the H1N1 vaccine, more harmful than good?
- Thread starter thinking
- Start date
- Status
I don't get flue shots.
neither do I
That's just fooking lies from the Internet.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/10/the_anti-vaccine_war_on_science_an_epide.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/10/when_methodolatry_strikes_over_h1n1_influenza.php
http://urban-science.blogspot.com/2009/10/over-next-few-posts-ill-discuss.html
http://urban-science.blogspot.com/2009/10/h1n1-vaccination-hysteria-part-2-should.html
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/10/the_anti-vaccine_war_on_science_an_epide.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/10/when_methodolatry_strikes_over_h1n1_influenza.php
http://urban-science.blogspot.com/2009/10/over-next-few-posts-ill-discuss.html
http://urban-science.blogspot.com/2009/10/h1n1-vaccination-hysteria-part-2-should.html
Well mostly not "harmful" It's a 1:100000 to a 1:1000000 chance of making you paralyzed partially because of the very ingredients you mentioned.
From what I've been able to gather, there "might" be a correlation to people whom often use fine motor skills being a little extra prone to this...but not one official study has been done on it. No money in that...
I've got no problem with "vulnerable" people getting it...but healthy people well the thing is if you don't get it this year you are just putting it off to the year after. They are really only delaying the eventual and natural course of this outbreak. It goes away when a certain % of the population are immune(by getting it). Just like 1918-1919 and the mid 70s.
From what I've been able to gather, there "might" be a correlation to people whom often use fine motor skills being a little extra prone to this...but not one official study has been done on it. No money in that...
I've got no problem with "vulnerable" people getting it...but healthy people well the thing is if you don't get it this year you are just putting it off to the year after. They are really only delaying the eventual and natural course of this outbreak. It goes away when a certain % of the population are immune(by getting it). Just like 1918-1919 and the mid 70s.
why do you state this ?
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
Because vaccines expire if not chemically preserved. Crazy concept, I know.
The "harmful chemical" is not liquid mercury, either. It contains a mercury containing compound called thiomersal (C9H9HgNaO2S) and the vaccine contains less mercury by weight than eating a single bite of any fish. I know this is hard for you laypeople to understand, but atoms contained in a molecule of this type are chemically changed from when they stand alone.
Get lost with your media hype and and fake concerns. This is crap thread material.
Last edited:
go back to post # 5
it doesn't say there not either
what it does say is that we don't know the , down the road consequences of all the several chemicals , actually multiple chemicals in the vaccine
and as I asked before , why the hell are they there in the first place ? all of them
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
That isn't scientific thinking. We don't act on the basis of something being true simply because no one has yet proven it untrue. To do so is idiotic.
regardless , the fact is there are many , many , chemicals in the H1N1 vaccine
and as well it seems idiotic to put so many chemicals into a vaccine of which you have NO idea of the consequences and we would be idiotic not to question why the hell they are there in the first place
so why are they ALL there in the first place ?
Biologists and those who create these vaccines have no incentive to create a product they would think would harm people. Actually..they have large disincentive.
thinking, please do the following for anyone to take you seriously:
- Prove that those who created the vaccine have 'No idea of the consequences' of what they put in it
- Prove that these chemicals are in fact harmful
- Actually post what the chemicals in the vaccine are
- Status