Quantcast
  • We invite you to join UKWorkshop.
    Members can turn off viewing Ads!

Flu jab

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

RobinBHM

Established Member
Joined
17 Sep 2011
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
108
Location
Wst Sussex
Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for Covid19
many currently available medicines for potential treatment no covid have been thoroughly tested.....including the NHS.
Hydroxychloroquine has been shown not to be an effective treatment by these tests
A few dodgy doctors etc on youtube have tried making out it does work.
Apparently even a president has tried saying so
But it doesnt.
 

RobinBHM

Established Member
Joined
17 Sep 2011
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
108
Location
Wst Sussex
It's fun to do, because the high priests of climate change go purple in the face if you ever even vaguely hint that there may be other things afoot than CO2.
Your post is like most of yours, as I said previously its a scatter gun of misinformation and logical fallacies making it difficult to tie you down on anything.
 

Phil Pascoe

occasional purveyor of blunt tools.
UKW Supporter
Joined
29 Jan 2012
Messages
19,514
Reaction score
484
Location
Shaft City, Mid Cornish Desert
I remember some years ago on the radio someone speaking of statistics and how there were sometimes strange extrapolations of figures. One statistic he used was that teetotallers had a shorter life expectancy than drinkers.
This sounds unlikely until it was explained that for this survey they had used "teetotal" in its truest sense - never drinking a single alcoholic drink - your maiden aunt who had a sherry at Xmas or a chap who had a whisky and lemon for his cold once every year were not classed as teetotal. This left people who were 100% teetotal ..................... of which a large proportion were non drinking alcoholics. Their bodies were already wrecked.
Another of course is the one that said N.Y. was to be 2000 feet deep in horse manure by 1900, using the increased figures from something like 1830 - 1835 as a base.
 

RogerS

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2004
Messages
17,381
Reaction score
73
Location
In the eternally wet North
I remember some years ago on the radio someone speaking of statistics and how there were sometimes strange extrapolations of figures. One statistic he used was that teetotallers had a shorter life expectancy than drinkers.
This sounds unlikely until it was explained that for this survey they had used "teetotal" in its truest sense - never drinking a single alcoholic drink - your maiden aunt who had a sherry at Xmas or a chap who had a whisky and lemon for his cold once every year were not classed as teetotal. This left people who were 100% teetotal ..................... of which a large proportion were non drinking alcoholics. Their bodies were already wrecked.
Another of course is the one that said N.Y. was to be 2000 feet deep in horse manure by 1900, using the increased figures from something like 1830 - 1835 as a base.
And Averages ...as misleading a measure as you can get. As someone mentioned here, if not elsewhere, if Elon Musk walked in to my local then the average wealth of the people in the bar would suddenly become very high. Probably up in the millions. On the other hand, were I to do the same then the average wealth would probably be about the same.
 

Droogs

Is that chisel shar ... Ow
Joined
14 Mar 2013
Messages
3,270
Reaction score
581
Location
Edinburgh
In my case it would fall drastically, prob'ly why I'm barred ⛔ 🍻
 

Blackswanwood

Still Learning
Joined
17 Nov 2018
Messages
660
Reaction score
187
Location
North Yorkshire
Is that opinion or fact? I know the answer having had pneumoin both lungs several times
This confirms that for most people it is only needed once
 

FatmanG

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2019
Messages
300
Reaction score
19
Location
Leeds
You are of course welcome to your own viewpoint. You are not, however, welcome to your own facts.
Since you and I have something in common with several bouts of double pneumonia you will no doubt have been told the facts about the pneumonia jab? What's your underlying problem causing it? Lung biopsy is very very painful isn't it? I had to lie still for 10 hours a after mine as apparently you can bleed to death afterwards. Lung disease is no fun and pneumonia means your literally drowning to death without being in water. Horrific experience.
However I won't be getting a flu vaccine I have my reasons made through my own research. Best of luck with whatever choice each person makes
 

Blackswanwood

Still Learning
Joined
17 Nov 2018
Messages
660
Reaction score
187
Location
North Yorkshire
It confirms nothing I asked a question if it worked
Did you get out of bed on the wrong side today? If you take a look back at your post I responded to you quoted Lurker's post which says "That jab is needed once in a lifetime, so it's got to be good." and you asked "Is that opinion or fact?"

The NHS link I linked to confirms it is given once for most people and that the PPV vaccine is thought to be around 50 to 70% effective at preventing pneumococcal disease which I thought you may find helpful.
 

