2013 - Universal Flu Vaccine?

i believe in agenda 21. its real and coming to a town near you. but what did you condom banning birth controlling freak of nature republicans think was gonna happen? i mean really? really? it takes x amount of space just to feed each of us. dont wear condoms you said. each one of us uses x amount of finite resources to power our cellphones cars and all the other hoopty shit we dont need... be fruitful and multiply you christian bastards screamed at the top of your lungs... tell your gawd we need a fuckin cleanup on aisle three... bet he comes with a firestorm or earthquakes or some such shit to set it all back right... agenda 21? thats gawds plan... and the earths final resolve...man just gonna have to carry it out...or the planet, mother earth, will have to sluff us off... life is gonna get real unpretty real soon... have a great day!!
 
redrumloa said:
Look at the replies in this thread to see how far the brainwashing has gone.
Click to expand...
Red - do you believe 6-7 Billion and growing population at US standards of living is unstainable? If so, what is the best way to discourage this behavior before the massive wars for shrinking resources do it for us.

Peak Oil is upon us. Oil production is stable only because we're finding oil at increasing costs because of increasing depths. We also are using methods which were too expensive but now more reasonable because of the scarcity of cheap oil. Due to the scarcity of oil the USA considers coups in Iran and wars in the middle-east as protecting as a necessity. I know people dislike Carter but he was right we need to get the oil monkey off our backs.
 
You don't need to force abortions or limit child births to control population growth. Reducing poverty has been proven to be very effective at doing that. The simple education of women goes a long way.

But if poverty isn't reduced, those who are in poverty will be the ones who are most likely to feel the brunt of any food or energy crisis. Like Fluffy said it'll take care of itself. The problem is that there's little incentive for people in the first world to do anything about it. Nature will take it's course and the population levels will eventually be capped by natural causes as they always are.

As for vaccines, well, my advice is to simply not listen to the anti-vaccine quacks.
 
Glaucus,
You are spot on. Educating and empowering women does more for population control than most anything.

And as for 'it'll take care of itself' - genocides and war is a way to do that. If one hates abortion because it stops a life before viability they should hate war even more. War stops a life short during the viable period.

As for vaccines - it's part of the medical establishment. It's good to always keep a skeptical eye. Though at the time ALL the vaccines we have are better than any complimentary alternative treatment can provide. And better than trying to mail disease - http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/09/parents-avoid-vaccine-by-spreading-disease-through-mail/
 
Of course there are dangers with everything you do. But what should we think of people who tell you to avoid all motor vehicles because of the huge number of accidents and traffic deaths each year? We obviously wouldn't think much of such warnings despite them being true because the risk is worth the benefit. Same goes with vaccines. It's a fact that some vaccines can cause problems far worse than the disease, but it's at such a low rate that you'd be better of spending your time worrying about motor vehicle safety.
 
Glaucus said:
It's a fact that some vaccines can cause problems far worse than the disease, but it's at such a low rate that you'd be better of spending your time worrying about motor vehicle safety.
Click to expand...
But we are forced to have insurance for our motor vehicles. If we injure someone with our vehicle then there is at least some compensation. If you are injured by vaccine then, at least in the US, the vaccine manufacturer is held blameless and you are left to fend for yourself. If vaccination is so beneficial to the majority then the majority SHOULD be held made to support those who are injured by doing the right thing. That is at least fair.

However, human beings still feel that there is a big moral difference between doing something to another person that results in injury and letting a person come to grief by natural causes. If you could deflect the runaway bus from hitting the school children by pushing the fat man under the front wheels, would you?
 
faethor said:
Red - do you believe 6-7 Billion and growing population at US standards of living is unstainable? If so, what is the best way to discourage this behavior before the massive wars for shrinking resources do it for us.
Click to expand...

Which is?

Peak Oil is upon us. Oil production is stable only because we're finding oil at increasing costs because of increasing depths. We also are using methods which were too expensive but now more reasonable because of the scarcity of cheap oil. Due to the scarcity of oil the USA considers coups in Iran and wars in the middle-east as protecting as a necessity. I know people dislike Carter but he was right we need to get the oil monkey off our backs.
Click to expand...

