked, yes, a quick fix for expediency, no.

I've done enough 'McGivering' in my life to know that's not true.
"McGyvering" if I understand your analogy, is "making due" with limited resources for a quick, albeit crude solution. Hardly a solution I would adopt for long term success when people's lives are at stake. :eek: Perhaps a better analogy would be more suitable.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,077
1
0
"McGyvering" if I understand your analogy, is "making due" with limited resources for a quick, albeit crude solution. Hardly a solution I would adopt for long term success when people's lives are at stake. :eek: Perhaps a better analogy would be more suitable.
That's not the full meaning, especially in this sense, but even that's not a bad thing. Long term is an interesting observation and relative to an event horizon being minutes, hours, or days away. When it works, it works and most people don't care why or how.
 
That's not the full meaning, especially in this sense, but even that's not a bad thing. Long term is an interesting observation and relative to an event horizon being minutes, hours, or days away. When it works, it works and most people don't care why or how.
Thanks for your perfectly clear answer. A more succinct answer I have never seen. LOL! :rolleyes:
 

nolabel

Wherever u go, there u r
Jan 7, 2009
607
0
0
I’m not trying to propagate “my voodoo beliefs” on anyone. I am simply providing an opinion that a healthy lifestyle is the very best defense against getting sick. I am NOT anti scientific, but I am "anti chemical". That is my opinion and just like you, I am entitled to that. I have never told anyone NOT to get the shot. I said get it if you feel it is necessary, but in my case, and in my opinion, it is a waste of time, effort and money.
But here's a very important thing you're missing, CG. Before I say it, again I'll applaud your general view of the importance of a healthy lifestyle: eating right and exercising are essential to good living, and too many ignore this fact.

But here's my beef with the above: most likely you were vaccinated as a child against a host of things, which included measles, whooping cough, and polio. To thus say that you are "anti-chemical" when it comes to vaccines and your health, because such things are a complete waste, is to ignore all the available evidence that you probably did not suffer from such diseases BECAUSE you were vaccinated. You cannot cite your current good health practices to account for your good fortune in regard to such childhood diseases, because such practices were not in place during childhood. The conclusion is that your current views dismiss vaccines, but do so without giving due charity to the fact that vaccines worked for you in the past.

So let's refocus the debate. If you have children, have they been vaccinated against the childhood diseases noted above? If not, that's almost criminal. If yes, then you should be more circumspect about dismissing vaccination. Look at the stats for what happens when countries, which had used vaccines to tackle diseases and seen cases drop, then stopped using the vaccine. One case is whooping cough: in the UK, Japan and Sweden the rates of whooping couch shot up once the vaccine was discontinued (De Groot, Vaccination: A victory in the war against disease, pp. 28-34). I even cited the fact!

These points about vaccination programs in general are germane to your points against the H1N1 vaccine because most of your complaints about the H1N1 vaccine rely on claims about vaccines in general. A blanket argument against vaccines, which is what you mostly use, just doesn't fly. It could kill your kids, for instance. Personally, everyone should take vaccines seriously. I encourage you to take them more seriously than you do.
 
But here`s a very important thing you`re missing, CG. Before I say it, again I`ll applaud your general view of the importance of a healthy lifestyle: eating right and exercising are essential to good living, and too many ignore this fact.

But here`s my beef with the above: most likely you were vaccinated as a child against a host of things, which included measles, whooping cough, and polio. To thus say that you are "anti-chemical" when it comes to vaccines and your health, because such things are a complete waste, is to ignore all the available evidence that you probably did not suffer from such diseases BECAUSE you were vaccinated. You cannot cite your current good health practices to account for your good fortune in regard to such childhood diseases, because such practices were not in place during childhood. The conclusion is that your current views dismiss vaccines, but do so without giving due charity to the fact that vaccines worked for you in the past.

So let`s refocus the debate. If you have children, have they been vaccinated against the childhood diseases noted above? If not, that`s almost criminal. If yes, then you should be more circumspect about dismissing vaccination. Look at the stats for what happens when countries, which had used vaccines to tackle diseases and seen cases drop, then stopped using the vaccine. One case is whooping cough: in the UK, Japan and Sweden the rates of whooping couch shot up once the vaccine was discontinued (De Groot, Vaccination: A victory in the war against disease, pp. 28-34). I even cited the fact!

