Are you getting a Flu shot?

[pixelsmith]

RL your blathering on and on, citing faulty studies, faulty reporting, the MANIPULATED testing results, (read your inserts to find out what I am talking about), the CDC, etc etc and your ignorance of the vaccine scam is shocking. I could go down your list one by one and debate you but I have no desire or time to ... maybe when I have more time after the holidays I will engage in a debate with you. Hopefully you will have done a little research about how they test vaccines before then.. hint: they compare apple to apples to get desired results. Many inserts provide testing examples, you can find many examples here: Institute for Vaccine Safety - Package Inserts

Hope this helps!

 

[RenaissanceLady]

RenaissanceLady are you a doctor or nurse? Says in your bio that you are a corporate/medical ghost writer. If that is so why do you think you have the authority or knowledge to make such grandiose claims with such confidence. Nice use of snippets from Wikipedia I must say.

Wow. Reading Comprehension Fail 101. Of all the sources I cited, exactly zero came from Wikipedia. Absolutely nothing was copied from Wikipedia. You can use Copyscape to check it, as I do with all of my writing and with any sources I cite. I do appreciate you admitting you didn't actually read what I wrote, nor checked my sources, nor could even be bothered to debate my actual work point-by-point.

This, of course, will never happen. Not by you and not by Pixelsmith. You won't because you can't be bothered looking into any facts that contradict your gospel.

You see, while you seem to think you scored some Big Bingo Points by stating what I clearly said in my bio, I should also point out that I routinely stress that I am not a doctor. Here is an example:

I do medical ghostwriting for a living, which by definition means I do medical research for a living. This doesn't make me a doctor or a scientist, but it does indicate I do my homework and am willing to sort through large amounts of information to find what is recent, what is accurate, and what may have since been redacted.

H7N9 Outbreak | Page 2 | The Paracast Community Forums

No matter how you choose to spin this, I completely understand and admit I'm not a doctor. I also know that almost all of my work is done for medical doctors, with an occasional article or booklet for osteopathic doctors. In other words:

• I must do a considerable amount of research.
• I must cite my sources.
• Everything I write and every source I cite will be fact-checked by a doctor.
• I must explain my research in a way that is clear to the doctor's clients, so that a medical point of view is established.
  
• If I do a poor job with any of this, I lose a client and lose his recommendations.
• Of all my clients, almost every single one is either repeat or referral. I refuse to compromise this.
• If I do a poor job with this and my errors are not caught, not only could my client be sued, I could be sued by my client.
• It is therefore in my best interests to stay abreast of medical topics, find solidly scientific sources to research and cite, and be aware of any actual facts that might contradict my research.

Take from this what you will.

I am just an I.T. Geek with a B.Sc in Physics. I only know what I research and see in the world. I see both sides of the story. It is quite laughable to think that someone that chooses not to be vaccinated by big Pharma is a danger to society. I understand your points, but I find when an argument stalls one tactic to follow is the fear factor. The fact is that many people are just sheep, and some sheep wear lab coats.

You might want to rethink that statement. Believing half-assed conspiracy theories which have been thoroughly debunked by scientists the world over is not the same as seeing "both sides of the story." The thing is, if you feel that the medical/scientific communities are lying to you or are otherwise trying to harm you, then everything which comes out of these communities is going to be suspect, no matter how much science and research is being used. You're inside the bubble, protected from everything except those things which might actually harm you. Being aware of conspiracy theories can do some good, as you can double-check what others are saying and be able to refute these things, as necessary. On the other hand, placing conspiracy theories on the same tier as actual science is the domain of idiots who have become enslaved to the Conspiracy du Jour. The most unfortunate part is that the people who put the most faith in certain baseless conspiracy theories are unwilling to allow any actual facts to disrupt their train of thought. They assume that any argument, no matter how solidly based, must just be some lie by a Big Bad Agency. This is why you made the hysterical statement that I used Wikipedia for my research or otherwise simply copied another person's work, even though it would only take a few seconds to show that this isn't the case. Your mind is made up, reality be damned. You can now stomp your way back to the bubble.

Everyone has a right to make choices for themselves on their own bodies and minds. Funny you never mentioned Gardasil, miss that one?

This is called "kitchen sinking" and you have clearly mastered it. I should therefore congratulate you on your use of the non-sequitur response.

