segnosaur

What makes you think that it doesn't happen to people on a regular basis? Hey, Wal-mart is probably a crappy place to work for many people. McDonalds probably is too. And working at some tiny mom-and-pop convenience store isn't exactly going to be providing you with a huge salary either. People wages and benefits should be based on A: how difficult the job is, B: the skills you need to actually do the job, and C: how many other people with the skills/interest to do the same job. Wal-Mart pays low wages because the jobs are typically unskilled/low skilled, and usually aren't overly demanding (compared to, for example, heavy construction.) If you don't like the wages you'd get at wal-mart, go out and learn new skills. If enough people do that, then Wal-Mart will be forced to increase their wages to attract people.

Nice.... so they post a bunch of unflattering pics of people shopping at Wal-mart for people to laugh at. Not exactly a very classy thing to do. Frankly, I think its the schoolyard equivelant of laughing at the foreign kid with the lazy eye, something that should be considered morally reprehensible if it were applied to other "social groups". Not only that, is there even any proof that shoppers at wal-mart are any more "distasteful" (on average) than those that would shop at Zellers, or Loblaws, or any other big store? And if Wal-mart didn't exist, where exactly do you think these shoppers would go? Think they'd disappear? Or would they automatically become more attractive?

(note... I wasn't the person you had replied to... but wanted to respond..) I'm anything but "left wing". While I'm not exactly a member of the conservative party (and disagree with some of their policies/actions) I voted for them in past elections. I support cutting government spending, taxes, and 'red tape'. And I shop at Wal-mart quite regularly. Ummm... how exactly is shopping at wal-mart "unpatriotic"? We live in a global economy. Almost all products that we use ever day have had some sort of "foreign" input, either in the source of raw materials, in the design or manufacturing process, or in the ownership of the retail stores. If you want to be a "patriot", shop for items where the price is cheapest (which is sometimes at wal-mart, sometimes at other stores), and take any money you save and put it towards something that is uniquely Canadian (Tickets to a CFL game, the latest CD by Great Big Sea, a genuine Saskatchewan seal skin coat, etc.) Actually they don't. (You're not the first person in this thread to make that claim... problem is, that 'claim' is wrong...) Wal-mart has been around since the 1960s... In the past few decades, as the number of Wal-mart stores has gone up, the number of small businesses has actually remained stable. And if you look at different regions of the United States, the number of small businesses in states with the most Wal-mart stores has little or no correlation with the number of small businesses. http://www.be.wvu.edu/divecon/econ/sobel/All%20Pubs%20PDF/Has%20Wal-Mart%20Buried%20Mom%20and%20Pop.pdf Wal-mart is in competition, but it is not competing with your small little mom-and-pop stores, it is competing against the Home Depots, Targets, K-Marts and Zellers of the world.

