# Why the Vaccinated Still Caught the Flu This Winter



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Interesting article about the vaccine.

One reason has to do with the most-common way flu shots are made. They typically contain killed (or “inactivated”) flu viruses that are grown in chicken eggs. Flu viruses that spread easily among humans tend not to grow as well in chicken eggs as bird flu strains do. This is especially the case for H3N2 viruses, which have been circulating continuously in humans since 1968 and are, therefore, very well adapted to humans as a host. When replicating inside eggs, H3N2 viruses are prone to undergoing adaptive changes that make them better-suited to the egg environment, but less likely to prompt the right response in humans. A mutation in the H3N2 strain meant most people receiving the egg-grown vaccine didn’t have immunity against H3N2 viruses that circulated last year, leaving the vaccine with only about 30 percent effectiveness in the U.S. According to preliminary results from Australia, the flu shot was only about 10 percent effective against H3N2 there during the last winter in the southern hemisphere.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ed-still-caught-the-flu-this-winter-quicktake


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

And today, there's talk on the news of people getting the flu twice - different strains.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Wolf mom said:


> And today, there's talk on the news of people getting the flu twice - different strains.


That's got to be incredibly hard on people.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Admittedly, I'm not too knowledgeable on the subject, but I have read the flu virus mutates often, so if it was created for last year's flu, it doesn't work on this year's flu.

I'm just knocking on wood, none this year.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

I got the flu shot for the first time this year and got the flu. I got to the Dr quickly and started tamiflu (sp). So far so good but I sure hope I don't have a second round with it.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Never got a flu shot. But last year got the flu, then anti-biotic resistant pneumonia. In bed for 5 weeks.

So did get shot this year. Darn thing better work.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

keenataz said:


> Never got a flu shot. But last year got the flu, then anti-biotic resistant pneumonia. In bed for 5 weeks.
> 
> So did get shot this year. Darn thing better work.


Everyone in the office got the shot, most of us in the 30 to 40 age range. Right now we are down about 50% on manpower. Hoping I miss getting it!!!!


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

no really said:


> Everyone in the office got the shot, most of us in the 30 to 40 age range. Right now we are down about 50% on manpower. Hoping I miss getting it!!!!


One thing I will say, and maybe not in your office case, a lot of time will say they have the flu; when actually it is a bad cold or the misnamed "stomach flu"


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

keenataz said:


> One thing I will say, and maybe not in your office case, a lot of time will say they have the flu; when actually it is a bad cold or the misnamed "stomach flu"


Most got the swab and it's the flu. Some didn't get the swab due to a shortage but doc's were pretty sure it was flu and treated it as such.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Even if you get the flu (any strain, any mutation) the flu shot lessens the symptoms, you won't be as sick.


----------



## LuckySpotFarm (Sep 11, 2016)

Unfortunately every year the flu shot is designed to protect you against the strains that are most likely to be what we will experience for the year. Like many have said the flu virus mutates so quickly that there really is no way of predicting exactly which strain will be what goes around. 

Right now there are actually two major strains going around. So people are actually getting the flu two different times, its possible to even get it more often than that if you catch another strain. The unfortunate thing is that the flu shot is not effective for the major strains being passed around right now, which is why its so rampant. It also seems super common to have the flu this year as people are misdiagnosing themselves. Like my son recently got sick (which he so graciously passed to me) and my babysitter was freaking out saying he had the flu and was all mad because her kids were going to get the flu now. We went to the pediatrician and did the swab, he came back flu free. 

I am currently 8 months pregnant and had a cold (so weakened immune system), work for a hospital, and have many family members that came down with the flu (not immediate family but parents, siblings etc that do not live with us). I have made it so far without catching the flu. The biggest thing is to do what you can to protect yourself. Wash hands OFTEN, keep your hands out of your face, clean your space frequently, drink lots of water to stay hydrated, eat healthy (I also try to eat a lot of fruits with vitamin C to help). It isn't a fool proof way not to get sick but if more people practiced good hygiene it would help!


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I skipped the flu shot for a few years after I had a bad reaction to one. I felt bad for days after getting it and injection site was sore. But this year I put on my big girl panties and got one. Knock wood, I haven't had more than a cold in years. But that is likely due to low exposure as much as I like to think I have a superior immune system. My workplace does not have general public traffic, and we are out in the boonies at home. Don't shop or dine out very often, so I don't get exposed to other's cooties very often either.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Don't get the flu shot - I think it's a crap shoot. BUT I have gotten my forever pneumonia shot. Most people die from complications of the flu. Pneumonia is one of them. I also up my C, take Zinc and other precautions although am not obsessive about it.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

I, too, am knocking on wood this year. 

Actually, though, the two years previous are the only times I remember ever having the flu. Also, I knew few people who did have the flu, until recent years. It's a puzzlement.

I do think it possible it's because all his buddies had flu shots. No flu shots this year and no flu - so far.

I realize this doesn't rate being written up in the scientific journals - I'm just happy.

May the shots work, or may you just avoid it--------------


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

I've never had a flu shot and I think I've had the flu maybe twice in the last 10 years. Husband used to be forced to get the flu shot (military) and pretty much got whatever was going around most of the time anyway. I don't know what I'm implying other than that my tinfoil hat is very cozy


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

In the years that the vaccine is a match to the flu, if most people get the flu shot, the few that don't get the shot are mostly protected. They simply rely on the immunity of others to halt the spread. However, when more people expect others to get their shots, more people will spread the flu and "herd immunity" fails them.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

haypoint said:


> In the years that the vaccine is a match to the flu, if most people get the flu shot, the few that don't get the shot are mostly protected. They simply rely on the immunity of others to halt the spread. However, when more people expect others to get their shots, more people will spread the flu and "herd immunity" fails them.


I understand there are differing opinions on this. The problem is like most things in this country, the question is anti/for - not what is true.

When you get a flu shot, you are dropping (I don't know if that's the word) the virus around and others can get it from you. To that end, I suppose people should get the flu shot to keep from catching it from those who take the shot?

I'm just wondering what years the shot has matched the flu?

Again, those are just my thoughts on it -


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Trixie said:


> I understand there are differing opinions on this. The problem is like most things in this country, the question is anti/for - not what is true.
> 
> When you get a flu shot, you are dropping (I don't know if that's the word) the virus around and others can get it from you. To that end, I suppose people should get the flu shot to keep from catching it from those who take the shot?
> 
> ...


Lots of things aren't one way or the other. I catch a lot of heat on HT by bringing forward other viewpoints. But with the flu vaccine, you are either against the vaccine or think it does good and get the shot.
I had to read that next line three times and even if you aren't using the correct word, I think the whole idea presented here is wrong. The flu vaccine, like most vaccines is dead. You cant drop, shed, spread any flu virus after getting the shot.
While we are dispelling myths. You cannot get the flu from a vaccination. However, you can catch the flu for a couple weeks following the vaccination, because it takes time for your body to produce the antibodies to fight the flu.
The flu virus evolves. Some times there are a few strains going around. When the vaccine is a match to one strain of flu, it doesn't spread fast and it doesn't spread fast. Too few carriers. But, the other strain that isn't a match to the vaccine, will spread fast and far. That makes the vaccine seem useless, even though it has stopped the other strain.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

haypoint said:


> Lots of things aren't one way or the other. I catch a lot of heat on HT by bringing forward other viewpoints. But with the flu vaccine, you are either against the vaccine or think it does good and get the shot.
> I had to read that next line three times and even if you aren't using the correct word, I think the whole idea presented here is wrong. The flu vaccine, like most vaccines is dead. You cant drop, shed, spread any flu virus after getting the shot.
> While we are dispelling myths. You cannot get the flu from a vaccination. However, you can catch the flu for a couple weeks following the vaccination, because it takes time for your body to produce the antibodies to fight the flu.
> The flu virus evolves. Some times there are a few strains going around. When the vaccine is a match to one strain of flu, it doesn't spread fast and it doesn't spread fast. Too few carriers. But, the other strain that isn't a match to the vaccine, will spread fast and far. That makes the vaccine seem useless, even though it has stopped the other strain.


It is all just a matter of statistics. From a policy maker point of view, even if a vaccine is 5% effective, the math is obvious. It will save lives. From someone taking the vaccine's point of view, 5% effective may not be worth the risk of 0.5% chance of an adverse reaction. Once a vaccine reaches 50% (or thereabouts) effectiveness, the odds change. Now, if there were a 100% chance of catching the disease (or if that disease had a higher mortality rate), the math changes again. I am not anti-flu vaccinations by any means. I am also not "Go get your flu shot" no matter how effective it may be. I have gotten many flu shots over my decades on this earth. Each year is different depending on its effectiveness.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Hiro said:


> From someone taking the vaccine's point of view, 5% effective may not be worth the risk of 0.5% chance of an adverse reaction.


But rip away the "what if" numbers and the message changes. In Realville, we have a 10% effective vaccine and a 0.01% chance of adverse reaction.
This year the vaccine isn't providing much immunity. But if you are in the high risk category, not getting the vaccination is like playing Russian Roulette with a 10 shot revolver. No person in their right mind would play those odds.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

haypoint said:


> But rip away the "what if" numbers and the message changes. In Realville, we have a 10% effective vaccine and a 0.01% chance of adverse reaction.
> This year the vaccine isn't providing much immunity. But if you are in the high risk category, not getting the vaccination is like playing Russian Roulette with a 10 shot revolver. No person in their right mind would play those odds.


Not to mention that the vaccine still helps alleviate symptoms and duration even if it isn’t a match.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

haypoint said:


> But rip away the "what if" numbers and the message changes. In Realville, we have a 10% effective vaccine and a 0.01% chance of adverse reaction.
> This year the vaccine isn't providing much immunity. But if you are in the high risk category, not getting the vaccination is like playing Russian Roulette with a 10 shot revolver. No person in their right mind would play those odds.


They are all "what if" numbers. The Russian Roulette analogy is false as it assumes a 100% chance of catching the flu with a 10% effective vaccine. That is more "what if" than my hypothetical scenario.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Hiro said:


> They are all "what if" numbers. The Russian Roulette analogy is false as it assumes a 100% chance of catching the flu with a 10% effective vaccine. That is more "what if" than my hypothetical scenario.


Then let's play, "what if" since the flu season, worst strain in a long time, has just started and if 1/2 the population got their flu shot, 1/2 didn't, in a room of 100 people, how many are susceptible? The answer is 90 out of 100. Then each disease has a level of communicability. This strain is reportedly to be highly communicable.
If the percentage of people that contract the flu is only 20%, then that workplace, grocery store or school of 100, would have 20 people with the flu at some time this season. So, if the flu lasts a week, and we have a ten week flu season, there will be two sick people among a group of 100. Most of us are exposed to groups of 100, often.
100 years ago, Spanish Flu killed 50 to 100 million people, mostly young and healthy.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

haypoint said:


> But rip away the "what if" numbers and the message changes. In Realville, we have a 10% effective vaccine and a 0.01% chance of adverse reaction.
> This year the vaccine isn't providing much immunity. But if you are in the high risk category, not getting the vaccination is like playing Russian Roulette with a 10 shot revolver. No person in their right mind would play those odds.


Not a fair analogy. There is much a person can do to minimize the chance of getting the flu besides getting the flu shot.


----------



## ijon1 (Feb 27, 2014)

The old government has dropped the ball about not covering the different flu strains in the last few years.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

I don't think I've ever had the flu...I used to get strep alot as a kid but as an adult I haven't had any knock out illnesses. Nothing to stay home sick over. Some aches and a low fever but usually the next day it's gone. I've never had a flu shot. 

