|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Dec 28, 2010, 5:10 PM
Post #26 of 85
(1651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: no flu shot. I rarely get sick, at least nothing more than the occassional cold. I've heard that once you get it you have to get it every year.Otherwise, what, you get autism? Jay
Worse than autism, you get Biever Fever.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Dec 28, 2010, 5:26 PM
Post #27 of 85
(1643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: no flu shot. I rarely get sick, at least nothing more than the occassional cold. I've heard that once you get it you have to get it every year.Otherwise, what, you get autism? Jay
no, that your immune system is weakened over the long term such that one needs the boost each year.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 28, 2010, 6:12 PM
Post #28 of 85
(1639 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: no flu shot. I rarely get sick, at least nothing more than the occassional cold. I've heard that once you get it you have to get it every year.Otherwise, what, you get autism? Jay no, that your immune system is weakened over the long term such that one needs the boost each year.
That's anti-vaccine crank nonsense.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Dec 28, 2010, 6:26 PM
Post #29 of 85
(1630 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: no flu shot. I rarely get sick, at least nothing more than the occassional cold. I've heard that once you get it you have to get it every year.Otherwise, what, you get autism? Jay no, that your immune system is weakened over the long term such that one needs the boost each year. That's anti-vaccine crank nonsense. Jay
Not according to the CDC
"Another reason to get flu vaccine every year is that after you get vaccinated your immunity declines over time and may be too low to provide protection after a year."
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 28, 2010, 6:47 PM
Post #30 of 85
(1628 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: no flu shot. I rarely get sick, at least nothing more than the occassional cold. I've heard that once you get it you have to get it every year.Otherwise, what, you get autism? Jay no, that your immune system is weakened over the long term such that one needs the boost each year. That's anti-vaccine crank nonsense. Jay "Another reason to get flu vaccine every year is that after you get vaccinated your immunity declines over time and may be too low to provide protection after a year."
That does not say that your immune system is weakened. It says that the vaccine may only protect you from the flu for one year.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
sp115
Dec 28, 2010, 6:56 PM
Post #31 of 85
(1622 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 515
|
jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: no flu shot. I rarely get sick, at least nothing more than the occassional cold. I've heard that once you get it you have to get it every year.Otherwise, what, you get autism? Jay no, that your immune system is weakened over the long term such that one needs the boost each year. That's anti-vaccine crank nonsense. Jay "Another reason to get flu vaccine every year is that after you get vaccinated your immunity declines over time and may be too low to provide protection after a year." That does not say that your immune system is weakened. It says that the vaccine may only protect you from the flu for one year. Jay
Jay is correct. This is from another site that phrases a response to the question a bit more clearly:
"Why do doctors say I have to get a flu vaccine every year? Like all vaccines, the flu vaccine only gives a temporary immunity to the virus strains or closely related virus strains contained in the vaccine. The only way to get natural and permanent immunity to a strain of flu is to recover naturally from the flu. Natural immunity to a particular strain of flu can be protective if that strain or closely related strains come around again in the future. However, because the vaccine only provides a 70 to 80 percent chance of temporary immunity to selected strains and those strains may or may not be prevalent each year, doctors say you have to get a flu shot every year.
http://www.vaccineinfo.net/immunization/vaccine/influenza/flu_vaccine_facts.shtml
(This post was edited by sp115 on Dec 28, 2010, 6:58 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Dec 28, 2010, 7:05 PM
Post #32 of 85
(1614 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: no flu shot. I rarely get sick, at least nothing more than the occassional cold. I've heard that once you get it you have to get it every year.Otherwise, what, you get autism? Jay no, that your immune system is weakened over the long term such that one needs the boost each year. That's anti-vaccine crank nonsense. Jay "Another reason to get flu vaccine every year is that after you get vaccinated your immunity declines over time and may be too low to provide protection after a year." That does not say that your immune system is weakened. It says that the vaccine may only protect you from the flu for one year. Jay
That's not the way I read it. The fact that your immunity declines over time seems to me that you need to get the shot every year because it may be too low to provide protection after a year. I know what you're saying (that immunity after the boost declines because the shot is simply that, a boost).