No. Economics is not their field of study. Which is probably not really relevant, since its not like its a big macro or micro economic issue. All they'd need to do is do some basic addition/subtraction. My 'sources' have appeared in peer-reviewed journals. And yes, there were double-blind tests done. You may have a very capable family doctor, but that does not necessarily mean that they have any special knowledge that the study's author's have. If you think those doctor sources you are referring are such experts, where are their published articles? Doctors today are too scared to think for themselves because if they did they might fall outside the parameters of industry protection and possibly suffer losses in career and economic opportunity. Hey, I admit, there have been numerous examples of drugs that have exhibited problems. I can point to many others besides Vioxx. (Phen-phen, thaldomide, etc.) Last time I heard I thhink there were something like 100 drugs that had significant problems. However, if you go to drugbank.ca, you will see that there are 1300 drugs listed. That means that the vast vast majority of drugs have had no problems. In addition, most of those drug recalls are not due to ineffecteness. There were unexpected side effects, but the drugs still had beneficial effects. Compare that to 'alternative' medical scams, that have no proper double-blind studies showing effectiveness. My favorite quote on this subject... But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. - Carl Sagan Yes, there has been the occasional "Genius" who's work is initially dismissed but is later proven correct. But for every "unsung genius", you will find a bunch of incompetents and scammers who are trying to make a buck. For every person struggling valiently to try to find proof of the true cause of ulcers, there is a "smilin' bob" trying to sell unproven sham medicine. Why does our health care pay for this if it is quackery? Because, people many people are idiots and they have a mistaken belief that it works. And as I've said many times before: anecdotes are not 'evidence'. There's a chance you might have gotten better anyways. (The body has an amazing ability to heal itself, even without any sort of outside intervention.) If you want to talk anecdotes, consider this: A few years ago, there was a religious minister called Peter Popoff. Popoff claimed to have the power of faith healing, and he would go into the audience and 'predict' people's diseases before 'healing' them. It was later found that he was actually being fed information through a radio receiver. Yet many people at the time claimed that they were actually healed by Popoff.. So, do you think these people were being 'healed' by Popoff? The people thought they were being heeled. And if you doubt the power of Popoff, why do do you disagree with their 'anecdotes' but agree with your own? (for more information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff#Randi_controversy. Sorry for the wikipedia reference; I'm just providing it for historical context.) Yes, but in a form that's never been shown to cause problems in the doses used in vaccines. We've been using vaccines for decades. Thimosal has been used for decades too. If there is a health issue, why have there never been any reputable studies showing a problem? Nope. There is no single 'authority' that I am relying on. Instead, I'm relying on the abilities of hundreds if not thousands of scientists. And I'm relying on the principle of Occam's razor.

Even though the science doesn't want to demonstrate any relationship. Science doesn't actually have a 'want'. Its a method of exploring the world around us. There have been around 25 studies that have demonstrated no link between autism and vaccines. For example: http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth...47-9051da879bfb http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2526159/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12415036 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/347/19/1477?ck=nck (you can find a more complete list at http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4026.pdf. Keep in mind that while this particular site isn't necessarily 'unbiased', it points to original research appearing in peer-reviewed jounrals) On the other hand, there have only been 3 studies that have shown any sort of link: One in which most of the authors have retracted their support for the article, the others which have significant problems (small numbers of participants, not reproducable, potential bias in samples, etc.) Says the medical establishment. The 'medical establishment' is composted of people who actually look at peer-reviewed articles of studies that were, in large part, conducted using double-blind protocols. This is the 'gold standard' for actually telling if something works. There is no 'monopoly' on health care... there is only stuff that works, and stuff that doesn't work. If you can't show something works with a proper double-blind study, then there's a pretty good chance that its just the placebo effect you're seeing. If something does work under a proper double-blind study, it will be incorperated into the body of knowledge that medicine includes. Except the problem is, those things don't actually work to cure people. And your reason for doubting economic benefits is what? Because you think researchers were too dumb to include some secondary costs? By the way, that was only one study that showed economic benefits to the influenza vaccine. I've found many more. I just posted one of them.

It depends on which vaccine and which country. The vaccine available in Canada contains Thimosal. Other countries may use the thimosal-free versions, or have both types. The think is, the mercury that you find in seafood is a compound called methylmercury. The component in vaccines is ethylmercury. Methylmercury is handled differently in the body, and concentrations can build up. Ethylmercury does not have the same problems. It isn't quite the same thing. The authority of the government and the medical establishment in being proponents of the vaccines outweighs individual decision making. It is only when sufficient information challenges the authority that people will look for themselves and make their own choices. People need to make informed decisions, and unchallenged authoritarian dictates preclude that. First of all, its not just the government and medical establishment that are adding to the 'panic'. Its also the media. Secondly, I don't think anyone in government or the medical establishment are suggesting mandatory vaccinations. It will likely always be a personal choice. However, the medical evidence points to the fact that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks.

