I'm going to start a thread. Maybe my last.

[Juniper]

I'm pro vaccination, but there is something to be said for caution and correct technique. We need food to survive, but it needs to grown and prepared in a safe manner. Just eating the food is not enough, as the most recent romaine scare has shown us or by correct hygeine and cooking techniques, because as it turns out cross contamination or unsafe storage actually does effect the safety of food.
Or shelter. We need shelter. But if it's not built with safe materials or wired and hooked up safely it could kill you. So, yes, I believe in vaccines. I also believe that there is a big part of vaccines that needs to be looked at for safety. However, it won't matter if you don't get immunized because you're afraid of the vaccine and it ends up being the disease you didn't get immunized for is what kills you or your child.

[GCG]

Our daughter is having a baby in February. She is being very insistent about my wife and I getting our flu shots if we expect to spend time with the new arrival. Personally, I'm okay with it. I've put enough questionable stuff through my system over the years that I'm not about to draw the line at a flu shot. My wife is not as willing... but in the end she'll get the shot, too.

[GPnative]

Our daughter is having a baby in February. She is being very insistent about my wife and I getting our flu shots if we expect to spend time with the new arrival. Personally, I'm okay with it. I've put enough questionable stuff through my system over the years that I'm not about to draw the line at a flu shot. My wife is not as willing... but in the end she'll get the shot, too.

Well tell her you will get the best 40% effective shot you can

[tvguy]

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?

Yes, I do believe the CDC is a bunch of liars. The are totally dishonest about adverse reactions and push vaccines as completely safe.

On the contrary, I believe I have facts on my side. There is no such thing as "inactive" Thimerosal and formaldehyde. There is no "SAFE" amounts of either, they are toxic substances, just because they are in a vaccine at a small dose does not lessen their innate toxicity, and we are talking cumulative impacts, doses every year for your life, on top of the many other suggested vaccines.

 


Formaldehyde occurs naturally
and is all around us
Humans Produce Formaldehyde
One of the Most Studied
Chemicals In Use Today
A Natural By-Product
Formaldehyde is found in every living system -- from plants to animals to humans. It metabolizes
quickly in the body, breaks down rapidly, is not persistent and does not accumulate in the body.
Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring substance made of
carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Humans produce about 1.5
ounces of formaldehyde a day as a normal part of our
metabolism. Inhaled formaldehyde is rapidly metabolized and
ultimately converted to carbon dioxide and exhaled.
Formaldehyde does not accumulate in the body.
Formaldehyde is found naturally in rural, urban and indoor air,
and
can be found at very low levels in many household products
such as
latex paint, furniture and cabinets. Formaldehyde levels in typical
indoor environments are well below concentrations that
could
trigger sensory irritation in most people.
The
World Health
Organization
has set protective indoor air guidelines for
formaldehyde at 80 ppb.
Typical household formaldehyde
concentration levels are between 16 and 32 ppb.
As one of the most-studied chemicals in use today, formaldehyde
has been researched extensively to scientifically support that the
current standards and safeguards are protective.
Formaldehyde also occurs as a by-product from all combustion
processes, such as forest fires, automotive exhaust and cooking.
Low levels of formaldehyde occur naturally in a variety of fruits
and vegetables, including apples, carrots and bananas. It does
not accumulate in the environment or within plants and animals


Formaldehyde occurs naturally
and is all around us
Humans Produce Formaldehyde
One of the Most Studied
Chemicals In Use Today
A Natural By-Product
Formaldehyde is found in every living system -- from plants to animals to humans. It metabolizes
quickly in the body, breaks down rapidly, is not persistent and does not accumulate in the body.
Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring substance made of
carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Humans produce about 1.5
ounces of formaldehyde a day as a normal part of our
metabolism. Inhaled formaldehyde is rapidly metabolized and
ultimately converted to carbon dioxide and exhaled.
Formaldehyde does not accumulate in the body.
Formaldehyde is found naturally in rural, urban and indoor air,
and
can be found at very low levels in many household products
such as
latex paint, furniture and cabinets. Formaldehyde levels in typical
indoor environments are well below concentrations that
could
trigger sensory irritation in most people.
The
World Health
Organization
has set protective indoor air guidelines for
formaldehyde at 80 ppb.
Typical household formaldehyde
concentration levels are between 16 and 32 ppb.
As one of the most-studied chemicals in use today, formaldehyde
has been researched extensively to scientifically support that the
current standards and safeguards are protectiv

[tvguy]

Our daughter is having a baby in February. She is being very insistent about my wife and I getting our flu shots if we expect to spend time with the new arrival. Personally, I'm okay with it. I've put enough questionable stuff through my system over the years that I'm not about to draw the line at a flu shot. My wife is not as willing... but in the end she'll get the shot, too.

LOL , show your wife what I have posted.

[tvguy]

Our daughter is having a baby in February. She is being very insistent about my wife and I getting our flu shots if we expect to spend time with the new arrival. Personally, I'm okay with it. I've put enough questionable stuff through my system over the years that I'm not about to draw the line at a flu shot. My wife is not as willing... but in the end she'll get the shot, too.

Well tell her you will get the best 40% effective shot you can

  40% effective is better than zero % effective.

[Cuzz]

I don't think vaccines are necessarily for the benefit of the individual primarily. Though most of the time they do benefit the one being vaccinated. They are of greater benefit to the larger population. Controlling the spread of a disease saves more lives at the cost of the relative few that might have a long or short term bad reaction to the vaccine. No one likes to talk about it but it's still true.

You still get to lead your own life, make your own choice and takes your own chances. In then end it's your neighbors and progeny who might gain the most.

[tvguy]

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?

Yes, I do believe the CDC is a bunch of liars. The are totally dishonest about adverse reactions and push vaccines as completely safe.

On the contrary, I believe I have facts on my side. There is no such thing as "inactive" Thimerosal and formaldehyde. There is no "SAFE" amounts of either, they are toxic substances, just because they are in a vaccine at a small dose does not lessen their innate toxicity, and we are talking cumulative impacts, doses every year for your life, on top of the many other suggested vaccines.

 If you are worried about thimerosal don't. You can get a flu shot without it.




Is thimerosal safe?

Yes. Thimerosal has been used safely in vaccines for a long time (since the 1930s).
Scientists have been studying the use of thimerosal in vaccines for many years. They haven’t found any evidence that thimerosal causes harm.
 
Is thimerosal still used in vaccines for children?
No. Thimerosal hasn’t been used in vaccines for children since 2001.
However, thimerosal is still used in some flu vaccines. Yearly flu vaccines are recommended for all children.  If you are worried about thimerosal, you can ask for a flu vaccine without it.

[tvguy]

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

You want to know a better way of avoiding the flu, don't go to walmart.

Or to a doctor or a hospital or anywhere else for that matter.


It IS non toxic and your logic that you don't want the shot because  on average it only prevents the flu 40 to 60% of the time makes no sense whatsoever.

It makes no sense because there is no downside when you get the shot. You seem to think you are taking a risk by getting the shot.
That's a MYTH.. believe science.

[GPnative]

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

You want to know a better way of avoiding the flu, don't go to walmart.

Or to a doctor or a hospital or anywhere else for that matter.


It IS non toxic and your logic that you don't want the shot because  on average it only prevents the flu 40 to 60% of the time makes no sense whatsoever.

It makes no sense because there is no downside when you get the shot. You seem to think you are taking a risk by getting the shot.
That's a MYTH.. believe science.

It's not a myth....people are injured every damn year. There is an entire vaccine injury compensation program to prove it. It's a myth to believe there is no risk to vaccines, but don't take my word for it, read the package insert.

And yes, I'm well aware of the industry propaganda you posted to justify toxic substances magically becoming safe in a vaccine vial, however The MSDS sheets (now SDS) would beg to differ.

[Juniper]

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?

Yes, I do believe the CDC is a bunch of liars. The are totally dishonest about adverse reactions and push vaccines as completely safe.

On the contrary, I believe I have facts on my side. There is no such thing as "inactive" Thimerosal and formaldehyde. There is no "SAFE" amounts of either, they are toxic substances, just because they are in a vaccine at a small dose does not lessen their innate toxicity, and we are talking cumulative impacts, doses every year for your life, on top of the many other suggested vaccines.

 


Formaldehyde occurs naturally
and is all around us
Humans Produce Formaldehyde
One of the Most Studied
Chemicals In Use Today
A Natural By-Product
Formaldehyde is found in every living system -- from plants to animals to humans. It metabolizes
quickly in the body, breaks down rapidly, is not persistent and does not accumulate in the body.
Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring substance made of
carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Humans produce about 1.5
ounces of formaldehyde a day as a normal part of our
metabolism. Inhaled formaldehyde is rapidly metabolized and
ultimately converted to carbon dioxide and exhaled.
Formaldehyde does not accumulate in the body.
Formaldehyde is found naturally in rural, urban and indoor air,
and
can be found at very low levels in many household products
such as
latex paint, furniture and cabinets. Formaldehyde levels in typical
indoor environments are well below concentrations that
could
trigger sensory irritation in most people.
The
World Health
Organization
has set protective indoor air guidelines for
formaldehyde at 80 ppb.
Typical household formaldehyde
concentration levels are between 16 and 32 ppb.
As one of the most-studied chemicals in use today, formaldehyde
has been researched extensively to scientifically support that the
current standards and safeguards are protective.
Formaldehyde also occurs as a by-product from all combustion
processes, such as forest fires, automotive exhaust and cooking.
Low levels of formaldehyde occur naturally in a variety of fruits
and vegetables, including apples, carrots and bananas. It does
not accumulate in the environment or within plants and animals


Formaldehyde occurs naturally
and is all around us
Humans Produce Formaldehyde
One of the Most Studied
Chemicals In Use Today
A Natural By-Product
Formaldehyde is found in every living system -- from plants to animals to humans. It metabolizes
quickly in the body, breaks down rapidly, is not persistent and does not accumulate in the body.
Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring substance made of
carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Humans produce about 1.5
ounces of formaldehyde a day as a normal part of our
metabolism. Inhaled formaldehyde is rapidly metabolized and
ultimately converted to carbon dioxide and exhaled.
Formaldehyde does not accumulate in the body.
Formaldehyde is found naturally in rural, urban and indoor air,
and
can be found at very low levels in many household products
such as
latex paint, furniture and cabinets. Formaldehyde levels in typical
indoor environments are well below concentrations that
could
trigger sensory irritation in most people.
The
World Health
Organization
has set protective indoor air guidelines for
formaldehyde at 80 ppb.
Typical household formaldehyde
concentration levels are between 16 and 32 ppb.
As one of the most-studied chemicals in use today, formaldehyde
has been researched extensively to scientifically support that the
current standards and safeguards are protectiv

Our bodies produce E Coli also.  So when talking about formaldehyde, it's about the concentrations, yes, and the standards and safeties used.

[tvguy]

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

You want to know a better way of avoiding the flu, don't go to walmart.

Or to a doctor or a hospital or anywhere else for that matter.


It IS non toxic and your logic that you don't want the shot because  on average it only prevents the flu 40 to 60% of the time makes no sense whatsoever.

It makes no sense because there is no downside when you get the shot. You seem to think you are taking a risk by getting the shot.
That's a MYTH.. believe science.

It's not a myth....people are injured every damn year. There is an entire vaccine injury compensation program to prove it. It's a myth to believe there is no risk to vaccines, but don't take my word for it, read the package insert.

And yes, I'm well aware of the industry propaganda you posted to justify toxic substances magically becoming safe in a vaccine vial, however The MSDS sheets (now SDS) would beg to differ.

but don't take my word for it, read the package insert.

I don't think there is one single drug out of tens of thousands that won't cause complications in SOME people.
Most of us know it's a tiny percentage of people and the risk is worth taking.
With your logic we would still have polio , measles and a slew of other diseases


It's a myth to believe there is no risk to vaccines


Well I did say there was no down side. I didn't mean to say it's impossible to to have a bad reaction to a flu shot.
It's extremely rare to have any significant side affects.
 
And yes, I'm well aware of the industry propaganda

That seems familiar. It's the same as not believing the vast amount of the worlds leading experts on climate change.
If you think a millions of doctors and health professionals are all in some conspiracy to poison you then nothing I can say or anyone else will change your mind.

[GPnative]

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

You want to know a better way of avoiding the flu, don't go to walmart.

Or to a doctor or a hospital or anywhere else for that matter.


It IS non toxic and your logic that you don't want the shot because  on average it only prevents the flu 40 to 60% of the time makes no sense whatsoever.

It makes no sense because there is no downside when you get the shot. You seem to think you are taking a risk by getting the shot.
That's a MYTH.. believe science.

It's not a myth....people are injured every damn year. There is an entire vaccine injury compensation program to prove it. It's a myth to believe there is no risk to vaccines, but don't take my word for it, read the package insert.

And yes, I'm well aware of the industry propaganda you posted to justify toxic substances magically becoming safe in a vaccine vial, however The MSDS sheets (now SDS) would beg to differ.

but don't take my word for it, read the package insert.

I don't think there is one single drug out of tens of thousands that won't cause complications in SOME people.
Most of us know it's a tiny percentage of people and the risk is worth taking.
With your logic we would still have polio , measles and a slew of other diseases


It's a myth to believe there is no risk to vaccines


Well I did say there was no down side. I didn't mean to say it's impossible to to have a bad reaction to a flu shot.
It's extremely rare to have any significant side affects.
 
And yes, I'm well aware of the industry propaganda

That seems familiar. It's the same as not believing the vast amount of the worlds leading experts on climate change.
If you think a millions of doctors and health professionals are all in some conspiracy to poison you then nothing I can say or anyone else will change your mind.

Ditto....good talk though

[Someones Dad]

https://kutv.com/news/offbeat/girl-goes-...r-flu-shot
https://dcdirtylaundry.com/flu-shot-land...ding-tube/

Don't have a dog in the fight.  Get the shot or don't, it's up to the individual.  But there are reactions in a fraction of the people.

[tvguy]

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

You want to know a better way of avoiding the flu, don't go to walmart.

Or to a doctor or a hospital or anywhere else for that matter.


It IS non toxic and your logic that you don't want the shot because  on average it only prevents the flu 40 to 60% of the time makes no sense whatsoever.

It makes no sense because there is no downside when you get the shot. You seem to think you are taking a risk by getting the shot.
That's a MYTH.. believe science.

It's not a myth....people are injured every damn year. There is an entire vaccine injury compensation program to prove it. It's a myth to believe there is no risk to vaccines, but don't take my word for it, read the package insert.

And yes, I'm well aware of the industry propaganda you posted to justify toxic substances magically becoming safe in a vaccine vial, however The MSDS sheets (now SDS) would beg to differ.

but don't take my word for it, read the package insert.

I don't think there is one single drug out of tens of thousands that won't cause complications in SOME people.
Most of us know it's a tiny percentage of people and the risk is worth taking.
With your logic we would still have polio , measles and a slew of other diseases


It's a myth to believe there is no risk to vaccines


Well I did say there was no down side. I didn't mean to say it's impossible to to have a bad reaction to a flu shot.
It's extremely rare to have any significant side affects.
 
And yes, I'm well aware of the industry propaganda

That seems familiar. It's the same as not believing the vast amount of the worlds leading experts on climate change.
If you think a millions of doctors and health professionals are all in some conspiracy to poison you then nothing I can say or anyone else will change your mind.

Ditto....good talk though

[tvguy]

https://kutv.com/news/offbeat/girl-goes-...r-flu-shot
https://dcdirtylaundry.com/flu-shot-land...ding-tube/

Don't have a dog in the fight.  Get the shot or don't, it's up to the individual.  But there are reactions in a fraction of the people.

 Like I said.. name ANY drug that won't cause problems for a tiny fraction of people? Did you notice one of your links has a link to infowars?  You know the lunatic conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

When one ways the issues with the flu shot like you brought up compared to what I posted below. For me, getting the shot is a no brainer.

 Influenza killed about 80,000 people in the 2017-2018 season, according to figures released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


A record number of children died from influenza this past flu season, federal health officials said Friday.

One more death was reported this week, making 172 child deaths reported for the 2017-18 flu season, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.
“This number exceeds the 2012-2013 season, which previously set the record for the highest number of flu-related deaths in children reported during a single flu season (excluding pandemics),” the CDC said.
“Approximately 80 percent of these deaths occurred in children who had not received a flu vaccination this season.”



 Someones Dad Don't have a dog in the fight.  Get the shot or don't, it's up to the individual.

 My post is not supposed to be about whether someone gets the shot or not. It's about what a person bases there opinion on to not get the shot.
IMO it's usually junk science and or believing rumors.

[Scrapper]

https://kutv.com/news/offbeat/girl-goes-...r-flu-shot
https://dcdirtylaundry.com/flu-shot-land...ding-tube/

Don't have a dog in the fight.  Get the shot or don't, it's up to the individual.  But there are reactions in a fraction of the people.

DC Dirty Laundry ?!?!
Bwahahahaha! I'm not surprised you get your "news" there.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

[Someones Dad]

https://kutv.com/news/offbeat/girl-goes-...r-flu-shot
https://dcdirtylaundry.com/flu-shot-land...ding-tube/

Don't have a dog in the fight.  Get the shot or don't, it's up to the individual.  But there are reactions in a fraction of the people.

DC Dirty Laundry ?!?!
Bwahahahaha! I'm not surprised you get your "news" there.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

Never heard of the site, nor have I ever visited before today.  I simply typed in a search for vaccine issues and posted a couple of links.  If you want to infer anything from that, infer away.  It doesn't affect my life.

[Juniper]

https://kutv.com/news/offbeat/girl-goes-...r-flu-shot
https://dcdirtylaundry.com/flu-shot-land...ding-tube/

Don't have a dog in the fight.  Get the shot or don't, it's up to the individual.  But there are reactions in a fraction of the people.

DC Dirty Laundry ?!?!
Bwahahahaha! I'm not surprised you get your "news" there.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

Never heard of the site, nor have I ever visited before today.  I simply typed in a search for vaccine issues and posted a couple of links.  If you want to infer anything from that, infer away.  It doesn't affect my life.

Well, citations matter. In my book anyway. It may not create a judgement of you on my part THIS time, but it could over a number of times. It matters to credibility in a discussion. I  try and look at my citations when I do use them, because a lot of times they are pure junk and why bother posting that, or just repeats of a single initial source, and again, why use them?  If we do use junk citations we might as well all believe in Bat-boy.

[bbqboy]

You don't believe in BatBoy?!?
Sacrilege!