Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens

Are You Getting (or Already Got) The H1n1 Vaccine?


chrisjamessauve

H1N1 Swine Flu  

37 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you getting the Vaccine?

    • Yes
      4
    • No
      19
    • I'm not sure yet
      7
    • I already got it
      7


Recommended Posts

So here in Ontario where I live, they start the H1N1 vaccines to the General public (I think), and I'm not really sure if I should get it. My brother had flu-like symptoms on Tuesday, all signs pointed to H1N1, but he seemed to have gotten better the next day.

Anyways, I don't know if I should get the vaccine or not. Anyone get it yet? Anyone not decided yet like me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I work in health care,in one of New Brunswick's largest nursing home.....I will indeed be getting the shot.

Want to protect myself & my family.....when this hits ya...will hit like a ton of bricks.....can lay one up for weeks or longer....

Many conflicting theories/stories as many are probably aware of by now ( MEDIA )....You'll have to use your own judgement weather or not to get it.

Deaths has been linked to this virus....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

H1N1...Swine Flu...whatever you want to call it.

These flus and diseases are just diversions towards the real problem in Canada, and all the world:

THE ECONOMY

Worrying about your health and the health of your family is just a gov't plan to help you forget about your financial woes. Fear is a powerful tool. People die by diseases everyday. So broadly are the symtoms for H1N1..."if you have common cold symtoms, you probably have the virus. Please take our medication."

Fear is a powerful tool.

I will not be taking any vaccine or shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't had any vaccine since I was 10, and don't plan to start now. I don't really trust the pharmaceutical companies... plus I'm terrified of needles! However, if I had kids I might think differently.... I wouldn't advise anyone to get it or not get it though, I think everybody should do their own research and make their own decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone hear about the cheerleader who got the shot, and now can't walk forwards? I haven't really thought about it too much, because there's no sign of the story anywhere, but apparently a girl got the flu shot, can run forwards, walk backwards, but cannot walk properly forwards. it's really weird, and I saw her walk, and she sure ain't faking it, but I haven't seen it anywhere other than a news show on youtube, so don't believe it if you want, but it looks legit.

It's apparently a 1:1000000 shot of this happening to you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully agree with those who say its a personal decision - no one can make that for you. However, I would like to leave you with this info:

* As of Aug 30th, 2009, the World Health Organization & the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have stopped counting cases of H1N1

* Since then, they are not, in most cases, even testing for this strain any more. Yet, mainstream media continues to scream to get vaccinated, why? Because they stand to make an insane amount of money from this pandemic (if you can even call it that when the two largest health organizations in the world have stopped tracking it individuallly...)

* All the information that is being propagated through the media is being done so by the people who pay the bills. Now, while this is not absolute proof of foul play, its always a bad idea to let someone who profits from something dictate its level of risk. If there is NO fear, there is no vaccine and NO money...and we are taking billions here.

* Many (most of the ones i know) of the Medical Professionals I know are warning against this vaccine...for what reason? What do they care if we don't get it, what kind of revenue do they stand to lose if we chose not to get the H1N1 vaccine??? Nothing. So while we can assume those who stand to profit are urging us to get it because they make money, those urging us not to get it, would appear to be doing so out of care - nothing else.

* 1800 people have died world wide from H1N1 in a year, 36,000 Americans died last year from the "normal" flu...

* The vaccination is unproven and purportedly not much different from the one that caused paralysis in '76 the last time there was a swine flu outbreak.

* Donald Rumsfeld is associated (was CEO of the drug company that produces with the drug (Tamiflu) that is being used to treat & prevent this flu. Anything associated with Rummy is bad. Very bad.

Again, YOU must decide for yourself. The numbers are just too out of whack for me to even consider this vaccine.

Just my 2c.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deaths has been linked to this virus....

Although deaths were also linked to the last swine flu vaccine (more deaths and parralysis due to vaccine than the flu). Here's one article about it: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/27/sc...swine-history27. But I'm not sure how much those two vaccines had in common.

I've also had a lot of trouble finding out a real list of what is actually in the flu shot (especially complicated since different ones are used in different countries). All the ingredient lists I've seen have been sources that I wouldn't count on as being reliable (mostly anti-vaccine and natural health sites). It's also confusing to live in the US and see basically "don't worry, our vaccines don't include squalene" and then read Canadian news and see "squalene is perfectly safe". I also can't figure out if the shots include mercury or not.

We'll see going forward, but right now I have no immediate plans to get vaccinated. However, I am eatin gthe helthiest I ever have and I'm sure my immune system is improving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

meh, I'll pass, because I already had H1N1 and it wasn't really all that bad. I don't see the reason for it and the risks of vaccines are far to great for me to ignore. It's a touchy subject for me because my brother had a 1 in a million reaction to his shots he got as a baby and he is now autistic, the doctors have convincingly proven that the vaccines are the reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

meh, I'll pass, because I already had H1N1 and it wasn't really all that bad. I don't see the reason for it and the risks of vaccines are far to great for me to ignore. It's a touchy subject for me because my brother had a 1 in a million reaction to his shots he got as a baby and he is now autistic, the doctors have convincingly proven that the vaccines are the reason.

Before I say this, I want to make it clear that I'm in no way trying to minimize the extra stress and challenges that having an autistic child can present to a family.

I do want to ask, though, what the convincing proof was that it was a vaccine that caused your brother's condition? There've been lots of rumours floating around for years about this sort of thing, but there have been no credible studies that indicate that there is any connection between the MMR (mumps, measles, rubella) vaccine (or any vaccine) and autism. I suggest that anyone who's interested in this sort of thing and wants to do their own research should check out Google Scholar. It's filled with peer-reviewed papers that written by people who have done actual scientific research, which is a lot more than you'll find on a random google search, wikipedia or even most major news stories.

Here, for example, is a paper which reviewed many prior studies, including any they could find that claimed any sort of link between vaccines and autism, to determine whether this was something that people should be worried about. Their conclusion: it isn't.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/.../full/114/3/793

I fully agree with those who say its a personal decision - no one can make that for you. However, I would like to leave you with this info:

* As of Aug 30th, 2009, the World Health Organization & the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have stopped counting cases of H1N1

* Since then, they are not, in most cases, even testing for this strain any more. Yet, mainstream media continues to scream to get vaccinated, why? Because they stand to make an insane amount of money from this pandemic (if you can even call it that when the two largest health organizations in the world have stopped tracking it individuallly...)

I agree that it's a personal choice, and I do encourage everyone to read as much about it as they can (again, Google Scholar FTW!). Having said that, though, I don't neccessarily agree with what Jedi's saying.

The WHO and CDC have stopped counting cases, yes, but not because they didn't see it as a threat. In fact, the opposite: the CDC's official position on why they stopped was "why waste resources testing for H1N1 flu when the government has already confirmed there's an epidemic?" Words like 'epidemic' and 'pandemic' have nothing to do with the severity of the disease, just their prevalence.

* All the information that is being propagated through the media is being done so by the people who pay the bills. Now, while this is not absolute proof of foul play, its always a bad idea to let someone who profits from something dictate its level of risk. If there is NO fear, there is no vaccine and NO money...and we are taking billions here.

* Many (most of the ones i know) of the Medical Professionals I know are warning against this vaccine...for what reason? What do they care if we don't get it, what kind of revenue do they stand to lose if we chose not to get the H1N1 vaccine??? Nothing. So while we can assume those who stand to profit are urging us to get it because they make money, those urging us not to get it, would appear to be doing so out of care - nothing else.

* 1800 people have died world wide from H1N1 in a year, 36,000 Americans died last year from the "normal" flu...

Well, I'm certainly not going to try and extol the virtues of pharmaceutical companies and media giants :P. This swine flu story has been covered WAY too much, and no doubt the drug companies love selling their vaccines and the papers love the fact that putting 'H1N1' in big letters on thier front page is going to sell a bunch of copies. Just because someone is profitting, though, doesn't mean they're wrong. Heck, we should probably stop supporting the Habs, as we all know most of the organization is only in it to make money ;).

I don't know how it works in the States, but in Canada the government has already purchased enough vaccine for the entire country. So whether you get the shot or I get it (even if nobody at all gets it) the companies involved aren't going to get or lose another cent. I can maybe understand if someone wants to avoid the shot as some sort of protest against the drug comanies making medicine into a business or something, but IMO the second that person takes an aspirin for a headache they've got no more ground to stand on.

