People don't have to have the TB jab any more [Archive]

Pauly

10-12-2005, 22:14

I was talking about this with my parents the other day. Apparently when TB was a big problem it was common practice for the general public to spit on the floor when doing your everyday thing, walking down the road etc... This apparently contributed to the spread of TB and the habit was stamped out in this country because of it. The TB jab came in and the disease became less and less common. I guess cos the disease is so uncommon now they've decided to stop giving the jab because it's not such a huge problem anymore.

However in other countries it is still common practice to spit on the floor etc. We're getting alot of immigrants coming here who don't follow our customs and I would imagine it is possible that since we're not having the TB jab anymore that an epidemic of TB could happen due to any immigrants carrying TB who continue to spit everywhere.

I'm not having a pop at immigrants before anyone jumps all over me with the PC stick. Just putting my concerns across. :)

Scammy

10-12-2005, 22:29

i didnt have a tb jab done just kept missing it at school. was meant to have it last year but i was too ill too. so i think ill give it a miss

medusa

10-12-2005, 22:36

It's not just due to the spitting thing Pauly- it's also due to having warm and cushy centrally heated homes. TB thrives in damp conditions and has trouble growing in warm and dry provided by central heating.

Therefore higher socioeconomic groups are less likely to catch TB than lower socioeconomic groups. Most immigrants live in the poorest, dampest housing that we have, and that doesn't help.

Plus people coming into the country as settlers may have picked TB up before entering the country, and from them it can spread around their extended families without check.

I would imagine that the decision to withdraw blanket BCG jabs and offer it to targetted groups has been taken partly on the basis that whilst it is an inexpensive vaccine to offer, it's also one of the nastiest to have, so if you have a large number of people who aren't likely to catch the disease anyway, do you need to put them through the jab?

Angel05

11-12-2005, 10:20

Whilst at school i was never given the TB jab as my Parents never agreed to it and didnt want they're children to be scared for life...

However... when i was working at Barclays International it was reported that somone in our department had TB... this ment everyone within the department had to be screened and injected... this happened to include me too... :(

I was given a choice... but because in my last place of work before Barlcays... i'd worked within the same enviroment as a girl with TB... so the Nurse suggested it wise that i should have it... :(

So in January of 2003 i was given a TB jab... luckily my marking is fading slowly... :)

spyro2000

11-12-2005, 10:24

Thats weird, I never ever had a mark where I had my TB jab. Why not? It didnt hurt either :confused:

I reckon they never actually gave it me :confused:

Pauly

11-12-2005, 10:27

I almost had to pinned down to have mine cos I was so scared of needles at 10 years old. Big wuss! :blush:

lizzmobile

11-12-2005, 10:54

Less toxic injections can only be a good thing.

Hecate

11-12-2005, 11:09

Originally posted by lizzmobile
Less toxic injections can only be a good thing.

What do you mean by toxic?

Vaccination stimulates the body's immune system to produce an immune response (usually by production of antibodies, depending on what the vaccination is for), in preparation for potential infection.

What's injected isn't toxic to the body.

[EDIT: My TB jab hurt like hell, and resulted in blood running down my arm. It's a very clear memory from junior school. God knows what size needle it was! I have a little round white scar at the vaccination site. I remember we were lined up with our sleeve rolled up, waiting to go into the school nurse's office. Lots of tears on that day, as I recall.]

shoeshine

11-12-2005, 11:30

Neither my parents, my brothers, or anyone in my family spat on pavements etc.. we were trained as children to see it as totally unacceptable, antisocial behaviour! AND IT STILL IS!
I see more spitting on pavements happening now than I did in the late 40's,50's or 60's.

There were also less Dog Droppings around then, as well.

TB was undeniably a problem at around that time. So was Whooping Cough, Scarlet Fever, Measles and Diptheria.... all of which were transmitted by contact with other people, as is TB.