Dr. Fischer is far from "credible". She is one of these individuals who was pushing the "vaccines cause autism" link, even though the science has demonstrated absolutely no relationship between them. Here's what the skeptic dictionary has to say... http://www.skepdic.com/skeptimedia/skeptimedia44.html Once again... Dr. Mercola is a quack. The only way that he is a 'thorn' in the side of the medical establishment is because some people may listen to what he says and make bad medical decisions because of it. First of all, I know that 'upper respiratory illnesses' include colds, etc. People in the study (including those who got the real vaccine instead of the placebo) will also come down with strains of the flu that weren't included in the vaccine. The shot did not make a '25% difference'. It likely made a 100% difference against the flu itself, but made no difference against other diseases. However, the fact that there was such a measurable difference in total illnesses/total time off work/etc. means that the flu shot was having beneficial effects. And the cost of actually coming down with the flu may not have included the cost of cab fair to the doctor's office/hospital (possibly for mutiple visits), the cost of cough medicine/aspirine. Plus, because it was a relatively small survey, there were no people that ended in hospital. But, we know that any strain of inflenza can put someone in the ICU for an extended period of time.

Given the fact that its a global problem with production, we would have likely had delays anyways, regardless of whether they changed the vaccine components. (i.e. the change in components may have had an effect, but it was likely only one of several problems.)

Actually, there are only a tiny handful of companies that actually produce influenza vaccines. (In fact, a few years ago, there were only 2.) So, its not like the government had a large number of options to choose from. The company they did select was, I believe, one of the bigger suppliers (although I'd have to check to make sure). There have been a couple of problems that have been affecting the global supply that have been outside the control of any government: - The production yield from the eggs for the H1N1 virus has been lower than expected. (This is biology, not something anyone can be 'blamed' for) - the companies themselves didn't act immediately to inform their customers about potential delays. (They were overly optimistic when confronted with various problems) - Companies also had seasonal flu vaccines to produce, which meant their resources had to be divided http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-ne...elay-us-vaccine One of the biggest problems has involved making the antigen, or active ingredient, used in the H1N1 vaccine. The process has been slower than usually seen with seasonal vaccines. Viruses for both vaccines are grown in chicken eggs before going through a purification process.

You're right... the death toll in places like Australia was a lot lower than expected. And, I agree that there is no need to panic. However, keep a few things in mind: - Australia, New Zealand, etc. had few problems, but their flu season started a lot closer to the time the virus first appeared. In addition, they are geographically isolated from Mexico, the suspected source of the infection. Now that we're starting our influenza season, we might have it a little rougher, because we've got closer ties to mexico, and the virus has had several months to become entrenched prior to the full outbreak. - Even if H1N1 turns out to be no worse than an 'average' seasonal flu, people will still die from it, others will get sick, and at least some of those sicknesses and deaths will have been prevented had we had widespread immunization. First of all, keep in mind that a quote from one doctor doesn't necessarily mean the "medical community is divided". Heck, the CBC could have looked high and low for the one competent doctor who had that opinion. And even if a lot of doctors did think the vaccine wasn't needed, your family MD is not necessarily an "expert" in epidemiology. They may be competent practicioners in medicine, but they don't spend their time looking at disease transmission through populations. A news organization may want to present "both sides of the story", but sometimes "both sides of the story" don't exactly have equal standing. Secondly, I have no idea who this Dr. Wright is. Unlike so many anti-vaccination 'quacks', he seems to have a reputable background; however at least some of the statements he's made (such as no double-blind studies being done) are out-and-out wrong. It does make me question what exactly is standing is in the research community. You're right, there are shortages.... But Influenza season runs from November to April. Even if you're in the low priority group and don't get vaccinated until December, you will still have protection from that strain of flu for more than 2/3rds of the influenza season (plus any post-season outbreaks.) To me, being protected for 2/3rds of the season is better than being protected for 0/3rds of the season. I would question the ability of any 'medical expert', and try to find the reasoning why they think the vaccination "isn't necessary". Many people label themselves as "experts", but they're primarily known as being medical frauds and quacks. Others may have respectible backgrounds, but their information or reasoning may be faulty.

