Medical Industrial Complex and Vaccines Medical Industrial Complex and Vaccines - Page 10

starting strength gym
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 102

Thread: Medical Industrial Complex and Vaccines

  1. #91
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Murphysboro, IL
    Posts
    29,422

    Default

    • wichita falls texas june seminar date
    • woodmere new york july seminar date
    • las vegas nevada august seminar
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaimi Kuenzli View Post
    How many magnets do I need in my pockets to simulate this effect? Do I use standard fridge magnets or should I go for neodymium?
    Dilthium crystals maaan.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Farmington Hills, MI
    Posts
    4,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yngvi View Post
    That study is not an observation. It is a mathematical modeling of RCTs showing benefit that the authors believe (based, again, on modeling and NOT evidence) were "implausible." My takeaway from the abstract is that a number of RCTs do in fact show benefit. Moreover, as the authors of the study you cite clearly state:

    "The HCW-attributable risk and vaccine-preventable fraction both remain unknown and the NNV to achieve patient benefit still requires better understanding."

    They then go on to make an astonishing philosophical claim:

    "Although current scientific data are inadequate to support the ethical implementation of enforced HCW influenza vaccination..."

    This is an ethical assertion, not an empirical one, and not even accompanied by a substantive ethical argument (to the extent that such a thing even exists). It should be laughed out of court.

    Influenza vaccination is very safe, and although its efficacy is highly variable, I think it is trivial to formulate and counter with an ethical argument for HCW vaccination (as indeed many have done), which would, by its very nature as an ethical argument, be just that: arguable, and highly dependent on the value-system of the individual.

    Finally, I think it would be remiss of us not to link to the the excellent published response (in the same journal) equal time:

    Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Workers Is an Important Approach for Reducing Transmission of Influenza from Staff to Vulnerable Patients

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Look upon the CDC vaccination schedule, and despair.

    I've not yet found a health care provider willing to inject their right thigh with 1/4 cup of vaccine compounds. CDC recommends six injections at 0.5ml each for an 11lb 2mo baby. 3ml = 0.0127 cups, so 0.0127c x (200lb adult / 11lb infant) = 0.23 cups.

    "But that's not how it works" said one pediatrician. Well, no shit, you should get even more: the conversion is conservative because infants' heads are massively greater in proportion to yours.

    After watching the nurse turn baby #1 into a pincushion at 3 months, I swore "never again" and stretched out that CDC schedule from 15 months to 5 years for the next two kids, with at least 3 months between injections, no more than two injections at one time, and for combo injections, that was the only one injected that quarter.

    Does that make me anti-vax?

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vek View Post
    Does that make me anti-vax?
    Nah, just someone with healthy doubts about jabbing a baby with needle after needle.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vek View Post
    Look upon the CDC vaccination schedule, and despair.

    I've not yet found a health care provider willing to inject their right thigh with 1/4 cup of vaccine compounds. CDC recommends six injections at 0.5ml each for an 11lb 2mo baby. 3ml = 0.0127 cups, so 0.0127c x (200lb adult / 11lb infant) = 0.23 cups.

    "But that's not how it works" said one pediatrician. Well, no shit, you should get even more: the conversion is conservative because infants' heads are massively greater in proportion to yours.

    After watching the nurse turn baby #1 into a pincushion at 3 months, I swore "never again" and stretched out that CDC schedule from 15 months to 5 years for the next two kids, with at least 3 months between injections, no more than two injections at one time, and for combo injections, that was the only one injected that quarter.

    Does that make me anti-vax?
    You’re supposed to just go along with what the cdc and drs say. No grey area...either you’re on board or ANTI-Vaccine in their minds. Look at the responses of dr Sully. Same thing. They Just shout louder expletives when someone asks questions like “why has the cdc recommended we give SO many injections to infants?” Or why should people be compelled to take flu shot when they see the WEAK efficacy data year after year.

    But, at the end of the day, I’m just gonna move forward and continue to do my own research and consult with Drs who arent Medical Industrial complex lackeys instead of being a sheep.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    41,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gbraddock View Post
    Or why should people be compelled to take flu shot when they see the WEAK efficacy data year after year.
    This really hasn't penetrated, has it?

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathon Sullivan View Post
    That study is not an observation. It is a mathematical modeling of RCTs showing benefit that the authors believe (based, again, on modeling and NOT evidence) were "implausible." My takeaway from the abstract is that a number of RCTs do in fact show benefit. Moreover, as the authors of the study you cite clearly state:

    "The HCW-attributable risk and vaccine-preventable fraction both remain unknown and the NNV to achieve patient benefit still requires better understanding."

