Flu jab and viral illness

[onewheeldave]

Go back OWD - read the thread again.

 

Then come back and apologise.

 

Post whatever quote you're talking about- it's a 9 page thread. Post the quote.

[Obelix]

If you can't keep up to speed OWD it's not my problem.

[Obelix]

Theres that card you claim never to play... funny how when someone challenges your point it suddenly becomes difficult for you isn't it...

 

Like I said - you need to read the entire thread to figure it out. I'm not going to lead you by the nose and show you I have better things to do.

[Obelix]

You are the one that keeps sticking your comments back in. If you don't want to debate, then the solution is easy...

[onewheeldave]

So what stopped the illnesses then if the inoculations didn't?

 

in the post you're replying to i.e.

 

You know full well he doesn't want that.

 

Nor does he believe that vaccinations prevent the above. You can critisise the evidence he uses to justify his belief- that's fair enough.

 

But please, debate with honesty, not by slyly pretending you believe he wants the above mentioned suffering and then making out he's some kind of twisted sadist.

I was simply flagging up a dishonest debating technique.

 

I've little desire to engage in a 'discussion' here, on the efficacy or otherwise of flu vaccinations.

 

It's not something that affects me, I don't really suffer from even colds these days. I have no desire to vaccinate myself against flu, and if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on me never using it in the future either.

 

Plus, anything anyone says on the debate on flu vaccine efficacy or otherwise, has been said countless times already on a thousand virtually identical online 'debates'.

[mattleonard]

Meanwhile, there's an even bigger threat on the horizon in the form of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The BBC is reporting today on a surge in antibiotic prescriptions during the winter, thought to be due to doctors inappropriately prescribing antibiotics for colds and flu. So it would be well worth taking that temptation out of doctors' hands by reducing occurrences of flu through vaccination.

[Obelix]

Meanwhile, there's an even bigger threat on the horizon in the form of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The BBC is reporting today on a surge in antibiotic prescriptions during the winter, thought to be due to doctors inappropriately prescribing antibiotics for colds and flu. So it would be well worth taking that temptation out of doctors' hands by reducing occurrences of flu through vaccination.

 

I'd personally be interested in knowing why GP's are prescribing antibiotics for a viral infection as well, I mean they must know it's pointless. Presumably its just to get rid of the annoying patients who seem to think that having some antibiotics is their right.

[Daven]

in the post you're replying to i.e.

 

 

I was simply flagging up a dishonest debating technique.

 

I've little desire to engage in a 'discussion' here, on the efficacy or otherwise of flu vaccinations.

 

It's not something that affects me, I don't really suffer from even colds these days. I have no desire to vaccinate myself against flu, and if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on me never using it in the future either.

 

Plus, anything anyone says on the debate on flu vaccine efficacy or otherwise, has been said countless times already on a thousand virtually identical online 'debates'.

 

So why do you keep posting on a thread about that very subject ?

[JFKvsNixon]

I'd personally be interested in knowing why GP's are prescribing antibiotics for a viral infection as well, I mean they must know it's pointless. Presumably its just to get rid of the annoying patients who seem to think that having some antibiotics is their right.

 

From the link earlier:

 

Prof Garner said doctors were often "caught between a rock and hard place" as it could be safer to give antibiotics if it was not clear whether the patient had a viral or bacterial infection.

[onewheeldave]

So why do you keep posting on a thread about that very subject ?

 

 

I was simply flagging up a dishonest debating technique.

 

I've little desire to engage in a 'discussion' here, on the efficacy or otherwise of flu vaccinations.

 

That one was, as the post you quoted states-

 

 

 

I was simply flagging up a dishonest debating technique.

 

 

Other of my posts have been to address some of the logical errors I saw popping up, one was to defend a poster who, I felt, was not getting a proper chance to express her/his thoughts, etc.

 

To get to the point, none of them have been on the efficacy or otherwise of the flu vaccine (as, again, was stated in the post you quoted)-

 

 

 

 

 

I've little desire to engage in a 'discussion' here, on the efficacy or otherwise of flu vaccinations.

Admittedly, it does contain the phrase "flu vaccinations", and, while I know there are substantial, deep and unpredictable issues twixt autistic and NeuroT when it comes to communication, I assumed that everyone was aware of the fact that mere inclusion of a phrase in a statement, does not, in itself, constitute passing comment on the efficacy or otherwise of the object/procedure/entity that the phrase embodies.

 

If I assumed wrongly, then apologies, and, I hope the above clears up the misconception.