Just curious how many people here are getting one. They are given out free at my university so it wont cost a dime. Most mainstream doctors will tell you they are a good idea while many internet 'gurus' speak of them like they are basically poison. I dont usually take mercola and company's comments seriously but that is another story.
I'm not gonna get one. I just don't see the point in it. I've had the flu, a whoppin one time my whole life. Anyways from everything I hear, you have as much chance gettin it from the shot as you do from everyday life.
Actually, I know first hand of many healthy persons that got sick after taking the flu shot. Besides, last year the type of flu in "real life" wasnt the same as the vaccine.
It's mostly good pharmaceutical companies propaganda IMO. When most folks hear the word "vaccine", they feel safe and secure. They dont question the efficiency or side effects etc. Not all vaccines work or are equal in merit.
People working in HOSPITALS didnt want to take one last year! Go figure. They know better.
If you want my opinion,I believe the flue shot crap is a huge lie...just for the drug companies to make more money.I haven't had one since I was 11 yrs old;I have NEVER been sick since then.If you eat right and don't fill up on junk food and saoda,and splenda crap,then you'll be in good health.Oh and,like your mother always said,"eat your fruits and vegetables."
the literature AGAINST vaccinations in general is very compelling.
There seems to be a general brainwashing of the masses to think that vaccines are harmless.
Fact is they arent and have been especially dangerous to infants and newborns.
More babies have been diagnosed with ADD, Austism, Paralysis, severe infections of respiratory tract, asthma, and much more because of vaccines. Then again, with ingredients like mercury, borax, formelaldehyde, aluminium and other metals all cocktailed together with the "partially" killed virus (ie partially live) its no wonder why you cant play with your baby without giving them brain damage. So called professionals will have you believe its the actual shaking, when infact it has alot more to do with the damage you've done with the vaccines.
Here in Oz, they scared the crap out of the public with a so called meningococal scare a few years ago. Turns out that they had some batches of vaccines that were gonna expire so they thought up of a quick scheme to get rid of them. Govt is still being sued over that one.
vaccination campaigns are largely govt and pharmaceutical company handshake deals thrown down our throats with good old scare tactic methods.
Louis Pasteur changed his belief before he died. He was originally of the thought that the disease invaded the body and made one sick. before he died he revised this to say that one only got sick as a function of the weakness of the immune system not because the disease was present.
You want to avoid all these diseases? make sure you lead a healthy and organic lifestyle wherever possible first and foremost as literature is still crapola in proving that vaccines actually do anything for immunity. The presence of antibodies does not prove immunity. It merely demonstrates that the body has been exposed to a certain disease.
When you inject vaccines, you bypass all the normal mechanisms of the immune system such as the mouth, nose, ears, skin, various linings, mucous membranes and so on. Your body doesnt naturally develop an immunity since something foreign is entering directly into your bloodstream. Aside from that many vaccines contain proteins. As humans we have our own protein makeup. Injecting a foreign animal protein directly in the bloodstream could cause disasterous interuptions to your DNA since when we eat animal or any form of protein, we break down amino acids and reformulate them to suit our human needs yet injecting them is bypassing this important method. Who knows then what that foreign injected protein does to you. Could it be the reason why humans have evolved into such an "animalistic" race? Who knows, might be speculation, but worth a thought.
Likewise, I doubt this birdflu very much. for more info see:
Sure I may be "Misinformed" but you can't deny that people have gotten the flu right after getting the "vaccine" for it. I just can't see getting a supposedly dead virus injected in me so I can build tolerance to it, when I do not see it enough in every day life to worry about it. Oh and the BS people feed us about "oh we better take it so that terrorist cant use chemcal warfare against us" uh yea sorry but if someone uses chemical warfare against us, it better be something better than the flu. But then again, I am grossly misinformed...
I'm glad I'm not alone in my views. Try getting information about vaccines: its almost impossible. They use DOUBLE doses on babies 2 months old ... because their immune system isnt up and running yet, so by some twisted logic, more is needed...
Yeah. Like twice the money. On the vaccine, its says "Not for infants of one year or less".
Basically, I dont trust them at all. I'm not saying its all crap. I'm saying we're fed so much lies and BS for the sake of huge profits that we dont know what's good or not, what are the consequences, the pros and the cons, etc.
When I was younger, nobody panicked for simple flus and colds! Now we should take a vaccine???
More kids now are on drugs than ever before. Healthcare costs are on a never ending cost spiral. And only ONE dude had an allergy to peanuts back in my school days. Now dozens of kids have allergies of some kind. Makes me wonder...
If you can read, you should not be asking these questions and pick up an immunology book and realize that your body basically doesn't give a crap about how it gets to see ''the foreign'' substance against which to develop an immunity (there are some little exceptions to this)
Secondly, you can get some short flu like symptoms associated to general immune response and are mostly harmless. Various interleukins and growth factors get expressed that may induce these symptomes, often they are an integral part of immunity generation.
