So will you get the shot?

Yes, I'll be getting both the H1N1 shot and the seasonal shot.

Here in Ontario, they're talking about rolling out the H1N1 vaccine in November and the seasonal one later, in January. The delay is because of a single non-peer-reviewed study that found that people who had been vaccinated for seasonal flu seemed to have a higher risk of contracting H1N1. Seems suspect to me, but then again I'm not a scientist. People who are 65 or older won't have to wait until January to get the seasonal vaccine because they are deemed to have lower risk of getting H1N1.
 
I won't be getting the N1H1 shot, and I'm on the fence about the regular flu shot. I have only gotten it twice, and one of those times I got the flu anyway. It was awful, and made me realize I've never had the flu before (even though I had thought I'd had it at other times when I had really bad colds). After having the real flu, I realize there is nothing like it. I don't want to get it again... I have been a preschool teacher for the past 17 years, and if the only time I got the flu was the first year I got the shot, I don't feel very inclined to get the shot again. That said, I did get it again last year, and stayed healthy, so who knows?

As far as the N1H1 shot goes: I don't like that it hasn't been tested. It also makes absolutely no sense to me that they recommend it for pregnant women, but infants under 6 months must not get it. Huh?
 

This guy is anti any type of vaccine and also doesn't support prescription medications. While I agree there is an overuse of prescription medications they also have great value (for example, I take one for high blood pressure.) Some of the things he says are just so irrelevant and don't seem to have any scientific backing, i.e. vets are giving less vacines to dogs. What does that have to do with anything???
 
I do not get the regular flu shots and I will NOT be getting the N1H1 shot either.

As most of you know, I'm a cashier at walmart and SINCE working there...I've gotten sick almost every other month...BUT...as most of you know, I got my tonsils removed and that's "supposed" to help, we'll see.

All I do is eat as clean as possible, take vitamins, use sanitizer at register, wash hands multiple times a day. So far, this combo, seems to be working.
 
.

However, regarding the swine flu shot...back in '76 I was young and stupid. (Now I'm 53 and old and stupid...:) ) I worked at the mall and they were giving the shots, so I stood in line and got the swine flu shot. Not long after, I got sicker than I've ever been in my whole life and was out of work for almost a month... Could be a coincidence, but I think not..

My mom said the SAME thing!! The 1976 swine flu shot was a live virus...She said that she was never sicker! But, look at the bright side...You have immunity against it now!
 
This guy is anti any type of vaccine and also doesn't support prescription medications. While I agree there is an overuse of prescription medications they also have great value (for example, I take one for high blood pressure.) Some of the things he says are just so irrelevant and don't seem to have any scientific backing, i.e. vets are giving less vacines to dogs. What does that have to do with anything???

Irrelevant for who? What's the "scientific" backing of the vaccines? Because the FDA says it's "safe" doesn't mean that it actually is. It is a proven fact that vaccines are not as harmless as drug companies, mainstream media and doctors want us to believe. It is a proven fact that there are additives in vaccines. It is also a fact that autism has increased by 35 % since the widespread use of vaccines. There have been credible reports about a link between vaccines and SIDS.

Just because the herd says "maaaaaeeehhh" doesn't mean that those who have concerns about vaccines and drugs are stupid or irrelevant.

For example, when the first deaths occured with Vioxx it was dismissed by the drug companies and their cronies at the FDA which resulted in tens of thousands of lives lost that could have been avoided. Now young girls are dropping dead after they receive the "vaccine" gardasil for cervical cancer and everone say "naaaah", it has nothing to do with the drug. I guess it's just a coincidence that healthy and normal 13-year old die after receiving the vaccine.

The fact that for years we were told we should vaccinate our dogs and cats every year because it is "safe" and we are irresponsible if we don't and the fact that it has been found that vaccines can and do cause damage, even only one dose and that overvaccinating in pets does more harm than good IS relevant because it question not only the very concept of vaccines but also their safety.

So until you have seen one of your loved ones, kids or pets get really sick or die after a vaccine was administered maybe it is irrelavant for you. But maybe for those who have seen the adverse effects of vaccines it is not irrelevant.