    They then go on to make an astonishing philosophical claim:

    "Although current scientific data are inadequate to support the ethical implementation of enforced HCW influenza vaccination..."

    This is an ethical assertion, not an empirical one, and not even accompanied by a substantive ethical argument (to the extent that such a thing even exists). It should be laughed out of court.

    Influenza vaccination is very safe, and although its efficacy is highly variable, I think it is trivial to formulate and counter with an ethical argument for HCW vaccination (as indeed many have done), which would, by its very nature as an ethical argument, be just that: arguable, and highly dependent on the value-system of the individual.

    Finally, I think it would be remiss of us not to link to the the excellent published response (in the same journal) equal time:

    Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Workers Is an Important Approach for Reducing Transmission of Influenza from Staff to Vulnerable Patients

    That study was an observation of flawed study methods broadly informing legal and medical opinion. Manipulated data is a RED FLAG. When the numbers or modelling must be exaggerated to prove a point, they make absolutely no sense in any real-world, practical scenario. They are useless. It reminds me of the climate change models that predicted the earth would be destroyed by 2010 or 2020 (or has the consensus been changed to total destruction before 2030 now?). Whatever your position is on climate change, it is undeniable that the models were wrong and thus were unreliable. It reeks of fear-mongering and biased advocacy.

    From the response:

    "The strategy to encourage influenza vaccination for health care workers is partly based on the simple notion that this can reduce the risk of staff acquiring and transmitting influenza to vulnerable patients and thereby reduce associated morbidity and mortality."

    Shouldn't the mandate be based on evidence, rather than a "simple notion"?

    If mandatory influenza vaccination (or mass influenza vaccination for the population in general) is effective, then why have we not seen an indisputable, corresponding drop in infection and death rates? In the the 1980, the vaccination rate may have been as low as 2% for health care workers. It apparently peaked in 2014 at almost 86%. There are many hospitals and clinics with mandatory vaccination policies where the rate exceeds 95%.

    The fact of the matter is that historical death rates from the flu dropped much more quickly before the vaccine was available. There was a large drop from 1900 to 1980 or even from 1960 to 1980s. The drop since then has been small, if any drop has actually been seen.

    Shouldn't there have been a clear trend over the past 40 years? As the vaccination rate passed 90% at a growing number of clinics (over 75% of hospitals and clinics achieved this rate), shouldn't the infection and death rates have dropped correspondingly? (All of the infection and death rate data is widely available through CDC etc, so I feel no need to post its source)

    If you look at comparative data looking at hospitals which have not implemented mandatory policies vs those which have, many studies find no difference in infection or death rate.

    It is a controversial issue:

    What, in Fact, Is the Evidence That Vaccinating Healthcare Workers against Seasonal Influenza Protects Their Patients? A Critical Review

    Mandatory Flu Vaccine for Healthcare Workers: Not Worthwhile

    The anonymous poll in this one is interesting. Considering its source, it is likely that 90%+ respondents were healthcare professionals: almost 50% supported mandatory vaccination and almost 50% opposed.

    https://www.bmj.com/bmj/section-pdf/..._Head.full.pdf


    Of course, it is professionally dangerous to oppose influenza vaccination policies in any way. It could cost you promotions, grants, respect and make a lot more unnecessary work for yourself.

    Sully, if this topic had come up 3 months ago, I would have agreed with you on mass influenza vaccination. My opinion has changed as I have researched it more.

    I understand the arguments in favour and still think it is reasonable for another person to come to that conclusion, but I disagree with it.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    This really hasn't penetrated, has it?
    I guess he missed the part about 80% of pediatric deaths from flu occurring in unvaccinated children...

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    This really hasn't penetrated, has it?
    Yep. It has. LONG AGO. Like years. It’s why I take the damn flu shot Mark. But sometimes requiring things are a violation of your civil liberties. I haven’t looked into the cases here but I do know there have been lawsuits about this.

    You own your own business but can’t tell someone they are told old, dark, religious, whatever. That’s the territory this gets into.

    This article basically summarizes my entire reason for creating the thread...read it and tell me where the separation is from the libertarian “boys and men”.

    Ron Paul: Why vaccine mandates are dangerous

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    41,061

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Goddamn, Braddock. If a job here at my gym requires my employees to be vaccinated because I think that I don't want to be around unvaccinated people in my gym, and they don't want to be vaccinated, they look for another job. Kinda like how they don't have to get vaccinated, I don't have to pay them. Nothing is mandated in a free employment market. Not that complicated. Mandated is when the government says you have to get vaccinated. If you have to get the kids vaccinated to put them in the government schools, you get to decide how bad you want them in the government schools.

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •