I hate flu shots!

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Yes the other complication on mercury being that he hates the ADA almost more than the FDA. The ADA being completely complicit in the use of mercury amalgams for many years, and making it malpractice for member dentists to remove them for mercury poisoning concerns.

As far as mercury, eat seafood?
I don't get why people use this kind of argument so often. So ok if you can't completely avoid a known toxin you should just throw caution to the wind and not care at all how much of it you take in?!
 
broadbill said:
You are lucky that other people have no such qualms about it, as their immunity protects you indirectly (herd immunity).

But hey, a few more people around you start thinking like you and all of a sudden there is a measles outbreak in Key West. Weird how that happens.

FYI....HIV virus cannot survive more than a few seconds outside the human body.

Most of the people I know...majority of the island... Absolutely refuse to get them and we seem to be doing fine without it, even being a tourist town. Actually, as many have experienced, those who got the shot are the only ones who get sick. I think they just tell people to get that stuff to make money off of everyone's fear of being vulnerable. Thats why theres a "new strain" every year. And I know more about HIV than I'd personally like to. I've had close family die from it because they received tainted blood in a blood transfusion back in the 80s. The Bayer HIV scandal is all too very real, research it some and it will make you cringe knowing that actually happened. Because for them it's about profits not people. Enjoy your flu shot, I'll enjoy eating a healthy balanced diet for immunity support.
 
porcupine73 said:
I don't get why people use this kind of argument so often. So ok if you can't completely avoid a known toxin you should just throw caution to the wind and not care at all how much of it you take in?!

It has nothing to do with throwing caution to the wind, it just has to do with how much you dislike mercury. Since a can of tuna has twice the mercury of a flu shot, it's not really logical to eat one while rejecting the other(at least on the grounds of mercury intake). I tend to steer clear of both of them.
 
Ah ok yes based completely on the sole basis of mercury intake I would agree. Frig if we've got any dental amalgams with mercury we've taken in far more than that.
 
Its difficult to tell if these people get the flu virus they were inoculated for, or one that the vaccine doesn't provide protection for, or maybe they didn't even have a flu virus in the first place (there is a reason why everything is described as "flu-like symptoms"!)



2007....otherwise is been good pick for 20 of the 23 years the flu vaccine has been offered....



So to expand on your gambling idea: you wouldn't take a gamble that you had 50-70% chance of winning? When losing could mean being down-n'-out for 3-4 days, possible hospitalization and death?

I'll play devil's advocate.

http://thinktwice.com/flu_lie.htm
 
Best way to prevent the flu, hands down, is to take vitamin D supplements year round. Keep your blood level above 40 ng/ml and you will rarely get sick.

I've never had the flu shot in my life, and I've also never had the flu that I'm aware of. Never even had a cold in the last few years.

Ever wonder why we don't get colds or the flu in the summer? Short answer: sunlight. In tropical climates, the flu season is monsoon season (no sun).

Adequate vitamin D levels have also been shown to potentially combat cancer.
 
You are lucky that other people have no such qualms about it, as their immunity protects you indirectly (herd immunity).

But hey, a few more people around you start thinking like you and all of a sudden there is a measles outbreak in Key West. Weird how that happens.

FYI....HIV virus cannot survive more than a few seconds outside the human body.

Scare tactics. That's all that line of thinking is.
 
The only thing I'd have to disagree with - and this is quibbling - is that vitamin D is indeed a vitamin. Functioning as a hormone as well does not preclude that.

Actually, no, it's not technically a vitamin because it can be synthesized by the body. A vitamin by definition cannot be not made in the body. Granted, for many people vitamin D is conditionally essential though.....
 
sudsmcgee said:
The design of that study was absolutely retarded. They gave them crazy high doses every month, when vitamin D is meant to be made/consumed almost daily. It's equivalent to a weight loss study that only lets you eat one day a month. This study only proves you can't expect taking vitamin D once a month to reduce colds. Nothing more, nothing less.

Dosing frequency is dealt with in depth within the report here's a summary

Would the results of our study have been different if we had given participants vitamin D, 3300 IU/d, as opposed to 100 000 IU monthly? Opposite outcomes have been documented for trials of 4-monthly vs annual dosing regimens of vitamin D supplementation for risk of fractures.23 - 24 Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain how various dosing regimens may have different effects on immune function.25 However, it is purely speculative at this stage as to whether some conditions (eg, infections) require a smaller steady dose of vitamin D supplementation for benefit. Alternatively, genetic variation in vitamin D metabolism or signaling may modify the anti-infective effects of vitamin D. Vitamin D receptor polymorphisms have been linked to both susceptibility to tuberculosis26 and response to vitamin D supplements in patients with tuberculosis.27

I'd suggest it says a bit more than you are implying. By all means take supplements but don't believe they are necessarily as good for you as some would have you believe.
 
