Getting a flu shot?

diz iz gudta know... dat iz ifin MH iza nezt kitte whut getz winked, Trudi,
knowin hersef iz way ahead of da kurf

--
Have a wonderful day

"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
Stormmee wrote:
mayhapz ifin anofur kittee getz winked soon... sidwayz glanze at MH...
you kan makez konfetti fur da cepshun? trudi

i wud be happy tu.

Sam, paper-shredder extraordinaire!

Cheryl wrote:
Booker wrote:


Will sumbudy shut hur up. Dis iz not kat talk. Weze want to talk bout
winkings an partiez an ofur fun stuff.

Booker

Did yu help out wif thu papur? I luvvvvs papur an iz rilly gud at makin
it inna tiny tiny peeces.

Sam

Ov korse Ize helped. Ize sitz on da paperz an holdz dem frum floatin
away, an leeves my bootiful furs on dem. Specially da paperz in frunt of
meowmie. Den she haz to luk at ME insted of da paperz. I dont shred, but
Chappy iz gud at puttin holes in paperz cuz he testz dem to see iffin
der ani good to eet.

Booker

Fred Williams wrote:

If you'd taken the time you'd see that the peer reviewed studies were the
ones showing that the vaccine studies were peer reviewed and shown to
havelittle or no effect on whether or not the patients got the flu. The
best one showed 9 % effective and the worst result was zero... no
effectiveness at all.

I listened to a little more. The speaker was upset because there aren't
any long-term double-blind experiments using vaccines. Double-blind
studies are the gold standard in experimental studies, but have serious
ethical limitations when used with humans. It's considered unethical to
do double-blind experiments on humans when the people who don't get the
treatment are at serious risks. This is the reason that when a treatment
starts showing real effectiveness early enough, the double-blind part of
the study is stopped and all patients are given the new treatment. He
said that the placebo, where one was used, wasn't really a placebo
because it contained everything except the vaccine itself. In order to
figure out if a substance causes a certain problem, everything *but*
that substance has to be including in the placebo. Otherwise, you have
no way of knowing whether any effects that may be observed are due to
the vaccine or to something else in the injection.

He's got a point about the over-reliance on industry research; but I
don't know enough about US university research funding (and he is
talking about the US) to know how to fix that, and I don't think he
addressed that issue in the bit I heard. I didn't much like a recent
Canadian trial balloon about a proposed effort to improve research in
Canadian universities. And then he started going on with a lot of
emotive stuff about individual cases, and I tuned out. Literally.

Don't forget, a lot of us lived through times when many fewer vaccines
were available, and our experiences with diseases rather than vaccines
may not match yours - with or without 'propaganda'.

I don't suppose anyone would argue that conventional doctors don't make
fatal mistakes once in a while. I expect naturopaths do too. It's
important to be an informed consumer of medical care.

Which is why I forwarded the links.

Well, it was a nice thought, but I don't think I'll be changing my
opinion based on what that speaker said. He doesn't seem to know a whole
lot about research.

Oh - I didn't reach the bit where only 9% effectiveness was revealed.
I'm not sure how they measured it - figures I could find in a quick
search were based on the levels of response the blood had to an antibody
test before and afterwards, not on whether people got the flu. It would
be difficult to get that for this particular virus, since it's only just
now arriving in our part of the world in force. I doubt if that 9% an 0%
were calculated based on any long-term double-blind study, in any case.
You'd have to have big sample sizes, and control for health and activity
and it would all be very complicated and expensive.

--
Cheryl

On Oct 29, 7:28*am, Cheryl wrote:
Fred Williams wrote:
* *If you'd taken the time you'd see that the peer reviewed studies were the
ones showing that the vaccine studies were peer reviewed and shown to
havelittle or no effect on whether or not the patients got the flu. *The
best one showed 9 % effective and the worst result was zero... no
effectiveness at all.

