# Vaccinate your kids for the flu



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

"Two physicians who lost their young son to the flu last year want parents to listen to their message, born of great grief and suffering: Get your child a flu shot.

Drs. Laura and Anthony Sidari's 4-year-old son, Leon, did not get the flu vaccine last year. He died on Christmas Day, less than 48 hours after he started feeling sick."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/02/health/sidari-flu/index.html


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

For something this important, CNN should get all the facts and make sure they get them right. It is critical to know what strain of influenza a the child had, as not all types are are included in vaccine.


> The 2017-18 vaccine was only about 36 percent effective, according to a study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Even more alarming, the vaccine was only 25 percent effective against the season’s dominant strain, H3N2.


 https://www.drugwatch.com/news/2018...ooses-flu-vaccine-strains-2018-19-flu-season/

So we have no way of knowing that the child would have lived if he had the flu shot. There was still at least a 2 out of 3 chance he would still have gotten the flu.

I'm just frustrated because the media has gotten very lazy in their hurry to pump out articles. The author simply took everything at face value without doing any verification at all.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Whether or not this vexes me I don't know. Haven't had the flu in 20 - 30 years. Haven't taken the vaccine. My wife has to take the vaccine every time they present a new one due to where she works. She's gotten the flu 3 out of the last 4 years.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Keep in mind he could have died anyway if it was a strain not covered.



> Leon was one of 180 US children who died in the 2017-18 flu season, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- a historic high.
> 
> Approximately 80% of those children had not received a flu shot, according to the CDC.


https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/how-effective-is-flu-vaccine


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

The vaccine itself, regardless of the strains it contains, offers protection from the flu. And as you indicate, if you have the vaccination there is at least a chance of the current strain being included, there isn't even a chance if you don't have the shot. Correct?


----------



## montysky (Aug 21, 2006)

My Dw, the kids and myself always get the flu shot, now this year my eldest son is over 18 so it was his choice and he also said "yes" to the shot.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Keep in mind he could have died anyway if it was a strain not covered.


Against her own judgement and her 80 year old mother's advice my wife had the shot two days ago. She is now sick in bed with flu like symptoms. I'm sure she'll laugh about out it later.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> Against her own judgement and her 80 year old mother's advice my wife had the shot two days ago. She is now sick in bed with flu like symptoms. I'm sure she'll laugh about out it later.


She did not get the flu from a flu shot. It can't happen- the vaccine in a flu shot is a dead virus. Period. End of discussion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> The vaccine itself, regardless of the strains it contains, offers protection from the flu.





Irish Pixie said:


> *Correct?*


No.  Out of over *74 million* "children" under 18, there were only 180 deaths when over half weren't vaccinated.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> She did not get the flu from a flu shot. It can't happen- the vaccine in a flu shot is a dead virus. Period. End of discussion.


You will never convince people of this. Or people who get the shot, and say every year they get the flu. When in most cases it is a bad cold.

I didn't regularly get a flu shot, some years yes, some no. Mostly on convenience.Two years ago I got the flu, and developed drug resistan pmeumonia. I get the shot now.

What peopel should realize the flu is actually quite rare and miost people wil only get it a few times in their life. Their is no stomach flu, a bad cold is not the flu, feeling malaise is not the flu. When you actually get the real flu, you know it. I developed in on a Wednesday and that Sunday was Super Bowl Sundat and I was so sick I missed the Patriots comeback.

So basically what I am trying to say, get the shot or not, doesn't matter tio me, but don't spread myths, like the shot gives you the flu, or gargling with some weird concoction can prevent it


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> The vaccine itself, regardless of the strains it contains, offers protection from the flu. And as you indicate, if you have the vaccination there is at least a chance of the current strain being included, there isn't even a chance if you don't have the shot. Correct?


But the mother sounded as if she believed her son wouldn't have gotten the flu if he had the shot. That is what I found to be misleading as at best, it only reduced the chance of getting the flu by 36% at most.

CNN ran the story as "Mothers, make sure you have your kids vaccinated so they don't get the flu and die" and that was disingenuous.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> But the mother sounded as if she believed her son wouldn't have gotten the flu if he had the shot. That is what I found to be misleading as at best, it only reduced the chance of getting the flu by 36% at most.
> 
> CNN ran the story as "Mothers, make sure you have your kids vaccinated so they don't get the flu and die" and that was disingenuous.


I do see your point. 

The bottom line is that having a flu shot still offers more protection than not having one.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> Whether or not this vexes me I don't know. Haven't had the flu in 20 - 30 years. Haven't taken the vaccine. My wife has to take the vaccine every time they present a new one due to where she works. She's gotten the flu 3 out of the last 4 years.


Interesting the conclusion you've drawn or implied.
I'm guessing you aren't around many people and she deals with the public, perhaps sick public.
You, partly by luck and partly by lack of exposure, have not gotten the flu.

Contrasting you, wife has gotten the flu shot, giving her the best chance of avoiding the flu. But picking the strain involves a good amount of guesswork.
When a couple strains are going around, the strain that the vaccine protects from, cannot spread if everyone is properly vaccinated. That leaves the other strain free reign to spread. Bottom line, those times she got the flu could have doubled, without the flu shots.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

It isn't just that you should get the flu shot to prevent your flu. It is the herd immunization that stops the spread. When enough get the vaccine, the flu has no where to spread, so fewer get exposed.

The flu shot starts the stimulation of the antibodies, but it takes a few weeks for it to protect you. Quite easy to catch the flu after getting the shot, before it has had a chance to build your immunity.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> Against her own judgement and her 80 year old mother's advice my wife had the shot two days ago. She is now sick in bed with flu like symptoms. I'm sure she'll laugh about out it later.


Nursing school was a couple of decades ago, but we did discuss this. Basically, she did not get the flu from the shot: the shot itself can make you sick. Not sick with the flu because it is a dead virus, but, still sick.

Unless things have changed over the last couple of decades, of course


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

haypoint said:


> Interesting the conclusion you've drawn or implied.
> I'm guessing you aren't around many people and she deals with the public, perhaps sick public.
> You, partly by luck and partly by lack of exposure, have not gotten the flu.
> 
> ...


Interesting. I was only speaking matter of factly. My wife is in the health care field but your supposition about my contact with the public is far off of the mark. So why did she get it when I did not? Why was I able to be in close contact with her while she suffered and not catch the flu?


----------



## arnie (Apr 26, 2012)

while living at the farm . drinking raw milk eating mostly from the farm in contact with few local people , I never got sick ,or got the shot . then I had to return to the city (a sacnuary city at that) help care for family, in grocery stores ,near people from who knows where , using foods imported from who knows where . I got the shot . stands to reason if your at a high risk of exposure to germs (in Dr. offices, around crowds , handleing things from forgien places ect,) you need extra protection . example - native americans never had small pox till the spaniards showed up then it nearly wiped em out .


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Terri said:


> Nursing school was a couple of decades ago, but we did discuss this. Basically, she did not get the flu from the shot: the shot itself can make you sick. Not sick with the flu because it is a dead virus, but, still sick.
> 
> Unless things have changed over the last couple of decades, of course


Never said that. Just noted the irony in it. Side note, the pharmacy called and said her meds were ready. Said they were closing early as the Pharmacist was sick and going home. He also has had a shot, lol.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

haypoint said:


> Interesting the conclusion you've drawn or implied.
> I'm guessing you aren't around many people and she deals with the public, perhaps sick public.
> You, partly by luck and partly by lack of exposure, have not gotten the flu.
> 
> ...


That would be true if the flu shot was effective. At 36% effectiveness, one might be better off taking oil of oregano and building up the immune system. In my case, I'm going to do both.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

You start talking herd effects and you've lost the sale. Rarely does the flu vaccine hit the mark as to strains. Last year think they said it was only like 15% effective. Eat healthy and wash your hands and you probably do more for your own personal health than flu vaccine.

By way they have a new medicine you take early on in flu. It suppresses some enzyme in the flu virus that lets it spread, if I remember the news story correctly. Betting that would be more effective for the individual than the vaccine. No idea, probably costs and arm and a leg. All new and many old medicines do anymore. Gotta milk that cash cow while the getting is good, and before the rubes wise up.


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

GTX63 said:


> Against her own judgement and her 80 year old mother's advice my wife had the shot two days ago. She is now sick in bed with flu like symptoms. I'm sure she'll laugh about out it later.





Irish Pixie said:


> She did not get the flu from a flu shot. It can't happen- the vaccine in a flu shot is a dead virus. Period. End of discussion.



Consider this - she did not get the flu from the shot, but the vaccination compromised her bodies ability to fight off the other bug she already had, or came into contact with after getting the shot.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

arnie said:


> while living at the farm . drinking raw milk eating mostly from the farm in contact with few local people , I never got sick ,or got the shot . then I had to return to the city (a sacnuary city at that) help care for family, in grocery stores ,near people from who knows where , using foods imported from who knows where . I got the shot . stands to reason if your at a high risk of exposure to germs (in Dr. offices, around crowds , handleing things from forgien places ect,) you need extra protection . example - native americans never had small pox till the spaniards showed up then it nearly wiped em out .


Umm you seem to be a prejuciced about foreigners, sanctuary city, people from who knows where, imported foods? Do you think they harbour special flu germs?

Now I do agree the more people you are around the greater chance. But doesn't matter if from foreign country or not

Also it was Eurpoeans not just Spaniards who brought small pox.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

GTX63 said:


> Never said that. Just noted the irony in it. Side note, the pharmacy called and said her meds were ready. Said they were closing early as the Pharmacist was sick and going home. He also has had a shot, lol.


Again you do realize people get sick all the time and it is not the flu?


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> That would be true if the flu shot was effective. At 36% effectiveness, one might be better off taking oil of oregano and building up the immune system. In my case, I'm going to do both.


If all these natura cures worked, why was life span so much shorter before modern medicine?


