Flu Shot vs. Vitamin D

[Moe Bricks]

Moe, I must say I'm surprised you've lasted as long as your current 7 post count.
Hopefully the drool/dribble of your ramblings won't last much longer.

Man I don't give a motherfuck, this is the general conversation section, what the fuck am I supposed to do, write up a well researched 5000 word compare and contrast essay on the positives and negative benefits of Vitamin D and flu shots? :boid:

You're holding me to a high standard in a section with very low standards which is meant for socialization, not straight-forward medical advice. Also if you couldn't tell, I don't think he's actually going to fall ill and die lol, maybe that's what you assumed, I don't know.

 

[SeoReborn]

Bro, do you even science? The dead virus helps your immune system recognize the live virus so it can swoop in and destroy it before you get sick.

Don't be an asshole. Vaccinate your kids.

Woman Who Was Never Vaccinated: I've Had Measles, Mumps, Meningitis

That is called scientific theory. Vaccination is trying to replicate the natural process in which the body builds an immunity to viruses i.e. by recognizing the virus, and creating antibodies (However antibodies is just one way the body fights viruses.). Whether vaccination does actually successfully replicate this immunity passed on through the natural process in reality needs to be studied.

A randomized double blind study is required to test this theory. Many times theory does not correspond to real life when put to the test. Can you show a randomized double blind study on measles (as well as mumps and rubella) and mmr? I want to see the data and results for it. Not some relative %, or a review of the study by somebody else. You'll be surprised that when you do look into a positive review of a study, and find that the data does not match or are blown out of proportion. All I see in those two links are the typical rhetoric including the ad hominem of those who decide not to vaccinate.

The burden of proof is on the vaccination promoters (e.g. the pharmaceutical) to prove to the 'asshole' parents that mmr does work against measles, mumps and rubella.

 

[MyOwnDemon]

I've never gotten a flu shot in my life and I don't even remember the last time I had the flu.

I have heard good things about vitamin D though, especially for us basement lurkers who hardly ever see the sun.

 

[maybenot]

That is called scientific theory. Vaccination is trying to replicate the natural process in which the body builds an immunity to viruses i.e. by recognizing the virus, and creating antibodies (However antibodies is just one way the body fights viruses.). Whether vaccination does actually successfully replicate this immunity passed on through the natural process in reality needs to be studied.

A randomized double blind study is required to test this theory. Many times theory does not correspond to real life when put to the test. Can you show a randomized double blind study on measles (as well as mumps and rubella) and mmr? I want to see the data and results for it. Not some relative %, or a review of the study by somebody else. You'll be surprised that when you do look into a positive review of a study, and find that the data does not match or are blown out of proportion. All I see in those two links are the typical rhetoric including the ad hominem of those who decide not to vaccinate.

The burden of proof is on the vaccination promoters (e.g. the pharmaceutical) to prove to the 'asshole' parents that mmr does work against measles, mumps and rubella.

I suppose my question would be, at what point do you accept what you read, or, at what point do you trust something?

For example, here is one source that says that two doses of MMR provides near 100% protection from measles: HPA - Study confirms measles component of MMR vaccine is highly effective

And here's one about trials in about 15,000,000 kids on MMR: Vaccines for measles, mumps and r... [Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

I didn't look much but there are some quick examples, though not perfect obviously.

So do we now get to the point where we say, yes but those are obviously fake and the gover-pharma-corp-9/11-masters are just duping the population with fake studies?

So would we have to do our own studies personally with people we are certain are 'random' etc to be satisfied? At what point do we trust this stuff.

And I refer to my earlier post on page one about polio etc. I mean seriously, if you don't vaccinate against stuff like that you are one small part of its resurgence. How do you think polio has been almost wiped out?

Does anyone against vaccines here actually understand how much it's taken, how much creativity and ingenuity and hard work it's taken, to make them work? And how complicated the process has been - even just for a single one like polio?

There are people who have put their lives into the study of vaccines, some of them for no pharma profit like you think (Salk with polio) and in the sweep of a few posts there is somehow "burden of proof" back on them, even after thanks to them we've gone from hundreds of thousands of people dying to pretty much wiping out these diseases. What more proof do you need.

