# Flu Shot



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Will you get the flu shot this year? I've already gotten one.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

After a number of heart attacks, I am designated a "must get" by health authorities.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

Mixed feelings on that one. Heard of too many people getting sick from the shot, at least that is what they blame it on.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

As long as you are not allergic to eggs, the shot is safe for you.

Kind of ironic with the bird flu thing, is it not?


----------



## John Neu (Jun 13, 2002)

*Flu shot*



guytoronto said:


> Will you get the flu shot this year? I've already gotten one.


I'm 82 and have had a shot every year sunce they started. After the first one I was pretty sick but figured it reved up my system 'cause I haven't had anything like that for decades. It seems to be OK now.


----------



## Ena (Feb 7, 2005)

My employer says employees have to have one. If there is an outbreak and employees haven't had one they can't work. 
I've always had the shot ever since it became available.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

People are crazy not to get the shot - even more so in provinces where it is free. Unless you are allergic to eggs or the preservative (thimersol) as SINC says, there is essentially no risk. The side effects are trivial (achiness for an hour or so) compared to actually getting the flu. The vaccines are 70-90% effective. Not perfect, but much better than leaving it to chance. Prevention is much better than cure.

While this vaccine doesn't offer any protection against H5N1 (basically because if/when it mutates to be infectious to humans it will have changed its "coat"), it will reduce the background flu level, leaving ERs and doctors offices a lot less crowded over the next few months.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

I've heard flu shots are guestimates to protect you from influenza outbreaks that are reckoned to be around that year. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong.

If there is a nasty bout of flu hanging around, and the flu shot should help build my immune system to fight it, I'll get it. Otherwise, I don't bother. If I saw a doctor every few months though, I might change my tune... afterall, it doesn't hurt.

I managed to get a nasty case of flu two years ago, and was told that the flu shot wouldn't have helped anyway... but since I was in the doctor's office, I got the shot, just in case.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The idea is that you DO get a bit sick so your body has some antibodies for several of the possible strains that the current bird flu may combine with.

A day or two of feeling a bit under the weather ( at worst ) for a tangible bit of protection against a a possible pandemic is a very cheap price to pay. And it's free.

It MIGHT do no good at all but it's likely to do SOME good.....and on the other end of the "possible outcomes" spectrum ....it MIGHT keep you alive.

With a 70% mortality rate amongst humans despite best modern medicine this is a nasty beast.
How it might combine with an existing strain is unknown and the flu shot gives you protection against the more prevalent known strains.

Free insurance...take it.


----------



## teeterboy3 (May 22, 2005)

Already got mine last week.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

We're not quite here yet


----------



## Jordan (Jul 20, 2002)

Lets not forget the formaldehyde, sodium deoxycholate or Triton X-100 and thimerosal (mercury, used as the preservative). And that for the past 5 years the flu vaccine never covered any of the flu strains that were present.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Jordan said:


> Lets not forget the formaldehyde, sodium deoxycholate or Triton X-100 and thimerosal (mercury, used as the preservative). And that for the past 5 years the flu vaccine never covered any of the flu strains that were present.


That's okay. You can fight the non-routine flu you might contract much better if you aren't already suffering from the one you might easily have prevented, but caught because you skipped the shot.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

No, but I couldn't vote since I always hang around sick people and I don't believe it's some scheme by the Drug companies either.

Since mutation is "a way of life" for any virus, and since you can't create antibodies for anything you're not exposed to, you need to get out and interact with people, or you're going to get sick for certain. Your immune system is the <i>only</i> defense you have against a virus, so keep it well armed and at the ready.

I live with someone who not only works in a hospital environment, they work in a research environment. I get exposed to a parade of nice, unique bugs every day, and it works great to keep the 'ol immune system up to date.

Best tip: Use your own pen and wash your hands often, and dry them thoroughly. A wet, warm surface is prime real estate, good transportation, with free food thrown in, no matter how much soap you used.

"They won't die if you don't dry; they just multiply."


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

I had one the first year the University offered it - that was my worst flu year ever: three different bouts!!! Usually I don't get flu or have just a mild version. Never had another shot. 

After all the shot can only immunize against last years (and older) flus... If you've been around people at all you already have those antibodies made naturally in your own body.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I am getting mine at 9Am on Nov.4th. The only time I actually got the flu was the year that I decided not to get the shot. Granted, it is a "guestimate" as jicon suggests, but I still feel it is worth it in the final analysis. We shall see.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

I have serious reservations about the effectiveness of the flu shot, and have often not gotten them in the past. But I have to weigh that against the reality that I am regularly in nursing homes and hospitals, and have a two year old at home. So I will get the shot this year, and hope it doesn't make me sick, as previous ones have, but hope it does provide some protection.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

No shot for me. When I hit the demographic then perhaps I will consider it.


