Sometimes vaccinations aren't your friend

[MorePower4me 0]

This is an off-topic post in an off-topic forum, on the internet. If there is a better place than this for mindless arguing over nothing, show it to me!

My general consensus, which I stand behind, is still just that. It was derived from another forum of average to above average intelligence guys/gals (some intimately involved in public health or pharmaceuticals) discussing the same topic with opinions blazing.

It wasn't posted as fact, nor was it intended to be the end-all be-all of opinions. It was just extra data for someone to consider if they were trying to decide on/think about the issue. I thought that's why we were discussing it.

That said, it was about as middle of the road, non-biased, generic an answer one could possibly have given. Short of adding 'past performance does not indicate future results' I don't see how I could have come across any less argumentative. There wasn't any 'parroting' of information solely because there wasn't any actual data or information anywhere in my post.

So perhaps shame on me making for a useless post (or I guess, now 2) and mods do a -2 post count if you'd like, but I still don't see what your picking on here?

If you want to argue for the sake of arguing, I'm your huckleberry. I'm bored at work anyway. But at least wait until I do or say something stupid.

Here, I'll get you started, getting an H1N1 vaccine is as stupid as buying an Apple computer, driving a Ford truck, using anything by CCM or being a democrat, because all will 100% give you this disease.

:)

[furlanitalia 1]

Isn't that how Vaccine's work though? They give you a small case of the infection so you develop antibodies to fight it?

And I'm assuming the rest of the last line of that post is your opinion? (although I stand by the ccm thing lol)

[eric42434224 1]

If you want to argue for the sake of arguing, I\'m your huckleberry. I\'m bored at work anyway. But at least wait until I do or say something stupid..

OK Huckleberry...but this is just a discussion...not an arguement :)

My general consensus, which I stand behind, is still just that. It was derived from another forum of average to above average intelligence guys/gals (some intimately involved in public health or pharmaceuticals) discussing the same topic with opinions blazing.

It wasn\'t posted as fact, nor was it intended to be the end-all be-all of opinions. It was just extra data for someone to consider if they were trying to decide on/think about the issue. I thought that\'s why we were discussing it.

I understand you got your personal opinion from a group of anonymous internet forum posters, but is besides the point. It isnt the truth.

Post it as your opinion....not \"General Consensus\", because the majority of people will not interpret that as \"the opinion of random anonymous internet posters likely with no verifyable credentials\".

And if you were posting it as extra data if someone was going to make a decision on the subject, then that is just plain irresponsible.

Not only was it not data, it was false information that flies directly in the face of the facts, studies, and opinion of the medical community.

That said, it was about as middle of the road, non-biased, generic an answer one could possibly have given. Short of adding \'past performance does not indicate future results\' I don\'t see how I could have come across any less argumentative. There wasn\'t any \'parroting\' of information solely because there wasn\'t any actual data or information anywhere in my post.

No, it was an opinion that implied the General Consensus was that it is likely the cause. That isnt most middle of the road, non-biased, or generic answer. That would have been that you dont have any info, so dont have any opinion, and suggest that one should find the facts themselves.

And I did not think your response was arguementative, and am sorry that any of my responses gave you that impression.

And yes it was parroting what information the anonymous internet forum posters were saying (your \"General Consensus\")...you dont need to have any actual data or infor mation to parrot someone....though that would have been the correct thing to do. If you parroted actual credible and verifyable facts and information, I wouldnt have responded :)

So perhaps shame on me making for a useless post (or I guess, now 2) and mods do a -2 post count if you\'d like, but I still don\'t see what your picking on here?

I dont think it was useless per say....just misinformation.

.

Here, I\'ll get you started, getting an H1N1 vaccine is as stupid as buying an Apple computer, driving a Ford truck, using anything by CCM or being a democrat, because all will 100% give you this disease.

:)

I dont understand what point you are trying to make here.

EDIT: And to reiterate. No negative feelings here. Just internet discussion. Not arguing. : )

[MorePower4me 0]

Haha, yes. Joking on the last line (or am I.... <_< )

As for the other part, that disagreement wasn't with me so I assume your question isn't either, but I do believe you are correct.

[eric42434224 1]

Isn't that how Vaccine's work though? They give you a small case of the infection so you develop antibodies to fight it?

And I'm assuming the rest of the last line of that post is your opinion? (although I stand by the ccm thing lol)

If you get the shot, you are priming your immune system with an attenuated version of the live virus. You are using your innate immune system's capability, but "wean it on" in a controlled way, thus lessening the potentially dangerous effect of being caught offguard by the proper, strong virus.

