Flu Vaccine with a Head cold? Or dont get it?
- Thread starter SumpChump
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: raytseng
Originally Posted By: CT8
I doubt the Flu vaccine saves many lives.
You can doubt whatever you want cause there's no evidence that will be good enough for you, but just be aware it doesn't make you a "skeptic" it makes you a "denier" or a "cynic".
When the vaccine is only so effective, exactly what are you trying to convince me of?
Originally Posted By: CT8
I doubt the Flu vaccine saves many lives.
You can doubt whatever you want cause there's no evidence that will be good enough for you, but just be aware it doesn't make you a "skeptic" it makes you a "denier" or a "cynic".
When the vaccine is only so effective, exactly what are you trying to convince me of?
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: Garak
You do realize, Smokescreen, how many of those same additives show up in our foods, or what we have for trace elements in our foods, even organic foods?
But they are not injected into the bloodstream. Really?
Vaccines are injected subcutaneously or intramuscularly and not into the bloodstream.
Originally Posted By: Garak
You do realize, Smokescreen, how many of those same additives show up in our foods, or what we have for trace elements in our foods, even organic foods?
But they are not injected into the bloodstream. Really?
Vaccines are injected subcutaneously or intramuscularly and not into the bloodstream.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Dave Sherman
Remember when H1N1 was in the news? I had a regular flu shot, but not for H1N1. Caught a mild case of the flu that had me coughing, and when I was tested I tested positive for H1N1. My doctor reasoned that I would have been feeling much worse if I hadn't had a flu shot at all.
Most people with the flu do not get very sick. That's just as good of an explanation as his. The fact that you went to the doctor indicates you were actually pretty sick compaired to most.
Certainly everyone is entitled to jump to their own assumptions without knowing the facts:
FACT: I was in a community theater production, and during one performance one of our cast members said he wasn't feeling well. The next day, he and 4 others all had flu symptoms.
FACT: Other than a nagging cough, I felt pretty normal. If I didn't have to go on stage, I wouldn't have bothered seeing the doctor.
FACT: The 5 of us who were sick and coughing had to sing again by the following weekend.
FACT: I went to the doctor to a) confirm whether I had the flu and b) see if it could be treated effectively since it was going to be difficult to perform. Prevailing logic was treating it early would be better than waiting to see if it cleared up in time. He gave me a prescription for Tamiflu, and by the following weekend my cough was nearly gone.
FACT: Of the 5 of us, I was the only one who had a flu shot.
FACT: The other four had high fevers, chills, coughing, muscle aches, fatigue, and one guy landed in the emergency room with pneumonia. They agreed I had the mildest symptoms.
So, I still stand by the doctor's reasoning that the flu shot, while not targeting H1N1, did make things pretty mild. Most people were telling me I'd be feeling pretty miserable if I'd had a full blown case of the flu.
Originally Posted By: Dave Sherman
Remember when H1N1 was in the news? I had a regular flu shot, but not for H1N1. Caught a mild case of the flu that had me coughing, and when I was tested I tested positive for H1N1. My doctor reasoned that I would have been feeling much worse if I hadn't had a flu shot at all.
Most people with the flu do not get very sick. That's just as good of an explanation as his. The fact that you went to the doctor indicates you were actually pretty sick compaired to most.
Certainly everyone is entitled to jump to their own assumptions without knowing the facts:
FACT: I was in a community theater production, and during one performance one of our cast members said he wasn't feeling well. The next day, he and 4 others all had flu symptoms.
FACT: Other than a nagging cough, I felt pretty normal. If I didn't have to go on stage, I wouldn't have bothered seeing the doctor.
FACT: The 5 of us who were sick and coughing had to sing again by the following weekend.
FACT: I went to the doctor to a) confirm whether I had the flu and b) see if it could be treated effectively since it was going to be difficult to perform. Prevailing logic was treating it early would be better than waiting to see if it cleared up in time. He gave me a prescription for Tamiflu, and by the following weekend my cough was nearly gone.
FACT: Of the 5 of us, I was the only one who had a flu shot.
FACT: The other four had high fevers, chills, coughing, muscle aches, fatigue, and one guy landed in the emergency room with pneumonia. They agreed I had the mildest symptoms.
So, I still stand by the doctor's reasoning that the flu shot, while not targeting H1N1, did make things pretty mild. Most people were telling me I'd be feeling pretty miserable if I'd had a full blown case of the flu.
Originally Posted By: CT8
I doubt the Flu vaccine saves many lives.
You obviously haven't looked at the facts..55year olds die at a rate of 10 times young healthy people and 65+ year olds die at a rate of 100 times tat that of young healthy "folks".
Given that flu vaccine has been shown to average 40% effectiveness over the last 10 years. Wait I am arguing facts against uninformed beliefs. I must be insane. are absolutely have at it.
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Zero need for healthy person to have flu shot.
Did you know that some strains of flu attack only the healthiest younger people?
