|
|
|
|
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/28/2009 6:57:49 PM | 'virulent strains of H1N1 are known to kill millions"
on which planet did this 'knowledge" of millions already killed by H1N1 come to be?
'but, it's open to question how necessary it actually is"
To that statement, I strongly agree, though the way I would word it is that:
a fast-tracked vaccine containing known neuro-toxins as adjuvants, and which has already killed test subjects (both 8 human volunteers and multiple animals) and does not have an adequate testing and safety protocol is VERY unsafe and NOT worth risking more lives over. | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/28/2009 7:18:11 PM | on which planet did this 'knowledge" of millions already killed by H1N1 come to be?
Spanish Flu, 1918
50-100 million killed.
Pretty basic knowledge of flu. | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/28/2009 8:33:22 PM | RE Msg: 100 by FrogO_Oeyes:
There is no point going into a panic over Swine Flu, because evolutionary theory dictates that dangerous mutations occur randomly.
Even with the best will in the world, and tons of research, there are going to be some dangerous mutations that will defy the works of geneticists and virologists, and slip through.
What's more, Darwin's own points about Natural Selection demonstrate that when mutations would occur, that as long as they are more likely to survive than existing strains, those new mutations will spread far more rapidly than existing strains, irrespective of the reasons for the greater likelihood of the new mutations, and that includes if we've vaccinated against the existing strains. So ironically, vaccination against existing strains will help new mutations to spread far more rapidly than otherwise.
Plus, there are far more viruses than people. So mutations are going to be far more likely to occur than scientists working on them.
H1N1 has had some deadly strains. But as we can see with Swine Flu, it's not that hard for a new mutation to occur, that escapes our attempts at vaccination. Moreover, deadly mutations can occur even in rhinoviruses. There are simply too many options to cover. So we're not going to completely protect ourselves by trying to come up with a vaccine against all forms of H1N1. H1N1 will just end up mutating into something our vaccine doesn't cover, or some other virus will, or some bacteria will develop a deadly mutation.
All of that means that whatever we do, nature is going to be much better at making new mutations than we are at protecting ourselves against them. It's going to happen, sometime, and some of them are going to be things we have no protection against. So there simply is no point in getting into a panic.
However, there is a huge problem if we introduce a vaccine too early, because potential side-effects could be under-researched, or the vaccine might not work, and if the public aren't fully aware of these issues, then the vaccine could do some unexpected things, that COULD cause a panic. Such a panic might cause many humans to refuse the vaccine. They might even cause "swine flu" parties like they did in the UK, where parents were deliberately exposing their children to others infected with swine flu, to hope that they could get catch it, and get innoculated, before it mutated into something really lethal, which was causing the virus to spread much quicker, and could have allowed it to reproduce to the numbers where a lethal mutation would be far more likely.
With the virus, we're fighting nature, and there isn't too much that we can do to stop nature, only to defer an lethal pandemic to a later date, but an inevitable one. But with humans, we're fighting the psychology of panic. That we can control, and that has far more power to cause many more deaths than any pandemic would if everyone was acting sensibly. So if you ask me, I'd say the best bet is to take reasonable steps to test the vaccine thoroughly, to warn everyone about its possible side-effects, so we can forestall a panic if something goes wrong, and if we HAVE to vaccinate before its fully tested, to make sure everyone being vaccinated, and their families, fully understand the risks, to avoid a panic.
The biggest danger humans face, is not nature, but ourselves. That's the biggest problem, and the easiest to control. Start with that, and we've got 90% of the battle won. | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/28/2009 9:34:33 PM | | hi.. message 88... ~you~ have no idea what vaccines are or what they do because if you did you would not take them.... so you make a statement that differs from mine and somehow you are right??... I could quote one hundred doctors and still you would say that they are liars... to each their own, I believe without a speck of doubt, not a speck of a speck, that vaccines do not cure anything and the only thing that they wipe out is people... blessings for health | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/28/2009 9:51:24 PM |
I believe without a speck of doubt, not a speck of a speck, that vaccines do not cure anything and the only thing that they wipe out is people.
