 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / October 2005UK Nurses Say No to Flu Vaccine
E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNITED WAY/COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN #8122 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Protecting the health and informed consent rights of children since 1982." ============================================================================ ============== BL Fisher Note: It is interesting to note that the UK nurses, like US nurses, don't want to take the flu vaccine. Being highly educated health care professionals with access to medical care, they certainly understand the "benefits" and "risks" of flu vaccination. Voting with their feet, they just say no and that should give everyone pause to consider what they know that those lining up at doctor's offices and health care clinics for flu vaccinations don't know. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4260138.stm BBC, UK Monday, 19 September 2005 Nurses 'not taking flu vaccine' Many staff did not think they needed the flue jab. Vulnerable elderly patients could be at risk of catching flu from nurses who have not been vaccinated against the virus, a report has said. Research at two Liverpool hospitals found less than 8% of healthcare workers had annual jabs. But more than half had taken sick leave due to flu-type symptoms in the previous three months. The research, published in the Journal of Clinical Nursing, did not name the hospitals where staff were surveyed. The report's authors said increased vaccination of hospital staff would ease staffing crises during the winter. Many of the respondents appeared to demonstrate general apathy towards the flue vaccination Dr Helen Canning Of the 144 staff interviewed, 29% said they did not need to be vaccinated and 18% said they were not aware of the vaccine. Only 10% knew the vaccine would protect patients against the serious complications of flu and 11% of staff were concerned about side effects of the jab. "Vaccinating healthcare workers against flu can reduce staff sickness and winter pressures as well as reducing deaths among frail older patients," said Dr Helen Canning, who carried out the research at the University of Liverpool. "Our study found that the main reason for poor vaccine uptake was a basic lack of knowledge and understanding of the vaccine, especially regarding benefits and side-effects. "Many of the respondents appeared to demonstrate general apathy towards the flue vaccination." ============================================= News@nvic.org is a free service of the National Vaccine Information Center and is supported through membership donations. Learn more about vaccines, diseases and how to protect your informed consent rights http://www.nvic.org Become a member and support NVIC's work https://www.nvic.org/making%20cash%20donations.htm To sign up for a free e-mail subscription http://www.nvic.org/emaillist.htm To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to news-request@nvic.org and type UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the email. NVIC is funded through individual membership donations and does not receive government funding. Barbara Loe Fisher, President and Co-founder. NOTE: This is not an interactive e-mail list. Please do not respond to messages. > E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER > Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > NOTE: This is not an interactive e-mail list. Please do not respond to > messages. a friend of mine works in a public school. the employees regularly get annual and/or ad hoc flu vaccinations. the friend never gets the shots and never gets sick. hasn't had to take a sick day in years. up to one third to one half of those who get the shots get sick afterwards and many have to take sick time off as a result. the friend takes copious amounts of vitamin c daily. TC > E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER > Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > #8122 > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * My firm used to deduct for a United Way campaign. I asked them to ensure that this nefarious group was not the recipient of our donations, and they refused. No more deductions. > "Protecting the health and informed consent rights of children since 1982." > [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > NOTE: This is not an interactive e-mail list. Please do not respond to > messages. >Many staff did not think they needed the flue jab. Then they will probably catch chimney and have to take time off from work.  SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com >E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER >Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >"Protecting the health and informed consent rights of children since 1982." And doing its utmost to see that they don't get vaccinated. Actually, this one is pretty amusing. John, as usual, screws up and claims that "UK Nurses Say No to Flu Vaccine." Implying, of course, that they know all about the vaccine and are refusing it because they're afraid of it. Good old Barbara Fisher does the same. In fact, the article makes clear that the nurses aren't all that well-informed (rather alarming in its own right, in my opinion), and aren't getting the vaccine because they aren't aware of the reasons that they should. How could 18% be "unaware of the vaccine?" What, do they live in caves? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth >============================================================================ >============== [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >NOTE: This is not an interactive e-mail list. Please do not respond to >messages. > >E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER > >Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > that they should. How could 18% be "unaware of the vaccine?" What, > do they live in caves? The national health service is government run healthcare. No mention was made to the fact that caregivers can transfer the flu to patients who are already sick. The nurse may have a subclinical mild case and still work spreading the virus to everybody. I would not be a very happy camper having a nurse like that work on my family in the hospital. > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > >NOTE: This is not an interactive e-mail list. Please do not respond to > >messages. >> >E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER >> >Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> that they should. How could 18% be "unaware of the vaccine?" What, >> do they live in caves? David as usual FALSELY blames John for something he did NOT do. David owes John an apology! Actaully what John did was made a post. Here it is again in full. I missed it the first time E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNITED WAY/COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN #8122 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Protecting the health and informed consent rights of children since 1982." ============================================================================ ============== BL Fisher Note: It is interesting to note that the UK nurses, like US nurses, don't want to take the flu vaccine. Being highly educated health care professionals with access to medical care, they certainly understand the "benefits" and "risks" of flu vaccination. Voting with their feet, they just say no and that should give everyone pause to consider what they know that those lining up at doctor's offices and health care clinics for flu vaccinations don't know. