Going to the US soon where the flu season seems to still be escalating. 

Is it possible to walk into Ram or other hospitals without an appointment and get a flu shot?

Flu shots are localised. What you can get here may not be effective in the US.



Sent from my Honor 7x using Tapatalk

The World Health Organization says flu shots are not regional.  The flu shots developed for the northern hemisphere and based on what transpired during wintertime in the southern hemisphere.

 

"The CDC is aware of four deaths linked to influenza vaccination from 1990 to 2005. During that same time, the World Health Organization estimates, about 8 million people worldwide died of the disease itself."

A post that appears to be a rumor has been removed. Please do not post such things unless you have a link to support your claim.

Here's a factual study on correlations between the increase in auto immune diseases and mass influenza vaccination.

I'm not an advocate for either side, informed choice is much better, and the balance of information seems heavier to one side on this topic.

Analysis here. https://gizadeathstar.com/2018/02/vaccine-meta-analysis-unknown-causes/

Source here
https://medium.com/@WorldMercury/diseases-with-unknown-etiology-trace-back-to-mass-vaccination-against-influenza-in-1976-b87cc064d849

Clip from it.

"Ca. 1975-76, something drastically changed: the number of articles about "new" diseases with unknown origins began a sharp upward rise, as evidenced in Lyons-Weiler's graph, and that trend has continued to this day. The question then, is what happened in that time period that might correlate with this dramatic rise? Lyons-Weiler does not mince words:

What changed was national mass vaccination against influenza."



Sent from my Honor 7x using Tapatalk

Going to the US soon where the flu season seems to still be escalating. 
Is it possible to walk into Ram or other hospitals without an appointment and get a flu shot?

Depending upon how worried you are about the flu, delaying the trip might be the most effective preventative measure. Part of the reason why this is a bad flu season is because the vaccine for this year's strain is not as effective as in previous years.

Here's a factual study on correlations between the increase in auto immune diseases and mass influenza vaccination.  

I'm not an advocate for either side, informed choice is much better, and the balance of information seems heavier to one side on this topic.

 

Analysis here. https://gizadeathstar.com/2018/02/vaccine-meta-analysis-unknown-causes/

 

Source here

https://medium.com/@WorldMercury/diseases-with-unknown-etiology-trace-back-to-mass-vaccination-against-influenza-in-1976-b87cc064d849

 

Clip from it.

 

"Ca. 1975-76, something drastically changed: the number of articles about "new" diseases with unknown origins began a sharp upward rise, as evidenced in Lyons-Weiler's graph, and that trend has continued to this day. The question then, is what happened in that time period that might correlate with this dramatic rise? Lyons-Weiler does not mince words:

 

What changed was national mass vaccination against influenza."

 

 

 

Sent from my Honor 7x using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

Probably you are basing you conclusion on other things as well, but that particular article does not strike me as very compelling. It seems to boil down to saying that "there was a big increase the number of articles published about diseases with unknown origins in the mid-70's, and there was a change to the vaccine protocol in the mid-70's, therefore A was caused by B". Yeah, maybe, or maybe it was caused by Nixon resigning or the Bee Gees issuing their first disco album.

 

 

 

Plus someone basing their view of the world on items contained in a website called "gizadeathstar" seems a few cards short of a full deck.

6 hours ago, suzannegoh said:

 

Depending upon how worried you are about the flu, delaying the trip might be the most effective preventative measure. Part of the reason why this is a bad flu season is because the vaccine for this year's strain is not as effective as in previous years.

 

It's only 10% effective.

Most websites are quoting 30 - 60 percent.  A nurse I know in the US says 30, and adds that even if you get the flu, the shot will mitigate the worst of it.

1 hour ago, luther said:

Most websites are quoting 30 - 60 percent.  A nurse I know in the US says 30, and adds that even if you get the flu, the shot will mitigate the worst of it.

30-60% effective for this season's strain? Although I haven't googled it (and don't have time now), I heard on the news that this year it is only 10% effective. If I have time this evening I will ask a friend who is a doctor.

Plus someone basing their view of the world on items contained in a website called "gizadeathstar" seems a few cards short of a full deck.

He has a PhD from Oxford, provides excellent references to his research, and offers alternative perspectives to geopolitical events.
Well worth some reading if you can hold more than one point of view on a topic at a time.

Sent from my Honor 7x using Tapatalk

 

 

He has a PhD from Oxford, provides excellent references to his research, and offers alternative perspectives to geopolitical events. Well worth some reading if you can hold more than one point of view on a topic at a time.

