It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Smokers Should Be Vaccinated For Pneumonia, Panel Advises

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Smokers Should Be Vaccinated For Pneumonia, Panel Advises


www.medicalnewstoday.com

An expert panel is advising the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to add adult smokers to the list of people that should be vaccinated against bacteria that cause pneumonia, meningitis and other diseases.

Currently the US federal agency recommendation for vaccination against pneumonia includes children the elderly, and other vulnerable groups, but a meeting in Atlanta earlier this week of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) concluded that adult smokers should be added to the list because they have a higher risk of lung and respiratory infection.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Here we have an example of two things that set me off.

1. Vaccines. Pneumonia is not always viral, so a vaccine is going to be of marginal effectiveness in this case. Sez Wikipedia:

Pneumonia can result from a variety of causes, including infection with bacteria, viruses, fungi, or parasites, and chemical or physical injury to the lungs. Its cause may also be officially described as idiopathic—that is, unknown—when infectious causes have been excluded.


2. "Guilt Tripping" those who smoke.

I would be very interested to see just who is on this advisory panel. I'd like to know who they are affiliated with and whether this story tends more towards the "Vaccines are good!" or the "Smokers are evil!" camps.

www.medicalnewstoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
good post!!

i heard about this on the radio this morning, and forgot to look up a news source this afternoon to post on ATS


my first reaction to hearing this was to wonder what exactly they're going to put in these vaccines, that are for smokers only...


i can't even trust a little flu shot anymore!



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
While I wouldn't get a vaccine if I smoked, I can see sort of where they're coming from. Smokers have a disadvantaged in clearing out their lungs which increases risk for infection. The vaccine is probably against bacterial because of the clearing issue, if it was from viral that won't make too much sense. Fungal is only an issue if you have a weakened immune system, same with parasites.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
There seems to be this incredible push for vaccination. Including the recent mandatory flu vaccination in New Jersey.

I'm of two-minds about this. On the one hand it may help fight as you say, a singly cause of many. Which may be of marginal use, but it's better than nothing. On the other hand I'm becoming increasingly frustrated by the loss of individual responsibility that we are perceived as having as a people. Unfortunately its a small jump from "should" to "compulsory" nowadays.

Again, its about principle to me.

I've heard talks of all kinds of mind control and thought control experiments that revolve around vaccinations and foods. But have yet to be convinced about any of it. If it were the case then obviously something needs to be done.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by adrenochrome
 


No one ever said smokers only...simply that they should be added to the list.

Tell everyone what though, I smoke and have no plans on getting the vaccine...I'll keep everyone posted on the progress on my pneumonia.


Nice post OP



AB1



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by adrenochrome
good post!!

i heard about this on the radio this morning, and forgot to look up a news source this afternoon to post on ATS


my first reaction to hearing this was to wonder what exactly they're going to put in these vaccines, that are for smokers only...


i can't even trust a little flu shot anymore!


In this case I'm more angry about the way that it shows smokers made into second-class citizens than I am the vaccines.

There's so much backlash against smokers, but nothing against other things which are just as deadly, if not more, than smoking. Like fast food, not excercising, driving recklessly,ect.

Imagine if everyone who wanted to buy junk food was taxed at proportionally comparable rates to what is put on smokers, and every public space was cordoned off into "healthy" and "not healthy" eating areas.

We'd be up in arms about peopel's right to eat what they want compromised, but the indignation magically disappears when it's smoking.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghaleon12
While I wouldn't get a vaccine if I smoked, I can see sort of where they're coming from. Smokers have a disadvantaged in clearing out their lungs which increases risk for infection. The vaccine is probably against bacterial because of the clearing issue, if it was from viral that won't make too much sense. Fungal is only an issue if you have a weakened immune system, same with parasites.


Edited. This is in fact a bacterial vaccination... rather uncommon in today's time...

Pnemonia is typically a secondary infection. It sets in after another disease like the flu. I think this is like the HPV vaccine where they are targeting only one strain of many that can cause pnemonia.

[edit on 24-10-2008 by asmeone2]



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Oscitate
 


I am very dubious about vaccines being a chipping program or mind control agent as well. I think they are purely a moneymaking scam, with some unintentional "dumbings down" like autism.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


I used to smoke too. I smoked natural sun-dried cigarette tobacco or pipe tobacco, and I never had the normally attributed smoking problems.