These points about vaccination programs in general are germane to your points against the H1N1 vaccine because most of your complaints about the H1N1 vaccine rely on claims about vaccines in general. A blanket argument against vaccines, which is what you mostly use, just doesn`t fly. It could kill your kids, for instance. Personally, everyone should take vaccines seriously. I encourage you to take them more seriously than you do.
Where are you guys getting the idea that I am against ALL vaccines? I have never said that... In fact I believe I have said something to the contrary here:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2862711&postcount=13

All my children have had the polio, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, mumps and rubella shots. These shots are all mandatory and they would be suspended from school if they did not have their immunizations up to date.

I also have no problem with things like penicillin and insulin. These are all extremely well tested pharmaceutical products and have been used for years and years and years (and well before the current BOON in profits for drug companies...)

As I have stated on numerous occasions, my problem is with the level of hype that surrounds "the flu shot" every year and this year it seems to have gone to a whole new level. Using words like pandemic, and comparing it to the version that "supposedly" killed 50 million (or maybe it was 100 million) almost 100 years ago when conditions were WAY different than they are today, just seems very irresponsible in my opinion. Not to mention that I suspect that most of the people that died way back then had pre-existing medical conditions... but what do I know. It`s just not something I worry about or lose any sleep over.
 

Medman52

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2009
1,417
166
63
I have never gotten a flu vaccine and have never gotten the flu....why?...who knows...why do I need the H1N1 now?...I don't think I do...I will do the exact same things I did to avoid the flu over the last few decades...it worked so far...why won't it work now?...don't know...maybe I'll get it this time...then have antibodies?
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,077
1
0
I have never gotten a flu vaccine and have never gotten the flu....why?...who knows...why do I need the H1N1 now?...I don't think I do...I will do the exact same things I did to avoid the flu over the last few decades...it worked so far...why won't it work now?
Except that this flu is different than the seasonal strain. So your plan is flawed. H1N1 may become seasonal and then you practices may work, but right now it's very new and that's the rub. What you should be saying is that you've never suffered from the flu. You can't say you've never had it as you could have been asymptomatic as many are.

Even CG can't say it for the same reason.
 

y2kmark

Class of 69...
May 19, 2002
18,944
5,384
113
Lewiston, NY
That was yesterday ....

I question the credibility of the news source. if you look at all the credible sites there is nothing in the Ukaine other than the normal H1N1 outbreak.
Try "Ukraine viral Pnumonia" today - lots to think about besides a pissing contest between Cycleguy and Fuji!:rolleyes:
 

nolabel

Wherever u go, there u r
Jan 7, 2009
607
0
0
Where are you guys getting the idea that I am against ALL vaccines? I have never said that... All my children have had the polio, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, mumps and rubella shots. . . . my problem is with the level of hype that surrounds "the flu shot" every year . . . Not to mention that I suspect that most of the people that died way back then had pre-existing medical conditions...
Your suspicion about the cause of deaths in previous pandemics being associated with pre-existing medical conditions is just that, a suspicion. And completely unfounded. It's the too easy trotting out of unfounded suspicion that leads to the view that you oppose vaccinations with little evidence and without good cause.

You continually cite 'hype', and if that doesn't work, you swap to 'rushed', and if that fails, it's 'profit', and if alse fails you cite 'CG's health', blah blah blah. It's this continual duck and weave about why you oppose vaccines that leads to the idea that your attitude is like a health hazard. Fortunately for your kids you cannot unjustifiably deny them vaccines. I understand that sounds harsh, but honestly, some people know public health better than you or I put together, and they deserve more of a hearing that you seem willing to extend. I am thus sympathetic to your view on healthy living, but unsympathetic to your poorly founded opposition to H1N1.

It's a delicate and unsavoury thought experiment, but how would your kids' health be if you had of had the choice to deny them the polio vaccine or the whooping cough vaccine? There's nothing in your posts to suggest you would have taken notice of expert judgment, and everything to suggest you might have put your kids at risk by rejecting vaccination. No amount of blathering about your own healthy lifestyle or the possible perils of big brother medicine will change what that picture looks like: you would be rolling the dice on your kids' health on the basis of your untrained views and suspicions, in the face of countless tests and judgments of medically trained individuals. Now THAT'S scary.
 

Moraff

Active member
Nov 14, 2003
3,647
0
36
Your suspicion about the cause of deaths in previous pandemics being associated with pre-existing medical conditions is just that, a suspicion. And completely unfounded. It's the too easy trotting out of unfounded suspicion that leads to the view that you oppose vaccinations with little evidence and without good cause.
Didn't he just get finished saying he doesn't oppose vaccines that have a long-track record?