Flu vaccines are created with different strains of the virus, one A (H3N2) virus, one A (H1N1) virus, and one B virus. The viruses in the vaccine change each year based on international surveillance and scientists? estimations about which types and strains of viruses will circulate in a given year.
Thus it is only normal that once in a while, the main strain that hits us is not the one we've been preparing for.
You see, the anti-vaccination crowd is largely like the anti-meat crowd, different people, same mentality.
For my internship, I have to take it, but would have taken it anyway.
Its kinda funny to realize that some of the arguments raised by people on these forums are the same raised by the villagers in third world countries that don't understant vaccines. At least we know that developped or not, every country is filled with ignorant people. But the villagers have an excuse, here, they don't.
Actually, I get my information from the same place your sister does, I am doing my stint in research and I've been getting those medical journals for years.
The general notion that 20% of the research is unbiased would probably be an estimation of the pages that aren't pharmaceutical add in many medical journals. (Which is a sad thing but you don't look at them anymore)
However, saying that the large majority of research coming out is biased can mean two things. Biased in common speak, usually that you want to show something specific and will try to influence the results accordingly (without scrupules) or that you've been paid (subventions) by a third party that has ultirior motives. (Like the sugar industry showing their research that sugar doesn't play a role in the obesity epidemic). For example, you could be suspicious of the bias in pharmaceutical research, even though they usually have a good oversight by government agencies. (For example, stuff like Vioxx and heart disease, it took various analyses to show it was there, and you need to look for it, especially since nobody thought it would have anything to do with heart disease.)
In that sense, saying that 20% of the research is biase is patently false.
However, if you use research (or epidemiology) speech, bias means anything, voluntary or not that could affect the results and mask the ''TRUTH'' that we are trying to approximate.
Example, A new research shows that Golf is the most dangerous sport since it kills more people that play it than any other sports.
You would go, Hum, interesting and me who thought that walking was good for you. And then you realized that they only recruited participants 70 years and older and didn't adjust for age. So you would go, that research has a bias in it. Or if the research uses diffrent settings or different tools to collect information. For example, you interview the ''intervention'' group at there hospital bed while they are coming out of surgery all drugged up and in pain and you interview the control group in their homes with a nice cup of coffe. (The groups would be different and there is a bias, the people in their home would give you better information than the ones who just came out of surgery)
Another example, you put up a sign in the local paper saying you need all the nurses on HRT or not on HRT (estrogen/progestin) for your study. Then you get women who are on it and women who aren't on it and you study how they are going to be affected in the future by various disease . Now we end up that HRT doesn't really have any bad effects and a good amount of good effects and you go on and say to yourself, well geewhiz, HRT must be good for you, its does all kinds of good things to your blood lipids, your bones, even some research shows its good for memory.
But then you read further and realized that they didn' really check all that well to see if the women who took the medication where similiar or different then the women who didn't take it. In that study, the evaluated activity levels as being 1 times per week for 30 minutes or more...less than that and you are not physically active.
So here we have a problem (that has been show in better made studies, women who took (before the scandal) HRT are more educated, more physically active and ate better. So when we look at the adjusted levels for all these variables, we see that HRT can have a negative impact on the incidence of strokes (heart disease like MI are still lower, but strokes are really no good).
These are extreme exemples, and in essences, unless you have 5 billions dollars and 5 years to plan your research and then thousands of patients and so on and so forth, you research is probably going to have a bias in it.
However, a bias does not imply that the research is not good, that its crap and that it serves no purpuse, we need to look at the effect of the bias, do we think its big enough to stop you from learning somethinfe of value. Most of the time, (a opposed to the extrem examples above), the answer is no, it is useful, the bias is minor and is not significant.
So I took your bias to be of the first definition considering basically anybody with research experience wouldn't have put it that way.
The thing is that at any one point in time, the flu is going around, various strains of it. Some people will get the vaccine and be totally immune to 1, 2 or all 3 of the strains, or they might only get partial immunity and when they get it by the strain of the virus against with they are immunized they respond faster and the flu doesn't last as long. Or we could be unlucky and get a strain that wasn't in the vaccine...then well, unless we have some cross-immunity, you are basically screwed and its like you never had the vaccine because in reality you never had a vaccine agains these strains.
As for your perception of health care professional, to each his own and its probably a case of double negative bias (eh, nobody is immune to bias!) and I can't really tell you anything about that.
As for you comment on vaccines and babies, I can't really sugar coat it, it was ignorant and dumb and kinda sets the tone for everything. Its basically like if you told me ''these dumbs twits believe the earth is round, eh, if it was round we'd be falling of it'''... You kinda shot yourself in the foot on that one.
For the generalized comments on the your intellectual abilities of a third world villager, it was not directed solely at you or even specifically at you, its just that the arguments brought forth are of the same nature. When you get yourself in research that might lead you in a third worlds county for exemple, you get educated on the reasons we people might be afraid to get your vaccine, or your packet of food and so on and so forth. They can't know any better.
