The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: libertylover on September 19, 2009, 04:30:20 AM

Title: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: libertylover on September 19, 2009, 04:30:20 AM
I am against reporting polls as news but damn if this isn't interesting. 

Quote
One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swine-flu/6084234/One-third-of-doctors-do-not-want-swine-flu-vaccination.html

The survey, carried out by Healthcare Republic for GP newspaper, found that almost three in 10 GPs said they would not have the swine flu vaccine, with the same number, 29 per cent, unsure whether they would or not.

Out of the 216 GPs polled, more than seven in 10 said they were concerned there had not been sufficient trials.
[/size]

Maybe the real story is that there is an epidemic of Doctors placing themselves in thousands of dollars of dept for their educations and risking their career reputations to only be infected with the vaccine quackery virus?  Not to worry fine people, vaccine manufactures are hard at work to stop this epidemic of MDs being infected with this quackery bug which leads to the vaccine charlatan flu.  Because we all know if you don't have complete and utter blind faith in all vaccines you must be infected with quackery.  It seems the old treatments of fear and professional threats aren't as effective at combating the vaccine quackery virus.  Just to make sure you in the public aren't harmed by any future outbreaks of quackery in the Medical and Scientific community big pharma lobbyist are bribing persuading lawmakers to make our new anti-quackery vaccine mandatory for medical school and many scientific degree graduations.  (disclaimer:  Anti-quackery vaccine in initial trials has resulted in 1% deaths and 1% brain damage.  It has also proven ineffective against all other forms of quackery so the public is instructed to remain skeptical just not skeptical of vaccine safety and effectiveness.)

Show of hands how many of you did not know that flu vaccines do not run through animal testing to see if they are safe and effective before being given to people?  And that in fact people are the first test group that receive any new flu vaccine?  How many know that vaccines for animals go through more rigorous testing and trials prior to market than most vaccines intended for human consumption?   Please don't let these facts concern you because to do so might mean you too have been infected with the vaccine quackery virus.  Be on the watch for the vaccine charlatan flu and please report any suspected cases of this flu to your local health authorities.  Sadly any medical or scientific researchers infected with the vaccine quackery virus can not be treated so their licenses and credentials must be revoked and if they insist on continuing to practice medicine or conduct scientific research into vaccines they will be fined and jailed.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on September 19, 2009, 05:02:25 AM
Wow one vaccine that a significant amount of doctors don't want.  I guess all vaccines are evil then.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: libertylover on September 19, 2009, 05:09:57 AM
Wow one vaccine that a significant amount of doctors don't want.  I guess all vaccines are evil then.

The flip side to your argument.  Just because one vaccine has been proven to be very valuable, it doesn't make all vaccines beyond reproach.  A point vaccine worshipers seem to miss time and time again.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on September 19, 2009, 05:26:08 AM
Wow one vaccine that a significant amount of doctors don't want.  I guess all vaccines are evil then.

The flip side to your argument.  Just because one vaccine has been proven to be very valuable, it doesn't make all vaccines beyond reproach.  A point vaccine worshipers seem to miss time and time again.
I've never said that.  In fact I've never gotten the flu shot because I don't see a point to it.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Terror Australis on September 19, 2009, 05:57:21 AM
All vaccines arent evil,just the ones that dont go through the normal testing and trials.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: libertylover on September 19, 2009, 07:49:27 AM
Wow one vaccine that a significant amount of doctors don't want.  I guess all vaccines are evil then.

The flip side to your argument.  Just because one vaccine has been proven to be very valuable, it doesn't make all vaccines beyond reproach.  A point vaccine worshipers seem to miss time and time again.
I've never said that.  In fact I've never gotten the flu shot because I don't see a point to it.

Well I never said all vaccines are evil  but your statement seems to indicate somewhere that I have done so.  Never said that I am anti-vaccine just cautious about them.  For example I don't see the point of injecting hepB into a newborn considering the extremely long odds that they would ever contact HepB in the first few years of life.   In fact the documented adverse reactions to the HepB vaccine by newborns which the vaccine manufactures are willing to acknowledge is more likely than a newborn contracting HepB should a parent elect to not have their infant get that one vaccine.  The risk reward is simply not in favor of injecting newborns or even infants with the HepB vaccine.  Yet when people point this out they are accused of being quacks or kooks or that they reject all vaccines as being evil. 
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: libertylover on September 19, 2009, 07:56:12 AM
All vaccines arent evil,just the ones that dont go through the normal testing and trials.

What do you consider normal testing.  Testing funded by the vaccine manufactures and conducted by vaccine manufacture employees.
Personally, I would prefer the results of independent labs.  Something similar to the UL which certifies electrical devices.  Or a consumer reports sort of organization which doesn't take money from the products for which they are testing.  Please note neither of those solutions are government ones to insuring that a vaccine is safe and effective.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on September 22, 2009, 10:04:40 PM
Wow one vaccine that a significant amount of doctors don't want.  I guess all vaccines are evil then.

