Government vaccination programme - the truth?

[B_New End]

We can know because epidemiology is a science.

First sentence tells me you obviously did not read the Atlantic article.... and that is where I stopped reading, since the Atlantic article deals directly with this assertion. You don't read what I post, I don't read what you post. fair is only fair.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

What are you basing your assessments of my opinions on? And why do you think Small pox is anything like piggy flu? One is a deadly, debilitating disease... the other is a flu.

This is an astoundingly stupid thing to say.

The influenza epidemic of 1919 killed 20 million worldwide. several times MORE dead than were killed in all of WWI.

Just as we have our ARMY practice deployment so they can be ready in time of unforeseen attack... we have our Government PRACTICE at rapid response to influence epidemics....
Because we do not KNOW when the next smallpox of spanish flu will come thru our population like a scythe.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

First sentence tells me you obviously did not read the Atlantic article.... and that is where I stopped reading, since the Atlantic article deals directly with this assertion. You don't read what I post, I don't read what you post. fair is only fair.

The Atlantic article is NOT science.

Imaginary inferences of effects are not proven effects.

Really, bone up on the difference between correlative assumptions and actual scientific findings.

 

[B_New End]

The Atlantic article is NOT science.

Imaginary inferences of effects are not proven effects.

I told you until you read the article, I am done talking to you. You still obviously have not.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Its not a small amount when it is sold at 159,000,000 units, much of it at taxpayer expense.

None of you are reading the Atlantic article, and those "studies" posted had sample groups as big as 70 people. And the flu is often contagious for a week after it is contracted. those stories are tiny, and have a lot of "mays" and "maybes" in them. BULLSHIT HYPE!

So if any of you want to actually talk about the Atlantic artcile, be my guest, until then, keep talking to yourself.

And I wasn't talking to you, asshole.
But now that you're addressing me in your usual Tourette syndrome-like banter I will respond once, then leave you to foam at the mouth like you usually do when you engage into these fake-ass tough guy routines.

I don't need one study, conducted by an organization who has as much relevance to Science as the Road Runner has relevance to Physics, that you snorted up your nose to be some kind of factual stimulant to discredit decades and decades of research on the subject matter. Again, you want to take chances with your health then by all means go for it. But to attack those who take the extra steps towards prevention because of your own ignorance shows just how much of a paranoid, lunatic you are.

Shut the fuck up.

Get laid and chill the fuck out.
My knee-jerk response would have been to tell you to eat shit and die, but in this case I'd rather watch you catch the flu and live.

 

[SR_Blarney_Frank]

How can we possibly know the long term effects and side effects of mass vaccinations...

Because we have been vaccinating people for decades now? Including vaccinations for the common flu...by the tens of millions... of which H1N1 is a variant

And just generally, while H1N1 is probably not as big a deal as some people think, it is also not the sinister conspiracy theory some people think. There's as much hysteria on the conspiracy theory side as anywhere else.

I read The Atlantic article. It's in no way authoritative and is written as more of an op-ed than a science piece. The primary author's book is called "Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine is Making Us Sicker and Poorer" so it's clearly written from a point of view. Again, interesting but it's a classic FUD piece laced with phrases like "some say" and casting doubt while adding no certainty. The article points to a half dozen nay-sayers who purport that the entire rest of the scientific community is complicit is some kind of conspiracy to avoid the "truth" about flu vaccines.

At worst the vaccines may be less effective than believed and at best they work as advertised. I agree in principle that we take far too many medications for 'discomfort' type ailments whether it's restless leg syndrome, frequent urination syndrome, fatigue, depression, etc. But a once annual flu vaccine is fairly economical, can reasonably be presumed to improve the public health and is probably not the best fight to pick among the array of medications available out there.

 

[JustAsking]

stevenvegas,
Your writing style is crisp, concise, and cogent. Thanks for that posting.

 

[Industrialsize]

Because we have been vaccinating people for decades now? Including vaccinations for the common flu...by the tens of millions... of which H1N1 is a variant

And just generally, while H1N1 is probably not as big a deal as some people think, it is also not the sinister conspiracy theory some people think. There's as much hysteria on the conspiracy theory side as anywhere else.

I read The Atlantic article. It's in no way authoritative and is written as more of an op-ed than a science piece. The primary author's book is called "Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine is Making Us Sicker and Poorer" so it's clearly written from a point of view. Again, interesting but it's a classic FUD piece laced with phrases like "some say" and casting doubt while adding no certainty. The article points to a half dozen nay-sayers who purport that the entire rest of the scientific community is complicit is some kind of conspiracy to avoid the "truth" about flu vaccines.

At worst the vaccines may be less effective than believed and at best they work as advertised. I agree in principle that we take far too many medications for 'discomfort' type ailments whether it's restless leg syndrome, frequent urination syndrome, fatigue, depression, etc. But a once annual flu vaccine is fairly economical, can reasonably be presumed to improve the public health and is probably not the best fight to pick among the array of medications available out there.

