EXACTLY that.

The sheer lack of knowledge and understanding of some of the posts here are remarkable - the fact that they are then being argued so vehemently as fact is quite frankly scary.

It seems clear that a huge number of people don't know the difference between causation and correlation. It was sunny yesterday, I got ran over by a bus - the day before it was raining and I didn't get knocked down by a bus - Therefore I'll only go out when it's raining so I don't get knocked down by a bus. WTF?

Do people truly believe that there is a mass worldwide conspiracy to have everyone vaccinated for some sinister reason?

The absolute worst post I have seen is "I don't get the flu jab, except for when my dad was having chemo and his immune system was compromised" What about everyone else who you may encounter, or they may encounter who have a reduced immune system?

Flu "season":

The ever-evolving virus moves between human hosts best in cool, dry months when the viruses can survive for longer outside the body. The viruses sit in liquid particles in the air, say from a cough or a sneeze. During warmer, wetter times of the year, those droplets evaporate in the bright sun much more easily, leaving the virus high and dry. During cooler, dryer times, evaporation happens more slowly and the virus can float around in its miniature habitat longer and further.

I got my first flu shot 3 weeks ago. My surgeon that will be doing my neck surgery talked me into it. Me and coworker both started getting flu like symptoms after eating at Black bear dinner in Tulare 3 days ago. I'm way sicker than he is and he didn't get the shot. They told me I wouldn't get the flu, just more like a cold, wrong, I'm SAF. They also said I won't spread it if I got the shot. Hard to believe them considering how sick I am rite now.
So now I have extreme neck pain/headaches and the flu as a nice topper.
Does anyone know why the flu shots make your arm hurt like hell for 1 to 2 weeks?
I get the flu every year no matter what, so if it really keeps me from spreading it I'd consider getting it every year even if it doesn't stop me from getting sick. I was thinking after I left that restaurant there were old people in there that might die because some asshole goes to work at a restaurant of all places when they're sick. I don't want to be THAT asshole I don't work at a restaurant, but come in contact with at least 20 - 50 people a day when working.

This thread delivers, just like a dimple thread....

Yes, this thread has been a complete riot!

"Don't you care about your loved ones?"

Of course I do. But none of them take flu shots including my 96 year old mother who worked in a medical lab and taught biology and advanced physiology for 50 years and swore them off years ago, and hasn't had the flu since then, and we all stay healthy. And if we do catch something we fight it off like we always have.

No, what I picture here is a few weak, sickly, out of shape people that are too high on themselves to actually beg, telling healthy people to get the shot on the off hand chance it will prevent them or some other weak person they know from getting sick. Good luck with that!

And you sir, have just won the entire internet!

Great! Whats my prize?

Always wanted to win the internet.

You get a flu shot and a two week supply of antibiotics! Saves you from making two trips to the doctor. Just a joke people!

______________________________________________________

I am going to make a serious apology for the earlier post.

People who do have health problems is no laughing matter. That hit me hard after reading what Rolf has gone thru on the EM part of this forum. It is easy for healthy people to go thru the day without a care in the world, but when you do get ill, especially really ill, it can be a chore to not only make it thru the day, but just face each day with a positive attitude or face each day at all.

I have been there, so I do know. I won't get into details, but it was a long drawn out thing no doctor could figure out that finally turned out to be caused by an unnecessary procedure I had when I was a child. Took away several of the best years of my life and most of what I had earned up until then to pay them to somewhat fix it so I could get functional again. It or myself will never be 100%. Damage was done too many years ago.

Anyway, maybe that can help explain my disdain for going to doctors and why I take offense when somebody tells me to get any procedure I don't need. I keep myself alive and healthy as best I can from what I learned during my ordeal, because if I don't, nobody else will. And reality is that is true for anyone and everybody.

I strongly believe in influenza vaccinations, but respect o-din for what he has gone though, and his perspective on things. Thanks for the insight. An open mind...no matter your stance, can help understand why others do what they do.

I've had weird aches an pains since I got my shot two days ago. Coincidence, of course, but it's now in my mind.

