should flu vacinations be manditory?

[Sbrideau]

No it shouldn't be mandatory. There shouldn't be vaccines at all, we would all be naturally immune to the diseases. The problem is that people try to kill bacteria everywhere, and that's what's killing the immune system.

 

Biggest load of crap I've ever heard.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, take a simple look around. Who's the most sick, the people that clean they things with products that kill 99% of bacteria or those that use products that kill less bacteria? You're going to see that people that kill all the possible bacteria they can find are sick much more often than those that don't kill the bacterias as much.

 

 

 

Simple immune system practicing.

[IGoddessI]

Many doctors recommend that children "wait it out" with rest and water compared to medications because it's good for their immune systems. Especially nasty little bugs like gastro. I haven't been sick in years and don't even take panadol :)

[Range_This11]

Making vaccines mandatory is ridiculous. I have never had a vaccine or shot in my life and I have never had the flu, or any other vaccine-able disease. Also the people that say you need vaccines to go to public schools are full of it as well. It's called a conscientious objection. I can't even count the number of times school nurses have attempted to make me get a shot and I just simply refused. A person's body is the number one priority in this situation. I will do everything in my power to fight anyone that tries to get me a vaccination.

[warri0r45]

Yes, they should, and they should be mandatory for other contagious diseases as well. Links to autism and the like have been disproved and any further risk is worth the benefit of keeping entire communities of people safe.

 

 

 

If you don't get vaccinated, you're putting other people's lives in jeopardy.

 

 

 

No it shouldn't be mandatory. There shouldn't be vaccines at all, we would all be naturally immune to the diseases. The problem is that people try to kill bacteria everywhere, and that's what's killing the immune system.

 

 

 

Comparing vaccines to hyper-cleanliness is wrong. In fact, vaccines stimulate the immune system, they don't deny it the ability to develop. I don't think you understand what a vaccine is.

 

 

 

Making vaccines mandatory is ridiculous. I have never had a vaccine or shot in my life and I have never had the flu, or any other vaccine-able disease. Also the people that say you need vaccines to go to public schools are full of it as well. It's called a conscientious objection. I can't even count the number of times school nurses have attempted to make me get a shot and I just simply refused. A person's body is the number one priority in this situation. I will do everything in my power to fight anyone that tries to get me a vaccination.

 

 

 

Your objection hurts other people, not just you. If people in society didn't get vaccinated, there would be more sickness and deaths. Just because you've never been sick doesn't mean you're a representative sample of society.

[Dallas]

If you couldn't actually catch the virus, from the vaccination, then yes, I think they should be mandatory.

[IGoddessI]

Hey just out of curiosity, what do you base your opinion on warrior? I'm just shocked by your response as a biology student. Unless you're talking about vaccinations in general against deadly diseases for example, 3 month and 6 month immunizations and whether they should be mandatory, in those cases I believe in certain types of vaccinations being mandatory. In that scenario it would be the duty of a responsible parent to protect their children from deadly diseases. Where as there is very little evidence at all besides pregnancy, fetal and infant studies for the benefits of flu vaccination. And in one double blinded experiment, infants were more likely to react to the placebo. The sources are so scattered and biased that there is currently another huge study being done in healthy patients in Brisbane alone. Is there something so significant that has happened recently that I may have missed?

[warri0r45]

What do you base your opinion on warrior? I'm actually shocked to read your response considering there is so little, reliable evidence about the flu vaccination. Unless you're talking about vaccinations in general against deadly diseases for example, 3 month and 6 month immunizations and whether they should be mandatory, in those cases I believe in certain types of vaccinations being mandatory. In that scenario it would be the duty of a responsible parent to protect their children from deadly diseases. Where as there is very little evidence at all besides pregnancy, fetal and infant studies for the benefits of flu vaccination. And in one double blinded experiment, infants were more likely to react to the placebo. The sources are so scattered and biased that there is currently another huge study being done in healthy patients in Brisbane alone.

 

 

 

Seriously? I wasn't aware of that, and I'll admit I've not read into the specifics of efficacy in all types of vaccines. As far as I was aware they update the vaccine according to the emerging strains and it's most effective for at risk groups like kids and the elderly.

 

 

 

Where did you get that info from? I'll have to look into it some more.