The flip side to your argument.  Just because one vaccine has been proven to be very valuable, it doesn't make all vaccines beyond reproach.  A point vaccine worshipers seem to miss time and time again.

Was the polio vacciene a good thing?
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Ecolitan on September 22, 2009, 10:47:26 PM
Almost 3 in ten is not 1/3. 
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: libertylover on September 23, 2009, 02:19:07 AM
Almost 3 in ten is not 1/3. 

Look I was quoting the article.  I suppose they should have CYAed the headline rather than rounding to the nearest fraction.
Maybe they could have used the term significant rather than a percentage.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: todd on September 23, 2009, 11:54:24 AM
the reason they don't do trials every year for the flu vaccine is because it is a variation of the same thing every year.  they spend 3 months discussing what are the most likely 3 strains to enter the population, then form the vaccine with dead forms of those 3 strains.  they use the same method every year, only the strains are different (so it is not a new vaccine every year, in effect).  the h1n1 vaccine is the same thing as the regular flu vaccine except that it will contain h1n1 as the dead virus.  i am not sure why they are running trials- maybe to allay some public fears.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: blackie on September 23, 2009, 12:11:28 PM
Wow one vaccine that a significant amount of doctors don't want.  I guess all vaccines are evil then.

The flip side to your argument.  Just because one vaccine has been proven to be very valuable, it doesn't make all vaccines beyond reproach.  A point vaccine worshipers seem to miss time and time again.

Was the polio vacciene a good thing?
Are government programs to fund and distribute the polio vaccine a good thing?
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on September 23, 2009, 06:52:24 PM
Wow one vaccine that a significant amount of doctors don't want.  I guess all vaccines are evil then.

The flip side to your argument.  Just because one vaccine has been proven to be very valuable, it doesn't make all vaccines beyond reproach.  A point vaccine worshipers seem to miss time and time again.

Was the polio vacciene a good thing?
Are government programs to fund and distribute the polio vaccine a good thing?

Thats an entirely different issue, Mr. Red Herring.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: blackie on September 23, 2009, 08:24:41 PM
Wow one vaccine that a significant amount of doctors don't want.  I guess all vaccines are evil then.

The flip side to your argument.  Just because one vaccine has been proven to be very valuable, it doesn't make all vaccines beyond reproach.  A point vaccine worshipers seem to miss time and time again.

Was the polio vacciene a good thing?
Are government programs to fund and distribute the polio vaccine a good thing?

Thats an entirely different issue, Mr. Red Herring.
Is it?

The polio vaccine didn't eradicate polio, the government programs did.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on September 23, 2009, 10:08:35 PM
Wow one vaccine that a significant amount of doctors don't want.  I guess all vaccines are evil then.

The flip side to your argument.  Just because one vaccine has been proven to be very valuable, it doesn't make all vaccines beyond reproach.  A point vaccine worshipers seem to miss time and time again.

Was the polio vacciene a good thing?
Are government programs to fund and distribute the polio vaccine a good thing?

Thats an entirely different issue, Mr. Red Herring.
Is it?

The polio vaccine didn't eradicate polio, the government programs did.

Quoted for posterity
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Ecolitan on September 28, 2009, 11:14:06 PM
Almost 3 in ten is not 1/3. 

Look I was quoting the article.  I suppose they should have CYAed the headline rather than rounding to the nearest fraction.
Maybe they could have used the term significant rather than a percentage.

Maybe, if accuracy was their priority.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Riddler on September 30, 2009, 07:41:25 PM
Wow one vaccine that a significant amount MINORITY of doctors don't want.  I guess all vaccines are evil then.


the fact that 70% DO, apparently, escapes you

Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Libertarianssuck on September 30, 2009, 07:43:56 PM
just like the majority of people support government
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Riddler on September 30, 2009, 07:44:46 PM


The survey, carried out by Healthcare Republic for GP newspaper, found that almost three in 10 GPs said they would not have the swine flu vaccine, with the same number, 29 per cent, unsure whether they would or not.




why the fuck is this an alarm bell???
or newsworthy??