I guess it depends on what they're really saying: A) that only the shot can help protect against the flu virus or; B) the shot is one of many things that can protect against the virus. It isn't exactly clear which it is, and therefore it is rather open to interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
sp115
Dec 28, 2010, 7:11 PM
Post #33 of 85
(1611 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 515
|
GM, this is the statement that is incorrect:
"...that your immune system is weakened over the long term such that one needs the boost each year."
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 28, 2010, 7:37 PM
Post #34 of 85
(1599 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: no flu shot. I rarely get sick, at least nothing more than the occassional cold. I've heard that once you get it you have to get it every year.Otherwise, what, you get autism? Jay no, that your immune system is weakened over the long term such that one needs the boost each year. That's anti-vaccine crank nonsense. Jay "Another reason to get flu vaccine every year is that after you get vaccinated your immunity declines over time and may be too low to provide protection after a year." That does not say that your immune system is weakened. It says that the vaccine may only protect you from the flu for one year. Jay That's not the way I read it. The fact that your immunity declines over time seems to me that you need to get the shot every year because it may be too low to provide protection after a year. I know what you're saying (that immunity after the boost declines because the shot is simply that, a boost). I guess it depends on what they're really saying: A) that only the shot can help protect against the flu virus or; B) the shot is one of many things that can protect against the virus. It isn't exactly clear which it is, and therefore it is rather open to interpretation.
Huh? It isn't saying either of those things. All it is saying is that the immunity from the flu provided by the vaccine is temporary. Your immune system is not weakened. Speaking as someone who has a master's degree in epidemiology, has worked as a professional epidemiologist, has studied immunology, and has worked in a university immunology lab, I can tell you with confidence that that is nonsense. The CDC's statement is not "open to interpretation"; you have simply misinterpreted it. The flu vaccine does not weaken your immune system; it temporarily strengthens it against specific flu strains. After the immunity wears off your immune system is just back to where it was before you got the shot.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Dec 28, 2010, 7:39 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Dec 28, 2010, 8:12 PM
Post #35 of 85
(1590 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: no flu shot. I rarely get sick, at least nothing more than the occassional cold. I've heard that once you get it you have to get it every year.Otherwise, what, you get autism? Jay no, that your immune system is weakened over the long term such that one needs the boost each year. That's anti-vaccine crank nonsense. Jay "Another reason to get flu vaccine every year is that after you get vaccinated your immunity declines over time and may be too low to provide protection after a year." That does not say that your immune system is weakened. It says that the vaccine may only protect you from the flu for one year. Jay That's not the way I read it. The fact that your immunity declines over time seems to me that you need to get the shot every year because it may be too low to provide protection after a year. I know what you're saying (that immunity after the boost declines because the shot is simply that, a boost). I guess it depends on what they're really saying: A) that only the shot can help protect against the flu virus or; B) the shot is one of many things that can protect against the virus. It isn't exactly clear which it is, and therefore it is rather open to interpretation. Huh? It isn't saying either of those things. All it is saying is that the immunity from the flu provided by the vaccine is temporary. Your immune system is not weakened. Speaking as someone who has a master's degree in epidemiology, has worked as a professional epidemiologist, has studied immunology, and has worked in a university immunology lab, I can tell you with confidence that that is nonsense. The CDC's statement is not "open to interpretation"; you have simply misinterpreted it. The flu vaccine does not weaken your immune system; it temporarily strengthens it against specific flu strains. After the immunity wears off your immune system is just back to where it was before you got the shot. Jay
How about this one?
Look, go and get it if you think that's the thing to do. I'm 35 years old, healthy, rarely get sick, eat well, exercise fairly often and, therefore, see no reason to fuck with something that has kept me healthy over time (i.e. - not going out and seeking the latest medical / pharmaceutical treatment just because that's what everyone says I should do).
It also seems a bit irresponsible on my part to get it considering there are people out there who could use it much more than me.
Really, it seems odd to me that with so many different strains (and a ~ max success rate of 80% depending on how lucky the researchers are), that continually medicating my otherwise healthy body is going to keep my body healthier than me taking care of myself will do.
I also found this interesting when I read about it last year: CBC reports four preliminary studies show increased risk to H1N1 with flu shot. Hasn't this been the case with HIV, that vaccines for other illnesses may open the door for more serious illnesses?