I don't buy everything Dr. Mercola has to say but I sure as heck no longer believe what we are told by the drug companies, nor do I trust a drug to be safe and effective just because the FDA says so or a doctor prescribes it.
 
Last edited:
It is also a fact that autism has increased by 35 % since the widespread use of vaccines.
I thought I read that this was at least in part due to the fact that autism wasn't understood and therefore not diagnosed before the use of vaccines?

Is that not right?

Well, then the question is why is autism up by 200 % just over the past 6 years? This study takes into consideration the fact that diagnostics are better now than they were years ago.

http://www.zeitenschrift.net/news/sne-4105-autism.ihtml

http://www.naturalnews.com/027175_vaccines_autism_chemicals.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/027178_vaccines_autism_NaturalPedia.html
 
Last edited:
It is also a fact that autism has increased by 35 % since the widespread use of vaccines.

Well, then the question is why is autism up by 200 % just over the past 6 years? This study takes into consideration the fact that diagnostics are better now than they were years ago.

http://www.zeitenschrift.net/news/sne-4105-autism.ihtml

http://www.naturalnews.com/027175_vaccines_autism_chemicals.html

How do I get to the actual studies? Sorry if I'm being dense, I think I saw a reference to the studies but not the actual studies. I don't trust journalists to interpret study results...whether they agree with mainstream or not. :D

ETA: I just re-read what I wrote above, and please don't take that as argumentative, or I'm saying you are wrong! If it is true, I would of course want to know and understand. I have a 2-year-old and every time I bring him to get shots I'll admit I am afraid (even though my hubs is a family dr.).
 
Last edited:
It gives the source on the bottom of the first article

Sources: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 2004; 3: 70-5; New England Journal of Medicine, 2002; 347: 1477-82

Otherwise, you can check here : http://www.whale.to/a/danish.html

or just google the names: Dr Fouad Yazbak and Dr G. S. Goldman

HTH

ETA: I didn't take it as argumentative at all!! I would hope that people ask questions and get more information, mainstream or alternative. I don't believe everything just because it is naturopathic or natural. And I always check for sources, actually read it and cross reference.
 
Last edited:
Irrelevant for who? What's the "scientific" backing of the vaccines? Because the FDA says it's "safe" doesn't mean that it actually is. It is a proven fact that vaccines are not as harmless as drug companies, mainstream media and doctors want us to believe. It is a proven fact that there are additives in vaccines. It is also a fact that autism has increased by 35 % since the widespread use of vaccines. There have been credible reports about a link between vaccines and SIDS.

Just because the herd says "maaaaaeeehhh" doesn't mean that those who have concerns about vaccines and drugs are stupid or irrelevant.

For example, when the first deaths occured with Vioxx it was dismissed by the drug companies and their cronies at the FDA which resulted in tens of thousands of lives lost that could have been avoided. Now young girls are dropping dead after they receive the "vaccine" gardasil for cervical cancer and everone say "naaaah", it has nothing to do with the drug. I guess it's just a coincidence that healthy and normal 13-year old die after receiving the vaccine.

The fact that for years we were told we should vaccinate our dogs and cats every year because it is "safe" and we are irresponsible if we don't and the fact that it has been found that vaccines can and do cause damage, even only one dose and that overvaccinating in pets does more harm than good IS relevant because it question not only the very concept of vaccines but also their safety.

So until you have seen one of your loved ones, kids or pets get really sick or die after a vaccine was administered maybe it is irrelavant for you. But maybe for those who have seen the adverse effects of vaccines it is not irrelevant.

I don't buy everything Dr. Mercola has to say but I sure as heck no longer believe what we are told by the drug companies, nor do I trust a drug to be safe and effective just because the FDA says so or a doctor prescribes it.


My point is that even if there is proof that vaccines are dangerous for dogs, how is that relevant to whether the H1N1 vaccine is safe? The two are not even remotely related. Your statement that until I have some close to me get sick or die, I cannot know what is relevant is ridiculous. I'm not discounting people who are sick or lose loved ones, but, again I don't believe rabies vaccines are relevant to the safeness of H1N1 vaccine.

As for autism,there is plenty of evidence that vaccines do not cause autism. Ealier this year a Federal Court of Claims found absolutely no link between vaccines and autism. The fact that autism has increased and vaccinations have increased do not prove a link between the two.