70% (a big fucking majority) apparently HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT.

congratulations, you've created a thread about nothing.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Riddler on September 30, 2009, 07:45:23 PM
just like the majority of people support government

apples, say hello to oranges
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Libertarianssuck on September 30, 2009, 07:47:53 PM
well if its just numbers that count then freedom lovers are wrong for supporting liberty
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: libertylover on September 30, 2009, 07:58:18 PM
[youtube=425,350]A7wBwOEsw2I[/youtube]
Forced Vaccines Refused By Nurses In New York
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: libertylover on September 30, 2009, 08:07:57 PM
Doctor says swine flu vaccine is more deadly than the flu

[youtube=425,350]F8bk8ORR7tY[/youtube]

I suppose 70% of doctors are allowed to be stupid or suicidal.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Riddler on September 30, 2009, 08:51:36 PM
Doctor says swine flu vaccine is more deadly than the flu

[youtube=425,350]F8bk8ORR7tY[/youtube]

I suppose 70% of doctors are allowed to be stupid or suicidal.

if that were the case, there'd be a whole lotta-more malpractice cases & a whole lotta-less doctors
don't be so fucking naive
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Libertarianssuck on September 30, 2009, 08:56:01 PM
and don't be so quick to follow the majority just cuz it's the majority
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: John Shaw on September 30, 2009, 10:48:54 PM
We could have prevented the swine flu from spreading, if we built the border wall already, but we didn't and we got infected by the illegals.

LCPLIC
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: John Shaw on September 30, 2009, 10:55:07 PM
We could have prevented the swine flu from spreading, if we built the border wall already, but we didn't and we got infected by the illegals.

LCPLIC
Build it long and build it high.

I consider that enough of an admission of guilt. You have been repeatedly permabanned. You are about to be banned again. Congratulations.

Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Bill Brasky on September 30, 2009, 11:10:11 PM
That was quick.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: BonerJoe on September 30, 2009, 11:37:29 PM
And my blood pressure returns to normal.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on October 01, 2009, 01:00:28 AM
Wow one vaccine that a significant amount MINORITY of doctors don't want.  I guess all vaccines are evil then.


the fact that 70% DO, apparently, escapes you


A "significant amount" is basically just statistician speak for > ~ 10%
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: libertylover on October 01, 2009, 06:16:44 AM
if that were the case, there'd be a whole lotta-more malpractice cases & a whole lotta-less doctors
don't be so fucking naive

Don't you be so naive.  Under the Patriot Act vaccine manufactures and doctors are immune from prosecution or civil lawsuits concerning the manufacture of administration of vaccines.  So when doctors and nurses start refusing to take a vaccine it is because they are aware if they or a family member are one of the unlucky few who are permanently damaged or killed there is virtually no legal recourse.

But it seems that level immunity wasn't enough the health department granted another level of immunity.
http://southeastern-massachusetts.injuryboard.com/fda-and-prescription-drugs/swine-flu-vaccine-makers-get-immunity-.aspx?googleid=267416 (http://southeastern-massachusetts.injuryboard.com/fda-and-prescription-drugs/swine-flu-vaccine-makers-get-immunity-.aspx?googleid=267416)
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, signed a document last month that gives vaccine makers and federal officials immunity from lawsuits that might arise surrounding any new swine flu vaccine. The Boston Globe reported last week that the immunity sought by drug manufacturers was spurred on by vaccines created for the last swine flu outbreak and the resulting thousands of lawsuits filed against those vaccine makers for side effects suffered from the shots.

The document signed by Secretary Sebelius allows for a compensation fund, if needed, for claims made against the drug manufacturers. The government has taken these steps in order to encourage drug companies to actually make the vaccine and so far, five manufacturers have contracted with federal officials to make a swine flu vaccine.


Lets make this very clear for the thick headed people who worship the government.  If you or a family member has an adverse reaction to the swine flu vaccine which by the way includes mercury.  It will be too bad too sad for you because the argument is the greater good.  To receive any sort of compensation for your injured child you will have to go before the federal vaccine court who will have to rule against their own interest to give you compensation.  You will have to use federal experts to agree that your child was injured and that too will be against the governments interest to do so.  And using that information your medical insurance will refuse to pay for your child's medical bills that they will claim have been proven to be unsubstantiated by the vaccine court.  Your final line of any sort of assistance for a vaccine injured child will be social security disability but if your family owns more than 4 thousand dollars in assets other than a family home too bad too sad for you cause you won't qualify for that either.  If you are against socialized medicine why don't you apply that same logic to the federal vaccine court and injury/disability compensation programs set up by the government.   
 
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: LordMarius on October 01, 2009, 07:28:15 AM
There's two different questions here that should not be mixed:

1. Whether it is OK for gooberment to force medical treatments, preventative or reactive, on people.

2. Whether your paranoid conspiracy bullshit crap ass idiot ideas about evil vaccines are true.

The answers are:

1. No.

2. No!
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: LordMarius on October 01, 2009, 07:30:31 AM
And BTW:

My son got his first vaccinations on Monday, the evil autism fairy has not yet come by.

And no, I will not take the swine flu vaccine. It's not dangerous, but it's not necessary. It's the damn flu.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Riddler on October 01, 2009, 08:48:07 AM
if that were the case, there'd be a whole lotta-more malpractice cases & a whole lotta-less doctors
don't be so fucking naive

Don't you be so naive.  Under the Patriot Act vaccine manufactures and doctors are immune from prosecution or civil lawsuits concerning the manufacture of administration of vaccines.  So when doctors and nurses start refusing to take a vaccine it is because they are aware if they or a family member are one of the unlucky few who are permanently damaged or killed there is virtually no legal recourse.

