Your Opinion on Swine Flu and Shots

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

AIDS is a lot older than the 1980s. Stored samples from the fifties have been found to contain HIV.

True. AIDS and many other diseases have been in existance for decades (or since recorded time) but not recognized as the specific disease they are known as today. I'm certainly not an expert but it's my understanding that people don't actually die from AIDS. They die from the complications of otherwise minor (relatively speaking) conditions exacerbated by the inability of the body to fight off these conditions. So that the cause of death is actually from flu, infection, pneumonia, etc. I'm sure that people have been dying from these causes for ages with the underlying factor being AIDS but science wasn't advanced enough at the time to isolate and recognize this as an individual condition in and of itself as it is now.

Sorry again. Back to the topic at hand . . . (I'm gonna shut up now.)

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

Just a quick response to this one statement if I may.

My nephew, who was about 30 at the time, and a very level headed and mature young family man not prone to exaggeration, was on the road very near to the Pentagon that particular day, and saw and heard that plane come down. If it was really a missile, it was very well disguised and fooled him completely. I guess he could have been mistaken.

Now, back to health care (or the lack thereof) . . .

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

True. AIDS and many other diseases have been in existance for decades (or since recorded time) but not recognized as the specific disease they are known as today. I'm certainly not an expert but it's my understanding that people don't actually die from AIDS. They die from the complications of otherwise minor (relatively speaking) conditions exacerbated by the inability of the body to fight off these conditions. So that the cause of death is actually from flu, infection, pneumonia, etc. I'm sure that people have been dying from these causes for ages with the underlying factor being AIDS but science wasn't advanced enough at the time to isolate and recognize this as an individual condition in and of itself as it is now.

Sorry again. Back to the topic at hand . . . (I'm gonna shut up now.)

'sigh. I'm so disappointed in you, LadyBlue.

Why on earth would you let facts get in the way of what you can find on the internet???

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

'sigh. I'm so disappointed in you, LadyBlue.

Why on earth would you let facts get in the way of what you can find on the internet???

Gee, I just never thought to search the internet for things like truth, justice, the American way (blah, blah, blah).

Forgive me . . . I'm a late bloomer, a bit behind the times.

I shall try to expand my horizons, for my knowledge is sorely lacking in so many ways. Must learn more.

[wachuko]

Dude, if it is in the Internet it must be the truth!

And it is not statistically significant until you get it… then it will really suck to be you.

I don't take the flu shot, never had and seldom do I catch the flu, and when I do with or without medicines it seems to last the same amount of time... I do take my children to get it. When they grow up they can decide how to deal with their health care.

Back to the question, will I take the new shot... most likely, same with my wife and children.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by krisk

when the Avian Flu looked like a real threat I did a LOT of reading about the 1917 flu pandemic and it is some scary sh*t maynard! typically I pass up flu shots being a firm believer in letting my body develop immunities to the garden variety ickies that are running around out there. also, right or wrong, it is my understanding that we are always being vaccinated against LAST year's virus.

with that said, I will be getting a swine flu shot when and if I can, and am scheduled for a pnuemonia shot. I had Whooping cough when llittle and have always had a problem with upper respiratory infections and actually have been hospitalized twice with pnuemonia (once in Basic Training.... THAT is agony!). for once I am not willing to take my chances

What she said.
Well, I didn't have pnuemonia in Basic Training, but the gist of what she said.

[griffonwing]

LB, DG. You are correct. Perhaps I should heed my own mumblings and read up more fully before taking the stand publicly and made to look like the fool. I missed, and admit that yes, I erred. Again, You are correct. It's not the first time that I have been wrong, and I dare say it will not be the last.

However, I would much rather be wrong on a few things than to simply turn a blind eye on what is going on around me, and take for face-value everything I am told by the media.

Also, i wish everyone good luck that is getting the H1N1. There is both positive and negative media about the vaccination, both mainstream media and darknet sources. So it really is a tough call.

*shrug*

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by griffonwing

It's not the first time that I have been wrong, and I dare say it will not be the last.

Actually, I respect people who are mature enough to re-evaluate a position when new evidence is brought to their attention, and are big enough to admit that they've made a mistake.
It's surprising how many people just can't bring themselves to do this. Good for you, Griffonwing!

[UncleDuke]

i'm not taking any flu from a pig

they are only good for making ham and bacon for that puppy dog and that wet eared dog

[griffonwing]

I may get sick.. but.. Mmmm.. love that bacon.

[majaka]

I never really bought into any of the media frenzy surrounding it.

Several reasons:

1.) Any quotes from "expert sources" generally touted as "1918 pandemic could happen again!!". Whereas that ignores the fact that the flu pandemic of 1918 happened in a set of very specific circumstances that made it perfect to roam around. In the trenches, of course, there were dead and dying, open wounds, terrible hygiene (if any), lack of medical supplies -- the list goes on.