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

HermitJohn said:


> You start talking herd effects and you've lost the sale. Rarely does the flu vaccine hit the mark as to strains. Last year think they said it was only like 15% effective. Eat healthy and wash your hands and you probably do more for your own personal health than flu vaccine.
> 
> By way they have a new medicine you take early on in flu. It suppresses some enzyme in the flu virus that lets it spread, if I remember the news story correctly. Betting that would be more effective for the individual than the vaccine. No idea, probably costs and arm and a leg. All new and many old medicines do anymore. Gotta milk that cash cow while the getting is good, and before the rubes wise up.



I used that a few years ago. There were four of us working off a boat on the central coast. Second day out one guy gets the flu, not a cold, the flu. We pulled into Bella Bella a small FN community off the coast, we went to the local Dr. and got some prescription (can't remember, maybe Tamiflu) we all took it. One person got mildly sick, me and the other fellow were fine.

The first guy was sicker than a dog for 3 days and we finally had to have a plane come and get him.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

wdcutrsdaughter said:


> Consider this - she did not get the flu from the shot, but the vaccination compromised her bodies ability to fight off the other bug she already had, or came into contact with after getting the shot.


You are right about that, I just didn't say so, and apparently the only one who isn't uptight about it, lol.


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

keenataz said:


> If all these natura cures worked, why was life span so much shorter before modern medicine?


Why do you feel the need to poo poo "natura cures" ? Do you work for a pharmaceutical company?
Some people like modern medicine. Some people like using plants and herbs to keep themselves healthy. No one is more right than the other.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

keenataz said:


> If all these natura cures worked, why was life span so much shorter before modern medicine?


My post was in regard to a fairly ineffective flu shot, not life span. The CDC says it was 36% effective. I have seen another analysis that said it was 0% effective.

Compare the effectiveness of the flu shot to chicken pox vaccine:
*



Vaccine Effectiveness

Click to expand...

*


> *One dose*
> 
> 1 dose of single-antigen varicella vaccine is—
> 85% effective at preventing any form of varicella
> ...


https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/varicella/hcp-effective-duration.htm

The government and drug companies are scamming us on the flu vaccine. We would probably have better success if we issued everyone face masks for a couple of months.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wdcutrsdaughter said:


> Consider this - she did not get the flu from the shot, but the vaccination compromised her bodies ability to fight off the other bug she already had, or came into contact with after getting the shot.


That's not how it works, a foreign substance (in this case a virus) enters the human body, the immune system senses it, mounts a defense and builds antibodies against it. 

Until the vaccine causes the buildup of antibodies it's possible to get the flu, and that takes about two weeks. It's also possible to get the flu after having had the vaccine, but it's usually less severe than in someone not vaccinated. 

The flu vaccination won't compromise your immune system. It's a myth. 

To anyone- you are not required to get a flu shot, it's not mandatory. If you get the flu you don't have to be treated with antivirals. If you contract secondary pneumonia you don't see the Dr to get antibiotics either. None of it is mandatory.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wdcutrsdaughter said:


> Why do you feel the need to poo poo "natura cures" ? Do you work for a pharmaceutical company?
> Some people like modern medicine. Some people like using plants and herbs to keep themselves healthy. No one is more right than the other.


Alternative medicine is only alternative until it's proven to work. Correct?


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's not how it works, a foreign substance (in this case a virus) enters the human body, the immune system senses it, mounts a defense and builds antibodies against it.
> 
> Until the vaccine causes the buildup of antibodies it's possible to get the flu, and that takes about two weeks. It's also possible to get the flu after having had the vaccine, but it's usually less severe than in someone not vaccinated.
> 
> ...



If the immune system is processing the vaccination it could very well become overloaded and miss a different virus, thus the person gets sick. You don't know what your immune system is already working on when you take the new foreign substance.


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Alternative medicine is only alternative until it's proven to work. Correct?



I don't consider eating vegetables and herbs "alternative medicine."
One would think you also work for the drug companies the way you push getting the vaccine so much.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> My post was in regard to a fairly ineffective flu shot, not life span. The CDC says it was 36% effective. I have seen another analysis that said it was 0% effective.
> 
> Compare the effectiveness of the flu shot to chicken pox vaccine:
> 
> ...


It's your opinion that the government and/or drug companies are scamming us on the flu vaccine, and you're entitled to it. That doesn't make it a fact. It is a less effective vaccine, but it's still more effectve than no vaccine at all.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wdcutrsdaughter said:


> If the immune system is processing the vaccination it could very well become overloaded and miss a different virus, thus the person gets sick. You don't know what your immune system is already working on when you take the new foreign substance.


Please read this: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/conditions/infectious_diseases/immune_system_85,P00630


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wdcutrsdaughter said:


> I don't consider eating vegetables and herbs "alternative medicine."
> One would think you also work for the drug companies the way you push getting the vaccine so much.


Nope. I've never worked for a pharmaceutical company, I do have knowledge of how the body works tho.

If you don't want a flu shot don't get one, it's not mandatory. But please stop spreading false information about it.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's your opinion that the government and/or drug companies are scamming us on the flu vaccine, and you're entitled to it. That doesn't make it a fact. It is a less effective vaccine, but it's still more effect than no vaccine at all.


And that's your opinion.

Have you seen a single ad for flu shot that even mentions effectiveness? We are buying a product so shouldn't they be responsible for telling us? Would you buy a new car that might run 36% of the time? If your car only ran 36% of the time, you would demand your money back. Maybe we should get a 64% discount on the flu shot! Or maybe you get all your money back if you get the flu. I bet the next year's vaccine would be more effective.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> And that's your opinion.
> 
> Have you seen a single ad for flu shot that even mentions effectiveness? We are buying a product so shouldn't they be responsible for telling us? Would you buy a new car that might run 36% of the time? If your car only ran 36% of the time, you would demand your money back. Maybe we should get a 64% discount on the flu shot! Or maybe you get all your money back if you get the flu. I bet the next year's vaccine would be more effective.


Yes, it is my opinion and that of the CDC and WHO.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> Please read this: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/conditions/infectious_diseases/immune_system_85,P00630


It doesn't cover the digestive system, gut flora, mouth flora, white blood cells, etc. Maybe there's a link I didn't see, but all I saw they mentioned was the lymph system.


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. I've never worked for a pharmaceutical company, I do have knowledge of how the body works tho.
> 
> If you don't want a flu shot don't get one, it's not mandatory. But please stop spreading false information about it.


No. I won't stop sharing my opinion on a public forum. In the same sense I could ask you to stop spreading so much propaganda about the flu vaccine. I'm not asking you to do that.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, it is my opinion and that of the CDC and WHO.


Maybe you think 36% effectiveness at best is OK, but I don't. I bet a placebo would be almost as good. Give half the people a saline solution and let's see the effectiveness.

After a little research (a very little), I have the solution. Everyone that has the flu must wear a surgical mask.


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Please read this: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/conditions/infectious_diseases/immune_system_85,P00630


I'm not here to get schooled by you. Thanks though. 
You believe what you'd like and I will believe what I'd like.
Good day, I am done with this conversation.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> It doesn't cover the digestive system, gut flora, mouth flora, white blood cells, etc. Maybe there's a link I didn't see, but all I saw they mentioned was the lymph system.


From the link: "Lymph nodes are part of the immune system. They release lymphocytes, a certain type of white blood cell that fights infection."


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> Maybe you think 36% effectiveness at best is OK, but I don't. I bet a placebo would be almost as good. Give half the people a saline solution and let's see the effectiveness.


OK. Go against your Dr's advice and don't have the vaccination. It's all up to you.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> Interesting. I was only speaking matter of factly. My wife is in the health care field but your supposition about my contact with the public is far off of the mark. So why did she get it when I did not? Why was I able to be in close contact with her while she suffered and not catch the flu?


Maybe you have acquired the good habit of washing your hands, keeping your fingers out of your mouth, nose and ears? Maybe she didn't cough on you and the house is kept clean? Maybe you have some sort of exposure that gave you some antibodies to fight it.
I haven't had a common cold in 10 years, but have been around lots of sick people.

But she didn't get the flu from the shot, that we know.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> OK. Go against your Dr's advice and don't have the vaccination. It's all up to you.


I already said I was going to get a flu shot, because I'm trying to be a good patient. But I'm also going to be taking supplements that build up the immune system and am not above wearing a surgical mask to grocery store if flu becomes rampant. 36% is not good enough, but I can improve the odds greatly through my own self initiative.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

haypoint said:


> Maybe you have acquired the good habit of washing your hands, keeping your fingers out of your mouth, nose and ears? Maybe she didn't cough on you and the house is kept clean? Maybe you have some sort of exposure that gave you some antibodies to fight it.
> I haven't had a common cold in 10 years, but have been around lots of sick people.
> 
> But she didn't get the flu from the shot, that we know.


There appears to be some genes that control how susceptible a person is to the flu.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> That would be true if the flu shot was effective. At 36% effectiveness, one might be better off taking oil of oregano and building up the immune system. In my case, I'm going to do both.


Any amount of immunization that breaks the chain of contagion helps stop an epidemic. Oil of oregano or eye of newt won't boost your immune system. Perhaps a necklace of garlic cloves will.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> There appears to be some genes that control how susceptible a person is to the flu.


Maybe he eats a lot of pizza and gets more oil of oregano than most?


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

haypoint said:


> Any amount of immunization that breaks the chain of contagion helps stop an epidemic. Oil of oregano or eye of newt won't boost your immune system. Perhaps a necklace of garlic cloves will.


First I am certainly not a shill for big pharmacy. They do that well enough. But 36% effective, that's better than 0%. So obviously in agreement.

But what gets me is these old folk remedies, blackberry tea extract or whatever. If they actually worked they would be sold for big $$$. And at the time of our great grandparents so many people would not have died while taking these "cures" One we get up here, is traditional First Nation medicine, but when you look at history, FN people did not live that long, so maybe alder bark and bearberry weren't so great.