[i_love_burritos]

No no no, you do know that some vaccines for potentially deadly diseases such as measles and diptheria are linked to autism !? I mean why risk autism for the small chance of contracting that disease? Ludicrous ! The flu is the worst ! That needle is a foreign object thats going into my body ! MY BODY ! I mean its not like I'm harming anyone else by not getting my shot.

 

 

 

That was sarcasm by the way.

 

 

 

My view is that innoculation, vaccination and other preventative measures should be mandatory.

[IGoddessI]

Science direct, infoseek, medical journals and googlescholar - the evidence is very scattered be sure to watch out for bias some articles were full of it and had to disregard their information completely. There was also a CNN report from memory but yet the health systems were still promoting the vaccine even after the shot proved that it had not saved a single seniors life :P If you can't find the articles I'm referring to I'll have to dig them back up, I don't bookmark these things and I should. I soak up the facts like a sponge and then when I need to resort back to the main source, I shoot myself in the foot.

 

 

 

Plus I think someone already said, if the flu vaccination is so successful then why should it be mandatory for everyone? If you got your shot, you're safe ;)

 

 

 

I'll link you guys to a research paper by a friend of mine shortly, she's a pediatric nurse (post grad) who is half way through writing her new article "flu vaccination - all facts"

[warri0r45]

Science direct, infoseek, medical journals and googlescholar - the evidence is very scattered be sure to watch out for bias some articles were full of it and had to disregard their information completely. There was also a CNN report from memory but yet the health systems were still promoting the vaccine even after the shot proved that it had not saved a single seniors life :P If you can't find the articles I'm referring to I'll have to dig them back up, I don't bookmark these things and I should. I soak up the facts like a sponge and then when I need to resort back to the main source, I shoot myself in the foot.

 

 

 

Plus I think someone already said, if the flu vaccination is so successful then why should it be mandatory for everyone? If you got your shot, you're safe ;)

 

 

 

I'll link you guys to a research paper by a friend of mine shortly, she's a pediatric nurse (post grad) who is half way through writing her new article "flu vaccination - all facts"

 

 

 

Scattered in what sense? In that the effectiveness varies depending on the immune system of the individual and by the match of vaccine to flu strain? In that case I agree.

 

 

 

Here's some info from the CDC: [1]

 

 

 

Seems pretty good to me. I'm looking into a few reviews at the moment.

 

 

 

I'd like to see an example of a biased article if you wouldn't mind.

[Bauke]

No it shouldn't be mandatory. There shouldn't be vaccines at all, we would all be naturally immune to the diseases. The problem is that people try to kill bacteria everywhere, and that's what's killing the immune system.

 

Biggest load of crap I've ever heard.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, take a simple look around. Who's the most sick, the people that clean they things with products that kill 99% of bacteria or those that use products that kill less bacteria? You're going to see that people that kill all the possible bacteria they can find are sick much more often than those that don't kill the bacterias as much.

 

 

 

Simple immune system practicing.

 

I'm sorry, but you don't have any clue about what you're talking about. If we don't vaccinate against certain diseases, these diseases will simply kill us. The immune system is a beautiful thing, but will NOT simply protect you against everything.

 

 

 

Making vaccines mandatory is ridiculous. I have never had a vaccine or shot in my life and I have never had the flu, or any other vaccine-able disease. Also the people that say you need vaccines to go to public schools are full of it as well. It's called a conscientious objection. I can't even count the number of times school nurses have attempted to make me get a shot and I just simply refused. A person's body is the number one priority in this situation. I will do everything in my power to fight anyone that tries to get me a vaccination.

 

The fact that you never got an vaccineable disease, is due to the fact that other people do vaccinate themself, and therefore can't transmit the virus onto you.

[i_love_burritos]

No it shouldn't be mandatory. There shouldn't be vaccines at all, we would all be naturally immune to the diseases. The problem is that people try to kill bacteria everywhere, and that's what's killing the immune system.

 

Biggest load of crap I've ever heard.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, take a simple look around. Who's the most sick, the people that clean they things with products that kill 99% of bacteria or those that use products that kill less bacteria? You're going to see that people that kill all the possible bacteria they can find are sick much more often than those that don't kill the bacterias as much.

 

 

 

Simple immune system practicing.

 

I'm sorry, but you don't have any clue about what you're talking about. If we don't vaccinate against certain diseases, these diseases will simply kill us. The immune system is a beautiful thing, but will NOT simply protect you against everything.