In the general populace, we must remember that this is the early 20th century, where the "cure" for "hysterical women" was to shoot at their nice bits with a high-powered hose. I'd like to say that medicine has come a long way.

2.) The normal flu kills far, FAR, more people per year. I've heard barely ANY mumblings of "oh, yeah, it's something to look out for, but it's not really THAT bad" from the mainstream media, it's more like "OMG RUN THE APOCALYPSE IS COMING!!!"

3.) A company just "happened" to develop a "cure" (even though it's a virus and would mutate, people are calling it a "cure"), which just "happened" to be sold in huge quantities world-wide. Somehow, somewhere, SOMEONE is getting rich off the hype..

So, since someone is making huge amounts of money off this, and the world ISN'T ending (contrary to what Fox believes), I'm putting it all down to money-making and fear-mongering to draw attention away from the GEC.

[Over]

I'm a nurse and won't get, er... Shot.

Last year I received a vaccine for the seazonal flu and I got sick 2 days. One month and a half latter, during christmas, I had the worst flu ever, that lasted almost 2 weeks.

There are many flu variations to be really considered protected by a vaccine, even if that vaccine is updated every year. About the A(H1N1) flu... So far it's harmless, compared to the seazonal flu. We'll have to wait for the next cold months to see it spread much more and have a more comprehensive study. But so far, all this alarm is overblown, maybe with other interests behind.

Anyway, I prefer to gain natural resistance to the flu than trying a new vaccine that couldn't possibly have been thoroughly tested.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by majaka

1.) Any quotes from "expert sources" generally touted as "1918 pandemic could happen again!!". Whereas that ignores the fact that the flu pandemic of 1918 happened in a set of very specific circumstances that made it perfect to roam around. In the trenches, of course, there were dead and dying, open wounds, terrible hygiene (if any), lack of medical supplies -- the list goes on.

The 1918 "Spanish Flu" outbreak happened in the winter of 1918-19, after the end of the war. It had nothing to do with WWI.

You can't overestimate the seriousness of it. It killed more people than WWI did.

3.) A company just "happened" to develop a "cure" (even though it's a virus and would mutate, people are calling it a "cure"), which just "happened" to be sold in huge quantities world-wide. Somehow, somewhere, SOMEONE is getting rich off the hype..

The vaccine for Swine Flu is being developed in the same way, in the same laboratories, that create vaccines for the seasonal winter flu outbreaks. There is nothing "different" about it. It is not a "cure"; it is a vaccine.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The 1918 "Spanish Flu" outbreak happened in the winter of 1918-19, after the end of the war. It had nothing to do with WWI.

But demobilisation took quite a while - according to "War Epidemics", WWI was connected to the spread of Spanish Flu.

[Terisa de morgan]

Well, I'm not going to take a shot, I've never done it and I don't think the hysteric media change nothing. As people have said, a lot of persons kill every year because of the flu and they don't appear at the news.

[majaka]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The 1918 "Spanish Flu" outbreak happened in the winter of 1918-19, after the end of the war. It had nothing to do with WWI.

You can't overestimate the seriousness of it. It killed more people than WWI did.



The vaccine for Swine Flu is being developed in the same way, in the same laboratories, that create vaccines for the seasonal winter flu outbreaks. There is nothing "different" about it. It is not a "cure"; it is a vaccine.

Not true. The virus did, in fact, have its role within WWI. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3455873.stm) Not only that, but the first "reported" cases of the flu (we must keep in mind the relatively archaic medical standards at the time) appeared in May of 1918, which is a good 8 months before the end of WWI.

Re: "cure", I was using double quotes because I have heard several source refer to it as a "cure", and this is merely a reflection of how the fear of the flu can cause people to react. Obviously you cannot create a vaccine against the flu.

To put this into context, have a look at this great article, which raised some good questions in terms of "who's profiting here". http://shoutwire.com/ecomments/full/...s_Don_t_Add_up

And yes, the 1918 flu was extremely devastating, but keep in mind that this was 1918. At the moment we are on the verge of offering (Some governments are mandating that they must be taken) a highly experimental vaccine, for an overhyped flu strain that is quite likely going to do more damage than good. It's quite likely that the side effects of the vaccine will kill or injure more people than the actual virus will do, on account of its very low mortality rate (far lower than the 30,000 average deaths in the US alone each year from flu-related complications).

Combine that with the fact that most of the news reports I've seen are "A patient died today, he also had swine flu", and then it turns out that the guy was extremely overweight and died of heart failure. In my eyes, I don't see it as justified. (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1...ine-flu-in-Qld -- the first "healthy" man to die in Australia from the swine flu only died in August, so that puts it into perspective).

At this point in time, I just don't see any justification as to why we should use such an experimental vaccine that is very likely to do more harm than good.