NEEPS

Maria

Just came across an interesting 'new scientist' article. Found the responses even more interesting than the article...even though i really have no clue who wrote them. I both love and curse folks ability to 'play' with language in order to persuade/disuade whole rafts of people to think a particular way. I guess there can be no grey for this one. You either will have the vaccine or you won't....but it seems you end up anti-science and belonging to the anti-vaccine brigade if you choose not to. At least that's where this article seems to lead.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs...ghting-the-anti-vaccine-brig.html

Oh dear - what to think when there are better things to think about

_________________
Better late than never!

Julie · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:00 am Post subject:

Am I alone in category three?

Has anyone else never ever had flu?

I'm declining mine on those grounds I'm not pro or anti, just a bit reluctant to tempt fate

_________________
It is better to light a candle than to rail against the darkness
VOTE WITH YOUR FEET!

JamesB · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:21 am Post subject:

I work in the Univeristy / NHS area and Im surprised that many health professionals are opting not to get it. The problem is that they think oh well, it will be mild so why bother. The reason that they in particular should bother is that the problem is that if they get swine flu, they will pass it onto people (often really Ill people) so they should get even if not for themselves.

I dont normally get the seasonal flu jab but will certainly get this one.

James
_________________
JamesB
Mintlaw area

Martin · Neepster Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 663

not with the proverbial ten-foot bargepole - there's obviously damn good reasons why the health professionals are heading for the horizon on this!
I'm generally fairly "anti" vaccines anyway (I take the homoeopathic view that they are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut).
I've read some fairly horrific stories of how this vaccine has been prepared
(basically infecting monkeys, waiting till they come down with it, then "harvesting" their organs), and the fact that it is largely untested........
There is another side to the coin of "not being done" - during the 50's, my parents had one helluva battle to keep me from being given the polio vaccine
(school and neighbours were vile!), BUT, the original vaccine proved horrendously dangerous, and several of my peers were crippled for life, or died from it (the vaccine, not the disease!............

_________________
http://solarwind.org.uk

Martin · Neepster Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 663

further reading..........

http://thepowerhour.com/news/polio_dangers.htm
- an alternative practitioner friend is firmly convinced that many of the cancers in my age group stem from the early polio vaccinations -

and another view....
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/08...rent-fears-about-vaccine-dangers/

always "look for the money" - some of Bliar's cronies own and run the companies supplying all these vaccines, and they are coining it!

_________________
http://solarwind.org.uk

Martin · Neepster Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 663

sorry about the 3rd post..........
For some reason the article was still rolling around in my head, and wouldn't go away - there was something I'd missed - then I had a "Eureka moment" (appropriately in the bath...........)
Silly little girlie who wrote the New Scientist article - needs a damn good slap for the disservices she does true science - she's not quoting a firm unarguable point, she's merely extrapolating a tiny little piece of research that suggests "it's probably safe", and then hysterically shrilling against anyone who should pull her and her incomplete research up short (should we perhaps look at who she works for, or which vaccine supply companies she has shares in?) - that's not "science", it's an immature bullying polemic from a totally blinkered, narrow-minded ignoramus!
In simple terms, noone will know how safe it is until perhaps 50 years time, all she can with any certainty say is "as far as my very limited knowlege, and the very limited testing goes.........", which is VERY different to the suggestion her tirade is trying to impart - it leaves FAR too many questions unanswered (and some in the short-term unanswerable)......like "is the flu that serious anyway", "isn't it highly likely the virus will have mutated before it gets to us", "are we sure the animal origin of the vaccine won't lay us open to major diseases in years to come?"
She is part of what I view as the "gross perversion of science by interested parties" - for years agrochemical "scientists" told us organophosphates were perfectly safe whilst the evidence of our own eyes showed us how dangerous it was - HM government forced farmers to use it, and only when the body/maimed count got too high for even them to hide, it was banned............