 

 

 

Personally I think sbrideau2000 is a little confused. Allow me to explain it to him in words that he will understand.

 

 

 

You say

The problem is that people try to kill bacteria everywhere, and that's what's killing the immune system.

 

 

 

The immune system's function has no relation whatsoever in the way it responds to external, environmetal bacteria. It's only when we use anti-biotics that bacteria develop a reistance.

 

 

 

Also you much be thinking of the immune system before its "maturity" to use laymans terms. Correct if you do not sanitize your environment, your immune system will develop a resistance naturally, but it cannot protect us from some diseases. Anway after a certain age, and a number of vaccinations relating to the certain disease your point becomes moot.

[Zimbu]

Science direct, infoseek, medical journals and googlescholar - the evidence is very scattered be sure to watch out for bias some articles were full of it and had to disregard their information completely. There was also a CNN report from memory but yet the health systems were still promoting the vaccine even after the shot proved that it had not saved a single seniors life :P If you can't find the articles I'm referring to I'll have to dig them back up, I don't bookmark these things and I should. I soak up the facts like a sponge and then when I need to resort back to the main source, I shoot myself in the foot.

 

 

 

Plus I think someone already said, if the flu vaccination is so successful then why should it be mandatory for everyone? If you got your shot, you're safe ;)

 

 

 

I'll link you guys to a research paper by a friend of mine shortly, she's a pediatric nurse (post grad) who is half way through writing her new article "flu vaccination - all facts"

 

 

 

Scattered in what sense? In that the effectiveness varies depending on the immune system of the individual and by the match of vaccine to flu strain? In that case I agree.

 

 

 

Here's some info from the CDC: [1]

 

 

 

Seems pretty good to me. I'm looking into a few reviews at the moment.

 

 

 

I'd like to see an example of a biased article if you wouldn't mind.

 

Conflict of interest bias is a well known problem in medical science. Pharmaceutical companies are an important source of funds and scientists are tempted to for example not publish studies that would "bite the hand that feeds them". You can find many articles of this problem by searching PubMed for "conflict of interest" or Google for something similar. (Watch out for alternative medicine money-grabber texts on Google though.)

 

 

 

A good example of a suspected published biased flu vaccine study would be Shumpei Yokota's study on behaviour differences caused by oseltamivir (his university received a donation from the company that makes Tamiflu and later studies have shown different results):

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUST151430

 

If you have access to The Lancet, Volume 369, Issue 9567, Pages 1056-1056 will have an article where Yokota's possible bias is acknowledged.

 

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve ... 3607605029 (link to the Lancet article)

 

Here is a news report of a later study done with a larger group of test subjects contradicting Yokota's study:

 

http://www.smh.com.au/world/science/tam ... -ac3y.html

 

 

 

I'd like to point out that I wouldn't think twice about taking Tamiflu if I had the swine flu. As is usually the case with vaccines, the benefits would far outweight the risks.

 

 

 

No mercury for me, thanks. I don't understand why people get annual flu shots when chances are even if you do get the flu you'll be fine, while the vaccinations can screw you over. Badly.

 

Unless you travel in time to before 2000 to get your shots, there won't be mercury in them. Also, mercury in vaccines isn't dangerous despite what the pet detective Jim Carrey says.

 

 

 

There shouldn't be vaccines at all, we would all be naturally immune to the diseases. The problem is that people try to kill bacteria everywhere, and that's what's killing the immune system.

 

If this was true, then the lifestyle in the rural areas of Sub-Saharan Africa would make sure that everyone there was immune to HIV. Sadly, that is not the case.

 

 

 

I don't think flu vaccines should be madatory unless there is conclusive evidence that organizing a yearly vaccination campaign costs less than the sick days people will take because of the flu. Such evidence will rarely be available because flu viruses will cause different levels of sickness every year and the flu vaccines will protect people from the virus to a different degree every year and these factors are hard to estimate accurately as the flu virus can for example experience slight mutations as it spreads through the world. However, people in risk of getting very bad symptoms from flu viruses should have access to vaccines.

[mmmcannibalism]

in general

 

 

 

for deadly stuff like polio definitely

 

 

 

for the flue; vaccines should be highly available and offered to risk group patients although not a mandatory vaccine.