The old WW2 posters advised "Coughs and Sneezes Spread Diseases". How true! (too young read them myself of course).

Thank Heaven for modern Medicines.

Hecate

11-12-2005, 11:53

Originally posted by shoeshine
Thank Heaven for modern Medicines.
Couldn't agree more!

Unfortunately, spitting is responsible for spreading TB. The bug that causes TB can survive outside the body for long periods of time. So, when the spit dries out (sorry to be graphic!), the TB bacteria can get caught up in the air again, ready for someone else to inhale.

Twiglet

11-12-2005, 13:03

One of the major reasons it is in the process of being scrapped is that the vaccination is no longer very effective. Different studies have shown that only between 30% and 60% of those vaccinated are protected against TB.

Pauly

11-12-2005, 13:11

I would've thought that 30% to 60% protection is better than none at all. :)

Twiglet

11-12-2005, 13:24

Originally posted by Pauly
I would've thought that 30% to 60% protection is better than none at all. :)

Yes but if you weigh up the costs of vaccinating everyone, plus the risks of side effects which you are exposing them all to when only 1 in 3 will gain protection I suppose it doesn't really make sense.

Mathom

11-12-2005, 13:26

Spitting dying out? Sometimes you walk through Sheffield and the streets seem to be paved in lung butter. It must be a requirement for blokes (and now girls too) to gob all over the place at every opportunity. God knows what's so 'cool' or 'funny' about it - I feel like rubbing their noses in it! :rant: And no-one ever seems to even cover their mouth when sneezing or coughing anyway - I've seen a lot of very well-heeled people spluttering all over the veg in Tesco.

My TB jab left me with major scarring and various allergies. I was offered a skin graft 3 years later but I refused because I was terrified of something else going wrong. I have an area on my arm where there is no proper skin to this day and which I have to try not to put any soap on. I wasn't the only one at my school to get this. I refused to have the Polio and Tetanus jabs a few years later.

It's better than having to have your throat cut open in order to breathe though!
:o

Bizzy_Lizzy

11-12-2005, 14:49

i was one of those unlucky ones who had twice had it the first time because unfortunately my grandad dies of it then had it again at secondary school because there was about a milimeter gap between my 6 needles so iv got a scar on each arm

Don_Kiddick

12-12-2005, 07:40

This is madness if it's true. :loopy:

London is now the TB capital of Europe due to immigration,
with more virulent - difficult to cure strains too.

Maybe the powers that be are planning a population cull to accommodate the influx?

Good way to do it, it worked with rabbits/ mixamatosis didn't it?

Floe

12-12-2005, 08:37

Perhaps it is time for the government to bring back their public information films which were so popular many years ago.
I still remember the safety films about river swimming, road crossing, wearing white at night...
In other countries there are prominent signs in public places warning against spitting...not that they seem to make much difference!
However, until I read this thread I hadn't realised that spitting contributed to the spread of TB.
The last public information films were in the 80s when the aids epidemic began over here.
By the way, I went to an all girls school and when we had our TB jabs we stood in line with our sleeves rolled up and the nurse vaccinated us at the back of the arm not the front so that any scar would not be visible from the front. I thought that was pretty sensible. Why didn't they all do that..for boys and girls?

12-12-2005, 12:41

Originally posted by ppn_2204
What do you mean by toxic?

Vaccination stimulates the body's immune system to produce an immune response (usually by production of antibodies, depending on what the vaccination is for), in preparation for potential infection.

What's injected isn't toxic to the body.

Many injections have thiomersal as a preservative ie MERCURY which is highly toxic.

Hecate

12-12-2005, 13:07

Originally posted by Mo
Many injections have thiomersal as a preservative ie MERCURY which is highly toxic.
Ah, this old chestnut.
Ok, I won't go into the tedious details, but a quick summary:

- The form of organo-mercury that is toxic is methylmercury.