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

No, while I can see that SOMETHING LIKE the flu shot can save millions of health care dollars and more importantly give more attention to more hazardous illnesses. I don't believe the cocktail that they give is going to achieve much. There are plenty of wide spread cases of heavy metals and chemicals being used as preservatives, and fillers, etc. in such shots; plenty examples of damage caused because of this stuff. I don't trust things that have been blanket-style prescribed by a coalition of a corporations who have no credibility. 

The flu shot cannot "infect" you necessarily, it DOES indeed stress your immune system (that which conventional medical practice plays down often... maybe because almost all of the drugs they push destroy the immune system anyway), and make you way more likely to catch the common cold. All of this to prevent something which, as a young and virile young lad, can fight off with a little TLC (from good caring friends) and some awesome soup. I understand that some are not in the same position I am health-wise, so I'm not saying they shouldn't have the choice, but the advertising campaigns and stuff suggest that you don't have a choice.

Rather than spend millions in ad campaigns, and administration, I feel that our (proudly paid) tax dollars should go towards engendering a sense of good health and accommodating people for sick days. I DO correlate the fact that we are generally under-slept and stressed out people, our work week, which is 40+, and our annual flu and cold epidemic. I say offer the choice (and not make the gross 1985-esque ad campaigns), and focus on good health and lifestyle predominantly.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Flu shot? No [email protected]#$ing way!
Thimerosal. Nice euphemism for Mercury, eh? And the drug companies want the gov't. (you) to pay to inject this in you _and_ your children.

Rick Mercer said it best: http://www.cbc.ca/mercerreport/backissues.html
(Second section, Bottom link, Week of March 7, 2005)

_WARNING: Contains CBC content. Not intended for SINC, or SINC-minded persons._



(SINC - We tease you because you're so darned cute!)


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> (SINC - We tease you because you're so darned cute!)


You obviously haven't seen the pictures.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Jeez, the vaccine is NOT against last years virus and it HAS been effective against circulating viruses in previous years (they pick three different classes to allow at least partial coverage). Vaccines do work and they are appropriate for all demographics except very small kids or people who are severely immune-depressed. Indeed, vaccines work best when there is 70% or more of the population immunized because it reduces the circulating viral loads.

There are numerous studies showing the cost-effectiveness of the flu shot. It's a minor inconvenience but you are helping others not just yourself by becoming immunized. Put another way, you could kill your granny!

Seriously, get a shot please. Next, someone will be condoning intelligent design....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, pragmatically speaking, what would be the shortest amount of time it would take researchers and the pharmacy companies to identify a current strain of flu (i.e., not an avian flu strain, just a "normal" variety of flu that comes about each year) and to then manufacture a vaccine to help protect against this strain? For example, if a non-lethal strain of flu, call it the St. John's flu, since it was first identified here in St.John's, and it was considered to be a strain worthy of a preventative vaccine, from Nov.1st, when it was identified, how soon before a viable vaccine might become available to the general public?


----------



## Rob777 (Dec 17, 2002)

*They're watching you!*

I think they want you to get the flu shot so they (whoever THEY might be) can track you. Be it the gov't or big corporations. I think there is something in it that allows THEM to do this. 

(Obviously, I'm kidding, or am I?)


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Jeez, the vaccine is NOT against last years virus and it HAS been effective against circulating viruses in previous years (they pick three different classes to allow at least partial coverage). Vaccines do work and they are appropriate for all demographics except very small kids or people who are severely immune-depressed. Indeed, vaccines work best when there is 70% or more of the population immunized because it reduces the circulating viral loads.
> 
> There are numerous studies showing the cost-effectiveness of the flu shot. It's a minor inconvenience but you are helping others not just yourself by becoming immunized. Put another way, you could kill your granny!
> 
> Seriously, get a shot please. Next, someone will be condoning intelligent design....


UTBJ, are you applying research from other vaccines to the flu vaccine? I read just this year that studies showed the flu vaccine was pretty ineffective and was _not_ cost effective. 

*EDIT:* Here's what I found in a very brief search...

*Study: Latest flu vaccine ineffective on major strain*
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/01/15/Worldandnation/Study__Latest_flu_vac.shtml

*Flu Vaccine Ineffective Against Mutating Virus
Associated Press - October 21, 2005*
http://sacramento.networkofcare.org/aging/news/detail.cfm?articleID=9027

_...."The vaccine doesn't work very well at all," said study author Dr. Tom Jefferson, an epidemiologist with the Cochrane Vaccines Field in Rome. "Vaccines are being used as an ideological weapon. What you see every year as the flu is caused by 200 or 300 different agents with a vaccine against two of them. That is simply nonsense."