The topic at hand is about flu vaccines.
My posts have been about flu vaccines.
It would appear as though every single time I answer something thoroughly, some ridiculous statement is made about why I didn't discuss something else that wasn't previously mentioned and therefore not addressed by me. Of course, the people who make these statements never actually discuss these topics, either. They just throw out some random accusations and see what sticks to the wall. (I'm still waiting to debate Pixelsmith about what additives he thinks are being added to flu vaccines and how these may or may not affect our health. For all of his spewing, he has yet to answer any direct question. This is an ongoing problem with him.)

Therefore, if you want do discuss Gardasil, I'll be happy do discuss Gardasil. You cite your sources, I'll cite mine. Of course, a debate on Gardasil would only hijack a thread that is allegedly about flu vaccines. It would be best to start a new thread.

I just choose not to play Russian roulette with my life based on half-truths and out right lies. If the popular conviction is good enough for you then become a human pin cushion. I do not give trust to people or organizations, they have to earn it. Big Pharma has not earned it, not by a long shot. Just because you reference doctors, what makes you think they are right? Becoming a doctor is not that difficult, not a super human task, does not make you a more moral or benevolent creature. I find a lot of physicians will just follow the money, just like everyone else. Their motives and actions can be controlled by their indoctrination and temperament. Point is think for yourself, just because they have a lab coat on does not make you any more or any less human.

I have never seen so eloquent a persuasion of why someone's arguments should be dismissed as you just made in that statement. If you are already stuck in the position that medical science is a bunch of "half-truths and out right lies" (sic), then there is absolutely nothing that can get you to reconsider your opinion. No matter what you claim about how you "see both sides of the story," what you have clearly demonstrated is that you see your own side of the story, but are otherwise completely unable to see the facts behind the science.

The single most telling thing about your response is how you begin by insisting I don't have the authority to discuss medical science because I'm not a doctor, but then conclude by saying that doctors really can't be trusted. Besides being another excellent example of your fondness for non-sequitur statements, it truly shows that you are not considering your arguments to their inevitable conclusion. It actually sounds more like hysterical ramblings than a solid thought process.

For that matter, you were demanding to know, "why do you think you have the authority or knowledge to make such grandiose claims with such confidence." (sic)

I could ask you the exact same thing. Here you are, without a hint of ever having done any medical work, yet you're confidently making some rather grandiose claims about the dangers of flu vaccines, how Gardasil kills people, and that anyone who actually gets vaccinated is therefore "a human pin cushion."

Gee, hypocrite much? Figure out what a glass house is and why you might not want to be throwing stones at those who are in a better position than you.

If you think there is something wrong with the sources I cited or the points I made, by all means, debate me on each of these factors. (This actually means doing your homework.) I welcome honest discourse. In comparison, simply throwing out baseless accusations to see what sticks is really just a waste of time - and I'd rather not waste my time. I have real work to do and earn a solid income for doing it. There is truly no point in debating someone who refuses to be debated yet thinks he won the argument.

Take care,
RL

 

[ManitobaCanuk]

Never thought of it as I won. I just have conflicting information on the subject and draw an inconclusive opinion. Not going to risk myself on inconclusive data. If that's a win..then I win big.

 

[Han]

influenza is just a pain.

VS

The 1918 flu pandemic (January 1918 – December 1920)[1] was an unusually deadly influenza pandemic, the first of the two pandemics involving H1N1 influenza virus (the second being the 2009 flu pandemic). It infected 500 million[2] people across the world, including remote Pacific islands and the Arctic, and killed 50 to 100 million of them—3 to 5 percent of the world's population[3] at the time—making it one of the deadliest natural disasters in human history.[2][4][5][6] To maintain morale, wartime censors minimized early reports of illness and mortality in Germany, Britain, France, and the United States;[7][8] but papers were free to report the epidemic's effects in neutral Spain (such as the grave illness of King Alfonso XIII), creating a false impression of Spain as especially hard hit—[9] thus the pandemic's nickname Spanish flu.[10]


My great Grandfather fought in and survived the battle of Jutland, only to lose his life to "Spanish flu" I am just adding this fact because I have read that you do not like wikipedia.

 

[Burnt State]

There is truly no point in debating someone who refuses to be debated yet thinks he won the argument.