And I would advise people to get their 'normal' flu shots, too, especially in provinces like Ontario where they're completely free for everyone. Chances are you or someone you know is not going to die from this. And yes, people die of a lot of things every day. But if you could do a small thing to lessen that chance, why wouldn't you? You may even not care if you ge the flu, but wouldn't you be happier knowing you're not potentially infecting your grandfather, baby neice, nice old lady down the road, etc?

* The vaccination is unproven and purportedly not much different from the one that caused paralysis in '76 the last time there was a swine flu outbreak.

* Donald Rumsfeld is associated (was CEO of the drug company that produces with the drug (Tamiflu) that is being used to treat & prevent this flu. Anything associated with Rummy is bad. Very bad.

Again, YOU must decide for yourself. The numbers are just too out of whack for me to even consider this vaccine.

Just my 2c.

Maybe I'm just trusting, but I'm willing to give my government the benefit of the doubt on this one. I know it was rushed and that there was probably drug lobby pressure and everything but do you really think they'd use the exact same vaccine ingredients that paralyzed people last time? the fact that it's purportedly not much different from the last vaccine isn't very convincing, really. a ) I generally don't trust anything 'purported' until I find a credible source, and b ) vaccinations are a pretty simple concept, and really any vaccine could be said to be 'not much different' than any other. You could say that formaldehyde isn't that far off chemically from vinegar, but I doubt anybody's going to be putting it on their fries.

Haha, no argument on the Rumsfeld thing :D. Tamiflu is an antiviral, though, stockpiled in case of emergency and meant to be taken by people who have the flu to prevent it from spreading in their bodies. It is unrelated to the vaccine.

Anyways, folks, sorry for the big rant. You see so many arguments going back and forth that it's hard to know what information is real and what isn't, and I figured that this forum is at least one place where you can talk, make points and not be drowned out by a bunch of crazies shouting things about the redneck right or the commie left. My rule of thumb has always been that until a source has been extensively peer-reviewed it doesn't have much value as a source. The internet's a crazy place ;). Personally I'm not going to wait in a five hour line for the vaccine, but once the hype has died down why not take a stroll over to the Dr's office? It might save me some time off work, or save someone's life. Or it might do nothing, in which case I wasted a single lunch break :P.

But it is a personal choice. Just be sure and think about where the information's coming from. If it's only on YouTube, there's probably a reason...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that it's a personal choice, and I do encourage everyone to read as much about it as they can.

This swine flu story has been covered WAY too much. ;)

But if you could do a small thing to lessen that chance, why wouldn't you?

You may even not care if you ge the flu, but wouldn't you be happier knowing you're not potentially infecting your grandfather, baby neice, nice old lady down the road, etc?

But it is a personal choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This almost sounds like a UFO case where people think the government is hiding everything and the conspiracy is on, hilarious.

I also love people who don't take the shot because they say they're healthy. The thing is, you live in a community and you're not alone in the world. Chances are you'll get it, then transmit it to someone else, etc. and maybe that person will have a weakness and die from it. You're then indirectly responsible.

Stop believing all the crackpot theories and get the vaccine, there's really no reason not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This almost sounds like a UFO case where people think the government is hiding everything and the conspiracy is on, hilarious.

I also love people who don't take the shot because they say they're healthy. The thing is, you live in a community and you're not alone in the world. Chances are you'll get it, then transmit it to someone else, etc. and maybe that person will have a weakness and die from it. You're then indirectly responsible.

Stop believing all the crackpot theories and get the vaccine, there's really no reason not to.

There's no conspiracy here in my opinion, it's more a case of "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

You know at one time we thought smoking was fine, we used to put absestos in all our buildings, we use to have lead in all our gasoline, kids use to play with mercury?

Has science come that far recently that we can automatically say there are no potential long term risks? Look at BPA, it's in so many plastics and everything, yet we're just nowgetting consensus that it is dangerous, it's still not banned in the USA or most other countries.

It's not that I think there's a conspiracy, it's just that I don't agree with the central health agencie's definition of "safe".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no conspiracy here in my opinion, it's more a case of "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

You know at one time we thought smoking was fine, we used to put absestos in all our buildings, we use to have lead in all our gasoline, kids use to play with mercury?

