Vater Araignee Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 Take your medicine: Getting a flu shot is part of being good neighbor First Ill go after the title. If my neighbor get a flu shot then he has nothing to worry about whether I get one or not because he is completely protected right? RIGHT? Next I'll go after the fact that the article is presented as expert fact rather than opinion but no one has put their name to it. In almost all cases when this happens it is a sales pitch disguised as news. I'll also point out that the Longview News-Journal in order to protect itself placed this in the Opinion section. On to the article. In red is mine. Longview News-Journal Flu season is officially upon us and, while the highest incidence of the disease is usually seen during the winter months, now is the time to get vaccinated. Once you have the virus a vaccination won’t do any good and there are no magic pills to make the agony end any sooner. Just because last year’s flu season was relatively mild doesn’t mean anyone should consider skipping the shot this year, health officials told us. Vaccination is particularly important for those in one of the high-risk groups: young children, pregnant women,WAIT STOP! 9 and 13 years ago the head OBGYN of U of M said pregnant women should NEVER get vaccinated and gave my wife and I a huge list of reasons why that included retardation, physical deformities, and death. And Oh my even the CDC says pregnant women shouldn't get a flu shot. those with chronic health conditions such as asthma, diabetes or heart and lung disease, and people 65 and older. For people in those groups, coming down with the flu is more than just an inconvenience, it can be a life-threatening event. It does not have to be. One of the reasons we have had no serious flu outbreaks during the past decade or so is because most of us are being vaccinated annually, thus the disease has a much more difficult path to spreading to epidemic proportions.YEAH RIGHT! A study called "Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis" it can also be called we studied the studies very carefully showed that only only 2.7% of the control groups got the flu. In the treatment group only 1.2% got the flu. That means that it only has a 1.5% efficacy rate and no matter how you cut it, a 1.5% absolute is not a high enough to stop pandemic. In that way, flu vaccinations are more than simply something you do for yourself; it’s part of being a thoughtful and responsible member of the community. Those who do not get vaccinated can become ill and spread the flu to others.I already addressed this. Ultimately, some of these people will have to be treated at taxpayer expense, which costs much more than taxpayers footing the bill for a $10 vaccination shot.At a 2.7% absolute rate then factor in those who "MIGHT" get treated at taxpayer expense and it becomes cheaper to treat them than it is to vaccinate everyone. and lets not forget the added expense of treating side effects... We understand some among us have misgivings about vaccinations. Those range from a fear of the needle to unfounded notions the shot itself will make us ill.COME ON! The CDC admits you can become ill from the vaccine For most of those who are afraid of the needle prick, nasal spray vaccines are widely available. And there is no truth to the notion the vaccine will give you the flu.Yeah, just because someone got 100% of flu symptoms within days of receiving the shot doesn't mean they have the flu or that the shot gave it to them. You might feel a bit puny for a few days after a flu shotReal people call that being ill, but this turkey just got done saying "unfounded notions" about getting ill. Is this a double speaker who thinks we are stupid or is this an idiot suffering from double think? and your arm might be sore for the same amount of time, but otherwise there is absolutely no harm from getting a vaccination. Don’t let yourself be fooled by wild rumors.Wild rumors spread by the CDC? Wild rumors spread by chemical analysis laboratories that found aluminum and mercury and other potentially harmful things in them? The flu vaccine is not perfect, of course.Especially when you consider that the predictions for type of flu a rarely accurate. It includes protection against the three most common and expected forms of the flu this season. It is always possible another form of the virus — there are countless mutations — will be most prevalent. That’s not likely, but you should be aware that getting vaccinated is not a 100 percent safeguard.I"M COMIN TA SEE YA ELISABETH! This jack off told some truth and I dont think my heart can take the shock! Still, we believe it is vital all of us take the time to be vaccinated. Of course you do, it is big business and if you can convince them all to take the shot then you will start working on getting them to take two. Flu shots are readily available in many locations across East Texas. We are seeing them offered everywhere from discount stores to pharmacies and even some offices, so the shot is not hard to find. Most health insurance plans will cover the cost of the shot, and county health offices across East Texas will be offering them at free or at a reduced cost in the next several weeks. Here in Gregg County, the health department is offering a free shot clinic the morning of Oct. 20, for example. If you must pay, the shot could range from $10 to $40. Of course your regular doctor can also give you a flu shot, and it should be free to anyone who is enrolled in Medicare. Where you get the shot doesn’t matter. That you get it is important not just to you, but to the rest of us as well. Let’s all do our part to make this