Dosing frequency is dealt with in depth within the report here's a summary

Would the results of our study have been different if we had given participants vitamin D, 3300 IU/d, as opposed to 100 000 IU monthly? Opposite outcomes have been documented for trials of 4-monthly vs annual dosing regimens of vitamin D supplementation for risk of fractures.23 - 24 Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain how various dosing regimens may have different effects on immune function.25 However, it is purely speculative at this stage as to whether some conditions (eg, infections) require a smaller steady dose of vitamin D supplementation for benefit. Alternatively, genetic variation in vitamin D metabolism or signaling may modify the anti-infective effects of vitamin D. Vitamin D receptor polymorphisms have been linked to both susceptibility to tuberculosis26 and response to vitamin D supplements in patients with tuberculosis.27

I'd suggest it says a bit more than you are implying. By all means take supplements but don't believe they are necessarily as good for you as some would have you believe.

You just confirmed what I'm saying. This study only proves that a biologically irrelevant dosing regimen doesn't help reduce respiratory infections, and they flat out say that it would be speculation to correlate their outcome with a normal daily dosing regimen (the way people actually use vitamin d in the real world). I just don't understand why these researchers can't design their protocols to mimic real-world scenarios. It's just dumb to me.

I also find it interesting that they didn't measure PTH levels, considering that PTH measurements are one of the only ways to determine that a person is truly vitamin D replete.
 
Agreed 100%. What's funny about the measles outbreaks is that many of the people affected have had their measles shots. So much for efficacy......


You guys are right, its all bunk....there is absolutely no correlation between the autism scare of 1998, the drop in MMR vaccination rate in the UK in the years following increased incidence of mumps, measles and Rubella in that same time period.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy
 
You guys are right, its all bunk....there is absolutely no correlation between the autism scare of 1998, the drop in MMR vaccination rate in the UK in the years following increased incidence of mumps, measles and Rubella in that same time period.


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

The Andrew Wakefield case is one of the most prominent cases of medical fraud in the history of medicine. The problem is that Andrew Wakefield was right, and it's the rest of the medical community who performed criminal actions in their attack on him. Paul Offit is an industry shill and he makes a mint off of promoting mandatory vaccinations. Research both sides before throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I'll get you started with this
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Andrew Wakefield case is one of the most prominent cases of medical fraud in the history of medicine. The problem is that Andrew Wakefield was right, and it's the rest of the medical community who performed criminal actions in their attack on him. Paul Offit is an industry shill and he makes a mint off of promoting mandatory vaccinations. Research both sides before throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I'll get you started with this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIsFW5phHas


got it. It's all a conspiracy against poor Dr. Wakefield. Years and years of research studies are all wrong and his one (now retracted) research study was right. Years and years of vaccine use, all showing safe and effective protection from horrible infections (primarily affecting children)...that is all wrong too (or the real results being held back by a corrupt government...strike that, by multiple corrupt governments...all working together to suppress the truth).

I got it...you can't argue with crazy. cheers.
 
got it. It's all a conspiracy against poor Dr. Wakefield. Years and years of research studies are all wrong and his one (now retracted) research study was right. Years and years of vaccine use, all showing safe and effective protection from horrible infections (primarily affecting children)...that is all wrong too (or the real results being held back by a corrupt government...strike that, by multiple corrupt governments...all working together to suppress the truth).

I got it...you can't argue with crazy. cheers.

I have little information on these conspiracy theories, and I usually ignore the conspiracies until the evidence is overwhelming.

But two things that are irrefutable and should be pointed out: there is a huge, HUGE amount of money in pharma, and people will do some seriously unethical and illegal stuff where big money is involved. These pharma companies are out to make money, not to make the world a healthier place. A bit of mistrust and inspection is necessary to keep them honest.
 
The Andrew Wakefield case is one of the most prominent cases of medical fraud in the history of medicine. The problem is that Andrew Wakefield was right, and it's the rest of the medical community who performed criminal actions in their attack on him. Paul Offit is an industry shill and he makes a mint off of promoting mandatory vaccinations. Research both sides before throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Typically in a discussion about vaccinations, I do okay, until someone declares support for the Wakefield study. At that point, I'd rather punch that person in the mouth than continue the discussion.

Soooo many BLATANT flaws and red flags....
 
Back on track (a bit): I completely agree with vaccinating for the big nasties - MMR, DTP, Hepatitis -- especially the ones that are likely to cause an epidemic. I can even agree with the flu shot for those with compromised/weak immune systems. As a firefighter, outdoorsman, and hobby carpenter/construction worker, I tend to keep up-to-date on my tetanus shots myself (actually had three of them in a six year period once)

What I CANNOT support is pushing vaccines on the masses for an illness that (assuming a 'normal' immune system), if affected, makes you miserable for 4-6 days and then leaves you alone. Especially for those of us who, at most, get a small cold once or twice a year.
 