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4260138.stm BBC, UK Monday, 19 September 2005 Nurses 'not taking flu vaccine' Many staff did not think they needed the flue jab. Vulnerable elderly patients could be at risk of catching flu from nurses who have not been vaccinated against the virus, a report has said. Research at two Liverpool hospitals found less than 8% of healthcare workers had annual jabs. But more than half had taken sick leave due to flu-type symptoms in the previous three months. The research, published in the Journal of Clinical Nursing, did not name the hospitals where staff were surveyed. The report's authors said increased vaccination of hospital staff would ease staffing crises during the winter. Many of the respondents appeared to demonstrate general apathy towards the flue vaccination Dr Helen Canning Of the 144 staff interviewed, 29% said they did not need to be vaccinated and 18% said they were not aware of the vaccine. Only 10% knew the vaccine would protect patients against the serious complications of flu and 11% of staff were concerned about side effects of the jab. "Vaccinating healthcare workers against flu can reduce staff sickness and winter pressures as well as reducing deaths among frail older patients," said Dr Helen Canning, who carried out the research at the University of Liverpool. "Our study found that the main reason for poor vaccine uptake was a basic lack of knowledge and understanding of the vaccine, especially regarding benefits and side-effects. "Many of the respondents appeared to demonstrate general apathy towards the flue vaccination." ============================================= N...@nvic.org is a free service of the National Vaccine Information Center and is supported through membership donations. Learn more about vaccines, diseases and how to protect your informed consent rights http://www.nvic.org Become a member and support NVIC's work https://www.nvic.org/making%20cash%20donations.htm To sign up for a free e-mail subscription http://www.nvic.org/emaillist.htm To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to news-requ...@nvic.org and type UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the email. NVIC is funded through individual membership donations and does not receive government funding. Barbara Loe Fisher, President and Co-founder. NOTE: This is not an interactive e-mail list. Please do not respond to messages. > The national health service is government run healthcare. > [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] >> >NOTE: This is not an interactive e-mail list. Please do not respond to >> >messages. >Actaully what John did was made a post. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER Just for the sake of morbid curiosity: How've you managed to post again in full an article that you report to have missed the first time? If you'd missed an earlier post, wouldn't you be requesting that someone else repost it in full? @~ >>Actaully what John did was made a post. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > @~ No, I went back and looked it up. What is so morbid curious about that? >No, I went back and looked it up. > >What is so morbid curious about that? It's a demonstration of my morbid curiosity in that I never expected your response to reveal salient data. Obviously, you'd already seen the article. Apparently, you felt it necessary that everyone see it again here. Knowing this, I was nevertheless compelled to ask; why? I was not unlike a rubbernecking driver, morbidly curious in passing the roadside collision. I can see that it's a traffic jam, know the scene is beyond my useful concern, and yet feel the need to crane my neck in the vain hope of witnessing the driver's expression. Morbid curiosity is the only honest description for this. My apologies for the indecent expression of attention. @~ >>No, I went back and looked it up. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > your response to reveal salient data. Obviously, you'd already seen > the article. I see you wish to argue. The FACT is: I had NOT seen the article. I missed it, so I went back and lookd it up. Period. <snip> > >> >E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER > >> >Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > David as usual FALSELY blames John for something he did NOT do. Well, no. John titled the thread "UK Nurses Say No to Flu Vaccine." David was quite right that the article said no such thing. As John (and Lollipop) would also have noted if they'd bothered to read it. > David owes John an apology! No. However, anyone who recommends whale.to articles to anyone owes the world an apology. > Actaully what John did was made a post. > > Here it is again in full. Everyone saw it already! > I missed it the first time Why not read alone then? <snip pointless re-post> Cathy Wrote where? Please note: Cathy leaves for all to see exactly where Robert wrote this, they can click it on. She fails to do this with my post. >> >> >E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER >> >> >Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > David was quite right that the article said no such thing. As John (and > Lollipop) would also have noted if they'd bothered to read it. David was NOT right and *I* read it. Nurses 'not taking flu vaccine' It NOT any different than "UK Nurses Say No to Flu Vaccine." So meddling Cathyb is WRONG on both counts. >> David owes John an apology! > > No. Yes. <snip> >> Actaully what John did was made a post. >> >> Here it is again in full. > > Everyone saw it already! That, YOU do NOT know! >> I missed it the first time > > Why not read alone then? Because, I missed it the first time, perhaps others did also.Neither is it your business what I do, nor don't do. A pity, YOU would like to keep it a secret. (Too bad, you think these people who have the right to chose, should burn in hell, so you could watch (sic) Here it is again: E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNITED WAY/COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN #8122 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Protecting the health and informed consent rights of children since 1982." ============================================================================ ============== BL Fisher Note: It is interesting to note that the UK nurses, like US nurses, don't want to take the flu vaccine. Being highly educated health care professionals with access to medical care, they certainly understand the "benefits" and "risks" of flu vaccination. Voting with their feet, they just say no and that should give everyone pause to consider what they know that those lining up at doctor's offices and health care clinics for flu vaccinations don't know. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4260138.stm BBC, UK Monday, 19 September 2005 Nurses 'not taking flu vaccine' Many staff did not think they needed the flue jab. Vulnerable elderly patients could be at risk of catching flu from nurses who have not been vaccinated against the virus, a report has said. Research at two Liverpool hospitals found less than 8% of healthcare workers had annual jabs. But more than half had taken sick leave due to flu-type symptoms in the previous three months. The research, published in the Journal of Clinical Nursing, did not name the hospitals where staff were surveyed. The report's authors said increased vaccination of hospital staff would ease staffing crises during the winter. Many of the respondents appeared to demonstrate general apathy towards the flue vaccination Dr Helen Canning Of the 144 staff interviewed, 29% said they did not need to be vaccinated and 18% said they were not aware of the vaccine. Only 10% knew the vaccine would protect patients against the serious complications of flu and 11% of staff were concerned about side effects of the jab. "Vaccinating healthcare workers against flu can reduce staff sickness and winter pressures as well as reducing deaths among frail older patients," said Dr Helen Canning, who carried out the research at the University of Liverpool. "Our study found that the main reason for poor vaccine uptake was a basic lack of knowledge and understanding of the vaccine, especially regarding benefits and side-effects. "Many of the respondents appeared to demonstrate general apathy towards the flue vaccination." ============================================= N...@nvic.org is a free service of the National Vaccine Information Center and is supported through membership donations. Learn more about vaccines, diseases and how to protect your informed consent rights http://www.nvic.org Become a member and support NVIC's work https://www.nvic.org/making%20cash%20donations.htm To sign up for a free e-mail subscription http://www.nvic.org/emaillist.htm To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to news-requ...