In reply to: Speaking as someone who has a master's degree in epidemiology, has worked as a professional epidemiologist, has studied immunology, and has worked in a university immunology lab
and yet, you argue with me...
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Dec 28, 2010, 9:13 PM
Post #36 of 85
(1578 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Curious... Do you argue with your doctor about medice too?
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Dec 28, 2010, 9:34 PM
Post #37 of 85
(1573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
rrrADAM wrote: Curious... Do you argue with your doctor about medice too?
No, my doctor is great. When I need medication I take it. For instance, I had Lyme this summer and he was great in treating it. A few years ago I slipped on ice on a set of stone steps and had a pretty severe back spasm. He gave me a muscle relaxant and I was back climbing within a few days.
The thing I like about my doctor is he listens to me and explains things to me: why this method would work better than others, why some people take this medication and others opt out, etc. We've talked about the vaccine, and while he thinks I should take it for precautionary measures he agrees I don't necessarily need it. I'm definitely not in the high-risk zone. When I'm older and not as healthy? That's a different story.
I've always explained to him that my preference is to first find a way to adapt to illnesses without drugs, and he's been great at helping me to achieve that. It isn't always possible or even highly recommended (Lyme, for instance just wasn't reasonable to avoid the doxy), but when it is then it works well. I have some esophogeal issues that medication would help to alleviate (and allow me to eat a wider range of foods), but what for? All I need to do is avoid certain foods. It's easier, cheaper, and I'm not putting an unecessary drug into my body for the rest of my life.
No, my doctor is great. He hasn't always been right, but he's never been afraid to talk to me, listen to me, and advise me either by sending me to the appropriate specialist or be aggressive with my treatments.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 28, 2010, 10:08 PM
Post #38 of 85
(1555 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: no flu shot. I rarely get sick, at least nothing more than the occassional cold. I've heard that once you get it you have to get it every year.Otherwise, what, you get autism? Jay no, that your immune system is weakened over the long term such that one needs the boost each year. That's anti-vaccine crank nonsense. Jay "Another reason to get flu vaccine every year is that after you get vaccinated your immunity declines over time and may be too low to provide protection after a year." That does not say that your immune system is weakened. It says that the vaccine may only protect you from the flu for one year. Jay That's not the way I read it. The fact that your immunity declines over time seems to me that you need to get the shot every year because it may be too low to provide protection after a year. I know what you're saying (that immunity after the boost declines because the shot is simply that, a boost). I guess it depends on what they're really saying: A) that only the shot can help protect against the flu virus or; B) the shot is one of many things that can protect against the virus. It isn't exactly clear which it is, and therefore it is rather open to interpretation. Huh? It isn't saying either of those things. All it is saying is that the immunity from the flu provided by the vaccine is temporary. Your immune system is not weakened. Speaking as someone who has a master's degree in epidemiology, has worked as a professional epidemiologist, has studied immunology, and has worked in a university immunology lab, I can tell you with confidence that that is nonsense. The CDC's statement is not "open to interpretation"; you have simply misinterpreted it. The flu vaccine does not weaken your immune system; it temporarily strengthens it against specific flu strains. After the immunity wears off your immune system is just back to where it was before you got the shot. Jay
What about that one? Did you bother to read it? Did you understand it? It has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
In reply to: Look, go and get it if you think that's the thing to do.
That's not the issue we've been discussing. We've been discussing your weird belief that the vaccine weakens the immune system.
That was unpublished, un-peer-reviewed data, that neither the CDC nor WHO could replicate.
In reply to: Hasn't this been the case with HIV, that vaccines for other illnesses may open the door for more serious illnesses?
Huh?
In reply to: In reply to: Speaking as someone who has a master's degree in epidemiology, has worked as a professional epidemiologist, has studied immunology, and has worked in a university immunology lab and yet, you argue with me...