My son gets it , and rsv through the season. Because of his extreme prematurity and chronic lung disease he was born with ( though now no longer shows signs of) we have been lucky that he has had no illnesses since his release from the NICU 2 years ago. His Dr atrirbutes his health more to being breast fed then vaccinated. 

I read that alot of the fatalities related to flu have to do with another infection being present , usually bacterial. We take handwashing and sanitizing pretty seriously and we are hermits so I guess that helps to minimize contact with the germs


----------



## anniew (Dec 12, 2002)

I'd be really interested in what each poster's qualifications are regarding their opinions. Are you medical professionals who've actually lab researched the information, or are you readers of other people's opinions? You can read almost anything on any subject and base your opinion on that, but how can you verify what the writers are telling you. And we all know, that loads of people have loads of opinions that are worthless.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

anniew said:


> I'd be really interested in what each poster's qualifications are regarding their opinions.


Forum members. Same as your qualifications are for questioning their opinion.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Clem said:


> Forum members. Same as your qualifications are for questioning their opinion.


No one is going to put that information out there if they're a medical professional, there are people (members) that will mess with you in real life if they don't like your opinion.

Plus it's no one's business, read and research yourself. I suggest information that is both cited and peer reviewed. Stay away from websites that sell crap too.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

My mystery on the flu is why I have been laid out sick in bed, bad enough to visit the Dr., and the rest of my family doesn't even get a sniffle. At the time no one in my family had been vaccinated, I wonder if some people just have a superior immunity to some things regardless of a vaccination.
I also question the claims of a percentage of effectiveness, for all I know my flu shot this year was 100 percent effective for me.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

There is work being done to develop a more effective vaccine. 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and its parent, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, have long encouraged the development of new technologies for producing flu vaccines. For example, cell culture technology is used to make vaccines to prevent other infectious diseases, and FDA has been working for a number of years, both on the research and regulatory fronts, to facilitate this for flu vaccines. A major push for cell-based flu vaccines occurred in 2006 as part of a plan to be ready in case of a world-wide epidemic.

In 2010, FDA issued final guidance to assist manufacturers working to develop safe and effective viral vaccines that grow in specially prepared cell lines. In the last two months, FDA has approved two new flu vaccines that, instead of using eggs to grow the influenza virus, use cell lines from either a mammal or insects.

https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm336267.htm


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

ijon1 said:


> The old government has dropped the ball about not covering the different flu strains in the last few years.


Why does the government have an obligation to protect you from any disease? Since you are an expert on early detection of flu strains, how about a heads up on next year's strain so the laboratories can begin vaccination development and creating enough effective cultures?
It is OK to be mad at the government. It is alright to create excuses of why not to get the flu or any other vaccination. But as far as I know, all the experts in vaccine development have not yet acquired the ability to see into the future. I'm sure when they do, you'll have something else to carp about the government or science.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

While bit off topic, I am compelled to add a bit of a clarification.
Yesterday, someone posted about people getting the flu shot and shedding the virus to others. That is just wrong and I stated that.
However, in the past, the vaccine to immunize you from Shingles did have a weakened live virus. You could actually shed the virus to others that had not been vaccinated.

Recently, the vaccine to protect you from this painful disease is genetically modified using parts of the killed virus' DNA. Now, you'll get to chose to be injected with a GMO, that won't spread the virus to your loved ones or not get the shot and risk contracting this awful disease.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Not a fair analogy. There is much a person can do to minimize the chance of getting the flu besides getting the flu shot.


Boils down to just one thing you can do. Quarantine yourself. You can't force others to stay home when sick, especially when humans can spread the flu at least a day before succumbing to the symptoms. 
Oh, sure, wash your hands, drink lots of fluids, keep away from populated areas, keep your hands out of your nose, mouth, eyes are all things you can do to reduce your chances of getting the flu. But getting the flu shot is also an important thing to do to reduce your risk of flu.
So far this year, 53 families have lost a child to the effects of the flu. I think if you asked them if they recommend getting the flu shot, they would say yes.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda are meaningless at a child's funeral.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

haypoint said:


> Boils down to just one thing you can do. Quarantine yourself. You can't force others to stay home when sick, especially when humans can spread the flu at least a day before succumbing to the symptoms.
> Oh, sure, wash your hands, drink lots of fluids, keep away from populated areas, keep your hands out of your nose, mouth, eyes are all things you can do to reduce your chances of getting the flu. But getting the flu shot is also an important thing to do to reduce your risk of flu.
> So far this year, 53 families have lost a child to the effects of the flu. I think if you asked them if they recommend getting the flu shot, they would say yes.
> Coulda, woulda, shoulda are meaningless at a child's funeral.


The majority of people who die from the flu are people at high risk. Just maybe the best plan is to NOT be at high risk if at all possible. And those at high risk, need to work with their health care provider to do everything they can to strengthen their immune system before they get the flu. 

I believe the H3N2 is the most deadly strain of influenza and the current flu vaccine is not very effective against h3N2. There is so much information that is not readily available. For example, there are multiple vaccines available. Which are most effective? Which are most effective for children? Seniors? Seniors are by far the main population that dies from the flu. Why? I realize many seniors have a weakened immune system, but is there more to the story?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> The majority of people who die from the flu are people at high risk. Just maybe the best plan is to NOT be at high risk if at all possible. And those at high risk, need to work with their health care provider to do everything they can to strengthen their immune system before they get the flu.
> 
> I believe the H3N2 is the most deadly strain of influenza and the current flu vaccine is not very effective against h3N2. There is so much information that is not readily available. For example, there are multiple vaccines available. Which are most effective? Which are most effective for children? Seniors? Seniors are by far the main population that dies from the flu. Why? I realize many seniors have a weakened immune system, but is there more to the story?


Well then, if those seniors that know they have weakened immune systems and don't change it, then they are sort of just asking to die? "Hey Doc, I need some treatment to strengthen my immune system."
Even within the H3N2 there are different strains, A, B and C.
With the Spanish Flu pandemic, people with the strongest immune system died first, as the immune system worked against the body.
For years, the government urged folks to get their flu shots and for years I heard people talk about how overblown the warnings were. Now we have a deadly virus and people are crying, " Why doesn't the government do something?"
https://www.euroclinix.net/en/influenza/types-of-influenza-viruses
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/09/medical-experts-predict-worst-flu-season-in-history.html


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> Even if you get the flu (any strain, any mutation) the flu shot lessens the symptoms, you won't be as sick.


Not true for everyone, it depends on when you get the shot and when you get the flu, your body needs time to build up the anti-bodies AND you have to get one of the types of flu they choose for the vaccine this year.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mnn2501 said:


> Not true for everyone, it depends on when you get the shot and when you get the flu, your body needs time to build up the anti-bodies


The link to this information is in the CDC thread that one your buddies got moved to the *********, you go read it there if you're truly interested.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> No one is going to put that information out there if they're a medical professional, there are people (members) that will mess with you in real life if they don't like your opinion.
> 
> Plus it's no one's business, read and research yourself. I suggest information that is both cited and peer reviewed. Stay away from websites that sell crap too.


Wow, hard to believe I actually"Liked" one of I.P.'s posts -- I wonder if a usually very warm place froze over?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> The link to this information is in the CDC thread that one your ilk got moved to the *********, you go read it there if you're truly interested.


There's the I.P. I'm used to.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mnn2501 said:


> Wow, hard to believe I actually"Liked" one of I.P.'s posts -- I wonder if a usually very warm place froze over?


Even you're right every so often...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mnn2501 said:


> There's the I.P. I'm used to.


And while I was putting on a facial mask (I'm now orange like the gibbon in charge) I thought I should make the post a bit less snarky, so I did. Will you like this post too?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mnn2501 said:


> Not true for everyone, it depends on when you get the shot and when you get the flu, your body needs time to build up the anti-bodies *AND you have to get one of the types of flu they choose for the vaccine this year.*


Since you seriously edited your post, the bold bit is absolutely not true, and is proven in the link that was moved to the *********.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

haypoint said:


> While bit off topic, I am compelled to add a bit of a clarification.
> Yesterday, someone posted about people getting the flu shot and shedding the virus to others. That is just wrong and I stated that.
> However, in the past, the vaccine to immunize you from Shingles did have a weakened live virus. You could actually shed the virus to others that had not been vaccinated.
> 
> Recently, the vaccine to protect you from this painful disease is genetically modified using parts of the killed virus' DNA. Now, you'll get to chose to be injected with a GMO, that won't spread the virus to your loved ones or not get the shot and risk contracting this awful disease.



oh no....GMO!!!!


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

dmm1976 said:


> I don't think I've ever had the flu...I used to get strep alot as a kid but as an adult I haven't had any knock out illnesses. Nothing to stay home sick over. Some aches and a low fever but usually the next day it's gone. I've never had a flu shot.
> 
> My son gets it , and rsv through the season. Because of his extreme prematurity and chronic lung disease he was born with ( though now no longer shows signs of) we have been lucky that he has had no illnesses since his release from the NICU 2 years ago. His Dr atrirbutes his health more to being breast fed then vaccinated.
> 
> I read that alot of the fatalities related to flu have to do with another infection being present , usually bacterial. We take handwashing and sanitizing pretty seriously and we are hermits so I guess that helps to minimize contact with the germs


Ima huge proponent of breastfeeding but the only thing that kept your son from catching polio, measles, mumps, rubella, etc. if he was exposed was either his vaccines or the antibodies in the milk (while he was nursing) from vaccines you received, unless of course, you had those diseases yourself.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> Ima huge proponent of breastfeeding but the only thing that kept your son from catching polio, measles, mumps, rubella, etc. if he was exposed was either his vaccines or the antibodies in the milk (while he was nursing) from vaccines you received, unless of course, you had those diseases yourself.


I was talking about flu, colds, etc....


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

dmm1976 said:


> I was talking about flu, colds, etc....


Oh, okay...so while you were nursing he was protected because of antibodies you carry.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> Oh, okay...so while you were nursing he was protected because of antibodies you carry.


Yes that's how it works. He got my BM till he was 18 months old. He is tube fed so technically I wasn't nursing. I'm an ex exclusive pumper.

http://www.llli.org/faq/prevention.html


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

dmm1976 said:


> Yes that's how it works. He got my BM till he was 18 months old. He is tube fed so technically I wasn't nursing. I'm an ex exclusive pumper.
> 
> http://www.llli.org/faq/prevention.html


Lol, I nursed both of my daughters too. I’m aware of how it works. Your original post made it sound as though your doctor was saying that breast milk was what kept your son healthy rather than vaccines. I would think that both kept your son healthy as your vaccines conferred your immunity to him while he was nursed and after that his own immune system enhanced by his vaccines work to keep him healthy.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

haypoint said:


> Then let's play, "what if" since the flu season, worst strain in a long time, has just started and if 1/2 the population got their flu shot, 1/2 didn't, in a room of 100 people, how many are susceptible? The answer is 90 out of 100. Then each disease has a level of communicability. This strain is reportedly to be highly communicable.
> If the percentage of people that contract the flu is only 20%, then that workplace, grocery store or school of 100, would have 20 people with the flu at some time this season. So, if the flu lasts a week, and we have a ten week flu season, there will be two sick people among a group of 100. Most of us are exposed to groups of 100, often.
> 100 years ago, Spanish Flu killed 50 to 100 million people, mostly young and healthy.


A fairly substantial part of the population will not get the flu, with or without a flu shot. Even CDC admits only 5%-20% will get the flu.


----------



## dmm1976 (Oct 29, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> Lol, I nursed both of my daughters too. I’m aware of how it works. Your original post made it sound as though your doctor was saying that breast milk was what kept your son healthy rather than vaccines.