@nvic.org and type UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the email. NVIC is funded through individual membership donations and does not receive government funding. Barbara Loe Fisher, President and Co-founder. NOTE: This is not an interactive e-mail list. Please do not respond to messages > Wrote where? > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > David was NOT right and *I* read it. And obviously failed to understand it. > Nurses 'not taking flu vaccine' > > It NOT any different than "UK Nurses Say No to Flu Vaccine." Perhaps not if you're a brainless twit. However, saying that nurses are not taking the vaccine is qualitatively different from saying that they are refusing it. Particularly when they say they don't know about it, or aren't aware that they are one of the groups that should be having it. > So meddling Cathyb is WRONG on both counts. Er, no. <snip Lollicrap and pointless reposting> >> Wrote where? >> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >> >> It NOT any different than "UK Nurses Say No to Flu Vaccine." <snip> >> So meddling Cathyb is WRONG on both counts. > > <snip> > >> Wrote where? > >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > > > <snip> LOL. Lollipop still hasn't noticed that snipping a post doesn't make it go away. Or make her right when she's wrong. Bless. Cathy Cathy hasn't learned to post correctly, yet. >> >> Wrote where? >> >> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Cathy >>E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER >>Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." > -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth I've actually known a few ill-informed doctors who declined the flu vaccination. Even physicians are not universally able to understand risk/benefit ratios. Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >>>E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER >>>Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > vaccination. Even physicians are not universally able to understand > risk/benefit ratios. WHO are YOU to say they are ill-informed?? >>>>E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER >>>>Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > WHO are YOU to say they are ill-informed?? The study of infectious diseases is a hobby of mine. I am VERY well informed about influenza and vaccines. When a doctor tells me that he won't get vaccinated for influenza because the vaccine might cause Guillain-Barre syndrome, I am perfectly well qualified to assess that he is ill-informed. Doctors are well educated, particularly within their specialties, but they are not universally omniscient, even about medical subjects. Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >>>>>E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER >>>>>Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >Doctors are well educated, particularly within their specialties, but they >are not universally omniscient, even about medical subjects. Holy <censored>! It astounds me that a doctor would be ignorant enough to believe that current flu vax can cause Guillain-Barre. Only swine flu was ever implicated there; the anti-vac loons like to bring that one up, even though it was 30 years ago, because basically it's all they've got. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth > >>>>E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER > >>>>Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Doctors are well educated, particularly within their specialties, but they > are not universally omniscient, even about medical subjects. That's correct as doctors themselves are very aware of this. They don't comment outside their specialty. I have encountered this many times. It is so common that they are not really pretentious with other health care professionals. In dealing with patients then that may be a different story for obvious reasons. > Recommended websites: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > http://www.skeptic.com/ > http://www.csicop.org/ though i am well aware of the reasons for using thimerasol in vaccines, including flu vaccines, I am now very reluctant to expose myself to it. given the problems with the flu vaccine availability last year, i am certain my request for the flu vaccine from a single dose vial will be considered a ridiculous request--actually seems ridiculous to me given the information about the scarcity of the vaccine last year. so i will opt out of receiving the vaccine and hope i do not catch the flu--and if i do and it is a particulary severe case, i hope amantadine is available. I know thimerosal is used as a preservative to prevent bacterial overgrowth both during processing (owing to the fact that vaccines are made from proteins which bacteria can use as food) and during storage--surely some other solution can be found- > though i am well aware of the reasons for using thimerasol in vaccines, > including flu vaccines, I am now very reluctant to expose myself to it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > vaccines are made from proteins which bacteria can use as food) and > during storage--surely some other solution can be found- Ask your doctor now to get some vaccine for you in a single dose vial. It may cost an extra few bucks, but so what? Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >>>>>E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER >>>>>Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > specialties, but they are not universally omniscient, even about medical > subjects. I can just bet you do tell them they are ill-informed to their face, nurse, Shewmaker > --Rich >>>>>>E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER >>>>>>Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > I can just bet you do tell them they are ill-informed to their face, > nurse, Shewmaker Of course I do. Nobody has ever accused me of being shy. That's just not the nature of ER nurses. Ask any of the docs around here. Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >>>>>>>E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER >>>>>>>Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Of course I do. Nobody has ever accused me of being shy. That's just not > the nature of ER nurses. Ask any of the docs around here. ROTFLOL one word L I A R Don't give a rat's a.s about this whale.to crap of john's but as an ER nurse I can say for the most part we are "type A" personalities and WILL say what's on our mind. It doesn't matter if it's to an MD, a DO or a LadyLollipop. You can "ROTFLOL" all you want. To call someone a liar with absolutely no basis is stupidity at it's finest. > Don't give a rat's a.s about this whale.to crap of john's but as an ER > nurse [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with > absolutely no basis is stupidity at it's finest. No basis? Not at all. Jan's basis is her fine tuned radar for a lie. She can detect the tiniest and most obscure lie, even if it's embedded in many K-bytes of dense scientific language. Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ > Don't give a rat's a.s about this whale.to crap of john's but as an ER > nurse [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with > absolutely no basis is stupidity at it's finest. ROTFLOL. I DO have an absolutely basis. PROVEN time and time again. You must have missed them. *I don't give a damn if Peter lies to you, this newsgroup, his mother, or the pope* Rich Shewmaker For starters >I DO have an absolutely basis. > >PROVEN time and time again. > >You must have missed them. Are you going to be repeating those in their entirety? @~ > >I DO have an absolutely basis. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > @~ No, she can't do that. She's never managed to prove anyone a liar, although she does spew the accusation out many times daily. Even the example she posted above doesn't show that anyone lied. However, she does repeatedly re-post enormous tracts that no-one bothers reading. Bless 'er little cotton socks. Cathy >> >I DO have an absolutely basis. >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > No, she can't do that. She's never managed to prove anyone a liar, > although she does spew the accusation out many times daily. Poor Cathy. Mark Probert wrote: Actually: Searched all groups Results 1 - 2 of 2 for group:misc.kids.health insubject:14 insubject:year insubject:old insubject:boy insubject:dies insubject:from insubject:Ritalin (0.61 seconds) Did Cathy have the integrity to speak up and say Mark was lying, of course she DID NOT! Are you sure my name is Richard Jacobson?? >>>>Is it or isn't it? >>Negative. Does this mean that I don't have to agree to Jan's request to cease and desist?? Of course her request presumes that I have been stalking and harassing her. >I am grateful for one thing; that Richard Jacobson is not my real name. Unfortunately the Richard Jacobson that DOES live in Hawaii may not be too happy with my assuming his name for purposes of the internet especially given the recent events. He happens to live on a different island from me. I do plan to contact him to let him know that someone may try to harass him since he is listed in the phone book. =============================== Hiking The Kalalau Trail Richard Jacobson (richj@cris.com) Sat, 16 Mar 1996 00:27:34 -0500 (EST) >Hawaii's premier backpacking trail, the Kalalau Trail on the island of Kauai still remains closed past Hanakoa due to the reconstruction of the trail near "crawler's ridge". Estimated date of completion is Mid May. Until then, camping will only be permitted in Hanakapiai and Hanakoa Valleys. I for one am anxious to have Kalalau open again. It has to be one of the finest trails in the world. Aloha, Rich ------------------------ ------------------------ Richard H. Jacobson Always remember to put Horace before Descarte http://tinyurl.com/b7ot7 http://tinyurl.com/c3xm9 > Even the example she posted above doesn't show that anyone lied. > > However, she does repeatedly re-post enormous tracts that no-one > bothers reading. Bless 'er little cotton socks. > > Cathy ROTFLOL. >>I DO have an absolutely basis. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > @~ No, UNLIKE, you I am going to post what the was in reply to, rather than do a chop job. kyernurse" <bluebl...@noneya.com> wrote in message news:ptqdnWqkdpFZ36veRVn-vw@adelphia.com... > Don't give a rat's a.s about this whale.to crap of john's but as an ER > nurse [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with > absolutely no basis is stupidity at it's finest. ROTFLOL. I DO have an absolutely basis. PROVEN time and time again. You must have missed them. *I don't give a damn if Peter lies to you, this newsgroup, his mother, or the pope* Rich Shewmaker For starters > Don't give a rat's a.s about this whale.to crap of john's but as an ER nurse > I can say for the most part we are "type A" personalities and WILL say > what's on our mind. It doesn't matter if it's to an MD, a DO or a > LadyLollipop. You can "ROTFLOL" all you want. To call someone a liar with > absolutely no basis is stupidity at it's finest. Excellent analysis of John and Jan. > >E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER > >Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that they know all about the vaccine and are refusing it because > they're afraid of it. Good old Barbara Fisher does the same. What do they need to know other than whether it works or not? And they obviously know it doesn't, which explains why they don't bother. > In fact, the article makes clear that the nurses aren't all that > well-informed (rather alarming in its own right, in my opinion), and > aren't getting the vaccine because they aren't aware of the reasons > that they should. If you worked in a medical facility and were surveyed, you would likely say something equally benign; better that than say you believe the vaccine doesn't work. > How could 18% be "unaware of the vaccine?" What, do they live in caves? And what is that telling you? Since they don't live in caves, your analysis has to be wrong. In other words, they ARE aware, and STILL they choose not be be vaccinated. PeterB >> >E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER >> >Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >What do they need to know other than whether it works or not? And they >obviously know it doesn't, which explains why they don't bother. I love the way you throw the word "obviously" around in here. Nothing obvious except that you're making it up as you go along. >> In fact, the article makes clear that the nurses aren't all that >> well-informed (rather alarming in its own right, in my opinion), and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >say something equally benign; better that than say you believe the >vaccine doesn't work. Oh, now you're a mind reader. You know what they actually mean, and that they don't actually mean what they said. Thanks, Karnak. >> How could 18% be "unaware of the vaccine?" What, do they live in caves? > >And what is that telling you? Since they don't live in caves, your >analysis has to be wrong. In other words, they ARE aware, and STILL >they choose not be be vaccinated. It's such fun watching you make this up out of whole cloth. The answers aren't the answers when PeterB's on the job -- no, he KNOWS what they really meant, and he's going to tell us. It can't possibly be that they actually meant what they said. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth > >> >E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER > >> >Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I love the way you throw the word "obviously" around in here. Nothing > obvious except that you're making it up as you go along. It's obvious you think that nurses are dim-witted women who don't know what a vaccine is supposed to do. > >> In fact, the article makes clear that the nurses aren't all that > >> well-informed (rather alarming in its own right, in my opinion), and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Oh, now you're a mind reader. You know what they actually mean, and > that they don't actually mean what they said. Thanks, Karnak. How honest are people when taking surveys handed out by their employer? It might depend on whether they think they can answer with total anonymity. These are factors you might want to consider. > >> How could 18% be "unaware of the vaccine?" What, do they live in caves? > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > what they really meant, and he's going to tell us. It can't possibly > be that they actually meant what they said. You yourself suggested they would have to be living in a cave to be unaware of the vaccine. Now you want to persuade me that they do, in fact, live in a cave? Surveys, particularly those taken at a person's workplace, are rarely as candid as you seem to think. That's just common sense. PeterB >> In article <1127928664.895135.151430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > workplace, are rarely as candid as you seem to think. That's just > common sense. I am on the crew that carries a box of flu vaccine materials around the hospital each month offering the shot to all staff members. I get excuses like: 1. "My sister took the shot last year and she got a bad case of the flu three days later." 2. "I'll have to ask my husband." 3. "I don't believe in vaccination." 4. "I got one last year." and the ever-popular: 5 "I'm afraid of needles." Many nurses are vary good at patient care. The are skilled at all the nursing procedures, carefully assess their patients and report changes in their conditions appropriately, carry out physician and nursing orders promptly and without error, serve steadlfastly as patient advocates, maintain a clean and safe environment for patients and coworkers, and document everything in the prescribed manner. But some of those same nurses are relatively ignorant of physiology, anatomy, pharmacology, and even nursing theory that is outside their day-to-day practice. So it's not surprising that many nurses do not understand the importance for healthcare workers to be vaccinated for flu and some other diseases. It's unfortunate that all this applies to some doctors, too. For the infection control nurse of this and every other hospital and nursing home, vaccination time is the curse of Sisyphus. Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ > >> In article <1127928664.895135.151430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 1. "My sister took the shot last year and she got a bad case of the flu > three days later." Which demonstrates understandable ambivalence about vaccine. > 2. "I'll have to ask my husband." Which demonstrates understandable ambivalence about vaccine. > 3. "I don't believe in vaccination." I don't either. > 4. "I got one last year." And probably still got sick. > and the ever-popular: > 5 "I'm afraid of needles." Does anybody LIKE needles? <snipped for irrelevance> > ...it's not > surprising that many nurses do not understand the importance for healthcare > workers to be vaccinated for flu and some other diseases. Ridiculous. Like most grade school children and their parents, nurses are well aware of the purpose for vaccination. They simply know better. I imagine they are also aware when doctors avoid vaccination themselves. > It's unfortunate that all this applies to some doctors, too. For the > infection control nurse of this and every other hospital and nursing home, > vaccination time is the curse of Sisyphus. It's more like the curse of Hermes, since he carried a magic wand and was the god of thieves and commerce. BTW, still no response from you about Mark's statement that you never claimed an anti-body titre is equivalent to immunization. You stated you agreed with him. Do you, or do you not? PeterB >> >> In article <1127928664.895135.151430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Which demonstrates understandable ambivalence about vaccine. It actually demonstrates ignorance about the vaccine. It is not possible to get flu from the vaccine. However, since the vaccine does not confer immunity until 7-10 days have passed, it is entirely possible to come down with the disease in the interim. Considering the incubation period of influenza, this girl's sister probably was exposed before the vaccination was done. The vaccination may still have helped her . . . she would be protected against the other two or three strains of flu in the vaccine. >> 2. "I'll have to ask my husband." > > Which demonstrates understandable ambivalence about vaccine. It demonstrates either a very flimsy excuse, or a pathological subservience in a woman who can't even make personal health decisions without conferring with her spouse. >> 3. "I don't believe in vaccination." > > I don't either. We already knew that you are an ignorant anti-vac liar. >> 4. "I got one last year." > > And probably still got sick. Again showing her, and your, ignorance of the facts of flu vaccination. Even though the vaccine is not 100% effective, your "probably" indicates that you understand neither vaccination nor probability. >> and the ever-popular: > >> 5 "I'm afraid of needles." > > Does anybody LIKE needles? Well yes, some people DO like needles. That aside, any rational person knows that the momentary discomfort of an injection is a good trade off against the week of absolute misery of a bout of influenza. > <snipped for irrelevance> The relevance is that it's not necessarily the "bad" nurses that do not understand the importance of flu vaccination. >> ...it's not >> surprising that many nurses do not understand the importance for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ridiculous. Like most grade school children and their parents, nurses > are well aware of the purpose for vaccination. They know the purpose, but they may well be misinformed about the dangers thanks to anti-vac liars like yourself. > They simply know > better. I imagine they are also aware when doctors avoid vaccination > themselves. Yes, it's unfortunate that when doctors refuse vaccination it sets a bad example and reinforces the lies of the anti-vac fools. >> It's unfortunate that all this applies to some doctors, too. For the >> infection control nurse of this and every other hospital and nursing [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > PeterB You idiot, I've answered this in three places. No, an antibody titer is NOT equivalent, and I have never stated nor implied that it is. Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ > >> >> In article <1127928664.895135.151430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > was done. The vaccination may still have helped her . . . she would be > protected against the other two or three strains of flu in the vaccine. Your caveats are academic, since antigenic drift makes flu vaccine almost worthless in most cases. > >> 2. "I'll have to ask my husband." > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in a woman who can't even make personal health decisions without conferring > with her spouse. ...demonstrating ambivalence about vaccine. > >> 3. "I don't believe in vaccination." > > > > I don't either. > > We already knew that you are an ignorant anti-vac liar. I prefer the term "pro-health." > >> 4. "I got one last year." > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > though the vaccine is not 100% effective, your "probably" indicates that you > understand neither vaccination nor probability. Studies I've referenced here recently show that flu vaccine is largely ineffective for preventing influenza. > >> and the ever-popular: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that the momentary discomfort of an injection is a good trade off against > the week of absolute misery of a bout of influenza. It would be, if it worked. > > <snipped for irrelevance> > > The relevance is that it's not necessarily the "bad" nurses that do not > understand the importance of flu vaccination. You're babbling, Rich. > >> ...it's not > >> surprising that many nurses do not understand the importance for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > They know the purpose, but they may well be misinformed about the dangers > thanks to anti-vac liars like yourself. Yes, my postings on usenet have soiled many a smock across the land. > > They simply know > > better. I imagine they are also aware when doctors avoid vaccination > > themselves. > > Yes, it's unfortunate that when doctors refuse vaccination it sets a bad > example and reinforces the lies of the anti-vac fools. You mean, those who disagree with you and your beliefs. > >> It's unfortunate that all this applies to some doctors, too. For the > >> infection control nurse of this and every other hospital and nursing [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You idiot, I've answered this in three places. No, an antibody titer is NOT > equivalent, and I have never stated nor implied that it is. Good, I wouldn't want readers to think that anti-body titres are equivalent to immunity, since that would be a silly assumption to make. I did see your other response, but not before the above was posted. PeterB >> >> >> In article <1127928664.895135.151430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Your caveats are academic, since antigenic drift makes flu vaccine > almost worthless in most cases. No, it is not "almost worthless" in "most cases." Research evidence to the contrary ahs been posted, but you've chosen to ignore it. >> >> 2. "I'll have to ask my husband." >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I prefer the term "pro-health." But still ignorant of the value of vaccines for protecting health. >> >> 4. "I got one last year." >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Studies I've referenced here recently show that flu vaccine is largely > ineffective for preventing influenza. So you say. You, and your studies are wrong. >> >> and the ever-popular: >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It would be, if it worked. It works better than any supplements you sell. >> > <snipped for irrelevance> >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > You mean, those who disagree with you and your beliefs. Science is not a belief system. Either vaccination offers protective immunity, or it doesn't. It does whether you or I believe it or not. >> >> It's unfortunate that all this applies to some doctors, too. For the >> >> infection control nurse of this and every other hospital and nursing [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > equivalent to immunity, since that would be a silly assumption to make. > I did see your other response, but not before the above was posted. And now you've got it wrong again. A high antibody titer IS an excellent marker for immunity, and you could essentially call it the "equivalent" of immunity. It is not, of course, the equivalent of immunization. Your reading comprehension is a little on the lax side. Main Entry: im·mu·ni·ty [www.m-w.com] Pronunciation: i-'myü-n&-tE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties : the quality or state of being immune; especially : a condition of being able to resist a particular disease especially through preventing development of a pathogenic microorganism or by counteracting the effects of its products Main Entry: im·mu·nize [www.m-w.com] Pronunciation: 'i-my&-"nIz Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): -nized; -niz·ing : to make immune - im·mu·ni·za·tion /"i-my&-n&-'zA-sh&n also i-"myü-n&-/ noun Vaccination is one way to immunize. The other, actually contracting the disease, is much less desirable, and much more dangerous. Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ > >> >> >> In article <1127928664.895135.151430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > No, it is not "almost worthless" in "most cases." Research evidence to the > contrary ahs been posted, but you've chosen to ignore it. Evidence to the contrary doesn't constitute proof of your position. Rational people have settled on a more reasonable view of flu vaccine. There is no reason, for instance, to stockpile flu vaccine in light of antigenic drift. Your sponsors, however, are too busy worrying about profits to let go of their bread-n-butter franchise. > >> >> 2. "I'll have to ask my husband." > >> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > But still ignorant of the value of vaccines for protecting health. No, I'm well aware that you are simply stuck in the past. > >> >> 4. "I got one last year." > >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > So you say. You, and your studies are wrong. There is data to support any position imaginable, the key is weighing all the evidence fairly. Unlike you, I don't tell people what to think, I invite them review the information and make up their own minds. > >> >> and the ever-popular: > >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It works better than any supplements you sell. I don't sell supplements and I'm not in sales. I also don't work for the supplements industry. As for what "works," your definition of that is completely different than mine. Preventive medicine "works" in my healthcare model; disease management is what "works" in yours. > >> > <snipped for irrelevance> > >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Science is not a belief system. Either vaccination offers protective > immunity, or it doesn't. It does whether you or I believe it or not. The question is is how *well* does vaccine engender immunity. I believe it's 10% at best for flu vaccine. > >> >> It's unfortunate that all this applies to some doctors, too. For the > >> >> infection control nurse of this and every other hospital and nursing [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > marker for immunity, and you could essentially call it the "equivalent" of > immunity... I should have known. It's obvious I wasn't asking whether an anti-body titre was equivalent (in your mind) to vaccination, yet this now forms the basis for your rebuttal. Not a very clever distraction. I obviously used "immunization" as a noun, as in the *STATE of immunity.* This is typical pharma blogger misdirection on your part. All this preaching about "evidence based medicine" is just window dressing for your sponsors. Thanks for nothing. > It is not, of course, the equivalent of immunization. Your reading > comprehension is a little on the lax side. Distraction noted. Next? PeterB >> >> >> >> In article >> >> >> >> <1127928664.895135.151430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > antigenic drift. Your sponsors, however, are too busy worrying about > profits to let go of their bread-n-butter franchise. Who said anything about stockpiling? Of course we don't stockpile. We get a new supply that is taylored to match the circulating strains of influenza each year. If flu vaccine didn't work, and the pharmaceutical companies were perpetrating a fraud as you seem to believe, then why bother to do the surveilance and the work of developing a new vaccine each year? They could save a bundle by stockpiling and selling any old flu vaccine, and who'd know the difference? Oh, and I have no sponsors. Those greedy pharmcos are to jealous of their profits to pay the likes of me. >> >> >> 2. "I'll have to ask my husband." >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > No, I'm well aware that you are simply stuck in the past. So, can you recommend a supplement that will cure or prevent influenza? Don't give me any bullshit about supplement induced robust good health prevents flu. Any exposed person who does not have the specific antibodies to the attacking virus WILL get the flu. Good health may prevent complications like pneumonia, and thus reduce the risk of death, but it WILL NOT prevent the primary viral infection and the influenza disease. >> >> >> 4. "I got one last year." >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > think, I invite them review the information and make up their own > minds. And those who view the evidence fairly and intelligently have made up their own minds and will be on line for their flu shots next month. >> >> >> and the ever-popular: >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > is completely different than mine. Preventive medicine "works" in my > healthcare model; disease management is what "works" in yours. Preventive medicine works in ANY healthcare model.The controversy is about what's "preventive." We all agree that exercise, adequate sleep, good nutrition, avoidance of recreational drugs and tobacco, automobile seatbelts and airbags, and the rest of the stuff your doctor and your mother have told you about are good preventive medicine. But I, for one, disagree that "supplements" play a major role in prevention. Good nutrition can and should be provided by a varied and judicious diet, no supplementation necessary. The only proper role supplements play in healthcare is as medications to treat deficiencies that cannot be corrected with diet. Yes, disease management is an important function in medicine. So is the cure of disease. In many cases, medicine can cure diseases for which the naturopaths cannot even provide relief from the symptoms. The reverse is not true. >> >> > <snipped for irrelevance> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > The question is is how *well* does vaccine engender immunity. I > believe it's 10% at best for flu vaccine. You believe wrong. >> >> >> It's unfortunate that all this applies to some doctors, too. For >> >> >> the [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Distraction noted. Next? So, do YOU believe that a high antibody titer is a good indicator for a state of immunity? If not, just what do you believe a titer is, and what do antibodies do in YOUR world? Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >>> >> >> In article >>> >> >> <1127928664.895135.151430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > > It works better than any supplements you sell. Gee, I must have missed that. Could you show us *WHERE* Peter has had any supplements to sell? Now, don't forget to answer! >>> > <snipped for irrelevance> >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Science is not a belief system. Either vaccination offers protective > immunity, or it doesn't. It does whether you or I believe it or not. Just EXACTLY which *studies* Peter referenced showing, flu vaccine to be largely ineffective for preventing influenza, are wrong? >>> >> It's unfortunate that all this applies to some doctors, too. For the >>> >> infection control nurse of this and every other hospital and nursing [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Vaccination is one way to immunize. The other, actually contracting the > disease, is much less desirable, and much more dangerous. >>>> >> >> In article >>>> >> >> <1127928664.895135.151430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > > Now, don't forget to answer! Main Entry: 1sell [www.m-w.com] Note definition 5 a, Jan. Pronunciation: 'sel Function: verb Inflected Form(s): sold /'sOld/; sell·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Old English sellan; akin to Old High German sellen to sell, Old Norse sala sale, Greek helein to take transitive senses 1 : to deliver or give up in violation of duty, trust, or loyalty : BETRAY -- often used with out 2 a (1) : to give up (property) to another for something of value (as money) (2) : to offer for sale b : to give up in return for something else especially foolishly or dishonorably <sold his birthright for a mess of pottage> c : to exact a price for <sold their lives dearly> 