What more proof do you need for the burden of proof to be satisfied, that polio vaccination is a good idea:

"Poliomyelitis has appeared in epidemic form, become endemic on a global scale, and been reduced to near-elimination, all within the span of documented medical history"

"Epidemics of the disease appeared in the late 19th century in many European countries and North America, following which polio became a global disease with annual epidemics."

"Beginning in 1955, the creation of poliovirus vaccines led to a stepwise reduction in poliomyelitis, culminating in the unpredicted elimination of wild polioviruses in the United States by 1972."

"Global expansion of polio immunization resulted in a reduction of paralytic disease from an estimated annual prevaccine level of at least 600,000 cases to fewer than 1,000 cases in 2000."

Sources:

PubMed Central, Figure 6.: Am J Epidemiol. 2010 December 1; 172(11): 1213

From emergence to eradication: the epidemiolo... [Am J Epidemiol. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Joshk]

Obviously vaccinations have done some tremendous good. The thing that is worrisome is the shift to peoples autoimmune profile later in life.

This is speaking from the point of view that we're in some sort of middle zone where vaccines are no longer necessary especially if the population mass as a whole continues taking them.

It's more about personal choice at this point. You increase your risk for autoimmune and death by infection later in life vs the small % chance you contract those diseases you would have been vaccinated for.

 

[Loafy]

Do pharmaceutical companies make money off of you when you are sick or well? Does the pharmacy make money off of you when you are sick or well? Does the government prefer a strong, healthy spirited populace or a weak, sick, broken population. You make the call.

 

[erect]

...

I thought we were talking about the flu which, in the big picture, is about as bad as having a boo boo on your knee.

As far as the other stuff is concerned, what's your opinion of evolutionary immunity for virus'?

Us pumping stronger pesticides on crops have made the insects that feed off of them bigger, stronger & faster.

Do you think that centuries of pumping our bodies full of antivirus for illnesses (most of which are pretty much extinct) has any effect on the evolution of each virus ... perhaps causing them to fork and reap more havoc on society? It's the unseen that constantly biting us in the arse.

 

[BlueYonder]

I thought we were talking about the flu which, in the big picture, is about as bad as having a boo boo on your knee.

Flu pandemics have occurred throughout history. There have been four since 1918, each with different characteristics.
1918 – 1919

Illness from the 1918 flu pandemic, also known as the Spanish flu, came on quickly. Some people felt fine in the morning but died by nightfall. People who caught the Spanish Flu but did not die from it often died from complications caused by bacteria, such as pneumonia.
During the 1918 pandemic:

• Approximately 20% to 40% of the worldwide population became ill
• An estimated 50 million people died
• Nearly 675,000 people died in the United States

Pandemic Flu History | Flu.gov

 

[SeoReborn]

I suppose my question would be, at what point do you accept what you read, or, at what point do you trust something?

I accept the scientific method as a way to test a hypothesis. I don't depend on trust like you do.

For example, here is one source that says that two doses of MMR provides near 100% protection from measles: HPA - Study confirms measles component of MMR vaccine is highly effective

And here's one about trials in about 15,000,000 kids on MMR: Vaccines for measles, mumps and r... [Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

As I said before, show me the studies. The first one is a article about a study and the second one is a review of studies. How do you ascertain the % effectiveness is calculated? What data is used? How is the study set up?

I didn't look much but there are some quick examples, though not perfect obviously.

How can you say its obvious that its not perfect, when you have not even looked at the study themselves, you looked at the review.

So do we now get to the point where we say, yes but those are obviously fake and the gover-pharma-corp-9/11-masters are just duping the population with fake studies?

You got that right. You should include in there the fake moon landing and grey aliens controlling these masters where one of them is Elvis as he's not really dead. Come on man, quit with the attempt of poisoning the well.

So would we have to do our own studies personally with people we are certain are 'random' etc to be satisfied? At what point do we trust this stuff.