Ah no, sorry you didn't understand, he says that he has a healthy immune system due to the BM . 

Eta: I guess I assumed one would know I was referring to the only to vaccines I mentioned in my post.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

dmm1976 said:


> Ah no, sorry you didn't understand, he says that he has a healthy immune system due to the BM .
> 
> Eta: I guess I assumed one would know I was referring to the only to vaccines I mentioned in my post.


That seems rather vague. Are you saying your sons immune system is healthy forever because of being breastfed or that it was healthy while being breastfed? I would wonder why then, children get sick and even die even after having been breastfed for years? 
Here’s an interesting article.

https://www.thescientificparent.org...reast-milk-protect-my-baby-from-getting-sick/


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Lisa in WA said:


> That seems rather vague. Are you saying your sons immune system is healthy forever because of being breastfed or that it was healthy while being breastfed? I would wonder why then, children get sick and even die even after having been breastfed for years?
> Here’s an interesting article.
> 
> https://www.thescientificparent.org...reast-milk-protect-my-baby-from-getting-sick/


Cesarean section births, antibiotics, etc. Unhealthy gut flora.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> Cesarean section births, antibiotics, etc. Unhealthy gut flora.


Can you please put these terms in context? Thank you.


----------



## anniew (Dec 12, 2002)

I just asked (was interested in) members' qualifications. Yes, I do my own research, but unfortunately, there is so much out there, that it is hard to come to a definite conclusion because there is research showing conflicting or confusing information.
When I post on topics regarding my specialty, I am speaking from education and experience in the field, rather than testimonials from people I don't know.
But, then, anything here, seems to be a "my opinion is better than yours" and away the discussions/snarkies/arguments go.
Which may be why some members have left.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> Can you please put these terms in context? Thank you.


A baby gets most of its gut bacteria from the mother and an important part of that is through the birth canal. So a baby born through cesarean section lacks a strong gut biome. I have read that it is possible to take bacteria from the birth canal and somehow inoculate a baby with it, but that's the extent of my knowledge. If antibiotics are given to a baby or young child, it kills both the good and bad bacteria, leaving the child with an impaired immune systems.

It's possible to build the good bacteria back up, but it may be difficult to get the same balance of bacteria that would have been inherited from the mother. As others have posted, breastfeeding is another way a mother passes good bacteria to the child.

I recently had to take a round of antibiotics and after 10 days I started to get food cravings as a result of good bacteria being killed off. I have been taking probiotics in morning and evening, eatings lots of fermented foods, and eating lots of fiber. After 2 weeks, the cravings are almost gone. Most of the food we choose to eat is because that's what the gut bacteria tell us they want. Eat a poor diet and get a lot of bad bacteria and fewer good. Bad bacteria can equal compromised immune system.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> A baby gets most of its gut bacteria from the mother and an important part of that is through the birth canal. So a baby born through cesarean section lacks a strong gut biome. I have read that it is possible to take bacteria from the birth canal and somehow inoculate a baby with it, but that's the extent of my knowledge. If antibiotics are given to a baby or young child, it kills both the good and bad bacteria, leaving the child with an impaired immune systems.
> 
> It's possible to build the good bacteria back up, but it may be difficult to get the same balance of bacteria that would have been inherited from the mother. As others have posted, breastfeeding is another way a mother passes good bacteria to the child.
> 
> I recently had to take a round of antibiotics and after 10 days I started to get food cravings as a result of good bacteria being killed off. I have been taking probiotics in morning and evening, eatings lots of fermented foods, and eating lots of fiber. After 2 weeks, the cravings are almost gone. Most of the food we choose to eat is because that's what the gut bacteria tell us they want. Eat a poor diet and get a lot of bad bacteria and fewer good. Bad bacteria can equal compromised immune system.


You know...my daughter had a terrible infection when she was 15 days old and was running a 107 degree fever by the time she hit the emergency room at Children’s Hospital. Do you suppose she shouldn’t have gone on antibiotics?

She is almost 30now, strong and healthy with apparently a very good immune system. So what happened?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Lisa in WA said:


> You know...my daughter had a terrible infection when she was 15 days old and was running a 107 degree fever by the time she hit the emergency room at Children’s Hospital. Do you suppose she shouldn’t have gone on antibiotics?
> 
> She is almost 30now, strong and healthy with apparently a very good immune system. So what happened?


I'll just ignore this. It has nothing to do with anything I posted.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> I'll just ignore this. It has nothing to do with anything I posted.


Whoops. Too late. You didn’t ignore it. And it absolutely has to do with your post.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Lisa in WA said:


> You know...my daughter had a terrible infection when she was 15 days old and was running a 107 degree fever by the time she hit the emergency room at Children’s Hospital. Do you suppose she shouldn’t have gone on antibiotics?
> 
> She is almost 30now, strong and healthy with apparently a very good immune system. So what happened?


My two had triple whammies- premature, necessary cesarean sections (first was breech, second was too small and weak for vaginal birth) _and_ antibiotics. Plus the second one had jaundice. One is pretty much wonder woman- nursing school, three kids under 7, and a part job at a hospital, and the other wins Strongman competitions and this year's goal is winning Crossfit regional in SoCal.

ETA: I have a compromised immune system- I have an autoimmune disease and have had symptoms since I was 16. I wasn't born via cesarean, limited childhood antibiotics, and have no gut flora issues.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> My two had triple whammies- premature, necessary cesarean sections (first was breech, second was too small and weak for vaginal birth) _and_ antibiotics. Plus the second one had jaundice. One is pretty much wonder woman- nursing school, three kids under 7, and a part job at a hospital, and the other wins Strongman competitions and this year's goal is winning Crossfit regional in SoCal.


Clearly impaired immune systems.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Lisa in WA said:


> Clearly impaired immune systems.


The youngest recently clean and jerk 145 lbs, four reps with perfect form. The oldest still wants to run a half marathon in May, but it's just not going to work into her WW schedule.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

It's probably irrelevant, but as a child, I was sick a lot. Once I was in charge of my life, rarely. Became independent of "public work" and never got sick again. Seriously, I've not had a cold or flu in 30 some years. 

What changed?? Well, as a kid, I was around a lot of other kids, and probably ate and drank after them and all sort of unsanitary stuff. As I got older, no more eating after, drinking after, etc. Once out of school, rarely around sick people. And when I finally escaped the public work syndrome, I just refused to go around sick people. 

Once again, for the record, my health may be an anomaly. Still, it's worth noting. If I'm out, I never touch anything that just don't "feel right" Don't eat or drink. Keep my hands to myself.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

No facts of real life, Clem! What are you thinking?

I do think that gut flora is a big deal, and the over use of antibiotics has a lot to do with poor gut health, but people need antibiotics (and cesarean sections) to live.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

I was the one who mentioned 'dropping' virus.

My information came from the doctor, but then I will be the first to admit doctors are sometimes wrong. That just happens to be one of those things that make sense to me. You are ingesting a live virus - after all.

But there seems to be as many educated/researched theories out there as well. Sometimes you have to take the educated guesses, some advice from others you trust, your own experiences and then make you own decision for your own body.

Yes, there are as many opinions as there are people just about, and that's all any are doing. I suspect we all end up choosing the opinion that makes the most sense to us or one with which we have had experience.

As for the government having any responsibility - yeah, probably they don't. 

I don't believe they should have responsibility - but that being the case, they should have no power as well. They shouldn't force people to have the vaccine and they shouldn't decide pharmaceutical companies have no liability should a mandated vaccine cause harm - especially in the case of a child.

In other words if they have no responsibility, they should have no power to mandate it, nor to shield pharmaceuticals from having a liability in case of harm.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Trixie said:


> I was the one who mentioned 'dropping' virus.
> 
> My information came from the doctor, but then I will be the first to admit doctors are sometimes wrong. That just happens to be one of those things that make sense to me. You are ingesting a live virus - after all.
> 
> ...


You do not ingest a live virus when you get the flu vaccine.

“For most flu vaccines, the strains of the viruses are grown in hens' eggs. The viruses are then killed (deactivated) and purified before being made into the vaccine. 

Because the injected flu vaccine is a killed vaccine, it cannot cause flu.”

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/how-flu-vaccine-works/


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Trixie said:


> I was the one who mentioned 'dropping' virus.
> 
> My information came from the doctor, but then I will be the first to admit doctors are sometimes wrong. That just happens to be one of those things that make sense to me. You are ingesting a live virus - after all.
> 
> ...


Not all vaccines shed, there is no way an attenuated vaccine can shed because it's dead. Only live, non attenuated vaccine can actually shed the virus, and there are some that do, but the flu shot is not one of them. The flu mist was one that did shed. 

Here's a CDC site on the principles of vaccination. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/prinvac.html


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Trixie said:


> I was the one who mentioned 'dropping' virus.
> 
> My information came from the doctor, but then I will be the first to admit doctors are sometimes wrong. That just happens to be one of those things that make sense to me. You are ingesting a live virus - after all.
> 
> ...


Opinions are only as good as the information they are based on. If they are based on bunk, the opinion is bunk.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> My two had triple whammies- premature, necessary cesarean sections (first was breech, second was too small and weak for vaginal birth) _and_ antibiotics. Plus the second one had jaundice. One is pretty much wonder woman- nursing school, three kids under 7, and a part job at a hospital, and the other wins Strongman competitions and this year's goal is winning Crossfit regional in SoCal.
> 
> ETA: I have a compromised immune system- I have an autoimmune disease and have had symptoms since I was 16. I wasn't born via cesarean, limited childhood antibiotics, and have no gut flora issues.



The best daughter award is already taken.


----------



## KandCfamilyfarm (Nov 4, 2017)

we got strain A in my home of five but it is not that bad. Strain A is supposed to be the nasty one. It is transferable from and to swine and birds. I have not thrown up or had diarrhea once. Got a nasty headache ran a fever of 102.6 at the highest and I am 6 of 7 days into it. But I feel I have a better immune system then most because we don't get the flu shot we just catch it and go on with life. Strain A is tricky though because it mutates or evolve so fast. 

I read a article yesterday after being tested positive for strain A that said that a pig with the flu will more than likely recover in a few days unless it was transferred from a human to the pig then it is more a less a death sentence without proper medication. I will if I can find it and post it for yall.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

KandCfamilyfarm said:


> we got strain A in my home of five but it is not that bad. Strain A is supposed to be the nasty one. It is transferable from and to swine and birds. I have not thrown up or had diarrhea once. Got a nasty headache ran a fever of 102.6 at the highest and I am 6 of 7 days into it. But I feel I have a better immune system then most because we don't get the flu shot we just catch it and go on with life. Strain A is tricky though because it mutates or evolve so fast.
> 
> I read a article yesterday after being tested positive for strain A that said that a pig with the flu will more than likely recover in a few days unless it was transferred from a human to the pig then it is more a less a death sentence without proper medication. I will if I can find it and post it for yall.


Throwing up and diarrhea is a symptom of a norovirus, not influenza. Noroviruses are horrible nasty things, live for weeks on surfaces and mutate. You may want to die with a norovirus but it's usually short lived and non life threatening unless you're very old or very young. 

I'd like to read your article on strain A.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

After a bit of Googling I found this:

"Type A flu or influenza A viruses are capable of infecting animals, although it is more common for people to suffer the ailments associated with this type of flu. Wild birds commonly act as the hosts for this flu virus.

Type A flu virus is constantly changing and is generally responsible for the large flu epidemics. The influenza A2 virus (and other variants of influenza) is spread by people who are already infected. The most common flu hot spots are those surfaces that an infected person has touched and rooms where he has been recently, especially areas where he has been sneezing.