3 a : to deliver into slavery for money b : to give into the power of another <sold his soul to the devil> c : to deliver the personal services of for money 4 : to dispose of or manage for profit instead of in accordance with conscience, justice, or duty <sold their votes> 5 a : to develop a belief in the truth, value, or desirability of : gain acceptance for <trying to sell a program to the Congress> b : to persuade or influence to a course of action or to the acceptance of something <sell children on reading> 6 : to impose on : CHEAT 7 a : to cause or promote the sale of <using television advertising to sell cereal> b : to make or attempt to make sales to c : to influence or induce to make a purchase 8 : to achieve a sale of <sold a million copies >>>> > <snipped for irrelevance> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Just EXACTLY which *studies* Peter referenced showing, flu vaccine to be > largely ineffective for preventing influenza, are wrong? There are none. Some studies have shown that flu vaccines are less effective in the elderly than in the general population, but even for the senior set, "largely ineffective" is an exageration. I'm over 60, and I have an appointment to get my flu shot tomorrow morning. >>>> >> It's unfortunate that all this applies to some doctors, too. For the >>>> >> infection control nurse of this and every other hospital and nursing [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >> Vaccination is one way to immunize. The other, actually contracting the >> disease, is much less desirable, and much more dangerous. >>>>> >> >> In article >>>>> >> >> <1127928664.895135.151430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] > induce to make a purchase > 8 : to achieve a sale of <sold a million copies Ummm. Note Rich. *WHERE* Back to the drawing board. You wrote: >It works better than any supplements you sell. *I* wrote: (still with me, Rich, or do I need to go slower 4 ya? Ready? 1 2 3 Gee, I must have missed that. Could you show us *WHERE* Peter has had any supplements to sell? Now don't forget to answer, that means *WHERE* Rich, as in, Peter's post, where he was selling these sepplements. Got it now, Rich? A Mark Probert reply won't work. A pity you must lower yourself to his standards. You liars sure are way dwn there in the muck. >>>>> > <snipped for irrelevance> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > There are none. How can they be wrong if there are none? First you say they are wrong, then you say there are none. Are you babbling, Rich? Some studies have shown that flu vaccines are less effective > in the elderly than in the general population, but even for the senior > set, "largely ineffective" is an exageration. Well, now, that sure sounds like babbling.. Less effective, but not largely ineffectively Once again: Just EXACTLY which *studies* Peter referenced showing, flu vaccine to be largely ineffective for preventing influenza, are wrong? It appears YOU can NOT answer!!!!!!! I'm over 60, and I have an > appointment to get my flu shot tomorrow morning. LOL!!!! I am sooooo surprised. If *organized medicine* said, go out in the middle of a NY street and pee 10 times a day, YOU would must likely do it. Ok, maybe that's a tad bit exaggerated. I am over 60, and I will choose NOT to get s flu shot. You know why? Because my immune system was greatly comprised at one time, that's why. I do NOT choose to ever put it there AGAIN!!!! >>>>> >> It's unfortunate that all this applies to some doctors, too. For >>>>> >> the [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >>> Vaccination is one way to immunize. The other, actually contracting the >>> disease, is much less desirable, and much more dangerous. Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Proven lies from there: Professor Boyd Haley Three dead children Dr Death > http://www.acahf.org.au Spam and lies Peter Bowditch has NO medical traning, therefore is NOT qualified to judge what is quackery. > http://www.quackwatch.org/ Lies from there: There is no alternative medicine. http://nccam.nih.gov/ The "alternative movement" is part of a general societal trend toward rejection of science as a method of determining truths http://nccam.nih.gov/clinicaltrials/factsheet/index.htm NCCAM, which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is the Federal government's center for scientific research on CAM. As part of its mission, NCCAM explores complementary and alternative healing practices through rigorous science. This effort includes supporting carefully selected, designed, and conducted clinical trials of CAM therapies. What most sets alternative medicine apart . . . is that it has not been scientifically tested and its advocates largely deny the need for such testing. http://nccam.nih.gov/clinicaltrials/factsheet/index.htm NCCAM, which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is the Federal government's center for scientific research on CAM. As part of its mission, NCCAM explores complementary and alternative healing practices through rigorous science. This effort includes supporting carefully selected, designed, and conducted clinical trials of CAM therapies. It is time for Congress to defund the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine http://library.louisville.edu/government/subjects/health/alternative.... > http://www.skeptic.com/ MORE spam! > http://www.csicop.org/ Good place for atheists and YE Good ole boy club! For those who NEED it. >(still with me, Rich, or do I need to go slower 4 ya? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >3 >On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 04:57:03 GMT, "LadyLollipop" ><LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>only those filled with hate have a >>need to belittle and call names. ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance > Could you show us *WHERE* Peter has had any supplements to sell? > > Now don't forget to answer, that means *WHERE* Rich, as in, Peter's post, > where he was selling these sepplements. > > Got it now, Rich? Peter has three agendas in this newsgroup; his paranoid notion that people are being paid to post here, anti-vaccination propaganda, and "natural medicine" which means SUPPLEMENTS. Even though he does not participate in the retail marketing of supplements, he has repeatedly stated or implied that they are a major factor in the maintenance of good health and nutrition. That amounts to "selling" supplements in the marketplace of ideas. And no, I'm not going to waste my time Googling up a bunch of posts to prove PeterB's agendas. It's unnecessary because anyone who reads this ng regularly knows what I say is true about him selling supplements. >>>>>> > <snipped for irrelevance> >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Are you babbling, Rich? No babble. The research that PeterB cites nowhere shows that flu vaccine is "largely ineffective." I don't believe that any make that claim, but if they do, they're wrong. > Some studies have shown that flu vaccines are less effective >> in the elderly than in the general population, but even for the senior [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It appears YOU can NOT answer!!!!!!! PeterB is wrong. I don't know if the studies are wrong or not, but if any make the statement that flu vaccines are largely ineffective, as Petey says they do, then they are, indeed, wrong. > I'm over 60, and I have an >> appointment to get my flu shot tomorrow morning. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Because my immune system was greatly comprised at one time, that's why. I > do NOT choose to ever put it there AGAIN!!!! If so, it wasn't compromised by a flu shot. You immune system knows exactly what to do with the DNA data presented to it by a vaccine. None of the very rare complications identified for flu vaccine, by the way, involves damage to the immune system. Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >> Could you show us *WHERE* Peter has had any supplements to sell? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > are being paid to post here, anti-vaccination propaganda, and "natural > medicine" which means SUPPLEMENTS. 