[Brenda]

You are the one telling us we SHOULD take the shot.

I think none of us believes in a vast left wing conspiracy.

[Proculation]

Brenda Brenda:

You are the one telling us we SHOULD take the shot.

I think none of us believes in a vast left wing conspiracy.

Yes you should. Where's the conspiracy ?

[Brenda]

I dunno! Where is it?

[Brenda]

Proculation Proculation:

I'm willing to argue with people with arguments but not with tinfoilers, sorry.

This is yours, right?

You claim we are tinfoilers because we don't believe the shot is for us.

[Proculation]

Brenda Brenda:

Proculation Proculation:

I'm willing to argue with people with arguments but not with tinfoilers, sorry.

This is yours, right?

You claim we are tinfoilers because we don't believe the shot is for us.

No !
Only PublicAnimal9 because he believes in a vast conspiracy between governments, big pharma, doctors, authorities, etc. creating a big scheme to steal people. THAT'S a conspiracy.

If you don't want the shot because you do not think it worths it, well that's your choice. IMO it's not the best but hey, do what you want.

[Brenda]

Well, he does have a point somehow. In The Netherlands, the government tells the doctors to prescribe their patients the cheapest, no-name (yet just as good) medication, instead of the ones pushed by the pharma-companies.

Now, personally, I don't believe in a government conspiracy, but the pharma's are the ones that dictate the market... The better you treat the client (the doctors, in this case) the more they prescribe your drugs, the more you sell...

[Proculation]

Brenda Brenda:

Well, he does have a point somehow. In The Netherlands, the government tells the doctors to prescribe their patients the cheapest, no-name (yet just as good) medication, instead of the ones pushed by the pharma-companies.

Now, personally, I don't believe in a government conspiracy, but the pharma's are the ones that dictate the market... The better you treat the client (the doctors, in this case) the more they prescribe your drugs, the more you sell...

That would be more the pharmacist since it's him who gives you the generic or branded med. I always get the generic when going to the pharmacy. I understand that there are cases where doctors and pharmacists may get a return from a pharma to prescribe its drug instead of another but that's not widespread. So a vast conspiracy with almost all the doctors/scientists/governments/etc. involved is laughable !

[Brenda]

Proculation Proculation:

Brenda Brenda:

Well, he does have a point somehow. In The Netherlands, the government tells the doctors to prescribe their patients the cheapest, no-name (yet just as good) medication, instead of the ones pushed by the pharma-companies.

Now, personally, I don't believe in a government conspiracy, but the pharma's are the ones that dictate the market... The better you treat the client (the doctors, in this case) the more they prescribe your drugs, the more you sell...

That would be more the pharmacist since it's him who gives you the generic or branded med. I always get the generic when going to the pharmacy. I understand that there are cases where doctors and pharmacists may get a return from a pharma to prescribe its drug instead of another but that's not widespread. So a vast conspiracy with almost all the doctors/scientists/governments/etc. involved is laughable !

The pharmacies do exactly what is prescribed. If the doctor writes down a brand name, the pharmacy gives you the brand name.

The doctors-visitors are not pharmacists, they are representatives of a pharma.

[Proculation]

Brenda Brenda:

Proculation Proculation:

Brenda Brenda:

Well, he does have a point somehow. In The Netherlands, the government tells the doctors to prescribe their patients the cheapest, no-name (yet just as good) medication, instead of the ones pushed by the pharma-companies.

Now, personally, I don't believe in a government conspiracy, but the pharma's are the ones that dictate the market... The better you treat the client (the doctors, in this case) the more they prescribe your drugs, the more you sell...

That would be more the pharmacist since it's him who gives you the generic or branded med. I always get the generic when going to the pharmacy. I understand that there are cases where doctors and pharmacists may get a return from a pharma to prescribe its drug instead of another but that's not widespread. So a vast conspiracy with almost all the doctors/scientists/governments/etc. involved is laughable !

The pharmacies do exactly what is prescribed. If the doctor writes down a brand name, the pharmacy gives you the brand name.

The doctors-visitors are not pharmacists, they are representatives of a pharma.

I take a lot of meds and the brand name is written on the prescription but I get the generic. But well maybe it's different in Quebec pharmacies.

[Brenda]

Hehehehe EVERYTHING is different in Quebec. Tell me, why don't you get your own currency?

[DrCaleb]

Proculation Proculation:

I take a lot of meds and the brand name is written on the prescription but I get the generic. But well maybe it's different in Quebec pharmacies.

Must be the same here then. My Doctor writes a brand name, but the prescription always has a 'Alternate: Generic' check box on it. Unless he wants specific properties of a specific brand (or there are no generics yet), I too get generic. And I still spend $300 a month on drugs.



I'm getting the shot. All my colleagues who have had this flu already say it knocks them on their ass. They are down for 7 - 10 days, some for 2 weeks. Then just when it starts to get better, their spouses and kids get hit, if they weren't before. I can't afford that. And they suffered for those 10 days, like they haven't done in many years.

Your body still learns to make the antibodies for the virus, it just makes them from an inert virus as opposed to the active virus. So, an hour waiting for a free shot is nothing. It's kind of an easy cost/benefit analysis for me.

[segno]

raydan raydan:

segno segno:

raydan raydan:

The first legal immunity granted to the producers of vaccines was almost 30 years ago for children vaccines. We're talking vaccines that have almost not changed at all since then so why do they still need legal immunity?

Because, judges and the people who sit on juries are not experts in science and/or epidemiology.
...
Heck, look at some of the people in this thread... people like PublicAnimalNo9 have illustrated both an incredible lack of ability to understand the fundamentals of science, AND an inability to acutally learn, understand and reason. He actually gets some of his information off hollocaust-deniers web sites, and doesn't even think to question the quality of the source. And there's just as much chance for him to be selected for jury duty as myself.