Now I do agree there are things we can do naturally. Eat a good diet, exercise, practice good hygeine, etc. and yes some is just luck of the draw. Some people have better immune systems than others.


----------



## tiffanysgallery (Jan 17, 2015)

The flu shot is now being offered by our local Kroger, just so those who want to participate can get one. If you do, there's a slim chance the arm will be sore afterwards. If one gets the flu shot, and believes they got the flu from it, they may have already caught the flu and carried it with them as they were getting the shot, also a slim chance, but it can happen.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

haypoint said:


> Any amount of immunization that breaks the chain of contagion helps stop an epidemic. Oil of oregano or eye of newt won't boost your immune system. Perhaps a necklace of garlic cloves will.


*How It Works: *Oil of oregano contains a compound called carvacrol, which has been shown to help break through the outer cell membranes that help protect bacteria from the immune system. Studies have shown that oil of oregano is effective at killing bacteria, and could also help the immune system take action against viruses, fungi and parasites.

https://www.doctoroz.com/article/oil-oregano-guide


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

haypoint said:


> Maybe you have acquired the good habit of washing your hands, keeping your fingers out of your mouth, nose and ears? Maybe she didn't cough on you and the house is kept clean? Maybe you have some sort of exposure that gave you some antibodies to fight it.
> I haven't had a common cold in 10 years, but have been around lots of sick people.
> 
> But she didn't get the flu from the shot, that we know.


OK, I'll let you run around telling everyone what happened in my world, you seem to know a lot more than I do... I tend to trust in facts and results I see with my own eyes more than I do from suppositions from people I do not know.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

keenataz said:


> First I am certainly not a shill for big pharmacy. They do that well enough. But 36% effective, that's better than 0%. So obviously in agreement.
> 
> But what gets me is these old folk remedies, blackberry tea extract or whatever. If they actually worked they would be sold for big $$$. And at the time of our great grandparents so many people would not have died while taking these "cures" One we get up here, is traditional First Nation medicine, but when you look at history, FN people did not live that long, so maybe alder bark and bearberry weren't so great.
> 
> Now I do agree there are things we can do naturally. Eat a good diet, exercise, practice good hygeine, etc. and yes some is just luck of the draw. Some people have better immune systems than others.


They can't be patented so the drug companies aren't interested - unless they can make a synthetic version that they can patent.

You keep associating a remedy for a specific ailment to longevity. Two different things.

For example, magnesium is a calcium channel blocker (ccb) and is as effective as the leading drug CCB to lower blood pressure with less damaging side effects. Another example is antibiotics. I have read that as little as using antibiotics twice in a lifetime may alter gut biome beyond recovery. Add to that the overuse of antibiotics has lead to bacterial resistance and the development of superbugs that don't respond to conventional antibiotics. Natural antibiotics like honey, colloidal silver, and garlic can be used to treat bacterial infections instead of drugs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

keenataz said:


> Also it was Eurpoeans not just Spaniards who brought small pox.


Spaniards are European.
They brought it to North America first.



keenataz said:


> But *doesn't matter* if from foreign country or not


Actually it does since foreigners typically carry different strains than indigenous people, for which they have no antibodies

Remember the "Hong Kong flu"?

That's why Smallpox was devastating to Native Americans



> Irish Pixie said: ↑
> She did not get the flu from a flu shot. It can't happen- the vaccine in a flu shot is a dead virus. Period. *End of discussion.*


I've never found that to be the case.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

keenataz said:


> If all these natura cures worked, *why* was life span so much shorter before modern medicine?


Not everyone knew about them or had access to them.
Look at all the stuff you still don't know, and you have access to the internet.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

keenataz said:


> One we get up here, is traditional First Nation medicine


Steeping the bark of Aspen was NA medicine for headache. Bayer synthesizes the active ingredient, giving aspirin its name. So traditional medicine has its place but worthless on Small Pox and Polio.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's also possible to get the flu after having had the vaccine, but it's usually less severe than in someone not vaccinated.


We've heard all that already.



Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, it is *my* *opinion* and that of the CDC and WHO.


Yes, it's an opinion, not proven fact. 
The CDC thinks guns are a "disease" and WHO says Glyphosate "probably" causes cancer.
I don't care about those opinions either.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I usually don't get the flu shot because I don't get flue. Something is wrong (or right maybe) with me because everyone in the house, job and friends get it but me. I had to get one every year when I was a vol. EMT. Nothing since then though. My Dr says this year I need to get one when I had my checkup. So I did. Then I asked him when he got his. He says "I never take those things." 

Sheeesh....

Watch me get the flue this year. At least I can take some time off work if I do. Always a bright side.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> They can't be patented so the drug companies aren't interested - unless they can make a synthetic version that they can patent.
> 
> You keep associating a remedy for a specific ailment to longevity. Two different things.
> 
> For example, magnesium is a calcium channel blocker (ccb) and is as effective as the leading drug CCB to lower blood pressure with less damaging side effects. Another example is antibiotics. I have read that as little as using antibiotics twice in a lifetime may alter gut biome beyond recovery. Add to that the overuse of antibiotics has lead to bacterial resistance and the development of superbugs that don't respond to conventional antibiotics. Natural antibiotics like honey, colloidal silver, and garlic can be used to treat bacterial infections instead of drugs.



As far as your natural antibiotics, why did so many people die of infections before the advent of penicillin?

I do agree with you on overuse on antibiotics though.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

haypoint said:


> Steeping the bark of Aspen was NA medicine for headache. Bayer synthesizes the active ingredient, giving aspirin its name. So traditional medicine has its place but worthless on Small Pox and Polio.


It wasn't aspen it was willow. Me I pop an aleve

https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/ingredientmono-955/willow-bark

Willow bark acts a lot like aspirin, so it is used for pain, including headache, muscle pain, menstrual cramps, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis, gout, and a disease of the spine called ankylosing spondylitis.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

keenataz said:


> As far as your natural antibiotics, why did so many people die of infections before the advent of penicillin?


One has to have them and use them before they can work.
They also learned how to sterilize medical instruments and that helped as much as antibiotics.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

I am here to beat a dead horse, because I am certain that I saw a twitch. As other have stated, you cannot catch the flu from the vaccination. You MAY GET flu like symptoms. You MAY CATCH the flu at your healthcare provider as the vaccine takes some days/weeks to be effective. OR you MAY CATCH the flu that the vaccine has no efficacy against. 

If you are not immuno compromised and you are not regularly exposed to the general population, I am not sure if it is worthwhile. If you are elderly, prone to get the flu, regularly exposed to the masses, it seems reasonable to give it a shot. They are making strides, from what I have read, for longer lasting and more effective (consistently) flu vaccines. That may change the dynamics considerably.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Hiro said:


> I am here to beat a dead horse, because I am certain that I saw a twitch. As other have stated, you cannot catch the flu from the vaccination. You MAY GET flu like symptoms. You MAY CATCH the flu at your healthcare provider as the vaccine takes some days/weeks to be effective. OR you MAY CATCH the flu that the vaccine has no efficacy against.
> 
> If you are not immuno compromised and you are not regularly exposed to the general population, I am not sure if it is worthwhile. If you are elderly, prone to get the flu, regularly exposed to the masses, it seems reasonable to give it a shot. They are making strides, from what I have read, for longer lasting and more effective (consistently) flu vaccines. That may change the dynamics considerably.


You seem to have missed the part where the 2017/18 vaccine was only 36% effective according to CDC.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> You seem to have missed the part where the 2017/18 vaccine was only 36% effective.


No, I didn't. I didn't get it; haven't gotten one in a long time. The part (with several conditions) of my post when I admit it seems reasonable to give it a shot, is a far cry from "GO GET YOUR FLU SHOT OR YOU MAY DIE", which seems to be a common message for some reason.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

What may or may not be beneficial to someone is something left to those who know best, "those" being the one who is affected.
My wife will not be getting the shot ever again; that is her choice and I agree is best for her. What works for her is common sense in public and nutritional supplements.
For those who feel differently, God Bless. For those who continue with the "Flu shot or die" mantra, there will always be, and must be a reason to clutch your pearls.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

GTX63 said:


> What may or may not be beneficial to someone is something left to those who know best, "those" being the one who is affected.
> My wife will not be getting the shot ever again; that is her choice and I agree is best for her. What works for her is common sense in public and nutritional supplements.
> For those who feel differently, God Bless. For those who continue with the "Flu shot or die" mantra, there will always be, and must be a reason to clutch your pearls.



That is just it. If you are sitting behind a desk looking at numbers that aren't people you care about, it is an easy choice. If 50% of the population gets the flu shot, it reduces flu incidences by 80%. That is simple. If you have someone you care about or yourself that it doesn't work for or is coincidental with dire side effects, that is what is important. How about we just put out the information in a non-biased way and let each INDIVIDUAL decide what is best without any undue drama? I know that is just crazy talk.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Hiro said:


> How about we just put out the information in a non-biased way and let each INDIVIDUAL decide what is best *without any undue drama?*


That's what most are trying to do.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's what most are trying to do.


It may be what most are trying to do. It is not what the most vocal are trying to do, from what I have observed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Hiro said:


> It is not what the most vocal are trying to do


I agree


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> OK. Go against your Dr's advice and don't have the vaccination. *It's all up to you.*


Precisely.



Irish Pixie said:


> Alternative medicine is only alternative until it's proven to work. *Correct?*


Incorrect.
It's alternative until it's tested and approved for use.



Irish Pixie said:


> It is a less effective vaccine, but it's *still more effectve than no vaccine at all*.


Being armed is a great deterrent to crime. 
It's not 100% effective, but it's much more effective than having no gun at all.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Me? I'll avoid getting the Flu vaccine. I'm still holding out for the new and improved Replacement Body. Almost all of the warranties that were covering this one have expired...


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Shine said:


> Me? I'll avoid getting the Flu vaccine. I'm still holding out for the new and improved Replacement Body. Almost all of the warranties that were covering this one have expired...


I didn't get one with mine.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> The vaccine itself, regardless of the strains it contains, offers protection from the flu. And as you indicate, if you have the vaccination there is at least a chance of the current strain being included, there isn't even a chance if you don't have the shot. Correct?


Incorrect.
There is another way to be immune to the flu, besides getting a vaccination.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Incorrect.
> There is another way to be immune to the flu, besides getting a vaccination.


Oh, do tell.......


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Oh, do tell.......


Why?
Is it because you don't know about it, or don't believe it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Oh, do tell...


If you've had a strain in the past, you have the antibodies already.
They last a lifetime.
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1835907,00.html

Also:


> *Vaccine Effectiveness*
> Influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary from year to year. The protection provided by a flu vaccine depends on the age and health status of the person getting the vaccine, and the similarity or “match” between the viruses or virus in the vaccine and those in circulation. For more information, see Vaccine Effectiveness – How well does the Flu Vaccine Work.


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


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Why?
> Is it because you don't know about it, or don't believe it?


Maybe he just wanted a straight answer.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Maybe he just wanted a straight answer.


Maybe.
If the questioned had been phrased differently, I probably wouldn't have asked.
Regardless if a "straight answer" is wanted, is it unreasonable to know "why" before answering?

You posted the answer that is correct and should have been an obvious one to hay point, too.
That's why I asked about intent.
There's another way that is lesser known but is being researched by scientist also, a genetic immune defense.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> If the questioned had been phrased differently, I probably wouldn't have asked.


If you hadn't been so vague he wouldn't have asked.



farmrbrown said:


> is it unreasonable to know "why" before answering?


Is it unreasonable to expect a straightforward, honest answer to a simple question?

Knowing why the question was asked shouldn't change the answer.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you hadn't been so vague he wouldn't have asked.


You thought this was _vague?_



farmrbrown said:


> Incorrect.
> There is another way to be immune to the flu, besides getting a vaccination.





> Is it unreasonable to expect a straightforward, honest answer to a simple question?


No.
But do we always get what we expect?



> Knowing why the question was asked shouldn't change the answer.


I'm glad this ain't *my* first rodeo.
Remember this clue, if haypoint responds tomorrow..........



haypoint said:


> Oh, do tell.......


----------



## Oregon1986 (Apr 25, 2017)

I will simply bite my tongue on this subject because I don't agree but I will say to each their own


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Oregon1986 said:


> I will simply *bite my tongue* on this subject because I don't agree but I will say to each their own


If it gets infected you'll wish you had a Tetanus vaccination.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> She did not get the flu from a flu shot. It can't happen- the vaccine in a flu shot is a dead virus. Period. End of discussion.


 You are correct...…..but how many sick people were encountered in the waiting room and how many sick people had been touching sneezing in said room all over the door handles and seats and magazines...….anytime you even enter a hospital the chances skyrocket to getting sick or worse,....



Irish Pixie said:


> OK. Go against your Dr's advice and don't have the vaccination. It's all up to you.



Doctors are not the holy grail of wisdom as a matter of fact they kill more people than the flu ever dreamed of...


*It seems that every time researchers estimate how often a medical mistake contributes to a hospital patient's death, the numbers come out worse.*

* In 1999, the Institute of Medicine published the famous "To Err Is Human" report, which dropped a bombshell on the medical community by reporting that up to 98,000 people a year die because of mistakes in hospitals. The number was initially disputed, but is now widely accepted by doctors and hospital officials 2014 and quoted ubiquitously in the media.*

* In 2010, the Office of Inspector General for Health and Human Services said that bad hospital care contributed to the deaths of 180,000 patients in Medicare alone in a given year.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-many-die-from-medical-mistakes-in-us-hospitals/*


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

I'm waitin' on them to offer them flu shots down at the fillin' station.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> You seem to have missed the part where the 2017/18 vaccine was only 36% effective according to CDC.


The bottom line is which is more effective- 36% or 0%?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

There are many studies and links from medical journals to choose from, and I'm NOT talking about crackpot sites.
But they are finding out something that some of us suspected all along about flu shots and their effectiveness.
https://jvi.asm.org/content/89/6/3308

For those that hate reading boring medical studies, the summary is if you have a good immune system with natural and diverse flu antibodies already in existence, the flu shot adversely affects your chances of fighting the flu.
It's not a small percentage either.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> The bottom line is which is more effective- 36% or 0%?


Can you please document your assertion of "0%"?
You might want to read some of these studies before you answer that.

natural immunity to flu and B cells

genetic immunity from flu


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

From Farmrbrown's link-

For those familiar with med terms and comfortable with strings of multisyllable words, this is a very interesting read.

Below is a portion of the abstract

_Reactivation of memory B cells allows for a rapid and robust immune response upon challenge with the same antigen. Variant influenza virus strains generated through antigenic shift or drift are encountered multiple times over the lifetime of an individual. One might predict, then, that upon vaccination with the trivalent influenza vaccine across multiple years, the antibody response would become more and more dominant toward strains consistently present in the vaccine at the expense of more divergent strains. However, when we analyzed the vaccine-induced plasmablast, memory, and serological responses to the trivalent influenza vaccine between 2006 and 2013, we found that the B cell response was most robust against more divergent strains. Overall, the antibody response was highest when one or more strains contained in the vaccine varied from year to year. This suggests that in the broader immunological context of viral antigen exposure, the B cell response to variant influenza virus strains is not dictated by the composition of the memory B cell precursor pool. The outcome is instead a diversified B cell response.

*IMPORTANCE* Vaccine strategies are being designed to boost broadly reactive B cells present in the memory repertoire to provide universal protection to the influenza virus. It is important to understand how past exposure to influenza virus strains affects the response to subsequent immunizations. The viral epitopes targeted by B cells responding to the vaccine may be a direct reflection of the B cell memory specificities abundant in the preexisting immune repertoire, or other factors may influence the vaccine response. Here, we demonstrate that high preexisting serological antibody levels to a given influenza virus strain correlate with low production of antibody-secreting cells and memory B cells recognizing that strain upon revaccination. In contrast, introduction of antigenically novel strains generates a robust B cell response. Thus, both the preexisting memory B cell repertoire and serological antibody levels must be taken into consideration in predicting the quality of the B cell response to new prime-boost vaccine strategies._


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

keenataz said:


> I used that a few years ago. There were four of us working off a boat on the central coast. Second day out one guy gets the flu, not a cold, the flu. We pulled into Bella Bella a small FN community off the coast, we went to the local Dr. and got some prescription (can't remember, maybe Tamiflu) we all took it. One person got mildly sick, me and the other fellow were fine.
> 
> The first guy was sicker than a dog for 3 days and we finally had to have a plane come and get him.


This isnt Tamiflu, some new concoction they came out with this year, think its been available in Japan for couple years. Just slows down spread of virus so your own immune system can get ahead of it earlier, why you need to take it early on in a bout of the flu.

Guessing putting money they spend on hit or miss flu vaccine into making this new drug easily available and cheap would do more for the individual. Now like say the vaccine stuff is more for benefit of herd health. And of course somebody gets lot govt money out of it, so of course once its manufactured, they want to recoup that money with the "get flu shot or die" messages. Most people, shot or no shot wont die of the flu. Those that do die already have immune system compromised and get some other illness if not the flu.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> The bottom line is which is more effective- 36% or 0%?


OK, I'll play.

What is more effective - 36% or 87.5%?

A product that is 36% effective should not be on the market. NIH needs to get their act together.

I wonder if having a flu shot that is so ineffective actually reduces or increases the number of people who get the flu? 

Here's my thinking. People that don't get the flu shot most likely take some precautions - staying away from people with the flu, avoiding places where large numbers of people congregate, washing their hands, etc; while people who had the flu shot think they are protected and don't take the same precautions.

So just how many people get the flu on average every year?
*
5% to 20%* -- Percentage of the U.S. population that will get the flu, on average, each year.
https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/flu-statistics

So that seems to mean that last year, somewhere between 80%-95% of people didn't get the flu, but for those that got the flu shot, 66% did. 

I'm sure there is something wrong with my logic, but I'm not seeing it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I know where your main talents lie.


Yep.
Knowing what's behind the question and the answer being solicited is key to discerning the truth.
That particular post was all about Obama and his associates, although from that out of context quote, some might think I was referring to something entirely different.
That's another common tactic used to bury the truth.
Being a cop surrounded by criminals every day teaches them what to look for, it doesn't make them automatically criminals too though, does it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> The bottom line is *which is more effective*- 36% or 0%?


How many school shootings have been prevented by *not* having armed guards and teachers? 

How many lives could be saved by *not* allowing alcohol to be sold?


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

I say mandatory curfew and check everyone`s papers as they move around town, if it just saves one life...….you can never be too safe. After all who knows what all these crazy people are doing or where they are even going....


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

I'll be getting the flu shot in the next couple of weeks mainly because I'll be around a pregnant family member during the holidays. Husband already got his a month ago. The nurse wanted to give him a pneumonia shot at the same time and I said he'll wait. He'll go in about a week from now to get that vaccine.

I try to avoid giving our cats and dog multiple vaccines when they go to the vets. With immune system diseases skyrocketing who's to say that the little life-saving shot may be also provoking an angry immune system? 

Autism was not prevalent in the 50's and 60's. Something in our environment is at fault but I do not see a conclusive answer to what is the cause...

Keenatz, the short lifespan you referred to was often the result of women having 8 to 15 children and infectious disease. Many of the early U.S. presidents lived to a ripe old age and I have taken photos of people's gravestones born in 1700's and 1800's who survived to their 8th and 9th decade. 