Thanks! I looked back over my posts and realized I was just beating my head against the wall and pissing people off without giving an honest reason for my stance. I've had more needles stuck in me and more x-rays than most people get in a lifetime. And that's just it. People have their own personal reasons for whatever stance they take.

I've never had any symptoms from getting a flu shot...none. At most the shot site might be sore for a day.

Interestingly I have read that the CDC would not even consider making flu shots mandatory until the death count reaches 1% of the population (or 3 million in US, 1918 flu was 2.6%) - and then it would probably only be a recommendation since the current belief is that voluntary immunization works far, far better than giving the immunization by force (for obvious reasons). So, rest easy - if you don't want a flu shot you're unlikely to ever be forced into having one.

Whew....i feel alot better now. Thanks for letting us know that.

Any time, bro.

The real question is will they ever require doctors to do blood work or some other kind of test before
handing out antibiotics like candy each time a patient shows up with the flu or a common cold.

Not to sure they will require it, but there is a blood test to help determine viral from bacterial...although it’s really used to determine major bacterial infection (sepsis, etc) vs viral. I’d love a quick test to prove viral or bacterial. Unnecessary antibiotics will eventually cause untreatable bacterial (they already are here). If you have one of those, there is nothing to do but supportive care, and hope your body fights it off. The medical industry is only a part of the problem. Live stock/veterinary use is another huge part.

Not sure who is nastier. The narc seeker who is denied, or the person with a viral illness who is denied antibiotics.

Sometimes you might hear the excuse "you have the flu, but we are prescribing antibiotics to fight off any secondary infection", again testing for neither.

But, from what I understand, that is pretty common practice in today's medical profession.

Sometimes this is valid, depending on the persons other medical problems...if it is believed that a potential bacterial infection is high, and could cause the person major harm or possible death.

Sometimes maybe. But it seems to be a story that gets told over and over again.

These guys probably get too busy during flu season with people lining up at their doors to do any more than treat patients with the same symptoms like customers at a McDonalds drive thru.

"You want those antibiotics to go? Here's a few sample packs I have lying around"

I don’t deny that that happens. The test between bacterial vs viral would be a great answer. Hasn’t been perfected yet, but there is stuff in the works.

Lab work. They can tell what is a virus or bacteria there. It was perfected a long time ago. But nope, too busy, and too much work.

Please tell me the name of the test. I’ve been a PA for 20 years and if really exists, I’d love to use it.

I'm no doctor or lab tech, but it seems every time there is a flu, they can identify it. They even show pictures of it under the microscope. Same with bacteria. I could be wrong though and maybe it's just a big show to amuse the public.

Identifying a bacteria or virus can take a significant amount of time (days or longer). The tests are getting quicker and more accurate, but they aren’t there yet. Believe me, I’d love a quick test to show the patient that antibiotics aren’t needed, or to guide my care for them to be more accurate. Until then, I rely on the tools available and my knowledge.

I'm sure you guys do the best you can with what tools you have available.

And I know that $300 it costs for the 5 minutes spent with a patient during an hour and a half appointment goes to more than just keeping the magazine selection current.

I know it's for the greater good because if I get the flu I'm down for at least a week, but I haven't felt that great since I got my shot this week.

I think you can get a mild version of the "symptoms" of the flu but not the flu from the shot. Also, the shot takes a couple weeks to take effect--I assume your body building up antibodies or something. So you're not protected immediately from getting sick.

Precisely. Your immune system attacks the dead flu virus as if it were a living one, though generally to a much milder degree as the dead virus isn’t multiplying in your body the way it would be if you really had the flu.

So you might notice a mild feeling of your body fighting off something (or not) in the days afterward as your immune system trains itself to hunt and kill the flu strain. Kind of like a little muscle stiffness the day after a good workout. Your body is getting stronger!

I started getting aches where I hadn't ever had them before two days after the shot. Every day since it has gotten better. I would not say it actually gave the flu, just aches. I never had that happen before, but it's been awhile since I have the shot and I'm not getting younger.