I tend to agree with him in that I am in no rush to get the H1N1 shot as I am uncomfortable with the way it has been rushed through production. You can call it fast-tracking if you want, but given the apparent fact that the company wouldn't release it until the gov't agreed to take on any liability tells me that it didn't go the same route that the seasonal flu shots (for example) take.

Plus the media's constant "blowing things out of proportion" had jaded me into not accepting pretty much anything they tell me is "super hugely bad".
 
So now I'm a bad parent as well?!

You continually cite 'hype', and if that doesn't work, you swap to 'rushed', and if that fails, it's 'profit', and if alse fails you cite 'CG's health', blah blah blah. It's this continual duck and weave about why you oppose vaccines that leads to the idea that your attitude is like a health hazard. Fortunately for your kids you cannot unjustifiably deny them vaccines. I understand that sounds harsh, but honestly, some people know public health better than you or I put together, and they deserve more of a hearing that you seem willing to extend. I am thus sympathetic to your view on healthy living, but unsympathetic to your poorly founded opposition to H1N1.

It's a delicate and unsavoury thought experiment, but how would your kids' health be if you had of had the choice to deny them the polio vaccine or the whooping cough vaccine? There's nothing in your posts to suggest you would have taken notice of expert judgment, and everything to suggest you might have put your kids at risk by rejecting vaccination. No amount of blathering about your own healthy lifestyle or the possible perils of big brother medicine will change what that picture looks like: you would be rolling the dice on your kids' health on the basis of your untrained views and suspicions, in the face of countless tests and judgments of medically trained individuals. Now THAT'S scary.
Do you even READ MY POSTS!!!!???? Or just make shit up on the fly and completely ignore everything I have said?

Continually cite 'hype': Guilty as charged. It is everywhere you turn. The media and government and medical industry and Fjui and nolabel are shoving it down our throats at every turn.
I don't "swap" rushed- It was rushed or fast tracked or what ever you wanna call it and as some have already pointed out, wasn't "released" until the drug companies were indemnified.
Profit: I don't see any drug companies looking for any bail outs.
My healthy lifestyle: Also guilty as charged. Show me 1 report that says it is not beneficial. Just 1.

And now you are suggesting that I am playing Russian roulette with my children? WTH are you talking about? I just finished saying ALL my children have had ALL the shots. And both my daughters have also had HPV shots... not that it is any of your business... you just don't get it do you nolabel... I never once said ALL vaccines were evil. In fact I said the contrary. Lemme spell it it for you.

I THINK THE FLU SHOT IS A CROCK!
 

nolabel

Wherever u go, there u r
Jan 7, 2009
607
0
0
Didn't he just get finished saying he doesn't oppose vaccines that have a long-track record?
Yes, he did, but it was a johny-come-lately admission once it was pointed out all the ways he has benefitted from vaccination. Most of you vaccinated-up critics are similarly in denial about the efficacy of vaccinations. It's like questioning whether breathing air is safe while you're breathing air. The proof is in the pudding. The real question is the following: if all you vaccinated-up critics of vaccination are so blase about the fact you have actually benefitted from vaccinations with long track records, then why should you be trusted to have a sensible view of a new vaccines?

I tend to agree with him in that I am in no rush to get the H1N1 shot as I am uncomfortable with the way it has been rushed through production. You can call it fast-tracking if you want, but given the apparent fact that the company wouldn't release it until the gov't agreed to take on any liability tells me that it didn't go the same route that the seasonal flu shots (for example) take.

Plus the media's constant "blowing things out of proportion" had jaded me into not accepting pretty much anything they tell me is "super hugely bad".
Forget the media. Be sensible and look behind media outlets seeking your attention. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared in June 2009 that the swine flu was the first panedmic in a few dacadeshttp://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2009/h1n1_pandemic_phase6_20090611/en/index.html, and WHO updates declared that the country with the highest growth rates is Canada (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/181/3-4/E52. Remember, media hype does not mean everything is false.

As for the whole 'it's rushed' and 'the government is taking on the liability', you're correct that these are abnormal. Thus you're correct to ask questions about these aspects of the whole drama. But it is incorrect, I think, to hang your critics hat on these facts. 'Rushed' is different to 'negligence'. Also, the liability thing is a government decision to get a product to a population as quickly and cheaply as possible. It's just possible, remember, that the government could be doing that because it believes in the estimates and warnings of medical specialists (WHO, Health canada, etc).