Dr. Marc Siegel, author of False Alarm: The Truth About the Epidemic of Fear, agreed. "We have set up a situation where a fear is created, and then we try to create the treatment for this fear. The public gets the idea that the flu is going to kill them and the vaccine will save them. Neither is true," he said. "The flu vaccine has use in cutting down on deaths from complications in the chronically ill and people at great risk, but it's not a panacea."..._
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=53483
(This link actually presents arguments from both sides)


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

From The Government of Ontario's Website


> A flu shot is about 70 to 90 per cent effective in preventing flu in healthy adults,
> when the vaccine is a good match to the strains. In children, it’s about 83 per cent effective. Among the elderly, the vaccine can help prevent pneumonia and hospitalization in about six out of 10 people and is up to 85 per cent effective in preventing death. Vaccine effectiveness varies from one person to another, depending upon their general state of health. Some individuals who get a flu shot can still get the flu. But if they do, it is usually a milder case than it would have been without the shot.


Since in Ontario, it's free to get the shot, why would you not?

Even if it was only 10% effective, that's better than nothing! And the flu is down-right miserable. I'm not sure if any other provinces offer it for free.

Please don't take medical advice from Rick Mercer. He's a comedian. Your doctor is a doctor.


----------



## teeterboy3 (May 22, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Since in Ontario, it's free to get the shot, why would you not?


Because the government is always up to no good. I heard the vaccine has yellow dots in it and big brother can trace what laser printer you use and how much porn you download… 



Seriously though… I don't think I get why this debate (not just in here, everywhere) gets so heated with people on drastically different sides of the fence. I got the vaccine. Maybe I'll die of mecury overdose; maybe I will die from some super flu the doctors didn't even know about; maybe a bird with avian flu will peck my eyes out and eat my brain… the point is I don't like colds or flus so if I can avoid them by 1% even, I am game. 

And. I don't much care if others do… to each their own.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I don't know Dr. G, it would probably take 6 months to generate a lot and test it for safety (longer to test for efficacy since you have to wait to see if immunized people contract the flu by natural transmission - it's not ethical to expose them deliberately). Am basing this on the current strategy for the flu vaccine. 

Soymac, the level of protection achieved by the flu vaccine is variable year to year. The overall evidence is that you can expect around 70% effectiveness - sometimes better sometimes worse. The antigens used to generate the vaccine are an educated guess and nature has a way of surprising us. However, the downsides are extremely limited compared with the upside - especially if you've ever had a similar shot and did not have an allegic reaction (which is rare but not very nice).


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I don't know... in the past you could have counted me as one of the cynical folk who scoffed at the idea of getting a flu shot since I've never been hit with a severe bout of the flu (at least as long as I can recall in within the last 5-6 years), but now that I have a child who'll be socializing with a lot of other kids in the very near future and I'm beginning to rethink it. The last several months have put taken it's toll on my overall energy and I'm sure my immune system isn't quite as tip-top as it was last year.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Thanks for this info, Jim. I had forgotten to factor in safety testing. I recall the Swine Flu vaccine problems back when Gerald Ford was president.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

My employer brings a nurse in to give employees the shots. I got one last year and I'll get one this year.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Oddly enough, the vaccine has not yet arrived at my doctor's and I am still awaiting the shot. He now says early November.


----------



## Myrddin Emrys (May 24, 2005)

I don't get sick...  

I never get the flu shot, I always get sick from them, it's the way my immune system works. I have got the flu but it usually lasts for 4 hours and then I'm fine, my wife hates me, she gets something and it lasts, and lasts, and lasts.

Besides I am under the assumption that the flu shots do not prevent you from carrying the virus just getting sick from the virus; Typhoid Mary stuff.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Myrddin Emrys said:


> I have got the flu but it usually lasts for 4 hours and then I'm fine.


LOL! I doubt what you get is the flu. If you get the flu, you know it. It's hits you harshly. You probably get a mild cold. I get those too and a day later I'm fine.


----------



## Myrddin Emrys (May 24, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> LOL! I doubt what you get is the flu. If you get the flu, you know it. It's hits you harshly. You probably get a mild cold. I get those too and a day later I'm fine.


Oh trust me, it's the flu. I have confirmed it this my doctor, and with my wife's doctor after she gets it from me.


----------



## shoe (Apr 6, 2005)

my ex explained it to me this way

the more imunizations we get to fight the flu the stronger the flu will get personally id rather have the flu and take a few days off work anyway

shoe


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Since my wife works as an RN in a seniors home, it is mandatory she gets the flu shot. As for me, as a heart attack survivor, the Alberta health system gives it to me free as I am considered a high risk for pneumonia and possible death from the flu.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

shoe said:


> my ex explained it to me this way
> 
> the more imunizations we get to fight the flu the stronger the flu will get personally id rather have the flu and take a few days off work anyway
> 
> shoe


Probably why he/she is your ex  That explanation has no scientific merit. Vaccines are protective because they prepare your immune system to fight a new infection as though you'd previously been infected with the same virus. The "memory" T cells get a head start and so purge the viral infection before it takes hold. Viruses mutate which is why we need to change the shots every year and why some are poorly effective. However, the fact that 5% or even 50% or 100% of the population is immunized against a particular virus has no effect on the maturation/mutation/strength of a virus. Smallpox is a virus. It has been eradicated. Vaccination did not result in generation of a stronger smallpox variant.