"Last winter's flu season was the deadliest since the 1970s—79,000 people died—and a report released by the CDC Thursday might explain why. Per the report, just 37.1% of adults were vaccinated last season—the lowest rate since the 2010-11 season, and a drop of 6.2% from the season prior. "That’s huge. It’s a striking inflection down from the previous year," one infectious disease expert tells the Washington Post. Experts say the low level of vaccinations likely contributed to the particularly deadly year, though there were other factors as well, including a particularly harsh strain of the virus: H3N2 was dominant, and that strain typically results in the most complications and is also harder for the vaccine to fight. Experts are hoping more people will get vaccinated this year, with a CDC chief pointing out now "is the perfect time" to do so before flu season kicks into high gear."

Uff, not a good shot this year guys. I got the shot, shoulder hurt a shit ton but 5hats kind of standard. The next couple days i felt woozy and cold and went to the doctor demanding more tests; turns out it gave me AIDS.
9/11, NEVER FORGET.

Damn dude are you making money off of every flu shot or something? You sure are working hard to push them on people. Give it a rest, we are all adults here and if people want to get a flu shot they will and if they dont want to you arent going to convince them to. You sound like a broken record!

And so do you!

At least in this case he’s citing some credible facts in support of his position. Your position boils down to “I don’t care about the stats, I don’t want to get the shot and you can’t make me, now why doesn’t everyone stop talking about the flu in this flu vaccine thread?” It’s your right not to get the vaccine regardless, and maybe you even fall into a class of people for whom that decision makes some objective sense if you discount the effect of your choice on others (ie assume no harm if you’re a non-symptomatic vector). But if we’re not allowed to talk about the science in here and are reduced to citing only our personal feelings, it’ll be hard to have an intelligent conversation.

I don't see him pushing anybody, just stating some facts. Why do you get so upset about it? If you don't want to get a flu shot then don't get one. If you don't like the FACTS then you can move on instead of crying about it.

Did I hear that its a stronger/more effective vaccine this year? Our arms sort of hurt for the night - maybe a tad more than usual. After getting a half sleeve of tattoos its not even comparable.

Man try getting your crotch lasered for like 12 sessions.

yup. also chemtrails. see also: hoax. flu lab basement. planting fake ice cores later today too. red tide project success. dna sequencing initiated. lizardman takeover nearly complete. thanks for asking.

I sense there is a story to this

Not really... Just a lit of bur in flesh and pain. Like a tattoo it's all worth it after.

Sooo, everything you read is true, and everyone else is crazy?

I'm not supporting or denying any of those things you listed, just making an observation.

Winners write history, and create "facts". Also, many "conspiracy theories " ended up being true, or had much of it correct. Again, I'm not saying the flu shot is something it isn't, merely stating sometimes the tin foil is a good idea. If everyone believed exactly the same thing, and asked no questions, well, , , ,

I'm happy you get the shot, and I'm happy we still have a control group.

I'm going to play pinball now.

Well sourced, scientifically based material is generally regarded as the most reliable by people interested in fact based decision making. What have you read that refutes any particular point and from where and how was it researched?

I haven't, not my thing.
As I said, I'm not suggesting it's something it isnt.
I also don't believe everything that is touted. The "facts" about cigarettes didn't make it mainstream for quite a while.

Fat free yogurt, , , as if!

The number of “80,000” the CDC is claiming as the number of flu deaths is based not on reported flu deaths, but on a mathematical model built on the highly dubious assumption that the percentage of people who (a) are hospitalized for respiratory illness and have the flu is the same as (b) the percentage of people who are hospitalized for respiratory illness, are actually tested, and test positive.

This implies that doctors are not more likely to seek lab confirmation for people who actually have influenza than they are for people whose respiratory symptoms are due to some other cause.
Assuming that doctors can do better than a pair of rolled dice at picking out patients with influenza, it further implies that doctors are no more likely to order a lab test for patients whom they suspect of having the flu than they are to order a lab test for patients whose respiratory symptoms they think are caused by something else.
The CDC’s assumption thus introduces a selection bias into its model that further calls into question the plausibility of its conclusions, as it is bound to result in overestimation of both hospitalizations and deaths associated with influenza.
In fact, CDC researchers have acknowledged that, “If physicians were more likely to recognize influenza patients clinically and select those patients for testing, we may have over-estimated the magnitude of under-detection.”

