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 .
Oct 31, 2014
1,694
113
#2
I'm unsure how it is in the US, but we get them free and they usually work. :p Then again, I usually tough it out... Need 4th option - Sure but still don't use :D
 

Mr NunSense

Lesbian Admirer
Nov 16, 2015
270
43
#4
Personaly dont trust the white coats mostly. (Own experience) Gonna bring just one case not to bore

Ive been contacted by phone by a certain"health centre" im registered with. A Lady with nice voice told me they are TESTING new asthma medicine/inhaler. I refused to be the "paid" lab rat. Month or two later i went for the annual astma check(same health centre) and my doctor proposed me a new asthma inhaler "that many other people recommend as better that the one i used currently..."
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/34/34e420be1b862eaee90f8f31fd3136b555e034251f4984d2377c20ec95bd8313.jpg



 

Unknown Squid

Aurani's Wife
Nov 10, 2008
3,259
83
#5
You seriously made a topic questioning the legitimacy of vaccinations? FFS. You embarrass your nation with shit like this.
 

Pervy

Dances with Girl-Cocks
Moderator
Jan 21, 2016
4,282
83
#6
Whats next Slicer, warning us about chemtrails?
 

XSI

Lurker
Nov 10, 2008
2,176
63
#7
The way flu vaccines work is simple
At any point there are upwards of 40-50 flu strains out there. The experts made a guess which ones will be the most prevalent next season and then they make vaccines for those.

The experts are also frequently wrong, because there's a lot of strains and it's hard to predict.
Then there's a few businesses making money off it too, pushing for everyone to get those shots

And in the end, I never get one and I never get sick either. As far as I know nobody else here gets the things either
 

lurker

Hentai Master
Nov 9, 2008
5,012
63
#8
Well at least it wasn't jumping straight to 'aborted infants are being used in vaccines and even give you aids!' If you don't get them and don't get sick, well, so? The elderly and kids/families of large amounts of people don't get that lucky and could use the immune boost if it's available. While there is things to be said for over-care, which is why we're running into superbugs immune to the current generation of vaccines and drug treatments, but that's an entirely different tangent to rant with.
 

super_slicer

Tentacle God
Nov 17, 2010
3,234
113
#9
The way flu vaccines work is simple
At any point there are upwards of 40-50 flu strains out there. The experts made a guess which ones will be the most prevalent next season and then they make vaccines for those.

The experts are also frequently wrong, because there's a lot of strains and it's hard to predict.
Then there's a few businesses making money off it too, pushing for everyone to get those shots

And in the end, I never get one and I never get sick either. As far as I know nobody else here gets the things either
This is the exact argument I have against them. Not only can they be ineffective based on miscalculations on the part of the manufacturer, when it's found out that they are, nothing is done to correct this. In fact they're pushed HARDER to get rid of the excess stock of a defective product.



Well at least it wasn't jumping straight to 'aborted infants are being used in vaccines and even give you aids!' If you don't get them and don't get sick, well, so? The elderly and kids/families of large amounts of people don't get that lucky and could use the immune boost if it's available. While there is things to be said for over-care, which is why we're running into superbugs immune to the current generation of vaccines and drug treatments, but that's an entirely different tangent to rant with.
They... use dead babies in them? OH GODS YESSSSSSSS!

However, due to lackluster manufacturing practices many times the vaccination either does nothing or CAUSES the individual to contract what it's trying to prevent.
 
Oct 9, 2009
1,499
63
#10
The way flu vaccines work is simple
At any point there are upwards of 40-50 flu strains out there. The experts made a guess which ones will be the most prevalent next season and then they make vaccines for those.

The experts are also frequently wrong, because there's a lot of strains and it's hard to predict.
Then there's a few businesses making money off it too, pushing for everyone to get those shots

And in the end, I never get one and I never get sick either. As far as I know nobody else here gets the things either
How many people have you actually asked though? A thousand? A hundred? Just a handful? It's not like people walk around to announce that they have been vaccinated.

Besides, lottery tickets have an even lower chance and people still buy those. As long as they aren't too expensive I don't see why not just get the shots. It's not cheap to see the doctor either.
 

sex novice

Jungle Girl
Dec 4, 2016
9
0
#11
Personaly dont trust the white coats mostly. (Own experience) Gonna bring just one case not to bore

Ive been contacted by phone by a certain"health centre" im registered with. A Lady with nice voice told me they are TESTING new asthma medicine/inhaler. I refused to be the "paid" lab rat. Month or two later i went for the annual astma check(same health centre) and my doctor proposed me a new asthma inhaler "that many other people recommend as better that the one i used currently..."
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/34/34e420be1b862eaee90f8f31fd3136b555e034251f4984d2377c20ec95bd8313.jpg
I can't tell what you're suspecting. Here are my best guesses.

1. The inhaler got good reviews from the people who joined in the test, so now it's the inhaler they give people. This is evil because of self-selection bias? People who wouldn't like the new inhaler also wouldn't like the test, so they didn't get represented? This one seems most likely to me.
2. The "new" inhaler was really part of the test, which they were now secretly doing on people without asking? Why did they ask at first then?
3. The "test" was just a cover to give people an evil inhaler? Similar question: Why bother with the "test" and not skip to giving everyone the new inhaler?
 

super_slicer

Tentacle God
Nov 17, 2010
3,234
113
#12
Yeah, because there's no way a medical professional could have an ulterior motive right?
 

Mr NunSense

Lesbian Admirer
Nov 16, 2015
270
43
#13
I can't tell what you're suspecting. Here are my best guesses.

