What's new

Flu vaccinations...

Flu vaccinations...

  • They're horseshit

    Votes: 3 25.0%
  • I'm unsure

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • I'll do whatever the doctor tells me to! derp.

    Votes: 5 41.7%
  • Believe but don't use

    Votes: 3 25.0%

  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .

Pervy

Dances with Girl-Cocks
RP Moderator
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
6,355
Reputation score
2,713
Primum non nocere was added later, in 17th century or something like that (don't care as much).
Uh, not quite. Primum non nocere sounds really cool and is easy to translate for most because its grammar matches the english language but that already should put up a warning light.
It's an oath translated from greek into latin into english and still loses none of it's meaning? Primum non nocere just sounds good and is easy to remember.

First do no harm is NOT in the oath at all, this is the actual passage of the oath relevant to harming a patient:
I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.
 
Last edited:

Zepheral

The Dark God Of Lesbians and Memes
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
5,963
Reputation score
18,908
Why do I get the feeling Slicer put this up knowing Pervy is sensitive about his fake doctor licence. :p
 

Pervy

Dances with Girl-Cocks
RP Moderator
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
6,355
Reputation score
2,713
Eh. If he keeps dramabaiting and adding little of value I'll just ignore him like I do that arrogant lurker thing, pretty close to that actually.
 
OP
super_slicer

super_slicer

Lord High Inquisitor
Staff member
H-Section Moderator
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
12,488
Reputation score
30,463
Why not prescribe yourself some burn cream?

Edit: I just consulted the only medical professional I trust :

 
Last edited:

Pervy

Dances with Girl-Cocks
RP Moderator
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
6,355
Reputation score
2,713
You keep this up Slicer, I wont let you play with my cool toys anymore.
 

Yoshiiki

Grim Reaper
Joined
Aug 29, 2016
Messages
1,004
Reputation score
647

Using shitpedia:
The origin of the phrase is uncertain. The includes the promise "to abstain from doing harm" ( : ἐπὶ δηλήσει δὲ καὶ ἀδικίῃ εἴρξειν) but does not include the precise phrase. Perhaps the closest approximation in the is in Epidemics:[SUP] [/SUP]"The physician must ... have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no harm" (book I, sect. 11, trans. Adams, : ἀσκέειν, περὶ τὰ νουσήματα, δύο, ὠφελέειν, ἢ μὴ βλάπτειν).
(...) Rather than being of ancient origin as usually assumed, the specific expression, and its even more distinctive associated Latin phrase, has been traced back to an attribution to (1624–1689) in a book by (1860), (...)

But yeah, as Pervy said, not a part of the oath, that's why it was below Noxamvero et maleficium propulsabo, thrown in as an extra that most people know.
 

BlueShinobi

Demon Girl Pro
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
143
Reputation score
54
Solo flu vaccinations are essentially worthless. Every study confirms this. They are only effective from a herd immunity stand point. You need at least 50% or so of the population inoculated before you see a drop in occurrence by anywhere between 0%(guessed wrong flu type) and 20%. Studies that examined patients where 90% of the staff and other patients had been vaccinated for the most common strain that year, saw a drop in occurrence of about 25%. Theoretically, if we could inoculate 100% of the population against the correct strain in a given year, we would probably see something like a 50% reduction.

Immunizing the entire staff and all patients in a nursing home can make sense. It should in the aggregate reduce flu occurrence, particularly in the patients because they should have limited exposure to people outside of the home.

Hospital staff, while less effective has some merit as well.

If nearly everyone you live and come in regular contact with all get it, and it happens to be the right strain, you should see a reduction in likelihood. But if you just randomly wander into Walgreens and get a flu shot, it's not going to do anything for you at all. Flu shots do nothing on a personal level, and only offer modest herd protection.
 

Yoshiiki

Grim Reaper
Joined
Aug 29, 2016
Messages
1,004
Reputation score
647
Sounds a lot like it's generalized too much. Do your data takes into account personal lifestyle/health before vaccination?
This is what 5 sec of google search got me:
" , recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to the flu vaccine. "
Link to the full thing:
Also this:
and this:
There is also a trend in those articles showing that effectiveness is actually dropping, there is some protection (up to 60% from as low as 10%) and I have to agree, it's better than nothing. Also, from personal experience, other than common cold I haven't gotten anything for years of seasonal vaccination. As soon as my lifestyle dropped and a lot of strain was put on my body, first flu season I got flu. Sure, it's not enough to use as a proper data, but in my view, it's not correct to assume that vaccines do not work "just because" where other factors can influence it. And assuming this research is being done in US, where 30% of people suffer from obesity and others are not that far after them, which suggest something far from healthy lifestyle.
It's just an assumption, but... Couldn't be a bad, unhealthy lifestyle be an extra factor to effect of vaccines dropping?
I would want to see data of vaccine effectiveness in different countries and health status of people for that country, but don't feel like burning time on it, so I am leaving this as a suggestion.
 