But it seems that level immunity wasn't enough the health department granted another level of immunity.
http://southeastern-massachusetts.injuryboard.com/fda-and-prescription-drugs/swine-flu-vaccine-makers-get-immunity-.aspx?googleid=267416 (http://southeastern-massachusetts.injuryboard.com/fda-and-prescription-drugs/swine-flu-vaccine-makers-get-immunity-.aspx?googleid=267416)
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, signed a document last month that gives vaccine makers and federal officials immunity from lawsuits that might arise surrounding any new swine flu vaccine. The Boston Globe reported last week that the immunity sought by drug manufacturers was spurred on by vaccines created for the last swine flu outbreak and the resulting thousands of lawsuits filed against those vaccine makers for side effects suffered from the shots.

The document signed by Secretary Sebelius allows for a compensation fund, if needed, for claims made against the drug manufacturers. The government has taken these steps in order to encourage drug companies to actually make the vaccine and so far, five manufacturers have contracted with federal officials to make a swine flu vaccine.


Lets make this very clear for the thick headed people who worship the government.  If you or a family member has an adverse reaction to the swine flu vaccine which by the way includes mercury.  It will be too bad too sad for you because the argument is the greater good.  To receive any sort of compensation for your injured child you will have to go before the federal vaccine court who will have to rule against their own interest to give you compensation.  You will have to use federal experts to agree that your child was injured and that too will be against the governments interest to do so.  And using that information your medical insurance will refuse to pay for your child's medical bills that they will claim have been proven to be unsubstantiated by the vaccine court.  Your final line of any sort of assistance for a vaccine injured child will be social security disability but if your family owns more than 4 thousand dollars in assets other than a family home too bad too sad for you cause you won't qualify for that either.  If you are against socialized medicine why don't you apply that same logic to the federal vaccine court and injury/disability compensation programs set up by the government.   
 


.....yes....& ''they'' implant microchips in your brain, when ''they'' give you the vaccine.....
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: libertylover on October 01, 2009, 09:33:03 AM
And BTW:

My son got his first vaccinations on Monday, the evil autism fairy has not yet come by.

And no, I will not take the swine flu vaccine. It's not dangerous, but it's not necessary. It's the damn flu.

Why not don't you want him to be protected?  Doesn't your son need a dose of thimerosal.  Won't you be so angry if he catches the flu and dies.  You must run out and get him that vaccine right now.  The fact that you are not getting him this vaccine proves you don't believe what you write.  You do not see the vaccine as safe.   And any bullshit argument about it is just the flu is just that bullshit.  If you thought that the vaccine was safe you would get your son vaccinated. 
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: LordMarius on October 01, 2009, 10:44:50 AM
And BTW:

My son got his first vaccinations on Monday, the evil autism fairy has not yet come by.

And no, I will not take the swine flu vaccine. It's not dangerous, but it's not necessary. It's the damn flu.

Why not don't you want him to be protected?  Doesn't your son need a dose of thimerosal.  Won't you be so angry if he catches the flu and dies.  You must run out and get him that vaccine right now.  The fact that you are not getting him this vaccine proves you don't believe what you write.  You do not see the vaccine as safe.   And any bullshit argument about it is just the flu is just that bullshit.  If you thought that the vaccine was safe you would get your son vaccinated. 

I know that what's real and what's not does not matter too much to kooks like you, but I'll answer you anyway for the benefit of other people reading this.

I would not be able to have my kid vaccinated if I had wanted to, because the vaccine is not given to infants younger than six months. The reason for that is that they are more at risk of flu complications, and flu vaccines actually cause the flu or flulike symptoms in some cases. It has nothing to do with thiomersal, autism or any other kooky conspiracy theories.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: libertylover on October 01, 2009, 01:58:46 PM
Waa waa waa followed by some name calling.

NEW FLASH never said all vaccines are bad.  I am saying that some vaccines need some serious study in their possible contributor nature to autism.  And that of the studies done to date.  They are seriously flawed and show major signs of statistical manipulation to achieve desired results. (IE: The four drafts of the CDC 2000 report, each draft changing the subject population variable until the rate of autism diminished to insignificance.)  

No study to date has been done on the effects of fetal mercury exposure and weakened immune response.  Mercury exposure which could cause babies to be more at risk for vaccine injury.   And vaccines are only one of many sources of mercury and in all likelihood the mercury connection is due to cumulative exposure to both mother and baby.  

For the moron who is going to say but they removed thimerosal from vaccines in 1999.  Please refer to the FDA website for a list of ingredients in current vaccines.  Not all vaccines are thimerosal free.  Realize it was a recommendation not a mandate from the CDC to remove thimerosal and inventories of existing vaccine were never recalled.   Again my point is vaccines aren't the only source.