feel better for that! - </rant over (for the time being)>
_________________
http://solarwind.org.uk

JamesB · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:01 pm Post subject:

just to point out that the major killer 100 yrs was infectious diseases such as polio, TB etc whereas now its cancer and CVD. This is because the deaths from infectious diseases have dramatically come down, in a large part due to vaccines. yes there were problems with the originally polio vaccines but Polio used to be a massive killer, now its not due to vaccination. yes you might die from a vaccination but you are even more likely to die from the disease if you dont get vaccinated. the testing of vaccinations are now even better (but of course nothing is 100%)

Also, consider the problems caused by the supposed link between MMR and autism. This created a big stir at the time but the research was shown to be poor and it is widely agreed now there is no link. People have died/severely ill because they didn't get the jab. Bad science works both ways.

It is a personal choice, no-one is forcing anyone to take the vaccination and I would advise anyone who is unsure to look at the credible evidence out there.

james
_________________
JamesB
Mintlaw area

Martin · Neepster Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 663

well...... I would say the MMR link with autism was steamrollered out of existence, as was the poor whistleblowing doctor by the sheer power of the pharmaceutical establishment, and this dreadful unbalanced hectoring article is very typical of the arrogant attitude of Big Pharma and it's acolytes - "we'll bully, bamboozle and browbeat the opposition until it gives up".
This is the same crowd that have made sure homoeopathic hospitals are being closed, and we are awaiting bans on herbal preparations, and won't be allowed to buy supplements through the same ignorant and bullying behemoth of the "medical orthodoxy"
We are but a step away from compulsory medication - even perfectly fit people with normal blood pressure are being labelled as "pre-hypotensive" and suggested for a lifetime of statins - with undue influence of Big Pharma on government, and the control freak "we know what's best for you" attitude of the assorted thickets in government, how long before they'll cut your benefits if you refuse?
_________________
http://solarwind.org.uk

JamesB · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:20 pm Post subject:

well the science for the link was flawed and there has been plenty of research since then that shows no link. A lot of the research is conducted through the University. the grants were provided by the government and the research is as independent as it can be I think.

In terms of homeopathic medicine, Ive no problem with it as long as it can be proven to work. A lot of herbal treatments do work but a lot of homeopathic medicine (dont confuse with herbal medicine) works on the placebo effect and until it can be proven otherwise then Im sceptical. If you want the NHS to provide treatments then there has to be proof that they work and that they are effective. I still have an open mind on homeopathic medicine but the lack of proofs is a big problem.

A lot of complex treatments and medicines rely on probabilities. yes some patients will have side effects, some might even die but are outwayed by the benefits ie a lot of people will live because of it

James
_________________
JamesB
Mintlaw area

Martin · Neepster Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 663

there is one incredibly important thing about homoeopathy - it is based on the ethos of "at least do no harm"- the homoeopathic hospitals have a really good record of success down the years, and have killed no patients as far as I know...........(if only that could be said of drug therapies........)
I have the proof of my own eyes that homoeopathy works (used it most successfully on animals), which rather makes a nonsense of the "placebo" hypothesis - science is yet again being misrepresented by the ignorant - just because "science" can't prove the link (usually because of experiments based on nil understanding of how it works), or can't quite get their heads round the "how" (not because it doesn't work, just that they can't find out "how"), they therefore mistakenly assume that "it doesn't" - what they should be saying is "as far as our knowledge takes us, we are unable to find out precisely how", which is VERY different (if you'd plonked a transistor radio into the average scientist of 200 year's ago's hands, he would have thought it magic/mumbo jumbo/couldn't possibly work, because he'd never come across radio waves- didn't mean to say they didn't exist!
I don't believe that it works on the placebo effect at all, but if it does, achieves cures, does no harm, and avoids the dreadful effects of much drug prescribing, then it's perfectly valid, and probably safer than a lot of drug treatments.
_________________
http://solarwind.org.uk