Re: Flu Jab time

Really sorry to hear you've had so much trouble Julie, but other posters are totally correct, the flu vaccine DOES NOT treat infections. A viral vaccine no more treats chest infection than an antibiotic treats a virus.

This is quite a serious point which you need to take on board.

The ceasing of your chest infections is due to some other factor which I would encourage you to seek out and identify. You can ask your GP directly how an anti-viral flu vaccine could possibly treat or stay a chest infection. He/she would need to be 100% truthful otherwise they will be in deep trouble. I encourage you to ask the question and challenge them and if you do please report back here.

It makes no difference Julie. Again I point people to the Cochrane systematic review of the flu vaccine which included clinical trials of over 70,000 people. In it's conclusions it states:

"Vaccination had . . . no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates."

You will of course do what you feel is right for you but it is important to be fully informed. Your defence against chest infection and pneumonia is primarily dependent on the state you keep your immune system in. It also depends on what medications you immediately reach for when you get an infection with accompanying fever. It you are reaching for tablets which bring down the fever then imo you are harming yourself and liable to put yourself in hospital.

Re: Flu Jab time

GP's advise the flu jab because they are either totally ignorant of the proven truth about the efficacy of the vaccine or because they are simply a part of the big business machine that is now the health service.

The NHS and medical institutions are no longer philanthropic organisations with your health at the top of their agenda. They are now controlled by Big Pharma companies who will do anything it takes to sell their products to the nation.
It is a business, plain and simple and you are the punter/customer they are seeking to peddle their wares to.

Please take a look at this presentation by the CDC which highlights how they purposefully planned to put fear and alarm in the heart and minds of the population in order that they could increase demand for the vaccine. Scroll down to about slides 27-35 to see their "recipe".

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19212191/2004-flu-nowak

Re: Flu Jab time

The pneumonia jab protects your airways is how it was explained to me and the flu jab along side it was recommended as I was at risk of death if I contracted flu. You can say whatever you wish but I know what is working for me.

Honestly this forum is enough to drive a person mad doesn't seem to matter what works for me someone has to contradict it !

Re: Flu Jab time

As I only take prescribed medicines due to having so many allergies I think I will give up here as you want so badly to say it doesn't work when I know it does for me I will let you just carry on rubbishing it all and just carry on enjoying reasonable health.

Re: Flu Jab time

No worries Julie

I think you confused people when you said you'd had a lot of chest infections and were recommended the flu jab as if that had been recommended as a solution to the infections.

The Pneumonia jab is presumably the thing that is combatting the chest infections, the flu jab is a total red herring on that front. I haven't looked into the pneumonia jab and I won't bother at this point.

I am saddened to note, again, that the decision to have the flu jab or not is based on fear, on the threat that a dose of the flu might kill you. I think this fear-mongering campaign is awful and I can see why you are concerned and anxious.

The problem is that the proven reality is that the flu jab is unlikely to help you as it only helps 1 in 71 people (or 1 in 100 according to some studies). The bigger problem is that some studies claim that the jab can also make you more prone to certain flu strains meaning you will be more likely to contract those strains. It's Russian Roulette.

The Pneumonia jab appears to be working for you which is great. The flu jab is a whole different matter.

Re: Flu Jab time

But it turned into a debate nonetheless. Someone made comment about what the vaccine could and could not treat, then someone queried the ingredients, then Meg made a post about some of the ingredients and then I posted about the more toxic ingredients that Meg failed to list and we went on from there. Not sure what your point is TBH. Are you suggesting there should not have been any debate ? Isn't that the purpose of the forum?

Re: Flu Jab time

[QUOTE=Realist;714656]I'm aware of that thank you however I also note in your own site discussion guidelines you clearly state:

we frequently give serious and controversial topics a good airing! Usually these take place in the Discussions forum, though they can sometimes be found in other sections too.

Your comments are therefore somewhat confusing. It is not clear whether you are wanting to veto discussion of topics from all forum sections that are not the "Discussion" section. That doesn't make a lot of sense TBH. I would think that in the Science section we should find good strong discussions about science or technologies, similarly in the Health section one would expect discussion of all manner of health related topics many of which are controversial of course. It's not at all clear what you are suggesting as a result. If someone starts a thread in the health section called "The Flu Jab" would we not expect hearty discussion about the Flu Jab?
What makes your stance here even harder to comprehend is that it seems to be based on people's individual contributions to a thread rather than the thread itself. You clearly don't mind someone starting up a thread in the Health section called The Flu Jab or Healing Energies but if people want to actually discuss those topics you're suggesting it has to go in the Discussions section? That makes no sense. If you could explain your criteria a little further perhaps I could understand better.