Vaccines are like training for a marathon. Your body is simply better prepared. It doesn't mean you'll win the marathon, but it does increase your chances of completing it.


----------



## Myrddin Emrys (May 24, 2005)

shoe said:


> my ex explained it to me this way
> 
> the more immunizations we get to fight the flu the stronger the flu will get personally id rather have the flu and take a few days off work anyway
> 
> shoe


I agree, instead of letting our bodies do their job, and externalizing that job makes us weaker. One could see the conspiracy of less sick days and increased productivity a boon for corporations.



used to be jwoodget said:


> Probably why he/she is your ex  That explanation has no scientific merit. Vaccines are protective because they prepare your immune system to fight a new infection as though you'd previously been infected with the same virus. The "memory" T cells get a head start and so purge the viral infection before it takes hold. Viruses mutate which is why we need to change the shots every year and why some are poorly effective. However, the fact that 5% or even 50% or 100% of the population is immunized against a particular virus has no effect on the maturation/mutation/strength of a virus. Smallpox is a virus. It has been eradicated. Vaccination did not result in generation of a stronger smallpox variant.
> 
> Vaccines are like training for a marathon. Your body is simply better prepared. It doesn't mean you'll win the marathon, but it does increase your chances of completing it.


There is a difference between the 'dead virus' inoculations of yester year and today's serums.

Anyway, here is a good outline of things as they stand at this moment as towards the 'flu.'

NIAID Fact


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I haven't had it yet, but it is a high priority.

I've never had a flu shot before, but last year I had _3_ truly heinous flues (high fevers bad enough to cause hallucinations, and leave ridges in my fingernails) that probably cost me close to a month of productive work combined. Despite all of it's flaws, anything that reduces the probability of that sort of winter is a hands-down-winner in my book.

That being said, an older lady that is a good friend of mine had the flu shot last fall and suffered a catastrophic auto-immune reaction to it. She lived, but will never likely fully recover from the damage.

So, like almost everything else in life, there is a risk involved. For me, the probable-cost/probable-benifit calculus is unequivocal. For others it may be less clear.

One of the things we've taken too much for granted over the past few decades is our immunity to microbiological attack. Terrorists, corporate robber barons, climate change, criminals and politicians may loom large in our skewed perspective on threats, but it's microscopic packages of nucleic acid and protein that are really the biggest danger we face.

At any rate, I wish you all a healthy winter.

Cheers


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I got mine early since I'll be leaving on a cruise down south this weekend
and I don't want to get sick while enjoying holidays in the sun.

D


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

Nope. The flu vaccine is like Head & Shoulders, as soon as you stop using it the symptoms return. In the long run, it's just a masque and does not help your natural immune system. I do feel a bug coming on here and there, but I also feel my natural immune system kicking in, and it's good. I haven't been sick in eons, I'm talking about 8 years.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

Well, just my 2 cents, but every year since I was a kid I always used to get sick with a flu...nasty fever and the whole bit. Last year was the first time a got a shot and I got through the winter (while riding the bacteria infested TTC every day mind you) sick-free. Perhaps a coincidence but I am going to get another shot this year.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

got mine for last few years
no ill effects from this year's shot


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> got mine for last few years
> no ill effects from this year's shot


Oh No, Same here!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

It blows me away the amount of ignorance there is in regards to the flu shot. With all the information available out there, you would think people would be smarter, but alas, this is not the fact.



shoe said:


> the more imunizations we get to fight the flu the stronger the flu will get personally id rather have the flu and take a few days off work anyway


Immunizations are not like antibiotics. Immunization simply alerts your immune system to the pending threat before it happens. Your body still fights off the flu. The difference is is that it already has a head start, so instead of 4 days of illness, you have 1.



Myrddin Emrys said:


> I agree, instead of letting our bodies do their job, and externalizing that job makes us weaker. One could see the conspiracy of less sick days and increased productivity a boon for corporations.


Again, you fail to understand how vaccines work. And heaven forbid your employer actually might want you to be productive at work.



singingcrow said:


> Nope. The flu vaccine is like Head & Shoulders, as soon as you stop using it the symptoms return. In the long run, it's just a masque and does not help your natural immune system. I do feel a bug coming on here and there, but I also feel my natural immune system kicking in, and it's good. I haven't been sick in eons, I'm talking about 8 years.


