Scary ... if it's true

[nolabel]

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

That much is clear. So why pretend you're open to being educated, by posting some blog?

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

Don't hide behind your kids. They weren't being criticized - you were. Also, whether I know what I am talking about is not going to be established by you just claiming I don't, without any attempt to address objections to your views. All you have proven is that you are incapable of addressing reasonable claims against your scepticism. Anyone with an IQ above 8 can see who is evading the need to substantiate their view and who is not. Really, though, this would all be unimportant were it not for the fact that your own unsubstantiated scepticism is being visited upon your kids. That's a criticism of you, by the way, not your kids.

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

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.

Actually, the blog is a very balanced view. The blog you cite addresses criticism of the H1N1 vaccine, but rejects the criticism. It advises getting the vaccine, though it stresses that those with non-compromised immune systems have no need to panic. What's clear is that you read it only for the bits that fit your preconceived view. The wack job is you, dude.

Pass the popcorn...

Yes, do. When you have no basis for your view, eat popcorn . . . which aint that healthy, in case you didn't know.

 

[Cycleguy007]

The reason I highlighted those specific areas my friend is because those are the area's which you and Fuji accuse me of "ducking and weaving" behind. But no matter... You two hear only what you wanna hear and discount the rest.

I have never hidden behind my kids, you were the one that dragged them into this, not me.

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.

Regardless, this from the CDC website FYI:

The groups recommended to receive the 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine include:

• Pregnant women because they are at higher risk of complications and can potentially provide protection to infants who cannot be vaccinated;
• Household contacts and caregivers for children younger than 6 months of age because younger infants are at higher risk of influenza-related complications and cannot be vaccinated. Vaccination of those in close contact with infants younger than 6 months old might help protect infants by “cocooning” them from the virus;
• Healthcare and emergency medical services personnel because infections among healthcare workers have been reported and this can be a potential source of infection for vulnerable patients. Also, increased absenteeism in this population could reduce healthcare system capacity;
• All people from 6 months through 24 years of age
  • Children from 6 months through 18 years of age because cases of 2009 H1N1 influenza have been seen in children who are in close contact with each other in school and day care settings, which increases the likelihood of disease spread, and
  • Young adults 19 through 24 years of age because many cases of 2009 H1N1 influenza have been seen in these healthy young adults and they often live, work, and study in close proximity, and they are a frequently mobile population; and,
• Persons aged 25 through 64 years who have health conditions associated with higher risk of medical complications from influenza.

Citation Here: http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/acip.htm

And for the regular seasonal Flu shot:

People who should get the seasonal vaccine each year are:

1. Children aged 6 months up to their 19th birthday
2. Pregnant women
3. People 50 years of age and older
4. People of any age with certain chronic medical conditions
5. People who live in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities
6. People who live with or care for those at high risk for complications from flu, including:
   1. Health care workers
   2. Household contacts of persons at high risk for complications from the flu
   3. Household contacts and caregivers of children <5 years of age with particular emphasis on vaccinating contacts of children <6 months of age (these children are at higher risk of flu-related complications

Citation Here: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/keyfacts.htm#who

The CDC doesn't even recommend that I get a flu shot! So why are you so adamant to impose your viewpoint on me? Or is it that you just have such a love for debate, that you just can't let it go?

Personally, as a healthy, fit adult male 45 yrs of age, not prone to disease of any kind for many years, with no underlying health conditions, who practices very good hygiene, I don't fit ANY of the criteria. My doctor told me to get it if I want, but it likely wasn't going to matter one way or the other.

As for my wife and children, well that is a discussion I have had with them and their doctor. If and when it is made available to us, that decision will be left to them and is of no consequence to anyone here...

Oh, and I don't eat popcorn BTW... Apparently sarcasm is above your level of comprehension.

 

[blackrock13]

Well you wrong this time.

I don't thing he's a 'wack job' as most of his observations are bang on, but where he edges his bets is;


'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.'

