Vaccination & epidemic

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

See... to me....the chances of getting the disease you're inoculating against are slim to start out....and then, the chances of being killed by that disease are yet another level of slimness.

The numbers are available. Regular flu: 100,000 hospitalizations per year, about 35,000 deaths per year. I could not find a death attributed to the regular flu vaccine this year. H1N1 has about 13 deaths due to vaccine -- although one is from a motorcycle injury, so I'm not sure how that works.

the chances of getting injured by some fucked up concoction of who knows what... that some money motivated government sponsored program decides is a good thing... in general terms....is at least equal, if not greater.

*shrug* maybe, worse things have happened, although not with so many eyeballs involved.

[Flint]

Oh yeah, there's so many eyeballs. Of course, if they see anything it's because they are wrong/crazy.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The numbers are available. Regular flu: 100,000 hospitalizations per year, about 35,000 deaths per year. I could not find a death attributed to the regular flu vaccine this year. H1N1 has about 13 deaths due to vaccine -- although one is from a motorcycle injury, so I'm not sure how that works.

i met a man a couple weeks ago whose wife was paralyzed by a flu vaccine. he was a plumber. regular dude.....he and his daughter were buying a car, and the trade was in his wife's name.....i had to have the salesman go over to their house to get the title signed by her because she couldn't come to us easily. in 1999, she got a flu shot. the next day, she was in the hospital.

she's not dead, so i guess she doesnt appear either...

have you ever met anyone whose friend or relative died of the flu?

i haven't

[Undertoad]

Man i gotta stop editing after posting

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Of course I would agree; of course!

But since the flu shot is one of the safest vaccines, it's much more likely to prevent you from injury/serious illness/death, so to describe it as "dangerous" is silly.

It's like - once in a while, somebody gets clocked by an automotive air bag... a handful of people have died, mostly children. Dangerous? Well they've saved about 10,000 lives, so you make the call.

The difference is, they acknowledge the danger and work to mitigate it--after airbags killed a few children, they started offering an airbag offswitch for the passenger seat, so the driver could make the call as to whether there was a child or an adult in the seat. The child-airbag death rate has gone down; they've made an effort.

In the case of vaccines, they've made no effort. They removed thimerosal from childhood vaccines only after Congress ordered them to do so. And they still recommend that same flu shot for pregnant women and babies; what if it's not one of the "safest" for that demographic? They'd never know, because even now they're only nominally looking into it. There happens to be a pandemic rise of not one but several diseases in children, mostly autoimmune. Exponentially more children have these debilitating diseases than ever died or were seriously injured by the diseases we're immunizing against.

Assessing relative risk is important. But they have to be willing to honestly assess it.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The numbers are available. Regular flu: 100,000 hospitalizations per year, about 35,000 deaths per year.

How many of those were already severely sick with something else? How many of those were actually vaccinated against the flu, but ended up with a different strain anyway?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

In the case of vaccines, they've made no effort. They removed thimerosal from childhood vaccines only after Congress ordered them to do so.

Incorrect. There's no evidence thimerosol is dangerous, but removing it can make vaccines more dangerous, because less effective preservatives are used.

And they still recommend that same flu shot for pregnant women and babies; what if it's not one of the "safest" for that demographic?

Not at all interested in "what if's". Prefer evidence.

Assessing relative risk is important. But they have to be willing to honestly assess it.

You have the intelligence, but not the education or background to determine if they do.

How many of those were already severely sick with something else? How many of those were actually vaccinated against the flu, but ended up with a different strain anyway?

Cut those numbers in half and we still have a good case. If you want to double or quadruple those numbers or more, tell people the flu vaccine will permanently fuck them up.

Oh, you did! Well aim high.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Cut those numbers in half and we still have a good case.

Tangental “style and tactics” note: it is really funny to watch someone else do that. I love the "cut my numbers in half and I still win!" routine.

[Undertoad]

We don't have to do to half. It's thought that a certain number would die anyway or would get another strain, but the numbers on those are not half.

Meanwhile, your one liners are a substitute for serious thought on the matter, and I suggest you either get serious, or fuck off out of the thread, like I fucked off out of Clod's.

[Flint]

I was actually paying you a compliment in regards to how you express absolute confidence in your position. I've always enjoyed using the "cut my numbers in half" routine wherever I've felt that my position was overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. And, as a tangental note to the thread, I am amused to see this technique being used by someone other than myself.

I will take it that you misunderstood my post, and not that you are a total ƒucking asshole.

One more thing: I must insist that my "one liners" are the direct result of, and an expression of, serious thought. Sometimes I do not feel that stretching my basic observations into a multi-paragraph diatribe is necessary. For example, when I am studying for a final exam on Monday.

[Undertoad]

Apologies then, it was the word routine that threw me.

Feel free to fuck into the thread.