I am not one to follow the crowd blindly. I do my own research and asked my physician about the H1N1 vaccine and any medications I take. I tend to trust him more than crap posted on the internet.
 
My point is that even if there is proof that vaccines are dangerous for dogs, how is that relevant to whether the H1N1 vaccine is safe? The two are not even remotely related. Your statement that until I have some close to me get sick or die, I cannot know what is relevant is ridiculous. I'm not discounting people who are sick or lose loved ones, but, again I don't believe rabies vaccines are relevant to the safeness of H1N1 vaccine.

As for autism,there is plenty of evidence that vaccines do not cause autism. Ealier this year a Federal Court of Claims found absolutely no link between vaccines and autism. The fact that autism has increased and vaccinations have increased do not prove a link between the two.

I am not one to follow the crowd blindly. I do my own research and asked my physician about the H1N1 vaccine and any medications I take. I tend to trust him more than crap posted on the internet.

Oh, and because a court finds that there is no correlation that means that's the last word on it? Just because someone loses a lawsuit doesn't mean that they are wrong. It wouldn't be the first time that being right doesn't mean you win in a court of law.
What evidence is there that vaccines do not cause autism? That's the problem with drugs, chemicals and other harmful substances. You will never get conclusive evidence as to what exactly the causation of a particular disease is, it may be that there are several factors that play together.

If you want to go down that route, what evidence is there that smoking causes lung cancer? I think it is the conventional wisdom that smoking increases your risk of lung cancer. Is there anything else than the observation that people who smoke have a higher occurance of lung cancer than others who don't smoke. I don't think there is any doubt that smoking greatly contributes to people developing lung cancer.

Does everyone who smokes develop lung cancer? No, of course not! Going by your statements I would have to say, it doesn't prove a link between cigarette smoke and lung cancer. Where is the conclusive proof that smoking causes lung cancer? It's more likely than not that it causes cancer. Meaning, people should think twice before they pick up a cancer stick.

I found your comment that what someone has to say about vaccine which happens not to coincide with your opinion as "irrelevant" rude and offensive. People who question the safety of a vaccine that has not been tested for long-term side effects may not be relevant to you but they may be to others. And not everything that is posted on the internet about health issues is "crap". I have come across doctors who don't know more than what is fed to them by drug companies. Some of the doctors that I have encountered I wouldn't trust as far as I can throw them. Just because someone has a MD behind their name and wears a white coat doesn't mean that I need to trust blindly what they say.

No offense to the medical profession, I know there are great doctors out there but still even with my current doctor who I think is phantastic, I still do my own research independently from him (which by the way he encourages).

My doctor says H1N1 vaccines are questionable as are other vaccines. What makes your doctor more credible than mine? Even in the medical profession there are disagreements. That doesn't render a different opinion "crap".
 
Last edited:
I'm glad I got my seasonal flu shot over the weekend, and with all these unvaccinated people running around sneezing all over everything, I'm getting the H1N1 shot as soon as I can.
 
I have never had the flu shot, and I won't get it. Many people I know who get the vaccine get sick within a week afterward, so no thank you. There is no way that I will get the H1N1 vaccine if it has been rushed. It is my body, I only get one go at it and I don't want something in me that "experts" haven't even tested properly yet. I will wash my hands, eat well and exercise - that is the best prevention.

Melissa
 
Oh, and because a court finds that there is no correlation that means that's the last word on it? Just because someone loses a lawsuit doesn't mean that they are wrong. It wouldn't be the first time that being right doesn't mean you win in a court of law.
What evidence is there that vaccines do not cause autism? That's the problem with drugs, chemicals and other harmful substances. You will never get conclusive evidence as to what exactly the causation of a particular disease is, it may be that there are several factors that play together.

If you want to go down that route, what evidence is there that smoking causes lung cancer? I think it is the conventional wisdom that smoking increases your risk of lung cancer. Is there anything else than the observation that people who smoke have a higher occurance of lung cancer than others who don't smoke. I don't think there is any doubt that smoking greatly contributes to people developing lung cancer.