Typically in a discussion about vaccinations, I do okay, until someone declares support for the Wakefield study. At that point, I'd rather punch that person in the mouth than continue the discussion.

Soooo many BLATANT flaws and red flags....

Please point them out why don't you?
 
Please point them out why don't you?
The big three:
1) Financial conflict of interest - he was both personally and professionally funded by lawyers seeking to sue the makers of the MMR vaccine.
2) Non-random sample group - some of the subjects in his study were recruited by those same lawyers.
3) Sample group size - millions of vaccines given annually, and he only studies TWELVE kids? Does the term "statistically insignificant" mean anything? (It would be like asking two people if they liked rap music, and then declaring 50% of all people like rap)
 
The big three:
1) Financial conflict of interest - he was both personally and professionally funded by lawyers seeking to sue the makers of the MMR vaccine.
2) Non-random sample group - some of the subjects in his study were recruited by those same lawyers.
3) Sample group size - millions of vaccines given annually, and he only studies TWELVE kids? Does the term "statistically insignificant" mean anything? (It would be like asking two people if they liked rap music, and then declaring 50% of all people like rap)

1) EVERYONE involved with the whole Wakefield case has huge financial conflicts of interest. This is true for both sides. Vaccines are BIG money. Every time a vaccine gets added to the mandatory school list, people make millions if not billions of dollars.

2) The same goes for mesotheleoma studies, but no on will deny that asbestos causes it.

3) It was the first study of its kind, AKA a pilot study. Although the rate of autism is rising, it's still relatively rare. I'd like to know how he should have found 5,000 kids with autism in the UK to study.

Here is the bottom line: side effects DO happen from vaccines, and in the US, you CANNOT hold the manufacturer reponsible either legally or financially. This is where much of the distrust comes from with vaccines.

Doesn't it concern you that the new flu vaccines are not studied each year for safety? I get that you can't study them due to time contstraints, but I guess I am crazy to expect something that's going to be injected into my body to be well studied.
 
I have little information on these conspiracy theories, and I usually ignore the conspiracies until the evidence is overwhelming.

But two things that are irrefutable and should be pointed out: there is a huge, HUGE amount of money in pharma, and people will do some seriously unethical and illegal stuff where big money is involved. These pharma companies are out to make money, not to make the world a healthier place. A bit of mistrust and inspection is necessary to keep them honest.

Yep, those two things are irrefutable. An equally irrefutable counterpoint: pharma's products are regulated very heavily by the FDA to be healthy and safe. They go just a bit farther than "a bit of mistrust and inspection"...and that makes all the difference in the world with regard to your two points.

Now the tinfoil hat guys will come back and say the FDA is rigged, biased, crooked, blah, blah, blah. At that point we are way far off the reservation as conspiracy theories go.
 
Yep, those two things are irrefutable. An equally irrefutable counterpoint: pharma's products are regulated very heavily by the FDA to be healthy and safe. They go just a bit farther than "a bit of mistrust and inspection"...and that makes all the difference in the world with regard to your two points.

Now the tinfoil hat guys will come back and say the FDA is rigged, biased, crooked, blah, blah, blah. At that point we are way far off the reservation as conspiracy theories go.

I've developed at least 10 medical devices that required FDA clearance. I agree that they are a tough watchdog. One of my clients is getting an FDA audit tomorrow, and they are sweating it.
 
I wonder why the FDA won't support herbal remedies, when extracts can be easily standardized and clinical testing shouldn't be any different than testing pharmaceuticals... Not a conspiracy theory, just curious. When I have a sore throat I crush a massive amount of garlic on some toast and the symptoms are typically gone within 12-24 hours. Herbs are highly affective.
 
Yep, those two things are irrefutable. An equally irrefutable counterpoint: pharma's products are regulated very heavily by the FDA to be healthy and safe. They go just a bit farther than "a bit of mistrust and inspection"...and that makes all the difference in the world with regard to your two points.

Now the tinfoil hat guys will come back and say the FDA is rigged, biased, crooked, blah, blah, blah. At that point we are way far off the reservation as conspiracy theories go.

You clearly are not familiar with vaccine regulation if you believe that all vaccines must be proven safe prior to widespread distribution. This is most certainly not the case. What incentive does a vaccine manufacturer really have to prove safety when you can't even sue them if their vaccine harms you? All you can do is file a complaint with the VICP. BTW, the fact that the VICP even has to exist should tell you something......