I agree BUT, IMO, true clinical depression is FAR from a "discomfort" ailment.

 

[MercyfulFate]

I am willing to guess that you have no idea what the FDA found in the nic-free cigarettes. This is just paranoid ravings.

Yes, we have seen plenty of manipulation of government regulatory agencies in the past. The problem is that you can't just throw out everything they do because you have no other process for testing the safety. The most suspect is anyone who publishes their findings only in the popular press. You can guarantee that is compromised, and if it is not, you have no way of knowing.

However, when a professional organization publishes something like this, you have a chance that this work will be either corroborated or refuted by another professional organization. Whereas, someone's youtube video is not held to the same standards.

I absolutely know what was found in them, and that study you posted means nothing. That's a study of a single brand out of potentially hundreds. diethylene glycol, Propylene Glycol and few others are the chemicals in dispute. The E-cig I have uses PG, which is used in food coloring.

Even so, it's still less dangerous than what's in a regular cigarette, so how can you try to ban them while allowing regular cigarettes? It's silly.

It has nothing to do with youtube, at all.

 

[Bbucko]

Saw this and found it a fitting addition to this topic.

 

[SilverTrain]

I think steve/vegas posted that on the first page of the thread, Sir B.

 

[JustAsking]

...It has nothing to do with youtube, at all.

Yes it does. Anything published outside of the professional scientific community's journals is indistinguishable from a youtube video. This is because there is no criteria for verification.

 

[SR_Blarney_Frank]

stevenvegas,
Your writing style is crisp, concise, and cogent. Thanks for that posting.

Likewise... thanks for the kudos...

I agree BUT, IMO, true clinical depression is FAR from a "discomfort" ailment.

Agree - I was referring to the more promiscuous prescribing of anti-depressants for people with occasional symptoms.

 

[SR_Blarney_Frank]

Those of you that watch too much fucking TV probably cant figure it out, but for the rest of us, this is clear as day.

Is there a vaccine for narcissism?

 

[Pendlum]

Is there a vaccine for narcissism?

Yes, but it has long term side effects of paranoia. The government doesn't want you to know that though.

 

[MercyfulFate]

Yes it does. Anything published outside of the professional scientific community's journals is indistinguishable from a youtube video. This is because there is no criteria for verification.

So a doctor writing a piece, or appearing on television in support of say the e-cigarettes, wouldn't matter? Is that what you're saying?

Either way I guarantee the push against electronic cigarettes is mostly based on money from big tobacco, or the makers of smoking cessation products, which are garbage by the way. Much of the fight against it revolves around it being sold as a "safe" alternative, which it may not be.

However it's markedly safer than regular cigarettes, and alarmist idiocy like "Kids will use them!" (Kids can get regular cigarettes easier) because they may have non-tobacco flavors.

One of the liquid nicotine solutions I have doesn't even have Propylene Glycol in it, rather they're using a Vegetable Glycol type of solution. If they are even only 25% safer than regular cigarettes, why would anyone be against them? No taxes on them? Damage to the aforementioned lobbies? It sure isn't for the health of the people.

 

[Bbucko]

I think steve/vegas posted that on the first page of the thread, Sir B.

Oops! :redface:

 

[SR_Blarney_Frank]

Oops! :redface:

No worries. More props for TPM is always a good thing...

 

[SilverTrain]

Either way I guarantee the push against electronic cigarettes is mostly based on money from big tobacco, or the makers of smoking cessation products, which are garbage by the way.

Millions of rehabilitated smokers will take issue with your penchant for ill-thought-out blanket statements that seem to emanate from knee-jerk emotional self-charged requirements of the moment.

C'mon dude.

 

[MercyfulFate]

Millions of rehabilitated smokers will take issue with your penchant for ill-thought-out blanket statements that seem to emanate from knee-jerk emotional self-charged requirements of the moment.

C'mon dude.

Due to knowing the issue quite well, having used them and seeing many people getting addicted to the gum and/or patch, yeah, it's garbage.

It's a generalization, so what? You zoomed in on a single sentence out of all of that, when my support for e-cigarettes is in part because it can be used as an effective smoking cessation product.

No knee-jerk reaction here, not like yours or the numerous others in this here section.

Or you can go with this study, funded by the very people who sell the product.

Nicotine Gum OK for Gradual Quitters - Lungs: Pulmonary and Respiratory Health and Medical Information Produced by Doctors

And back on topic, the war against e-cigarettes may have a tiny bit of merit, but the majority of it is overblown garbage.

FDA: E-Cigarettes Bad, but Not Banned

A lot of it is scare tactics "Kids will use them!" "It gets people hooked on nicotine that didn't smoke!" when in fact both are unsubstantiated claims. Their tests are also on 1 or 2 brands out of tons, and they say all are bad because of it. It also ignores using nicotine solutions from companies that you didn't buy the device from, etc.

More studies? Sure. Banning them based on a tiny bit of research and assuming they're all bad when they could potentially help people? Nope.

Anyway this isn't going anywhere, but it is a cakewalk