Has science come that far recently that we can automatically say there are no potential long term risks? Look at BPA, it's in so many plastics and everything, yet we're just nowgetting consensus that it is dangerous, it's still not banned in the USA or most other countries.

It's not that I think there's a conspiracy, it's just that I don't agree with the central health agencie's definition of "safe".

I can understand what you mean, although I disagree. I guess there's not much to discuss pass that though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no conspiracy here in my opinion, it's more a case of "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

You know at one time we thought smoking was fine, we used to put absestos in all our buildings, we use to have lead in all our gasoline, kids use to play with mercury?

Has science come that far recently that we can automatically say there are no potential long term risks? Look at BPA, it's in so many plastics and everything, yet we're just nowgetting consensus that it is dangerous, it's still not banned in the USA or most other countries.

It's not that I think there's a conspiracy, it's just that I don't agree with the central health agencie's definition of "safe".

You make a reasonable point, but I'd like to offer some food for thought.

I'm sure you've heard of this 1976 swine flu vaccine that killed more people than that flu did, as it's often mentioned to show the potential dangers of vaccination. 25 people's deaths were attributed to the vaccine, and about 400 hospitalizations. Admittedly, that sounds pretty bad.

Unless you look at it this way: about 24% of the American population (or ~51 600 000 people) got the vaccine. That 0.00005%. If you want to look at it another way, Canada (a population 1/17th the size) has already had 115 swine flu deaths on the 5th of November, and that's counting the whole population and not just those that were exposed to the virus. So what's the deal, then... why did that '76 vaccine kill more people than the flu did back then? It's because nobody got the flu... it was contained to a single military base and never entered the population at large. So yes, the deadly vaccine killed more people than a flu that nobody had. But also significantly less than the current flu already has.

As for mercury and asbestos and lead, you're right, science is always advancing and there's no way to know what effects the vaccine is having that we haven't found out about yet. But couldn't the same be said for MRI's, PET scans, ingesting barium sulphate, and half of the medications we use on a daily basis? The flu vaccine, much like it is now, was developed in the 50's. That's an awful long time for people to notice complications, especially in an industry where people have been going out of their way to look for complications since its inception. Just look at all the crazy stuff that's been flying around with this current flu; you don't think someone stands to become really famous if they could prove that flu shots were dangerous? The media would eat it up!

Lastly: cell phones. There is as much (or more) evidence that frequent cell phone use can lead to brain cancer as there is that vaccines cause autism or anything else (besides complications in people with egg allergies, but that's just the egg in it). So if you're willing to talk on a cellphone for no gain other than convenience, why not get a flu shot that might actually keep somebody alive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing: this isn't really a new vaccine in the truest sense of the word. I've gone to get a flu shot almost every year since I've been a kid, and one of the three strains found in normal flu shots is for a seasonal H1N1 strain (not to be confused with the current H1N1 strain). It's a different strain of virus this year, yes, but it's essentially the same flu shot they've been giving without complication for years and years. The only difference this year is the massive hype and overexposure of the 'swine flu' (which I admit is waaaaaaaay worse than it should to be). Still, if the shot is free why not get it? In fact, why not get a flu shot every year, as it will be just as useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a reasonable point, but I'd like to offer some food for thought.

I'm sure you've heard of this 1976 swine flu vaccine that killed more people than that flu did, as it's often mentioned to show the potential dangers of vaccination. 25 people's deaths were attributed to the vaccine, and about 400 hospitalizations. Admittedly, that sounds pretty bad.

Unless you look at it this way: about 24% of the American population (or ~51 600 000 people) got the vaccine. That 0.00005%. If you want to look at it another way, Canada (a population 1/17th the size) has already had 115 swine flu deaths on the 5th of November, and that's counting the whole population and not just those that were exposed to the virus. So what's the deal, then... why did that '76 vaccine kill more people than the flu did back then? It's because nobody got the flu... it was contained to a single military base and never entered the population at large. So yes, the deadly vaccine killed more people than a flu that nobody had. But also significantly less than the current flu already has.

That's true, it was a small number overall and if you look at it that way, you're correct. But I think the main reason people bring this up is to point out that vaccines can have serious side effects, even when the government said they were safe, maybe this time it would have been worse.