Products containing ethyl mercury thiosalicylic acid as a preservative:
Antitoxins
Cosmetics, including makeup removers, mascara, and eye moisturizers
Desensitizing solutions
Ear, eye, and nose drops
Eye ointments
Mercurochrome
Merthiolate topical antiseptic
soap free cleaners
Some contact lens solutions
topical medicated sprays
Tuberculin tests
Vaccines
RH neg factor injections

Other sources or environmental mercury:
Adhesives
Air conditioner filters
Amalgams (will leach more mercury with the use of teeth whitening products)
Auto exhaust
Batteries
Bleached flour
Calomel (talc, body powders)
Cinnabar
Drinking water either pollution contamination or from plumbing and piping
Fabric softeners
Felt
Floor waxes and polishes
florescent light bulbs if broken
Laxatives
Paint pigments and solvents
Pesticides (Major source of water contamination due to runoff)
Processed foods
Thermostats in older homes if broken during removal
Vegetables and fruits exposed to pesticides
Wood preservatives

I suppose some of you will look on packaging and say the package doesn't list ethylmercury.  
It usually won't there are other names for etylmercury:
Sodium ethymercurithiosalicylate
Mercurothiolate
Merzonin
Mertorgan
Merfamin
Ethyl (2-mercaptobenzoato-S) mercury sodium salt
Thiomersalate
Thiomersalan
[(o-carboxyphenyl)thio] Ethylmercury sodium salt

This is a list of several states' laws concerning mercury content in products.  
http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/plnotification.cfm (http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/plnotification.cfm)

Stop lying an trying to say that I am buying into some conspiracy.  I contend it is an accumulation of various mercury contaminates effecting some babies during early development that makes them more likely to have an adverse vaccine reactions to some vaccines.  Not all women have equal exposure rates and not all women have equal rates of metabolizing or detoxifying their bodies and this is why fetuses are effected differently.  The one size fits all approach doesn't work for vaccines anymore than government schools.





 
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on October 01, 2009, 02:35:00 PM
And BTW:

My son got his first vaccinations on Monday, the evil autism fairy has not yet come by.

And no, I will not take the swine flu vaccine. It's not dangerous, but it's not necessary. It's the damn flu.
This is pretty much it.  Glad to hear people taking responsibility for protecting their children.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Libertarianssuck on October 01, 2009, 06:26:39 PM
obviously you ain't gonna live in no plastic bubble but you can consider the things you ingest or do to your own body and figure out what you are or aren't comfortable with doing. It's always worth considering. How would the free market react if people were opting for healthier products?
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: libertylover on October 01, 2009, 07:35:32 PM
obviously you ain't gonna live in no plastic bubble but you can consider the things you ingest or do to your own body and figure out what you are or aren't comfortable with doing. It's always worth considering. How would the free market react if people were opting for healthier products?

People just don't seem to be aware of how much mercury is in the environment.  It isn't a conspiracy.  It is a bunch of different manufactures looking for the cheapest way to preserve their products so they can be competitive in the market place.   All an individual consumer can do is search for ways to minimize their own personal exposure.  This goes doubly for a pregnant woman or a woman looking to get pregnant.   

There are many things which can limit your exposure.  I doubt anyone could totally avoid mercury.  I would think Libertarians understand that it is an issue of personal responsibility. 

Don't live in a home next to a hwy.  And try to not get caught in heavy traffic as much as possible.
If you have dental amalgams and can't get them removed consider getting a grindguard for sleeping and avoid whitening toothpaste and products.  Also if you are an ice cruncher stop it. 
Don't eat fish choose flax oil or hemp oil for omega 3 source
Purchase organic fruits and veg
Don't handle broken florescent bulbs (that is what men are for.) 
Get spring water for drinking, least contaminated.  Scientist are working on ways to eliminate mercury from water supplies http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090517143341.htm  (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090517143341.htm) Currently there is no economical home water filtration which will eliminate mercury. 
Select products which don't have mercury listed as an ingredient opt for the non-mercury version or substitute.  Usually there is another choice available. 
Batteries get non-mercury ones.  Manufactures have voluntarily started removing mercury.  They hope all batteries will be mercury free by 2011. 
Don't take or inject medical products to include some vaccines which contain Thimerosal especially if you are pregnant. 

The alternative is to have Government handle it, like they did with lead and ddt pollution, by banning the use of mercury in most products if not all products.   

Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: BonerJoe on October 01, 2009, 07:37:20 PM
:|
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Riddler on October 01, 2009, 07:48:22 PM
no that i do, but is listening to freddy mercury bad for you?
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Libertarianssuck on October 01, 2009, 07:55:34 PM
Uh yea I like my seafood every now and then. Maybe one day they can figure out how to extract mercury from them but it's a rare dish for me anyway.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Ecolitan on October 02, 2009, 09:34:35 AM
It's not dangerous, but it's not necessary. It's the damn flu.