Unlike type A flu viruses, type B flu is found only in humans. Type B flu may cause a less severe reaction than type A flu virus, but occasionally, type B flu can still be extremely harmful. Influenza type B viruses are not classified by subtype and do not cause pandemics."

https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/advanced-reading-types-of-flu-viruses#1


----------



## KandCfamilyfarm (Nov 4, 2017)

Trixie said:


> I understand there are differing opinions on this. The problem is like most things in this country, the question is anti/for - not what is true.
> 
> When you get a flu shot, you are dropping (I don't know if that's the word) the virus around and others can get it from you. To that end, I suppose people should get the flu shot to keep from catching it from those who take the shot?
> 
> ...


I believe that and I will tell you why. we never get the flu shot and almost never catch the flu we also live a very secluded life and pay close attention to hygiene especially during flu season. So about 4 years back my son and wife went to the doctor to get his shots and they gave him the flu shot after we told them not to. I called the doctor and gave him all kinds of flax. my son became very sick 5 or 6 days later and test positive for the flu. when you catch the flu it take 24 hours before you get the first symptoms then 7 days until it is done with you. Now the flu can only live for 24 hours on a open surface. He was home schooled at the time and none of us had any outside interaction so I can only conclude that is were it came from. but until there are real scientific test done which they won't do that there is no real evidence. But how do we as the public know for a fact that the flu in that shot was properly killed. also how do we know that because it was incubated in a egg it works as well or better as if you catch it from a friend. I tell people all the time I never catch the flu which is probably wrong but I sure as heck don't get it like everyone else and thank god for that. I only get the minor body aches and pain a headache and a light fever for 2 or three days. I don't get the rest of that junk.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

KandCfamilyfarm said:


> I believe that and I will tell you why. we never get the flu shot and almost never catch the flu we also live a very secluded life and pay close attention to hygiene especially during flu season. So about 4 years back my son and wife went to the doctor to get his shots and they gave him the flu shot after we told them not to. I called the doctor and gave him all kinds of flax. my son became very sick 5 or 6 days later and test positive for the flu. when you catch the flu it take 24 hours before you get the first symptoms then 7 days until it is done with you. Now the flu can only live for 24 hours on a open surface. He was home schooled at the time and none of us had any outside interaction so I can only conclude that is were it came from. but until there are real scientific test done which they won't do that there is no real evidence. But how do we as the public know for a fact that the flu in that shot was properly killed. also how do we know that because it was incubated in a egg it works as well or better as if you catch it from a friend. I tell people all the time I never catch the flu which is probably wrong but I sure as heck don't get it like everyone else and thank god for that. I only get the minor body aches and pain a headache and a light fever for 2 or three days. I don't get the rest of that junk.


I don't know where to even start with this misinformation, so I'll just say that Google is your friend.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

KandCfamilyfarm said:


> I believe that and I will tell you why. we never get the flu shot and almost never catch the flu we also live a very secluded life and pay close attention to hygiene especially during flu season. So about 4 years back my son and wife went to the doctor to get his shots and they gave him the flu shot after we told them not to. I called the doctor and gave him all kinds of flax. my son became very sick 5 or 6 days later and test positive for the flu. when you catch the flu it take 24 hours before you get the first symptoms then 7 days until it is done with you. Now the flu can only live for 24 hours on a open surface. He was home schooled at the time and none of us had any outside interaction so I can only conclude that is were it came from. but until there are real scientific test done which they won't do that there is no real evidence. But how do we as the public know for a fact that the flu in that shot was properly killed. also how do we know that because it was incubated in a egg it works as well or better as if you catch it from a friend. I tell people all the time I never catch the flu which is probably wrong but I sure as heck don't get it like everyone else and thank god for that. I only get the minor body aches and pain a headache and a light fever for 2 or three days. I don't get the rest of that junk.


He likely caught it at the Dr.'s office. But, it wasn't from the vaccine itself. It is simple to kill a virus in a vaccine; and the QC is pretty stringent on them.


----------



## KandCfamilyfarm (Nov 4, 2017)

Irish Pixie said:


> Throwing up and diarrhea is a symptom of a norovirus, not influenza. Noroviruses are horrible nasty things, live for weeks on surfaces and mutate. You may want to die with a norovirus but it's usually short lived and non life threatening unless you're very old or very young.
> 
> I'd like to read your article on strain A.


ok brb its been a few days since I seen it her is one but I dont think its the one we are talking about


https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/advanced-reading-types-of-flu-viruses#1


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

KandCfamilyfarm said:


> ok brb its been a few days since I seen it her is one but I dont think its the one we are talking about
> 
> 
> https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/advanced-reading-types-of-flu-viruses#1


I know that the link I gave is not the one that you're referencing.


----------



## KandCfamilyfarm (Nov 4, 2017)

Irish Pixie said:


> Throwing up and diarrhea is a symptom of a norovirus, not influenza. Noroviruses are horrible nasty things, live for weeks on surfaces and mutate. You may want to die with a norovirus but it's usually short lived and non life threatening unless you're very old or very young.
> 
> I'd like to read your article on strain A.


now this site I am unsure of its reliability because this is the first time I have ever even heard of them. 
http://www.slate.com/culture/2018/02/watch-the-first-clip-from-was-andersons-isle-of-dogs-video.html


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

KandCfamilyfarm said:


> now this site I am unsure of its reliability because this is the first time I have ever even heard of them.
> http://www.slate.com/culture/2018/02/watch-the-first-clip-from-was-andersons-isle-of-dogs-video.html


The Slate article/video won't load, I get a 404 error.


----------



## KandCfamilyfarm (Nov 4, 2017)

Irish Pixie said:


> Google is your friend.


LOL I needed that. But everything comes from google now days. Google is the superpower of the information highway.


----------



## KandCfamilyfarm (Nov 4, 2017)

Irish Pixie said:


> The Slate article/video won't load, I get a 404 error.


no video you have to read the article. page loads fine for me IDK


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

KandCfamilyfarm said:


> no video you have to read the article. page loads fine for me IDK


*You Have Reached a 404 Page*

You’ve reached this page because what you were looking for does not exist or there’s been an error. Rest assured that we are looking into it. In the meantime, we have great content for you to choose from in the menu bar at the top right of the screen. You can also click the _*Slate *_logo there to return to the home page.

I even played around with the link...


----------



## KandCfamilyfarm (Nov 4, 2017)

Irish Pixie said:


> *You Have Reached a 404 Page*
> 
> You’ve reached this page because what you were looking for does not exist or there’s been an error. Rest assured that we are looking into it. In the meantime, we have great content for you to choose from in the menu bar at the top right of the screen. You can also click the _*Slate *_logo there to return to the home page.
> 
> I even played around with the link...


alright hold on I will copy and past


----------



## KandCfamilyfarm (Nov 4, 2017)

*www.homesteadingtoday.com -*
Access Denied

*Error code 15*
This request was blocked by the security rules

*2018-02-09 01:27:10 UTC*

Your IP98.143.0.108
Proxy IP45.60.31.8(ID 10438)
Incident ID: 438001720053409776-87493023628659396


----------



## KandCfamilyfarm (Nov 4, 2017)

homestead wont let me IDK what is going on


----------



## KandCfamilyfarm (Nov 4, 2017)

By Brian Palmer
Swine influenza has killed 149 people in Mexico so far and infected many more worldwide. So how many pigs have died in the outbreak?

No more than usual. The mutation that permitted swine influenza to jump from pigs to people has nothing to do with the virulence or incidence of the disease among swine. So far, there have been no reports of an uptick in pig mortality.

If anything, pigs are safer than people. The mortality rate for swine influenza among swine is somewhere between 1 percent and 3 percent, far lower than the 9 percent mortality rate among people that has been reported in Mexico. When flu viruses jump in the other direction—from human to pig—they've tended to be more deadly for the animals. Many researchers believe humans transmitted the infamous 1918 influenza strain to pigs, causing a deadly epidemic among swine in the 1930s.
Just like people, pigs contract the flu via the transfer of bodily fluids—mostly from the sneezes or coughs of other pigs. They begin to exhibit symptoms within 24 hours, including fever, coughing, discharge from the eyes and nose, and sneezing. Some swine will refuse to eat or show signs of pig depression, such as lethargy, hanging their heads, or declining to socialize with other swine. (Once a pig has been diagnosed with the flu, it's placed in isolation.) Most pigs recover from the swine flu in five to seven days with rest and proper hydration.


----------



## KandCfamilyfarm (Nov 4, 2017)

The site is too loaded down with ads thats all I could cut and past


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't know where to even start with this misinformation, so I'll just say that Google is your friend.


So you don't believe her first hand experience?


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Again, a doctor told me about the sloughing off of flu viruses.

Is it a fact, who knows. It just makes sense to me. 

It just me, but I always wonder who paid for the research - really paid for it. If the 'facts' put out are the truth and the whole truth. If there might not be plenty of opposing research that never makes it to the public.

Does anyone really think if research showed the flu vaccine was useless - or worse - that the pharmaceutical companies/our government would let it out?

Personally, I go with staying away from people who have had the vaccine - or who have the flu. It won't cost me anything, so why not. So far, so good, this year.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Trixie said:


> Again, a doctor told me about the sloughing off of flu viruses.
> 
> Is it a fact, who knows. It just makes sense to me.
> 
> ...


It's obvious that not all doctors understand how vaccines work, or perhaps it's easier to say not all physicians graduate at the top of their class? Whatever, it's all a conspiracy theory anyway, right?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

There's a lot that doctors don't understand, biology and it's interrelationships and quirks are too big a mystery for any one person.
I'm sure at the time, people thought Louis Pasteur was a quack.

Getting someone to say the words, "I don't know, I could be wrong" is another one of life's challenges.
Caveat Emptor.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> There's a lot that doctors don't understand, biology and it's interrelationships and quirks are too big a mystery for any one person.
> Getting someone to say the words, "I don't know, I could be wrong" is another one of life's challenges.
> Caveat Emptor.


Irony?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Irony?


I was gonna go with "Ignorance or Apathy."
Either way, don't know or don't care.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Absolutely, I'd say a lot of doctors don't know how vaccines work. A lot don't know how many or most of the medications they give out actually work.

Doctors, by and large, don't seem to be able or care to evaluate individuals when giving vaccines or medications. 

Doctors, by and large, don't seem to know or care much about nutrition and the effect it has on bodies and diseases.

As to the CDC, another government agency I believe is just an arm of the corporations and government.

Think about it -
They are pushing all manner of vaccines and warning about the dangers of diseases, etc. Have they spoke on the danger of allowing in millions of people from all over the world, depressed parts of the world, carrying diseases which we Americans have never encountered?

If the CDC was an organization that actually worked to prevent disease, they would have come out and suggested, loudly, that all immigrants (legal and illegal), all refugees, all green card workers, etc., be quarantined and tested before being allowed into the general population.

People carry diseases, they spread diseases. Wouldn't a sensible way to prevent them to keep carriers from being free to enter and go anywhere in the country they want?

Of course not, not much profit in that.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Trixie said:


> Absolutely, I'd say a lot of doctors don't know how vaccines work. A lot don't know how many or most of the medications they give out actually work.
> 
> Doctors, by and large, don't seem to be able or care to evaluate individuals when giving vaccines or medications.
> 
> ...


I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I do know that vaccines have saved millions of lives... and that's what matters to me.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Trixie said:


> Absolutely, I'd say a lot of doctors don't know how vaccines work. A lot don't know how many or most of the medications they give out actually work.
> 
> Doctors, by and large, don't seem to be able or care to evaluate individuals when giving vaccines or medications.
> 
> ...



Maybe that is why the CDC has overseas operations. To stop diseases "over there". Ooops cutting that funding.