That aside though, there's also the mentality of getting killed by external factors and doing something to kill yourself. Let's say there was some disease that was expected to kill off 50% of the population. Now let's say someone developed a pill, and let's assume it's very effective. But there is a 25% chance of death as a side effect of the pill. I'm assuming most people would take their chances against nature rather than taking a positive step towards their own death, even if taking the pill statistically speaking is a good idea.

And I think you meant 1/7 for the population difference, not 1/17

As for mercury and asbestos and lead, you're right, science is always advancing and there's no way to know what effects the vaccine is having that we haven't found out about yet. But couldn't the same be said for MRI's, PET scans, ingesting barium sulphate, and half of the medications we use on a daily basis? The flu vaccine, much like it is now, was developed in the 50's. That's an awful long time for people to notice complications, especially in an industry where people have been going out of their way to look for complications since its inception. Just look at all the crazy stuff that's been flying around with this current flu; you don't think someone stands to become really famous if they could prove that flu shots were dangerous? The media would eat it up!

time. I hate that every time I go to the dentist they push multiple different xrays on me. And I think we do take way too many medicines that may be doing more harm than good.

As for the time to catch complications, the problem is linkage. Most people don't know why they got cancer, neurological disorders, how their kids got autism, etc and it's very hard, with all the stuff in our life, to link back to one thing, especially when in the past. A lot of carcinogens are discovered by testing on animals in closely controlled and sped up experiments, not by figuring out a connection.

Lastly: cell phones. There is as much (or more) evidence that frequent cell phone use can lead to brain cancer as there is that vaccines cause autism or anything else (besides complications in people with egg allergies, but that's just the egg in it). So if you're willing to talk on a cellphone for no gain other than convenience, why not get a flu shot that might actually keep somebody alive?

Fair enough, personally I'm a bit more worried about things I put into my body, but you're right.

But, I don't like these "keep somebody alive" type of arguments because they can be used to justify anything. Do you have valid First Aid and CPR certification? That can help keep someone alive. Did you purchase an AED to bring around in your car, that could definitely save a life. Have you replaced your whole meal with healthy food since the flu began, this could also save a life by making yourself less likely to get sick. Have you ever purchased an SUV or big car, these are more likely to kill if you get in a crash. Why not give up driving altogether, you'll be less likely to kill a pedestrian or other driver (driving is after all, a convenience)?

Or too stick with the flu itself, a much better thing you could do for humankind to prevent people dying from the flu would be to stop supporting the pork industry (and to a lesser extent poultry) whose factory farms are breeding grounds for flu virus (there's some who think this current outbreak started in a hog factory farm in Mexico owned by a US Corporation - not sure if it was true or not though). Not to mention all the other devastating environmental and health effects (throw the beef industry at the top of this list, although I don't think cattle is much of a flu concern) this industry have, forcing them into bankruptcy would be one sure bet way to "save a life".

So a valid argument, but a tough one for anyone to make without being hypocritical in some way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing: this isn't really a new vaccine in the truest sense of the word. I've gone to get a flu shot almost every year since I've been a kid, and one of the three strains found in normal flu shots is for a seasonal H1N1 strain (not to be confused with the current H1N1 strain). It's a different strain of virus this year, yes, but it's essentially the same flu shot they've been giving without complication for years and years. The only difference this year is the massive hype and overexposure of the 'swine flu' (which I admit is waaaaaaaay worse than it should to be). Still, if the shot is free why not get it? In fact, why not get a flu shot every year, as it will be just as useful.

What was different about the 1976 I wonder then? Anyways I don't know enough about micro-biology to comment. Although I did hear that H1N1 wasn't significant in seasonal flu since the last pandemic (it was the main strain before that). And again, who knows the long term complication?

As for cost, it's not free for me, although that's not really the point. As for usefulness, I can't think of one day I've missed school or work in the last 5 years that was due to sickness (hangovers don't count :lol: ). Even before that I can't remember getting true flu like symptoms since I was a little kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true, it was a small number overall and if you look at it that way, you're correct. But I think the main reason people bring this up is to point out that vaccines can have serious side effects, even when the government said they were safe, maybe this time it would have been worse.