One more person who has no clue how immunizations work.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

It's not that I don't understand, I simply think immunization does not need to be used on every person in the world.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

singcrow, please explain. The use of vaccinations is an incredibly important tool worldwide. You probably don't realise it, but the lack of immunization programs in the developing world causes millions of deaths. In our world, we do immunize against less troublesome pests such as measles and mumps and rubella. But even these shots prevent deaths. Your immune system is actually bolstered by an immunization - not weakened. All the shot does is provide a preview exposure of your body to a protein (antigen) that is normally found on a virus or bacteria. It causes your body to expand the numbers of certain lymphocytes that react against the antigen so that if you encounter it again, your response is much more efficient.

There are rare side-effects but the risk benefit ratio is enormous. Its a free country and people have a choice to decline a shot for a variety of reasons. Just don't let one of those be ignorance


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Hmmmmm another interesting discussion. I only have one question for everyone, if the flu shot is such a good idea, then where was it 10,20,30,40,50 years ago? The flu shot vaccine must have been a breakthrough technological advancement that was earth shattering news world wide, more so then finding out that AIDS existed. I mean honestly, this type of vaccine has not been around that long, and yet humans have always had the potential of getting the flu. 

It must be encouraging to take that kind of trust from the government to mess around with your body each year. Which brings up another question, why can't they give a flu shot vaccine that will last more then one year? 

Does the flu shot really help? Is the marketing hype causing the facts to be distorted? Have the number of visits of people to emergency rooms and health clinics gone down over the last 5 years who have taken the flu shot vaccine?

I did a little test last year and the year before for the company I work for, out of everyone who went and got a flu shot vaccine, all of them ended up with the flu that winter or the common cold. Those that didn't get the flu shot, either didn't get the flu, or ended up with a minor common cold. The numbers in our company were staggering after finding out who actually got the flu shot and who didn't. I was one of them who has never had the flu shot vaccine, and yet I can't remember the last time I even had the flu. I didn't even get the common cold last winter. Usually, I am pretty good for not receiving colds during the winter months.

Do I trust the government to stick a needle in me and tell me that I need it, that it is safe and that it will prevent me from being sick? No! Any needle vaccine that has that many possible side effects for any one person living, should be a warning to proceed with caution. After all, when you're sick and you go see a doctor, they don't prescribe a vaccine flu shot, they hand you some Tylenol and some prescription for some man made crap of liquid medicine that tastes like toothpaste 

So in short, no I have never received a flu shot and will never take one.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

MacGYVER said:


> Hmmmmm another interesting discussion. I only have one question for everyone, if the flu shot is such a good idea, then where was it 10,20,30,40,50 years ago? The flu shot vaccine must have been a breakthrough technological advancement that was earth shattering news world wide, more so then finding out that AIDS existed. I mean honestly, this type of vaccine has not been around that long, and yet humans have always had the potential of getting the flu.
> 
> It must be encouraging to take that kind of trust from the government to mess around with your body each year. Which brings up another question, why can't they give a flu shot vaccine that will last more then one year?
> 
> ...


I'm not sure whether to take your post seriously as its one of the best cases I've seen for a Darwin award. The reason it took so long to develop flu vaccines (which are nowhere near 100% effective) is because the flu virus mutates so frequently (unlike smallpox virus, etc). So it required recombinant DNA technology in order to perform controlled mutagenesis of strains to predict new variants for vaccine production. That is the reason there is a new flu shot every year - because the viruses change their coats. That's why you can be unfortunate and get the flu every year because your immune system doesn't recongize the new variant. If you already have the flu (or smallpox or any infection), its too late for a vaccine to do anything. It's like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Vaccines are preventative. 

As to your anecdote, if its based on the same sort of faulty logic that the rest of the post contains, then its not worth commenting on. The flu vaccine reduces your chance of contracting flu but there are no guarantees. 

I must admit, if you don't know this basic information, you should certainly not let someone stick a needle into you. Ignorance is bliss......


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

JW - consider the source.  Reason will never answer *willful* ignorance.
Think positive, such a massive Darwinian cull.......... by their own choice. 

Just where IS John Galt???.......it appears it's time.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

John Galt is a distillation of the heroic potential in each of us. While Galt actively organized the strike of "the men of the mind," many other characters just quit their jobs and effectively divorced themselves from a society that treated them as slaves. Ayn Rand portrayed a hero who vows to "stop the motor of the world," calling on America's most productive men to go on strike against an "entrenched parasitical power elite and their myriad hangers-on".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

As I said.....it's time.