All live virus vaccines are a little dangerous.  Last time there was a push for swine flu vaccinations more died from the vaccination than the flu.  Sure only a dozen out of millions that got vaccination died and that is pretty good odds but only one person died from the swine flu.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: todd on October 03, 2009, 12:45:17 AM
It's not dangerous, but it's not necessary. It's the damn flu.

All live virus vaccines are a little dangerous.  Last time there was a push for swine flu vaccinations more died from the vaccination than the flu.  Sure only a dozen out of millions that got vaccination died and that is pretty good odds but only one person died from the swine flu.


flu is a dead virus vaccine in shot form.  the intranasal form is a live attenuated virus.  there are no proposed adjuvants (sqaulene, etc) in the vaccine.  if thimerosol scares you, you can opt for thimerosol-free varieties (single doses instead of multidose vials).  there have already been more than 500 deaths from swine flu, about the same number of cases of guillian barre (not deaths) possibly attributed to the original vaccination.  this flu is no more deadly than seasonal flu, and the vaccine is going to be done the same way as the regular flu vaccine.  really should not be a big deal, but govt and conspiracy folks love a crisis. 
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: LordMarius on October 03, 2009, 04:36:04 AM
obviously you ain't gonna live in no plastic bubble but you can consider the things you ingest or do to your own body and figure out what you are or aren't comfortable with doing. It's always worth considering. How would the free market react if people were opting for healthier products?

People just don't seem to be aware of how much mercury is in the environment.  It isn't a conspiracy.  It is a bunch of different manufactures looking for the cheapest way to preserve their products so they can be competitive in the market place.   All an individual consumer can do is search for ways to minimize their own personal exposure.  This goes doubly for a pregnant woman or a woman looking to get pregnant.   

There are many things which can limit your exposure.  I doubt anyone could totally avoid mercury.  I would think Libertarians understand that it is an issue of personal responsibility. 

Don't live in a home next to a hwy.  And try to not get caught in heavy traffic as much as possible.
If you have dental amalgams and can't get them removed consider getting a grindguard for sleeping and avoid whitening toothpaste and products.  Also if you are an ice cruncher stop it. 
Don't eat fish choose flax oil or hemp oil for omega 3 source
Purchase organic fruits and veg
Don't handle broken florescent bulbs (that is what men are for.) 
Get spring water for drinking, least contaminated.  Scientist are working on ways to eliminate mercury from water supplies http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090517143341.htm  (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090517143341.htm) Currently there is no economical home water filtration which will eliminate mercury. 
Select products which don't have mercury listed as an ingredient opt for the non-mercury version or substitute.  Usually there is another choice available. 
Batteries get non-mercury ones.  Manufactures have voluntarily started removing mercury.  They hope all batteries will be mercury free by 2011. 
Don't take or inject medical products to include some vaccines which contain Thimerosal especially if you are pregnant. 

The alternative is to have Government handle it, like they did with lead and ddt pollution, by banning the use of mercury in most products if not all products.   



Either this, or one might choose to go on with ones life eating delish sushi celebrating the fact that the average lifespan in increasing because of things like modern agricultural technolofy, and vaccines and other medical developments.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: libertylover on October 03, 2009, 06:42:07 AM
Either this, or one might choose to go on with ones life eating delish sushi celebrating the fact that the average lifespan in increasing because of things like modern agricultural technolofy, and vaccines and other medical developments.

Being from Europe you wouldn't know about our national disaster created from modern agricultural technology.  You might want to look up the great dust bowl and see how many people were killed or lost their homes due to introduction of mechanical plows.  They just went in and broke up the sod of the great plains no contour farming, no wind breaks, no crop rotation, no erosion prevention techniques, no thought what so ever it could lead to a monumental disaster should a drought hit.   Out of that disaster new technology grew to prevent it from happening again.   Just like with the problems of mercury contamination new technology will arise.   But like the great dust bowl those harmed in the learning process are still harmed.

I work with environmental engineers on water quality issues.  I am an advocate for Hemp cultivation in and around water ways.  Currently farmers are required to have a easement between their fields and any water ways of 20 feet in which they plant various grasses.  Unfortunately from testing it seems runoff water contamination isn't stopped by this strategy and some in government are calling for larger easements.  The bad thing is larger easements eat up more workable farm land.  However, if Hemp were allowed to be grown in the easement area it would be a win win situation.  Farmers get a cash crop which doesn't require any pesticides and due to the 12 inch deep root structure of the Hemp plant  a natural barrier to the water is created keeping water supplies from being contaminated.  Not to mention with the extra Hemp production it will become a greater source of plant protein to feed people than what we are currently growing.   I talk to farmers in their 60s, 70s and 80s and they are screaming to be allowed to grow hemp in place of this easement plans which could force more into foreclosure.   And they are also talking about mercury free farm products because of the mercury content in the fish in their irrigation ponds is making them inedible.   This is really bad if your sideline is catfish farming.  And here in lies the greatest failure of democracy because farmers represent a minority vote in the minds of politicians they don't count.   The urban residents have to understand that water quality is important to them as well as keeping prices for food lower and both can be accomplished with hemp cultivation.   Something which is currently illegal.

