Don't die of ignorance - have your Flu Jab

[Cyclone 10]

Smoking not being part of a lifestyle?

[Longcol 594]

Smoking not being part of a lifestyle?

 

Lung cancer is just one of many cancers - and not all lung cancer is caused by smoking (or passive smoking).

 

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/non-small-cell-lung-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/what-causes.html

[kckc 10]

Lol, hilarious. You swallow anything you're told, so long as it's contrary to received wisdom or what scientists tell you! Logic and evidence be damned.

 

To be fair to MAC33, if he was swallowing anything he was told, he'd be in favour of the flu vaccine, based on popular opinion.

 

There are scientists that also question its validity, such as this in the British Medical Journal "Belief not science is behind flu jab promotion - An independent meta-analysis of vaccines against influenza has found that claims of benefit have been significantly exaggerated" https://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e7856.

 

There was also a Canadian study that rated the effectiveness "in preventing medically attended flu" in the negative range, with the UK rating it only 3.4%. http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2015/02/uk-canada-add-bad-news-years-flu-vaccine.

 

I am a scientist (PhD in neuroimmunology) and will not have the flu vaccine myself but support immunisation for other diseases. We should not believe everything we read or are told. As ever, money can supersede the best interests of public health. There are indeed risks associated with the flu vaccine and I see little advantage to potentially introducing mercury to my system, risking an aberrant immune response or neurological disorders, for something that does not have proven effectiveness.

[Cyclone 10]

Absolutely. But many lifestyle factors affect the likelihood of getting various cancers.

Processed meat consumption, alcohol consumption, sun exposure, and so on.

 

---------- Post added 14-11-2018 at 15:49 ----------

 

To be fair to MAC33, if he was swallowing anything he was told, he'd be in favour of the flu vaccine, based on popular opinion.

 

There are scientists that also question its validity, such as this in the British Medical Journal "Belief not science is behind flu jab promotion - An independent meta-analysis of vaccines against influenza has found that claims of benefit have been significantly exaggerated" https://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e7856.

 

There was also a Canadian study that rated the effectiveness "in preventing medically attended flu" in the negative range, with the UK rating it only 3.4%. http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2015/02/uk-canada-add-bad-news-years-flu-vaccine.

 

I am a scientist (PhD in neuroimmunology) and will not have the flu vaccine myself but support immunisation for other diseases. We should not believe everything we read or are told. As ever, money can supersede the best interests of public health. There are indeed risks associated with the flu vaccine and I see little advantage to potentially introducing mercury to my system, risking an aberrant immune response or neurological disorders, for something that does not have proven effectiveness.

 

Introducing mercury... A typical claim made by anti vaccers.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index.html

 

I guess you're okay with introducing other potential toxins though, like dihydrogen monoxide, a typical component of explosives, poisons, acids and bases... Did you realise that 100% of people who have been exposed to dihydrogen monoxide have later died?

[Longcol 594]

Absolutely. But many lifestyle factors affect the likelihood of getting various cancers.

Processed meat consumption, alcohol consumption, sun exposure, and so on.

 

And some cancers have nothing to do with lifestyle - my mother died of cancer of the womb - having a womb is not a lifestyle choice.

[Ontarian1981 10]

I just had the high strength flu shot, which is free for all seniors this year, I was told by my doctor that it was a must for me as I have COPD. It is, supposedly, four times stronger than the regular vaccine. To be honest I didn't even know it existed but it was introduced last season and my doctor apologised for giving me the regular one last year. I would like to add that the regular shot has been free for everyone for over 20 years in Ontario, but this one is only free for older or vulnerable folks, and I am qualified on both counts lol.

[kckc 10]

 

Introducing mercury... A typical claim made by anti vaccers.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index.html

 

I guess you're okay with introducing other potential toxins though, like dihydrogen monoxide, a typical component of explosives, poisons, acids and bases... Did you realise that 100% of people who have been exposed to dihydrogen monoxide have later died?

 

Each to their own, Cyclone. I prefer not to introduce thiomersal, or any other unnecessary compounds, particularly when the vaccine is ineffective.

The NHS give guidance as to vaccine ingredients https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/vaccine-ingredients/ and it's worth following their link to the eMC to find out what is in the particular one you are considering having.

 

I am not an "anti-vaccer" and am entitled to make my own decision about the flu vaccine. I have never had flu, btw, whereas my colleagues that had the flu jab were off sick later on with the flu

Edited November 14, 2018 by kckc
To add link

[onewheeldave 22]

To be fair to MAC33, if he was swallowing anything he was told, he'd be in favour of the flu vaccine, based on popular opinion.