Does everyone who smokes develop lung cancer? No, of course not! Going by your statements I would have to say, it doesn't prove a link between cigarette smoke and lung cancer. Where is the conclusive proof that smoking causes lung cancer? It's more likely than not that it causes cancer. Meaning, people should think twice before they pick up a cancer stick.

I found your comment that what someone has to say about vaccine which happens not to coincide with your opinion as "irrelevant" rude and offensive. People who question the safety of a vaccine that has not been tested for long-term side effects may not be relevant to you but they may be to others. And not everything that is posted on the internet about health issues is "crap". I have come across doctors who don't know more than what is fed to them by drug companies. Some of the doctors that I have encountered I wouldn't trust as far as I can throw them. Just because someone has a MD behind their name and wears a white coat doesn't mean that I need to trust blindly what they say.

No offense to the medical profession, I know there are great doctors out there but still even with my current doctor who I think is phantastic, I still do my own research independently from him (which by the way he encourages).

My doctor says H1N1 vaccines are questionable as are other vaccines. What makes your doctor more credible than mine? Even in the medical profession there are disagreements. That doesn't render a different opinion "crap".

First, you clearly misread my statement. I stated that to claim that dog vaccines are dangerous is not relevant to whether H1N1 vaccine is dangerous. That was the extent of my statement. You have not shown otherwise.

The Federal Court of Claims heard three separate cases on whether there was a link between vaccines and autism. They found no evidence of any link. The court took extensive evidence including documents and expert testimony. I'm not in a position to say there is or isn't a link between vaccines and autism as I am not an expert nor did I listen to expert testimony. The three judges who heard the cases were clearly in a position to weigh the evidence and they did just that.

It is widely accepted and there is little disagreement in the medical community that smoking causes cancer. Obviously not everyone who smokes gets cancer but smokers are more likely than non-smokers to get lung cancer.

I never said everyone on the internet is crap but there is certainly a lot of crap to be found. I also never said that my doctor was more knowleable than you doc. Everyone needs to make there own decision. I'm not forcing mine on anyone, including you.
 
The Federal Court of Claims heard three separate cases on whether there was a link between vaccines and autism. They found no evidence of any link. The court took extensive evidence including documents and expert testimony. I'm not in a position to say there is or isn't a link between vaccines and autism as I am not an expert nor did I listen to expert testimony. The three judges who heard the cases were clearly in a position to weigh the evidence and they did just that.

And judges are always unbiased? Just because the standard of evidence is not met in the eyes of a judge doesn't mean that it doesn't have merrit. Because as we are reminded every day, judgements are overturned, judgements are proven wrong and judges don't walk on water either. In fact the initial cases against tobacco companies were also dismissed.


It is widely accepted and there is little disagreement in the medical community that smoking causes cancer. Obviously not everyone who smokes gets cancer but smokers are more likely than non-smokers to get lung cancer..

That's what I just said. It is widely accepted but there is as much proof of the link between cigarettes and lung cancer than there is proof of a link between the increased use of vaccines and an increase in autism. Just because something is widely accepted doesn't make it a fact or prooves it conclusively. And how many years did it take for the medical community to acknowledge the link between cigarette smoking and cancer? And the argument of tobacco companies in court usually was that "there is no scientific proof".
 
Last edited:
Buffy, I could care less what the courts say or any other "expert" tells me about the safety of vaccinations. All I know is I had a healthy, happy baby boy until his last rounds of shots. It was not only a change in my child, but a total regression. There are thousands of parents who have had this same "phenomenon" occur. My child has permanent neurological damage, whether it was an allergic reaction, the high fever that followed the shots, or just too much injected at one time. I think parents need to think long and hard about this new vaccine. I'm not anti-vax, I just believe in common sense.

Tina
 
And judges are always unbiased? Just because the standard of evidence is not met in the eyes of a judge doesn't mean that it doesn't have merrit. Because as we are reminded every day, judgements are overturned, judgements are proven wrong and judges don't walk on water either. In fact the initial cases against tobacco companies were also dismissed.



Three different judges looked at the evidence. They found no link. To say the judges are biased is a real stretch. You may think the judges are wrong but I don't believe you have any reason to allege they are biased.
 

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top