Another quote from your own guidelines:

When someone gives an opinion about which you feel strongly, you may deconstruct it, dissect it and even disparage and denounce it, but do not under any circumstances denounce them personally for holding it

I don't feel overly strongly about this particular topic but nevertheless have asked the OP to explain the "healing energies" that is the topic of this thread. That is imo entirely reasonable.

Again your own guidelines refer:

6. Back up your claims.
If you are claiming something that is likely to be disputed, then where possible, link to sources to back up your claim. It may not represent the absolute 100% definitive proof (it may be just one study, for instance) but it will at least add some credence to your point, and help move the debate forward.

So again, I have simply asked for some explanation or source that backs up these "healing energy" practices. Again fair and reasonable.

I note also that you make no comment in regards to people hurling insults and disparagements such as:

" totally self-centred man, with no love, or desire to help a living soul. What a very sad way to be."

Such comments are very much against your guidelines and Ts&Cs are they

In the above post you say The Flu Jab was a discussion thread...well I will use your familiar quote 'TBH' it wasn't...... Again repeating myself it was a health reminder for whoever wanted a flu jab that it was time to have it.

I've stopped reading your long drawn out posts...not got the time or inclination for one sided conversations. I told you my husband was bedridden every year until he started the flu jabs....your response..nil. I told you my cousin died of Swine Flu .....nil again but still spouting ppl where having flu jabs through fear of dying.......ppl do die of flu.

Re: Flu Jab time

Hi Gabi

Thanks for your thoughts.

Just so you know, when you hit the Quote button you can edit the text that appears so that only the bit of the quote you are interested in is displayed.

Ok your points . . .

Not really sure of your point here. It almost sounds like you want to start up a thread called X and in doing so have it controlled so people don't talk about Y. For example if you start a discussion in the Gardening section called "My Roses" you don't want people turning that into a discussion about say Daffodils ! I think you're onto a loser in such desires. People will talk about what they want to talk about as it's a free world and because forums like these are all about discussion. There IS a valid case for grievance if someone takes a thread off on a completely different tangent. For example if someone starts discussing cars in your "My Roses" thread. This is known as thread hi-jacking.
I don't think the Flu-Jab thread was hi-jacked in any sense. The discussion was all about the flu-jab and it developed in its own way regardless of how you personally might have intended that thread to progress.

No problem at all. It's a free forum, read or ignore whatever posts seem fit to you.

I'm sorry your husband suffered Gabi, sincerely, and I am well aware that people die from flu and swine-flu and a host of other conditions.

What you must understand is that anecdotal evidence or limited case evidence is not sufficient to ascertain whether any given medicine is effective or not. I know it is a personal and emotional issue for you and I hope you can stand back and appraise this rationally. You need to test a lot of people and conduct a lot of randomised test cases to know if a medicine is safe and effective. Those tests have been done and the results are as I have posted. You will believe what you wish of course and that's fine, but the facts remain.

ATB

Re: Flu Jab time

God willing I'm going for my flu jab next year and I'm telling no-one...........can't stand all this stuff being rammed down my throat by a total stranger who Thinks he knows it all, not only that but I must agree with his ramblings.

I don't think he's noticed my signature at the bottom.......says it all don't it?

Re: Flu Jab time

Sigh.

I don't think anything Gabi. I am simply highlighting the somewhat indisputable evidence taken from the systematic review of some 70,000 people and I have provided links to that source material. You on the other hand have cited . . . . absolutely nothing save your own scientific study of . . . 1 person.

Please don't berate me or disparage me for highlighting that research. It's not my research, it is that of an internationally respected company. Doing so just makes you look silly. DIspute the research by all means but for goodness sake put up your evidence which supports it.

Ah you mean the one that says "be alerts" . . . plural. Yes, does say it all really ! It's called being hoised by your own petard !

Let's wrap this up Gabi because discussion of flu jab here is hi-jacking a thread about "healing energies". Bottom line is this, as with Megs, I don't care/mind one iota if you choose to have the vaccine in the vague hope that you or those you love get to be the 1 person in 100 that the vaccine will benefit. Your choice, your body, it's a free world. I've highlighted useful research, that's all I can do.