> ATLAS SHRUGGED
> 
> Harold Leiendecker
> 
> ...


http://www.eckerd.edu/aspec/writers/atlas_shrugged.htm

maybe Canada is the 'secret place"......whistle that tune Dr. G


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, I was never an advocate of her theory of "Objectivism". I am more of a utopian socialist, I guess. C'est la vie.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

jw,

you ask me to explain. First of all I am not against getting shots for things that are not changing. I, myself, have received shots for hepatitis and yellow fever, and I'm sure mumps, since I have the scar to prove it, unlike those younger than me. But the with the flu, as you've stated changes every year. I understand the shot is to boost your immune system, but as I stated earlier, some of us have a very good immune system, and do not require an injection to show our body what to be ready for.

For people like Eukaryotic or the elderly, who's immune system is obviously lower, yes, I agree, go get the shot.

Besides (WARNING GOING INTO UNCHARTED TERRITORY), I think I do do my own sort of immunization. As someone who works with energy, I understand on an energetic level how viruses can invade your body. As with food allergies, if I pause for a moment and take a portion of that energy and charge it to to integrate with my body into something positive, I'm not harmed (I done this with MSG and the tap water in Egypt). If I don't take that moment, I feel it. If I do, I go on with life hugging those who are sick.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes indeed you are - hence our somewhat different yet surprisingly congruent approaches even if coming from different angles to it.
We both admire FDR and his results yet from somewhat different angles. Strength in diversity.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*This thread is a perfect example of how the education system is failing*

JW, you and I, and several others around here are well enough aware of the underlying biology (molecular, cellular, and ecological) that makes a clear argument for immunizing as much of our population as possible against the flu, but it's obvious that many here are not.

It is both appalling and galvanizing to me that seemingly intelligent, and presumably educated people are governed by superstition, anecdote and fables. We need to do much better in educating our citizens, so that those who would choose to be rational have the knowledge with which to do so. The future certainly holds more microbiological threats than the past, and, although our scientists are up to the challenge, our civilization is so woefully ignorant that, even when science is successful in finding solutions or predicting avoidable catastrophes, it seems that a significant proportion of our population will ignore, misunderstand or simply reject it.

I can only hope that, if we become more adept at teaching science and critical thinking, people will be come less adverse to applying what knowledge science can provide.

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"This generation has a rendezvous with destiny." Paix, mon ami.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Your brief history of vaccinations:

Smallpox - eradicated
Diphtheria - 206,939 cases in 1921 / just one in 1998 (US figures)
Whooping Cough - 265,269 cases in 1934 / 6,279 in 1998 (US figures)
Measles - 894,134 cases in 1941 / 89 in 1998 (US figures)
Polio - eradicated in the Western Hemisphere

Anyone who doesn't believe in the merit of vaccinations needs their head examined.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

singingcrow, while a strong immune system is better than a weak one, it is often not enough when combatting a virus. The majority of the deaths from the 1918 Spanish flu were of people in their 20's, at the prime of their lives. Like wars, the toll of loss of this sector of the population was horrific. Immunization primes your body against specific threats. It's cheap and it is societally responsible (since it reduced the risk of transmission to the most vulnerable from people who are least vulnerable).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Anyone who doesn't believe in the merit of vaccinations needs their head examined


 :clap:

The eradication of small pox alone stands as one of our species greatest communal triumphs.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> :clap:
> 
> The eradication of small pox alone stands as one of our species greatest communal triumphs.


Did someone say "eradicated"?  

Terror Threat May Force Russia to Resume Smallpox Vaccination

OCT. 27, 2005 - Russian scientists are working on an oral vaccine against smallpox, fearing that terrorists could use the virus as a weapon, the head of the Russian Association of Biotechnologies Experts has said. Vaccination against smallpox, which the World Heath Organisation (WHO) discontinued in 1980, must be resumed “because of the growing threat posed by bioterrorism,” Anatoly Vorobyov was quoted as saying by the ITAR-TASS news agency.

The full story:

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/10/27/smallpox.shtml

Um.... oopsie?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You are ....unfortunately.....correct


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

My understanding is that smallpox really was eradicated, but by the time the last lab-stocks of the virus were incinerated, there was enough known about the molecular nature of that particular virus that it could be re-created by someone who knows enough molecular biology.

So in this case, 'extinct' may not be forever.

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

A related story from CNN.com

"GENEVA, Switzerland (AP) -- Polio has been stamped out in 10 African countries in a major boost to a global campaign to rid the world of the deadly disease, the U.N. health agency said in a report to be published Friday."

http://us.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/conditions/11/10/who.polio.ap/index.html


----------



## Greenman (Feb 22, 2003)

While I don't necessarily believe it's a scam I also don't feel (for me) it's a necessity. I've never had a flu shot and in the past 10 years I've perhaps had the flu 3 or 4 times. I may get a head/chest cold once every couple of years or so but generally my immune system is pretty good.