another uneventful flu season.What a scum sucking bastard. I aint kidding about this. When someone tells you any vaccine is harmless, do your research. Go and look at the side effects on the CDC website, demand the insert and read it. And when you see that even the manufacturer says it can harm you then call that person a shit gurgling lire and stop giving them your/your insurance companies money. HELL DONT EVEN TAKE WHAT I SAY AS TRUTH... LOOK IT UP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torn asunder Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) :bravo not gotten a flu vaccine since i was a kid, never going to. Edited October 20, 2012 by torn asunder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vater Araignee Posted October 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 Consider this. The Wall Street Journal reported how drug companies raise prices simply to increase profit. The specifically pointed out Calgene Corp. witch originally sold a drug at $6.00 then jumped the price to $29.00 even though they had zero factors to warrant the increase other than their legal requirement to increase profits. Consider this. The most common medications to treat headaches are: Tricyclic antidepressants like amitriptyline and nortriptyline. SSRIs like fluoxetine and sertraline. Beta blockers like Propranolol and timolol. NSAIDs like aspirin, ibuprofen and naproxen. Opioids like codeine or hydrocodone. All illness can ultimately be boiled down to a deficiency of some form. Is you body aspirin deficient? Have you been getting enough hallucinogens? Waza matter, did you forget to chase the dragon? Consider this. You always hear "Give us money to find a cure!" "Run for the cure!" Benjamin Franklin was right when he said "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." but you never hear "Give us money to find the cause" "Run for the Cause!" and none of these lucrative charities are researching the cause. Why aren't they curing by preventing? Because it doesn't make good business sense. Logic dictates that if you are profiting from a charity you want that charity to out live you. Logic also dictates that it is more profitable to treat a person for years than it is to cure them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Class-Punk Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) Consider this. The most common medications to treat headaches are: Tricyclic antidepressants like amitriptyline and nortriptyline. SSRIs like fluoxetine and sertraline. Beta blockers like Propranolol and timolol. NSAIDs like aspirin, ibuprofen and naproxen. Opioids like codeine or hydrocodone. All illness can ultimately be boiled down to a deficiency of some form. Is you body aspirin deficient? Have you been getting enough hallucinogens? Waza matter, did you forget to chase the dragon? I remember a quote from a vegetarian site, and though I'm not one I like it, "Eat the rainbow." I eat a lot of different foods; meat/beans/nuts, fruits, grains, chocolate, and seasoned vegetables.. and unless I'm going through caffeine withdrawal and/or am starving, I NEVER get headaches, ever. Even for past months where I've barely been working out. Edited October 20, 2012 by Coffeenated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vater Araignee Posted October 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 I remember a quote from a vegetarian site, and though I'm not one I like it, "Eat the rainbow." I eat a lot of different foods; meat/beans/nuts, fruits, grains, chocolate, and seasoned vegetables.. and unless I'm going through caffeine withdrawal and/or am starving, I NEVER get headaches, ever. Even for past months where I've barely been working out. I can suffer terrible indigestion, well maybe I should say could suffer. Was I Prilosec deficient? No, as it turns out I was actually salt deficient. Two days after I added 1 tsp. a day to my diet the pain stopped. Turns out that we need sodium chloride to help with proper calcium absorption. The flip side is too much and it can speed up osteoporosis. Consider this. The four basic food group promotion was invented, promoted and funded by the dairy association. The food pyramid was put into effect after massive amounts of lobbying by the food industry. Where these truly designed for health, or are they there to brainwash people into eating in a way that benefits specific sectors of the food industry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Class-Punk Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 I can suffer terrible indigestion, well maybe I should say could suffer. Was I Prilosec deficient? No, as it turns out I was actually salt deficient. Two days after I added 1 tsp. a day to my diet the pain stopped. Turns out that we need sodium chloride to help with proper calcium absorption. The flip side is too much and it can speed up osteoporosis. Consider this. The four basic food group promotion was invented, promoted and funded by the dairy association. The food pyramid was put into effect after massive amounts of lobbying by the food industry. Where these truly designed for health, or are they there to brainwash people into eating in a way that benefits specific sectors of the food industry? I can't argue against that. I've heard of people who lived in there 90's or above, I think they were in the mountains, their diet had very few foods in it. I think lamb or some sort of meat was what they ate the most of. I can't remember where I read it. Meat doesn't have everything and its probably one of the hardest foods to digest, but it is full of vitamins and minerals. I've read that white people apparently have the most lactase in their stomach which