- Thiomersal, used in miniscule amounts in some vaccines as a preservative, is NOT this form of mercury. Thiomersal is broken down by the body to ethylmercury, which has an entirely diffent chemical structure and hence properties.

- The only pathology associated with ethylmercury is an allergic reaction in some people at the site of the injection. Just like some people have an allergic reaction to nickel.

- There are umpteen studies that have demonstrated that thiomersal used in vaccines is safe, and not associated with any form of neurotoxicity. A quick search on Medline will yield the references to these studies.

[EDIT: Here's a quick summary of the current state of scientific research concerning thiomersal, found by doing a quick Google search. The info is from The National Centre for Immunisation Research in Australia:

"Many studies in Denmark, Sweden, the United States, and the United Kingdom have now shown that there is no evidence of developmental or neurologic abnormalities resulting from the use of vaccines containing thiomersal. In 2004 a report by the Institutes of Medicine, an independent expert body in the United States, concluded that there is no association between autism and vaccines that contain thiomersal. Also in 2004 an extensive review of all the studies on thiomersal-containing vaccines and autism and neurodevelopmental disorders was published in the journal Pediatrics. Studies looking at autism, mental retardation, speech disorders, and attention deficit disorder, as well as other conditions were reviewed. Overall, the evidence indicated that autism and neurodevelopmental disorders are not associated with thiomersal in vaccines. The reviewers noted that the epidemiologic studies done that suggest a link (notably only by one pair of authors) “have significant design flaws that invalidate their conclusions.” "]

nick2

12-12-2005, 13:15

Originally posted by Shine
Some areas still give it out at school - I had mine done at school.

I did too, you can hardly see the scar, but my mates arm went realy gammy and he ended-up with a huge open absess which left a big scar.

depoix

12-12-2005, 15:29

Originally posted by sccsux
Strange.

We got a letter from school on Thursday stating TB jabs were to be withdrawn from schools as cases were now rare, the exception being imigrants from countries with a known TB problem (nothing to do with the below par doses made in Liverpool that were reported recently though:suspect: ) i got the same letter, unless your child is in close contact etc etc etc,

mega_monty

12-12-2005, 17:32

Originally posted by Pauly
I almost had to pinned down to have mine cos I was so scared of needles at 10 years old. Big wuss! :blush:

Im also scared of needles and had the TB jab at school.

Six needle skin test to begin with, then a week or so later the jab itself, Two nurses were present one said "rest your head on my boobs and look away" and held my head so I couldn't see whilst the other rammed in the needle.

It was sore for weeks and went all gammy with blood and pus :gag: as did most peoples I seem to remember, still have the scar which is like a little dent.

x_LoUiSe_x

12-12-2005, 20:03

Originally posted by mega_monty
Im also scared of needles and had the TB jab at school.

Six needle skin test to begin with, then a week or so later the jab itself, Two nurses were present one said "rest your head on my boobs and look away" and held my head so I couldn't see whilst the other rammed in the needle.

It was sore for weeks and went all gammy with blood and pus :gag: as did most peoples I seem to remember, still have the scar which is like a little dent.

same here, i remember that when they did my tb if felt like the needle was scratching around on my bone :gag:

Hecate

12-12-2005, 20:51

Originally posted by x_LoUiSe_x
same here, i remember that when they did my tb if felt like the needle was scratching around on my bone :gag:

Oh yes, that's exactly what it felt like!

Actually, the vaccination is apparently given just under the skin. It hurts so much because it's given slowly, and it raises a little blister-like lump at the site :gag: .

Put me off injections for life. I nearly fainted when I had the Hep B and tetanus jabs! Not because they hurt, but because I'm such a coward when it comes to needles!

mega_monty

12-12-2005, 20:59

Originally posted by ppn_2204
Put me off injections for life. I nearly fainted when I had the Hep B and tetanus jabs! Not because they hurt, but because I'm such a coward when it comes to needles!