I am curious how you would quarantine illegal immigrants?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Trixie said:


> Absolutely, I'd say a lot of doctors don't know how vaccines work. A lot don't know how many or most of the medications they give out actually work.
> 
> Doctors, by and large, don't seem to be able or care to evaluate individuals when giving vaccines or medications.
> 
> ...


Almost 16M international travelers entered the US last year. How do you expect to keep people like this who, by the way, spend a good deal of money from traveling here and moving about freely? 

“If you made heavy use of your passport in 2016, you’re not alone. According to recent stats from the National Travel and Tourism Office, the past year saw an increase of more than 8 percent in the number of American citizens jetting off to international destinations. In 2016, a total of 66,960,943 U.S. citizens traveled outside the country, compared to the 61,783,913 who did the previous year. And just where were they going?”

https://thepointsguy.com/2017/01/record-number-of-americans-traveled-abroad-2016/

And how about these folks. How do you keep them from bringing disease back with them?


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> Almost 16M international travelers entered the US last year. How do you expect to keep people like this who, by the way, spend a good deal of money from traveling here and moving about freely?
> 
> “If you made heavy use of your passport in 2016, you’re not alone. According to recent stats from the National Travel and Tourism Office, the past year saw an increase of more than 8 percent in the number of American citizens jetting off to international destinations. In 2016, a total of 66,960,943 U.S. citizens traveled outside the country, compared to the 61,783,913 who did the previous year. And just where were they going?”
> 
> ...



I think the insinuation was just let white people in. They don't carry diseases.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

keenataz said:


> I think the insinuation was just let white people in. They don't carry diseases.


I :heart: you too, keenataz. You hit that sucker right square on the head.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

keenataz said:


> I think the insinuation was just let white people in. They don't carry diseases.


I guess if your looking for something to get offended over, you can go there. FYI, I don't agree with Trixie's post about the CDC either. How you can post a response like that to it, in good conscience, is beyond me though.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

keenataz said:


> I think the insinuation was just let white people in. They don't carry diseases.


You mean it wasn’t really about preventing disease? Who knew?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

keenataz said:


> I think the insinuation was just let white people in. They don't carry diseases.


I think there was a clear thought stated, no insinuation required.


> carrying diseases which we Americans have never encountered?


But I guess it's more fun to take a cheap shot than it is to reflect on the validity of someone else's opinions.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I think there was a clear thought stated, no insinuation required.
> 
> 
> But I guess it's more fun to take a cheap shot than it is to reflect on the validity of someone else's opinions.


I think he reflected quite clearly what he thought of that particular opinion.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

keenataz said:


> I think the insinuation was just let white people in. They don't carry diseases.


I see your tongue planted firmly in your cheek. 
I’m always amazed by the brazenness of people who sit on this continent and gripe about immigrants bringing in disease to us.
I wonder what all of the poor Native Americans would say who contracted smallPox from white settlers and explorers.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> I think there was a clear thought stated, no insinuation required.
> 
> 
> But I guess it's more fun to take a cheap shot than it is to reflect on the validity of someone else's opinions.


I read it several times and can't come up how an accusation of racism could be applied.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Hiro said:


> I guess if your looking for something to get offended over, you can go there. FYI, I don't agree with Trixie's post about the CDC either. How you can post a response like that to it, in good conscience, is beyond me though.


I don't see if as offended, offensive or anything except not thought through. There are millions more travelers to the US yearly (bringing disease, money, etc.) than illegal AND legal immigrants. Betcha a lot of them are white.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't see if as offended, offensive or anything except not thought through. There are millions more travelers to the US yearly (bringing disease, money, etc.) than illegal immigrants. Betcha a lot of them are white.


Look at good old Mary Mallon who immigrated from Ireland.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

mmoetc said:


> You mean it wasn’t really about preventing disease? Who knew?


So a post about the CDC and immigration wasn't about preventing disease in a thread about what? It was about skin color.....who knew?


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Generally these diseases don’t come from white European countries. They generally come from Asia. Generally. That where my comment is from. 

Again generally


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Hiro said:


> So a post about the CDC and immigration wasn't about preventing disease in a thread about what? It was about skin color.....who knew?


Read this post again, please.



Trixie said:


> Absolutely, I'd say a lot of doctors don't know how vaccines work. A lot don't know how many or most of the medications they give out actually work.
> 
> Doctors, by and large, don't seem to be able or care to evaluate individuals when giving vaccines or medications.
> 
> ...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Lisa in WA said:


> Look at good old Mary Mallon who immigrated from Ireland.


Typhoid Mary.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Hiro said:


> So a post about the CDC and immigration wasn't about preventing disease in a thread about what? It was about skin color.....who knew?


Did I mention skin color? The poster has a history of anti immigration sentiment in her postings. This, to me, seemed to be more of the same rather than focusing on the reality of how many people enter and exit the US from foreign lands each and every day. Foreign lands where they contact millions of other people any of whom could carry any variety of infectious disease. Quarantine, as she spoke of, isn’t a realistic solution.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Irish Pixie said:


> Read this post again, please.


I read it before I posted a response. You reread Keenataz post and consider your "heart" of it. There is something amiss to me anyway.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> I think he reflected quite clearly what he thought of that particular opinion.


No doubt.
Perhaps a moment or two longer would have been better.......



Irish Pixie said:


> I don't see if as offended, offensive or *anything except not thought through. *
> 
> There are *millions more travelers to the US yearly (bringing disease, money, etc.) than illegal immigrants.* Betcha a lot of them are white.





> Think about it -
> They are pushing all manner of vaccines and warning about the dangers of diseases, etc. Have they spoke on the danger of *allowing in millions of people from all over the world*, depressed parts of the world, carrying diseases which we Americans have never encountered?
> 
> If the CDC was an organization that actually worked to prevent disease, they would have come out and suggested, loudly, that* all immigrants (legal and illegal), *all refugees, all green card workers, etc., be quarantined and tested before being allowed into the general population.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Hiro said:


> I read it before I posted a response. You reread Keenataz post and consider your "heart" of it. There is something amiss to me anyway.


No, I'm pretty sure I have the gist of both what Trixie and keenataz have said, and I totally agree with him that she's using race/color.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> No doubt.
> Perhaps a moment or two longer would have been better.......


Let’s deal with reality. It’s hard to quarantine people who have entered the country illegally. They don’t exactly check in. The other groups- legal immigrants, green card holders, and refugees-total a few million at best. That leaves us with etc. The 16M foreign visitors who , I’m guessing, won’t be thrilled with a two week quarantine on their way to Disneyworld. Or the 65M Americans who won’t be thrilled to sit in isolation for a week or two after their weekend in Cabo. 

Sometimes it doesn’t take that long to see if an idea is well thought out or, if one knows the history of the poster, to see what it might really deal with.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

CDC is still predicting only about 10% of US population will get the flu. Just looking at the chart, it looks like we won't know for several weeks if this season is really as bad as they keep telling us it is. Looks like 2014/2015 was much worse int terms of pediatric deaths.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Let’s deal with reality. It’s hard to quarantine people who have entered the country illegally. They don’t exactly check in. The other groups- legal immigrants, green card holders, and refugees-total a few million at best. That leaves us with etc. The 16M foreign visitors who , I’m guessing, won’t be thrilled with a two week quarantine on their way to Disneyworld. Or the 65M Americans who won’t be thrilled to sit in isolation for a week or two after their weekend in Cabo.
> 
> Sometimes it doesn’t take that long to see if an idea is well thought out or, if one knows the history of the poster, to see what it might really deal with.


Reality?
Sure.
You thought about what the poster said, found some practical flaws and pointed them out.
Shows thoughtful reflection and your logic is sound and persuasive.

But what was the "reality" of a few minutes ago?



keenataz said:


> I think the insinuation was just let white people in. They don't carry diseases.





mmoetc said:


> You mean it wasn’t really about preventing disease? Who knew?


It's easy enough to poke holes in a debate topic with some logic, but if you can do THAT, why resort to playing the race card.
Is it just because it's fun to do?
Or is it because it usually (but not always) works?


----------



## krackin (Nov 2, 2014)

no really said:


> Everyone in the office got the shot, most of us in the 30 to 40 age range. Right now we are down about 50% on manpower. Hoping I miss getting it!!!!


Best to ya sunshine!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Reality?
> Sure.
> You thought about what the poster said, found some practical flaws and pointed them out.
> Shows thoughtful reflection and your logic is sound and persuasive.
> ...


And I’ve explained that part of my postings already. I didn’t play the race card. I commented on yet another of what seemed to me to be another anti immigration post by the member in question. Anti-immigration sentiment that often appears to be focused in a particular direction. The card has been in play for quite a while.


----------



## krackin (Nov 2, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's obvious that not all doctors understand how vaccines work, or perhaps it's easier to say not all physicians graduate at the top of their class? Whatever, it's all a conspiracy theory anyway, right?


Back in the '50's we wiped out the dreaded horrid plagues.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> And I’ve explained that part of my postings already. I didn’t play the race card. I commented on yet another of what seemed to me to be another anti immigration post by the member in question. Anti-immigration sentiment that often appears to be focused in a particular direction. The card has been in play for quite a while.


Nope, you didn't, but the two I quoted in my original reply did...........


keenataz said:


> I think the insinuation was just let white people in. They don't carry diseases.





Irish Pixie said:


> No, I'm pretty sure I have the gist of both what Trixie and keenataz have said, and I totally agree with him that she's using race/color.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Nope, you didn't, but the two I quoted in my original reply did...........


And they didn’t play the race card. As I said, it was played long before.


----------



## krackin (Nov 2, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> And they didn’t play the race card. As I said, it was played long before.


Your gals are going to like me better, just is.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Oh, Good gracious - give me a break!!!!!!!1


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> And they didn’t play the race card. As I said, it was played long before.


Aaahhh.........I see.
So IOW, as long as the person making the accusation of racism says it is, that's all that counts.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Race Card

I still prefer the honest argument.
At least that way *both* sides don't end up dirty.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Aaahhh.........I see.
> So IOW, as long as the person making the accusation of racism says it is, that's all that counts.
> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Race Card
> 
> ...


When everything circles back to immigration and that circling most often takes us to a specific border race is, imho, part of the issue being discussed. The circle didn’t start with those you point at. Sometimes pointing out that race is a factor is a red herring. Sometimes it’s a fact. Not acknowledging that fact, or at least the possibility of it, makes you just as dishonest as those you’d point at.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> When everything circles back to immigration and that circling most often takes us to a specific border race is, imho, part of the issue being discussed. The circle didn’t start with those you point at. Sometimes pointing out that race is a factor is a red herring. Sometimes it’s a fact. Not acknowledging that fact, or at least the possibility of it, makes you just as dishonest as those you’d point at.


Well, maybe you can point out where it DID start, so I can see it too?
Because it sure wasn't in the post that I saw quoted..........


Trixie said:


> Absolutely, I'd say a lot of doctors don't know how vaccines work. A lot don't know how many or most of the medications they give out actually work.
> 
> Doctors, by and large, don't seem to be able or care to evaluate individuals when giving vaccines or medications.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> When everything circles back to immigration and that circling most often takes us to a specific border race is, imho, part of the issue being discussed. The circle didn’t start with those you point at. Sometimes pointing out that race is a factor is a red herring. Sometimes it’s a fact. Not acknowledging that fact, or at least the possibility of it, makes you just as dishonest as those you’d point at.