Actually, I believe the nasal spray has been proven to be just as effective. Remember, if you are going to get infected, one of the most common pathways is through inhaling the virus through the nose. This is where the effects of the nasal spray are most pronounced. Of course, even if there is a difference in the effectiveness in either the spray or the injection, its going to be exceptionally small. ]

The 'mercury' that they are accused of pumping into humans is a preservative called Thimerosal. First of all, you make it sound like its been some 'big secret'. The fact that Thimerosal has been an additive in some vaccines has been known right from the start. Secondly, there has been absolutely no scientific evidence that the thimerosal causes any health risks. Vaccines contain only tiny amounts, it is metabolized into ethylmercury in the body (rather than methylmercury, which is the actual dangerous compound), and amounts are excreted from the body typically in a month or less. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8013003313.html Lastly, thierosal is not used in all vaccines. It is used in the influenza vaccines used in Canada, but its not used in the vaccines in all countries, nor is it used in many vaccinations for other diseases. You know, here's what I find ironic... On one hand, the anti-vaccination people are accusing governments, drug companies, and everyone else of causing widespread panic unnecessarily. Yet they are doing pretty much the same thing when they make unproven accusations about things like the dangers of mercury being used in vaccines.

Hmmm... not really. That appears to be an interview done by a Dr. Mercola. Mercola is a well-known quack, better known for selling cheesy 'natural health' products than for actually doing real research and other medical stuff. The web-site for Skeptic magazine points out some of his mistakes: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-09-23 First of all, I'm rather suprised that the flu shot would actually cost anything. I believe the shots here are free. (Maybe it varies by province.) Secondly, if this story is true, while she may not have gotten the H1N1 vaccine, people should get both vaccinations (H1N1 and seasonal flu). It appears that it was nothing more than a break-down in communication (something both her and her doctor are guilty of). While the doctor might have mentioned which vaccine he was giving, there has been enough publicity that your friend should have known to ask about which vaccine she was going to get. While the flu shot does 'cost money' up front, that cost must be weighed against the economic impact that actually coming down with the flu would cause... Things like hospital visits from those who actually catch the flu, lost productivity due to being sick, etc. It costs thousands of dollars a day if someone ends up in the ICU due to the flu (something that does happen). That money could have paid for a lot of flu shots... Most studies that look at the economics of it show that actually getting the flu shot saves money in the long run...For example: from: http://nejm.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/333/14/889 we recruited working adults from 18 to 64 years of age...and randomly assigned them to receive either influenza vaccine or placebo injections. ... During the follow-up period... those who received the vaccine reported 25 percent fewer episodes of upper respiratory illness than those who received the placebo, 43 percent fewer days of sick leave from work due to upper respiratory illness, and 44 percent fewer visits to physicians' offices for upper respiratory illnesses. The cost savings were estimated to be $46.85 per person vaccinated.

Ok, before we get concerned, keep in mind that the original source of this article was from the infowars site, run by Alex Jones. Jones is a conspiracy nut, who makes claims about things like 9/11 being an 'inside job' and other such conspiracy nonsense. As such, I would be very hesitant to trust the validity of anything that comes from that source.

Let me get this straight... Are you suggesting that you can have an immunized person touch a surface containing a virus, then touch another surface, leaving the virus there to be picked up by someone (without ever getting sick themselves)? True, but a virus (well, one that can infect people) is never actually dead either. I doubt you'd find many biologists who wouldn't say that a virus is 'live' though. If you really want to split hairs, I could say "the vaccine used in influenza vaccinations has been deactivated to a point where it can no longer infect a host".

There are only 3 situations when an immunized person may transmit the virus... - If the individual did not build up the required antibodies (happens in perhaps 5% of cases) and gets infected 'naturally' - If the individual catches the flu immediately after vaccination (it takes a week or 2 for antibodies to build up to allow immunity) and gets infected 'naturally' - If the individual 'catches' a strain of flu that's not contained in the vaccine In each of these cases, the individual will be no worse off than if they didn't have the vaccine. The chance of actually passing on the flu via the shot is zero. The virus in the vaccine is dead. It cannot be passed on. And once immunity is built up (via the vaccine) that person cannot catch or pass on that strain of flu, regardless of exposure.