Hep B jabs are worse cos not only have you got a course of jabs over a given time, then you have to have a blood test to see if its taken :gag: they didn't tell me that before joining the NHS

13-12-2005, 08:45

Originally posted by ppn_2204
Ah, this old chestnut.

]

Afraid this old chestnut as you put is is still cooking in the oven.

Thiomersal containing vaccines are still under investigation as the MS link here illustrates http://www.msrc.co.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=show&pageid=717 in the US.

It now seems that mercury is been cited as a possible cause of Alzheimers. Think about it. This is a disease which is on the up at the same time as use of the flu jab is also on the increase. I'm not scaremongering and appreciate the benefits of flu protection in the elderly and those with chest problems or compromised immune systems but don't close your eyes to potential risks.

Hecate

13-12-2005, 08:47

Originally posted by mega_monty
Hep B jabs are worse cos not only have you got a course of jabs over a given time, then you have to have a blood test to see if its taken :gag: they didn't tell me that before joining the NHS
I girl in my lab had the blood test for the Hep B antibody titre done on the morning before I had mine. The nurse had stuck the needle all the way through the vein and out the other side. She had a pool of blood under her skin that looked like a massive bruise. I was really looking forward to having it done after that. Fortunately, I got a different nurse, and it didn't hurt at all, despite my fears.

katy1981

13-12-2005, 08:49

my little sister never had it done for some reason :confused: she had the six needles test thingy ma bob and it said she needed it but she never had it done.

and she's now 20 and she still hasnt had it done:o

Plain Talker

13-12-2005, 09:59

Originally posted by mega_monty
Hep B jabs are worse cos not only have you got a course of jabs over a given time, then you have to have a blood test to see if its taken :gag: they didn't tell me that before joining the NHS

As someone who worked in nursing, (back when i was able-bodied) I had to have the hepatitis jabs.

They weren't that bad... it was just a course of three injections, administered over a period of time (in my case six months) with a blood test to check that they had been effective.

It was pretty much like having the tetanus booster: slightly uncomfortable at the site of the jab, for a couple of days after, but nothing to fret about.

I had my TB jab at the age of 10, and found it incredibly unpleasant. (both the heaf test, that they do on your forearm beforehand, and the jab itself)

My TB jab never healed properly till I was in my mid twenties. It was always sore and red-looking. I suppose it didn't help that I got punched on it, by my dad, whilst it was only a few weeks old. my dad had lost his temper, and punched my arm, right on the site of the TB jab. It burst, and all this vile purple looking blood-y pus and stuff poured out, I thought it wasn't going to stop!

I don't understand the way the TB jab is given, why it has to make a bubble, as some have described, above, and why it has to form this awful pustule on your arm, for weeks afterward, or indeed, why it has to take a couple of months to heal up, when other vaccines (smallpox excepted) don't leave a scar, or make such a mess of your arm.

PT

nick2

13-12-2005, 10:03

Originally posted by mega_monty
Hep B jabs are worse cos not only have you got a course of jabs over a given time, then you have to have a blood test to see if its taken :gag: they didn't tell me that before joining the NHS

I've had the Hep B vaccination, but it didn't take, they offered to do it again but I thought it was a waste of money so I didn't bother. I dont' remember the jabs being particualry unpleasant though.

Hecate

13-12-2005, 10:11

Originally posted by Mo
Afraid this old chestnut as you put is is still cooking in the oven.
First, I refer you back to my previous post re. the different forms of mercury and the fact that the form of mercury in the vaccines is a non-toxic form. I also refer you back to the summary of the current state of scientific research concerning thiomersal.