Also, if insurance liability is really that important to you, then please shut down your computer, turn off all your lights, and unplug your electricity-powered devices. Those nuclear reactors in places like Pickering obviously pose some kind of risk. And guess what? The insurance liability on them is capped so low (75 million) that a major accident, if it didn't kill you, would see you paying for the bill (via taxes) for the rest of your life and the lives of a generation or two after.

I'm not in the pill pushing camp, whoever they might be. I'm just in the camp of thinking that scepticism, if not well-founded, can be dangerous.
 

nolabel

Wherever u go, there u r
Jan 7, 2009
607
0
0
Fine, CG, gloves are off . .

Do you even READ MY POSTS!!!!???? Or just make shit up on the fly and completely ignore everything I have said?
Yes, here's the evidence . .

Continually cite 'hype': Guilty as charged.?
See, I must have read your posts to note that you cited hype.

I don't "swap" rushed- It was rushed or fast tracked or what ever you wanna call it and as some have already pointed out, wasn't "released" until the drug companies were indemnified..?
Again, I must have read your posts to note you blathered about rushing. But note I was saying you cited hype AND rush. You confirmed my interpretation. But you seem unable to understand the point that, when an argument jumps willy-nilly between different pieces of evidence, it lools like the objector is grasping at any straw that floats by.

Profit: I don't see any drug companies looking for any bail outs[/URL]. ..?
Again, I said you cited profits, and you confirm that you did, so I WAS reading your posts. But did you read mine? I have continually said that the profit motive alone is not a good explanation for distrusting the H1N1 vaccine, because that leaves you unable to account for the vaccines you do take (same companies). It also very unjustifiably writes off trained scientists as just cooking the books for the companies for which they work. That's neither an accurate nor sensible view of trained specialists, nor one for which you have any evidence. You have not responded to this point because nothing anyone else says reaches your brain.

My healthy lifestyle: Also guilty as charged. Show me 1 report that says it is not beneficial. Just 1.
I don't have to show you any report. That's because I agreed with you on the benefits and good sense of a healthy lifestyle. You obviously read me saying this, in order for you to note that I apparently 'charged' you with being healthy. But clearly your reasoning powers are not healthy. For one thing, I said, as have others, that being healthy is not a sufficient protection against many diseases. Do you understand the meaning of sufficient and neccessary conditions? Two, you appear unable to see a compliment when you read one. Why should you be trusted to understand any complex claim from an expert when you cannot even understand a compliment from someone?

And now you are suggesting that I am playing Russian roulette with my children? WTH are you talking about? I just finished saying ALL my children have had ALL the shots. And both my daughters have also had HPV shots... not that it is any of your business... you just don't get it do you nolabel... I never once said ALL vaccines were evil. In fact I said the contrary. Lemme spell it it for you.

I THINK THE FLU SHOT IS A CROCK!
How do you know you're not playing Russian Roulette with your kids' safety? Your kids have the vaccine for other things, but because you have some scepticism about H1N1, they're not getting the shot, I presume? But given that it's very easy to shoot holes in your claims about the H1N1 vaccine, then I am suggesting a reasonable father should take a few steps back and ask some very hard questions about his scepticism. Moreover, given that the other vaccines also had periods in their early distribution where large populations took the word of medical specialists prior to there being post-vaccination epidemiological studies, and their track record is OK, then it's simply very strange to apply a different standard here. Oh, hang on, what's the difference now? It cannot be hype, rushing, profit, or your healthy lifestyle. I poked holes in those as solid grounds for scepticism. Lo and behold, CG can be the boss over H1N1 vaccine, in contrast to the other vaccines, and CG is the king of his castle, right? Even if it endangers his kids.

Why don't YOU actually read the post and respond to balanced objections? I don't think you really think I am in the medical industry and so drumming up business, and I doubt you think me so malevolent that I would poke holes in your scepticism just for kicks. I'm pretty balanced (read my posts, it's evident). If you cannot convince a reasonable, balanced contributor to a discussion about this issue, then maybe there's a problem with your scepticism? I'm sure you're a good father, by the way, but good dad's can sometimes be wrong about things, and sometimes the best thing for their kids is to think hard about whether they are wrong.
 

