View Single Post
Old 10-29-2009, 07:56 PM   #7
Darth Avlectus
@Darth Avlectus
I'd buy that for a dollar
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: My pervert mansion
Posts: 4,397
Current Game: A dirty old man.
@ question posed by thread: Uhh, NO.

Funny thing is this: when I was little (Shut up, I'm not an antique!) there was no need for flu shots and vaccines. It was thought of as a "tougher ailment" than the usual and requiring more care than such.

While it _is_ unpleasant and knocks one for a loop upon being under its spell, some common sense and concerted efforts in the preventative and recuperative steps you can take would go a long way.

In a way, facing these ailments down over time actually strengthens your immunity. Or so I thought. I always noticed how all these "health nut" people who go to great lengths that are OC to borderline ridiculous to avoid getting sick always get hit the worst. Remembering how my family was poor I often had to tough it through but as I got to my teens I was rarely sick.

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
There is some controversy about whether one should get vaccinated or not, sort of brought to the forefront by Brent Spiner's tweets yesterday. There are the "Pro-vaxx" people who think you should have every vaccine no matter what. Then there are the "anti-vaxx" people who think vaccines are more detrimental than good, or are just a tool for drug companies to make more money. I'm not up to doing a ton of research at the moment, but I did want to discuss the subject.

Here are my thoughts--there are definite benefits to vaccines for many people. Diphtheria, tetanus, and polio can kill or seriously impair people, so I think it's wise to vaccinate for that.
Depends on the disease being vaccinated against. Some it may be a good idea and others it's ridiculous.

If boys or men contract measles after a certain age, it can make them infertile, so it's wise for them to get a measles vaccine prior to that cut-off age. There are also concerns about having so many vaccines in a very short time as a young child. There were questions about whether the vaccines increased the risk of autism--I did read a research study recently showing there is no connection between vaccinations and autism, happily.
People who are allergic to eggs or the preservatives used in the vaccines are not able to get them. There are some other contraindications for vaccines and flu shots, too many to list here.
Well, I don't think it is necessary to get the WHOLE series of shots ALL AT ONCE. When I was a kid there was far fewer shots needed as compared to now. Seeing ~13 shots of that for me, now I see ~30 shots. It does raise some eyebrows as well as questions.

My thoughts--they are generally beneficial, but not for everyone. Now, if an individual personally has a high risk for severe complications from flu, such as severe asthma or heart disease, or there is someone in the family who has heart disease or is on chemo and getting flu could be life-threatening, then getting the flu shot is likely to be very beneficial. If someone has an allergy, then it may be detrimental. However, this is something that should be researched carefully, and then each individual should talk to their own health care provider about their individual situations to make a wise choice on the matter, instead of just deciding based on what they read on (hopefully reputable) websites. It's so much more complex than a simple yes/no answer.
I agree people ought to do their own research. I do not like how there is a push "Gotta get them all and do it all NOW!". Not only for the $$$ involved, but potential detriments.

Disproving autism link notwithstanding, I do happen to know that while mercury is a superior suspension agent it also tends to accumulate in the body and not "pass through". Supposedly the amount is negligible in shots but I wonder still, why not any research to come up with a different and comparable suspension agent so that we do not have to walk that line?

I am not anti vax, but when health providers tend to get defensive at questioning (and interest in investigating) how much is actually in the shots being given, it tends to make the skeptics (like myself) not trust them. If there is nothing to hide, why get defensive? So they want investigations ad nauseum? So Effing whuttt? Such vigilance of people looking out for the best interests of their own health ought to be rewarded.

Personally I'd like to put my size 10 extra wide up Dr Dean Edell's hindquarters b/c I think he has sold out to the pharmaceuticals and bashes people who DARE question such things and tend to remain skeptical even afterwards.
(Red Foreman would be proud. )

If we have proactive doctors who want to protect their clients and take a sample of vaccine shipments to test the amount of mercury inside them against the gov.t's outlined "safe" level--more power to them. Consumer advocacy, and I stand firm on that.

Side note: not that there is a connection like in the 1934 film "tomorrow's children", I do not want it to reach a point of *mandatory* vaccination. Currently you have the choice no vaccination means you don't go to public schools. (Not that I abhor that exclusion since the public school system out here SUCKS.) I also look at how CA has recently made some laws about homeschool being only taught by licensed people with degrees. Fine, quality control. However, when it starts, in a word, relegating private school like it does public school to bring it down to the same level (thus pointless), I'm a start raising hell about it.
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,