Probably my, and others, greatest moments of personal futility have been wasting good time, good research and good words debating the conspiracist on this forum. Whether it's flu vaccines, global warming or 9-11 there is an endless amount of insult, disregard, and lack of response to real facts, despite the many invitations for sources, to be dished out to those who see value in a world of clear facts. My favourite moments, as you have pointed out, are when the conversation suddenly makes a wrong left turn into a whole new topic, while professing total lucidity at that moment. That's always my signal to eject from the thread.

I have been bit twice only by the need to try to provide real facts, only to have those entirely ignored. So now, upon recognizing the conspiracist's smug, ignorant and rhetorical tone, I find it's a great way to conserve both energy and frustration by putting a lot less effort into posts that start from a position of insult and claims of superiority. In fact, those threads are best left to spiral into continual inanity, for apparently, in the know it all universe that some reside in comfortably, there is nothing left to learn.

The rest of us are just blind and stupid, obviously.


Oh yeah, and Happy Hallowe'en!

 

[smcder]

Rationally Speaking: The problem of replicability in science

In recent months much has been written about the apparent fact that a surprising, indeed disturbing, number of scientific findings cannot be replicated, or when replicated the effect size turns out to be much smaller than previously thought.

. . .

Most damning of all, however, is the potential effect that all of this may have on science’s already dubious reputation with the general public (think evolution-creation, vaccine-autism, or climate change). This sentiment was expressed cogently by Ioannidis, again in the Atlantic article: “If we don’t tell the public about these problems, then we’re no better than non-scientists who falsely claim they can heal. If the drugs don’t work and we’re not sure how to treat something, why should we claim differently? Some fear that there may be less funding because we stop claiming we can prove we have miraculous treatments. But if we can’t really provide those miracles, how long will we be able to fool the public anyway? The scientific enterprise is probably the most fantastic achievement in human history, but that doesn’t mean we have a right to overstate what we’re accomplishing.” Good questions, and good point.

 

[Burnt State]

Rationally Speaking: The problem of replicability in science

This blog post was interesting, but I can see how some might consider throwing the science baby out the window as opposed to recognizing that we've come a really long way with science. Just because we can't force science to support desired outcomes, or are unable and unwilling to replicate empirical endeavors doesn't mean that we should start confirming that science is bad and that global warming isn't happening, or that vaccines cause autism.

If anything this article highlights two big problems: there is a decline in science previously unrecognized, perhaps b/c what drives science today is less pure and investigative and more greedy and corporate; and the other issue, as highlighted in the last paragraph you posted is the increasing general lack of conviction people have in science. It's as if nothing is real, and we know nothing, (or rather, "I know nothing!" yells Sargent Schultz), and we can now begin to disregard real Science, and substitute it with the odd one liners, lack of real research and the general malaise known as distrust in science.

I worry that people will start making silly choices in personal health and voting, which will be to everyone's detriment. Instead blind faith will be put into the paranoid, conspiratorial vision of the world where rhetoric, anger and scapegoating finger pointing will rule the day.

 

[smcder]

If anything this article highlights two big problems: there is a decline in science previously unrecognized, perhaps b/c what drives science today is less pure and investigative and more greedy and corporate; and the other issue, as highlighted in the last paragraph you posted is the increasing general lack of conviction people have in science. It's as if nothing is real, and we know nothing, (or rather, "I know nothing!" yells Sargent Schultz), and we can now begin to disregard real Science, and substitute it with the odd one liners, lack of real research and the general malaise known as distrust in science.

I worry that people will start making silly choices in personal health and voting, which will be to everyone's detriment. Instead blind faith will be put into the paranoid, conspiratorial vision of the world where rhetoric, anger and scapegoating finger pointing will rule the day.