Well, keep in mind that this was only one study. Give me a couple of minutes and I can probably find a bunch more. Here's another study with over 4000 people (also double-blind/placebo) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...300bc050da5d011 Here's another one with over 1000 elderly people (also double-blind/placebo) http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/272/21/1661 When I saw that article, I did some research. There are a lot of 'quack' doctors who's qualifications are rather suspect that are making a lot of false claims. But Wright seems to be a legitimate doctor/researcher. I also found a letter that he had co-written which made pretty much the same claims though. If the letter is legitimate, looks like that is his opinion (that there are 'no studies')

And, of course, they're wrong. It is true that its impractical to do a full double-blind study regarding overall ability to stop infections before distribution to the public. (They are tested that way for side effects however, and for their ability to create antibodies in the body.) However, there have been plenty of proper double blind studies done after various flu vaccines are released to the public in previous years. (And that track record gives me confidence that the current H1N1 vaccine will have similar success.) Well, here's one: http://nejm.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/333/14/889 we recruited working adults from 18 to 64 years of age from in and around the Minneapolis–St. Paul area and randomly assigned them to receive either influenza vaccine or placebo injections..We enrolled a total of 849 subjects...those who received the vaccine reported 25 percent fewer episodes of upper respiratory illness than those who received the placebo Is 849 a large enough group?

Not to say that there isn't a certain amount of panic. However, I am curious about who this Dr. Wright is.... Some of the stuff he's saying seems a little, well, strange. (He seems to be insinuating that they don't ever do double-blind studies regarding effectiveness, which is untrue.) Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point he was trying to make. There's a lot we can tell about the upcoming H1N1 pandemic (and, especially what will happen in an unvaaccinated population) from what's happened in places like Australia. But, its not a perfect model. The H1N1 strain emerged relatively recently, and didn't start to spread until fairly close to the start of the flu season in Australia. Plus, given the geographic distance and relative isolation of Australia from the source, it may not have spread as quickly as it might otherwise. But then, that is just a guess.

Your spouse is in elementary school? Cradle robber! Wouldn't happen to be Roman Polanski Public School, would it? (Ok, sorry for the bad joke...)

You're right... it has been 'overplayed'. Still, it is a good idea to get the shot. Hopefully, the overhype and the recent problems of shortages/long lineups/etc. won't turn people against the idea of getting innoculated. The vaccine has already undergone significant testing. No significant side effects were found, and it managed to create the proper immune response in over 95% of all individuals. Here's a link to one such study.... (There are, of course, others) http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa0907413

Not coughing/sneasing in public only prevents you from passing the virus on to others. You are still at the mercy of the idiots who go out in public when ill and cough openly on others. No amount of good hygiene practices will ever help you prevent that. Right, its not 100% effective. But, even if only partially effective, its still better than nothing. If I offered you $1 million, but then actually only gave you $500,000, would you refuse it because it wasn't everything? First of all, you don't exactly define what you mean by 'really ill'. Something that lasted an hour? A day? bad enough to miss work? And lets see... 4 out of 20 had 'bad reactions' to the flu. Well, side effects are common. That works out to 20% of our little group. However, in a study I referenced earlier, when a double blind study was done, it was found that the cases of "upper respiratory illness" decreased by 25%. (It may not have decreased by 100% because the vaccine doesn't cover all forms of the flu, nor does it cover colds, etc.) So, based on the size of the groups, while 4 may have been ill from the shot, it would have meant 5 people would have avoided getting the flu (which is itself a pretty bad reaction.) Hard to say what happened here, based only on 3rd hand knowledge. (Plus the fact that i don't know what the symptoms are.) It could have been that your friend had some sort of allergic reaction to eggs (which are used in the vaccine development process). Its a known side effect, and one that the doctors administering the shots should warn people about.