My wife and I take an immune booster called Myco-Immune which seems to work for us and we both take the TTC everyday. When we feel 'something brewing' we'll take an extra dose and it seems to help stop it in it's tracks.

Now, I have a question....

How many of you actually visit your doctor or emerg at a clinic or hospital for a cold or flu?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Let me tell you - IF you get a bad strain of the flu which I've experienced only once you will KNOW why it is so deadly.
This is not your cough cough sniffle for a few days variety.
You have to realize that with the very best modern medicine H51n has a 50% or more fatality rate even with young and healthy.

The 1918 was particularly vicious as it struck people in their prime worst of all. 20s and 30s.
Be fine one day dead 48 hours or less later.

What most people perceive as a "case of the flu".....and it is indeed the flu but a mild version....bears no resemblance at all to one that is really deadly.

The one I went through was extremely debilitating, my wife and I both had it and were really truly sick in bed for days and we finally staggered...literally into the doctors office to see what was wrong.
We were so weak that we HAD to lean on each other to get into the doctors office.

We were both very fit ( she was national down river kayaking champion and we were both running regularly ) and were both very very sick.

I could see then, in some small way just how bad a really severe strain could be.

Think about how few diseases of any sort can kill a healthy human in 48 hours 
Yet that IS what happened in 1918 and an H51 variation could be worse.

This is no casual disease.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I get colds, as we all do, but have only had the flu, a real flu, once in my life. If was so bad that I would have been able to be hospitalized other than for the fact that I was a single parent and could not leave a disabled 7 year old daughter and a 4 year old son alone, or with someone else. My doctor was livid, and agreed to make a house call to check up on me. She told me to take three days off from work or else (I was never sure what the "or else" entailed, but I was not about to find out). From that day onward, I have always gotten a flu shot. I once caught the flu with the shot, but it was just like a very bad cold, nothing life threatening. 

Thus, the flu shot may not be accepted by everyone, but as for me, I shall get it each November or December.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Got mine last week. A day or two of discomfort with a slight swelling, but nothing else. I am now prepared as all should be.


----------



## Greenman (Feb 22, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Let me tell you - IF you get a bad strain of the flu which I've experienced only once you will KNOW why it is so deadly.
> This is not your cough cough sniffle for a few days variety.
> You have to realize that with the very best modern medicine H51n has a 50% or more fatality rate even with young and healthy.
> 
> ...



Macdoc,

I HAVE had a flu that bad I felt I'd rather be dead. Both my wife and I had it at the same time... I started feeling better and I'd help her, then it'd would knock me down again and she would start feeling better etc. It left us both weak for months. I do know the difference!!!!

And I am VERY aware of the 1918 flu.... I worked on this documentary and saw more footage and stills and read more research material than you can imagine... we interviewed a lot of prominent specialists... watch the doc if you get a chance. I've seen it available in Queen Street Video so it's out there.

Panademic: Case of the Killer Flu (1999) 1 hour
A riveting look at the race between a young Canadian scientist and a retired San Francisco pathologist to save humanity from a constantly mutating virus.
Award Highlights: Bronze WorldMedal, New York Festivals. Best Science/Technology/Environment Documentary, Hot Docs.

All I'm saying is for me, I don't feel it's necessary. I'm not convinced getting a shot each year will stop the 'big one' when ever it arrives. And yes, I am well aware it's inevitable the H5N1 strain will visit us in some mutated form. Probably sooner than later.

My question about doctor visits was simply to see if people go to their doctors with 'common cold' or basic flu symptoms.


----------



## jmac (Feb 16, 2003)

Got mine yesterday; second consecutive year. No adverse effects so far, and i didn't get the flu last year - so i'd say all in all i'm impressed with the payback. Again, if it's widely available as an insurance, why not take up the opportunity?


----------



## Myrddin Emrys (May 24, 2005)

bryanc said:


> JW, you and I, and several others around here are well enough aware of the underlying biology (molecular, cellular, and ecological) that makes a clear argument for immunizing as much of our population as possible against the flu, but it's obvious that many here are not.
> 
> It is both appalling and galvanizing to me that seemingly intelligent, and presumably educated people are governed by superstition, anecdote and fables. We need to do much better in educating our citizens, so that those who would choose to be rational have the knowledge with which to do so. The future certainly holds more microbiological threats than the past, and, although our scientists are up to the challenge, our civilization is so woefully ignorant that, even when science is successful in finding solutions or predicting avoidable catastrophes, it seems that a significant proportion of our population will ignore, misunderstand or simply reject it.
> 
> ...


Yes, very true, that is why people should know that any year's vaccine is usually made up of 3 dead strains of flu that has been predicted to be at large for that year. Of those 3 strains there are many mutations that would not be protected against or give partial protection.

Pardon the pun but it is a shot in the dark; it is a 30-35% chance if a person is around and infected by 1 or more of those 3 strains of flu. approx.