Look up the 1918 flue as an example.
Originally Posted By: CT8
When the vaccine is only so effective, exactly what are you trying to convince me of? [/quote]
So a 60% effectiveness over 10 years is not good enough? You need 100% right?
I doubt the Flu vaccine saves many lives.
You obviously haven't looked at the facts..55year olds die at a rate of 10 times young healthy people and 65+ year olds die at a rate of 100 times tat that of young healthy "folks".
Given that flu vaccine has been shown to average 40% effectiveness over the last 10 years. Wait I am arguing facts against uninformed beliefs. I must be insane. are absolutely have at it.
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Zero need for healthy person to have flu shot.
Did you know that some strains of flu attack only the healthiest younger people?
Look up the 1918 flue as an example.
Originally Posted By: CT8
When the vaccine is only so effective, exactly what are you trying to convince me of? [/quote]
So a 60% effectiveness over 10 years is not good enough? You need 100% right?
Last edited:
I can believe it.
But unless tested, it's possibly a false attribution.
You go to a doctor, a nurse, a clinic or similar to get a flu shot. Sick people have been there.
Most are probably picking up something from a patient who was there before them. They touched the door knob, seat, magazine, pen at the sign in, etc.
For those who get sick after the flu shot, it's likely from something left by a prior patient.
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
I'm 21 and have never had "the flu" and haven't had a flu shot since I was about 14. Every single time I got the flu shot, within 2 weeks I was sick. Strange coincidence.
I view the accuracy of this post with scepticism
But unless tested, it's possibly a false attribution.
You go to a doctor, a nurse, a clinic or similar to get a flu shot. Sick people have been there.
Most are probably picking up something from a patient who was there before them. They touched the door knob, seat, magazine, pen at the sign in, etc.
For those who get sick after the flu shot, it's likely from something left by a prior patient.
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
I'm 21 and have never had "the flu" and haven't had a flu shot since I was about 14. Every single time I got the flu shot, within 2 weeks I was sick. Strange coincidence.
I view the accuracy of this post with scepticism
The EU, the WHO and the US all have different standards. I think we've been through this before.
The US wants everyone to get the shot.
Other places only call for the very young, the very old and those with compromised immune systems get the annual flu shot. I believe both the WHO and the EU make this sort of recommendation:
http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/healthtopics/seasonal_influenza/vaccines/Pages/vaccines.aspx
http://www.who.int/influenza/vaccines/use/en/
If you are healthy and not very young or very old, you are probably ok with not getting an annual flu shot.
The everyone gets a vaccination recommendation here is likely a combination of CYA and ensuring a large supply of customers for the vaccine makers.
The US wants everyone to get the shot.
Other places only call for the very young, the very old and those with compromised immune systems get the annual flu shot. I believe both the WHO and the EU make this sort of recommendation:
http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/healthtopics/seasonal_influenza/vaccines/Pages/vaccines.aspx
http://www.who.int/influenza/vaccines/use/en/
If you are healthy and not very young or very old, you are probably ok with not getting an annual flu shot.
The everyone gets a vaccination recommendation here is likely a combination of CYA and ensuring a large supply of customers for the vaccine makers.
Originally Posted By: hatt
By using your logic I should also see if the doctor will put me on a statin. Sure my numbers are fine but I doubt it will kill me, cause me strong like bull, so clearly I should be proactive and go for it. I can probably get all sorts of cool meds.
Chances are if you are over 55 years old and get a total screening even with a Total cholesterol of 200 and a high density of 58 that gives you a ratio of 3.5. You probably can cut your risk of dying in the next 10 years from 11 to 15% to 7.5%. So the answer to your question is yes.
If I can cut my risk by 5% I will go for it. Do as you please.
By using your logic I should also see if the doctor will put me on a statin. Sure my numbers are fine but I doubt it will kill me, cause me strong like bull, so clearly I should be proactive and go for it. I can probably get all sorts of cool meds.
Chances are if you are over 55 years old and get a total screening even with a Total cholesterol of 200 and a high density of 58 that gives you a ratio of 3.5. You probably can cut your risk of dying in the next 10 years from 11 to 15% to 7.5%. So the answer to your question is yes.
If I can cut my risk by 5% I will go for it. Do as you please.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: hatt
By using your logic I should also see if the doctor will put me on a statin. Sure my numbers are fine but I doubt it will kill me, cause me strong like bull, so clearly I should be proactive and go for it. I can probably get all sorts of cool meds.
Chances are if you are over 55 years old and get a total screening even with a Total cholesterol of 200 and a high density of 58 that gives you a ratio of 3.5. You probably can cut your risk of dying in the next 10 years from 11 to 15% to 7.5%. So the answer to your question is yes.
If I can cut my risk by 5% I will go for it. Do as you please.
Big pharma got you good. How many pills do you then have to go on to combat the statin? A much better route is to change your diet/lifestyle and let AstraZeneca/etc worry about their stock price instead of you worrying about keeping it up.