Vaccines and antibiotics are relatively new medicines and we may still have a lot to learn how they affect humans 3 or 4 generations in the future. Got elderberry syrup in the freezer and lots of garlic in the house. I hope the natural approaches offer some benefit 'cause I probably won't be taking a swig of Buckleys ever again...


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

In the VERY early 1970's Mother Earth News printed an article on how NOT to get sick, as in flu and cold type things.

As SOON as you start to feel sick, get a hot drink and a hot bath, both as hot as you can stand. When the bath starts to cool, immediately get out and go to a bed piled with several blankets, enough to make you sweat. Do NOT drink anything cold, only drink hot things and STAY in bed and sweat, at least 12 hours or overnight. If you do this EARLY, as soon as you begin to feel ill, you will feel better the next day, and will not get sick.

Raising your body temperature for a sustained time kills the organisms just as they begin to multiply to make you REALLY ill. That's why it's important to catch it early. Has worked well for me for almost 50 years.

Mon


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

shawnlee said:


> I say mandatory curfew and check everyone`s papers as they move around town, if it just saves one life...….you can never be too safe. After all who knows what all these crazy people are doing or where they are even going....


 Thanks for posting that, always enjoyed Carlin's devil-may-care genius. Hopefully he didn't wind up going Downstairs


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

light rain said:


> Autism was not prevalent in the 50's and 60's. Something in our environment is at fault but I do not see a conclusive answer to what is the cause...


I can see how someone might reach that conclusion. Autism has only recently been recognized. We are still learning about various parts of the Autism spectrum. Asperger is a well known part of Autism and years ago was not identified.
Many people with Aspergers are inventors and many work in Silicon Valley, utilizing their unique thinking methods. Seldon Cooper on the TV show Big Bang, is typical of Aspbergers.
Other types of Autism were once seen as Retarded. Often times, they were placed in institutions, hidden from public view. Sometimes the family cared for them, but often lacking any sort of understanding of this disorder, kept hidden from the public.

Modern science allows the detection of impurities in parts per billion, when recent past only parts per million were detectable. By increased detection we know of contaminants never detectable before. But that doesn't mean there is more contamination, just better detection of minute amounts.
Likewise, recognizing Autism as a separate disorder and identifying even mild amounts or different types, gets them the proper treatment they need. Far better than past methods of calling them retarded. It is the better detection that causes the increases in autism numbers.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

haypoint said:


> I can see how someone might reach that conclusion. Autism has only recently been recognized. We are still learning about various parts of the Autism spectrum. Asperger is a well known part of Autism and years ago was not identified.
> Many people with Aspergers are inventors and many work in Silicon Valley, utilizing their unique thinking methods. Seldon Cooper on the TV show Big Bang, is typical of Aspbergers.
> Other types of Autism were once seen as Retarded. Often times, they were placed in institutions, hidden from public view. Sometimes the family cared for them, but often lacking any sort of understanding of this disorder, kept hidden from the public.
> 
> ...


Exactly. Autism is nothing new, and they are still adding to the spectrum.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I'd encourage anyone with an interest in Autism to read a few of Temple Grandin's books. At the very least watch the movie about her life, "Temple Grandin". She has Autism. She is a Professor at Univ of Colorado. She is the designer of every major cattle handling facility in the US. She is the founder of an accreditation group for humane slaughter of cattle. She travels the country and talks about human treatment of animals and speaks about Autism.
Vaccinations don't cause Autism. The vast majority of birth defects in this country are related to mom or dad's ingestion of drugs or alcohol.


----------



## anniew (Dec 12, 2002)

Last year I did not get the vaccine. My friends were constantly harassing me to go get the shot. My personal decision was not important to them. 
I, instead, decided to do a self-imposed semi-isolation. I didn't go away from home but maybe once a week to get fresh food and whatever else I needed. On my shopping trips I took some of those wipes to clean off shopping cart handles, and then used Purell or similar once back in my car. And, when I got home, I washed my hands thoroughly. I know that the flu is a virus and that most of the wipes and liquid hand cleaners probably don't kill viruses, but they certain remove a lot of everything from your hands, cart handles and such. I also didn't touch door handles without either throw-away gloves, or a wipe and, I also didn't stand close to people when in the store so they couldn't breath/sneeze/cough on me.
Isolation in the past, sometimes called quarantine, has/had been fairly successful with a lot of diseases. The less contact you have with people, the less chance of catching something. It won't work all the time, but then vaccines don't either...
I haven't decided about getting a vaccine this season...but I know that my friends who I usually meet weekly for lunch (but rarely did last year during the flu season) will continue to harass me if they think I didn't get the vaccine.
I don't tell them how to live their lives, and would appreciate it if they don't try to control mine. If I decide to isolate again this time, I'll give them the option of my staying home from our lunch group until the season is over.

On the topic of vets not giving multiple vaccines at the same visit, my vet Won't give multiple vaccines at the same time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> light rain said: ↑
> Autism was not prevalent in the 50's and 60's. Something in our environment is at fault but I do not see a conclusive answer to what is the cause...


Sure it was.
They just didn't label all the cases, and without the internet, many never heard the term at all. 
It's the same with ADD or ADHD. The behaviors have existed forever. Only the labels have changed.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

anniew said:


> I don't tell them how to live their lives, and would appreciate it if they don't try to control mine. If I decide to isolate again this time, I'll give them the option of my staying home from our lunch group until the season is over.


I understand your feelings. Rationalization is a strong emotion and we always see things from our perspective. In a civilization, herd, tribe, whatever, individuals impact the rest.
Perhaps it would be easiest to explain by using you as an example. Your risk to the rest is small, as long as you shutter yourself away. Few can do that. But when you go out to shop, your lack of vaccination makes you a link. When you contract the flu, from any of the surfaces you touch, you become a carrier. We all know that we spread the virus before we know we have it. So, it is easy to see that upon your return to get groceries, you'll be shredding the virus to the population. You go home, contract the flu, stay home until you are well. Then when you feel better, you return to the store a shed more viruses. You are the connecting link to a pandemic, while a simple, safe, shot could have made you the break in the spread.

The myth that has dogged the flu shots for decades is that the shot made them catch the flu. The truth is that they contracted the flu, prior to the vaccine taking effect. You face the same risk. All of your friends that have adopted the herd mentality of self protection through vaccination, will believe anyone you were around that got sick must have gotten it from you. Hard to disprove. 

It has been so long since we have faced a deadly flu. The world wide flu that killed millions, spread like wildfire, a hundred years ago. At that time, just due to limited transportation, the World was nearly quarantined by villages. Vast rural areas limited the spread. Yet the flu killed millions. Today, with vast travel systems and a mostly urban population, the spread will be a thousand times faster. You and all other unvaccinated people are the way it spreads. That flu killed the most healthy first.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

haypoint said:


> I understand your feelings. Rationalization is a strong emotion and we always see things from our perspective. In a civilization, herd, tribe, whatever, individuals impact the rest.


Last year in what officials called a deadly flu season, 80,000 people in US died from the flu. That is .024% of population.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Given what we know about the abuse of antibiotics in farm animals, I am shocked soo many are pro drugs on here...….give it another 100 years and the humans will have to be pumped full of big pharma monthly or die.....

The human race is weakening in almost every way that matters.....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

shawnlee said:


> Given what we know about the abuse of antibiotics in farm animals, I am shocked soo many are pro drugs on here...….give it another 100 years and the humans will have to be pumped full of big pharma monthly or die.....
> 
> The human race is weakening in almost every way that matters.....


I don't believe that a single person, on this thread or any other, has indicated that they approve of the overuse antibiotics in animals or people. I certainly don't. It's not nice to imply that anyone did. I know of no one on here that is "pro drugs" either.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I like drugs. They are great tools in my opinion. Imagine undergoing even a minor surgery without them!?!  not for me! Call me a wimp but I prefer to not be there when the doc starts slicing his way in to remove that appendix.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)




----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I like drugs. They are great tools in my opinion. Imagine undergoing even a minor surgery without them!?!  not for me! Call me a wimp but I prefer to not be there when the doc starts slicing his way in to remove that appendix.



Exactly....they are very needed and usefull………

Would you run down and get a belly full of Anesthesia because you might get surgery this winter...….


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nope, but I like knowing it's there when I need it.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, but I like knowing it's there when I need it.


Would you still take it if it was only 36% effective?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> Would you still take it if it was only 36% effective?


I would, and do, with the flu shot. Apparently you do too, as you said you'll have one this year.

ETA: 36% will always be better protection than zero.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> Would you still take it if it was only 36% effective?


Yep, just have to take three times as much.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, just have to take three times as much.


And the result would still be 36%.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> I would, and do, with the flu shot. Apparently you do too, as you said you'll have one this year.
> 
> ETA: 36% will always be better protection than zero.


As I replied to you earlier:

OK, I'll play.

What is more effective - 36% or 87.5%?

A product that is 36% effective should not be on the market. NIH needs to get their act together.

I wonder if having a flu shot that is so ineffective actually reduces or increases the number of people who get the flu?

Here's my thinking. People that don't get the flu shot most likely take some precautions - staying away from people with the flu, avoiding places where large numbers of people congregate, washing their hands, etc; while people who had the flu shot think they are protected and don't take the same precautions.

So just how many people get the flu on average every year?

5% to 20% -- Percentage of the U.S. population that will get the flu, on average, each year.
https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/flu-statistics

So that seems to mean that last year, somewhere between 80%-95% of people didn't get the flu, but for those that got the flu shot, 66% did.

I'm sure there is something wrong with my logic, but I'm not seeing it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> Would you still take it if it was only 36% effective?


Yep


MoonRiver said:


> And the result would still be 36%.


that would be incorrect unless you think opiates only affect 36% percent of people. At which point it's still incorrect because that not how it works. Trying to compare drugs to immunizing is not a valid comparison whatsoever.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> As I replied to you earlier:
> 
> OK, I'll play.
> 
> ...