1. The inhaler got good reviews from the people who joined in the test, so now it's the inhaler they give people. This is evil because of self-selection bias? People who wouldn't like the new inhaler also wouldn't like the test, so they didn't get represented? This one seems most likely to me.
2. The "new" inhaler was really part of the test, which they were now secretly doing on people without asking? Why did they ask at first then?
3. The "test" was just a cover to give people an evil inhaler? Similar question: Why bother with the "test" and not skip to giving everyone the new inhaler?
My guess here is they couldn't get enough amount of people to test the inhaler on by recruiting by phone so later the doctors might recruit patients for them by saying everybody "loves it" while it is actually still being tested. Just saying there are all kind of doctors out there, good and bad.
 

Pervy

Dances with Girl-Cocks
Moderator
Jan 21, 2016
4,282
83
#14
My guess here is they couldn't get enough amount of people to test the inhaler on by recruiting by phone so later the doctors might recruit patients for them by saying everybody "loves it" while it is actually still being tested. Just saying there are all kind of doctors out there, good and bad.
Well be a chum and help me understand what your problem here is, not that I disagree that theres black sheep in every profession but what exactly did you want of the doctors there?
Should they have told you something along the line of 'This new spray sucks and you shouldn't use it'?
Perhaps they could get enough people to test because not everyone refused it like you, you seem to misunderstand something fundamentally here, the product you got was already tested in medical studies, else it would have never been approved of(at least not with modern regulations followed), 'would you like to test a new product' is medical slang for 'Ok, we got this new spray, we get a premier for shilling it, but it also proved to work better than the old one, now how do I get this over to the patient without them panicking about it?'

Nothing against some healthy scepticism and it's your health, but at the same time why do you think you posess more understanding of the matter than people that spent a good chunk of their life studying the subject? I can understand mistrusting a particularly shady doctor and getting a second opinion, but ignoring medical advice on a mistrust basis is foolish.
 

super_slicer

Tentacle God
Nov 17, 2010
3,234
113
#16
And yet there are medicines that cause you to bleed from your asshole... And that's not even the worst side affect one can experience from a substance that is intended to improve their health. Yet physicians prescribe them still.

Doesn't seem to live up to the hippocratic oath to me.
 

Mr NunSense

Lesbian Admirer
Nov 16, 2015
270
43
#17
Well be a chum and help me understand what your problem here is, not that I disagree that theres black sheep in every profession but what exactly did you want of the doctors there?
Should they have told you something along the line of 'This new spray sucks and you shouldn't use it'?
No Pervy, im not trying to play a smartass (but im doing a bad job i guess) just dont like being lied to. The inhaler might be the best one on the whole globe and i get your angle about maybe the test phase was finnished and stuff but isnt it a little strange that im being bothered with "annual asthma check letters once in...half year and a guy who went there(days later than i did and agreed to doctors offer to use the new, better one) and he told me he already had 3 letters saying "come back and leave feedback" in 2 months time?
 

Zepheral

Super Sand Lesbian
Jun 15, 2014
2,154
113
#18
They use to make me sick constantly as a kid.

When I got to be 18, never taken 1 since then. Now I hardy or almost never get sick.
 

Pervy

Dances with Girl-Cocks
Moderator
Jan 21, 2016
4,282
83
#19
And yet there are medicines that cause you to bleed from your asshole... And that's not even the worst side affect one can experience from a substance that is intended to improve their health. Yet physicians prescribe them still.

Doesn't seem to live up to the hippocratic oath to me.
Know what also does that? Untreated sicknesses. I doubt you even read the hippocratic oath but it doesn't say 'do no harm' else no surgeon would take it, it says treat sick folks 'to their benefit'. I dunno about you, but I'd not mind rectal bleeding if the alternative was a necrotizing fasciitis going untreated.
I don't know if you're being contrarian for contrarians sake, but here's the gist of it:
Every side effect is measured against positive effects in comparison, with the least side effects being reversible cosmetical changes, the most being death. Then, the frequency of the side effect and it's harmfulness is measured up against the illness we're treating, for example, a 90% of causing headaches and vomitting is an acceptable risk if the illness causes blindness. Similiarly it's ok if it causes a 1% rectal bleeding which is nonlethal to most, but still cures an illness that has a 10% or even 1% chance of making you blind.
Also, if you are talking about vaccinations in specific, listen up closely, because this bit is important: The only side effects a vaccination can give you is what the illness already would have given you anyway. (excluding rare allergic reactions to be precise). So basically, to get anal bleeding you need a vaccination to some serious gastro-intestinal infective diseases, which by the by can cause death through dehydration in old people and infants.

but isnt it a little strange that im being bothered with "annual asthma check letters once in...half year and a guy who went there(days later than i did and agreed to doctors offer to use the new, better one) and he told me he already had 3 letters saying "come back and leave feedback" in 2 months time?
Hey, not gonna lie, it is a bit odd, I got no clue what health system you act in and some of them are corrupt. I'm just telling you not to overthink these things either, what stops you from giving the new thing a try and saying it's crap if it is.
 
Last edited:

Yoshiiki

Grim Reaper
Aug 29, 2016
773
93
#20
Noxamvero et maleficium propulsabo.
Primum non nocere.
Primum non nocere was added later, in 17th century or something like that (don't care as much).
First one should be more important. Also... EVERY medicine has a list of all known side effects and warnings who should and shouldn't take it. People are expected to read that and use their brain. When I am concerned about effects of a medicine, I will call/visit a doc with that medicine and say my concerns while he/she checks my medical history. Always have limited trust and concerns if you feel there should be any. Not because doctors are quacks most of time, but because they are just humans. Shitload of patients every day can cause a mistake. Be responsible, talk about medical history, say your concerns. Sometimes few words can save you from something and a doc from making a mistake.
And from time to time, there will be that one quack not suited for his/her job, if that happens it's important to remove that person from medical field, indefinitely.