That aside though, there's also the mentality of getting killed by external factors and doing something to kill yourself. Let's say there was some disease that was expected to kill off 50% of the population. Now let's say someone developed a pill, and let's assume it's very effective. But there is a 25% chance of death as a side effect of the pill. I'm assuming most people would take their chances against nature rather than taking a positive step towards their own death, even if taking the pill statistically speaking is a good idea.

Hmmm... that's a really interesting point. It seems kind of weird to think about, but you're probably right. I'd like to think I'd take the pill in that hypothetical situation, but standing there knowing there's a 25% chance I'll die if I eat this thing I'm not completely convinced that I would. That's a cool observation.

But, I don't like these "keep somebody alive" type of arguments because they can be used to justify anything. Do you have valid First Aid and CPR certification? That can help keep someone alive. Did you purchase an AED to bring around in your car, that could definitely save a life. Have you replaced your whole meal with healthy food since the flu began, this could also save a life by making yourself less likely to get sick. Have you ever purchased an SUV or big car, these are more likely to kill if you get in a crash. Why not give up driving altogether, you'll be less likely to kill a pedestrian or other driver (driving is after all, a convenience)?

...

So a valid argument, but a tough one for anyone to make without being hypocritical in some way.

Another good point. Ideally, though, it would be nice to say that a person should do all those things that you mentioned, but I'll admit that most people wouldn't. I don't, anyway (although to be honest I actually haven't gotten a flu shot yet either :P).

Really, the reason I wrote all I did wasn't even so much that I consider the flu shot some morally great things to do, but rather just to try and have a go at dispelling the 1000+ rumours about the evils of vaccines that we hear about all of the time. The swine flu has been overhyped to the point where I don't even read the news stories anymore. People have been starting to catch on to the fact that this is being used to sell newspapers, and rightly so, but I've noticed now a huge shift in the opposite direction. Rather than believe the legitimate media, which are sensationalizing and exaggerating everything, people have started believing things they read on random sites and watch on youtube and hear from their friends which are just plain wrong.

So yeah, you're right, I probably went a little over the top with the 'save a life' rhetoric. Still though, I stand by the fact that it's way less dangerous to get vaccinated than it is to possibly expose yourself to the swine flu or any other flu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... that's a really interesting point. It seems kind of weird to think about, but you're probably right. I'd like to think I'd take the pill in that hypothetical situation, but standing there knowing there's a 25% chance I'll die if I eat this thing I'm not completely convinced that I would. That's a cool observation.

It's interesting, but I think it kind of makes sense psychologically. People don't want to hold themselves responsible for their own death, and mentally there is a difference between causing it positively (taking the pill, and the pill kills you) vs negatively (the disease kills you, but the pill could have saved you).

Another good point. Ideally, though, it would be nice to say that a person should do all those things that you mentioned, but I'll admit that most people wouldn't.

I'm not one of those people who say that pharmaceuticals are worthless, but I do believe we wouldn't need nearly as many if humankind could look after itself, yet we are notoriously only good at short term panic. We read that the flu has killed a few people and panic, we read that heart disease has killed millions while chomping down a Big Mac. I've been very guilty of this in the past and am trying to correct it. The one thing I am trying very hard to do is to cut all beef, pork, and milk out of my diet. But it's tough, I've done pretty well but one day I had a hamburger, and have occasionally had pizza with meat and cheese on it, and have occasionally had ice cream as well. It just seems to me it's clearly not worth it when you look at the personal health, environmental, animal cruelty, and yes public health (the current flu was probably caused by factory farming, good article on it: http://www.newsweek.com/id/195692) effects. I still eat poultry regularly though, which isn't perfect either but not nearly as bad.

So yeah, you're right, I probably went a little over the top with the 'save a life' rhetoric. Still though, I stand by the fact that it's way less dangerous to get vaccinated than it is to possibly expose yourself to the swine flu or any other flu.

You may very well be right, however, for me it's a case of "devil you know". I have a pretty good idea how (few) people this flu kills and I'm pretty sure once your body fights it off its gone. I'm less confident in knowing the long term effects of injecting (admittedly small) amounts of mercury into your body. And this assumes I even get the flu, if I were to get the shot there is 100% chance I've exposed myself to what's in the shot, but I may or may not get the flu (hoping for not :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...