I will not dispute the importance of vaccination, and I will tell anyone to consult their doctor, and trust his opinion, even if they have investigated the pertinent information on flu and vaccines.

I for one, for various reasons, cannot have a flu shot, even if I wanted one.

Remember SARS? The flu shot did squat, why? because there are scarier things out there than we or the medical community think.

There will be people who feel differently but I believe that first line of defence towards any virus is diet and exercise. There may be a deep ignorance of many things but the most dangerous is not knowing how to eat or exercise properly.

OH ya and here is a fun fact for those at home, Roche Laboratories, the makers of Tamiflu (the most popular serum against flu) also made the vaccine for swine flu, and paid a lot of money for the side effects.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

It would really help if you could get some facts right.

SARS was a coronavirus (common cold family). Influenza viruses are completely different. You wouldn't expect a measles shot to protect against the flu would you? What do you mean scarier than the medical community thinks? These are the people who have to put their lives at risk to treat patients with infectious diseases. The vast majority would advise anyone to get a flu shot. They do.

If you read back in this thread and the avian flu thread, the fact that the flu vaccine is "best guess" has been discussed. It's not hidden. But even if it was, your math doesn't add up. I don't think anyone would propose immunizing with a live virus.... These strains are chosen every February or so based on following the mutational currents of the various strains around the world. Nature throws out some curve balls every so often but should we just say "screw it, its too difficult"?

Nothing wrong with diet and exercise. It's just not enough. May as well stack the deck with whatever you can.

Tamiflu is not a "serum" nor a vaccine. It is a synthetic drug that inhibits the processing of the virus particles.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> May as well stack the deck with whatever you can.


exactly how I look at it


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Myrddin Emrys said:


> Remember SARS? The flu shot did squat, why? because there are scarier things out there than we or the medical community think.


1. SARS and the flu are different things. And just to clarify so that you aren't confused:
HIV - flu : different
Common cold - flu : different
Herpes - flu : different
Ebola - flu : different

You should be outraged, OUTRAGED, that the flu shot does nothing to protect you against ebola!

2. Flu : Annual global deaths - 250,000 to 500,000 / Canada - 500 to 1500
SARS 2003 - Global infections - 8098 / Deaths - 774
SARS 2003 - Canadian infections - 438 / Deaths - 44

I'm not really sure how you measure scariness in the medical community, but I would go by a toe-tag count.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HEY !
the flu shot didn't help me lose weight!
damn medical community !!!
not shot for me next time


----------



## Myrddin Emrys (May 24, 2005)

This little exercise was to get someone to actually back up what they type. I think that stating a fact but don't bother backing it up with information useless. Some people are ignorant in some areas, and will remain ignorant unless people in who know prove why they know.

Not all my statements were false, but most people would not know, that is why we must back up what we say the best way we can. 

Sorry if I ruffled some feathers, and hopefully I lead someone to do some research.

Cheers


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Myrddin Emrys said:


> This little exercise was to get someone to actually back up what they type. I think that stating a fact but don't bother backing it up with information useless. Some people are ignorant in some areas, and will remain ignorant unless people in who know prove why they know.
> 
> Not all my statements were false, but most people would not know, that is why we must back up what we say the best way we can.
> 
> ...


Errr..... I'd say that prior to your error-baiting post above the protagonists of the flu vaccine consistently provided fact-based arguments and those who do not "believe" in it fell back on hearsay and myths. The flu vaccine is not a magical cure but the excuses not to have it range from ignorance to personal choice (the latter is fine - its a free society and freedom of choice is critical - as long it does not impinge on the rights of others). 

Our society is woefully ignorant on many levels and therefore many people are vulnerable to being mislead by charletans.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

One of the problems is is that the flu doesn't kill everyone. Only a few. So a lot of people don't consider it that big of a deal.

I would guarantee that if tomorrow there was an HIV vaccine, people would be lined up to get the shot.


----------



## Myrddin Emrys (May 24, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> One of the problems is is that the flu doesn't kill everyone. Only a few. So a lot of people don't consider it that big of a deal.
> 
> I would guarantee that if tomorrow there was an HIV vaccine, people would be lined up to get the shot.



A lot of people have a singular focus, nothing wrong with that but it can be dangerous. I just wish there was more dissemination of the proper information in schools, now and decades ago.

I don't know if I would be lining up to get an HIV shot (I just dodged the VIOXX thing so I have lost faith), at the moment I'm not a risk, but things always change. It would be quite nasty if there is ever a air born mutation of HIV.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I'm gonna get one, but I hate shots.

I didn't do my annual blood test this year yet... last time they took six vials of blood and I was messed up for the rest of the day, nevermind the needle that remained stuck inside my arm the whole time.

The blood donation needles are even worse.


----------

