Have You Prepared For The "Flu" And Do You Get A Flu Shot?

Advertisement

Viewed 4129 times

    Barrold Bonds posted Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:14:55 GMT(1/17/2013)

    Post 31 of 317
    Joined 12/29/2012

    Bungi Bill, LouBelle: Correlation DOES NOT equal causation. Getting the flu shot will not make you sick for 4 years. Eating spicy food does not prevent the flu.

    There's a lot of people in this thread who need to take some basic science and biology courses.

    Bungi Bill posted Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:54:54 GMT(1/17/2013)

    Post 533 of 856
    Joined 11/9/2010

    Were I given to sarcasm, I would probably begin with something along the lines of "Pardon me, but I thought the whole idea of being vaccinated against influenza was to prevent one from getting the flu?"

    However, sarcasm has never been my scene, and I don't intend to begin now!

    It does seem, though, that I have to spell it out for some people:

    - what I meant was that receiving the flu shots each year during that four year period never prevented me from getting the flu.

    Also, I never claimed to having been made sick from one flu shot, so kindly refrain from introducing that staw man into the discussion.

    Bill.

    Sojae posted Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:09:08 GMT(1/17/2013)

    Post 5 of 8
    Joined 9/8/2012

    the flu shot is the flu..

    F jgnat posted Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:28:53 GMT(1/17/2013)

    Post 18979 of 24552
    Joined 7/4/2002

    In 2008, WHO estimated that 1.5 million of deaths among children under 5 years were due to diseases that could have been prevented by routine vaccination. This represents 17% of global total mortality in children under 5 years of age.

    Vaccine Preventable

    Selected diseases

    Some diseases, including poliomyelitis, measles and maternal and neonatal tetanus, have specific goals for eradication or elimination:

    Barrold Bonds posted Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:58:01 GMT(1/17/2013)

    Post 32 of 317
    Joined 12/29/2012

    Bungi Bill, next don't make such poorly worded sentence and then get huffy when someone calls you out on what you said.

    Sojae: If you bothered reading this thread, you'd see that the flu shot does not contain any live virii therefore, and I'm going to say this again, YOU CANNOT GET THE FLU FROM THE FLU SHOT.

    jgnat, you should stop trying to use logic, reason, and facts. It doesn't matter to people who are anti-flushot.

    Gee it's like trying to reason with Jehovah's Witnesses. Oh the irony.

    F jgnat posted Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:10:21 GMT(1/17/2013)

    Post 18981 of 24552
    Joined 7/4/2002

    I'd rather trust statistics from a reputable source than anecdotal evidence, as touching as that all may be. Call me silly, but I trust the FDA and the WHO.

    BB, consider that the WTS is pretty anti-establishment. Ironic, since the WTS is a humdinger of a corporate bully itself. I'm not surprised that a fair number of ex-Witnesses continue to be suspicious of the establishment.

    The issue of vaccination is a sensitive one to me. I consider myself a fairly intelligent and persuasive person. Even so, I have not been able to convince my own daughter that vaccinations are one of the most efficient and natural ways to stay healthy, to beat the mightiest of germs in their own court. To my great chagrin, my daughter is highly suspicious of the establishment and in this area considers me to be highly niave. When she gets sick, she eats grapefruit. I mean, why trust the government?

    I believe my immortality comes from what I am able to pass on. If I can't even pass on this simple message, will all I have gained in my lifetime evaporate in a cloud of ignorance?

    EntirelyPossible posted Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:22:32 GMT(1/17/2013)

    Post 5276 of 5632
    Joined 3/20/2011

    Not to mention the mercury and formaldehyde in the shot--a flu is better than Alzheimer's.

    Do the 2012-2013 seasonal flu vaccines contain thimerosal?

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved several formulations of the seasonal flu vaccine, including multi-dose vials and single-dose units. (See Table of Approved Influenza Vaccines for the U.S. 2012–2013 Season.) Since seasonal influenza vaccine is produced in large quantities for annual immunization campaigns, some of the vaccine is produced in multi-dose vials, and contains thimerosal to safeguard against possible contamination of the vial once it is opened.

    The single-dose units are made without thimerosal as a preservative because they are intended to be opened and used only once. Additionally, the live-attenuated version of the vaccine (the nasal spray vaccine), is produced in single-dose units and does not contain thimerosal.

    Is thimerosal being used in other vaccines?

    Since 2001, no new vaccine licensed by FDA for use in children has contained thimerosal as a preservative, and all vaccines routinely recommended by CDC for children younger than 6 years of age have been thimerosal-free, or contain only trace amounts of thimerosal, except for multi-dose formulations of influenza vaccine. The most recent and rigorous scientific research does not support the argument that thimerosal-containing vaccines are harmful. However, CDC and FDA continually evaluate new scientific information about the safety of vaccines.

