Episode 13 – About the Flu and the Economy
Oct 13, 2009 Uncategorized
Yes, these topics are already flogged to death on every podcast about anything, and in any media outlet. My hope is that I can Canadianize it somewhat for you. The focus here is on the flu, since that’s the one thing we can do the most about. I do touch on the economy a bit more, however, I realize it’s way bigger than a 30 minute podcast.
I hope you gain some perspective on the whole Flu debacle and check out the resources I’m putting in the show notes in order to educate yourself properly. Read the information objectively. Ask yourself questions as you read it. Clarify terms and search out meanings on words you don’t understand. Don’t let them baffle you with BS.
Resources:
What’s in the Vaccines?
- Types and Contents of Currently Approved Vaccines in Canada (PDF)
- Mercury Toxicity and How it Affects our Health
- Toxicity, Aluminum – WebMD
- Formaldehyde – From Wikipedia
- Article On Sqaulene at ChiroWeb
Tell me more about H1N1
- Public Health Agency of Canada H1N1 FAQ
Notice how many times they don’t actually answer the questions.
Photo Credit: Esparta
October 13th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I was talking to my Aunt who is a nurse in Toronto at a hospital (I don’t know which one) she told me that usually if you don’t take a flu shot that you don’t get paid if you get sick with the flu, they are told that they don’t have to take the H1N1 vaccine if they don’t want to. If that tells you anything….
Also I’ve heard of N-100 masks that are just like the N-95 but the difference is N-95 filters out 95% of particulates and the N-100 filters out 99.99%. I don’t know about you but when I am dealing with microscopic germs I want a better percentage of filtration!
October 13th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
There are masks with the N-100 rating, and I agree, the closer to 100% the better as far as I’m concerned. You can get these at home medical supply stores. Search online as well.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
My thoughts on individual responsibility with respect to vaccination and society as a whole are well documented elsewhere so I wont go into it again here.
I believe in personal choice and although I find fault with much of the so-called expert’s opinions, I can’t help but point out past successes with vaccines : polio, rubella, measles, yellow fever, small pox and the list goes on and on.
Generally, vaccination is sound medical practice and a valuable means of controlling the spread of disease throughout a population – enough said.
Since a lot of people don’t respond to anything other than their wallets, I’d propose the following choice:
A) Get the vaccine. Since not everyone is exactly the same, there is a risk that a small number of people will have an adverse reaction.
B) Exercise your right to put your personal interests ahead of others and accept the responsibility for that decision. Should you get sick and if you pass the infection on to someone else, who may miss work, suffer complications or may die, then accept that you should be held responsible for that lost income or worse as a direct result of you exercising your prerogative to make a personal choice.
With choice comes responsibility. Accept that responsibility and be prepared to defend it because you can’t make a particular “informed” decision and then say “you didn’t know that something unexpected could happen” We don’t let companies get away with that type of negligent behavior and we should not let individuals get away with it either.
Your personal decision needs to take into account the needs of others – individuals in a society are not truly individuals in all circumstances and individual freedoms do not trump the needs/interests of the whole. If you live hundreds of kilometers from other people and have all but zero contact with others, then you can claim individual status. As long as you live in the middle of a community of many, you are usually not able to claim the same distinction.
Rgds.
October 14th, 2009 at 3:45 am
Yes, there is a risk that a small number of people will have an adverse reaction. One of those adverse reactions can be Guillaume-Barre’s syndrome and another is death. I honestly don’t know what the rate is of these ‘adverse reactions’ occuring is, but I’d be willing to bet that it’s greater than 0.002% which is the mortality rate of Novel H1N1 in Canada. Am I willing to gamble my life for someone else’s? Outside of my family, no way. And even inside my family, I don’t see it as a gamble since vaccine makers themselves tell us that the vaccine is not proven.
If I choose to not get vaccinated, not self-quarantine if I get sick, and not follow proper hygiene such as sneezing or coughing into my elbow and frequent thorough handwashing, a case MIGHT be made that I willingly exposed others to a communicable disease. However, since I would be doing everything reasonable, there reallys isn’t a case for this.
Also the person that might get sick from me had the same choice to make as me. If they have chosen the vaccine and still get sick, well, perhaps the oness should be on the vaccine maker since it didn’t do what it was supposed to.
With GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of the Novel H1N1 vaccine for Canada, knowing that there is the chance of lifelong disability or death from the vaccine, do you think they will be held accountable for any that may happen? Not likely. Which goes against the arguement that corporations are held liable for that type of negligent behaviour. Which is also something that has happened many, many times in the past. Spraying C.F.B. Cornwallis with DDT, the tobacco debacle, lead in gasoline, I could go on. All of these things were done by corporations or government bodies that were aware that what they were doing was harmful. Yet, the punishment never did fit the crime or, in the case of tobacco, stop it from happening again.
As much as I respect your contribution to this community and preparedness in Canada in general, Scarecrow, I have to say that the arguement you provide is flawed in a very elementary way. There is the all-or-nothing fallacy in saying that if you live with people you have to consider your choice’s impact on those other people above yourself. There is the fallacy of making an unsupported statement in saying that we don’t let companies get away with this behaviour when clearly we do. There is the tainted language fallacy of not admitting what the vaccine maker does about one of the adverse reactions being death, but using that emotionally charged term of death when talking about what passing on the flu could do.