If I remember correctly, you were warned once for personal attacks.

Yes I was... mostly because I suggested that an individual who favoured exposing their children to diseases that claim hundreds of lives a year was not necessarily acting i the best intrest of her children.

I did appologize to the moderator over it, and told him that if he feels it necessary to ban me, I will graciously accept... however, I will not change my opinion that exposing children to potentially deadly situations is not something a parent should be doing.

$1:

I'd step lightly if I were you and I think an apology is in order to PublicAnimalNo9 and "people like him", whoever they are.

Ummm... why?

Everything I've said is true. Why should I appologize for pointing out his failings?

For example, I suggested he was "unable to learn". In a post made on 2009-10-27, 14:33:18, he made a claim (or, more approproately, agreed with one) that the H1N1 vaccine was only tested on 120 people. (Go back and check if you don't believe me...)

However, that is not true... in fact, in in the reference provided, it clearly points to other studies with over 1500 people. And I myself had personally posted references days ago to a study that was tested on 240 people. Now, its one thing to be wrong because you've never actually been exposed to the correct data. But in this case PublicAnimalNo9 was actually given multiple references to correct data. Had he been willing or able to actually read or understand the data that had already been given to him, maybe he wouldn't have stuck to the claim of testing on 'only 120' people.

Then there was the claim that he referred to information that appeared on a holocaust deniers web site. That is, of course, something that can be found quite easily.

$1:

I don't go the conspiracy theories route at all, but think a bit about what PA9 wrote.

I got it... you don't 'go the conspiricy route', but you think there's validity in the conspiricy theories that PublicAnimalNo9 writes.

That's a little like someone saying "I'm not racist... I just think all foreigners are evil".

$1:

I know a lot of doctors have shares in pharmaceuticals.

Yeah, so do I. But as I've stated in the other thread... vaccines are not exactly a high-profit item. In many years, companies have to throw out millions of doses of unused influenza vaccine (at a loss to them). The fact that the drug companies make profit on other drugs makes them worth owning.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to go the conspiracy route... the doctors should actually be encouraging people to avoid vaccinations. More sick people means more doctor's visits, more anti-viral drugs sold, etc.

$1:

$1:

Of course, pharmaceuticals are good investments with the aging of population. But thinking that this is a big scheme to steal money from us, sorry but that's a conspiracy theory based on nothing factual. Occam's razor is a good way of thinking more scientifically.

That's exactly what I'm doing.
Not taking the vaccine IS the simplist theory

Actually, no its not... its the solution that provides a little short-term gain (i.e. you don't have a needle stuck in your arm) with long term pain (the fact you can die). That's not exactly a 'simple theory'...

Kind of like having a meal that's composed only of desert... you may think its a 'simple' choice... you get the benefit of the yummy chocolate cake and cookies right up front... however, in the long term you run the risk of malnutrition.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Proculation Proculation:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Noooo, no government would sell themselves out to keep protecting their industrial interests. They've been doing it with cigarettes for how many years now? I can point to sooo many other non-medical examples, and medical as well but I don't have all week and I don't wanna hijack the thread.
And from what I understand, this batch was rushed into production. I don't imagine too many unbiased sources have had much opportunity to test it thoroughly.
Efficacy-wise or otherwise.

Actually, upon further reading, you're right. To think that the WHO, governments, doctors and big pharma are in a capitalist scheme to steal people is utterly ridiculous. Now THAT'S a tinfoil theory

Like I said, I warn you. Protect your brain waves outside else the CIA might get you ! You discovered the big plot

Here's the clincher, YOU obviously think there's a conspiracy somewhere. I never once said there was a conspiracy to take people. YOU inferred that. Personally, I've never heard THAT one until YOU spouted it out. Now as for you referring to me as part of the tinfoil team. I asked 2 perfectly REASONABLE questions, INCLUDING THE ONE RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE POST YOU QUOTED HERE.
The other asked, Did anyone stop to think(and then start again for that matter) that IF some people still get the flu because they already had the bug before the shot, or the shot hasn't had time to fully "protect" them, that we're potentially giving this strain more genetic material with which to mutate to an even more virulent form?
Your response? You can't debate with a tinfoil conspiracist. You completely dodged two very salient points, resorted to insults and then accused me of making up a conspiracy where I claim the medical establishment along with government is taking people. Taking them WHERE exactly Proculation?? They're not making them disappear and sending them to Area 51 so I have no fucking clue what you're on about.
But you feel insulting people will get your point across as opposed to answering legitimate questions, obviously questions you CAN'T answer or just don't WANT to answer. Either way..get bent

[Brenda]

$1:

Yes I was... mostly because I suggested that an individual who favoured exposing their children to diseases that claim hundreds of lives a year was not necessarily acting i the best intrest of her children.

I did appologize to the moderator over it, and told him that if he feels it necessary to ban me, I will graciously accept... however, I will not change my opinion that exposing children to potentially deadly situations is not something a parent should be doing.

I think, that to be a "good mother" in your eyes, I better lock my kids up, not take them to school, and not drive with them in the backseat of my car, because HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people get killed in traffic every year...

[Brenda]

$1:

Actually, no its not... its the solution that provides a little short-term gain (i.e. you don't have a needle stuck in your arm) with long term pain (the fact you can die). That's not exactly a 'simple theory'...

Kind of like having a meal that's composed only of desert... you may think its a 'simple' choice... you get the benefit of the yummy chocolate cake and cookies right up front... however, in the long term you run the risk of malnutrition.

So you claim this is a one time shot? Immune for life? Tsk tsk...