I worry that people will start making silly choices in personal health and voting, which will be to everyone's detriment. Instead blind faith will be put into the paranoid, conspiratorial vision of the world where rhetoric, anger and scapegoating finger pointing will rule the day.

a strong case could be made that they always have ruled the day - at least at the end of the day ;-) and I think many people have, do and always will make silly choices in personal health and voting and every other activity - but is there a scientific way to do these things? An informed way that takes what information is available into account - yes, but scientific?There are many valuable human ways of knowing, science is a collection of tools and methods for gathering empirical information but not making moral decisions. I also think it's complicated to talk about what the public thinks - there is anti-science sentiment true but this stands side by side with an overwhelming and (in my opinion) irrational belief that technology will save us . . . maybe it will/maybe it won't (but isn't the ability to figure out global warming - the relevant fields, the computational devices, the universities and laboratories predicated on the very fossil fuels that caused it in the first place?) so I think some of the public, very rightly, may be coming to be disenchanted both with the alleged (and sometimes very real) goods of technology but also the inevitable unintended consequences - the Manhattan project is followed by Hiroshima and intense activism by many key scientists then follows atomic energy then comes Chernobyl but then there's the radiation treatments that prolong life but increased life span is implicated in degenerative neurological disorders, so . . . really, it is complicated. And much of this, much of the very development of science even follows on from the Enlightenment project and historical forces that are anything but rational and scientific.

 

[smcder]

perhaps b/c what drives science today is less pure and investigative and more greedy and corporate;

When, exactly, was science pure and (purely) investigative? When was it completely objective and free of politics, open to all classes and free of race and gender barriers? If anything, many of those ideals are only now being approached, many groups of people are only just know more fairly involved. (maybe . . . but it's complicated :-)

The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World: Iain McGilchrist: 9780300188370: Amazon.com: Books

 

[Burnt State]

It's true, even Leonardo had to build weapons to satisfy his masters so he could continue on with his imaginative investigations. But we also have, in the history of discovery, many more opportunities for that lone figure or couple to just work on discovering without having a master, maybe a sponsor instead of a dictator. What I took from that first article was that there was not too much going on by way of building or confirming recent scientifc endeavors because of $$$ motivation. Increasingly corporate sponsors risk co-opting the university model where the academy makes room freely (with some strings) for the investigator to research, experiment and discover.

I think back to the James Burke Connections tv series where he did identify science's rocky road - sometimes intention yielded results and other times luck and chance conspired with inquisitiveness to lead to functional invention. What I remember most from the series was his initial premise: the difference between western and eastern ideologies. The east had found the answers within, whereas the west was constantly driven by questions of 'what if' and was mostly heedless of what the answers might be. He also divided these regions up according to their drives: spirituality vs. commerce (trigonometry getting born because of the need to know how soon the boat with all the goods is going to make it to shore).

Are you saying that there never was a desire to discover just for the sake of knowing the how's and why's of things? Perhaps all those science biographies I read we're fictionalized romance, but i'd like to believe that one part of the human drive is all about curiosity. It's confirmation that we don't seem to do well with, or as the article says, there's no reward for coming second. Maybe we're just not that good at scientifc methods b/c we're still a child species and easy to manipulate.

And I agree with your other point that we have not been that rational about our scientific decisions, but is that not more of a reflection on the master as opposed to the scientist?

 

[smcder]

Are you saying that there never was a desire to discover just for the sake of knowing the how's and why's of things? Perhaps all those science biographies I read we're fictionalized romance, but i'd like to believe that one part of the human drive is all about curiosity.

Are you saying that there never was a desire to discover just for the sake of knowing the how's and why's of things?

No, I think there was, still is and I hope always will be. I think even I have a bit of it.

. . . but i'd like to believe that one part of the human drive is all about curiosity.

Me too . . . the best part.

 

[breddell]

The only time I got a flew shot in the last 20 years, I got sick... so I rely on my body's immune system!

 

[smcder]

It's true, even Leonardo had to build weapons to satisfy his masters so he could continue on with his imaginative investigations. But we also have, in the history of discovery, many more opportunities for that lone figure or couple to just work on discovering without having a master, maybe a sponsor instead of a dictator. What I took from that first article was that there was not too much going on by way of building or confirming recent scientifc endeavors because of $$$ motivation. Increasingly corporate sponsors risk co-opting the university model where the academy makes room freely (with some strings) for the investigator to research, experiment and discover.

I think back to the James Burke Connections tv series where he did identify science's rocky road - sometimes intention yielded results and other times luck and chance conspired with inquisitiveness to lead to functional invention. What I remember most from the series was his initial premise: the difference between western and eastern ideologies. The east had found the answers within, whereas the west was constantly driven by questions of 'what if' and was mostly heedless of what the answers might be. He also divided these regions up according to their drives: spirituality vs. commerce (trigonometry getting born because of the need to know how soon the boat with all the goods is going to make it to shore).