Originally Posted By: hatt
By using your logic I should also see if the doctor will put me on a statin. Sure my numbers are fine but I doubt it will kill me, cause me strong like bull, so clearly I should be proactive and go for it. I can probably get all sorts of cool meds.
Chances are if you are over 55 years old and get a total screening even with a Total cholesterol of 200 and a high density of 58 that gives you a ratio of 3.5. You probably can cut your risk of dying in the next 10 years from 11 to 15% to 7.5%. So the answer to your question is yes.
If I can cut my risk by 5% I will go for it. Do as you please.
Big pharma got you good. How many pills do you then have to go on to combat the statin? A much better route is to change your diet/lifestyle and let AstraZeneca/etc worry about their stock price instead of you worrying about keeping it up.
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
No flu shot in 30 years..... I haven't gotten the flu in 30 years.
I work in healthcare and all hospitals push their employees to get their free flu shot.
No thanks, I always pass.
We don't have a choice, if you want to stay employed.
No flu shot in 30 years..... I haven't gotten the flu in 30 years.
I work in healthcare and all hospitals push their employees to get their free flu shot.
No thanks, I always pass.
We don't have a choice, if you want to stay employed.
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
No flu shot in 30 years..... I haven't gotten the flu in 30 years.
I work in healthcare and all hospitals push their employees to get their free flu shot.
No thanks, I always pass.
Same here, no thanks. Don't like needles anyway. Haven't been sick either. Take vitamin C or a multivitamin, wash hands, eat healthy and exercise.
No flu shot in 30 years..... I haven't gotten the flu in 30 years.
I work in healthcare and all hospitals push their employees to get their free flu shot.
No thanks, I always pass.
Same here, no thanks. Don't like needles anyway. Haven't been sick either. Take vitamin C or a multivitamin, wash hands, eat healthy and exercise.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Big pharma got you good. How many pills do you then have to go on to combat the statin?
I agree about the diet changing. But my $6.99/Staten pills for 3 months (total) is the answer for me only risk is slight liver dysfunction (actually rare) and that's why you check it periodically while on statens. Believe what you will. Go back to the days before statens and deal with stents and bypasses. I'll listen to the Mayo Clinic. BTW Mayo is an excellent place to get a stent or a bypass..a bit more expensive and riskier though.
You mean the "Big Pharma" that has allowed people to live 35 years more than 100 years ago?
Big pharma got you good. How many pills do you then have to go on to combat the statin?
I agree about the diet changing. But my $6.99/Staten pills for 3 months (total) is the answer for me only risk is slight liver dysfunction (actually rare) and that's why you check it periodically while on statens. Believe what you will. Go back to the days before statens and deal with stents and bypasses. I'll listen to the Mayo Clinic. BTW Mayo is an excellent place to get a stent or a bypass..a bit more expensive and riskier though.
You mean the "Big Pharma" that has allowed people to live 35 years more than 100 years ago?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hatt
Big pharma got you good.
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Pharmaceutical companies want all Americans to get a flu shot.....
I'm a little worried for you two:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_(contemporary)#Health_effects
A study[14] published in Neurology journal in 2014 found a link between "cynical distrust" (defined as the belief that others are mainly motivated by selfish concerns) and dementia. The survey included 622 people who were tested for dementia for a period of 8 years. In that period, 46 people were diagnosed with dementia. "Once researchers adjusted for other factors that could affect dementia risk, such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol and smoking, people with high levels of cynical distrust were three times more likely to develop dementia than people with low levels of cynicism. Of the 164 people with high levels of cynicism, 14 people developed dementia, compared to nine of the 212 people with low levels of cynicism."[15]
Big pharma got you good.
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Pharmaceutical companies want all Americans to get a flu shot.....
I'm a little worried for you two:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_(contemporary)#Health_effects
A study[14] published in Neurology journal in 2014 found a link between "cynical distrust" (defined as the belief that others are mainly motivated by selfish concerns) and dementia. The survey included 622 people who were tested for dementia for a period of 8 years. In that period, 46 people were diagnosed with dementia. "Once researchers adjusted for other factors that could affect dementia risk, such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol and smoking, people with high levels of cynical distrust were three times more likely to develop dementia than people with low levels of cynicism. Of the 164 people with high levels of cynicism, 14 people developed dementia, compared to nine of the 212 people with low levels of cynicism."[15]
Wouldn't the big pharma Illumanati lizard people stand to earn more money from treating hospitalized patients that came down with severe cases of the flu, smallpox, polio, etc.?
Most local pharmacies charge $30 for the shot. What does a hospital bill for an average of five days cost? I bet it's close to $10,000. Looking at that, it seems like the healthcare industry would want as many people to get sick as possible.
Most local pharmacies charge $30 for the shot. What does a hospital bill for an average of five days cost? I bet it's close to $10,000. Looking at that, it seems like the healthcare industry would want as many people to get sick as possible.
- Status