OK, I'll return with- 36% effectiveness is still more protection than zero. That's fact, and it's never going to change, which is why I didn't engage with you last time. And you're still getting a flu shot this year, correct? 

Most of the rest of your post (minus the flu stats) is your opinion, and you're entitled to it.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep
> 
> that would be incorrect unless you think opiates only affect 36% percent of people. At which point it's still incorrect because that not how it works.


This thread is about the flu vaccine which is 36% effective. I'm just asking if an opiate was as ineffective as the flu vaccine, would it still be administered to patients as it is now, and the obvious answer is no. There would be better options that were more effective than 36%.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> OK, I'll return with- 36% effectiveness is still more protection than zero. That's fact, and it's never going to change, which is why I didn't engage with you last time. And you're still getting a flu shot this year, correct?
> 
> Most of the rest of your post (minus the flu stats) is your opinion, and you're entitled to it.


And you missed the point. People who didn't get the flu shot were less likely to get the flu than those that did get the shot. People who didn't get the shot only had a 5%-20% chance of getting the flu. 

Which is better? 80% - 95% or 36%?

How about this? How many young children and teens died from the flu last flu season?

Less than 200
200 - 500
501 - 1000
1000 - 2000
2001 - 5000

More than 5000


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> And you missed the point. People who didn't get the flu shot were less likely to get the flu than those that did get the shot. People who didn't get the shot only had a 5%-20% chance of getting the flu.
> 
> Which is better? 5%-20% or 36%?
> 
> ...


I didn't miss the point at all- 36% will always be more effective than zero. Always and forever. 

You're getting the flu shot (2018/19) this year, correct? Even tho last year's shot was only 36% effective?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> I didn't miss the point at all- 36% will always be more effective than zero. Always and forever.
> 
> You're getting the flu shot (2018/19) this year, correct? Even tho last year's shot was only 36% effective?


Only because I believe it is in my best interest to keep my doctor happy.

What is this zero you keep bring up? There are only 2 choices. Get the flu shot which is 36% effective or don't get the flu shot which is 80-95% effective.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> Only because I believe it is in my best interest to keep my doctor happy.
> 
> What is this zero you keep bring up? There are only 2 choices. Get the flu shot which is 36% effective or don't get the flu shot which is 80-95% effective.


Nope. The two choices are not getting the shot- zero effective, and getting the shot which last year was 36% effective. 

I'm not going to argue with you. You think it's silly to get the flu shot because it's not effective enough, yet you're getting one...


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

farmrbrown said:


> natural immunity to flu and B cells
> 
> genetic immunity from flu


For those who may have missed it...and thats a bump :>)


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

GTX63 said:


> From Farmrbrown's link-
> 
> ...and a little more help for those with enquiring minds :>)
> 
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's not nice to imply that anyone did.


Lots of things aren't nice.
What's your point?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. The two choices are not getting the shot- zero effective, and getting the shot which last year was 36% effective.
> 
> I'm not going to argue with you. You think it's silly to get the flu shot because it's not effective enough, yet you're getting one...


Having open heart surgery is serious. The flu is almost always not.

My cardiologist wants me to get a flu shot, so I will get a flu shot. No sense arguing with him over something so trivial.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

The facts are the facts.....less people get the flue who do not get flue shots than those who do get the shots.


Sorry,...flu, not flue...













Overlooking the arguments of what genetic effects or more immediate side effects the flu shot might or might not have....which is still a very unproven thing.


While in general the flue shot has been a benefit to society....we still do not understand the long term effects or even many of the short term effects yet on humans...…..it could be negligible or in 100 years flu shots could be known as a tipping point that brinked humanity to the edge of extinction.


I do not get them ,but I am glad they are available and more glad it is still a choice and not forced on us by those who feel they know best......more power to you if you get one...….I feel for the most part the short term effects are know enough that it will probably not cause anything most people have to worry about personally effecting their bodies. For some it could very well be a life saver...…...I am not immune compromised, so a flue is a minor set back and more of a hassle than anything. Ironically I have only had it less than a handful of times, unlike some of my flu shot friends who seem to catch one if some one sneezes in another state...…


Maybe my good genetics are due to generations before me not getting a flu shot......we really do not know at this point for certain.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Last year in what officials called a deadly flu season, 80,000 people in US died from the flu. That is .024% of population.


Last year 10,000 people died from gun deaths, after subtracting the 20,000 suicides. That number is high enough to consider changing the Constitution and banning guns.
80,000 gun deaths would cause heads to explode in Washington DC. Fewer than 80,000 died from drug over doses last year and that has a flurry of new laws, equipped police, public service announcements and so far no way to stem that tide.

At what point, how many preventable flu deaths, is enough to warrant a vaccination? 

I talked to a guy that was at the Military Hospital in Washington, during WWI, when that flu swept through the hospital and the rest of the world. He recalled bodies stacked up like cord wood, frozen outside, because they couldn't process the bodies fast enough. We are just a virus mutation away from another deadly pandemic.

But its a free world, go ahead and protect yourself with wormwood, oregano oil and lavender.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

haypoint said:


> Last year 10,000 people died from gun deaths, after subtracting the 20,000 suicides. That number is high enough to consider changing the Constitution and banning guns.
> 80,000 gun deaths would cause heads to explode in Washington DC. Fewer than 80,000 died from drug over doses last year and that has a flurry of new laws, equipped police, public service announcements and so far no way to stem that tide.
> 
> At what point, how many preventable flu deaths, is enough to warrant a vaccination?


Sure, have a massive vaccination program that saves the lives of less than 200 children a year. That's totally cost effective, isn't it? Why not have a program to vaccinate at risk children?



> I talked to a guy that was at the Military Hospital in Washington, during WWI, when that flu swept through the hospital and the rest of the world. He recalled bodies stacked up like cord wood, frozen outside, because they couldn't process the bodies fast enough. We are just a virus mutation away from another deadly pandemic.


And just how long does it take from identifying a deadly virus mutation, developing and testing a new vaccine, and then manufacturing and getting the drug to distribution points throughout the world?

Of course, we are talking about a yearly flu vaccination, not a new deadly virus mutation. and they rarely get the flu vaccine right.



> But its a free world, go ahead and protect yourself with wormwood, oregano oil and lavender.


Thanks, I didn't know that wormwood and lavender worked.

Statistically, the flu vaccine for the general population makes little to no sense. My guess is, the government and drug companies insist on a massive vaccination program because the cost of developing a vaccination that would only be administered to at risk kids and people over 65 would be cost prohibitive. So they use fear tactics to try and get as many people as possible to get the shot and share the cost over as large a number of people as possible.

They also benefit from vaccinating healthy people who either would not get the flu (raising the efficacy rate) or who would get through it without ever needing to see a doctor.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

shawnlee said:


> The facts are the facts.....less people get the flue who do not get flue shots than those who do get the shots.
> 
> 
> Sorry,...flu, not flue...
> ...


Well we don’t know the long term effects of many things from modern medicine. But to throw that out is just a fear tactic. Don’t get one, I don’t care. Just did not throw something like that out. 

Who maybe next year we will get a flu pandemic and 60% of people with trout flu shots will die. Just as valid b


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Sure, have a massive vaccination program that saves the lives of less than 200 children a year. That's totally cost effective, isn't it? Why not have a program to vaccinate at risk children?


It isn't to save 200 children. The figure you use is 200 deaths for those not immunized. What about the millions that didn't get the flu because of massive numbers of vaccinated people?
Can we assume that most at risk children and adults did get vaccinated. Yet, 80,000 people died in a single year, with millions of people vaccinated. What would the number of deaths be if there weren't breaks in the contagion chain?

It seems you are looking at this in the most simplistic single facet way possible. Group immunity protects everyone by breaking the chain. Vaccination saves lives even among healthy populations. Those 200 dead children weren't a high risk of death by flu. The 80,000 flu deaths last year weren't all people at risk.

But, like most conspiracy theories, UFO, faked moon landing, copper bracelets and GMO, people that have bought into the theory are not going to see the truth, eve n if their face was rubbed in it. But I don't thin k the government and Big Pharma are out to get me.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

haypoint said:


> It isn't to save 200 children. The figure you use is 200 deaths for those not immunized. What about the millions that didn't get the flu because of massive numbers of vaccinated people?
> Can we assume that most at risk children and adults did get vaccinated. Yet, 80,000 people died in a single year, with millions of people vaccinated. What would the number of deaths be if there weren't breaks in the contagion chain?
> 
> It seems you are looking at this in the most simplistic single facet way possible. Group immunity protects everyone by breaking the chain. Vaccination saves lives even among healthy populations. Those 200 dead children weren't a high risk of death by flu. The 80,000 flu deaths last year weren't all people at risk.
> ...


You're making assumptions not based on any presented facts.

1. We can't assume most at risk children or seniors were vaccinated.
2. There are already breaks in contagion chain as at best the vaccine is only 36% effective.
3. I already presented a statistic that indicates a lower percentage of all people got the flu than the subset that got the vaccine.
4. no one has presented any fact that shows millions didn't get the flu because of massive numbers of vaccinated people.
5. You said "Those 200 dead children weren't a high risk of death by flu", when just the opposite is true. Most were high risk.

You are responding with conventional wisdom, not facts. 

I wish there was a highly effective vaccine, but there's not. What percentage of people do you think would get the flu if no one was vaccinated? We already have a pretty good idea.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> You're making assumptions not based on any presented facts.
> 
> 1. We can't assume most at risk children or seniors were vaccinated.
> 2. There are already breaks in contagion chain as at best the vaccine is only 36% effective.
> ...