Of course, the “we may have” statement there is nonsense. If doctors are more likely to order lab testing to confirm influenza infection for patients with influenza than patients hospitalized for some other respiratory illness, then the CDC has overestimated flu hospitalizations and deaths. Period. Not “may have”. Definitely has.
I mentioned that the “80,000” number comes from a preliminary estimate. This is done because it takes two or three years before the data to be available to use the usual method to estimate what the media relay matter-of-factly as “flu deaths”. Here are some things to keep in mind when you are faced with fearmongering information from the CDC and mainstream media:
The CDC’s model groups influenza deaths with pneumonia deaths and treats this combined total as a “lower bound” for influenza-associated deaths, even though most cases of pneumonia are not associated with influenza infection.
Furthermore, only about 7% to 15% of what are “influenza-like illnesses” are actually caused by influenza viruses.
There are over 200 known viruses that cause influenza-like illnesses, while the vaccine is designed to offer protection against only three or four strains of influenza (depending on whether it’s a “trivalent” or “quadrivalent” vaccine).
While the CDC in its public relations messaging and the mainstream media report the CDC’s numbers as though uncontroversial and as though representative of known influenza-caused deaths, in truth they are rather controversial estimates of influenza-associated deaths. As William Thompson of the CDC’s National Immunization Program once acknowledged, “Based on modelling, we think it’s associated. I don’t know that we would say that it’s the underlying cause of death.” (That’s false, of course, in the sense that the CDC does claim matter-of-factly that influenza is the underlying cause of death when it relays its estimates to the public. In other words, the CDC flat out lies, and the mainstream media broadcast the lie to the public to persuade them to line up for a flu shot.)
In contrast to the CDC’s claimed numbers, the average number deaths each year for which the cause is actually attributed on death certificates to influenza is little more than 1,000.
CDC researchers have acknowledged that even this low number may be an overestimate as lab confirmation of influenza infection is not always obtained, writing in the American Journal of Public Health that “simply counting deaths for which influenza has been coded as the underlying cause on death certificates can lead to both over- and underestimates of the magnitude of influenza-associated mortality.”
The two primary justifications for the CDC’s universal influenza vaccine recommendation are that vaccination 1) reduces transmission of the virus and 2) reduces the risk of potentially deadly complications. Cochrane reviews of the scientific literature, however, have determined that both of these claims are unsupported by scientific evidence.
A study from earlier this year showed that, contrary to the CDC’s assumption, vaccinated individuals shed over 6 times as much aerosolized virus as unvaccinated individuals.
A growing body of scientific evidence has shown that repeated annual influenza vaccination can actually impair the immune system’s ability to fight off influenza infections. There is an opportunity cost to vaccination, which is the lost naturally acquired immunity that would otherwise be conferred in the event of exposure to influenza viruses. While natural immunity protects against not only the infecting strain, but also other strains (and possibly even against non-influenza viruses), the vaccine offers no such benefit.

Are you inferring flu vaccinations are similar to the health hazards of smoking? The only people that were promoting smoking as healthy were the manufacturers...the health experts finally studied them and said hey these cause cancer and copd. Vaccinations aren't solely promoted by manufacturers...every health expert and association like CDC etc. have looked at them and said do it. I don't think the smoking analogy fits if that's what you're saying. Apologies if I misunderstood.

block quoting fringe websites is not scientific sourcing:

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/salud/salud_vacunas217.htm

Your wrong it was this one...

https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2018/10/11/80000-flu-deaths-last-season-why-the-cdcs-claim-is-not-credible/?_ga=2.63318892.274042675.1540581924-1046781474.1540581924

I'm not inferring anything.

I always look at the source of information. Jeremy R Hammond doesn’t seem unbiased or trustworthy. It’s always very concerning when someone claims to be an expert of information but it’s seems to be all opinions and blogs.

OK. Is that better?

Yep