What's your point? That I'm too knowledgeable about the subject to argue about it? That you're too ignorant for me to bother with? That only people who are as ignorant as you are qualified to argue with you? WTF?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Dec 28, 2010, 10:28 PM
Post #39 of 85
(1545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: no flu shot. I rarely get sick, at least nothing more than the occassional cold. I've heard that once you get it you have to get it every year.Otherwise, what, you get autism? Jay no, that your immune system is weakened over the long term such that one needs the boost each year. That's anti-vaccine crank nonsense. Jay "Another reason to get flu vaccine every year is that after you get vaccinated your immunity declines over time and may be too low to provide protection after a year." That does not say that your immune system is weakened. It says that the vaccine may only protect you from the flu for one year. Jay That's not the way I read it. The fact that your immunity declines over time seems to me that you need to get the shot every year because it may be too low to provide protection after a year. I know what you're saying (that immunity after the boost declines because the shot is simply that, a boost). I guess it depends on what they're really saying: A) that only the shot can help protect against the flu virus or; B) the shot is one of many things that can protect against the virus. It isn't exactly clear which it is, and therefore it is rather open to interpretation. Huh? It isn't saying either of those things. All it is saying is that the immunity from the flu provided by the vaccine is temporary. Your immune system is not weakened. Speaking as someone who has a master's degree in epidemiology, has worked as a professional epidemiologist, has studied immunology, and has worked in a university immunology lab, I can tell you with confidence that that is nonsense. The CDC's statement is not "open to interpretation"; you have simply misinterpreted it. The flu vaccine does not weaken your immune system; it temporarily strengthens it against specific flu strains. After the immunity wears off your immune system is just back to where it was before you got the shot. Jay What about that one? Did you bother to read it? Did you understand it? It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. In reply to: Look, go and get it if you think that's the thing to do. That's not the issue we've been discussing. We've been discussing your weird belief that the vaccine weakens the immune system. That was unpublished, un-peer-reviewed data, that neither the CDC nor WHO could replicate. In reply to: Hasn't this been the case with HIV, that vaccines for other illnesses may open the door for more serious illnesses? Huh? In reply to: In reply to: Speaking as someone who has a master's degree in epidemiology, has worked as a professional epidemiologist, has studied immunology, and has worked in a university immunology lab and yet, you argue with me... What's your point? That I'm too knowledgeable about the subject to argue about it? That you're too ignorant for me to bother with? That only people who are as ignorant as you are qualified to argue with you? WTF? Jay
you should know better.
|
|
|
|
|
lhwang
Dec 28, 2010, 11:36 PM
Post #40 of 85
(1529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 4, 2005
Posts: 582
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: no flu shot. I rarely get sick, at least nothing more than the occassional cold. I've heard that once you get it you have to get it every year.Otherwise, what, you get autism? Jay no, that your immune system is weakened over the long term such that one needs the boost each year. That's anti-vaccine crank nonsense. Jay "Another reason to get flu vaccine every year is that after you get vaccinated your immunity declines over time and may be too low to provide protection after a year." That does not say that your immune system is weakened. It says that the vaccine may only protect you from the flu for one year. Jay That's not the way I read it. The fact that your immunity declines over time seems to me that you need to get the shot every year because it may be too low to provide protection after a year. I know what you're saying (that immunity after the boost declines because the shot is simply that, a boost).
No. They recommend getting the flu shot every year because the flu virus continuously mutates, so the strains that they put in the flu shot each year are new.
|
|
|
|
|
traddad
Dec 29, 2010, 1:49 AM
Post #41 of 85
(1515 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 7129
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: no flu shot. I rarely get sick, at least nothing more than the occassional cold. I've heard that once you get it you have to get it every year.Otherwise, what, you get autism? Jay no, that your immune system is weakened over the long term such that one needs the boost each year. That's anti-vaccine crank nonsense. Jay "Another reason to get flu vaccine every year is that after you get vaccinated your immunity declines over time and may be too low to provide protection after a year."
You badly misinterpreted that. Read it again with the context that the the vaccine ramps up your body's immunity.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Dec 29, 2010, 2:05 AM
Post #42 of 85
(1511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: no flu shot. I rarely get sick, at least nothing more than the occassional cold. I've heard that once you get it you have to get it every year. Since my immune system seems to be working just fine, I don't see the reason to weaken it over the long term.
People who come out with statements like this reveal that they understand essentially nothing about how the immune system and vaccines work.