We on the other hand, I feel, are morally obligated to know.
Some of the arguments above are like the ones we heard when we were doing research on lung cancer or the bad effects of alcool. My grand-father smoked a pack a day since he was forteen years old and drank 5 glasses of scotch a day since he was twelve. He died at 94 years old in perfect health.
In Quebec, for the amount of money the flu shot cost, we know that the ministery of health looks at independant research on vaccines, and don't just take the manufactures promise on it. Of course the efficacy might vary from year to year, especially if we get it by a strain that isn't in the vaccine, but a least you prepared yourself. Then again, the vaccination concepts have been so well studied and for so long, its now basically like Newton's Law of every action produces an equal reaction.
But eh, what are you gonna do, doctors get patient that have the flu, swear that they are sick and want antibiotics. When the doc does his job and does't give them, saying its useless. You see these patient coming out of the office saying ''That freaking jerk wouldn't give me a prescription, I know I'm sick god-dammit'' and they are going to get a second opinion, and eventually some doc might give a prescription just to get that dense patient out of his/her office.
Even on this site you see people basically saying their doctor is a moron and when you look at what the doc did with a medical perspective its : Well, the doc did exactly what he's supposed to have done.
I have it from both sides, my dad is a doctor, my mom a pharmacist and I listen to these stories of what happens when the patient comes out of the hospital or clinic and gets to the pharmacy and bitches about the doctor that didn't tell her/him this or that. Then you get the Mom question ''Didn't you tell her...'' and then the Dad answer: ''Well yeah, I told here, I told her THREE times!''
But this is just a reflection of what patient percieve, and studies on this issue are frightning, patient forget an insane amount of info as soon as they leave the doctors office. Maybe its stress, lack of attention, intimidation, who knows, but it like when you get introduced to someone and immediately forget their names.
In the end, your doctor is going to be an ignorant twit, because you forgot that he told you x,y,z. Or when you get 2 or 3 different opinons and then say doctors are moron.
''Five weeks ago Dr. Y told me it was exzema, two weeks ago at the CLSC, the doc told me it was a reaction to X now I go the the ER and they tell me its psoriasis''
You just want to say, Mme Tremblay, when you came in 5 weeks ago, it did look like exzema and now it does look like psoriasis...But then again, that wouldn't change anything.
In the end, this won't change anything because for most people, beliefs are more important than knowledge and changing beliefs is inherently emotionaly charged and hard to do. So I could have an online class on immunology on these forums and people would still say its no good or near no good.
While so many of your points have merits, what's the point of "debating" with you? As so many people coming out of our precious physicians schools, you have become omnipotent. Only your peers can be at your level of intellectual superiority. Why bother lowering yourself to the mostly uneducated masses of T-Nation?
Ever heard of tunnel vision? Biased can mean having all your perceptions directed in a way that you disregard other elements.
As a matter of fact, I do like to stroke myself, but I just put that under the normal libido category.
As for believing to be omnipotent, I find this relatively funny, considering you meant omniscient. Granted, some end up thinking somewhat that they are omnipotent. A nice quote I heard a doc say: In the hospital, I'm first after God, and I don't know if God's on call tonight. More to illustrate the level of responsability rather than actual arrogance, its funny nonetheless.
As for lowering myself, now I would have thought that all these exemples above were easily at the level of the average T-Nation reader. Why the hell would I even post here, I don't need the approval of some guy online. I'm shallow, just not that much.
What I am trying to do is bring a little knowledge on some of these threads when ignorant people (you can put yourself in there, its a large category) go off spouting anecdotes, things they've heard from somewhere or that they read on a Mercola.com facsimilee.
Now, of course the narcissistic and arrogant bastard that I am could easily tell you not to pollute threads with plainly false statements easily verifiable with a Googgle search.
I tried to make you realize how wrong you are with my provoking/insulting post. Yeah, it failed, never surestimate your audience.
In the end, don't confuse assurance from repeatedly tested knowledge and arrogance.
Besides, you should be mildly glad I'm posting, considering it shows that I still care somewhat.
Still its true that it serves no purpose arguing with me since I only argue when I've done my homework. I don't rely on crass ignorance to do my debating for me.
As for being biased and a having tunnel vision...last time I checked education and critital thinking were tools to use to weed out good information from the crap.
Evidently, in your case, these tools need sharpening.
It's been said: I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.
I get one every year as long as work's paying (I'm a cheap bastard). I think of them as weight lifting sessions for my immune system. If it didn't cost money (did I mention I was cheap?) I'd get immunized against every last thing modern science has a vaccine for.
As has been mentioned, the flu shot is really just a best guess at what strains may be active each season. Of course if everybody got them then other strains would be the active ones (damn evolution). Best case: the scientists guess correctly, you get the shot, and nobody else does...
For what it's worth, I've never been sick after any vaccination.