Are you saying that there never was a desire to discover just for the sake of knowing the how's and why's of things? Perhaps all those science biographies I read we're fictionalized romance, but i'd like to believe that one part of the human drive is all about curiosity. It's confirmation that we don't seem to do well with, or as the article says, there's no reward for coming second. Maybe we're just not that good at scientifc methods b/c we're still a child species and easy to manipulate.

And I agree with your other point that we have not been that rational about our scientific decisions, but is that not more of a reflection on the master as opposed to the scientist?

McGilchrist has or had a shorter (30 page) version of his thesis available on Amazon and it's worth the time to read.

I see a lot of scientism and materialism even in the irrational aspects of our culture - so alternative practitioners point to scientific studies or invoke quantum this or that - but traditional herbalism proceeded more along the lines of "magick": doctrine of signatures - the Mandrake root and Ginseng root are shaped like the human body . . . herbal energetics, etc . . . the idea of healing is not fixing a machine but closer to bringing back into harmony of a complex system, closer but still not exactly right - Chogyam Trungpa wrote about "spiritual materialism" over forty years ago and we still don't get it - the providentialism of Proverbs in the Bible (the good are rewarded and the evil are punished) and modern day prosperity gospels are belied by the books of Ecclesiastes and Job - as bleak and deeply wise pieces of literature as you might hope to find . . . (I recommend Stephen Mitchell's translation and introduction to the Book of Job) the creaturely orderliness of things as an antidote to anxiety is echoed in modern psychology, scientific materialism and Christ's words to not be anxious and to take no care for the morrow (and not because you'll be held safe and sound in God's hands - but because you are guaranteed the orderly progression of the world) - which might mean you die tomorrow. (after all, some tomorrow will come when you will die) - now compare the ultimate goals of technology - cure disease and prolong life indefinitely if not pursue immortality (if you are Ray Kurzweil to upload the consciousness into a kind of eternal existence in a heavenly cybernetic realm) transmute base matter into valuable materials (nano-technology or alchemy?) - understand the workings of the universe and arrange it according to your intention (a good description of magick) . . . these are cultural values coming out of an Enlightenment fed by Judeo-Christian values and the Western Hermetic tradition . . . but are they rational?

I don't propose to go and live in caves - but it is very interesting the viral nature of Western capitalism to push to the limits of material good - instead of finding a good balance between population, sanitation and medical care, reasonable and ecologically sustainable technologies and the pursuit of more intangible human goods like family, love, art and the pursuit of transcendant subjective experiences -

 

[smcder]

of course, you can just say we came by our restless, optimistic and inquisitive nature the old-fashioned way, inheriting it from our restless, optimistic and inquisitive (and ultimately successful) forebears - (see Golding's The Inheritors) - and all of those myths and urges came retroactively as bookmarks and spurs to further advancement - destination the stars!

And Terrance McKenna would smile upon ye, saying that hitting the mother-load of stored energy and subsequent reproductive and technological excess are all Gaia's way of goading us off the planet, just as any good mother kicks her offspring out of the nest . . . but then, did you ever notice how many children are living at home these days?

 

[boomerang]

there is anti-science sentiment true but this stands side by side with an overwhelming and (in my opinion) irrational belief that technology will save us . . .

Hmmm.... is mankind's brave march into this almost psychedelic technological landscape an inevitable progression in Nature our an attempt to step outside of it? Way above my pay grade. Here is where the longing for cosmic company in the form of a spacefaring ET becomes even more acute. But there can be no all-or-nothing debate about whether we avail ourselves of technology. Only the degree to which we refine and use it. Technology for H sapiens is not optional. It has always been mandatory for survival. Anyone who thinks computers are technology but the spear is not has missed a key point.

Disenchantment with science and technology seems most likely amongst those who don't understand these methods and their natural limitations and realistic purposes. Some such, perish the thought, may be scientists and technologists themselves. After all, expanding this is what they do. Factor in the popularization of science over the last 60 years or so to a scientifically semi-literate public. (of which I am probably a member) To the magazine Popular Mechanics of the 1950's: "Where's my personal flying car and housecleaning robot? ! " There was a time when the pie of all things materialistic was ever growing for western society and anything seemed possible. Perhaps natural laws of conservation should have been posted in public places.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

You guys really do like to fight. I don't understand it.