Where, pray tell, do you think smallpox went? Seriously. Do you see people walking around with horrible disfiguring pox all over their faces, and we just "changed the name?"
That you would even think of saying that polio is the same thing as MS shows your vast ignorance on all topics scientific and medical. I'd thought you couldn't surprise me with the depths of your delusion. Look how wrong I was. I continue to be stunned and amazed.
And all the while, the only thing keeping your unvaccinated daughter safe from horrible disfiguring and disabling diseases is the fact that most other people are less whacked than you about this... look up herd immunity and pray it keeps working in your favor. | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/28/2009 10:05:12 PM | Mona - You basically just told a biologist (frogo) that our immune system is a lie.
Let me explain to you how vaccines work.
With the flu - you never catch the same strain twice. The reason being, is that your body becomes immune to the first strain after it has been in your body for a certain amount of time. This causes you to become IMMUNE to a certain strand so you can't catch it again. Your body does it naturally.
So what vaccines do, is that they take the flu and then SEVERALLY weaken the flu so that the body can adjust to the flu without much ill effect. This prevents you from obtaining the current flu strand at FULL STRENGTH.
This is how ALL vaccines work. Yes, they inject you with the virus. But they weaken it first so your body can adjust to the new infiltrator. Would you rather face off a severally weakened foe or wait a bit and fight the same foe at full strength?
Mona - You need to educate yourself on what the flu does. The flu doesn't discriminate and only contaminate people who aren't Christians. It attacks everyone equally. You can't simply pray to have a disease not strike you down.. I'm sure that they tried that during the black plague.. Sure as hell worked then, didn't it?  | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/28/2009 10:07:01 PM |
Yet, all too often in these fora, these are EXACTLY the kinds of "authorities" chosen.
Those are NOT the "fora" I've quoted.
So then you're saying the swine flu vaccine may not be "dangerous business" after all?
No. What I'm saying is that we simply don't know because there hasn't been any long term clinical testing on humans. There are a lot of pregnant women out there who are not going to get this jab because of the risk of neurological damage to themselves and their offspring. Where are a lot of nurses who, when push comes to shove, will leave their job rather than get a flu shot. Ever hear of that happening with the usual flu shots? Then, when big pharma demands tort immunity it doesn't exactly give one a warm and fuzzy feeling. I've spoken to several neuros who I've worked with over many many years and they will NOT get the jab for that very reason. I'll listen to them over anyone else.
The goal itself is worthy
I'm sure it is. It's their methodology I question. Again, I will NOT get the shot. I don't really care if anyone else does or not and I'm not trying to "prove" you should or shouldn't. | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/28/2009 10:16:02 PM | | Verzen-your desc fails to take into account both molecular mimicry and super immune response instigated by adjuvants such as squalene, thus causing the immune systen to attack the body itself when supercharged. Mona may not be a scientist, but she's on the right track by mentioning the possibility of an autoimmune reaction such as MS, which btw the French gov't found enough of a causal relationship of increased MS to patients administered Engerix B w/ Thimerosal, that they significantly altered their vaccination program-but...you knew that right? And like some of us you spend hours reading medical journals in several different countries as well, right? And Frogo, according to his profile is a 'warehouser'. Ah you know him better than we do tho ha?-first biologist ever to confuse HINI w/ the Spanish Flu! | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/28/2009 10:23:53 PM | I love it when people get to the point where their only tool of debate is ad hominem mockery.