Being in excellent health is not a critical or exclusive connection to being wholly or partially immune. You can other other irritating medical conditions, therefore not that healthy, but still have some immunity to H1N1

 

[Warrior666]

MORE ON UKRAINE'S H1N1

New H1N1 Strain Identified in The Ukraine; Swine Flu.org Urges World Health Organization to Release Latest Sequence Information for Ukraine H1N1

LONG BEACH, CA -- (Marketwire) -- 11/16/09 -- Swine Flu.org, a community based website and discussion forum, has issued a warning regarding the potential emergence of a new H1N1 strain circulating in The Ukraine after a recent finding by Dr. Victor Bachinsky, M.D. and coroner in the Chernivtsi Region of the Ukraine. "The virus is a Mixture of H1N1 and Parainfluenza," said Dr. Bachinksy, discounting earlier claims that the Ukraine H1N1 outbreak was related to pneumonic plague.

The World Health Organization arrived in The Ukraine on November 2nd to determine if the H1N1 virus had mutated by sequencing the genes. Although the results were due to be announced on November 4th, The World Health Organization has not yet released their findings. "I'm sure the WHO can understand the urgency and importance of releasing this type of information as quickly as possible," said Ryan Evans, owner and founder of Swine Flu.org. "An advanced notice that the virus has mutated is our best chance of dealing with the pandemic this winter," said Evans. "A new and more virulent strain could result in a global disaster as there would be no vaccine available."

Latest reports from The Ukraine indicate that over one million people have been infected by The Ukraine H1N1 in the last three weeks and experts fear that this enormous flu wave could be heading for North America.

( http://in.sys-con.com/node/1188658 )

 

[Cycleguy007]

Well you wrong this time.

I don't thing he's a 'wack job' as most of his observations are bang on, but where he edges his bets is;


'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.'

Being in excellent health is not a critical or exclusive connection to being wholly or partially immune. You can other other irritating medical conditions, therefore not that healthy, but still have some immunity to H1N1

I'm liking my odds actually...

 

[nolabel]

I have never hidden behind my kids, you were the one that dragged them into this, not me . . .

If you're 45, then are your kids between 6 months and 24? If so, the CDC site you cite recommends they get the shot. I did not drag your kids into anything, certainly not in order to criticize them. Instead, I noted that, if you have kids, it's likely they are in that category of 'recommended to get the shot'. The term 'kids' normally would include 6 months to 24. The point was that, just because you falsely believe your good health is sufficient to grant you immunity, you should not use that unfounded scepticism as a basis for thinking about if your kids should get the shot. I don't expect you to be able to follow that argument, though, let alone have the courtesy to keep in focus what is claimed and what is not.

The CDC doesn't even recommend that I get a flu shot! So why are you so adamant to impose your viewpoint on me? . . .

Actually, what's happened here is that you reigned in your conspiracy theory tactics, which you were using to discredit the H1N1 vaccine. Evolution by natural selection can take care of people like you and your decision-making strategies, so I'm not concerned to impose any decision upon you. My concern at the outset was to say that all of your conspiracy theory arguments against the vaccine were wrong-headed. You backed away from stating them, which to me is a victory, because too much public discussion of important issues is riddled with simple-minded crap like conspiracy theories. Again, though, I'm not expecting you to either comprehend that point or have the courtesy to acknowledge it.

I am glad that you decided to read things like the CDC website. That said, there is always an important distinction between using a google search to find opinions that coincide with your own opinion, and actually having an opinion formed by having basic respect for the informed judgments of technically trained researchers. If one looks at just your last few posts in isolation, it looks like you're citing researchers who have expressed some doubts about the H1N1 vaccine or who have been very specific about at risk groups. But taken as a whole, your strategy has been the following: you started off with conspiracy theories, then moved to finding qualified judgments that expressed doubts, or balanced views, or specific recommendations, and you cherry-picked mostly the doubts. Your later posts, in other words, are just window-dressing for your conspiracy theory mind-set. THAT'S my objection. It's about discrediting poorly founded scepticism.