But the probability of the attenuated virus in the vaccine illiciting any flu like symptoms is <<<<<<<< than the probability of you contracting the live virus infection without vaccination"

And I am still trying to figure out that last line of the post.

[MorePower4me 0]

I understand you got your personal opinion from a group of anonymous internet forum posters, but is besides the point. It isnt the truth. Post it as your opinion....not \"General Consensus\", because the majority of people will not interpret that as \"the opinion of random anonymous internet posters likely with no verifyable credentials\".

So should they take the information/opinions from you... the opinion of another random anonymous internet forum poster?

And if you were posting it as extra data if someone was going to make a decision on the subject, then that is just plain irresponsible.

Not only was it not data, it was false information that flies directly in the face of the facts, studies, and opinion of the medical community. No, it was an opinion that implied the General Consensus was that it is likely the cause. That isnt most middle of the road, non-biased, or generic answer. That would have been that you dont have any info, so dont have any opinion, and suggest that one should find the facts themselves.

I'll remind you that it was HER Dr's mentioned in the interview (who had actually seen her/treated her/viewed her files/test results) that claimed the vaccine brought out the underlying condition, not me.

Now if you were one of them and have since changed your opinion in light of new information I retract what I've said completely. But assuming you're not, I'll have to take their medical opinion over yours.

And yes it was parroting what information the anonymous internet forum posters were saying (your \"General Consensus\")...you dont need to have any actual data or infor mation to parrot someone....though that would have been the correct thing to do. If you parroted actual credible and verifyable facts and information, I wouldnt have responded :)

The last part was really the reason for my posts. I'd parroted (more commonly known as quoted) the opinions of the Dr's in this case. Barring new information, I'd call this the most credible, and verifiable information possible.

EDIT: And to reiterate. No negative feelings here. Just internet discussion. Not arguing. : )

I agree with you completely here. Its this or work, no hard feelings at all.

[eric42434224 1]

So should they take the information/opinions from you... the opinion of another random anonymous internet forum poster?

You are absolutely right. I never quoted my source. I apologize.

From the CDC:

"numerous studies have been done to evaluate if other flu vaccines were associated with GBS. In most studies, no association was found, but two studies suggested that approximately 1 additional person out of 1 million vaccinated people may be at risk for GBS associated with the seasonal influenza vaccine."

This studies were done after 1976 when it was thought the swine flu vaccine may be responsible for GBS.

I'll remind you that it was HER Dr's mentioned in the interview (who had actually seen her/treated her/viewed her files/test results) that claimed the vaccine brought out the underlying condition, not me.

Now if you were one of them and have since changed your opinion in light of new information I retract what I've said completely. But assuming you're not, I'll have to take their medical opinion over yours.

That doctor claims it, but there is no medical information or testing that corroborates it. Is it possible? Sure. But the studies show no direct link....only it may possible be a link. How the doctor claims this is beyond me. But I can see how that would seem to be a more credible source.

My point is that you shouldnt take anyones "inernet forum" opinion if you are actually going to use it as a factor in a decision (mine opinion too as you correctly pointed out :) ). Go to credible sources like the CDC. Now is the CDC always correct? I would take the chance and use that info before the internet forums.

The last part was really the reason for my posts. I'd parroted (more commonly known as quoted) the opinions of the Dr's in this case. Barring new information, I'd call this the most credible, and verifiable information possible.

The doctors opinion isnt verifiable. Go to the CDC website and try to verify it. I think the doctor is guessing, plain and simple. She may be right...who the hell knows, but the general consensus of the medical community says there really is no compelling evidence.

As we inch ever closer in our opinions, it seems that this discussion between us is coming to a close. I think we are almost on the same page.

I am heading home from work.

Thanks for keeping the discussion civil. :)

[sickwilly 37]

I hope this video is a fake... but I'm not sure why anyone would fake something like this.

[creasemonkeydotcom 0]

I wonder if the underlying condition would have been triggered by the flu if it hadn't been triggered by the flu shot. I also wonder about how far physical therapy, occupational therapy or other treatments will take her. I would think they could bridge from her running and backward walking ability to other movements.

[eric42434224 1]

I wonder if the underlying condition would have been triggered by the flu if it hadn't been triggered by the flu shot.

I wondered the same thing. I believe some postulate that the flu activates the auto immune system, which the attacks the nerve cells. So it seems to follow that either may do it.

But hey, I am in an altered state and cant think quite straight.

[n3ss 0]

clearly House needs to be on this case.