It is really sad you are too stupid to realize I am not advocating to do away with technology.  I am advocating for improving technology by removing mercury from the environment .   I only suggest people buy organic fruit and vegetables as a way to use the market to spur on the development of mercury free pesticides and fertilizers.  Also by boycotting fish it will cause that industry to demand that manufactures who pump out mercury waste water to clean up their acts and purchase filtration which will eliminate mercury from their effluent.   But go on ahead and enjoy your mercury laden lifestyle.  When it comes back to bite you in the ass don't act as though it was an act of God.  Just like it wasn't an act of God that caused the great dust bowl either.  

Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: atomiccat on October 03, 2009, 11:51:28 PM
This might be part of the reason for not wanting to take it, Fda only requires it to work in 3-10 patients... I think a Placebo might be more effective

http://www.pandemicfluonline.com/?p=999

--------------------------------------
CDC States H1N1 Vaccine May Maim and Kill 30,000 Americans, FDA Requires Minimal Efficacy
CDC says to assume 1 in every 100,000 vaccine recipients will suffer serious side effects, FDA only requires vaccine be effective in 3 out of 10 recipients.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has officially stated that there will be as many as 30,000 serious, potentially lethal adverse reactions to the novel H1N1 vaccine, while the FDA guidelines for the novel H1N1 vaccine only require that it work in 3 out of every 10 recipients.

Last Saturday, I attended one of 10 “public engagement” meetings the CDC is holding across the country, utilizing a new model of public engagement designed to provide a public viewpoint or societal perspective on the topic at hand (mass vaccination) to the sponsor (in this case, the CDC).

Part of the process entails the sponsor (CDC) providing the following: “Information on the many sides of an issue is provided to the participants in a fair and balanced manner so that all participants become well-informed, and the overall group process is convened and managed in a neutral, respectful fashion.”

This requirement is met by providing an oral presentation in easy to understand language, a booklet summarizing the key facts needed and a discussion guide summarizing the choices faced.

The assembled group of 80 participants was shown a video, given a brief oral presentation and a printed discussion guide. We were asked to accept several assumptions in considering the topic. We were asked to assume that the severity would be similar to what had already been observed in the spring of 2009; we were told to assume that the vaccination program would be voluntary, not mandatory; we were told to assume that initial vaccine supplies will be available in October but supply would be limited through February 2010.

The most disturbing assumption we were asked to accept dealt with the safety of the novel H1N1 vaccine. In the video, the CDC spokesperson explained that during the 1976 mass vaccination campaign, 1 in every 100,000 recipients of the vaccine developed Guillain Barré syndrome (GBS), a disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks the peripheral nervous system often leading to paralysis and death. There is no known cure for GBS.

In 1976 roughly 40 million Americans received the vaccine and some 4,000 developed GBS.

The printed material that was distributed reiterated these horrific statistics and we were asked to accept the assumption that, “the estimated risk for more serious reactions (e.g. Guillain Barré syndrome) is between 1-10 per million persons vaccinated”.

This is a less direct way of stating that the risk is about the same as existed during the 1976 mass vaccination attempt and that as many as 1 in every 100,000 recipients will develop GBS or some other serious adverse reaction. The CDC is setting up a new intensive surveillance system with which to monitor and track GBS cases that result from the novel H1N1 vaccine.

Merriam-Webster defines assumption as a fact or statement taken for granted and assumed to be true. If we accept the documented assumption presented by the CDC, we are to consider it a fact that 1 in every 100,000 vaccine recipients will suffer a serious adverse effect such as GBS.

This means that if the entire U.S. population is vaccinated (a stated goal of the CDC), we are to assume as a fact that 30,000 Americans will suffer debilitating or lethal side effects. Apparently the CDC considers this an acceptable level of collateral damage.

As unthinkable as this is (destroying or ending the lives of as many as 30,000 Americans), that is only part of the story.

The novel H1N1 vaccine being developed must adhere to guidelines set forth by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA has announced that a vaccine will be accepted if it creates antibodies in 4 out of 10 recipients (40%), with at least 70 percent of those 4 achieving an antibody level believed to provide benefit. This means that an acceptable vaccine candidate would provide “protection” for 28% of vaccine recipients (70% of the 40%), or less than 3 in 10 recipients. The requirement drops to 18% efficacy for those over 65 years of age (60% of 30%).