    I reckon it's got to do with the fact that I eat really hot, spicey food - I'm a sucker for chillis, curry powders, cayenne pepper.

    Subsequently, more confirmed cases were reported and as the rate of transmission of the flu increased in the beginning of August, with the first death due to swine flu in India in Pune, [3] panic began to spread. As of 24 May 2010, 10193 cases of swine flu have been confirmed with 1035 deaths. [4]

    EntirelyPossible posted Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:31:30 GMT(1/17/2013)

    Post 5277 of 5632
    Joined 3/20/2011

    what I meant was that receiving the flu shots each year during that four year period never prevented me from getting the flu.

    It's a vaccine tailored to a specific strain of the flu. It's not a guarantee. Were you tested by a doctor to see if you had the strain of flu you were vaccinated against? The vaccine requires your body to develop to proper immune response to prevent a real flu infection, if that doesn't happe, the vaccine will not help you. It also takes about 2 weeks for your body to develop anti-bodies against the flu you were vaccinated against. If you come into contact with the flu shortly after the vaccination, you will still get sick.

    That does not mean, however, it is not good for the general population.

    the flu shot is the flu

    SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!

    The flu vaccine contains the flu. All vaccines contain a dead sample of the thing it is vaccinating you for. That's how it works.

    Lozhasleft posted Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:34:28 GMT(1/17/2013)

    Post 3327 of 3542
    Joined 3/22/2010

    Hubby has had these shots these past 4 years, together with quite a severe flu attack each year. I'm going to continue to pass.

    Loz x

    Barrold Bonds posted Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:40:36 GMT(1/17/2013)

    Post 33 of 317
    Joined 12/29/2012

    Entirely Possible, please get out of here with your science facts and data. I prefer to use my gut instinct and garbage science I learned from Oprah and Dr. Oz.

    EntirelyPossible posted Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:46:22 GMT(1/17/2013)

    Post 5282 of 5632
    Joined 3/20/2011

    Hubby has had these shots these past 4 years, together with quite a severe flu attack each year. I'm going to continue to pass.

    Re-used since I am lazy:

    It's a vaccine tailored to a specific strain of the flu. It's not a guarantee. Was he tested by a doctor to see if you had the strain of flu you were vaccinated against? Or any flu at all, in fact? The vaccine requires your body to develop to proper immune response to prevent a real flu infection, if that doesn't happe, the vaccine will not help you. It also takes about 2 weeks for your body to develop anti-bodies against the flu you were vaccinated against. If you come into contact with the flu shortly after the vaccination, you will still get sick.

    That does not mean, however, it is not good for the general population.

    Entirely Possible, please get out of here with your science facts and data. I prefer to use my gut instinct and garbage science I learned from Oprah and Dr. Oz.

    Perhaps instead we should give out enemes filled with curry, scotch bonnet pepper sauce and orange juice to keep the flu away.

    M caliber posted Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:51:03 GMT(1/17/2013)

    Post 3252 of 3505
    Joined 6/22/2007
    Hubby has had these shots these past 4 years, together with quite a severe flu attack each year. I'm going to continue to pass.
    Loz x

    what I meant was that receiving the flu shots each year during that four year period never prevented me from getting the flu
    .

    FACT.... on National news today in Canada

    Flu vaccine about 45% effective this year

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2013/01/16/flu-vaccine-effectiveness.html

    EntirelyPossible posted Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:54:27 GMT(1/17/2013)

    Post 5284 of 5632
    Joined 3/20/2011

    Fact? FTA:

    This season's flu vaccine in Canada is about 45 per cent effective, early data from doctor's offices suggest.

    Several hundred volunteer physicians in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec are monitoring "in real time" how the vaccine protects people.

    "We measure that the vaccine approximately cuts the risk of illness due to that virus by about half," said Dr. Danuta Skowronski of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, who oversees the network of doctors. "So that's substantial protection."

    M caliber posted Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:01:06 GMT(1/17/2013)

    Post 3253 of 3505
    Joined 6/22/2007

    The 45% reduction in influenza attributed to the vaccine refers to the relative risk reduction. This stat is criticized as it embellishes the effectiveness an intervention. In medical decision making this is referred to as framing bias. One might expect to hear a pharmaceutical representative to use a relative risk reduction in support of their treatment. However, it is inappropriate for a physician to use. A more appropriate value is the absolute risk reduction. For the influenza vaccine, this generally ranges from 1 to 3%. This means you would need to vaccinate between 33 and 99 people in order to prevent one case of flu like symptoms.

