Don't die of ignorance - have your Flu Jab

[Guest]

Their science is not science Pete - it is a claim.

 

Generally talking about "them", "they" etc is a clear sign of paranoia on your part....

 

What are the Signs of Paranoia?

Symptoms of paranoia and delusional disorders include intense and irrational mistrust or suspicion, which can bring on sense of fear, anger, and betrayal. Some identifiable beliefs and behaviors of individuals with symptoms of paranoia include mistrust, hypervigilence, difficulty with forgiveness, defensive attitude in response to imagined criticism, preoccupation with hidden motives, fear of being deceived or taken advantage of, inability to relax, or are argumentative.

[Longcol]

Fair point- the corrupting effects of conflicts of interest and vested financial interests are rife in modern research. Doesn't of course mean this particular research is corrupt.

 

The "National Institutes of Health" (the primary agency of the United States government responsible for biomedical and public health research) has no issue with them, it's awarded their Adventist Health Study-2 $5.5 million so the research can continue.

 

https://publichealth.llu.edu/adventist-health-studies/videos-and-media-reports/national-institutes-health-award

 

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".

[Cyclone]

Smoking not being part of a lifestyle?

[Longcol]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

 

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]

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.