Why should we do our own studies. Proof is not on us, its on the vaccine advocates, those who want us to inject because of their claim.

And I refer to my earlier post on page one about polio etc. I mean seriously, if you don't vaccinate against stuff like that you are one small part of its resurgence. How do you think polio has been almost wiped out?

This thread is about the flu shot. I did not bring up the measles, it was Blueyonder. You now go into polio and another load of diseases in your previous post. But I'll respond. How do I think polio is almost wiped out? Who knows, I don't have the answer. The absence of me knowing the answer to prove vaccination almost wiping out polio is a fallacy.

Does anyone against vaccines here actually understand how much it's taken, how much creativity and ingenuity and hard work it's taken, to make them work? And how complicated the process has been - even just for a single one like polio?

You are assuming it works. No matter how creative, ingenuity, complicate and hard work has been put into a hypothesis, it still needs to adhere to scientific method.

There are people who have put their lives into the study of vaccines, some of them for no pharma profit like you think (Salk with polio) and in the sweep of a few posts there is somehow "burden of proof" back on them, even after thanks to them we've gone from hundreds of thousands of people dying to pretty much wiping out these diseases.

I do not know about people putting their lives on risk to study vaccines, but that is irrelevant to our discussion.

A claim that come from people who put their lives on the line does not justify the absence of proof.

A claim that come from people who does not profit does not justify the absence of proof.

So who do you think the burden of proof should be, me? The burden of proof needs to lie somewhere. And isn't the ones that makes the claim have the burden of proof.

What more proof do you need.

Its all talk, you still have not shown proof. You make it sound like you have given a lot of proof, and yet I am still wanting more.

What more proof do you need for the burden of proof to be satisfied, that polio vaccination is a good idea:

"Poliomyelitis has appeared in epidemic form, become endemic on a global scale, and been reduced to near-elimination, all within the span of documented medical history"

"Epidemics of the disease appeared in the late 19th century in many European countries and North America, following which polio became a global disease with annual epidemics."

"Beginning in 1955, the creation of poliovirus vaccines led to a stepwise reduction in poliomyelitis, culminating in the unpredicted elimination of wild polioviruses in the United States by 1972."

"Global expansion of polio immunization resulted in a reduction of paralytic disease from an estimated annual prevaccine level of at least 600,000 cases to fewer than 1,000 cases in 2000."

These are claims that polio is the causation of the reduction in cases. Show proof. How are you sure that polio would not have gone down in the absence of the vaccine?

Sources:

PubMed Central, Figure 6.: Am J Epidemiol. 2010 December 1; 172(11): 1213

From emergence to eradication: the epidemiolo... [Am J Epidemiol. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

Is there somewhere in these two links that proves the above claims that polio vaccine is the causation?

 

[greenleaves]

I've never gotten a flu shot in my life and I don't even remember the last time I had the flu.

I have heard good things about vitamin D though, especially for us basement lurkers who hardly ever see the sun.

My mother smoked cigarettes for 40 years. She is fine. Therefore, cigarettes are not bad for you.

 

[maybenot]

I accept the scientific method as a way to test a hypothesis. I don't depend on trust like you do.



As I said before, show me the studies. The first one is a article about a study and the second one is a review of studies. How do you ascertain the % effectiveness is calculated? What data is used? How is the study set up?



How can you say its obvious that its not perfect, when you have not even looked at the study themselves, you looked at the review.



You got that right. You should include in there the fake moon landing and grey aliens controlling these masters where one of them is Elvis as he's not really dead. Come on man, quit with the attempt of poisoning the well.



Why should we do our own studies. Proof is not on us, its on the vaccine advocates, those who want us to inject because of their claim.



This thread is about the flu shot. I did not bring up the measles, it was Blueyonder. You now go into polio and another load of diseases in your previous post. But I'll respond. How do I think polio is almost wiped out? Who knows, I don't have the answer. The absence of me knowing the answer to prove vaccination almost wiping out polio is a fallacy.



You are assuming it works. No matter how creative, ingenuity, complicate and hard work has been put into a hypothesis, it still needs to adhere to scientific method.



I do not know about people putting their lives on risk to study vaccines, but that is irrelevant to our discussion.

A claim that come from people who put their lives on the line does not justify the absence of proof.

A claim that come from people who does not profit does not justify the absence of proof.

So who do you think the burden of proof should be, me? The burden of proof needs to lie somewhere. And isn't the ones that makes the claim have the burden of proof.



Its all talk, you still have not shown proof. You make it sound like you have given a lot of proof, and yet I am still wanting more.



These are claims that polio is the causation of the reduction in cases. Show proof. How are you sure that polio would not have gone down in the absence of the vaccine?



Is there somewhere in these two links that proves the above claims that polio vaccine is the causation?

I didn't mean that you should do your own studies, I meant that maybe you'd only feel the proof is sufficient if you did.

When I said obviously it's not perfect I just meant that the vaccines in that case weren't 100% effective, nothing more than that.

Above all, if the information I posted on polio isn't sufficient to prove to you that the vaccine was indeed the cause of its drastic reduction in the prevalence of polio, then I don't know what will be sufficient. Did you look at those links on polio? Have a look at the wiki article on its history of development too alongside those links. I really am astounded that that's not enough. There's not much more I can say on polio. The rest I can't face researching more.

 

[maybenot]

I thought we were talking about the flu which, in the big picture, is about as bad as having a boo boo on your knee.

As far as the other stuff is concerned, what's your opinion of evolutionary immunity for virus'?

Us pumping stronger pesticides on crops have made the insects that feed off of them bigger, stronger & faster.

Do you think that centuries of pumping our bodies full of antivirus for illnesses (most of which are pretty much extinct) has any effect on the evolution of each virus ... perhaps causing them to fork and reap more havoc on society? It's the unseen that constantly biting us in the arse.

This is an interesting question, no doubt. I think maybe only time will tell. I'm not sure how the viruses can mutate once people are immune and they are almost eradicated. There might be a way but currently I think to mutate they need to be live, not inactivated.

Branching out to pesticides, and in fact antibiotic use in mass animal production.. I think we are running some terrible risks that will cause major problems in our lifetimes (I'm assuming you're under 60), e.g. antibiotic resistance, which already exists in small amounts.

 

[Veritas]

I just chill outside enjoying the sun for 20-30 mins a day

 

[andrewkar]

Vitamin D is fine but... If you are going to get about 5000 IU a day, then make sure all the others vitamins are in place in good quantities as well (A,E,K). In general, limits for vitamins and minerals created by FDA and other institutions are way to low.

Good thing is (well, good for some of us...not for supplement and drug pushers...), we don't need to take supplements because with proper diet all stuff can be supplied in adequate quantities.

And yes, vaccination for flu is for naive people...

It's well proven (use Google...) that vaccines cause health problems, specifically impaired immune system... and this is a way pharma goes to create lifetime customers... (CLV).

That's just business.

You want to be healthy? Sweat regularly, eat properly and fuck all you can until you can

 

[Pleb]

No comment about the flu shot, but:

I'd been taking 10-20,000 IU a day of vitamin D for almost a year (see andrewkar's comment about vitamin K in particular though if you're gonna go that high) & never had any illness -cold / flu. Lots of health benefits including old knee injuries and tendinitis going away magically.

Anyways, over the holdiays we went down to Whitefish for a week. I forgot my vitamin d & didn't take any during the trip. Got a very bad cold. Got back home & restarted the vitamin D & it was gone in a couple days.

Surely a coincidence...

 

[teatree]

I thought we were talking about the flu which, in the big picture, is about as bad as having a boo boo on your knee.

As far as the other stuff is concerned, what's your opinion of evolutionary immunity for virus'?

Us pumping stronger pesticides on crops have made the insects that feed off of them bigger, stronger & faster.

Do you think that centuries of pumping our bodies full of antivirus for illnesses (most of which are pretty much extinct) has any effect on the evolution of each virus ... perhaps causing them to fork and reap more havoc on society? It's the unseen that constantly biting us in the arse.

Pesticides on crops are pumping the pesticide into the insect, which then evolves. Vaccines pump into us, and we evolve to become immune to the virus (we're creating antibodies in response). It's affecting our evolution not the viruses evolution. So vacines don't affect the evolution of the virus, they affect the evolution of us.

The life cycle of insects is very short - a few weeks. It takes about a decade of using a pesticide for the insect to evolve immunity to it that is passed down genetically from parent to insect-baby- about 120 birth-death cycles.

The human reproductive cycle is much slower - birth on average every 30 years. So another 3600 years to go before we see any evolutionary effects whereby immunity to disease is passed through the genes so that we don't need to vacinate.

 

[teatree]

re this business of overdosing on Vitamin D - don't do it. Like vitamins A and E, it's a fat soluble vitamin, which means that the excess not used by your body is stored in the liver.

When your liver is chock full (may take a few years to reach this point), you end up with hypercalcemia (high blood calcium) which causes muscle weakness, vomiting and confusion.

Never mess with your liver.

I don't understand the problem with getting your vitamins from your food? It's hard to overdose that way because you physically can't eat the quantities that would lead to an overdose.

People talk a lot about "big pharma" pushing drugs, but have you considered that the supplement business is pushing vitamin supplements on people that they don't need as they should be getting their requirements from their food?

 

[Moxie]

These are claims that polio is the causation of the reduction in cases. Show proof. How are you sure that polio would not have gone down in the absence of the vaccine?

It's impossible to show 100% proof of causality for anything. Unless someone is an all knowing God, then there's always the potential for lurking variables that might be the cause, or part of the cause.

This was a major part of the cigarette companies argument for years, and technically they were correct. Scientists can't be "sure" that smoking causes lung cancer increases, but they can show why they think it is highly likely that it does.

 

[maybenot]

re this business of overdosing on Vitamin D - don't do it. Like vitamins A and E, it's a fat soluble vitamin, which means that the excess not used by your body is stored in the liver.

When your liver is chock full (may take a few years to reach this point), you end up with hypercalcemia (high blood calcium) which causes muscle weakness, vomiting and confusion.

Never mess with your liver.

I don't understand the problem with getting your vitamins from your food? It's hard to overdose that way because you physically can't eat the quantities that would lead to an overdose.

People talk a lot about "big pharma" pushing drugs, but have you considered that the supplement business is pushing vitamin supplements on people that they don't need as they should be getting their requirements from their food?

I have the feeling you're wasting your time explaining this to the supplement fundamentalists.

It's amazing how this supplement fad, which has been around for a few years and is backed up by, oh yea, some 'nutrionists' who also didn't exist last century but that's ok because they just invented a diploma called nutrition because it's so fucking complicated isn't it to eat meat and vegetables and fruit and rice not like anyone's been doing that for the last four thousand fucking years, and now this fad seems to be more popular than a basic vaccine.

And it's amazing that it doesn't occur to people that maybe taking 4 billion percent of a vitamin might, just might fuck you up somehow. Supplements... marketers to marketers. And people are falling for it.

Oh yea, the flu vaccine, who needs that. Not like H1N1 killed tens of millions of people in the 1918 epidemic. Jesus christ I can't take this thread anymore.

 

[SeoReborn]

I didn't mean that you should do your own studies, I meant that maybe you'd only feel the proof is sufficient if you did.

When I said obviously it's not perfect I just meant that the vaccines in that case weren't 100% effective, nothing more than that.

Above all, if the information I posted on polio isn't sufficient to prove to you that the vaccine was indeed the cause of its drastic reduction in the prevalence of polio, then I don't know what will be sufficient. Did you look at those links on polio? Have a look at the wiki article on its history of development too alongside those links. I really am astounded that that's not enough. There's not much more I can say on polio. The rest I can't face researching more.

The most I see in your links are correlation. Yet we know correlation != causation. You accept correlation as proof since to you accept correlation = causation, while I don't. I am astounded that you find it astounding I don't accept correlation as proof.