In every single one of these trainwrecks, it's always the same dudes on either side of a political and/or scientific fence. Before making these kinds of threads, you should play a game. See if you can guess who's going to land where in the debate. I bet you can! In fact, next time, let me know when any of you are going to do it, and we will place actual bets. I have a PayPal account -- let's do this.

Immediately following the first time you correctly guess who will be where, realize the futility of such debates in such an arena. However, for the sake of the aforementioned wager, such threads should be started, despite their lack of practical usefulness.

Who wants in next game?

 

[Burnt State]

You guys really do like to fight. I don't understand it.

In every single one of these trainwrecks, it's always the same dudes on either side of a political and/or scientific fence. Before making these kinds of threads, you should play a game. See if you can guess who's going to land where in the debate. I bet you can! In fact, next time, let me know when any of you are going to do it, and we will place actual bets. I have a PayPal account -- let's do this.

Immediately following the first time you correctly guess who will be where, realize the futility of such debates in such an arena. However, for the sake of the aforementioned wager, such threads should be started, despite their lack of practical usefulness.

Who wants in next game?

Yes , I agree that some of the automatic arguments on the forum are tedious b/c of the intractactable nature of some attitudes and positions. But, once you push that out of the way there's lots of room for dialogue and learning. At least for me I've been really engaged by some of the acute knowledge base of posters here. I can't think of anywhere else that I've been taught so much in so many different areas. I would identify the discussion on the bottom 2/3 of this page as positive and nothing near a train wreck.

So if threads can be salvaged from fated binaries then those who have some really nuanced positions often give me much more to ponder and engage than my small brain could have imagined on its own. On the other hand the repetition of insult and automatic discounting of knowledges b/c of past positions on the paracast board game is painful to read, and yes, quite predictable at times.

But you always come at things from a unique position, and good humor is always appreciated.

 

[Burnt State]

McGilchrist has or had a shorter (30 page) version of his thesis available on Amazon and it's worth the time to read.
...
I don't propose to go and live in caves - but it is very interesting the viral nature of Western capitalism to push to the limits of material good - instead of finding a good balance between population, sanitation and medical care, reasonable and ecologically sustainable technologies and the pursuit of more intangible human goods like family, love, art and the pursuit of transcendant subjective experiences -

Spiritual Materialism....hmm...I don't know if that boat will land on these shores. The western approach has always been an exclusive approach, often discounting other cultural ways of knowing and healing, ignoring the mind and spirit, trying to just treat the symptoms. The narrow focus of the western mind is so profit driven it discounts the other parts of who we are as beings, hence urban and suburban blight with its high rates of divorce, addiction, gender based violence, racism and children living in poverty.

I did not see the thesis there at that Amazon link the first time I went. I will check that out - thanks for the good reading you've directed me to. I would like to believe, if the corporate stranglehold doesn't squash our collective opportunities for imagination, compassion and spirituality, that once leadership in all aspects of society reflect values of diversity and equity we will become more open, inviting and welcoming of other ways of organizing ourselves.

 

[Randall]

Please elaborate. ?

The reported side effects from flu shots according to the Rexall immunization info page include:

Possible Side Effects Following the Flu Shot

• Sore Arm
• Redness at the needle site

Exercising the arm or applying a cold pack later in the day wil minimize the discomfort; if necessary. Take ibuprofen or acetaminophen to ease the pain.

Rare Side Effects Following the Flu Shot

• Fever
• Headache
• Tiredness
• Muscle soreness

Symptoms may start 6-12 hours after the flu shot. If any of these symptoms do not go away in 1-2 days or get worse see your doctor.

Extremely Rare Side Effects Following the Flu Shot

• Shortness of breath
• Tightness in chest
• Feeling of faintness or weakness
• Swelling of lips
• Hives

If any of these symptoms occur, you could be having a severe reaction to the vaccine. This is a medical emergency! Call for HELP! Go to the nearest emergency clinic. Report any reactions to your doctor.

---------------------------------------------------------

The side effects above aren't from an alarmist conspiracy website, but from the vendors of the vaccine, and in my experience are understated. By "my experience", I mean I've had flu shots in the past, I used to work at a drug store that dispensed vaccines where I've seen hundreds of people get vaccines, I've known co-workers and family who have gotten them, and of all those people I've known, all of them have had some side effects, and a few have had more serious reactions.