You know what I like more? When there's direct proof the person doing the mocking has no freaking clue what they're talking about:
Spanish Flu == an H1N1 strain:
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/bio/factsheets/H1N1factsheet.html
 | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/28/2009 10:25:13 PM | | Wiyan - the flu is the FLU. It is the same fricken thing just different mutations within the flu strain. We just give it various names. Humans like naming things. | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/28/2009 11:34:22 PM | | Verzen, One needs to be quite specific w/ medical terminology in scientific debate-can't talk of two different flus in exactly the same way; different vaccines are for different strains-there were significant variables of difference in the epidemiology of the Spanish Flu versus H1N1-different conditions under which it spread are very worth noting as well. FYI, -people might be interested to know that:the Canadian gov't is now witholding 'seasonal' flu vax for under 65 yrs, bc their medical research community concurs that it makes pt's immuno-compromised ,to be more vulnerable to contract H1N1. Interestingly enough, the US is currently administering seasonal flu vax, w/ no mention of H1NI interaction afterwards, while still urging populace to also get the H1N1 SHOT once it is available. | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/28/2009 11:37:29 PM | "different vaccines are for different strains"
I think you missed the part where I said EVERY FLU strain is a different strain.. You never catch the same strain twice.
I hope you realize that vaccines ONLY WORK if the person in question has a HEALTHY immune system. Those 65 years and older dont have a healthy immune system. | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/28/2009 11:47:07 PM | RE monalee1 by Msg: 104:
I believe without a speck of doubt, not a speck of a speck, that vaccines do not cure anything and the only thing that they wipe out is people Vaccines don't directly cure people. But what vaccines do, monalee1, is they give our body a picture of what a particular strain of virus looks like, so that when some of that virus enters our body, the body can identify it, and then it immediately gets to work, and destroys those viruses before they have a chance to breed and overtake the body. Think of them like pictures of terrorists in the body. If you know what they look like, and you post their picture at every airport and sea-port, if they try entering the country, it won't be long before they're caught. If you don't have their picture, they could enter the country and blow up almost anything, because you'd never know they were terrorists.
There are some side-effects to a few people. But mostly, there are far less deaths taking most vaccines than when people don't take them. | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/29/2009 12:05:04 AM | | Scorpiomover-I take it you haven't read the VAERS reports, by your claim that 'there are some side effects to a few people'-try multiplying that by a couple humdred thousand. Don't take my word for it tho-contact the CDC and ask them to send you your own copy of the VAERS, while you're at it, ask them why they willfully covered up knowledge on neurological injury from Thimerosal in vaccines for years. They'll have to tell you the truth about this, since they got caught in their coverup in '99. | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/29/2009 1:04:08 AM | RE Msg: 114 by Wiyan:
Scorpiomover-I take it you haven't read the VAERS reports, No, I haven't. If you read my earlier post, I recommended fully testing the Swine Flu vaccine before use, because if some of the vaccines used are harmful like Thalidomide, then 90% of people will not touch the vaccines, because they don't know why one vaccine would be safer than another. I would also point out that in my above post, I said "mostly", because most vaccines tend to have a lot lower death rates than before they were introduced. That's because if they start producing side-effects, then people will get suspicious of them, and then their market for that drug will collapse.
Right now, big pharma companies are banking on bringing out a new vaccine every year, because after the initial large-scale innoculations, the sales of vaccines drop, and their profits along with them, and once the patents run out after a few years, anyone can produce it, and they don't make anywhere near what they did. So they are only planning to sell a vaccine for a few years anyway. So to make their profits, all they have to do is hold off any damaging results for a few years, until they've made their expected sales, and by then, they're onto a new vaccine, maybe even for a new illness. I've even considered if they are putting some of these viral strains out, as it would be in their interest.
However, the cost of this is loss of faith in big pharma vaccines in general. They are running the risk of people getting so worried about dangerous side-effects found in unreported reports and then buried, that more and more are thinking of not using vaccines at all. With enough people feeling that way, the result could be that so few buy their vaccines that these companies collapse completely. Hundreds of thousands of workers out of work. Not to mention that lack of vaccination could allow epidemics to thrive and kill thousands.
Really, governments ought to step in, and make it clear that if these companies don't seriously clear up their acts, that those governments will just take them over, put their directors in jail, and put other people in charge of them. If not, they'll see what's already happening in the UK. The UK people no longer trust ANY of their politicians anymore. A lot would rather vote for bigots than the big parties, because they think that at least bigots are going to be more honest with them. Can you imagine a day when people refuse to Democrats OR Republicans? Us Brits can. It's already here in the UK. Unless your country shapes up, the same will happen there. | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/29/2009 2:35:35 AM |
Scorpiomover-I take it you haven't read the VAERS reports, by your claim that 'there are some side effects to a few people'-try multiplying that by a couple humdred thousand.
VAERS reports only show a few thousand adverse reactions reported, over an eight year period, for all reported vaccines numbering several hundred MILLION doses. That includes all adverse reactions, not just deaths, and not just reactions directly due to vaccines. In other words, the number of serious vaccine-caused reactions are trivial and a far cry from "multiply by hundreds of thousands". Since VAERS is voluntary, the numbers probably grossly underestimate the number of reactions. Even accounting for this, the majority of reactions are minor and not necessarily vaccine-related [rash in particular, also seizures and hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes]. Some, including the most severe, are directly related to the vaccine and are a known risk of some live-virus vaccines. To whit, MMR seizures and polio. The latter might account for a small part of mona's misunderstandings - all reported cases of polio are attributed to a live virus vaccine which infected them. In this case, it's the poliovirus itself causing the disease, not any other factor associated with the vaccine.
http://vaers.hhs.gov/pdf/1995AmJPubHlth85-12.pdf
Note that VAERS has a dedicated website and you can download large number of reports there. Finding the one you want may be another issue.
while you're at it, ask them why they willfully covered up knowledge on neurological injury from Thimerosal in vaccines for years. They'll have to tell you the truth about this, since they got caught in their coverup in '99
Thus far, the majority of reports I've seen, indicate that there is no evidence of significant harm from thimerosal. Coincidental trends have been shown, but without causation demonstrated [although causation is claimed on the basis of strong correlation]:
http://www.jpands.org/vol11no1/geier.pdf
Reviews of multiple works of the same authors indicate significant flaws in methodology which would greatly skew the conclusions:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=BP86uPB3bi8C&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=vaers+1999+thimerosal&source=bl&ots=D73TTQUPlx&sig=_rZV4Dn4sjRytiS4t8RhMXUiz68&hl=en&ei=w7XBSp6OG4X0sgOfmsTHAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=vaers%201999%20thimerosal&f=false
Additional studies claim no correlation. The jury is still out, which is a long way from a damning conclusion.
Policy since 1999 has been to steadily reduce the usage of thimerosal, which is at least a reasonable precaution. If the evidence becomes stronger, at least the "correction" will be easy to complete. I too raise an eyebrow at the use of mercuric compounds, but thus far, the claims don't add up to the fears espoused.
Verzen, One needs to be quite specific w/ medical terminology in scientific debate-can't talk of two different flus in exactly the same way; different vaccines are for different strains-there were significant variables of difference in the epidemiology of the Spanish Flu versus H1N1
Spanish flu IS H1N1. Virus strains are not static, they evolve constantly. That's the problem - what is a mild "swine" flu in April can be a deadly "Spanish" flu in November. That's also why there was immediate alarm when this flu appeared in the spring. In the absence of a large number of victims, all that was known was that a new variant was spreading, and it was a strain which has caused killer pandemics as well as millions of seasonal deaths.
In any case, both the current pandemic and the 1918 pandemic were caused by H1N1, a fact you were unaware of. Additionally, the term "swine flu" is a bit of a misnomer, since this is neither peculiar to swine, nor the only influenza typical of swine. Last, the 1918 human outbreak was also linked to a swine outbreak at the same time. IE, the 1918 pandemic could be EQUALLY called "swine flu"! You can't take the high road and talk about correct terminology when you are apparently unaware of the correct terms in the first place. To quote:
'virulent strains of H1N1 are known to kill millions"
on which planet did this 'knowledge" of millions already killed by H1N1 come to be?
different vaccines are for different strains
We're all [except mona?] aware of that. It doesn't affect the point.
there were significant variables of difference in the epidemiology of the Spanish Flu versus H1N1-different conditions under which it spread are very worth noting as well.