We have more oil/coal/gas then we know what to do with for centuries at our current consumption in the US alone. I've been hearing about this coming oil shortage disaster since I was a child in the 60s. Which isn't surprising, think the original peak oil was originally given in the 1910s. That's right, the world was absolutely going to run out in the 1930s! Not a drop more after that.
 
Glaucus said:
You don't need to force abortions or limit child births to control population growth. Reducing poverty has been proven to be very effective at doing that. The simple education of women goes a long way.

But if poverty isn't reduced, those who are in poverty will be the ones who are most likely to feel the brunt of any food or energy crisis. Like Fluffy said it'll take care of itself. The problem is that there's little incentive for people in the first world to do anything about it. Nature will take it's course and the population levels will eventually be capped by natural causes as they always are.

As for vaccines, well, my advice is to simply not listen to the anti-vaccine quacks.
Click to expand...

Reducing poverty is a great thing, first thing that typically has to go is the corrupt central planners that keep people in poverty by decentalizing the power structure back to the people. But my question still stands, how will the UN achieve it's goal in Agenda21 of reducing the world's population to 500M?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
But we are forced to have insurance for our motor vehicles.
Click to expand...
But we are not forced to own a vehicle and there are many who do not. And in the US, you could opt to get only 3rd party liability insurance.

If you are injured by vaccine then, at least in the US, the vaccine manufacturer is held blameless and you are left to fend for yourself.
Click to expand...
Blameless? Well that may depend. If they were negligent somehow, they could be held accountable, although I admit that may be a tough task it is however technically possible. However, if you just happen to be the odd person to have a natural bad reaction to a vaccine that is otherwise fine, then you still have the benefit of your medical coverage which in Canada comes automatically. If you were given a vaccine and you reacted badly and became paralyzed, you will get medical treatment and that treatment will be payed by the majority who fund it through their income taxes. Also, when the Red Cross gave out tainted blood to hemophiliacs there was a class action law suite and there were damages awarded. So either way the system seems to do exactly what you're demanding.

However, human beings still feel that there is a big moral difference between doing something to another person that results in injury and letting a person come to grief by natural causes. If you could deflect the runaway bus from hitting the school children by pushing the fat man under the front wheels, would you?
Click to expand...
Not sure that's a fair question. Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be: If a runaway bus full of children is heading towards a cliff and you can deflect it into a solid building by simply shoving a cart in the way, what would you do? The cliff is certain death, the wall is far less certain. You see, we don't need to sacrifice a "fat man" to build the vaccine, but we do know that deflecting the population away from the dangers of the virus and into the path of the vaccine will yield less casualties. It's not a death panel, it's risk management.

Still, both hypotheticals are inaccurate because no one is forced to take a vaccine and I would oppose that. However, I see little reason why anyone would choose not to. I say, let the ill informed suffer, I look forward to never suffering another bout of the flu.
 
Glaucus said:
Blameless? Well that may depend. If they were negligent somehow, they could be held accountable, although I admit that may be a tough task it is however technically possible.
Click to expand...
With the H1N1 vaccine (and it may carry over to others), the manufacturers specifically were granted immunity from any claims. No class action or other civil action would have been allowed to proceed.

However, if you just happen to be the odd person to have a natural bad reaction to a vaccine that is otherwise fine
Click to expand...
Like the odd person who has a naturally bad reaction to Vioxx, a product that works fine for most everyone else...

than you still have the benefit of your medical coverage which in Canada comes automatically.
Click to expand...
In CANADA - and other places with that kind of comprehensive health care.

Not sure that's a fair question. Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be: If a runaway bus full of children is heading towards a cliff and you can deflect it into a solid building by simply shoving a cart in the way, what would you do? The cliff is certain death, the wall is far less certain. You see, we don't need to sacrifice a "fat man" to build the vaccine,[...]
Click to expand...

If giving vaccines to inanimate objects would protect people who didn't get vaccinated then your analogy might be relevant, however, mass vaccine involves causing injury to people who may well never have contracted the disease that the vaccine is protecting against.
Still, both hypotheticals are inaccurate because no one is forced to take a vaccine and I would oppose that. However, I see little reason why anyone would choose not to. I say, let the ill informed suffer, I look forward to never suffering another bout of the flu.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that. When one flu vaccine is given other flus tend to help fill the gap - but only a small percentage of people in a season catch any one flu. However, my best bet is to let you and everyone else take the vaccines and I get a free ride on your risk.
 
faethor said:
As for vaccines - it's part of the medical establishment. It's good to always keep a skeptical eye.
Click to expand...