And I never claimed it was. However, when a vaccine is effective, it effectively prevents the host from becoming a factory for flu-babies. When its not effective, the person is no better or worse off than before. Irrelevant to the discussion. As I've said before, the Canadian vaccines contain dead viruses. They have no chance to 'survive long enough to adapt' because they're dead right from the start. Not entirely true... in fact, sometimes exposure to one strains can assist the body in fighting off related strains. (Actually, that's happening with H1N1.... they're finding that elderly people often have a greater immunity to the disease, and its thought that it is due to some similarities to a strain that circulated in the past. Mostly true, but not relevant... there is no chance the vaccine can cause an increase in mutation. Most likely it will cut down the rate of mutation. Very few diseases are 'automatic death sentences'. (Apart from something like Ebola or HIV). But someone who dies from a virus that only kills 0.0001% of those infected is just as dead as someone who dies from a virus that kills 100% of its victims. Most people would assume that saving the lives of several thousand people a year (even if that only works out to a small percentage of the population) is still a good thing. Secondly, why exactly are you assuming that 'death' is the only outcome that we have to worry about? Even if a disease had a 0% mortality rate, but still had a good chance of making me extremely ill (even putting me in the hospital) it would still probably be worth getting the shot. Every flu season, around 5-15% of the population becomes ill with the flu. The flu is not fun. It is not your friend. And then there is the benefit to society... widespread vaccinations can have a positive economic impact, since there will be fewer visits to the emergency rooms by sick people, and fewer days lost from work. Her's a study that shows just that: http://nejm.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/333/14/889 ...those who received the vaccine reported 25 percent fewer episodes of upper respiratory illness than those who received the placebo, 43 percent fewer days of sick leave from work due to upper respiratory illness, and 44 percent fewer visits to physicians' offices for upper respiratory illnesses. The cost savings were estimated to be $46.85 per person vaccinated. Saving thousands of human lives every year is "doing something" (even if it is a small part percentage of the total population) Preventing thousands of hospitalizations every year is "doing something".

First of all, when you make a reference to an article, please point out the sections that you think are relevant, and at least try to state things in your own words. Secondly, that article appears on the globalresearch website. That particular website also hosts papers suggesting that 9/11 was an 'inside job'. Any site that hosts such nonsense should be considered 'questionable' when used as a reference on any topic, since such conspiracy theories illustrate a lack of critical thinking. Thirdly... the article is complete and utter bunk. For example, it makes the claim that "vaccines are ineffective". Here's a few articles showing that the influenza vaccine has been effective during past flu seasons: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/14/1373 http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/10/908 Now, those 2 articles appear in peer-reviewed medical journals, and involve double-blind studies of various influenza vaccines on control groups. On the other hand, the article you reference uses Mercola as a reference when it talks about how 'ineffective' vaccines are. Not only does their reference to his web site not work, Mercola himself is well known as a 'quack'. Hate to fight one 'blog' with another, but this web site does a pretty good job of dealing with Mercola's credibility: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2116 I'd also recommend the following: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-09-23 The relevant part (involving Dr. Mercola) is as follows: Claim: Mercola says “Injecting organisms into your body to provoke immunity is contrary to nature.” Fact: Nature kills people. Doing something contrary to nature is what medicine is all about. It’s a good thing.

I do think there are reasons to distrust the government... They often waste money, pass laws that are pointless, restrict freedoms. However, I do think that public health issues, as well as compiling statistics, is one thing that they do fairly well... Perhaps not perfectly, but fairly well. For the most part, our food and water supplies are safe, most government-approved drugs have no serious side effects, etc. However, even if you assume the government is an entity that should not be trusted, consider the fact that the 'medical community' that is involved in issues related to the vaccine is composed of more than just "the government"... it involves multitudes of academics, journal referees, private research labs, etc. The people claiming the flu vaccines are safe/effective include more than just the government officials and drug companies. If you want to suggest H1N1 fear is 'overblown', I'd say you may be right. But that doesn't mean that there isn't an issue. By the way, I could also add... while there may be an 'overblown' fear H1N1, the risks of things like vaccines are also getting overblown. Just wondering... what exactly are those 'other potential threats' that you think science has failed to address? "Science" is not perfect. Mistakes do get made. But, in my opinion, it is still the best way to uncover the truth about the world. Well, the question that you should be asking is... is there any chance that it actually could happen. The answer is, of course, yes, and the risk is certainly not 'immaginary'.