Absolutely!
Among conditions of note - the 1918 pandemic did not include a rapid global response, or the ability to produce and quickly distribute vaccines worldwide [whether or not we end up needing them], or the availability of antivirals such as Tamiflu [which has been effective on most current cases]. The 1918 flu was called "Spanish" not because it came from Spain, but because Spain was the only country not covering up the outbreak for "morale" purposes!
Although recent hype may seem excessive, especially in retrospect, it is the paniccy response which creates a significant barrier to the virus' spread. When flu was spreading in 1917, was it too initially seen as "mild"?
people might be interested to know that:the Canadian gov't is now witholding 'seasonal' flu vax for under 65 yrs, bc their medical research community concurs that it makes pt's immuno-compromised ,to be more vulnerable to contract H1N1
I was aware. It's a rational response to facts. If the available facts change, so should the conclusions. With every flu season, there are recommendations of who should get which vaccinations, and who will be provided the vaccination free, due to their risk category. I personally have never had a flu vaccination. I am fit, healthy, heal quickly, and not in a high risk category. I also happened to GET flu in April, when a grand total of about four cases had been reported here, so I am likely now immune to at least one of the circulating strains.
Interestingly enough, the US is currently administering seasonal flu vax, w/ no mention of H1NI interaction afterwards, while still urging populace to also get the H1N1 SHOT once it is available
Sadly, this doesn't seem to be unique to "government", but is a fairly common trait in the USA in general. Follow the dogma, regardless of facts or reason. There's an excess of inertia at all levels. I'm willing to accept the possibility that this is an unfair assessment, but I'm far from alone in making it. That suggests there's enough of something going wrong to allow generalizations in the first place.
Verzen-your desc fails to take into account both molecular mimicry and super immune response instigated by adjuvants such as squalene, thus causing the immune systen to attack the body itself when supercharged. Mona may not be a scientist, but she's on the right track by mentioning the possibility of an autoimmune reaction such as MS
The point of the description was to explain the very basics of how vaccines work, which mona clearly does not understand. She's taken a small piece of the puzzle and extrapolated it to be a complete picture. It isn't. Her words:
I believe without a speck of doubt, not a speck of a speck, that vaccines do not cure anything and the only thing that they wipe out is people
A statement easily falsified, and it was so done twice. Who here does NOT have a smallpox vaccination scar on their shoulder? Clear evidence that this vaccination does not "wipe out" people. Who here has EVER seen a case of smallpox? Clear evidence that, although they don't technically "cure" anything, vaccines can and do achieve their claimed purpose - preventing spread of disease.
which btw the French gov't found enough of a causal relationship of increased MS to patients administered Engerix B w/ Thimerosal, that they significantly altered their vaccination program-but...you knew that right?
They reacted to unsubstantiated claims, and in response to pressure from activists, not evidence. Both the USA and France STILL administer Thimerosal-containing HepB vaccine to infants as well as older children. See the paper at the bottom of this post for details. Your statement amounts to argumentum ad verecundiam, since the French government is demonstrably NOT an authority, and their response was demonstrably NOT scientific or consistent.
And Frogo, according to his profile is a 'warehouser'.
Still stuck on those fallacies and quality level of research skills?
Argumentum ad hominem - attempt to negate the argument by ridiculing the opponent rather than addressing the claims. Hallmark of a weak position.
Non sequitur - it does not follow that because fact A is true, that fact B is false. The two have no link. Specifically, the listed occupation in my profile does not equate to my training or expertise. That, of course, just reflects further on your inability to draw accurate conclusions from inappropriate sources.
first biologist ever to confuse HINI w/ the Spanish Flu!
