Forgot to say…I’ve decided last Year and this Year not to take the flu’ jab…Do not want to put any kind of drugs into My body that are not needed…I don’t take any kind of drugs except the occasional paracetemol for OS pain…Am I right or wrong?..who knows…I sure don’t:102:
Tpin, this is exactly my point! Having a flu jab is a personal choice, and trying to tell people it is a waste of time could put them at risk if they listened to Realists strong approval of the report he appears to be “selling”.
Pats has made it clear how important it is to some people, where current illness can make the Flu considerably worse. I can produce reports that categorically state that you cannot catch flu from the flu jab and I understand why that is the case, but it just depends on which of reports you choose to believe. Nearly all jabs inject a live disease in very small quantities, which automatically causes your body to produce antibodies to kill the disease and retain some antibodies for possible future attacks. This is done by giving you a mild dose of the disease… that most people don’t not even notice and the result is immunity for life in nearly all cases.
The flu jab has been created to enable it to improve your production of antibodies should you get the flu (so does not inject the live flu virus), and they use the most likely 5 or 6 flu strains each year… so the flu jab wont help if you get a different strain of flu, which is unlikely.
I do wonder how many people, who oppose it, will continue to oppose it if the news reports that people are dying from a flu bug when an epidemic occurs. Fortunately, those who have already had their flu jabs won’t need to put further pressure on the health service!
We each make our own choice, but I don’t think anybody should try to influence our choices when they have no inside knowledge of internet reports!
There you go, a simpleton like me gets misled very easily.
I was even going to cancel mine until my son pointed out I don’t have a flu-jab:shock:
I should have had a flu’jab last Saturday, (even went to my surgery for it), but I have a chest infection and am not well enough (so the Doctor said) to have it done just yet.
So did I never will have it again.
Good heavens. That is one thing that we have in common.
I also carry a Leatherman with me all the time. :shock:
I am told that shingles is associated with chicking pox if one has had it in the past.
The flu jab protects you against the Flu the Boffins think is Going to be the flu that hits us in the Winter
Does not protect you if the flu transforms into another type.
On the Whole think its a waste of time and money.
That often happens to me UJ, but you should be able to get your jab as soon as your temperature goes down and you are feeling a bit better.
Typical ‘nasty party’ idealogy - have to reduce everything to a monetary value.
Galty no the yearly formulated vaccine doesn’t protect against all strains of flu just those the WHO have deemed to be prevalent in one particular year. Neither does it give 100% protection from flu but if you do catch it when vaccinated it should be a milder form .
I am pretty sure if I get the flu I will end up in hospital or worse. I have a condition which means I am susceptible to chest infections and one in particular which does not respond to antibiotics.
Like many people I will always choose to have the vaccination because I think the risk from my not having it is greater than having it.
I am always first in the queue for the vaccination and go to the surgery early in the day to avoid the risk of picking up a respiratory infection when I am there. The vaccination does not provide instant protection, it takes 2 weeks to build immunity and people sometimes pick up an infection during that time then blame it on the vaccination.
I have been advised by people I trust that having the vaccination is my best chance of staying well so I will be taking their advice :-).
I belong to the group which declines the annual offer. Twice I had the jab and twice I was seriously ill afterwards. Nowadays I tell the doctor that I’d rather have the flu.
Meg I think that you and I work on the theory that prevention is better than cure!
We get a vaccine for the flu(s) you Northern Hemisphere types got the previous six months. Occasionally our vaccine is delayed (last year) because you got a new late strain and the Commonwealth Serum Labs (and private labs) want to add it to the vaccine.
Unless one is made ill by flu jabs, I think that is the correct approach.
I agree. I know that a lot of people pick up viruses, that are similar to the common cold, around the same time of year as the flu jabs are given. Many feel that the flu jab has caused this illness, especially as people with health problems, who need the jab, are likely to suffer more with virus infections.
Where people have an allergy to eggs, the jab can cause problems, but otherwise there is no logical reason for the jab to cause problems… so maybe the medical profession should do tests to establish what is causing the patients ill health, as it may be nothing to do with the jab.
Wow you really do seem to have a bee in your bonnet in regards to the Flu Jab. Almost as if you are part of the industry that produces it !
Once again, all I have done is present the facts that are out there. I’m not telling anyone to have a jab or to not have a jab. What I AM recommending is that people THINK and do so OBJECTIVELY and not emotionally and thereby assess the information that is freely available.
For some unknown reason you seem to not want people to think and to objectively assess the flu jab. I really can’t think why you would want that. It is, imo, vitally important to properly assess and research anything in relation to one’s health.
I totally agree. However no-one here, afaik, has suggested that people will catch flu from the jab so it seems odd to bring that up.
The primary issue concerning the jab is that the scientific data, which covers 1000s of individual flu jab studies involving millions of people, concludes that the flu jab is essentially useless, ineffective and will only help 1 in 75-100 people. Everything else being discussed is really just smoke and mirrors and anecdotal excuses for ignoring that data.
I can answer you here immediately. I will be ignoring news reports and looking only at reliable scientific studies that look at number of deaths specifically caused by the flu bug vs number of people who avoided the virus as a direct result of having the vaccine (which requires blood samples from the participants).
Again facts speak loud and clear here. Such studies HAVE already been done in previous years and have concluded that the numbers of people who have died is NO DIFFERENT to the number that would have died under normal circumstances. I would go and find the link to those studies but in your case I know you aren’t interested in scientific fact, only in un-objective beliefs.
Unfortunately that’s baloney and the scientific facts prove it.
This is the problem with speculative rhetoric that comes from fear and emotional reasoning.
Again I will provide the link to the internationally respected Cochrane report (which of course you will duly ignore):
Key Results
“Vaccination shows no appreciable effect on working days lost or hospitalisation.”
I’m afraid that in the end, you are not arguing from a position of strength which is unwise imo.
People need to properly assess the available information concerning all vaccines, and to think and reason objectively and then make the right decision for their personal circumstances.
You appear to be trying to steer people away from the available data which is frankly a strange thing to do.
Could, may, noticeable, significant, etc etc.
zzzzzzzz
Realist, I don’t choose to argue with somebody who thinks he knows it all, especially when his only knowledge is something he picked up off the internet.
You have directed people to this report, so they can read it if they choose, but I really believe that continually pushing it is just trying to get folk to see it your way.
I prefer to let people make their own decisions, based on information they gain from many different sources, after all the Cochrane report will not be the first medical report that could be shown to be wrong!
Most people over 50 already know where to get advice on such matters, so whilst you have mentioned this report so often, do you not think it would be wise to now let them make up their own minds, based on ideas that may differ from your own?
Hi
Well if it is true that only 1 in a hundred works, I am going back to the Doc’s to demand another 99.
It’s not “my way”. I realise that makes it intensely frustrating for you because I can sense you really want to be able to diss this whole thing, but you know you can’t. Saying
that a report from an internationally respected medical research company “will not be the first medical report that could be shown to be wrong!” is frankly puerile in the extreme and demonstrates that you are not being objective in your reasoning.
Me too. I welcome as many reliable sources of info on the flu jab as possible. Let’s have them, post them up so we can objectively appraise them and thereby make more informed decisions.
lols ideas ?!!
Like I said. You are refusing or unable to be objective. Like I said, lets have as much data and info as we can. Scientific, peer reviewed data.