Vaccines don't weaken or strengthen the immune system - they train it. A simple but reasonably accurate analogy is sending ahead a mugshot, M.O. and likely targets of a known criminal. This tells the local law enforcement agency what to look out for, but they still have to rely on their own skill and, to a significant extent, luck to catch and neutralise the crook. Even with the advance warning, some will still let it through.
As for why a booster is required every year, it just so happens that the flu is a master of disguise.
|
|
|
|
|
skiclimb
Dec 29, 2010, 4:53 AM
Post #43 of 85
(1497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2004
Posts: 1938
|
Yes get it.. unless you hate giving massive profits to BIG PHARMA so much that you would rather get the flu.
Fuck them I'll take on the flu instead.
Oh yeah and fuck all the unprotected people who may come near me if I get the flu.
(This post was edited by skiclimb on Dec 29, 2010, 4:54 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
I_do
Dec 30, 2010, 2:33 PM
Post #44 of 85
(1457 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2008
Posts: 1232
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: rrrADAM wrote: Curious... Do you argue with your doctor about medice too? No, my doctor is great. When I need medication I take it. For instance, I had Lyme this summer and he was great in treating it. A few years ago I slipped on ice on a set of stone steps and had a pretty severe back spasm. He gave me a muscle relaxant and I was back climbing within a few days. The thing I like about my doctor is he listens to me and explains things to me: why this method would work better than others, why some people take this medication and others opt out, etc. We've talked about the vaccine, and while he thinks I should take it for precautionary measures he agrees I don't necessarily need it. I'm definitely not in the high-risk zone. When I'm older and not as healthy? That's a different story. I've always explained to him that my preference is to first find a way to adapt to illnesses without drugs, and he's been great at helping me to achieve that. It isn't always possible or even highly recommended (Lyme, for instance just wasn't reasonable to avoid the doxy), but when it is then it works well. I have some esophogeal issues that medication would help to alleviate (and allow me to eat a wider range of foods), but what for? All I need to do is avoid certain foods. It's easier, cheaper, and I'm not putting an unecessary drug into my body for the rest of my life. No, my doctor is great. He hasn't always been right, but he's never been afraid to talk to me, listen to me, and advise me either by sending me to the appropriate specialist or be aggressive with my treatments.
Yet when someone does that here you start arguing with them. You know you could have said, OK so I've misunderstood how vaccines work. They do not decrease resistance and it's not like taking medication. I still don't think I NEED them, just like my doctor said, but maybe I'll keep this new info in the back of my head just in case.
In stead you act like an asshole and discuss things you don't even understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Dec 30, 2010, 3:01 PM
Post #45 of 85
(1454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
I_do wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: rrrADAM wrote: Curious... Do you argue with your doctor about medice too? No, my doctor is great. When I need medication I take it. For instance, I had Lyme this summer and he was great in treating it. A few years ago I slipped on ice on a set of stone steps and had a pretty severe back spasm. He gave me a muscle relaxant and I was back climbing within a few days. The thing I like about my doctor is he listens to me and explains things to me: why this method would work better than others, why some people take this medication and others opt out, etc. We've talked about the vaccine, and while he thinks I should take it for precautionary measures he agrees I don't necessarily need it. I'm definitely not in the high-risk zone. When I'm older and not as healthy? That's a different story. I've always explained to him that my preference is to first find a way to adapt to illnesses without drugs, and he's been great at helping me to achieve that. It isn't always possible or even highly recommended (Lyme, for instance just wasn't reasonable to avoid the doxy), but when it is then it works well. I have some esophogeal issues that medication would help to alleviate (and allow me to eat a wider range of foods), but what for? All I need to do is avoid certain foods. It's easier, cheaper, and I'm not putting an unecessary drug into my body for the rest of my life. No, my doctor is great. He hasn't always been right, but he's never been afraid to talk to me, listen to me, and advise me either by sending me to the appropriate specialist or be aggressive with my treatments. Yet when someone does that here you start arguing with them. You know you could have said, OK so I've misunderstood how vaccines work. They do not decrease resistance and it's not like taking medication. I still don't think I NEED them, just like my doctor said, but maybe I'll keep this new info in the back of my head just in case. In stead you act like an asshole and discuss things you don't even understand.
blah blah blah blah blah!
|
|
|
|
|
Kartessa
Dec 30, 2010, 3:14 PM
Post #46 of 85
(1450 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2008
Posts: 7362
|
It's really a 50/50 in my books.