Phil Pascoe

occasional purveyor of blunt tools.
UKW Supporter
Joined
29 Jan 2012
Messages
19,514
Reaction score
484
Location
Shaft City, Mid Cornish Desert
I was given the pneumonia jab at the same time as the flu jab about five years ago. I was told it was reckoned to last for twenty years. I haven't had pneumonia since............ which of course proves five eighths of f.a.
 
Last edited:

lurker

Le dullard de la commune
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
5,542
Reaction score
150
Location
Leicestershire
Is that opinion or fact? I know the answer having had pneumoin both lungs several times
What I meant is the jab is a one off, so in my opinion it's a no brainier but to have it. So yes it's just my opinion.
I respect your right to disagree, and forgo the reduced risk that the jab enables.
 

lurker

Le dullard de la commune
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
5,542
Reaction score
150
Location
Leicestershire
Pneumonia is usually the result of a bacterial infection.

The important word is usually.
There are six or seven other less common causes that the jab has no effect on.
 

RobinBHM

Established Member
Joined
17 Sep 2011
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
108
Location
Wst Sussex
I won't be getting a flu vaccine I have my reasons made through my own research.
I hope you thoroughly fact checked your research and investigated the motivation behind it.

lots of wannabe shock journalists out there trying to misrepresent the truth to get rankings on you tube etc

we are going through a perfect storm of misinformation.....a pandemic and unregulated social media full of echo chambers which are cauldrons of misinformation. What with QAnon, the great reset, globalists, Gate and Soros conspiracies, its hard to know where to turn.

Please dont think Im trying to dissuade you from your decision not to have a flu jab, Im just saying be awfully careful where you do your research, as somebody that has previously had pneumonia you are most vulnerable to viruses. Please be careful
 

Deadeye

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2017
Messages
569
Reaction score
37
Location
Buckinghamshire
This confirms that for most people it is only needed once
Um, actually that isn't quite what it says.

The vaccine is highly effective and fairly durable, against the main bacterial agents of pneumonia.
It is not effective (at all) against viral or fungal pneumonias or some bacterial.
It is less durable in people with otherwise impaired immune systems.

Anyone in a risk group not having an appropriate vaccination is not only a fool, but a selfish fool. Selfish, as they are enjoying the benefit of everyone else getting vaccinated.

Christ there's some twaddle on the internet though (not blackswanwood particularly, but the C19 threads are a goldmine of misinformation).

Anyway, anti-vaxxers are unlikely to let a virologist change their minds, especially a long retired one, so do carry on...
 

Deadeye

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2017
Messages
569
Reaction score
37
Location
Buckinghamshire
So there is no such thing as a sacred cow when it comes to science, or medicine? I would dispute that, but there you go - it is just an opinion.

Has there never, in the history of medicine, been a procedure or treatment that turned out to be wrong? Are all doctors infallible gods who never make mistakes, never use the wrong techniques, and never have to change the way they practice medicine?

Not only does medicine advance, (we no longer perform Lobotomies, nor do we blow tobacco smoke up people's bottoms to revive them after drowning), but medicine has been known to be wrong from time to time. There may be quite a lot of friction when getting the new, improved treatment to replace the old. Not always, of course, but a fine example would be the discovery of a bacteria being the main cause of stomach ulcers. Discovered in 1983 (I looked it up) people were still being treated by "reducing stress" and taking antacids up until past 2000, from what I understand. Very slow to change. No one is perfect.

I live in a country where there is a more jaundiced view of medicine: doctors here don't ask for bribes, but handing over cash may suddenly bring about a miraculous change of treatment, with rapidly improving outcomes. Funny that.
 

Blackswanwood

Still Learning
Joined
17 Nov 2018
Messages
660
Reaction score
187
Location
North Yorkshire
Um, actually that isn't quite what it says.

The vaccine is highly effective and fairly durable, against the main bacterial agents of pneumonia.
It is not effective (at all) against viral or fungal pneumonias or some bacterial.
It is less durable in people with otherwise impaired immune systems.

Anyone in a risk group not having an appropriate vaccination is not only a fool, but a selfish fool. Selfish, as they are enjoying the benefit of everyone else getting vaccinated.

Christ there's some twaddle on the internet though (not blackswanwood particularly, but the C19 threads are a goldmine of misinformation).

Anyway, anti-vaxxers are unlikely to let a virologist change their minds, especially a long retired one, so do carry on...
Okay - I apologise @Deadeye if I have misinterpreted the paragraph saying

” If you're at increased risk of a pneumococcal infection, you'll be given a single dose of the PPV vaccine.

But if your spleen does not work properly or you have a chronic kidney condition, you may need booster doses of PPV every 5 years.“

Does that mean most people that need the vaccine fall into the second category? (That is a genuine question)
 
Top