Oh, and I don't eat popcorn BTW... Apparently sarcasm is above your level of comprehension.

Dude, absolutely NOTHING you could ever say or think would be above me. Trust me. If you don't eat popcorn, why don't you stop littering the forum threads with encouragments to eat popcorn?! I thought you were all about a healthy lifestyle?

 

[Cycleguy007]

Careful nolabel

It sounds to me as if YOU are now resorting the voodoo twilight tactics.

Not once did I ever claim the flu shot was a conspiracy.... That was you trying to force that sentiment onto me.

I did however claim that there was an awful lot of hype surrounding H1N1. A fact that no one can dispute. It is everywhere you turn- TV, radio, newspapers, newsflashes etc. I also pointed out that this is a perfect situation for the politicians to take a carte blanche attitude to continue on their tax and spend policies.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2827159&postcount=19

And while we’re on the topic of making false accusations, you accused me of stating that all vaccines were evil. I did not. In fact I said the contrary:

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

But you weren’t satisfied with that so you accused me of

“voodoo twilight” tactics (along with Fuji) whatever the hell that is, and went on to explain that my opinion was, "seemingly, these good drugs are produced magically by some other group of actors than the pill pushers. The twilight part is that you obscure the real reality…"

Firstly, you assumed what my opinion was, possibly in a feeble attempt to paint me as some sort of wacko, but I gave you the courtesy of explaining why I felt that some drugs are ok and why others are not.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2864742&postcount=69

And if that isn’t enough, then you accused me of me of hiding behind my kids- I did no such thing.

Then you accuse me of

“continually citing `hype`, and if that doesn`t work, you swap to `rushed`, and if that fails, it`s `profit`, and if all else 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.”

I have been unwavering in my opinion, and when I give you the explanations you asked for with regards to that opinion, complete with citations from sources found on the web including the CDC, you then accuse me

“of using a google search to find opinions that coincide with my own opinion”.

I just can’t do anything right as far as you are concerned nolabel. The fact is, and I have stated this before- I am not a chemist and I am not a microbiologist. I do not read medical journals so my source of information is radio, and via Google searches, but that doesn’t make the information garnered any less credible, since they were gathered from credible sources. So you can go ahead and “claim victory” for yourself, it is really of no consequence to me. I am quite happy with my lifestyle as are my wife and children. It works for us, so why would I mess with it.

I have already answered the question with regards to the flu shot as far as my wife and children are concerned but that is not for discussion here.

And if I need to explain this concept to you:

“If you don`t eat popcorn, why don`t you stop littering the forum threads with encouragements to eat popcorn?! I thought you were all about a healthy lifestyle?”

Then you really don’t get sarcasm, so the explanation would be wasted on you.

This also shows that you have now ascended beyond rational discussion and are now just trying to "press my buttons"... Which is also fine... we can have some fun with that, I can also play that game.

 

[nolabel]

Not once did I ever claim the flu shot was a conspiracy.... That was you trying to force that sentiment onto me.

I guess you have your own little definition of what what constitutes a conspiracy theory. By my definition, which I submit it to you is in wider circulation than yours, doubting the safety and efficacy of the H1N1 vaccine because of attributions of government and medical industry profit-making IS a conspiracy theory. I'm not forcing it onto you, instead your posts drip with it.

you accused me of stating that all vaccines were evil. I did not . . . I gave you the courtesy of explaining why I felt that some drugs are ok and why others are not.

Quite honestly, CG, nowhere have you offered a coherent explanation for how it is that the medical industry and government that at present are supposedly producing a H1N1 vaccine just for profit, could also in the past have produced vaccines that work. What I have sought from you is a more charitable interpretation of the current activities of the medical industry. It just does not make sense to think that the H1N1 vaccine is just a profit collecting monster AND also to claim that some other vaccines are OK. It's the same gov/med complex, my friend. You're just not grasping this point and you just need to try harder.

I do not read medical journals so my source of information is radio, and via Google searches, but that doesn’t make the information garnered any less credible, since they were gathered from credible sources.