[warri0r45]

Science direct, infoseek, medical journals and googlescholar - the evidence is very scattered be sure to watch out for bias some articles were full of it and had to disregard their information completely. There was also a CNN report from memory but yet the health systems were still promoting the vaccine even after the shot proved that it had not saved a single seniors life :P If you can't find the articles I'm referring to I'll have to dig them back up, I don't bookmark these things and I should. I soak up the facts like a sponge and then when I need to resort back to the main source, I shoot myself in the foot.

 

 

 

Plus I think someone already said, if the flu vaccination is so successful then why should it be mandatory for everyone? If you got your shot, you're safe ;)

 

 

 

I'll link you guys to a research paper by a friend of mine shortly, she's a pediatric nurse (post grad) who is half way through writing her new article "flu vaccination - all facts"

 

 

 

Scattered in what sense? In that the effectiveness varies depending on the immune system of the individual and by the match of vaccine to flu strain? In that case I agree.

 

 

 

Here's some info from the CDC: [1]

 

 

 

Seems pretty good to me. I'm looking into a few reviews at the moment.

 

 

 

I'd like to see an example of a biased article if you wouldn't mind.

 

Conflict of interest bias is a well known problem in medical science. Pharmaceutical companies are an important source of funds and scientists are tempted to for example not publish studies that would "bite the hand that feeds them". You can find many articles of this problem by searching PubMed for "conflict of interest" or Google for something similar. (Watch out for alternative medicine money-grabber texts on Google though.)

 

 

 

A good example of a suspected published biased flu vaccine study would be Shumpei Yokota's study on behaviour differences caused by oseltamivir (his university received a donation from the company that makes Tamiflu and later studies have shown different results):

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUST151430

 

If you have access to The Lancet, Volume 369, Issue 9567, Pages 1056-1056 will have an article where Yokota's possible bias is acknowledged.

 

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve ... 3607605029 (link to the Lancet article)

 

Here is a news report of a later study done with a larger group of test subjects contradicting Yokota's study:

 

http://www.smh.com.au/world/science/tam ... -ac3y.html

 

 

 

I'd like to point out that I wouldn't think twice about taking Tamiflu if I had the swine flu. As is usually the case with vaccines, the benefits would far outweight the risks.

 

 

 

I'm aware of conflicts of interest, but your example is regarding Tamiflu, not an influenza vaccine. I'm not doubting that there could be a similar case for a flu vaccine, but I just want to see what Goddess says. If you have any examples of bias in flu vaccine research I'd be willing to hear you out.

[Zimbu]

Science direct, infoseek, medical journals and googlescholar - the evidence is very scattered be sure to watch out for bias some articles were full of it and had to disregard their information completely. There was also a CNN report from memory but yet the health systems were still promoting the vaccine even after the shot proved that it had not saved a single seniors life :P If you can't find the articles I'm referring to I'll have to dig them back up, I don't bookmark these things and I should. I soak up the facts like a sponge and then when I need to resort back to the main source, I shoot myself in the foot.

 

 

 

Plus I think someone already said, if the flu vaccination is so successful then why should it be mandatory for everyone? If you got your shot, you're safe ;)

 

 

 

I'll link you guys to a research paper by a friend of mine shortly, she's a pediatric nurse (post grad) who is half way through writing her new article "flu vaccination - all facts"

 

 

 

Scattered in what sense? In that the effectiveness varies depending on the immune system of the individual and by the match of vaccine to flu strain? In that case I agree.

 

 

 

Here's some info from the CDC: [1]

 

 

 

Seems pretty good to me. I'm looking into a few reviews at the moment.

 

 

 

I'd like to see an example of a biased article if you wouldn't mind.

 

Conflict of interest bias is a well known problem in medical science. Pharmaceutical companies are an important source of funds and scientists are tempted to for example not publish studies that would "bite the hand that feeds them". You can find many articles of this problem by searching PubMed for "conflict of interest" or Google for something similar. (Watch out for alternative medicine money-grabber texts on Google though.)

 

 

 

A good example of a suspected published biased flu vaccine study would be Shumpei Yokota's study on behaviour differences caused by oseltamivir (his university received a donation from the company that makes Tamiflu and later studies have shown different results):

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUST151430

 

If you have access to The Lancet, Volume 369, Issue 9567, Pages 1056-1056 will have an article where Yokota's possible bias is acknowledged.