As an addendum to my previous post, I'll also add that the form of mercury that is known to contaminate the environment and some types of fish is NOT the same form of mercury that is used as a preservative in vaccines. This is methylmercury. As I said in my first post, this is NOT the form that is used as a preservative in vaccines.
Originally posted by Mo
Thiomersal containing vaccines are still under investigation as the MS link here illustrates http://www.msrc.co.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=show&pageid=717 in the US.
Thank you for providing the link. The article you link to contains several interesting quotes:
"the Institute of Medicine in the US had looked at the issue and had concluded that evidence does not support a causal association between thimerosal contained in vaccines and neuro-developmental disorders".

and:
"There is no evidence of long-term adverse effects due to the exposure levels of thimerosal in vaccines"

The article you link to, which is a report about an article written by a 'The Scotsman' journalist, not a scientific paper, also contains a fundemental error about the toxic and non-toxic forms of mercury. Once again, the mercury found to contaminate fish is NOT the form used as a preservative in vaccines.
Originally posted by Mo
It now seems that mercury is been cited as a possible cause of Alzheimers.
This is an entirely separate issue, not connected with the use of thimerosal in vaccines. It is concerned with environmental contamination by methylmercury; once again, NOT the form found in vaccines.
Originally posted by Mo
Think about it. This is a disease which is on the up at the same time as use of the flu jab is also on the increase.
This is a correlation, not a cause and effect relationship. As people in this thread have already said, TB is a disease that is also on the up at the same time as the use of the flu jab is on the increase. That's a correlation too, and equally unlikely to be a cause and effect relationship.
Originally posted by Mo
I'm not scaremongering and appreciate the benefits of flu protection in the elderly and those with chest problems or compromised immune systems but don't close your eyes to potential risks.
I'm sorry, but that's exactly what you're doing. You are of course, entitled to your opinion, but I would like to think that it is one based on sound scientific research reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and not pseudoscientific nonsense reported by non-scientists in national newspapers.

Hecate

13-12-2005, 10:38

Originally posted by Plain Talker
I don't understand the way the TB jab is given, why it has to make a bubble, as some have described, above, and why it has to form this awful pustule on your arm, for weeks afterward, or indeed, why it has to take a couple of months to heal up, when other vaccines (smallpox excepted) don't leave a scar, or make such a mess of your arm.

PT
I think it's due to the nature of the TB bacteria and the immune response required to eliminate it.

My microbiology is a bit rusty, but I think both the TB and the smallpox bacteria are unusual in that they multiply inside the cells of the body. Most injections are designed to stimulate the production of antibodies. As antibodies are confined to the blood, they can't get at the TB bacteria that are hidden inside the cells.

The TB bacteria need to be attacked by special immune cells called Tc cells, that kill both the bugs and the infected cells. The reason that the TB jab is given in the way it is is because it's the best way to activate these Tc cells.

I'm afraid I don't know why it takes such a long time to heal. I think it leaves a scar because the little bubble does a fair bit of damage to the skin at the site of the injection.

valentine

13-12-2005, 10:49

I had the TB jab 25 years ago, and I still have a huge scar on my arm. It is a bright red lump, people quite often ask me if I have been burnt or had a tattoo removed when they see it.

It is even worse since I had to have a metal plate put in the same arm (9" scar). People don't know what to make of it.

13-12-2005, 11:55

ppn_2004, I see that you have totally ignored the statement;

Thimerosal is already being withdrawn in the US, where a government health authority has warned that it has a "biologically plausible" link to autism and should not be given to pregnant women. in the link.

You can argue all you like but this is a fact. If vaccines are being withdrawn then the saftey issue cannot be cut and dry. Whilever there are question marks over the possible side effects then you simply cannot say that there is no link/danger because you do not know.

But then again perhaps you know better than all those yankie medics.

Plain Talker

13-12-2005, 12:13

Originally posted by ppn_2204
I think it's due to the nature of the TB bacteria and the immune response required to eliminate it.

My microbiology is a bit rusty, but I think both the TB and the smallpox bacteria are unusual in that they multiply inside the cells of the body. Most injections are designed to stimulate the production of antibodies. As antibodies are confined to the blood, they can't get at the TB bacteria that are hidden inside the cells.