Weren't you the same person who posted this picture?

eaoUu.jpg
Click to expand...

Talking about playing both sides of the coin :rolleyes:

Of course people have to keep a skeptical eye, but frankly it does not appear you have one. Anyone with a knowledge of US history when it comes to gov involved in "health care" would not make light of such concerns. Then again, this very thread shows the ingrained mindset of the brainwashed that humanity itself is a scourge that needs eradicated.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
With the H1N1 vaccine (and it may carry over to others), the manufacturers specifically were granted immunity from any claims. No class action or other civil action would have been allowed to proceed.
Click to expand...
That sounds vaguely familiar, but I'd like you to provide a link for me on that (please).

Like the odd person who has a naturally bad reaction to Vioxx, a product that works fine for most everyone else...
Click to expand...
Exactly. Did I ever say there is no risk to a vaccine?

In CANADA - and other places with that kind of comprehensive health care.
Click to expand...
Like I said before, it's all about risk management. Everyone will have to take into account the pros and cons based on their own circumstances. However, I would argue that people with no medical coverage at all stand more to lose as what keeps deaths from the flu so low these days is medical equipment, drugs and staff that cost WAY more than a simple vaccine. The reality is that treating the flu costs far more than preventing it and for poor people who will not have access to an oscillatory respirator if they need it are probably better off taking their chances with a vaccine. Choosing not to take a vaccine is a first world luxury - strictly because we can afford a more costly backup.

If giving vaccines to inanimate objects would protect people who didn't get vaccinated then your analogy might be relevant, however, mass vaccine involves causing injury to people who may well never have contracted the disease that the vaccine is protecting against.
Click to expand...
We're obviously not thinking about the actors in the analogy the same way. The point is we have two risk groups to consider: the risk of the virus and the risk of the vaccine. Typically I would choose the one with lower risk. One being natural and the other man made doesn't enter the equation for me.

Good luck with that. When one flu vaccine is given other flus tend to help fill the gap - but only a small percentage of people in a season catch any one flu. However, my best bet is to let you and everyone else take the vaccines and I get a free ride on your risk.
Click to expand...
With a vaccine for one flu virus, what you say is correct. This thread is about a universal flu vaccine, which means one vaccine works for all present and future flu mutations. We may argue about how truly universal it is, but lets say that it really is universal and it works as advertised. You don't think one single vaccination against the flu would be worth the risk? And if you're really concerned you could wait a few rounds or years for them to "iron out" any unforeseen problems. Not saying you need to be the first to test the vaccine, but to write it off completely sounds irrational as well.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Agenda 21 is indeed real and you can get it from the source. (Also available as PDF)

No mention in there of limiting the population to 500 million though. I think you are getting confused with the Georgia Guide Stones.
Click to expand...

Aww fluffy, I was so hoping he'd provide citation for his bold claim. I read it last night and unless I missed it, it seemed a fairly innocuous document that boils down to: We have to use less, be less wasteful in what we do use, empower women (in line with what faethor was saying) come up ways of sustainable farming and production, reduce poverty and stop polluting... Nothing particularly shocking and all very high handed, leaving it pretty much entirely up to the governments who signed it on how to implement the changes.

That about right?
 
Dammy said:
Which is?
Click to expand...
Don't know that's why I asked.

We have more oil/coal/gas then we know what to do with for centuries at our current consumption in the US alone. I've been hearing about this coming oil shortage disaster since I was a child in the 60s. Which isn't surprising, think the original peak oil was originally given in the 1910s. That's right, the world was absolutely going to run out in the 1930s! Not a drop more after that.
Click to expand...
Production is outstripping discovery. About 1 barrel is discovered for every 6 barrels produced. There may be a blip as Global Warming thaws the Arctic Cap which will allow for drilling. The signs at present are we're in a plateau.

Do you have any peak oil will happen in 1910 history for me to follow? The first I know is a prediction of peak oil to happen in 1970 which was made in the mid-50s, and looked to be off by about a decade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top