Perhaps they only got a 51 in immunology.
I'd like to give you 10 greenies for that
Perhaps they only got a 51 in immunology.
At least the smarter ones? No, umm not really. A healthcare provider who is exposed to more viral pressure, and who is smart, would not refuse protection unless the risk of the protection is greater than the risk of the disease. There are very few cases where that is in fact a reality. Furthermore, the choices they make as a service provider have a direct impact on the outcomes of patients. Therefore it's no longer just a personal risk with the consequences of that choice confined to them, their choices directly impact the consequences of others who have very little choice in choosing where they go to receive such services. People in hospitals and patients seeing clinicians are already often immunocompromised in some fashion, and it's irresponsible, unethical, and frankly dangerous for healthcare providers to forgo a shot that can prevent illness and deaths in patients.
As do I. The facts fully support immunization. I'm just glad people didn't listen to the flat earthers when the polio and small pox vaccines were introduced
A lot of people do listen to the flat earthers. The Taliban are busy offing polio vaccine workers in the hills of northern Pakistan. They have been quite successful convincing the locals that it is actually a sterilization effort.
They seem to be able to avoid it by wearing masks at work. Any why would you willingly take some poison that you know will make you sick. The one year I got the shot I had a low grade flu for 3 weeks.
My Naturopath gives me pills for flu season. Taken once a week for 3 weeks. Now I can't prove that they work but I have not been sick for the 6 years that I have been taking them.
They seem to be able to avoid it by wearing masks at work.
Any why would you willingly take some poison that you know will make you sick.
My Naturopath gives me pills for flu season. Taken once a week for 3 weeks. Now I can't prove that they work but I have not been sick for the 6 years that I have been taking them.
They seem to be able to avoid it by wearing masks at work. .
So you traded evidence based medicine from a billion dollar industry for some pill also from a billion dollar industry, only with less evidence...
They seem to be able to avoid it by wearing masks at work. Any why would you willingly take some poison that you know will make you sick. The one year I got the shot I had a low grade flu for 3 weeks.
My Naturopath gives me pills for flu season. Taken once a week for 3 weeks. Now I can't prove that they work but I have not been sick for the 6 years that I have been taking them.
No, I don't think it does.
That says it all right there.
And so you are defined as an uninformed, rumour spreading, ignorant idiotNot what I was told.
Plus, 60% is pretty piss poor, and on top it is "expected"? Not guaranteed, but "expected".
And so you are defined as an uninformed, rumour spreading, ignorant idiot
I think it does. From what I am seeing in this thread, and I will lay odds it translate out to the general public the same way, people have no problem paying the pharmaceuticals millions every year for an inoculation that covers(on average) only 50% and is only 60% effective against what it does cover. They have no reason to, from what I can see, make the shot more effective or have better coverage. They get paid no matter what they come up with.
These same companies peddling the flu vaccines are the same ones that are trying to peddle the polio vaccine in Pakistan. Luckily, the Taliban are killing off the volunteers providing teyh poli vaccine. The vaccines come from evil conglomerates like GlaxoSmithKline--companies who make billions every quarter and have repeatedly been guilty of fraud. As well, the vaccinators are often CIA moles. Not to mention, of course, that the "vaccine" itself is actually a poison designed to sterilize Muslims.
Sure gerry sure.Ahhhh...I see, my Doctor is a rumour monger is he? Fu ck off and go play with your dolls.