It's a post for another time, but I firmly beleive that tobacco itself isn't the culprite, but the drying chemicals and the junk in the papers and filters.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
You are right when you say that people don't seem to care about the rights of smokers being removed. I live in Arizona, and here it is illegal to smoke inside any building (except the casinos run by Natives) and in some cities you have to be a certain number of feet away from the entrance of any business. This is the way they condition people into accepting the removal of freedoms, by slowly going from one group to another. People who smoke cigarettes are not the majority in this country(as far as I know) so when the majority sees the rights of a minority group being removed they don't mind because they aren't included. Ultimately it isn't about who they are removing the rights of or why, it is simply the act of removing rights. If the population at large doesn't mind when one group is singled out and has their rights removed, than those people don't truly believe in the rights of free will. Thus they will not react when more and more rights are removed.

As to the primary topic at hand, I understand adding smokers to the list of people who should get vaccines, but like another poster said it would not effectively combat pneumonia because of the various sources the disease can come from. I assume, since the panel must be medically trained, that they know this. Therefore it does not make sense to even vaccinate for something when the vaccine is only rarely efficient in preventing the disease. Add that to the fact that there have been numerous studies where vaccinations have been shown to cause diseases such as autism, and the fact that under recently enacted laws producers of vaccines cannot be sued if their vaccine does damage to or kills people, then there is something very off about all of this.

I personally do not trust our government due to the things I have seen them do and also the inherent quality of corruption in any governing body big enough to come into power. I will not ever again let them inject me with anything by choice, and I implore others to make their own decision but to be very cautious about trusting these people. They do not have your best interest in mind, they never have.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl13
You are right when you say that people don't seem to care about the rights of smokers being removed. I live in Arizona, and here it is illegal to smoke inside any building (except the casinos run by Natives) and in some cities you have to be a certain number of feet away from the entrance of any business. This is the way they condition people into accepting the removal of freedoms, by slowly going from one group to another. People who smoke cigarettes are not the majority in this country(as far as I know) so when the majority sees the rights of a minority group being removed they don't mind because they aren't included. Ultimately it isn't about who they are removing the rights of or why, it is simply the act of removing rights. If the population at large doesn't mind when one group is singled out and has their rights removed, than those people don't truly believe in the rights of free will. Thus they will not react when more and more rights are removed.



Thats why democracy is loving called the tyranny of the majority



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I'll take a pnuemonia vaccine, a flu vaccine and any other vaccine as long as it is free. We need smoking rooms in some pubs (and pay those who go in on a voluntary basis £1 an hour more), but yup vaccines, makes me feel safer as a smoker.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl13
You are right when you say that people don't seem to care about the rights of smokers being removed. I live in Arizona, and here it is illegal to smoke inside any building (except the casinos run by Natives) and in some cities you have to be a certain number of feet away from the entrance of any business. This is the way they condition people into accepting the removal of freedoms, by slowly going from one group to another. People who smoke cigarettes are not the majority in this country(as far as I know) so when the majority sees the rights of a minority group being removed they don't mind because they aren't included. Ultimately it isn't about who they are removing the rights of or why, it is simply the act of removing rights. If the population at large doesn't mind when one group is singled out and has their rights removed, than those people don't truly believe in the rights of free will. Thus they will not react when more and more rights are removed.

As to the primary topic at hand, I understand adding smokers to the list of people who should get vaccines, but like another poster said it would not effectively combat pneumonia because of the various sources the disease can come from. I assume, since the panel must be medically trained, that they know this. Therefore it does not make sense to even vaccinate for something when the vaccine is only rarely efficient in preventing the disease. Add that to the fact that there have been numerous studies where vaccinations have been shown to cause diseases such as autism, and the fact that under recently enacted laws producers of vaccines cannot be sued if their vaccine does damage to or kills people, then there is something very off about all of this.

I personally do not trust our government due to the things I have seen them do and also the inherent quality of corruption in any governing body big enough to come into power. I will not ever again let them inject me with anything by choice, and I implore others to make their own decision but to be very cautious about trusting these people. They do not have your best interest in mind, they never have.



I have nothing to add because I agree with this poster ....I mean sheesh they are already vaccinating people to death ....yes to death ..we were all better off I believe when we allowed the bodies NATURAL immune system to work by itself ...now it doesnt even work due to all the crap we do,take,put on ,wash with etc etc ....

I can actually see where this could lead ..having to show an ID of vaccination before you can even buy a pack ....



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Ok I would like to add this .
I wish people would stop trying to save me from this that and the other (Pysically speaking anyway) ..and just let me live what life I do have NATURALLY ..