Also, I'm glad to learn that all of these drugs were proven safe prior to distirbution under the heavy regulation of the FDA, and that no one got hurt when using them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs. Oh wait, they killed more people that the war in the middle east. Sorry, I got confused there for a minute.

:cross:
 
I wonder why the FDA won't support herbal remedies, when extracts can be easily standardized and clinical testing shouldn't be any different than testing pharmaceuticals... Not a conspiracy theory, just curious. When I have a sore throat I crush a massive amount of garlic on some toast and the symptoms are typically gone within 12-24 hours. Herbs are highly affective.

Natural extracts can't be patented. That's basically it in a nutshell. Without a patent guaranteeing your ROI, no on can afford a proper clinical trial.

And now the FDA is even saying that synthetic copies of natural botanical ingredients cannot legally be sold as dietary supplements http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com...nical-constituents-It-s-not-looking-promising.

But hey, as stated above, any mention of FDA bias makes me a wacko, right? There's clearly no revolving door at the FDA. I have never heard of anyone working on developing a new drug, and then later having the task of of approving their own drug while employed at the FDA.
 
I wonder why the FDA won't support herbal remedies, when extracts can be easily standardized and clinical testing shouldn't be any different than testing pharmaceuticals... Not a conspiracy theory, just curious. When I have a sore throat I crush a massive amount of garlic on some toast and the symptoms are typically gone within 12-24 hours. Herbs are highly affective.

There's no money in it. If you can synthesize herbs and patent them the FDA will support it.
 
There's no money in it. If you can synthesize herbs and patent them the FDA will support it.

Man I gotta tell ya.. i been driving around in my van with old scoob and we been having a real good time... made about 8K this month, just from a few herbs that were grown locally, picked them up at the farmer's market dight down the way ;)
 
kroach01 said:
Wow the amount of BS assertions in here is completely mind boggling and comical. Does anyone making these claims have a degree in anything medical related?

We have conspiracy nuts, thimersol nuts (it's not in most shots anymore and if it is its minimal, not to mention no real scientifically accepted experiments ever suggested this stabilizer was even remotely toxic), people saying vitamin d actually prevents the flu, flu shots cause serious immune reactions that last decades, flu shots have the worst reactions (tetanus is much more painful for days) and everything in between. All BS and without scientific or medical merit.

As someone about to get their medical degree, I have a pretty good understanding of medical facts and BS with no evidentiary or physiological basis. And most of this is just that.

The flu mutates rapidly, and the season is autumn. The shot doesn't cure the flu for the former reason, and may not even provide immunity if the strain mutates after the vaccine was developed. And many people think they have the flu when in reality there are millions of variations of adenoviruses, rhino viruses etc etc.

If you don't want it fine. But please don't spread BS unless you speak from a medical background or of scientifically accepted studies... It does more harm to public health than good.

This upsets me because I deal with parents all the time who won't vaccinate their kids due to Internet conspiracies. Then they get the mumps or polio or rubella or measles or diphtheria.
Well you got almost everything wrong, rant master. I'm the only person I believe who mentioned ThimerosAL, but I'm far from a nut. In fact nobody in here has really expressed any exaggerated viewpoints at all. Much of what has been expressed has been a matter of opinion and presented as such. It was said that the FLU can leave lasting effects not the vaccine. One person in here is an electrical engineer who develops medical equipment. And what might your credentials be good sir?
 
bottlebomber said:
Well you got almost everything wrong, rant master. I'm the only person I believe who mentioned ThimerosAL, but I'm far from a nut. In fact nobody in here has really expressed any exaggerated viewpoints at all. Much of what has been expressed has been a matter of opinion and presented as such. It was said that the FLU can leave lasting effects not the vaccine. One person in here is an electrical engineer who develops medical equipment. And what might your credentials be good sir?

Soon to be MD and deal with patients every day in a major NYC hospital. I work 80++ hours a week there.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vsd/thimerosal_outcomes/
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228
http://vaccinesafety.ecbt.org/ecbt/...c_Studies_on_Thimerosal_and_Autism_1_8_08.pdf
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/112/3/604.abstract
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=197365
http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=482540
 
kroach01 said:
Soon to be MD.

So can we just put you down as a Med student for now then? After all, it looks like you've just finished Step 1.

Edit: Wow, you edited your post. Funny that you say you work 80++ hours a week in a NYC hospital, but in your intro thread dated 7/25 you claim to be living in Tucson, but are moving to Brooklyn in a "few weeks". Just how many of these 80++ hour weeks have you worked? And how would any number of them give you any authority on the subject beyond doing Internet searches, the same as anyone else can do?
 
Deleted, useless convo

Nothing in my edit changed my point, it just added to my credentials to speak on the matter.
Nor have I been inconsistent or not truthful.

But hey, believe what you want if it makes you feel safe and happy.
 
Back
Top