[Flint]

I apologize--I should have worded my post more carefully.
I take responsibility for the fact that its intent was unclear.

By the way, what "routine" means to me is something most like:

5. Computers.
a. a complete set of coded instructions directing a computer to perform a series of operations.
b. a series of operations performed by the computer.

:::ƒucks into thread:::

[jinx]

Investment in partnerships and other deals to develop and manufacture vaccines has been on a tear — and accelerating since the swine flu pandemic began. Billions in government grants are bringing better, faster ways to develop and manufacture vaccines. Rising worldwide emphasis on preventive health care, plus the advent of the first multibillion-dollar vaccines, have further boosted their appeal.

While prescription drug sales are forecast to rise by a third in five years, vaccine sales should double, from $19 billion last year to $39 billion in 2013, according to market research firm Kalorama Information. That's five times the $8 billion in vaccine sales in 2004.

link

Huh. You mean there's money in vaccines? But what if they aren't as safe as the government thought way back when there were only 3 or 4 of them commonly used? What if they have injured millions of people since then? What if those people all sue?
So the government (aka politicians) can either get in bed with the liability-free vaccine makers and make a buck for themselves OR demand better testing of vaccines and vaccine ingredients and figure out where to get the money the vaccine injured people will need for medical care.

Extraordinary? Really?

Your explanation seems to tend towards "The organization is involved in an unlawful, multi-decade conspiracy to maintain the status quo at all costs." I doubt this.

The explanation that you desire requires more and more extraordinary narratives over time. This makes me more skeptical.

[jinx]

Investment in partnerships and other deals to develop and manufacture vaccines has been on a tear — and accelerating since the swine flu pandemic began. Billions in government grants are bringing better, faster ways to develop and manufacture vaccines. Rising worldwide emphasis on preventive health care, plus the advent of the first multibillion-dollar vaccines, have further boosted their appeal.

While prescription drug sales are forecast to rise by a third in five years, vaccine sales should double, from $19 billion last year to $39 billion in 2013, according to market research firm Kalorama Information. That's five times the $8 billion in vaccine sales in 2004.

link

Huh. You mean there's money in vaccines? But what if they aren't as safe as the government thought way back when there were only 3 or 4 of them commonly used? What if they have injured millions of people since then? What if those people all sue?
So the government (aka politicians) can either get in bed with the liability-free vaccine makers and make a buck for themselves OR demand better testing of vaccines and vaccine ingredients and figure out where to get the money the vaccine injured people will need for medical care.

Extraordinary? Really?

Your explanation seems to tend towards "The organization is involved in an unlawful, multi-decade conspiracy to maintain the status quo at all costs." I doubt this.

The explanation that you desire requires more and more extraordinary narratives over time. This makes me more skeptical.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by jinx

link

Huh. You mean there's money in vaccines?

Oh you hippie chicks, scared of anything making money!

It's ok though, the story points out that

Originally Posted by 3rd paragraph

Contrast that with five years ago, when so many companies had abandoned the vaccine business that half the U.S. supply of flu shots was lost because of factory contamination at one of the two manufacturers left.

Any amount of money in it now can't inform the conspiracy theory of five years ago.

But what if
What if
What if

I'm tellin ya! Rule them out of your life, you'll be happier!

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Incorrect. There's no evidence thimerosol is dangerous, but removing it can make vaccines more dangerous, because less effective preservatives are used.

Incorrect. There is enough evidence that thimerosal is dangerous that the CDC readily admits that babies under 6 months should not get the flu vaccine, or should get a non-thimerosal dose. I happen to disagree with where they've drawn the line, but they've drawn it. And other preservatives are not in any way "less effective;" what they are is more expensive. Then of course there are several delivery methods that don't require preservatives at all.

This is kind of like your argument awhile back (in another thread, I think) that dried fruits had to be coated in sulfur dioxide in order to prevent them from growing mold. It simply isn't true. I currently have 5 different bags of various dried fruits that are not preserved in any way. I can't tell you how long they'd last without growing mold, but I generally take at least a few months to finish them. But they are more expensive.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Prefer evidence.

So do I. I wonder why they won't do double-blind studies with vaccinated and unvaccinated control groups?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You have the intelligence, but not the education or background to determine if they do.

It doesn't take education or background to determine whether a study exists. "Honestly assessing" risk does not involve sitting in their offices and pondering the idea.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Cut those numbers in half and we still have a good case. If you want to double or quadruple those numbers or more, tell people the flu vaccine will permanently fuck them up.

I thought you preferred evidence? There were studies linked earlier in this thread that showed that a decline in the number of flu vaccinations did not lead to an increase in the number of flu infections or deaths. Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that the flu vaccine actually does anything to stop the flu, and the evidence shows it doesn't do that. Just like Gardasil doesn't lower the rate of cervical cancer.