Just because someone crosses the border illegally from Mexico into the U.S. does not at all mean they are Mexican (despite what the rest of the non-border-living population is told or assumes). It's just our leakiest and easiest point of entry, and people enter into the U.S. along that leaky border from all over the world - from first world and third world countries alike. If one assumes a certain racial group is being targeted when the U.S./Mexico border problems are mentioned, maybe one needs to look at one's own assumptions, racial and otherwise. We have plenty of illegal immigrants from everywhere, here. 

We in San Diego get some old-timey outbreaks that have pretty much been eradicated in the rest of the country fairly regularly. If it were just because we are a vacation destination, Florida, New York, Hawaii, oh, lots of other nice places in the U.S. would be getting them regularly too. When's the last time you had a leprosy or tuberculosis scare at your kids' school? Just wondering.

I don't mean to derail the flu discussion. I just can't stand the racism angle that gets brought into every discussion about anything having to do with border issues. By the way, being Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race, since we constantly need to go there. And many of us supposed "racists" who live along the border are either related to or carry the blood we're so supposedly racist against, so this whole name calling thing is just tired argument, and dare I say it, lazy.

*edit - mmoetc, this isn't directed at you personally, just didn't feel like quoting all of the people pointing racist fingers, and yours was the last post so was quoted. Not accusing you in particular of anything, this is more of a blanket venting.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Mish said:


> Just because someone crosses the border illegally from Mexico into the U.S. does not at all mean they are Mexican (despite what the rest of the non-border-living population is told or assumes). It's just our leakiest and easiest point of entry, and people enter into the U.S. along that leaky border from all over the world - from first world and third world countries alike. If one assumes a certain racial group is being targeted when the U.S./Mexico border problems are mentioned, maybe one needs to look at one's own assumptions, racial and otherwise. We have plenty of illegal immigrants from everywhere, here.
> 
> *We in San Diego get some old-timey outbreaks that have pretty much been eradicated in the rest of the country fairly regularly. If it were just because we are a vacation destination, Florida, New York, Hawaii, oh, lots of other nice places in the U.S. would be getting them regularly too. When's the last time you had a leprosy or tuberculosis scare at your kids' school? Just wondering.*
> 
> ...


According to the CDC, California, New York, Florida, and Hawaii do have more TB than other states. 

"I*ncidence rates decreased for all racial and ethnic groups.*
Minority populations continue to disproportionately bear the burden of TB disease. The incidence rates for racial/ethnic groups in 2016 were:


American Indians or Alaska Natives: 4.7 TB cases per 100,000 persons
Asians: 18.0 TB cases per 100,000 persons
Blacks or African Americans: 4.9 TB cases per 100,000 persons
Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders: 13.9 TB cases per 100,000 persons
Hispanics or Latinos: 4.5 TB cases per 100,000 persons
Whites: 0.6 TB cases per 100,000 persons
Note: for this report, persons identified as white, black, Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native, native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, or of multiple races are all non-Hispanic. Persons identified as Hispanic may be of any race."

Here's a link: https://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/statistics/tbtrends.htm


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Mish said:


> Just because someone crosses the border illegally from Mexico into the U.S. does not at all mean they are Mexican (despite what the rest of the non-border-living population is told or assumes). It's just our leakiest and easiest point of entry, and people enter into the U.S. along that leaky border from all over the world - from first world and third world countries alike. If one assumes a certain racial group is being targeted when the U.S./Mexico border problems are mentioned, maybe one needs to look at one's own assumptions, racial and otherwise. We have plenty of illegal immigrants from everywhere, here.
> 
> We in San Diego get some old-timey outbreaks that have pretty much been eradicated in the rest of the country fairly regularly. If it were just because we are a vacation destination, Florida, New York, Hawaii, oh, lots of other nice places in the U.S. would be getting them regularly too. When's the last time you had a leprosy or tuberculosis scare at your kids' school? Just wondering.
> 
> ...


Point away. I’m a big boy and if I think you’ve stepped over the line I’ll let you know. You haven’t. 

I know that Mexican isn’t a race. I also know, from having read previous posts, that when certain posters speak of illegal immigrants their focus is on the southern border where Mexicans, Guatamalans, Salvadorans, Costa Rican’s, Hondurans and others often get lumped together. I’ll continue to assert that based on the record of previous posts that some bias towards immigrants from south of the border is present in the post everyone’s talking about.

That being said I also pointed out why the post calling for quarantine was flawed. If the poster in question or anyone else wishes to discuss or defend those flaws I’m open to such a discussion.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

And, as for leprosy, I’ve never worried.

“It is not known exactly how Hansen’s disease spreads between people. Scientists currently think it may happen when a person with Hansen’s disease coughs or sneezes, and a healthy person breathes in the droplets containing the bacteria. Prolonged, close contact with someone with untreated leprosy over many months is needed to catch the disease.

You cannot get leprosy from a casual contact with a person who has Hansen’s disease like:


Shaking hands or hugging
Sitting next to each other on the bus
Sitting together at a meal
Hansen’s disease is also not passed on from a mother to her unborn baby during pregnancy and it is also not spread through sexual contact.”

https://www.cdc.gov/leprosy/transmission/index.html

And given the fact that the disease may take up to seven years to become symptomatic quarantine would be ineffective in this case, also.

But I’ll never play with an armadillo.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Well, maybe you can point out where it DID start, so I can see it too?
> Because it sure wasn't in the post that I saw quoted..........


And I didn’t say it did start there, did I? I’ve pointed out repeatedly that my reading of the post was based on the history of postings by that member. Just as this post is based on the history of your postings from which I know you’ll not address what I’m saying or admit the possibility you might be in error but continue to argue for arguments sake.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

mmoetc said:


> When everything circles back to immigration and that circling most often takes us to a specific border race is, ...


You've mentioned this several times. Immigration isn't what I believe is being referred to repeatedly so much as illegal aliens.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

GTX63 said:


> You've mentioned this several times. Immigration isn't what I believe is being referred to repeatedly so much as illegal aliens.


Which only proves my points. That it wasn’t just about disease prevention and that quarantines as described would be ineffective and overly disruptive.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

keenataz said:


> Maybe that is why the CDC has overseas operations. To stop diseases "over there". Ooops cutting that funding.
> 
> I am curious how you would quarantine illegal immigrants?


Build the wall and you wouldn't have to worry about them. The legals can be checked and quarantined if necessary just like they were in the early 1900's


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> And I didn’t say it did start there, did I? I’ve pointed out repeatedly that my reading of the post was based on the history of postings by that member. Just as this post is based on the history of your postings from which I know you’ll not address what I’m saying or admit the possibility you might be in error but continue to argue for arguments sake.


NO, YOU DIDN'T...........and I've asked you now twice to show me "where"?
Now, if you wanna play the same stupid game that another member plays where she refuses to answer direct simple questions, then go play by yourself.

IOW, if you know of a post by Trixie where she made a racist comment on immigration, just tell me for Pete's sake and stop playin' games.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mnn2501 said:


> Build the wall and you wouldn't have to worry about them. The legals can be checked and quarantined if necessary just like they were in the early 1900's


Yeah, I was gonna say that earlier, but it was another case of a simple answer no one wants to hear.

The post by Trixie that started this race card playing (in THIS thread) concluded another answer to WHY they don't want the wall and slower immigration and travel visas.
One word answer.
Money.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

You don't think Mexican's have ladders or shovels ? The wall is such a stupid idea


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Why buy stuff from China when we could prop up the North American economy if the money never left our shores. Build stuff in Mexico instead so their economy is better so people won't feel the need to flee. A strong North America is a good thing.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> NO, YOU DIDN'T...........and I've asked you now twice to show me "where"?
> Now, if you wanna play the same stupid game that another member plays where she refuses to answer direct simple questions, then go play by yourself.
> 
> IOW, if you know of a post by Trixie where she made a racist comment on immigration, just tell me for Pete's sake and stop playin' games.


Not a game. What I’ve repeatedly said is that the poster has a history of bringing many posts back around to illegal immigration and that the focus of those posts has centered around our southern border. The post in question, when read in the context of her previous posts (and you’re free to search her posting history and read each and every one and decide for yourself) , imho continues in that vein and addresses none of the problems, ie disease prevention, that she claims to adress but is just another thinly veiled comment on immigrants crossing our southern border. 

It’s fun that you’ll reference another member and her history of posting to try to make a point in a thread where that’s exactly what I’m doing. As I said, you can focus on one post where you don’t see something or you can do the homework to find and read other posts by the member in question and draw your own opinion. Remember, I’ve continually expressed that my thoughts about what the poster said were my opinion based on my reading of this and other posts. You’re free to have a different opinion and base it on whatever limited information makes you happy.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Yeah, I was gonna say that earlier, but it was another case of a simple answer no one wants to hear.
> 
> The post by Trixie that started this race card playing (in THIS thread) concluded another answer to WHY they don't want the wall and slower immigration and travel visas.
> One word answer.
> Money.


Sometimes simple answers work. Sometimes they’re just simple.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Not a game. What I’ve repeatedly said is that the poster has a history of bringing many posts back around to illegal immigration and that the focus of those posts has centered around our southern border. The post in question, when read in the context of her previous posts (and you’re free to search her posting history and read each and every one and decide for yourself) , imho continues in that vein and addresses none of the problems, ie disease prevention, that she claims to adress but is just another thinly veiled comment on immigrants crossing our southern border.
> 
> It’s fun that you’ll reference another member and her history of posting to try to make a point in a thread where that’s exactly what I’m doing. As I said, you can focus on one post where you don’t see something or you can do the homework to find and read other posts by the member in question and draw your own opinion. Remember, I’ve continually expressed that my thoughts about what the poster said were my opinion based on my reading of this and other posts. You’re free to have a different opinion and base it on whatever limited information makes you happy.


Her posts have a history of centering around the southern border because that is where our borders are extremely porous. She lives there (as do I, in a different state very far away because that border is huge) and sees the many and varied detrimental effects on a daily basis - including diseases spreading from people who were ill or children who were never vaccinated being placed into over-crowded school systems, or into local health care systems that are collapsing under the weight of the sheer amount of people on it who can't/won't pay for it. She brings it up constantly because it all ties together and causes an enormous burden on the system in every way people can cause a burden on the system. She sees it or lives it every day, as do I. It has everything to do with people who aren't here legally being here and causing said burdens, and has nothing to do with race. 

I could be misremembering from another post, but it seems her husband's family may be of one of those races that it's implied she hates (please correct me if I'm wrong). My ex-husband's father is Mexican, from Mexico, but he came here the right way. My daughter carries Mexican blood. I have family living in Mexico, aunts, uncles, cousins. Most people who live within driving distance of the southern border do. It's not about race, trust me, it's about watching our systems collapsing under the weight of the people using them, to the point that it's actively hurting people who are supposed to be able to use them and can't. It just hasn't come to most people's back yards yet, and it's easy to imply racism instead of thinking about the entire picture, or what that person might be seeing that you aren't. 

TLDR: She mentions it a lot because it affects her a lot. That's not racism.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

The wife of a very good friend of mine is Mexican. She came here the legal way from Monterey Mexico, and it took years....before she became a proud American citizen. But she did it the right way. She now works as an interpreter for a state agency where they live now. She has no sympathy nor admiration for the illegal aliens coming into the US. It puts her in a bad position she doesn't choose to be in.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Mish said:


> Her posts have a history of centering around the southern border because that is where our borders are extremely porous. She lives there (as do I, in a different state very far away because that border is huge) and sees the many and varied detrimental effects on a daily basis - including diseases spreading from people who were ill or children who were never vaccinated being placed into over-crowded school systems, or into local health care systems that are collapsing under the weight of the sheer amount of people on it who can't/won't pay for it. She brings it up constantly because it all ties together and causes an enormous burden on the system in every way people can cause a burden on the system. She sees it or lives it every day, as do I. It has everything to do with people who aren't here legally being here and causing said burdens, and has nothing to do with race.
> 
> I could be misremembering from another post, but it seems her husband's family may be of one of those races that it's implied she hates (please correct me if I'm wrong). My ex-husband's father is Mexican, from Mexico, but he came here the right way. My daughter carries Mexican blood. I have family living in Mexico, aunts, uncles, cousins. Most people who live within driving distance of the southern border do. It's not about race, trust me, it's about watching our systems collapsing under the weight of the people using them, to the point that it's actively hurting people who are supposed to be able to use them and can't. It just hasn't come to most people's back yards yet, and it's easy to imply racism instead of thinking about the entire picture, or what that person might be seeing that you aren't.
> 
> TLDR: She mentions it a lot because it affects her a lot. That's not racism.