First medical "researcher" to fail to recognize that Spanish flu IS H1N1? Or to use the letter "i" instead of the numeral "1" in a well-known virus name? How's the view in that ivory tower?
Bluesman:
Those are NOT the "fora" I've quoted.
Never meant to imply otherwise. At least not THIS time!
I'm sure it is. It's their methodology I question. Again, I will NOT get the shot. I don't really care if anyone else does or not and I'm not trying to "prove" you should or shouldn't.
I agree completely.
I dispute the claims made because of how they are made and supported, not because they are right or wrong, or in agreement or not.
My own reasons for not getting vaccinatedprobably differ from yours, and are the same as always - I simply don't feel I need it, nor am I in a high risk demographic.
The UK people no longer trust ANY of their politicians anymore.
Shoot, was there EVER a time, ANYWHERE, when politicians in general WERE trusted? I must have been napping for that 10.5 seconds!
Here, by the way, is an apparently objective paper relevant to many aspects of this discussion. I just found it, and it's mainly a good summary of attitudes and policies. It only takes a few minutes to read through. Not as detailed as I would have liked, but good in its own way:
http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/7/495/Freed.pdf
A related and more detailed paper:
http://www.path.org/vaccineresources/files/thimerosal_decision.pdf | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/30/2009 12:11:39 PM | When health professionals come out and demand no mandatory flu shot, you KNOW there has to be some serious concerns.
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/swine.flu.h1n1.2.1216352.html | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/30/2009 12:38:34 PM | Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. There's no indication from that article that the workers involved actually know ANYthing about the vaccine. They are reacting mainly out of fear and outrage at their rights being infringed.
Viz:
"I don't even tend to the sick. I am in the nutrition field. They are telling me I must get the shot because I work in a health clinic setting," said Paula Small, a Women, Infants and Children health care worker.
Small said she will refuse, worried the vaccine is untested and unproven, leaving her vulnerable. In 1976, there were some deaths associated with a swine flu vaccination.
Issues? Fear, ignorance. Potentially valid reasons as well, but not obvious.
Registered nurse Frank Mannino, 50, was also angry. He said the state regulation violates his personal freedom and civil rights. Infringed rights.
The protest also shook Albany Tuesday. Hundreds of demonstrators demanded freedom of choice. After all, as health care professionals they argue they're already constantly washing their hands and aren't likely to transmit or contract the flu.
Infringed rights. Note that they demand "choice", NOT prevention of vaccination.
Donelan said most in the medical community see the benefits and safety of the shots and welcome them In favor.
The state said change was needed this year to save lives, typically only about 45 percent of health care workers take advantage of voluntary flu vaccines So NORMALLY, almost half CHOOSE to get vaccinated.
More than 150 institutional outbreaks of seasonal and H1N1 flu are expected this year in hospitals, nursing homes and hospice centers. Justification?
So no, we don't know there are serious concerns, not based on this and not based on the vaccine itself. The concerns raised are almost exclusively questions of rights, and the most significant comments on flu or the vaccine are positive or neutral. | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/30/2009 1:11:38 PM | Actually Frogo, a significant percentage of health care workers DO question the safety of this rushed vaccine and the need for taking the risk, given how mild the strain has turned out to be.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208716/Half-GPs-refuse-swine-flu-vaccine-testing-fears.html
"Of those who said they did not want to jab, 71 per cent said it was because of safety concerns." 'The view among many doctors is that the Government hasn't yet made its case for why such a huge vaccination programme needs to be rushed in for what seems to be an unusually mild illness.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19706937?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
"The major barriers identified were fear of side effects and doubts about efficacy. "
http://eht-forum.org/ehtj/journal/v2/full/ehtj09008a.html?fileId=ehtj09008a&page=recent
"Participants were hesitant to use the novel vaccines because of a low perception of risk of infection early in a pandemic coupled with the many uncertainties that surround new vaccines and the emerging infectious disease, and concern that unsafe pharmaceuticals may be rushed to market during the health crisis" | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/30/2009 1:38:13 PM |
Actually Frogo, a significant percentage of health care workers DO question the safety of this rushed vaccine and the need for taking the risk, given how mild the strain has turned out to be.