The TB bacteria need to be attacked by special immune cells called Tc cells, that kill both the bugs and the infected cells. The reason that the TB jab is given in the way it is is because it's the best way to activate these Tc cells.

I'm afraid I don't know why it takes such a long time to heal. I think it leaves a scar because the little bubble does a fair bit of damage to the skin at the site of the injection.

thank you for the information, ppn....

I was wondering about it, because as an insulin dependant diabetic, when you are taught to inject, it is essential that you don't get any sort of a bubble under the skin when you make your "sub-cut" (Sub cutaneous) injection of insulin.

It seems a bit, erm... brutal, to my mind, even thogh it was deemed necessary to have the jabs.

I remember the biggest lad in my class passing out when we had the TB jabs, in the fourth year of the juniors, I cried, (As did quite a few others amongst my class mates) cos it hurt... my teacher mocked us, and she said "What's up with you you silly children ? It's all a fuss over nothing!! Wouldn't you rather have a little (little?? little??? my god!!) injection, than die of some horrid disease?"

I thought some sympathy might have been in order, there! (rotten cow!)

PT

Hecate

13-12-2005, 12:34

Originally posted by Mo
ppn_2004, I see that you have totally ignored the statement;

Thimerosal is already being withdrawn in the US, where a government health authority has warned that it has a "biologically plausible" link to autism and should not be given to pregnant women. in the link.
And I see that you have chosen to ignore all the other statements in your article that support the safety of these vaccines.

Mo, I'm not going to do the research for you. A quick search on Google will lead you to original statement by the US Public Health Service to which your article refers.

You need to understand the difference between something that is "biologically plausible" or "theoretically possible" and a scientific statement that is supported by rigourous experimental and epidemiological evidence. You'd be surprised at what is "biologically plausible" in the confines of a lab test tube.

Originally posted by Mo
But then again perhaps you know better than all those yankie medics.
Actually, I probably do know better than many yankie medics in certain areas of biology, but on this matter, no I don't think I do. As such, here's a link to a statement made by some yankie medics at the Center For Disease Control in the US:
CDC Statement (http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal-vacs-facts.htm)

And here's a very useful pdf file produced by some British medics NB. If you click on the link, it will open a pdf file. You need to have Acrobat reader installed to view it.:
Thiomersal and Vaccines (http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/files/thiomersalfsht.pdf)

Mo, I'm not going to try to change your point of view. I understand that issues such as this and the whole MMR debate are important. It's just a shame that many people get their "facts" from the Daily Mail instead of searching out opinions and evidence from those who are involved in the research.

lizzmobile

13-12-2005, 18:20

Originally posted by ppn_2204: What do you mean by toxic?

Get hold of an ingredients list, and then you'll see what I mean.

Twiglet

13-12-2005, 18:28

Originally posted by lizzmobile
Get hold of an ingredients list, and then you'll see what I mean.

A dictionary definition of toxic:

Capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means; poisonous

Something tells me that if the vaccine were full of these kinds of substances it would defeat the object of vaccinatng people in the first place. Just because a substance is a manufactured chemical does not make it dangerous.

Hecate

13-12-2005, 18:43

Originally posted by lizzmobile
Get hold of an ingredients list, and then you'll see what I mean.
I refer you to my previous posts above.
To what ingredient are you specifically refering? Could you direct me to a reference for the list of ingredients so I can see what you mean? Thanks.

Hecate

13-12-2005, 19:15

Although I think vaccinations are perfectly safe, I am worried about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. Here's a link to further information:
Dihydrogen Monoxide Information (http://www.dhmo.org/)

Now I come to think of it, dihydrogen monoxide is probably also an ingredient in the vaccines. Looks like I'm wrong; these vaccines really aren't safe after all...

lizzmobile

13-12-2005, 20:42

No Twiglet it doesn't make it dangerous or toxic but when it's formaldehyde, (amongst others that I can't recall at present), a known carcinogen, then it becomes serious.