Thanks for reinforcing, again, what I’ve repeatedly said about her posts. Everything seems to circle back to the southern border and the people who cross there. I understand that that is where she lives and that is what she sees but issues like disease control are much larger than that yet she brings most issues affecting the entire country right back to her own little world. 

Our systems are failing because we don’t have a rational system of dealing with people already here, dealing with those who want to come here and addressing the needs of those who would like them here. Walls and quarantines are simple solutions but are largely ineffective and unworkable. Our country does have some real problems but we need real solutions to them. Trust me, I’d rather spend the time I’ve wasted actually discussing them than her but even she doesn’t seem to wish to do that.

Speaking of people who live it, here’s one:

“Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas) is criticizing President Trump's push to build a wall on the border with Mexico.

"Building a wall is the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border," Hurd said in a statement late Wednesday, according to The Washington Post.

"Each section of the border faces unique geographical, cultural, and technological challenges that would be best addressed with a flexible, sector-by-sector approach that empowers the agents on the ground with the resources they need."”

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill....most-expensive-and-least-effective-way-to?amp


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

mmoetc said:


> Our systems are failing because we don’t have a rational system of dealing with people already here, dealing with those who want to come here and addressing the needs of those who would like them here. Walls and quarantines are simple solutions but are largely ineffective and unworkable. Our country does have some real problems but we need real solutions to them. Trust me, I’d rather spend the time I’ve wasted actually discussing them than her but even she doesn’t seem to wish to do that.


You don't bail water from a boat until you fix the leak.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

GTX63 said:


> You don't bail water from a boat until you fix the leak.


If you don’t start bailing you may not make it to shore to fix that leak. And if you don’t then fix the underlying problems rather than putting on a cosmetic patch you’ll just be bailing and repairing forever.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for reinforcing, again, what I’ve repeatedly said about her posts. Everything seems to circle back to the southern border and the people who cross there. I understand that that is where she lives and that is what she sees but issues like disease control are much larger than that yet she brings most issues affecting the entire country right back to her own little world.
> 
> Our systems are failing because we don’t have a rational system of dealing with people already here, dealing with those who want to come here and addressing the needs of those who would like them here. Walls and quarantines are simple solutions but are largely ineffective and unworkable. Our country does have some real problems but we need real solutions to them. Trust me, I’d rather spend the time I’ve wasted actually discussing them than her but even she doesn’t seem to wish to do that.
> 
> ...


I feel like my point is being missed that her voicing opinions based on her experiences in no way makes her a racist, which was the implication I was arguing against. It's not racist to be concerned about the issues she voices, especially when her experience is first hand, not from news reports or statistics that may or may not be biased based on the opinions/end goals of those reporting. Yes, the disease issue is much larger than just illegal immigration-related in YOUR area. In her area, and mine, it is a rather large factor. I can give you examples, but they will just be knocked down as anecdotes from my own little world because they don't directly affect you (except through the taxes you pay). Yet.

I have semi-agreement on your statement about lack of rational systems. Semi only because we DO have rational systems to deal with people already here, the problem is that they are not enforced. Enforcement of existing laws would solve the problem, but we're more interested in how solving those problems would make us "feel" than the huge practical problems not enforcing them cause.

If it's illegal for illegal immigrants to work here, for companies to hire them, for them to collect social program benefits, and it is ENFORCED, they will go home. Why would they stay? If we continue to be wishy washy, not enforce our laws and give them financial benefits just for being here, why would they leave? We continue to cause our own problems, and people in other parts of the country ignore the canaries in the coal mine or just call them racist and ignore what they have to contribute.

As far as the wall - there are a lot of red herrings thrown around by people with another agenda. People on the border know that one long wall is impractical and useless, this is only shocking news maybe to people who don't live here. But we also know that having nothing to stop people from running across the border isn't the answer either. A sector-by-sector approach is the best, in complete agreement with Representative Hurd on that one. But where they are practicable, walls work. 





 

Doing nothing and feeling sorry for people who are taking advantage of our system does not, and amnesty only produces more of the same. Absolutely zero percent of that has anything to do with race, which was the main reason I stepped in in the first place.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

mnn2501 said:


> Build the wall and you wouldn't have to worry about them. The legals can be checked and quarantined if necessary just like they were in the early 1900's


And the majority who come in legally and just stay?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

keenataz said:


> And the majority who come in legally and just stay?


Yet again, enforce existing laws and the problem corrects itself.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Mish said:


> I feel like my point is being missed that her voicing opinions based on her experiences in no way makes her a racist, which was the implication I was arguing against. It's not racist to be concerned about the issues she voices, especially when her experience is first hand, not from news reports or statistics that may or may not be biased based on the opinions/end goals of those reporting. Yes, the disease issue is much larger than just illegal immigration-related in YOUR area. In her area, and mine, it is a rather large factor. I can give you examples, but they will just be knocked down as anecdotes from my own little world because they don't directly affect you (except through the taxes you pay). Yet.
> 
> I have semi-agreement on your statement about lack of rational systems. Semi only because we DO have rational systems to deal with people already here, the problem is that they are not enforced. Enforcement of existing laws would solve the problem, but we're more interested in how solving those problems would make us "feel" than the huge practical problems not enforcing them cause.
> 
> ...


And I’ve never said she was a racist. Do I have the opinion her posts are centered on a certain segment of humanity to the exclusion of many other things - yes. I feel like I’ve said enough on that issue and if she wishes to come forth and defend her words or others wish to come forth and defend theirs they’re more than welcome to. 

Now I’ll address your other points. Just because we have laws doesn’t make them rational. Rational laws would set up a true, workable guest worker program that allows businesses to employ the people who are working illegally in a legal manner. It would allow those people working illegally to step out of the shadows and be protected by the same laws as everyone else and eliminate abuses that do suppress some wages and compromise worker safety. And, yes, it should contain strict enforcement measures that do punish those who can’t follow the rules.

It appears we agree on most aspects of border security as it regards the wall. I do wish you wouldn’t set it up as if any who oppose “the wall” see no need for any form of border security. Most don’t see it as an either or scenario but how things can be realistically done.

And the same goes for your last paragraph. Set up and knock down whatever strawmen you wish.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

keenataz said:


> And the majority who come in legally and just stay?


it was right in my post: The legals can be checked and quarantined if necessary just like they were in the early 1900's


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Not a game. What I’ve repeatedly said is that the poster has a history of bringing many posts back around to illegal immigration and that the focus of those posts has centered around our southern border. The post in question, when read in the context of her previous posts (and you’re free to search her posting history and read each and every one and decide for yourself) , imho continues in that vein and addresses none of the problems, i.e. disease prevention, that she claims to adress but is just another thinly veiled comment on immigrants crossing our southern border.


Yeah, I got that when you said it, I'm just not aware of where you saw it, so I asked.
It's ok and I can take your word for it, but frankly that particular post made a point of emphasizing exactly the opposite of that stance - twice. (*All* immigrants and travelers from "all over the world")
So I guess based upon someone's history, even if they make a point of NOT repeating a previous bias, they must be judged the same way forever.
That explains why I saw something that others didn't and vice versa.
I was taking that post, in that moment just as it was stated.





> It’s fun that you’ll reference another member and her history of posting to try to make a point in a thread where that’s exactly what I’m doing. As I said, you can focus on one post where you don’t see something or you can do the homework to find and read other posts by the member in question and draw your own opinion. Remember, I’ve continually expressed that my thoughts about what the poster said were my opinion based on my reading of this and other posts. You’re free to have a different opinion and base it on whatever limited information makes you happy.



True, but if you'd asked me to show you an example, I could and would have done it on the possibility that you weren't aware of what I was talking about.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Now I’ll address your other points. Just because we have laws doesn’t make them rational. Rational laws would set up a true, workable guest worker program that allows businesses to employ the people who are working illegally in a legal manner. It would allow those people working illegally to step out of the shadows and be protected by the same laws as everyone else and eliminate abuses that do suppress some wages and compromise worker safety. And, yes, it should contain strict enforcement measures that do punish those who can’t follow the rules.


I'll give you that I am not up to date on our guest worker program, but we used to have one that worked (my daughter's grandfather was one of them, a legal migrant worker, before he went through all of the steps to become a citizen). I'm not sure what happened to that, if anything. We also have a work visa program for people with different skill sets (both my mother and my son have and do work with people on those visas in their white collar jobs).

It feels like you are assuming that there is no one else to do those jobs besides illegal workers. This is getting into a whole different debate, and one I've repeated many times, but the reason there are "jobs Americans won't do" is because illegal labor drives down wages and gets rid of a lot of bureaucracy that employers hate anyway. It's too easy for employers to hire someone illegal to work for slave wages, treat them any way they want because they can't/won't call OSHA or file for workman's comp, and employers don't have to provide healthcare or file all that pesky paperwork and pay taxes that the government requires for legal workers. There are a LOT of places around here that won't even look twice at hiring legal workers, it's too expensive, time consuming and makes them accountable in a lot more ways than just hiring someone off the books. Since we won't enforce laws against hiring illegal workers, the vicious circle continues. If there is a labor shortage once laws are enforced (and I highly doubt there would be), then yes, expand outside work programs. But the assumption that we NEED these illegal workers is just that, an assumption driven by the factors that I just mentioned. 

We have most everything in place, and I'll argue that it is rational. What is needed is enforcement, and tweaking as necessity arises - that we don't do that is the irrational part. We also need to remove all of the other magnets and secure the borders at the same time.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

mnn2501 said:


> it was right in my post: The legals can be checked and quarantined if necessary just like they were in the early 1900's


I’m curious. Say I want to hop over the border for a Seahawks game. I would have to spend time in quarantine? Or when a jet load of German tourists flies into Montana, they’ll be quarantined. 

Do you really see that working?


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> And I’ve never said she was a racist. Do I have the opinion her posts are centered on a certain segment of humanity to the exclusion of many other things - yes. I feel like I’ve said enough on that issue and if she wishes to come forth and defend her words or others wish to come forth and defend theirs they’re more than welcome to.
> 
> Now I’ll address your other points. Just because we have laws doesn’t make them rational. Rational laws would set up a true, workable guest worker program that allows businesses to employ the people who are working illegally in a legal manner. It would allow those people working illegally to step out of the shadows and be protected by the same laws as everyone else and eliminate abuses that do suppress some wages and compromise worker safety. And, yes, it should contain strict enforcement measures that do punish those who can’t follow the rules.
> 
> ...



I guess I should respond. My response was to a poster that in the past has focused on a certain group Yes

But many posters here have been consistently pointing out certain groups bringing disease into the US. Central Americans for one. Also I think Somalians in maybe Minnesota. I have yet to see anyone bring up concern for people coming in from Western Europe. 