So you would endorse it it it was more effective
But 36% is better than zero


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

36% is better than zero. It is kind of catchy but repeating it doesn't make it accurate.
It is moreso preference and it just seems like the folks that push it just aren't willing to understand that, let it go,put the dog out and shut off the porch light.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

keenataz said:


> Well we don’t know the long term effects of many things from modern medicine. But to throw that out is just a fear tactic. Don’t get one, I don’t care. Just did not throw something like that out.
> 
> Who maybe next year we will get a flu pandemic and 60% of people with trout flu shots will die. Just as valid b



I am not just throwing it out, I said disregarding that...…..but it is a concern many many people have....valid or not as I said.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

keenataz said:


> So you would endorse it it it was more effective
> But 36% is better than zero


Not to mention that some who feel the flu shot is ineffective and a waste of money, are still having one at the recommendation of their physician.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> I would, and do, with the flu shot. Apparently you do too, as you said you'll have one this year.
> 
> ETA: 36% will always be better protection than zero.


Yes.
And 90% will always be better than 36%.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)




----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> View attachment 71174


Another silly meme that you've taken the time to search the internet to find for us. Thank you.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

keenataz said:


> So you would endorse it it it was more effective
> But 36% is better than zero


Zero is irrelevant and I don't understand why people even bring it up. My point is it appears that not getting the flu shot is more effective than getting the flu shot at preventing the flu


> 3. I already presented a statistic that indicates a lower percentage of all people got the flu than the subset that got the vaccine.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

haypoint said:


> It isn't to save 200 children. The figure you use is 200 deaths for those not immunized. What about the millions that didn't get the flu because of massive numbers of vaccinated people?
> Can we assume that most at risk children and adults did get vaccinated. Yet, 80,000 people died in a single year, with millions of people vaccinated. What would the number of deaths be if there weren't breaks in the contagion chain?
> 
> It seems you are looking at this in the most simplistic single facet way possible. Group immunity protects everyone by breaking the chain. Vaccination saves lives even among healthy populations. Those 200 dead children weren't a high risk of death by flu. The 80,000 flu deaths last year weren't all people at risk.
> ...



Are you implying that individual and group immunities did not exist before the invention of flu vaccines?

I'll give credit to science for the moon landing, but spreading wild stories isn't limited to just one segment of the population.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> Not to mention that some who feel the flu shot is ineffective and a waste of money, are still having one at the recommendation of their physician.


And it makes perfect sense and I don't understand what you don't understand. As I posted earlier, I rarely get the flu (twice in 50 years) and will take precautions to make sure I don't get it this year as I can't afford to have my immune systems compromised.

The doctor believes the flu shot works and I think not getting the flu shot might undermine my relationship with him. I need this guy advocating for me as I select a surgeon, where I will have surgery, and what type of valve replacement is best for me.

So I am getting the flu shot not to prevent getting the flu, but to honor the relationship I have with my cardiologist. The vaccine may be of benefit if I do get the flu, but I don't believe it will be very effective at preventing it. I am likely one that has a genetic predisposition to not get the flu as indicated by the fact I was one of a very few kids in my elementary school that did not get the 1957/58 Asian flu and only getting the flu twice in 50 years.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> *And it makes perfect sense and I don't understand what you don't understand. As I posted earlier, I rarely get the flu (twice in 50 years) and will take precautions to make sure I don't get it this year as I can't afford to have my immune systems compromised.*
> 
> The doctor believes the flu shot works and I think not getting the flu shot might undermine my relationship with him. I need this guy advocating for me as I select a surgeon, where I will have surgery, and what type of valve replacement is best for me.
> 
> So I am getting the flu shot not to prevent getting the flu, but to honor the relationship I have with my cardiologist. The vaccine may be of benefit if I do get the flu, but I don't believe it will be very effective at preventing it. I am likely one that has a genetic predisposition to not get the flu as indicated by the fact I was one of a very few kids in my elementary school that did not get the 1957/58 Asian flu and only getting the flu twice in 50 years.


I understand perfectly. You think the flu shot is ineffective and there has been an animated discussion for eight pages regarding your opinion. You're having the (ineffective) shot because you are having open heart surgery, it's a personal thing for you. 

You are having the shot. You probably shouldn't castigate anyone that either had the the shot or is getting one. Correct?


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

If you are seen out in public with no definitive proof of vaccination, the police should be able to hold you down and administer the shot immediately! The police or some other government agency should be able to go house-to-house and examine occupants for said evidence of inoculation.

I suspect they may not be charging enough for these miracle drugs and propose they increase the cost by 10,000% immediately!


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

There are folks that do wish well for you, sometimes by any means at hand. And it doesn't have to be all about the children if it is your largest profit margin, does it?
Another interesting read, though those that might foam at the mouth over any dissent may not care for it.

*https://www.globalresearch.ca/big-p...he-multibillion-dollar-vaccine-market/5503945

A short snippet-*
Are pharmaceutical corporations motivated by profits? _“Profits from vaccine production aren’t a valid argument against vaccinations—the most important question is whether vaccines are safe and effective, and the answer is unambiguously yes”_ wrote Lam. In 2015, Former Merck Employee and whistleblower Brandy Vaughan Spoke out against the state of California’s vaccination mandate bill SB277 and said:

The U.S. gives more vaccines than any other country in the world. Our childhood schedule for under the age of one has twice as many vaccines as other developed countries. What else do we have? The highest infant mortality rate of any developed nation. Finland has the lowest. They only give 11 by age six. Mississippi has the highest rate of vaccination in the U.S.–highest infant mortality rate. These numbers do not lie. But you will not hear that on the media, and that is not what Senator Pan will tell you.

What we have with vaccines is the highest profit margin pharmaceutical drug on the market. Drug companies make more money off vaccines than they do any other pharmaceutical drug, in terms of profit margin. There is a lack of rigorous safety studies. And they don’t have the incentive to do them because they have no liability.

Vaccines are the only products in the U.S. that do not have liability. You cannot sue for injuries or death. But that is only in the U.S. Around the world, there are law suits because of serious injuries and deaths because from vaccines. In Spain over Gardasil. In Japan over Gardasil. The flu shot was taken off the market for under five in Australia after deaths and injury. Prevnar was banned in China. Pfizer’s vaccination program was kicked out of the country. France just pulled Rotavirus off their schedule after infant deaths and injuries

With a forecast of $61 billion in projected sales, rest assured new vaccines will be developed for almost anything. Actor and comedian Jim Carrey did say that _“150 people die every year from being hit by falling coconuts. Not to worry, drug makers are developing a vaccine”_. With 271 vaccines in production, Jim Carrey’s comments, which were criticized by the mainstream media, may not be so farfetched after all.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> You are having the shot. You probably shouldn't castigate anyone that either had the the shot or is getting one. Correct?


I never did. Not my style.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> You're making assumptions not based on any presented facts.
> 
> 1. We can't assume most at risk children or seniors were vaccinated.
> 2. There are already breaks in contagion chain as at best the vaccine is only 36% effective.
> ...



My assumptions were made on your numbers and logic.


We can assume that a high percentage of at risk children and seniors would seek vaccination. That’s just logical.


You don’t understand the term “contagion chain”. Vaccination creates breaks in the chain, not ineffective vaccines. Sure, a higher percentage of effectiveness, the slower the spread. An unvaccinated population is an invitation to an epidemic.


Logically, people that are around lots of sick people willingly, or are mandated to, get the vaccine. Logically, their exposure is far higher than the general population. Easy to show that when those at most risk of contracting the flu are vaccinated, the breaks in contagion protect, to some degree, the general population. If you are trying to show that the group of vaccinated people contracted the virus at a greater percentage than those unvaccinated, that is just not logical. It has been proven that vaccination protects the individual and widespread vaccination protects the population.


Attending a basic biology class should provide enough information that epidemics are reduced or stopped by widespread vaccination. Small Pox might be a good example of this. That 40,000 people, worldwide, die of rabies each year, it is rare in the US due to an aggressive vaccination program. Proof enough?


It seems logical that parents of high risk children would be vigilant about protecting them with vaccinations. Logical that the parents of children without health concerns would be more likely to fail to vaccinate. You’d have to be clairvoyant to know that all 200 children that died from the flu were in that group of high risk. I believe that most of the parents that lost a child to the flu were surprised by their death. Healthy people die of the complications associated with the flu.


Learn the facts surrounding the pandemic of 1914-15. The virus used the human immune system and the strongest people died at the highest rate. Entire communities contracted it and died. The flu doesn’t always cull the old and the weak.


A highly effective vaccine is one that is safe and builds enough immunity in individuals to limit the severity. Plus creates a total immunity in enough people to stop the virus’ spread, by breaking the spread.


Often conventional wisdom is rooted in known facts.


If no one were vaccinated, in our modern, with extensive travel, concentrated shopping and employment areas, nearly everyone could be exposed and only those rare people with a natural immunity to that new strain of flu would escape the virus. A deadly virus, like Small Pox in the Native American population, would wipe out entire populations. Here are historical examples to support my logic.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

haypoint said:


> My assumptions were made on your numbers and logic.
> 
> 1. We can assume that a high percentage of at risk children and seniors would seek vaccination. That’s just logical.


That's not the reason. Children and seniors are more likely to receive medical care, so they are also likely to be the population that health professionals have direct access to in recommending the flu shot.


> 2. You don’t understand the term “contagion chain”. Vaccination crates breaks in the chain, not ineffective vaccine. Sure, a higher percentage of effectiveness, the slower the spread. An unvaccinated population is an invitation to an epidemic.


My point was 36% effectiveness may not be enough to break the contagion chain. How do we know it is? Did CDC publish such a study?


> 3. Logically, people that are around lots of sick people willingly or are mandated to, get the vaccine. Logically, their exposure is far higher than the general population. Easy to show that when those at most risk of contracting the flu are vaccinated, the breaks in contagion protect, to some degree, the general population. If you are trying to show that the group of vaccinated people contracted the virus at a greater percentage than those unvaccinated, that is just not logical. It has been proven that vaccination protects the individual and widespread vaccination protects the population.