 

There are scientists that also question its validity, such as this in the British Medical Journal "Belief not science is behind flu jab promotion - An independent meta-analysis of vaccines against influenza has found that claims of benefit have been significantly exaggerated" https://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e7856.

 

There was also a Canadian study that rated the effectiveness "in preventing medically attended flu" in the negative range, with the UK rating it only 3.4%. http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2015/02/uk-canada-add-bad-news-years-flu-vaccine.

 

I am a scientist (PhD in neuroimmunology) and will not have the flu vaccine myself but support immunisation for other diseases. We should not believe everything we read or are told. As ever, money can supersede the best interests of public health. There are indeed risks associated with the flu vaccine and I see little advantage to potentially introducing mercury to my system, risking an aberrant immune response or neurological disorders, for something that does not have proven effectiveness.

 

You are far from the only scientist/medical professional who is not anti-vax, but who are suspicious of, or oppose, the flu vaccine.

 

I posted lots of evidence critical of the flu jab on this thread-

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1433962

 

"Flu jab and viral illness" including, the British Medical Journal.

[Longcol 594]

To be fair to MAC33, if he was swallowing anything he was told, he'd be in favour of the flu vaccine, based on popular opinion.

 

 

Nope - MAC33 only swallows things from conspiracy theory websites.

[onewheeldave 22]

From your link;

 

"The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded Adventist Health Study-2 $5.5 million over the next five years, which will allow the study to continue its analysis on cancer and other lifestyle diseases."

 

Personally would be very concerned by any institution - research, funding agency etc - who referred to cancer as a "lifestyle disease".

 

I posted that in response to the claim that the Adventist Health studies research was done by a university that was not fully honest.

 

As I understand it, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a very highly respected organisation which would be unlikely to give $5.5 to fund dodgy research.

 

You seem to be of the opinion the National Institutes of Health is somewhat dubious?

 

---------- Post added 14-11-2018 at 17:50 ----------

 

Nope - MAC33 only swallows things from conspiracy theory websites.

 

Couldn't we do a thread without the ad hominem attacks?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[kckc 10]

You are far from the only scientist/medical professional who is not anti-vax, but who are suspicious of, or oppose, the flu vaccine.

 

Very true - thankfully. I felt that Cyclone was suggesting MAC33 took the opposing view to scientists, thereby suggesting all scientists agreed on the validity of the flu vaccine.

 

I agree with your posts in the previous thread that mandatory flu vaccination for health professionals is out of order.

[Cyclone 10]

And some cancers have nothing to do with lifestyle - my mother died of cancer of the womb - having a womb is not a lifestyle choice.

 

True, but a lot are.

So I can see how they could include cancer and other lifestyle diseases... It's a bit overly broad, but not in a detrimental way really.

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2018 at 08:06 ----------

 

Each to their own, Cyclone. I prefer not to introduce thiomersal, or any other unnecessary compounds, particularly when the vaccine is ineffective.

The NHS give guidance as to vaccine ingredients https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/vaccine-ingredients/ and it's worth following their link to the eMC to find out what is in the particular one you are considering having.

 

I am not an "anti-vaccer" and am entitled to make my own decision about the flu vaccine. I have never had flu, btw, whereas my colleagues that had the flu jab were off sick later on with the flu

 

I wasn't trying to convince you to have it, and I said about 100 pages back that as I'm not in a high risk group I won't be having it myself.

I'm not spreading FUD about vaccine ingredients though.

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2018 at 08:13 ----------

 

Regarding how effective it is, flu mutates rapidly, but even so

 

How effective is the flu vaccine?

CDC conducts studies each year to determine how well the influenza (flu) vaccine protects against flu illness. While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to the flu vaccine

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

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2018 at 08:15 ----------

 

Timing is an issue though

at least 10 studies have found that the flu vaccine wears off as the weeks go by. Kaiser Permanente Northern California reported this month that the risk of a flu infection increases 15 percent every 28 days after vaccination.

 

The standard flu season peaks in mid-December and remains widespread through February. A shot in September might not yield any protection come February.

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2018 at 08:17 ----------

 

And the Minnesota study

Interpretation

Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking. LAIVs consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years). New vaccines with improved clinical efficacy and effectiveness are needed to further reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality.

 

Is a call for improved vaccines, not a reason to avoid the ones we have if you're in a risk group.