There is a lot of naivety here. As if the Institute of Medecine in the US are going to ADMIT to authorising the injecting of a toxic substance to millions of people over the years! Hah! Wake up!

My references, ppn_, are all in boxes are present, but as soon as they turn up I will be quoting them, but I know one of them is Health, the only immunity, by Ian Sinclair.

However, you might find this link interesting from Dr Mercola's site, mercola. com.

[URL=http://www.mercola.com/2001/may/30/vaccine_safety.htm[/URL]

The Informed Parent(.co.uk) Newsletter is also a valuable source of information. You only need to meet one parent with a vaccine damaged child to put you off for life.

Twiglet

13-12-2005, 21:10

Originally posted by lizzmobile

The Informed Parent(.co.uk) Newsletter is also a valuable source of information. You only need to meet one parent with a vaccine damaged child to put you off for life.

If vaccination programmes were not in place thousands of children would die from serious diseases. If people would rather see many children dead I think that's pretty sick, to be honest.

Hecate

13-12-2005, 21:14

Originally posted by lizzmobile
My references, ppn_, are all in boxes are present, but as soon as they turn up I will be quoting them, but I know one of them is Health, the only immunity, by Ian Sinclair.

Oh dear, you really do make this too easy. Right, I've never heard of Mr Sinclair, but a quick Google search turned up his website:
Cick here for Pseudoscientific Nonsense (http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/)

On this site is the following statement:
"If a child develops measles, chicken pox, whooping cough, mumps, rubella or any of the other common childhood infections, it is not because of germs, but because of the accumulated toxic waste within its body, a condition known as Toxaemia."

This is, quite simply, utter rubbish, as any microbiologist, immunologist or medic with half a brain cell will tell you.

Sorry, but I really can't be bothered with this anymore. I've stated the scientific evidence. Take it or leave it. Stating that any health authority would keep information about the toxicity of vaccines secret is straying into X-Files territory.

Anyone who cares about science might find the information on this page useful:
Bad Science (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/)

I refuse to debate with people who seem to be willfully ignorant of the evidence. Personally, I like to look at all sources of information, but I reject the stuff that's quite obviously barking.

lizzmobile

13-12-2005, 21:17

Wilfully ignorant is way off the mark. I've done MY research too and I dont' like what I see. Thanks, but no thanks.

There is more to life than science.

I guess that's goodbye then.

Hecate

13-12-2005, 21:29

Originally posted by lizzmobile
Wilfully ignorant is way off the mark. I've done MY research too and I dont' like what I see. Thanks, but no thanks.
And I've done MINE too. I'm sorry that you reject the work of many scientists, medics and epidemiologists who have published their work in umpteen international journals in favour of such clap trap. Your choice.

Originally posted by lizzmobile
There is more to life than science.
Absolutely, but we are talking about science though, aren't we? At least I am. I'm not sure you are.

Originally posted by lizzmobile
I guess that's goodbye then.
I guess so.

mega_monty

14-12-2005, 22:14

Originally posted by ppn_2204
I girl in my lab had the blood test for the Hep B antibody titre done on the morning before I had mine. The nurse had stuck the needle all the way through the vein and out the other side. She had a pool of blood under her skin that looked like a massive bruise. I was really looking forward to having it done after that. Fortunately, I got a different nurse, and it didn't hurt at all, despite my fears.

Fortunately I had a decent nurse at the hospital who gave me the jabs and the blood test was done by an experienced Phlebotomist who was in and out before you knew it.

The worst blood test was done by the practice nurse at my GP's who couldn't get the needle in the vein and it kept going either side of the vein and all she said "oooh you've got wobbly veins" she made a massive bruise and made me feel sick :gag: In the end I ended up going and having done at the Hallamshire and the Phlebotomist played hell and said "who the hecks done that?"