(12-06-2018, 11:11 AM)GPnative Wrote: Oh ffs....

The flu shot is a best guess from year to year, and they never choose the correct prevalent strain for any given year, which is a fancy way of saying any given year is a failure. But if injecting formaldehyde, among many other ingredients floats your boat, more power to you.

"Reporting in February, at the height of the just-ending flu season, the CDC conceded relatively low effectiveness of the recommended vaccine, especially against the predominant virus. "

I always enjoy how known toxic substances, when presented in a vaccine, magically become safe....

(12-06-2018, 01:18 PM)chuck white Wrote: So what is the science around flu shots?
Is there independent studies (not big pharm studies) that show that they are both safe and effective?

If they are safe, why is there laws that exempt them from harm?

Is mercury in the shot OK?

How about the women in the Philippines, that became sterile, from the flu shots?

How about the time there was live virus in the flu shots?  

The idea of flu shots might be good, but the actual flu shot itself may be bad.

(12-06-2018, 05:58 PM)Cuzz Wrote: I think all medicine is toxic at some dosage. So are some foods, even water. The question is, is it riskier to not take it then to take it?

(12-06-2018, 10:37 AM)Scrapper Wrote: Some people are just stupid.

We have 7 grandchildren;  and my best friend just had a baby 9 days ago. I'm not going to get the flu and get my babies sick... or my BFF's lil man! We got our flu shots!

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

Quote:Every Human Vaccine Tested Was Contaminated by Unsafe Levels of Metals and Debris Linked to Cancer and Autoimmune Disease, New Study Reports

(12-06-2018, 06:17 PM)chuck white Wrote:

Quote:Every Human Vaccine Tested Was Contaminated by Unsafe Levels of Metals and Debris Linked to Cancer and Autoimmune Disease, New Study Reports

http://info.cmsri.org/the-driven-researcher-blog/dirty-vaccines-new-study-reveals-prevalence-of-contaminants

(12-06-2018, 06:15 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(12-06-2018, 05:58 PM)Cuzz Wrote: I think all medicine is toxic at some dosage. So are some foods, even water. The question is, is it riskier to not take it then to take it?

Well  that's my entire point. It is indeed riskier to NOT get a flu shot and this is all backed up by NUMEROUS studies and facts.
But these NUMEROUS studies and facts seem to mean nothing to people when they listen to people with NO studies or facts.

Do you think the Center for disease control is pulling off some huge fraud? Or the American medical association? The [/url]Mayo Clinic?

[url=https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjA3aCOxYzfAhUSLX0KHRfRDBAQFjADegQICBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mayoclinic.org%2Fdiseases-conditions%2Fflu%2Fin-depth%2Fflu-shots%2Fart-20048000&usg=AOvVaw1oJ84-Ovem4bdb1rsAR_2d]

(12-06-2018, 06:44 PM)Cuzz Wrote:

(12-06-2018, 06:15 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(12-06-2018, 05:58 PM)Cuzz Wrote: I think all medicine is toxic at some dosage. So are some foods, even water. The question is, is it riskier to not take it then to take it?

Well  that's my entire point. It is indeed riskier to NOT get a flu shot and this is all backed up by NUMEROUS studies and facts.
But these NUMEROUS studies and facts seem to mean nothing to people when they listen to people with NO studies or facts.

Do you think the Center for disease control is pulling off some huge fraud? Or the American medical association? The [/url]Mayo Clinic?

[url=https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjA3aCOxYzfAhUSLX0KHRfRDBAQFjADegQICBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mayoclinic.org%2Fdiseases-conditions%2Fflu%2Fin-depth%2Fflu-shots%2Fart-20048000&usg=AOvVaw1oJ84-Ovem4bdb1rsAR_2d]

Do I?? No.

We leave it to the individual to decide whether they will or won't as far as the flu vaccine. It used to be recommended for the very young and old. Now they seem to encourage everyone to get it. I confess I've never gotten one even when they were provided free at work. I don't know why. I rarely get sick and just don't think about it. I don't even remember the last time I had a cold.

(12-06-2018, 07:03 PM)GPnative Wrote: Don't have time to hit all points at the moment, but if I did my job at the same lackluster i.e. Failing percentages as the flu shot effectiveness, I'd be fired.

(12-06-2018, 08:14 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(12-06-2018, 07:03 PM)GPnative Wrote: Don't have time to hit all points at the moment, but if I did my job at the same lackluster i.e. Failing percentages as the flu shot effectiveness, I'd be fired.