    Consider a hypothetical drug which reduces the relative risk of colon cancer by 50% over five years. Even without the drug, colon cancer is fairly rare, maybe 1 in 3,000 in every five-year period. The rate of colon cancer for a five-year treatment with the drug is therefore 1/6,000, as by treating 6,000 people with the drug, one can expect to reduce the number of colon cancer cases from 2 to 1.

    The raw calculation of absolute risk reduction is a probability (0.003 fewer cases per person, using the colon cancer example above). Authors such as Ben Goldacre believe that this information is best presented as a natural number in the context of the baseline risk ("reduces 2 cases of colon cancer to 1 case if you treat 6,000 people for five years"). [ 3 ] Natural numbers, which are used in the number needed to treat approach, are easily understood by non-experts

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_risk_reduction

    EntirelyPossible posted Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:04:38 GMT(1/17/2013)

    Post 5286 of 5632
    Joined 3/20/2011

    Vaccinations are good. Glad we agree.

    M caliber posted Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:13:30 GMT(1/17/2013)

    Post 3254 of 3505
    Joined 6/22/2007

    Vaccinations are good. Glad we agree.

    I red arrow did wonders for sure

    EntirelyPossible posted Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:14:48 GMT(1/17/2013)

    Post 5287 of 5632
    Joined 3/20/2011

    I red arrow did wonders for sure

    Sorry, is that supposed to mean something? Symbolic of your missing the target with the word "fact", perhaps?

    M caliber posted Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:57:47 GMT(1/17/2013)

    Post 3255 of 3505
    Joined 6/22/2007

    Consider a hypothetical drug which reduces the relative risk of colon cancer by 50% over five years. Even without the drug, colon cancer is fairly rare, maybe 1 in 3,000 in every five-year period. The rate of colon cancer for a five-year treatment with the drug is therefore 1/6,000, as by treating 6,000 people with the drug, one can expect to reduce the number of colon cancer cases from 2 to 1.

    In this situation math facts say there is a reduction of 50% colon cancer

    But is it not even more important to know the realistic expectations for this drug ?

    I agree the word fact can be abused and misused ...............sorry

    Those who deliberately minipulate facts for profit have the most accountabilty I feel however.

    F AGuest posted Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:14:34 GMT(1/17/2013)

    Post 10381 of 9474
    Joined 3/26/2001

    While the discussion is about the flu shot specifically, it seems to also be about the reliability... of the medical field's assertion of realiability... which is what I spoke to. That I included information of a personal nature to support my comments is on-topic: I spoke from what I KNOW... PERSONALLY... and not what I read/believe based on what someone else asserts.

    Be that as it may, again, the decision is simple: if you get a flu shot you just may get sick. VERY sick. If you don't, you may get sicker, even die. Thankfully, all have a choice and can make a decision. Just make a FULLY INFORMED decision, which includes hearing BOTH sides... and neither side poo-poo'ing... or trying to bully... the other. Bullies tend to do so because they're hiding something: insecurity, uncertainty, etc., although they want to appear self-assured and "knowledgable."

    Put your thoughts out there... and don't take it PERSONAL if you're not believed. If you're right... then it's those who don't listen's loss. If they do, then it's their gain... and yours.

    But leave your personal insecurities about NEEDING people to agree with you/see things YOUR way... such that when they don't you get all cranky and bent out of shape and start hurtling absolutely false and unintended motives... at home. Or at the Kingdom Hall, where it's practiced and welcomed.

    A slave of Christ,

    SA

    tec posted Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:24:11 GMT(1/17/2013)

    Post 12125 of 12939
    Joined 3/5/2010

    Consider a hypothetical drug which reduces the relative risk of colon cancer by 50% over five years. Even without the drug, colon cancer is fairly rare, maybe 1 in 3,000 in every five-year period. The rate of colon cancer for a five-year treatment with the drug is therefore 1/6,000, as by treating 6,000 people with the drug, one can expect to reduce the number of colon cancer cases from 2 to 1.
    The raw calculation of absolute risk reduction is a probability (0.003 fewer cases per person, using the colon cancer example above). Authors such as Ben Goldacre believe that this information is best presented as a natural number in the context of the baseline risk ("reduces 2 cases of colon cancer to 1 case if you treat 6,000 people for five years"). [3] Natural numbers, which are used in the number needed to treat approach, are easily understood by non-experts

    That was interesting, Cal. Thanks for putting that out there, to help some of us see the difference.

    (Its like in taxes. You get to have a tax credit for your medical bills up to 300.00 (just guessing at a number), and that amounts to no more than a few dollars difference in what you owe. Sounds better than it actually IS.)

    Most of us don't know, and so we trust our doctors TO know. They usually know more than most of us do... BUT... sometimes they don't. So the best thing of all, would be for us to also know as much as we can, to make a more informed decision. There should be no problem with this here.

    Peace,

    tammy

      Close

      Confirm ...