So here are the facts, as documented by the CDC and the FDA:

As many as 30,000 Americans will be harmed by the novel H1N1 vaccine.

The vaccine may be ineffective in more than 7 out of 10 recipients.

And in case you think I am alone in my concerns, here is what several vaccine experts associated with the CDC and the U.S. government say on the subject.

“I am very skeptical of finishing vaccine before we know the appropriate dose to be included in each inoculation, before immunogenicity studies are complete, or before safety assessments have been finished,” William Schaffner, MD, Chairman of the Department of Preventive Medicine at Vanderbilt University and a member of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), wrote in an recent e-mail.

“We have assured both the profession and the public that the H1N1 vaccine will be evaluated with the same rigor that is applied to seasonal vaccine. We should NOT make vaccine available before the trials are complete and the results carefully assessed.”

Others are worried about a repeat of the last swine flu “pandemic,” now regarded as a public health and public relations debacle.

“I fear that a rush towards vaccinating the population without completing trials risks leading to the harmful outcome that we witnessed during the 1976 swine flu scare, where the government advocated rapid production and vaccination of the population without adequate safeguards, which led to an unexplained increase in cases of Guillain Barré syndrome (GBS), amongst other complications, and massive liability for the government,” wrote Amir Afkhami, MD, PhD, of George Washington University, an international expert on the 1918 Influenza pandemic and an advisor to the U.S. State Department, the U.S. military, and the World Bank on issues pertaining to infectious diseases, public health and, mental health.

“I think in this regard, we must learn from lessons of the past and be mindful of not jumping from the proverbial frying pan into the fire by putting people’s health at risk without adequate production and safety monitoring of the vaccines.”
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: todd on October 04, 2009, 01:11:21 AM
In 1976 roughly 40 million Americans received the vaccine and some 4,000 developed GBS.

The printed material that was distributed reiterated these horrific statistics and we were asked to accept the assumption that, “the estimated risk for more serious reactions (e.g. Guillain Barré syndrome) is between 1-10 per million persons vaccinated”.

This is a less direct way of stating that the risk is about the same as existed during the 1976 mass vaccination attempt and that as many as 1 in every 100,000 recipients will develop GBS or some other serious adverse reaction. The CDC is setting up a new intensive surveillance system with which to monitor and track GBS cases that result from the novel H1N1 vaccine.

Merriam-Webster defines assumption as a fact or statement taken for granted and assumed to be true. If we accept the documented assumption presented by the CDC, we are to consider it a fact that 1 in every 100,000 vaccine recipients will suffer a serious adverse effect such as GBS.

This means that if the entire U.S. population is vaccinated (a stated goal of the CDC), we are to assume as a fact that 30,000 Americans will suffer debilitating or lethal side effects. Apparently the CDC considers this an acceptable level of collateral damage.

in 1976, 40 million people were vaccinated, and about 500 cases of gbs reported possibly due to the vaccine (not 4000).  latest stats show that more than 900 people have died from h1n1, not like the 1976 episode where it never reached outside fort dix.  please keep in mind that the flu virus itself can cause gbs.  the vast majority of people recover completely from gbs, but it is quite debilitating and i would not wish it on anyone.  it has been estimated that 30000 people will die from swine flu- the same number who die from seasonal flu each year.  it's your arm, and your body, make an informed choice.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Riddler on October 04, 2009, 01:06:42 PM
fuck this.
i just smashed a bunch of thermometers at the hardware store this morning, then washed all the mercury down the storm sewer w/ a garden hose.....
straight to the river...
went home & shot at a case of mercury-laden lightbulbs & fed the mercury dust to my dog
we're having raw tuna for dinner
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: atomiccat on October 04, 2009, 02:16:03 PM
fuck this.
i just smashed a bunch of thermometers at the hardware store this morning, then washed all the mercury down the storm sewer w/ a garden hose.....
straight to the river...
went home & shot at a case of mercury-laden lightbulbs & fed the mercury dust to my dog
we're having raw tuna for dinner

Well the raw tuna might actually be good for you,  But U might be twitching a bit from the mercury.

And more on swine flu

[youtube=425,350]CMqYlnAiIUU[/youtube]
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: NHArticleTen on October 05, 2009, 11:46:28 AM
in NY health care workers have a choice...

take the juice or quit and walk away...

and more and more will walk away...

and the ones left will be even more overloaded...

and then they too will walk and run away...

and then there will be none left in NY...

and so the mobocracy will hunt them down and force them to take the juice and enslave them for the health of the looters...

hahahahaha...

RAD

.
Title: Re: One third of doctors do not want swine flu vaccination
Post by: Libertarianssuck on October 05, 2009, 01:08:27 PM
your still alive? I thought the swine flu got ya....