Longer

Banned
Jul 31, 2009
96
0
0
ok, now after reading all that and I dont know why, I mean just the post above.

Is there a new virus in Ukraine.

Yes or No.

cheers.
 
Someone wanna pass the popcorn?

My position on the Flu Shot is clear. No amount of discussion will change that.

Don't EVER criticize my children or the way they have been raised. YOU have no idea WHAT you are talking about.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/drnorrischumleysatisfiedlife/2009/10/h1n1-swine-flu-vaccine---yes-o.html

Now that the H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine is being delivered, many of us are asking if we should take it or not. There are so many conflicting reports; it's hard to decide. I thought I'd gather some information for you, from the sources, in order to make your decision easier and more informed.

In the United States, the government's Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends:

"CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has recommended that certain groups of the population receive the 2009 H1N1 vaccine when it first becomes available. These target groups include pregnant women, people who live with or care for children younger than 6 months of age, health care and emergency medical services personnel, persons between the ages of 6 months and 24 years old, and people ages of 25 through 64 years of age who are at higher risk for 2009 H1N1 because of chronic health disorders or compromised immune systems."

Once a bit of time goes by after the vaccine is available, the CDC adds,

"...once the demand for vaccine for these target groups has been met at the local level, programs and providers should begin vaccinating everyone from ages 25 through 64 years. Current studies indicate the risk for infection among persons age 65 or older is less than the risk for younger age groups. Therefore, as vaccine supply and demand for vaccine among younger age groups is being met, programs and providers should offer vaccination to people over the age of 65."

Further, the CDC lists other ways to avoid catching the H1N1 Swine Flu virus,

• Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when you cough or sneeze. Throw the tissue in the trash after you use it.
• Wash your hands often with soap and water, especially after you cough or sneeze. If soap and water are not available, use an alcohol-based hand rub.
• Avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth. Germs spread that way.
• Stay home if you get sick. CDC recommends that you stay home from work or school and limit contact with others to keep from infecting them.


If you are asking the question as to whether or not the vaccine is safe, there was at least one study that cited a link to Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS, an auto-immune system attack on the central nervous system causing paralysis which is usually treatable) in the 1970's Swine Flu vaccine, which generally ended the program of inoculations. Other studies found no connection to GBS. Here's a link to some of those studies, via the CDC.

There have been accusations for the last several years that vaccines in general may cause autism in children. As far as I know, those theories and reports have never been substantiated.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is an international non-governmental agency that monitors epidemics and vaccination programs. Here's their most recent statement (9-11-09) about the safety of these vaccines:

"National regulatory authorities for medicines carefully examine the known and suspected risks and benefits of any vaccine prior to its licensing. Because the pandemic virus is new, both non-clinical and clinical trials are being conducted to gain essential information on immune response and safety. Outcomes of trials completed to date suggest that pandemic vaccines are as safe as seasonal influenza vaccines.

Side effects are expected to be similar to those observed with seasonal influenza vaccines. Common side effects include local reactions at the injection site (soreness, swelling, redness) and possibly some systemic reactions (fever, headache, muscle or joint aches). In almost all vaccine recipients, these symptoms are mild, self-limited and last 1-2 days.

However, even very large clinical trials will not be able to identify possible rare events that can occur when pandemic vaccines are administered to many millions of people."

Is the new Swine Flu vaccine effective? One clinical trial by a manufacturer of the vaccine (one of several) indicates that only one dose is effective. (Sure, one may always be suspect of clinical trials funded by vested interests, but they are subject to scrutiny by professionals in their fields). Here's a link to a new article from Reuters on a study funded by Sanofi-Aventis.

What's the bottom line and what do I think? This vaccine is made the same way that others are and have been for a long time: non-living viruses are grown, and injected into the body in order to prompt it to create antibodies and resistance. The nasal spray uses live, but neutralized virus material. Vaccines have been around for decades, and have been credited for saving many lives. However, if your immune system is compromised, or if you are ill, that becomes a complicated decision whether or not to have the vaccine. On the other hand, if one is in excellent health, they may already have the immune system resources to fend off viruses. My plan is to speak with my doctor, and get his recommendation. Each person is unique, and I think we need to individually gather as much informed information as possible to make an educated choice for our families and ourselves.
I trust Fuji & nolabel (& to some degree blackrock13) will likely just dismiss this guy as an internet "wack job".

Their stance on the matter is also quite clear.

Pass the popcorn... :)
 
Toronto Escorts