 

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve ... 3607605029 (link to the Lancet article)

 

Here is a news report of a later study done with a larger group of test subjects contradicting Yokota's study:

 

http://www.smh.com.au/world/science/tam ... -ac3y.html

 

 

 

I'd like to point out that I wouldn't think twice about taking Tamiflu if I had the swine flu. As is usually the case with vaccines, the benefits would far outweight the risks.

 

 

 

I'm aware of conflicts of interest, but your example is regarding Tamiflu, not an influenza vaccine. I'm not doubting that there could be a similar case for a flu vaccine, but I just want to see what Goddess says. If you have any examples of bias in flu vaccine research I'd be willing to hear you out.

 

I'm confused. Why does it matter in what form the preventive flu drug is administered? Or does it have something to do with the fact that Tamiflu can also be used in treatment?

 

 

 

Mleh, I can't come up with other examples. I hope Goddess has an example involving a chemical substance with a P(o/w) value you like more. -.-

[warri0r45]

The discussion was about the effectiveness of flu vaccines, not antivirals like Tamiflu.

[Zimbu]

The discussion was about the effectiveness of flu vaccines, not antivirals like Tamiflu.

 

Okay, I can see I had no reason to get angry. It just seemed like you didn't properly consider the possibility of CoI bias. The fact that your acknowledgement of it and the critique of the evidence I provided were in the same sentence may well have contributed to me not noticing you doing so, which it shouldn't have. After reading your post again it was obvious that it only seemed like you didn't consider CoI to me and that you actually rejected to the off-topicness of the evidence provided. I was wrong and I thank you for helping me notice it. :)

[Sbrideau]

I was confused yesterday, Vaccinations are good, since it's basically injecting the virus that has been rendered inert. Yet it's like I said, immune system practice, so the vaccine gives immunity. And for Zimbu, there are some cases where some people are naturally immune to HIV, we just don't hear much at all about them.

 

 

 

Still, I think the virus should not be mandatory, but in such cases as today, that the government should pay for it though.

[Jard_Y_Dooku]

Drugs always cause more problems than the ailments they're supposed to prevent. By maintaining good health by eating correct foods that are not laced with artificial ingredients, you will be fine. PERIOD. Anyone who thinks flu shots or whatever other nonsense should be mandatory, should have their head run over by a T-90.

[l0l0lpur34]

Drugs always cause more problems than the ailments they're supposed to prevent. By maintaining good health by eating correct foods that are not laced with artificial ingredients, you will be fine. PERIOD. Anyone who thinks flu shots or whatever other nonsense should be mandatory, should have their head run over by a T-90.

 

Are you mad?

[Jard_Y_Dooku]

Drugs always cause more problems than the ailments they're supposed to prevent. By maintaining good health by eating correct foods that are not laced with artificial ingredients, you will be fine. PERIOD. Anyone who thinks flu shots or whatever other nonsense should be mandatory, should have their head run over by a T-90.

 

Are you mad?

 

 

 

No, I am Jard. Mad should be around here somewhere...

[Bauke]

Drugs always cause more problems than the ailments they're supposed to prevent. By maintaining good health by eating correct foods that are not laced with artificial ingredients, you will be fine. PERIOD.

 

It's hard to describe in words how totally wrong you are.

[indy500fan]

Drugs always cause more problems than the ailments they're supposed to prevent. By maintaining good health by eating correct foods that are not laced with artificial ingredients, you will be fine. PERIOD. Anyone who thinks flu shots or whatever other nonsense should be mandatory, should have their head run over by a T-90.

 

 

 

Say drugs are never good "period" is as bad as promoting drug use when not necessary. I get where you are coming from, people take drugs for way too many things now and just eating healthier and exercise would fix a lot of problems. But there are a lot of ailments that can't be fixed by even the healthiest of lifestyles.

[l0l0lpur34]

Drugs always cause more problems than the ailments they're supposed to prevent. By maintaining good health by eating correct foods that are not laced with artificial ingredients, you will be fine. PERIOD. Anyone who thinks flu shots or whatever other nonsense should be mandatory, should have their head run over by a T-90.

 

Are you mad?

 

 

 

No, I am Jard. Mad should be around here somewhere...

 

Lmao at how you edited your post from what it originally was - how long did it take you to think of that?