I got the shot this year, like every other year, and I got sick... twice.
Who knows, maybe it wasn't so bad thanks to the shot, maybe the shot didnt do squat. All I know is that I have a 2 year old in daycare and he brings home all sorts of goodies to share with his mommy, I might as well try to protect myself.
|
|
|
|
|
I_do
Dec 30, 2010, 3:38 PM
Post #47 of 85
(1444 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2008
Posts: 1232
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: I_do wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: rrrADAM wrote: Curious... Do you argue with your doctor about medice too? No, my doctor is great. When I need medication I take it. For instance, I had Lyme this summer and he was great in treating it. A few years ago I slipped on ice on a set of stone steps and had a pretty severe back spasm. He gave me a muscle relaxant and I was back climbing within a few days. The thing I like about my doctor is he listens to me and explains things to me: why this method would work better than others, why some people take this medication and others opt out, etc. We've talked about the vaccine, and while he thinks I should take it for precautionary measures he agrees I don't necessarily need it. I'm definitely not in the high-risk zone. When I'm older and not as healthy? That's a different story. I've always explained to him that my preference is to first find a way to adapt to illnesses without drugs, and he's been great at helping me to achieve that. It isn't always possible or even highly recommended (Lyme, for instance just wasn't reasonable to avoid the doxy), but when it is then it works well. I have some esophogeal issues that medication would help to alleviate (and allow me to eat a wider range of foods), but what for? All I need to do is avoid certain foods. It's easier, cheaper, and I'm not putting an unecessary drug into my body for the rest of my life. No, my doctor is great. He hasn't always been right, but he's never been afraid to talk to me, listen to me, and advise me either by sending me to the appropriate specialist or be aggressive with my treatments. Yet when someone does that here you start arguing with them. You know you could have said, OK so I've misunderstood how vaccines work. They do not decrease resistance and it's not like taking medication. I still don't think I NEED them, just like my doctor said, but maybe I'll keep this new info in the back of my head just in case. In stead you act like an asshole and discuss things you don't even understand. blah blah blah blah blah! [image]http://anecdonet.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/hand-pictures1.jpg?w=420&h=299.jpg[/image]
Do you have this near pathological problem with being wrong in your personal life as well, or is it restricted to your on-line persona?
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Dec 30, 2010, 3:43 PM
Post #48 of 85
(1442 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
I_do wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: I_do wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: rrrADAM wrote: Curious... Do you argue with your doctor about medice too? No, my doctor is great. When I need medication I take it. For instance, I had Lyme this summer and he was great in treating it. A few years ago I slipped on ice on a set of stone steps and had a pretty severe back spasm. He gave me a muscle relaxant and I was back climbing within a few days. The thing I like about my doctor is he listens to me and explains things to me: why this method would work better than others, why some people take this medication and others opt out, etc. We've talked about the vaccine, and while he thinks I should take it for precautionary measures he agrees I don't necessarily need it. I'm definitely not in the high-risk zone. When I'm older and not as healthy? That's a different story. I've always explained to him that my preference is to first find a way to adapt to illnesses without drugs, and he's been great at helping me to achieve that. It isn't always possible or even highly recommended (Lyme, for instance just wasn't reasonable to avoid the doxy), but when it is then it works well. I have some esophogeal issues that medication would help to alleviate (and allow me to eat a wider range of foods), but what for? All I need to do is avoid certain foods. It's easier, cheaper, and I'm not putting an unecessary drug into my body for the rest of my life. No, my doctor is great. He hasn't always been right, but he's never been afraid to talk to me, listen to me, and advise me either by sending me to the appropriate specialist or be aggressive with my treatments. Yet when someone does that here you start arguing with them. You know you could have said, OK so I've misunderstood how vaccines work. They do not decrease resistance and it's not like taking medication. I still don't think I NEED them, just like my doctor said, but maybe I'll keep this new info in the back of my head just in case. In stead you act like an asshole and discuss things you don't even understand. blah blah blah blah blah! [image]http://anecdonet.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/hand-pictures1.jpg?w=420&h=299.jpg[/image] Do you have this near pathological problem with being wrong in your personal life as well, or is it restricted to your on-line persona?