Actually, it does, but you don't want to admit that because it would be alot harder for you to produce supporting evidence for your views. I will admit that credible sources are accessible via open internet sources, but I would also say that the credibility of peer reviewed sources is always higher. It's a spectrum, not an absolute, in other words, but your only garnering info from the low end of the spectrum. Despite drawing from the weaker pool of information, your views are couched as absolutely solid, especially when coupled to your repeated claims about your healthy lifestyle. Healthy living also includes being senstive to the real differences in quality of information.

The rest of your post was some drivel about your lifestyle and sarcasm. Apparently your lifestyle is just your business and no-one elses. Damn, dude, no-one on Terb comes close to you in blathering about their wife, kids, cycling, daily shit schedule, etc. As for the sarcasm of popcorn, where's the sarcasm? You litter threads with it, implying 'take a seat and watch', and then you remain in those threads and keep watching. If the popcorn was being used as sarcasm, then you would be mocking the combatants but then leaving the thread (doing the opposite of watching). It looks to me like YOU don't know sarcasm. But you're smart enough to know that, right?

 

[Cycleguy007]

There ya have it...

Damn, dude, no-one on Terb comes close to you in blathering about their wife, kids, cycling, daily shit schedule, etc.

Can't find anything else credible to attack me about so you resort to the same tactics as others in the past.

**sigh**

And I thought we were gonna have some fun... oh well... onto the next thread.

 

[nolabel]

Can't find anything else credible to attack me about so you resort to the same tactics as others in the past.

**sigh**

And I thought we were gonna have some fun... oh well... onto the next thread.

Oops, looks like I stepped on a landmine!

Here's what I meant: you seem to note your family details alot, so it seemed odd - even amusing - that you would also say such details were not anyone's business.

Still, quite honestly, I wasn't intending to aim at your Fam. I do apologize for not being more careful in what I said, and I hope you accept that apology.

In the meantime I will continue to poke fun at you for being a conspiracy nutball who is also not an accomplished satirist.

 

[The Fruity Hare]

The CDC doesn't even recommend that I get a flu shot!

Yes they do. They just think it is important to get the vaccine to those who need it most first.


From the article you linked to in a previous post above:


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."

 

[Blue-Spheroid]

Yes they do. They just think it is important to get the vaccine to those who need it most first.

It's no fair actually reading the article. It gets in the way of a childish pissing match.

 

[The Fruity Hare]

It's no fair actually reading the article. It gets in the way of a childish pissing match.

I know. There is an awful lot of that going around these days. I am only reading all these threads because I am home bound for a while. I have no idea why anyone else would get so involved with and in all these arguments.

However, it helps me while away the time.

Maybe I should just take up crocheting or something a little less physically demanding than all this verbal sparring going on, it really is tiring me out.

 

[fuji]

source of information is radio, and via Google searches, but that doesn't make the information garnered any less credible, since they were gathered from credible sources.

So long as you don't, like train, try and interpret statistics that you don't fully comprehend and draw horrendously flawed conclusions from your misunderstood data.

Google searches should be leading you to medical journal articles as well as the media.

I would note that you can't simultaneously claim the media misrepresent the situation and then turnaround and say that your source of information is credible because it's the media.

One of the nice things about relying on sources like Nature, New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association, is that they have filters in place to make sure everything they publish is accurate and well founded.

The National Post, Globe, and Star don't have that, so should be relied only only when they are carrying a direct quote from an expert source. Even then they sometimes misrepresent it.

One note:

You have misrepresented my criticism of you. I have criticized your view on the flu shot, and I have criticized you for repeatedly starting threads and posting comments disparaging it for unscientific, even anti-scientific, reasons.

That does not mean I have criticized your "lifestyle".

I have criticized your view, as published on terb, and I have asserted that you are part of the problem precisely because you go on spreading misinformation and disinformation about the severity of the flu, and the likelihood that an ordinary healthy adult could get seriously ill from it.