Last edited:

BlueShinobi

Demon Girl Pro
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
143
Reputation score
54
Sounds a lot like it's generalized too much. Do your data takes into account personal lifestyle/health before vaccination?
This is what 5 sec of google search got me:
" , recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to the flu vaccine. "
Link to the full thing:
Talk about the CDC lying based on their own articles.


We see a range from 52% WORSE to 53% better.
This one in particular:



RESULTS:
Influenza was detected in 167 (20%) of 818 patients in 2004-2005, in 51 (14%) of 356 in 2005-2006, and in 102 (11%) of 932 in 2006-2007. Analyses that used data from test-negative control subjects showed that VE was 10% (95% confidence interval [CI], -36% to 40%) in 2004-2005, 21% (95% CI, -52% to 59%) in 2005-2006, and 52% (95% CI, 22% to 70%) in 2006-2007. Using data from traditional control subjects, VE for those seasons was estimated to be 5% (95% CI, -52% to 40%), 11% (95% CI, -96% to 59%), and 37% (95% CI, -10% to 64%), respectively; confidence intervals included 0. The percentage of viruses that were antigenically matched to vaccine strains was 5% (3 of 62) in 2004-2005, 5% (2 of 42) in 2005-2006, and 91% (85 of 93) in 2006-2007.
Demonstrates one of the big problems with studies like this. Notice how 11% are *recorded* as having the virus. But, 37% of the general population was estimated to have it. And people who didn't get a vaccine were estimated to have it at a 52% rate. I can only read the abstract, but the only way I can image they came up with those estimates is based on the 11% of actual data they had, and asking if they'd been vaccinated or not. If so, we're not talking about 37 vs 52. We're talking about 9% vs 12% - extrapolated. If I told you "9% of people who were vaccinated were recorded to have developed flu, while 12% of those not vaccinated were recorded with flu" - what would be your conclusion? Statistical noise. And rightly so. You can't blow a 3% difference up by nearly 400% and call it good data.
 

Yoshiiki

Grim Reaper
Joined
Aug 29, 2016
Messages
1,004
Reputation score
647
Talk about the CDC lying based on their own articles.


We see a range from 52% WORSE to 53% better.
This one in particular:




Demonstrates one of the big problems with studies like this. Notice how 11% are *recorded* as having the virus. But, 37% of the general population was estimated to have it. And people who didn't get a vaccine were estimated to have it at a 52% rate. I can only read the abstract, but the only way I can image they came up with those estimates is based on the 11% of actual data they had, and asking if they'd been vaccinated or not. If so, we're not talking about 37 vs 52. We're talking about 9% vs 12% - extrapolated. If I told you "9% of people who were vaccinated were recorded to have developed flu, while 12% of those not vaccinated were recorded with flu" - what would be your conclusion? Statistical noise. And rightly so. You can't blow a 3% difference up by nearly 400% and call it good data.
True, something is weird. But then again, this data only applies to US, where I am still going to hang on shitty health lifestyle being one of the factors influencing it.

So I looked at similar information based on articles and data for my own country, few things that were mentioned that sound interesting (had to translate):
"(...) Most often side effects to flu vaccinations are: pain, reddening of skin and swelling around spot where vaccine was used. Less often, also short term side effects: fever, headache and muscle pain, which can keep going for up to 1 - 2 days. Often reactions like this are wrongly diagnosed as flu itself (...)".
Also, it seems that "(...) estimated number of people using vaccines is around 2-5% (because it's not known and based only on sales), while flu infections are kept as low as around up to 10% compared to other western countries where it can reach even as high as 50% (...)".
And here is another interesting piece
Compared to the data from my own country... All I can say is that US doesn't even know what hygiene is.

If someone asked me, I would say it is another (and in this case - important) factor of why it's not working as well. Poor general health, bad lifestyle, almost no hygiene... Any form of corruption and tinfoil hat theories aside. How in the hell, in those circumstances, vaccines are supposed to work effectively? And it's still NOTHING compared to African countries, where flu is highly effective at killing people... Gee, I wonder why?
Get your shit together people, look at yourself before finding something else to blame for your own fuckups.
 
Last edited:

Yoshiiki

Grim Reaper
Joined
Aug 29, 2016
Messages
1,004
Reputation score
647
"BadHabits... 54% of women admitted chewing gum" ok o_o
I agree, sounds stupid to call it a bad habit, but two things "(...) there are big divisions between men and women in habits which could be considered as negative. (...)", and second one being: depends on place. Just imagine business meeting where other side is chewing gum... then again, depends on people and other stuff.
Still... "In all, two in three (66%) of people shower once a day or more, (...)" 34% of such population number is a lot. this is just... just no.
Though, I do have to point out, that difference between men and women is similar here, numbers are different, but proportionally it's around the same. Interesting... Well, term "dirty whore" takes on a whole new meaning. Research makes a great setup for such things xD
 
OP
super_slicer

super_slicer

Lord High Inquisitor
Staff member
H-Section Moderator
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
12,488
Reputation score
30,463
I don't even fucking know guys, I just... REALLY? Like how you going to come up on me all unshowered and be like 'wanna fuck?'
 
Top