I listened to a little more. The speaker was upset because there aren't
any long-term double-blind experiments using vaccines. Double-blind
studies are the gold standard in experimental studies, but have serious
ethical limitations when used with humans. It's considered unethical to
do double-blind experiments on humans when the people who don't get the
treatment are at serious risks. This is the reason that when a treatment
starts showing real effectiveness early enough, the double-blind part of
the study is stopped and all patients are given the new treatment. He
said that the placebo, where one was used, wasn't really a placebo
because it contained everything except the vaccine itself. In order to
figure out if a substance causes a certain problem, everything *but*
that substance has to be including in the placebo. Otherwise, you have
no way of knowing whether any effects that may be observed are due to
the vaccine or to something else in the injection.

He's got a point about the over-reliance on industry research; but I
don't know enough about US university research funding (and he is
talking about the US) to know how to fix that, and I don't think he
addressed that issue in the bit I heard. I didn't much like a recent
Canadian trial balloon about a proposed effort to improve research in
Canadian universities. And then he started going on with a lot of
emotive stuff about individual cases, and I tuned out. Literally.

Don't forget, a lot of us lived through times when many fewer vaccines
were available, and our experiences with diseases rather than vaccines
may not match yours - with or without 'propaganda'.

I don't suppose anyone would argue that conventional doctors don't make
fatal mistakes once in a while. I expect naturopaths do too. It's
important to be an informed consumer of medical care.

* *Which is why I forwarded the links.

Well, it was a nice thought, but I don't think I'll be changing my
opinion based on what that speaker said. He doesn't seem to know a whole
lot about research.

Oh - I didn't reach the bit where only 9% effectiveness was revealed.
I'm not sure how they measured it - figures I could find in a quick
search were based on the levels of response the blood had to an antibody
test before and afterwards, not on whether people got the flu. It would
be difficult to get that for this particular virus, since it's only just
now arriving in our part of the world in force. I doubt if that 9% an 0%
were calculated based on any long-term double-blind study, in any case.
You'd have to have big sample sizes, and control for health and activity
and it would all be very complicated and expensive.

--
Cheryl

Mine meowmie is a weetired Ar En an as such sez she suppurts da
hoomins geddink fwoo shots, butted she hass fownd da infurmashun
boutted da piggy fwoo to be, uh, a bit comfoozing an she jus' redd dis
ardikl dat shedds sum lite an is passink it on tew yoo, hoomins:
http://www.wanttoknow.info/health/swine_flu_cdc

I fink usses kitteez ar safe. Butted wantz ar meowmiez an pawz to be
safe tew. Meowmie pwotekked minesewf fwum da wabeez OUTbwek by gnot
awwowing me in da bak yard, ware da woods ar (I did skape wunc an hid
in da fikkit fur a widdl wile). Gnow Iam pwotekkink mine meowmie bye
gnot awwowing hersewf to go outted ob da hous, cept onna porch.
MeOwy, onna weigh to da sunspot to west an bild up mine helf.

I probably will get a flu shot, and an H1N1 shot if I can swing
it. I have asthma that gets worse in the winter, despite living
in South Florida. Although I've already had a mild case of the
flu already, I wouldn't want to get another, full-blown case of
it.

Thanks for posting those links, Fred. I don't believe anything
in them, but again, thanks for posting them anyway.

Debby Hanoka
aka ChildFree23
]

"Fred Williams" wrote in message
...
Below is a message I received from a friend and while I think
there
might be some issues with it, overall it voices a real
suspicion that
has already been in the back of my mind about this whole
affair. I had
already decided not to get the vaccine or any from now on. I
believe
this is typical of how the economy influences science to the
detriment
of us all.

Fred

-------- Forwarded Message --------

While the media is urging people to vaccinate, many people,
including
many doctors and nurses, are feeling wary of this shot for a
number of
reasons. These videos from October 13th show Gary Null
addressing the
NYS Assembly Hearing with some eye-opening viewpoints less
likely to
be heard on radio. It's in three parts.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3XlJB7J5-o



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch5OuzB9L48&NR=1



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAgWO2yq1k8&NR=1



--
Regards,
Fred
(remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email)