My point was that the article cited did not support the claims made on its basis.
Additionally, the quotations you offer are also largely based on fear not facts.
71 per cent said it was because of safety concerns But WHY do they have these concerns? Are they simply irrational fears, or are these concerns based on solid facts? The cites so far don't show that even a minority of those interviewed have any actual understanding of the issues, regardless of their employment and training.
'The view among many doctors is that the Government hasn't yet made its case for why such a huge vaccination programme needs to be rushed in for what seems to be an unusually mild illness. One of the few viewpoints which actually seems to be based on evidence.
were fear of side effects and doubts about efficacy. Again - fear. Ignorance is also possible, since "doubts" are mentioned, but without identifying what those doubts are nor why they exist.
were hesitant to use the novel vaccines because of a low perception of risk of infection early in a pandemic coupled with the many uncertainties that surround new vaccines and the emerging infectious disease, and concern that unsafe pharmaceuticals may be rushed to market during the health crisis. Once again - fear without evidence. They fear "novel" vaccines more than they do infection. They fear "uncertainties" of "new vaccines". They fear "unsafe" "rushed" pharmaceuticals without identifying in any way that these pharmaceuticals ARE unsafe.
The fear of rushing things is valid, although an epidemic isn't going to wait around for everyone to decide which vaccine is most appropriate. Appealing to fear and ignorance however, will serve more to cause devastating outbreaks, because people will avoid vaccinations when they are efficacious and essential. People need to make informed choices, but the individuals and websites promoting singular and fallacious arguments do little to "inform" and much to create willing ignorance of actual facts.
*note* - I read the previous link. I have not read these ones, due to time constraints. My comments regarding the quotes provided above may be applicable only to those quotes. | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 9/30/2009 4:32:31 PM | | Most of the fear expressed in the links are based on the facts of the 1976 debacle. Past is prologue as vaccines are rushed without inadequate testing. Most fear the inadequate testing and trials over time. It is inevitable that we will screw up again in rushing into panics, making a cure worse than the disease. Combine the past, and the rapid legal protections put into place to protect the vaccine manufacturers, and it does little to lend confidence. The burden of proof of safety is placed on the consumers, rather than the manufacturers now. Would you take the jab from a physician who refuses it on past experience and knowledge of the industry as it is? None of the nurses or Dr.s I know are willing to be guinea pigs on this go round. We appreciate those of you who are so willing and trusting though. Thanks. | |
|
| |
| |
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 10/1/2009 3:16:08 AM | I Have to ask, as I labour under the impression that Americans have no sarcasm, or Irony.
Are you lot ****ing nuts?
Natural News website, lists Colloidal silver as a effective antibiotic remedy, I just using this as a example of the ****wits they are.
If they mentioned the sky was blue I'll be looking outside to comfirm.
If you wish to know what life would be like without vaccines speak to someone in a iron lung.
Yes there will be a death rate with the flu vaccine, life does that.
Speak to someone old, ask about how many kids they knew died from whooping cough, measles, german measles, mumps, small pox, TB.
Ask how many grand and great grand kids they've lost to vaccines. | |
|
| New Swine Flu vaccine is dangerous business
Posted: 10/1/2009 6:37:09 AM | As an EMT, I was offered to participate in a county-wide drill to determine how quickly and effectively the county would be able to administer medications to the population (in this case, EMS workers). However, instead of medications, they were offering Swine Flu vaccines.
I declined that offer. I've always been ambivalent about the effectiveness of flu shots and whether the benefits actually outweigh the risks. Reading this makes me glad that I was so cautious about it.
I say, let our immune systems do what they were designed to do. The human race has done pretty well so far, so I have no reason to doubt my body's capabilities. | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 25
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 |
|
Home
login 