 

Sent from my Honor 7x using Tapatalk

 

 

 

I have to call BS on that. There is no new data in that article, he just counts up the number of articles that were previously published, and claims causation of "diseases with unknown causes" on the basis of changes in the vaccine protocol having occurred around the same time frame. It's the type of pseudoscientific hokum that scientific illiterates eat up but it's just that, pseudoscientific hokum.

 

 

 

30-60% effective for this season's strain? Although I haven't googled it (and don't have time now), I heard on the news that this year it is only 10% effective. If I have time this evening I will ask a friend who is a doctor.

Either way, it's a lot less effective than in previous years. When you get up to around 80 or 90 percent efficacy you have pretty good protection because the protection comes from two sources - the direct protection that the vaccine gives you and the protection that comes from it being less likely that you will come into contact with infected people (because they too were vaccinated).

 
 

 I have to call BS on that. There is no new data in that article, he just counts up the number of articles that were previously published, and claims causation of "diseases with unknown causes" on the basis of changes in the vaccine protocol having occurred around the same time frame. It's the type of pseudoscientific hokum that scientific illiterates eat up but it's just that, pseudoscientific hokum.
 
 
 

Ok hokum it is.

But he does have a doctorate in patristics from Oxford.

Look at the list of books Dr Joseph P Farrell has written on Amazon.





Sent from my Honor 7x using Tapatalk

5 minutes ago, Nick ZepTepi said:

Ok hokum it is.

But he does have a doctorate in patristics from Oxford.

Look at the list of books Dr Joseph P Farrell has written on Amazon.





Sent from my Honor 7x using Tapatalk
 

I have a degree in Zoology from Oxford ( 1978) , and a Ph.D in Biochemistry from Imperial College London (1989), and I say this is utter bullshit.

 

In addition "patristics" is the study of ancient Christian writers, and would qualify  a doctorate in it to comment on matters of health or Biochemistry as much as a doctorate in housepainting would.

I have a degree in Zoology from Oxford ( 1978) , and a Ph.D in Biochemistry from Imperial College London (1989), and I say this is utter bullshit.
 
In addition "patristics" is the study of ancient Christian writers, and would qualify  a doctorate in it to comment on matters of health or Biochemistry as much as a doctorate in housepainting would.

Yes I agree.


Your qualifications are utter bullshit. 555

Sent from my Honor 7x using Tapatalk

9 minutes ago, Nick ZepTepi said:

Yes I agree.


Your qualifications are utter bullshit. 555

Sent from my Honor 7x using Tapatalk
 

You are holding out the author of that article to be an authority because he has a PhD in patristics.  Patristics is “Christian theology that deals with the lives, writings, and doctrines of the early Christian theologians”.  So basically he’s an authority because he’s a Christian?  That’s good to know, because then I can save money on our medical bills by consulting with our reverend instead of with a doctor.

This must be a out on though, he can't really have a degree in Patristics.  Are you pretending to be an antivaxxer to discredit the movement?

You are holding out the author of that article to be an authority because he has a PhD in patristics.  Patristics is “Christian theology that deals with the lives, writings, and doctrines of the early Christian theologians”.  So basically he’s an authority because he’s a Christian?  That’s good to know, because then I can save money on our medical bills by consulting with our reverend instead of with a doctor.

No.

When someone relies on logical fallacies to 'win' an argument they automatically loose.



Sent from my Honor 7x using Tapatalk

This must be a out on though, he can't really have a degree in Patristics.  Are you pretending to be an antivaxxer to discredit the movement?

Doctorate...

Sent from my Honor 7x using Tapatalk

If the anti-antivaxxers didn't get
past the first few paragraphs without being triggered, another excerpt.

the author of this article, James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., does not fall into the trap of deducing causes from correlations. Indeed, as we'll see, he even avoids the trap of saying "Vaccines are bad", but rather suggests that certain compounds and elements found in certain types of vaccines are the real root of the problem (e.g., Thimerosol, aluminum, &c.). One would be hard-pressed to debate that conclusion, for Jenner's small pox vaccine, for example, did not contain Thimerosol and, so far as I'm aware, aluminum or any of the other compounds or elements that have been identified as problematical over the past few years.

Sent from my Honor 7x using Tapatalk

1 hour ago, Nick ZepTepi said:

No.

When someone relies on logical fallacies to 'win' an argument they automatically loose.



Sent from my Honor 7x using Tapatalk
 

You mean "lose" I think.

 

 

 

No.

When someone relies on logical fallacies to 'win' an argument they automatically loose.



Sent from my Honor 7x using Tapatalk

Bless your heart. Jesus loves you but hates math

Amazing that inquiring if anyone has had a flu shot unleashes a flood of posts about the legitimacy of vaccines and a debate over someone's credentials.