aids in the digestion of cow milk because we've been drinking it so long; not as cool as deriving extra energy from a food, like the Japanese can from sushi, but I'll take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vater Araignee Posted October 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 (edited) Consider this. The most effective brain washing technique involves emotionally shifting the subject and a repeated statement. Now ask yourself are those commercial breaks or brainwashing? Is that a news segment or brainwashing? Edited October 21, 2012 by Vater Araignee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vater Araignee Posted October 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2012 I can't argue against that. I've heard of people who lived in there 90's or above, I think they were in the mountains, their diet had very few foods in it. I think lamb or some sort of meat was what they ate the most of. I can't remember where I read it. Meat doesn't have everything and its probably one of the hardest foods to digest, but it is full of vitamins and minerals. I've read that white people apparently have the most lactase in their stomach which aids in the digestion of cow milk because we've been drinking it so long; not as cool as deriving extra energy from a food, like the Japanese can from sushi, but I'll take it. I have been coming the dark recesses, ya know the place where half memories go to die a slow death. Anyway I believe you where partially right about the lamb but if I remember correctly it was more mutton plus they had some kind of pink yogurt and the local water was cloudy from minerals. Consider this. Cultures with the highest instances of people becoming centenarians (they also have amazing amounts of octogenarians and nonagenarians) also do not have many allopathic practitioners. Sure their cultures have a lower average life span than western cultures do but once they make it adulthood more of them live longer and healthier than we do. An MD is great at reassembling and replacing broken parts but if they can only manage heart burn what makes people think they can cure CHD? Closer inspection of centenarian cultures starts showing that they practically have zero instances of terminal illnesses that we look at as common old age illness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vater Araignee Posted October 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Consider this. The IRS audits three times the percentage (thats PERCENTAGE) of individuals as it does business and the larger the company the less likely it is to be touched. The mega multinationals being the lest likely to get audited are also the most likely to commit fraud. Consider this. In studies the leading fingerprint experts have been shown to be wrong over 50% of the time. Consider this. American Polygraph Association who have a vested interest in stating a polygraph is the most effective form of lie detection and has a 98% accuracy rate. Truth is when you dig up the numbers of their studies you find that they ignore the ones without number they want and when you average all the different studies you find the rate is only 84.5%. So roughly 1 in 5 whose jobs depend on successfully passing a polygraph are screwed because the lie detector examiner lied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vater Araignee Posted October 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Consider this. Medical experts use to promote bloodletting as a cure all. Medical experts promoted cigarette smoking as beneficial to health, especially to asthmatics. Early last century the Surgeon General effectually claimed we where at the pinnacle of medical science and everything would be curable within 2 decades. Doctors have a shorter average life span than just about any other profession. I'm sure that 3000 years ago "Your penis is turning black because you are cursed by Venus for not having enough sex with temple whores." sounded just as logical "Here take this drug that can give you cancer to cure your cancer." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vater Araignee Posted October 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Consider this. How many of you have recently fretted over Fukushima Daiichi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vater Araignee Posted November 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Consider this. How scientific evidence is produced by the pharma industry. All scientific evidence is bought an paid for by the company that will benefit from the findings. In many cases hundreds of trials are done before the final test (see the syntactical game there?). The information from the trials is kept secret preventing the public from ever seeing it. In most cases the trial information shows as a whole that at best the drug is ineffective at worse lethal, but they are using the trial to find a specific profile of people who will see some benefit. By the time they are ready for the final test they have refined the profile so much that it can not represent the global picture of the people who will end up being prescribed the drug in question. The tests are performed on such small groups of people that you can not get an accurate picture as to how the drug will effect large numbers. The test is done to quickly to show negative long term effects, some tests are done as quickly as 2 weeks. The efficacy and safety statistics are always misrepresented. Read my fist post in this thread. The final panels reviewing and recommending either have, are or will be on the payrolls of the companies submitting for approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now