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 No, I don't think so. Peter does NOT have three agendas in this newsgroups! Natural medicine does NOT mean supplements!!!!! > Even though he does not participate in the retail marketing of > supplements, he has repeatedly stated or implied that they are a major > factor in the maintenance of good health and nutrition. That amounts to > "selling" supplements in the marketplace of ideas. You are babbling. Rich. This is the VERY same thing you did to Bard. Peter, IN FACT has NEVER sold any supplements EVER! You, like, Mark Probert, are trying to make the your claim fit into your twisting. > And no, I'm not going to waste my time Googling up a bunch of posts to > prove PeterB's agendas. It's unnecessary because anyone who reads this ng > regularly knows what I say is true about him selling supplements. Uh huh, you mean the *GANG* >>>>>>> > <snipped for irrelevance> >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > is "largely ineffective." I don't believe that any make that claim, but if > they do, they're wrong. So, he cites it nowhere, you don't believe that any make that claim, but if they do. What babble. >> Some studies have shown that flu vaccines are less effective >>> in the elderly than in the general population, but even for the senior [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > make the statement that flu vaccines are largely ineffective, as Petey > says they do, then they are, indeed, wrong. Peter is wrong. You don't know if the studies are wrong. But if. You are babbling, Rich. You don't really know what he posted, yet you are saying he is wrong. >> I'm over 60, and I have an >>> appointment to get my flu shot tomorrow morning. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > If so, it wasn't compromised by a flu shot. I didn't say it was. You immune system knows exactly > what to do with the DNA data presented to it by a vaccine. None of the > very rare complications identified for flu vaccine, by the way, involves > damage to the immune system. If one has EVER had a compromised immune system, one should be VERY VERY VERY VERY careful. <snip trash> >>>>3. "I don't believe in vaccination." >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I prefer the term "pro-health." Anti-vac liar is more accurate. >>> In article <1127928664.895135.151430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > infection control nurse of this and every other hospital and nursing home, > vaccination time is the curse of Sisyphus. Then we have other nurses who recommend LYING websites. > --Rich > Recommended websites: > http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Proven lies from there: Professor Boyd Haley Three dead children Dr Death > http://www.acahf.org.au Spam and lies Peter Bowditch has NO medical traning, therefore is NOT qualified to judge what is quackery. > http://www.quackwatch.org/ Lies from there: There is no alternative medicine. http://nccam.nih.gov/ The "alternative movement" is part of a general societal trend toward rejection of science as a method of determining truths http://nccam.nih.gov/clinicaltrials/factsheet/index.htm NCCAM, which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is the Federal government's center for scientific research on CAM. As part of its mission, NCCAM explores complementary and alternative healing practices through rigorous science. This effort includes supporting carefully selected, designed, and conducted clinical trials of CAM therapies. What most sets alternative medicine apart . . . is that it has not been scientifically tested and its advocates largely deny the need for such testing. http://nccam.nih.gov/clinicaltrials/factsheet/index.htm NCCAM, which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is the Federal government's center for scientific research on CAM. As part of its mission, NCCAM explores complementary and alternative healing practices through rigorous science. This effort includes supporting carefully selected, designed, and conducted clinical trials of CAM therapies. It is time for Congress to defund the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine http://library.louisville.edu/government/subjects/health/alternative.... > http://www.skeptic.com/ MORE spam! > http://www.csicop.org/ Good place for atheists and YE Good ole boy club! For those who NEED it. >> >> >E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER >> >> >Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >It's obvious you think that nurses are dim-witted women who don't know >what a vaccine is supposed to do. I didn't say anything about nurses being women. Many nurses are male. So who's making assumptions, dude? There's nothing in the article to imply that nurses are afraid of the vaccine. >> >> In fact, the article makes clear that the nurses aren't all that >> >> well-informed (rather alarming in its own right, in my opinion), and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It might depend on whether they think they can answer with total >anonymity. These are factors you might want to consider. And the survey might be accurate. This is something YOU might want to consider. But you won't, because it would be inconvenient for you to do so. >> >> How could 18% be "unaware of the vaccine?" What, do they live in caves? >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >workplace, are rarely as candid as you seem to think. That's just >common sense. Common sense is never common; if it were, we wouldn't even have a word for it. All too often, it's a lame rationale used by the likes of PeterB to try to explain away inconvenient facts. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth > >> >> >E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER > >> >> >Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > So who's making assumptions, dude? There's nothing in the article to > imply that nurses are afraid of the vaccine. I would rather assume that most nurses are female (which they are), than assume that nurses in general are stupid, as you have. > >> >> In fact, the article makes clear that the nurses aren't all that > >> >> well-informed (rather alarming in its own right, in my opinion), and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > consider. But you won't, because it would be inconvenient for you to > do so. Surveys are accurate at measuring responses to multiple choice, they aren't accurate at measuring WHY people respond the way they do. People can response to a survey in exactly the same way for completely different reasons. YOU are the one making leaps of irrationality about levels of intelligence, people living in caves, and other nonsense. > >> >> How could 18% be "unaware of the vaccine?" What, do they live in caves? > >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > for it. All too often, it's a lame rationale used by the likes of > PeterB to try to explain away inconvenient facts. Ad hominen, straw man, and non sequitur all rolled into one. No one will ever accuse you of being careless, will they David? PeterB >> >> >> >E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER >> >> >> >Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >I would rather assume that most nurses are female (which they are), >than assume that nurses in general are stupid, as you have. I have done nothing of the sort. I asked what was going on with the small fraction who claimed to be unaware of the flu vaccine. That's a reasonable question to ask. >> >> >> In fact, the article makes clear that the nurses aren't all that >> >> >> well-informed (rather alarming in its own right, in my opinion), and [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >different reasons. YOU are the one making leaps of irrationality about >levels of intelligence, people living in caves, and other nonsense. Oh, gee, I'm sorry if my little rhetorical flourish confused you, PeterB. I hadn't realized you were so literal-minded. >> >> >> How could 18% be "unaware of the vaccine?" What, do they >> >> >live in caves? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Ad hominen, straw man, and non sequitur all rolled into one. No one >will ever accuse you of being careless, will they David? No one with any sense. You will, of course, but res ipsa loquitur. As soon as you start appealing to "common sense" in a futile effort to dig yourself out of the hole you put yourself into, I know you've run out of intellectually honest responses. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message