who says I'm wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Dec 30, 2010, 4:08 PM
Post #49 of 85
(1439 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: I_do wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: I_do wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: rrrADAM wrote: Curious... Do you argue with your doctor about medice too? No, my doctor is great. When I need medication I take it. For instance, I had Lyme this summer and he was great in treating it. A few years ago I slipped on ice on a set of stone steps and had a pretty severe back spasm. He gave me a muscle relaxant and I was back climbing within a few days. The thing I like about my doctor is he listens to me and explains things to me: why this method would work better than others, why some people take this medication and others opt out, etc. We've talked about the vaccine, and while he thinks I should take it for precautionary measures he agrees I don't necessarily need it. I'm definitely not in the high-risk zone. When I'm older and not as healthy? That's a different story. I've always explained to him that my preference is to first find a way to adapt to illnesses without drugs, and he's been great at helping me to achieve that. It isn't always possible or even highly recommended (Lyme, for instance just wasn't reasonable to avoid the doxy), but when it is then it works well. I have some esophogeal issues that medication would help to alleviate (and allow me to eat a wider range of foods), but what for? All I need to do is avoid certain foods. It's easier, cheaper, and I'm not putting an unecessary drug into my body for the rest of my life. No, my doctor is great. He hasn't always been right, but he's never been afraid to talk to me, listen to me, and advise me either by sending me to the appropriate specialist or be aggressive with my treatments. Yet when someone does that here you start arguing with them. You know you could have said, OK so I've misunderstood how vaccines work. They do not decrease resistance and it's not like taking medication. I still don't think I NEED them, just like my doctor said, but maybe I'll keep this new info in the back of my head just in case. In stead you act like an asshole and discuss things you don't even understand. blah blah blah blah blah! [image]http://anecdonet.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/hand-pictures1.jpg?w=420&h=299.jpg[/image] Do you have this near pathological problem with being wrong in your personal life as well, or is it restricted to your on-line persona? who says I'm wrong?
People with more expertise in wrongitude than you.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Dec 30, 2010, 4:15 PM
Post #50 of 85
(1438 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
camhead wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: I_do wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: I_do wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: rrrADAM wrote: Curious... Do you argue with your doctor about medice too? No, my doctor is great. When I need medication I take it. For instance, I had Lyme this summer and he was great in treating it. A few years ago I slipped on ice on a set of stone steps and had a pretty severe back spasm. He gave me a muscle relaxant and I was back climbing within a few days. The thing I like about my doctor is he listens to me and explains things to me: why this method would work better than others, why some people take this medication and others opt out, etc. We've talked about the vaccine, and while he thinks I should take it for precautionary measures he agrees I don't necessarily need it. I'm definitely not in the high-risk zone. When I'm older and not as healthy? That's a different story. I've always explained to him that my preference is to first find a way to adapt to illnesses without drugs, and he's been great at helping me to achieve that. It isn't always possible or even highly recommended (Lyme, for instance just wasn't reasonable to avoid the doxy), but when it is then it works well. I have some esophogeal issues that medication would help to alleviate (and allow me to eat a wider range of foods), but what for? All I need to do is avoid certain foods. It's easier, cheaper, and I'm not putting an unecessary drug into my body for the rest of my life. No, my doctor is great. He hasn't always been right, but he's never been afraid to talk to me, listen to me, and advise me either by sending me to the appropriate specialist or be aggressive with my treatments. Yet when someone does that here you start arguing with them. You know you could have said, OK so I've misunderstood how vaccines work. They do not decrease resistance and it's not like taking medication. I still don't think I NEED them, just like my doctor said, but maybe I'll keep this new info in the back of my head just in case. In stead you act like an asshole and discuss things you don't even understand. blah blah blah blah blah! [image]http://anecdonet.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/hand-pictures1.jpg?w=420&h=299.jpg[/image] Do you have this near pathological problem with being wrong in your personal life as well, or is it restricted to your on-line persona? who says I'm wrong? People with more expertise in wrongitude than you.
not gonna lie, that one twisted my head a little.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