The numbers show that a higher percentage of people that got the vaccination got the flu than people that didn't get the vaccination. It wasn't even close. 5%-20% of people that didn't get the vaccination got the flu and 64% of people who got the vaccination did get the flu.


> 4. Attending a basic biology class should provide enough information that epidemics are reduced or stopped by widespread vaccination. Small Pox might be a good example of this. That 40,000 people, worldwide, die of rabies each year, it is rare in the US due to an aggressive vaccination program. Proof enough?


Again, your logic is flawed. The effectiveness of the small pox vaccine is 95%. My argument against the flu shot is not that it is a bad idea, but it is so ineffective I'm not sure it is beneficial to the population at large. I think a targeted approach might have much better results. Along with the shot, provide guidance on other ways to prevent the flu. Armed with the shot and good health practices, the result would be an effectiveness higher than just the 36% of the vaccine


> 5. It seems logical that parents of high risk children would be vigilant about protecting them with vaccinations. Logical that the parents of children without health concerns would be more likely to fail to vaccinate. You’d have to be clairvoyant to know that all 200 children that died from the flu were in that group of high risk. I believe that most of the parents that lost a child to the flu were surprised by their death. Healthy people die of the complications associated with the flu.


Again, all assumptions and no facts. People are lead to believe the vaccine prevents the flu. If parents think their children are protected because they had the flu shot, why would they also begin good health practices. I think whoever administers the vaccine has an obligation to explain to parents that the vaccine does not provide 100% effectiveness against the flu, and to also receive a pamphlet that explains this as well as good health practices the parents should implement.


> Learn the facts surrounding the pandemic of 1914-15. The virus used the human immune system and the strongest people died at the highest rate. Entire communities contracted it and died. The flu doesn’t always cull the old and the weak.


And it is highly unlikely the flu vaccine would be effective against it. Once the strain was identified, the government would spend 100's of millions if not billions to rush getting a new vaccine made. We have been talking about the standard flu shot where every year they attempt to make a vaccine that works with predicted flu strains. You are talking about the exception to the rule.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> My point was 36% effectiveness may not be enough to break the contagion chain. How do we know it is? Did CDC publish such a study?


I think I have not been making this simple enough. Let me try again. 
Drive your vehicle into the ditch. Find someone to pull you out. Use a chain that one link out of three are broken or missing. No matter how long or short you hook the chain, it will not ever be complete enough to pull your vehicle from the ditch.

When an infected person comes in contact with 100 people, 36% properly immunized, 36 people will not infect the people they are in contact with. Since every person does not spread the virus to every person, huge segments of the population will not be exposed. The larger the number of vaccinated people and the higher the vaccine's effectiveness, the larger the breaks in the contagion chain.

Any of the current strains of flu virus hold the potential of deadly mutation.

A 36% effective rate is a bit misleading. When the vaccine is effective on one flu, the break in contagion prevents its spread. It is then the other flu strains that are less controlled that ultimately kill 80,000 people.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

> When an infected person comes in contact with 100 people, 36% properly immunized, 36 people will not infect the people they are in contact with.


I don't understand that sentence, but I think you meant that if 36 people in 100 are immunized, that 36 will not spread the flu. If that's what you meant, it is wrong.

If 36 out of 100 get immunized, they have a 36% likelihood of not getting the flu. That means the other 64% probably will. That means out of that 36, 23 get the flu and 13 don't. That's why I'm saying a 36% effectiveness rate is probably not high enough to break the contagion chain.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

GTX63 said:


> View attachment 71174


Total nonsense, has nothing to do with the subject


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> Zero is irrelevant and I don't understand why people even bring it up. My point is it appears that not getting the flu shot is more effective than getting the flu shot at preventing the flu


That is silly, the person who did not get a shot may not have been exposed to the flu, so shot is immaterial.
Yes avoidance is bet prevention.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

keenataz said:


> Who maybe next year we will get a flu pandemic and 60% of people with *trout flu* shots will die.


Is that like Bird Flu or Swine Flu?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

keenataz said:


> That is silly, the person who did not get a shot may not have been exposed to the flu, so shot is immaterial.
> Yes avoidance is bet prevention.


Then we would have to assume that some people that did get the shot also were not exposed to the flu.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> Then we would have to assume that some people that did get the shot also were not exposed to the flu.


Yup just makes sense,

I think th eonly guarantee is, that someone who got the flu, was exposed to the flu virus.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

keenataz said:


> Yup just makes sense,
> 
> I think th eonly guarantee is, that someone who got the flu, was exposed to the flu virus.


Yep, and people who are never exposed to the flu virus don't get it.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

keenataz said:


> Total nonsense, has nothing to do with the subject


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Don't want to get a flu shot? Fine. Don't. But make sure your kids are protected.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

thesedays said:


> Don't want to get a flu shot? Fine. Don't. But make sure your kids are protected.



That's what most people who do not get the kids a flu shot believe they are doing...…..if we can`t force the parents at least force their kids...….seems rather pushy.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Kind of like "It Takes A Village...with Clubs".


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

One thing would work as well as or maybe better than vaccination would be prevention. Simple and easy, if you have the flu STAY HOME! If your kids have the flu KEEP THEM HOME! When my kids were in school I saw a huge number of kids, parents and teachers who were so sick they could barely stand yet they went to work, stores and numerous other places like there was nothing wrong with them. So many untold cases of the flu could be prevented if sick people stayed HOME! Those flu and cold symptom reliever commercials make me so mad because they show people so sick they can barely make it to the toilet yet they take the medicine and bam! are capable of managing a 12 hour workday. 

I understand there are many employers who do not offer sick days and jobs where if you don't work you don't get paid. I once had one of those jobs. But if you can possibly manage it please stay home when you are sick. You really don't have to rush to the store to do your shopping for frivolous items.

FYI, my son had strep throat 3 times in 2 months because the idiotic teacher he had refused to take any of her paid sick days. She had strep and would not even go to the doctor until they had to take her in an ambulance.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Its the same old story...…...never changes thru time.



People want to lay around in sloth and ignorance, run around spewing germs like a fountain...………….and expect some one to come up with a easy way out for them...….

I will just go get a shot and your stupid if you don`t...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

shawnlee said:


> Its the same old story...…...never changes thru time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're the only one that has said anything of the sort on this thread...


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

I don't think flu shots should be required for school attendance, only highly recommended.

My local school district makes it easy for the parents by bringing nurses to the schools to immunize students and staff, with the parents' permission.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Danaus29 said:


> One thing would work as well as or maybe better than vaccination would be prevention. Simple and easy, if you have the flu STAY HOME! If your kids have the flu KEEP THEM HOME! When my kids were in school I saw a huge number of kids, parents and teachers who were so sick they could barely stand yet they went to work, stores and numerous other places like there was nothing wrong with them. So many untold cases of the flu could be prevented if sick people stayed HOME! Those flu and cold symptom reliever commercials make me so mad because they show people so sick they can barely make it to the toilet yet they take the medicine and bam! are capable of managing a 12 hour workday.
> 
> I understand there are many employers who do not offer sick days and jobs where if you don't work you don't get paid. I once had one of those jobs. But if you can possibly manage it please stay home when you are sick. You really don't have to rush to the store to do your shopping for frivolous items.
> 
> FYI, my son had strep throat 3 times in 2 months because the idiotic teacher he had refused to take any of her paid sick days. She had strep and would not even go to the doctor until they had to take her in an ambulance.


Oh don't get me started. There are people who think they are so indispensable or to show they are they have to come in sick. It drives me nuts. I always tell them "someone did your job before you and someone will do it after, it's not like we are a brain surgeon or music conductor"

And those commercials lie. If you have the true flu, those otc remedies will do nothing mostly. Maybe fever down a bit and muscle aches reeif. BUT DON"T GO TO WORK!!

Yes it ticks me off.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

thesedays said:


> I don't think flu shots should be required for school attendance, only highly recommended.
> 
> My local school district makes it easy for the parents by bringing nurses to the schools to immunize students and staff, with the parents' permission.


I agree, encouraged but I am uncomfortable forcing it on people.

Of course if I had a kid with some respitory or immune problem, I would feel differently


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

keenataz said:


> Oh don't get me started. There are people who think they are so indispensable or to show they are they have to come in sick. It drives me nuts. I always tell them "someone did your job before you and someone will do it after, it's not like we are a brain surgeon or music conductor"
> 
> And those commercials lie. If you have the true flu, those otc remedies will do nothing mostly. Maybe fever down a bit and muscle aches reeif. BUT DON"T GO TO WORK!!
> 
> Yes it ticks me off.


The flu is over in 5-7 days anyway, so by the time you take an otc medication, you are within days of being over it anyway. You might still feel like crap after a week, but you are no longer infectious.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> The flu is over in 5-7 days anyway, so by the time you take an otc medication, you are within days of being over it anyway. You might still feel like crap after a week, but you are no longer infectious.


No I am talking about people who come in day one when they are sick

Drives me nuts


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

keenataz said:


> No I am talking about people who come in day one when they are sick
> 
> Drives me nuts


I know. I was just pointing out they don't help you get over the flu any quicker, but since the flu usually lasts a week or less, some people probably assume the OTC med got rid of the flu when it was just running its normal course.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Ok, I rony

Today is flu shot day at work. I am getting one. 

But my son woke up this morning with the flu.

So it is possible I could geta shot and get the flu on the weekend.

I willmake sure to blame the shot


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

keenataz said:


> Ok, I rony
> 
> Today is flu shot day at work. I am getting one.
> 
> ...


Good luck and may the force be with you.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> Good luck and may the force be with you.


Well the ordeal is over. Being a normal male, of course it was an horrible painful ordeal. But I survived


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

keenataz said:


> Well the ordeal is over. Being a normal male, of course it was an horrible painful ordeal. But I survived


I'm glad you made it though. :grin: Now to get through the weekend unscathed as well.


----------