Bad analogy. If you do your job wrong someone suffers the consequences.

If you get a flu shot and it doesn't work there are no consequences. Other than the fact that the flu you get will likely not be as severe.

 The shot reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% . Would it have to be 100% for you to think it's worthwhile?

(12-06-2018, 05:27 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(12-06-2018, 11:11 AM)GPnative Wrote: Oh ffs....

The flu shot is a best guess from year to year, and they never choose the correct prevalent strain for any given year, which is a fancy way of saying any given year is a failure. But if injecting formaldehyde, among many other ingredients floats your boat, more power to you.

"Reporting in February, at the height of the just-ending flu season, the CDC conceded relatively low effectiveness of the recommended vaccine, especially against the predominant virus. "

I always enjoy how known toxic substances, when presented in a vaccine, magically become safe....

 

they never choose the correct prevalent strain for any given year,


NEVER??

 So the CDC are just a bunch of liars?

How effective is the flu vaccine?

CDC conducts studies each year to determine how well the influenza (flu) vaccine protects against flu illness. While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to the flu vaccine. In general, current flu vaccines tend to work better against influenza B and influenza A(H1N1) viruses and offer lower protection against influenza A(H3N2) viruses. See “Does flu vaccine effectiveness vary by type or subtype?” and “Why is flu vaccine typically less effective against influenza A H3N2 viruses?” for more information.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm


 





In 2004-05, the flu vaccine was 10 percent effective.
In 2005-06, the flu vaccine was 21 percent effective.
In 2006-07, the flu vaccine was 52 percent effective.
In 2007-08, the flu vaccine was 37 percent effective.
In 2008-09, the flu vaccine was 41 percent effective.
In 2009-10, the flu vaccine was 56 percent effective.
In 2010-11, the flu vaccine was 60 percent effective.
In 2011-12, the flu vaccine was 47 percent effective.
In 2012-13, the flu vaccine was 49 percent effective.
In 2013-14, the flu vaccine was 52 percent effective.
In 2014-15, the flu vaccine was 19 percent effective.
In 2015-16, the flu vaccine was 48 percent effective.
In 2016-17, the flu vaccine was 39 percent effective.














  


I always enjoy how known toxic substances, when presented in a vaccine, magically become safe....


 Exactly what do you think is toxic in the amounts given in a flu shot?  


Myth #4: Flu vaccines contain harmful ingredients

Vaccine skeptics point to inactive ingredients used in some versions of flu vaccines. Thimerosal is used as a preservative and formaldehyde is used in killing the live virus to make it inactivated, as noted above. Repeated studies have shown that these substances are not harmful in the tiny amounts contained in flu vaccines.


I wonder, Is it right right wing part of you that tends to make you not believe sconce or facts?

(12-06-2018, 08:14 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(12-06-2018, 07:03 PM)GPnative Wrote: Don't have time to hit all points at the moment, but if I did my job at the same lackluster i.e. Failing percentages as the flu shot effectiveness, I'd be fired.

Bad analogy. If you do your job wrong someone suffers the consequences.

If you get a flu shot and it doesn't work there are no consequences. Other than the fact that the flu you get will likely not be as severe.

 The shot reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% . Would it have to be 100% for you to think it's worthwhile?

(12-07-2018, 10:49 AM)GPnative Wrote:

(12-06-2018, 08:14 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(12-06-2018, 07:03 PM)GPnative Wrote: Don't have time to hit all points at the moment, but if I did my job at the same lackluster i.e. Failing percentages as the flu shot effectiveness, I'd be fired.

Bad analogy. If you do your job wrong someone suffers the consequences.

If you get a flu shot and it doesn't work there are no consequences. Other than the fact that the flu you get will likely not be as severe.

 The shot reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% . Would it have to be 100% for you to think it's worthwhile?

At least 90+% effective and 100% safe, non-toxic. Yes, then sign me up.

It's a decent analogy from the aspect of viewing successful/unsuccessful percentages, not consequences. If your car didn't start 40% of the time, or if your power went out 60% of the time, etc. You'd be pretty pissed off and demand improvements. It's just a way to point out that the shot is not a guarantee you will not get sick and it gives people a false sense of security. You want to know a better way of avoiding the flu, don't go to walmart. There, some free helpful advice for the 2018 flu season