The wording from the pharmacy website is also misleading. Rather than "Possible, Rare, and Extremely Rare", it should say "Minor, Serious, and Extremely Serious". Being a rarity sounds so much better than being seriously ill doesn't it? Also the "Possible Side Effects" listed above don't mention the minor discomfort of getting the shot itself, which everyone has to go through, and the so-called "possible side effects" happen to pretty much everyone along with some minor combination of the so-called "rare side effects". So in reality, the so-called "Possible Side Effects" are really more like "Virtually Certain Side Effects".

Given the above, because I'm rarely ill and tend to get over the flu within a few days anyway, I figure why trade the chance I might get the flu for the virtual certainty of some combination of side effects? That alone is sufficient reason for me. But that's not all. Flu shots don't guarantee that you won't get some other flu not covered by the vaccine, so you can still come down with the flu anyway, and if you do, your immune system will already be taxed having to contend with the flu shot problem. But that's still not all.

There have been documented incidents of bad vaccines that range from ineffectual to harmful, so there is also the chance that that one could end up with a bad vaccine. Not getting a vaccine at all reduces that risk to zero. But that's still not all. We can also get into the all the fringe claims and anecdotal evidence around really serious problems associated with vaccination. Regardless of whether or not those claims are true, not getting a vaccine once again reduces that risk to zero. But that's still not all. There's also the issue of having the right to refuse, and there are people who would force us to have these vaccinations whether we wanted them or not, and some people have been fired for refusing to get vaccinated.

So the bottom line is that if I don't get vaccinated like a good sheep, I might go through a few days of flu symptoms, after which time my immune system will have fought it off and I'll be naturally immunized, or I can be an authoritative corporate sympathizer and be virtually certain of having some uncomfortable and time consuming side effects that may or may not prevent me from getting the flu anyway. So unless there is some really bad bug out there that has been medically confirmed to be coming my way, I'm happy to take my chances.

Also, the rationale that me not getting a flu shot poses a risk to everyone else is erroneous logic. The flu virus is outside in the environment anyway and those who have been immunized will be immune anyway, so the only risk if I happen to catch it is that I might spread it to a few others who have made the same choice as me anyway, and who may or may not get sick ( simply being exposed doesn't guarantee you'll post symptoms ).

Add to this that the real risk of spreading is more likely from those who get immunized, not the other way around, because being immunized doesn't prevent one from contracting and spreading it. It only prevents the host from getting ill enough to present serious symptoms. Immunization therefore gives these people a false sense of security making them less likely to stay home and not spread it, engage in hand sanitizing, and so on. And this brings me into the shadowy area of corporate self interest. Since immunization doesn't necessarily prevent the spread of the virus, but just keeps people from going down with serious symptoms, the biggest effect is on employers and insurance companies having a reduced risk of having to pay out for worker down time due to illness.

Lastly, I hope that's enough for you. But if not, now we can get into the really alarmist stuff:

 

[smcder]

Disenchantment with science and technology seems most likely amongst those who don't understand these methods and their natural limitations and realistic purposes. Some such, perish the thought, may be scientists and technologists themselves.

Perhaps natural laws of conservation should have been posted in public places.

Spiritual Materialism....hmm...I don't know if that boat will land on these shores. The western approach has always been an exclusive approach, often discounting other cultural ways of knowing and healing, ignoring the mind and spirit, trying to just treat the symptoms. The narrow focus of the western mind is so profit driven it discounts the other parts of who we are as beings, hence urban and suburban blight with its high rates of divorce, addiction, gender based violence, racism and children living in poverty.

I did not see the thesis there at that Amazon link the first time I went. I will check that out - thanks for the good reading you've directed me to. I would like to believe, if the corporate stranglehold doesn't squash our collective opportunities for imagination, compassion and spirituality, that once leadership in all aspects of society reflect values of diversity and equity we will become more open, inviting and welcoming of other ways of organizing ourselves.

I like it!

try going here:

Iain McGilchrist, author of The Master and his Emissary

there's a link to buy the short piece, I'll try to find it on Amazon too - there's also the intro in .pdf format to read and McGilchrist's reply to an essay by Steven Pinker. I haven't read that yet - but it looks fun!

Peace,

Stephen