Are they racists? Only they can say. I don’t know what they truly believe.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

keenataz said:


> I guess I should respond. My response was to a poster that in the past has focused on a certain group Yes
> 
> But many posters here have been consistently pointing out certain groups bringing disease into the US. Central Americans for one. Also I think Somalians in maybe Minnesota. I have yet to see anyone bring up concern for people coming in from Western Europe.
> 
> Are they racists? Only they can say. I don’t know what they truly believe.


Since this thread started about the flu, you did make a good point regarding countries of origin.




keenataz said:


> Generally these diseases don’t come from white European countries. They generally come from Asia. Generally. That where my comment is from.
> 
> Again generally


As far as other diseases, they do vary on their origins.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

keenataz said:


> I’m curious. Say I want to hop over the border for a Seahawks game. I would have to spend time in quarantine? Or when a jet load of German tourists flies into Montana, they’ll be quarantined.
> 
> Do you really see that working?


You'd have to be a die hard fan, lol.
Although those fans DO plan months or years in advance.

I'm thinking the Germans would definitely nix the idea though.
Herding them in a little camp and telling them they were there for medical observation/treatment would probably give them the willies.........


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mnn2501 said:


> it was right in my post: The legals can be checked and quarantined if necessary just like they were in the early 1900's


Tourists too? SMH


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Mish said:


> I'll give you that I am not up to date on our guest worker program, but we used to have one that worked (my daughter's grandfather was one of them, a legal migrant worker, before he went through all of the steps to become a citizen). I'm not sure what happened to that, if anything. We also have a work visa program for people with different skill sets (both my mother and my son have and do work with people on those visas in their white collar jobs).
> 
> It feels like you are assuming that there is no one else to do those jobs besides illegal workers. This is getting into a whole different debate, and one I've repeated many times, but the reason there are "jobs Americans won't do" is because illegal labor drives down wages and gets rid of a lot of bureaucracy that employers hate anyway. It's too easy for employers to hire someone illegal to work for slave wages, treat them any way they want because they can't/won't call OSHA or file for workman's comp, and employers don't have to provide healthcare or file all that pesky paperwork and pay taxes that the government requires for legal workers. There are a LOT of places around here that won't even look twice at hiring legal workers, it's too expensive, time consuming and makes them accountable in a lot more ways than just hiring someone off the books. Since we won't enforce laws against hiring illegal workers, the vicious circle continues. If there is a labor shortage once laws are enforced (and I highly doubt there would be), then yes, expand outside work programs. But the assumption that we NEED these illegal workers is just that, an assumption driven by the factors that I just mentioned.
> 
> We have most everything in place, and I'll argue that it is rational. What is needed is enforcement, and tweaking as necessity arises - that we don't do that is the irrational part. We also need to remove all of the other magnets and secure the borders at the same time.


I can’t comment on the specifics of your grandfather except to say that quite often family histories are “sanitized” for the protection of later generations. I assume there are no qualified white collar American citizens to do the jobs your relatives work with? 

I understand what illegal labor can do to wages. You’ll note that wages, along with working conditions and safety, were mentioned by me as reasons for a more rational plan. 

And if you want to exchange anecdotes I know dairy farms that pay their illegals the same as they pay their other workers, which is almost twice the state mandated minimum wage. They value those employees and would much rather have them on the books as legal employees than worry about the legal ramifications or losing them to deportation. Explain how it’s rational that a computer coder can get a work visa but a cowherd can’t? When dairy farms have to compete with the local factories paying $15-$20/hr and are having trouble filling those positions it’s hard to think what they might have to pay and still be profitable enough to appease the likes of those who were complaining in a thread not long ago about $3/gallon milk. We have historically low unemployment today and to think that removing 5-6M people from that workforce tomorrow won’t cause disruption and further shortages that affect the overall economy makes no sense to me.

A rational guest worker system that allows employers to recruit and coordinate the travel of foreign workers mitigates much of the need for border security to track and arrest those coming for economic reasons and concentrate those efforts to find and detain those crossing for more nefarious reasons. A win-win.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

no really said:


> I read it several times and can't come up how an accusation of racism could be applied.


If you have nothing to add to your position, accusing your opposition of racism is a powerful last chance tactic, hence, "playing the race card".


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

haypoint said:


> If you have nothing to add to your position, accusing your opposition of racism is a powerful last chance tactic, hence, "playing the race card".


I accused no one of racism, quite the opposite. Reading comprehension is important.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

no really said:


> I accused no one of racism, quite the opposite. Reading comprehension is important.


Nah, he can tell just by looking at you.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Nah, he can tell just by looking at you.


LOL!!! It's that tattoo on my forehead, gives it away every time.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

no really said:


> I accused no one of racism, quite the opposite. Reading comprehension is important.


I suggest not opening any private messages from that poster...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

no really said:


> I accused no one of racism, quite the opposite. Reading comprehension is important.


I don't think he _was_ accusing you of saying it. In fact I was going to include your opinion on Trixie's post as one that had more authority than the rest of us. 
But I didn't want to drag you into the mud pile.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> I don't think he _was_ accusing you of saying it. In fact I was going to include your opinion on Trixie's post as one that had more authority than the rest of us.
> But I didn't want to drag you into the mud pile.


Thanks for not pulling me in, as to whether there was an accusation directed at me, I would like to know what was meant.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Nah, he can tell just by looking at you.



Yep, he sees a women, the weaker sex, someone to prey on. Trapping predators this winter has helped me recognize some of their characteristics


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Yeah, I got that when you said it, I'm just not aware of where you saw it, so I asked.
> It's ok and I can take your word for it, but frankly that particular post made a point of emphasizing exactly the opposite of that stance - twice. (*All* immigrants and travelers from "all over the world")
> So I guess based upon someone's history, even if they make a point of NOT repeating a previous bias, they must be judged the same way forever.
> That explains why I saw something that others didn't and vice versa.
> ...


And you have every right to base your opinion on whatever limited information you choose. I see it as someone who walked into the middle of a family squabble and immediately chose sides based on the last thing said without knowing the entire history of the familial dispute. And, base on your past history, I don’t expect you to budge an inch off that stance.

Want to talk about substantive issues and I’ll be glad to continue. Want to keep stirring the mud and I’ll let you wallow in peace.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> And you have every right to base your opinion on whatever limited information you choose. I see it as someone who walked into the middle of a family squabble and immediately chose sides based on the last thing said without knowing the entire history of the familial dispute. And, base on your past history, I don’t expect you to budge an inch off that stance.
> 
> Want to talk about substantive issues and I’ll be glad to continue. Want to keep stirring the mud and I’ll let you wallow in peace.


LOL
I avoid the mud whenever possible, but knowing how to get thru it and back out to the high ground is a valuable tool.
The "family squabble" analogy may be a good one in this case, but this forum isn't as restricted as a family kitchen so it's understandable that I wouldn't try to treat it the same way.

But on that note, I've seen my share of family squabbles and while knowing the history is very helpful, it isn't alway helpful to bring up past comments into the present.
Of course that advice is rarely followed, is it?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> LOL
> I avoid the mud whenever possible, but knowing how to get thru it and back out to the high ground is a valuable tool.
> The "family squabble" analogy may be a good one in this case, but this forum isn't as restricted as a family kitchen so it's understandable that I wouldn't try to treat it the same way.
> 
> ...


Nor is the advice not to stick ones nose and pick sides in without knowing the history. Some are better at giving advice than they are at accepting it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> Nor is the advice not to stick ones nose and pick sides in without knowing the history. Some are better at giving advice than they are at accepting it.


And some don't think they're wallowing when absolutely covered in mud... LOL.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Maybe, but when I see that pettiness and bickering I don't hesitate to use discernment to figure out HOW that history came to be.
But by all means, if it pleases y'all to do it, sharpen up those claws and go at it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Maybe, but when I see that pettiness and bickering I don't hesitate to use discernment to figure out HOW that history came to be.
> But by all means, if it pleases
> y'all to do it, sharpen up those claws and go at it.


And exactly how do you figure how that history came to be without looking into it? You chose a point to start your “history” from while ignoring all that came before. Oh, I know it’s everyone else’s fault for not spoon feeding you the exact information you desired by not going back to the very first post where the member in question steered the conversation in the way that was claimed and could never be yours for not taking the time to do your own homework. And I know you’ll never back off your own self righteousness. And yes, that opinion was based on your history of postings.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> And exactly how do you figure how that history came to be without looking into it? You chose a point to start your “history” from while ignoring all that came before. Oh, I know it’s everyone else’s fault for not spoon feeding you the exact information you desired by not going back to the very first post where the member in question steered the conversation in the way that was claimed and could never be yours for not taking the time to do your own homework. And I know you’ll never back off your own self righteousness. And yes, that opinion was based on your history of postings.


Can I get an a-men (read that in RuPaul's voice). I slay me. LOL


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> And exactly how do you figure how that history came to be without looking into it? You chose a point to start your “history” from while ignoring all that came before. Oh, I know it’s everyone else’s fault for not spoon feeding you the exact information you desired by not going back to the very first post where the member in question steered the conversation in the way that was claimed and could never be yours for not taking the time to do your own homework. And I know you’ll never back off your own self righteousness. And yes, that opinion was based on your history of postings.


FYI, after our earlier comments I DID look into what I was told I didn't know about.
Since I'm being derided already, I won't bother offering my opinion on that "history".
You certainly have the right to make whatever comments about me you'd like.
The irony here is as deep as the mud so it's time for me to get out.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> FYI, after our earlier comments I DID look into what I was told I didn't know about.
> Since I'm being derided already, I won't bother offering my opinion on that "history".
> You certainly have the right to make whatever comments about me you'd like.
> The irony here is as deep as the mud so it's time for me to get out.


Buh by. Thanks for giving me your permission to offer my opinions. It means the world to me.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

no really said:


> I accused no one of racism, quite the opposite. Reading comprehension is important.


I was agreeing with you, that you were being accused of racism because they had nothing else to support their opposing viewpoint.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> I suggest not opening any private messages from that poster...


You’ve got that right.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

oneraddad said:


> Yep, he sees a women, the weaker sex, someone to prey on. Trapping predators this winter has helped me recognize some of their characteristics


Take your personal attacks to the dark pages or PM, it has no place in General Chat.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

haypoint said:


> I was agreeing with you, that you were being accused of racism because they had nothing else to support their opposing viewpoint.


I think you might have gotten the wrong person. Or I missed some parts of the thread.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Take your personal attacks to the dark pages or PM, it has no place in General Chat.


Take your pms to another forum. They have no place here.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Btw. I did not accuse anyone of racism. I stated certain posters have expressed issues of people coming to US from certain areas and in the past they have used the spread of disease as a reason. 

Again I have no idea is a racist or not. I can just say what I have read.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

I'm disappointed that nobody wants to sexually assault me with gay porn PM's. Not that I want it, I just feel so left out. Can I get a hug?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Clem said:


> I'm disappointed that nobody wants to sexually assault me with gay porn PM's. Not that I want it, I just feel so left out. Can I get a hug?


Consider yourself hugged. Though me hugging you might offend some people here.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Clem said:


> I'm disappointed that nobody wants to sexually assault me with gay porn PM's. Not that I want it, I just feel so left out. Can I get a hug?


(((hug))) Even the haters will be OK with me hugging you... or maybe not. Who knows, who cares? They're haters.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Ehhh....I appreciate it, that sorta seems like a pity hug. Not one of those big prison hugs.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Clem said:


> Ehhh....I appreciate it, that sorta seems like a pity hug. Not one of those big prison hugs.


Full frontal hug from me.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Clem said:


> Ehhh....I appreciate it, that sorta seems like a pity hug. Not one of those big prison hugs.



Prison reach around hug from me


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

oneraddad said:


> Prison reach around hug from me


Once again, you see to it that there's never a dull moment!


----------