I told my hubby do not let them give me anything ..no fake blood ...no new parts ...no chemical this or that ...if something happens to me just let well enough alone and let me go ....I would take morphine to help ease pain and thats about it ..Of course I am really ANTI MEDS and stuff ..so I am biased .
And no I will not try and save my life even if I get some horrible disease ...
Why postpone the inevitable ..death is coming for us all ..I want to die with some dignity ..not being someones lab rat .....which is what we have all become in the Medical and Scientific world we live in ..and it is NOT for our benefit ..it is for their EGOS .and for their own purposes ...you can bet on that .
IF they were serious about helping mankind they would have already come up with a cure for even the smallest thing like the COMMON COLD ....or Cancer (which zillions of dollars have already went into finding a cure .WHERE IS IT ? they dont want a cure because then they would NOT MAKE MONEY OFF YOUR SICKNESS if they cured you .and for sure they would not get any more funding for Cancer if they did pass out that cure .There is big MONEY IN SICK PEOPLE to be had from all of them ......sorry for the rant ..but things like this makes me seriously disturbed .....



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I just love the fact that they are suggesting smokers get a vaccine to prevent an illness that is only loosely related (if at all) to smoking. We all know how health concious smokers are and how quickly they embrace the advice of physicians, right? PS: I'm posting this as a man who enjoys a good smoke.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
As a former smoker, a healthcare worker, and man who lost his father and his father's two siblings due to lung cancer(all were heavy smokers,) I cannot condone the use of tobacco in any form.
Tobacco, especially cigarettes, is the only product allowed on the market that, when used according to the manufacturers (implied)directions, is guaranteed to cause health problems.
It is the only product on the market that I would support being taxed out of existence. Part of this, admittedly, is my gut reaction to my father's death 29 years ago. Part of it is losing patient after patient to lung cancer, emphysema, and COPD, patients I had come to care for and even love. Part of it is watching people smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette, knowing that when they can no longer work, they will be on medicaid, or medicare and we will be paying for their health care.
And part of it is sexual. One of the most beautiful women I have ever met was undoubtedly the most unattractive. The reason was that she smoked, and because of her smoking, she stank!
(And I told her so. Folks, I was married, and was not even thinking about hitting on her. She was my boss. And yes I still have a job!)



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Natural tobacco is the way to go. I had read up on this about a year ago and found something very unsettling.

They grow tobacco on the same fields over and over as well as using chemical fertilizers over organic because it's cheaper. The byproducts left in the soil from these chemicals are absorbed by the next generation of plants and is where the two major health threatening agents come from, those being lead 210 and polygain 210. Polygain is radioactive, literally radioactive and the lead gives it a half life of 25 years in the lungs. I believe there is some truth when people say that cigarette manufacturers put the cancer in tobacco and could care less so long as they save money on the fertilizers and that's not even including the pesticides they use that aren't rinsed off the product. I had read two studies that showed that these cancer causing chemicals were not present in organically grown tobacco. They say marijuana is worse than tobacco, yet not one cancer death has been pinned to it and you better believe if pot was ever legalized, it would suffer the same fate so they could say "We told you it was bad!" It's sad really. Again, this was awhile ago, so I don't have any sources. Take it as you will.

God Bless



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I have been a smoker for 40 years. (I know, it sounds bad), but I have "never" had pneumonia, and do not plan on a vac. I have avoided flu shots before I knew of all the dangers, something just told me. I am 53 years old, rarely get a cold or the flu, only on occasion when I do get a cold, if I take care of it, it goes away in the normal amount of time, but at times, I do get bronchitis along with the cold, probably because I "am" a smoker, and that was only when I was working with the public.

One time I decided to get a flu shot, because, of course, my mother told me that since I was getting older I should, and she would get mad at me if I said I don't need that sh##. That one time, I was sick more that winter, than I have "ever" been! So that ended it, and I would take mom to get hers and I would just stay in the car. Anyway, point being, yes it is a ploy just to get us smokers to be "scared" little sheeple just because "they"said so!



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I AM AN EVIL SMOKER!

You remember those cartoons, the ones from the 30's and 40's where the little mouse is tempted by the 'smoker?' Needless to say it includes some horrifically ignorant stereotyping (common place in that era).

When queried now why enjoy 4 or 5 cigarettes a day, I am the callous jerk who says, "Because it's one freedom they haven't taken away yet, I am expressing my freedom." Of course, after dozens of blank stares, I realized no one gets it.

I know it may seem childishly obstinate. I hold to the position that attempting to control what I choose to put into my body is too invasive to allow a mindless 'society' to 'regulate'. I defer to the notion of removing myself from the presence of those who do not wish to smoke, or be around it. That is the only concession I should have to be compelled to make. Anything further is fascism.

Perhaps I'm too old-fashioned when it comes to these things.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join