Swine Flu Jab - Warning to Gulf Vets (and others)

Discussion in 'Health & Fitness' started by Hydra_Joe, Oct 19, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I have just received this information from the NGVFA by email:-

    /// MOD EDIT ///

    The remainder of this post has been deleted. See comment below.

    Unsubstantiated, non-evidence based rumours will not be tolerated on the Health & Fitness forum.

    I am not naive enough to believe there are not issues surrounding the proposed vaccination against H1N1, but I will not let paranoia and non-evidence based accusations muddy the waters.

    Noone will be forced to have this vaccination - it is your choice and you will be provided with sufficient information at the time. There is a danger of this turning into another MMR or Gulf War Syndrome, and I would prefer the scientific method (ie trials and studies) to lead instead of anecdote and personal opinion.

    FWIW, I am not convinced about the evidence for the current vaccination regime, but that is not an excuse for the conspiracy theorists to have a field day.
  3. Looks like my hobby of licking the sick has finally paid off then.
  4. It would certainly seem so...have you tried the STC at the London Hospital they do a very nice line in all sorts of exotic diseases. Be very careful as it is situated in the basement at the rear of the hospital, fall down the steps and you could suffer a very nasty Westcountry Fracture :wink:
  5. It was a Press Release by the NGVFA that is availabe in the public domain and also quoted a statement made in the German Newspapers. It was also acredited to the source that I got it from. I see no reason for it to be culled by Moderation. As you say it is a free choice if people have the jab or not. It is also their right to read any public information that may be posted on here from time to time on the subject so they can make their own minds up. I have no axe to grind and am not a supporter of one side or the other and I object to your inference in your post.

    It was not scaremongering or putting over any eccentric views. The National Gulf Veterans and Families Association is a creditable organisation and their Chairman who is a doctor has recommended that Gulf Veterans do not have the Vacine. By deleting my post you have albitrarily censored information that may be of value to all Gulf Vets. You have also denied any debate on the subject. If their claims can be refuted than that would be good, but how can you have a debate if the subject is deleted???

    If any Gulf Veteran wishes me to send you the information that I received from the NGVFA, then please PM me.
  6. Might be worth a visit; thanks for the tip. I usually just lick round the rim of the drain outlet from the quarantine area of my local hospital. :D
  7. I fully agree - It's crap like that puts lives at risk.

    Remember the MMR scare - proved to be total bollocks said by a nobber Dr. but it's still causing problems.
    Remember Cleveland and all the child abuse cases with fathers being charged - nobber so called Dr Marietta Higgs had said that babies with red rings must have been abused.

    We don't need this sort of rubbish muddying the water.
  8. When I worked fror the then DHSS Medicines Division I rememberbeing told that there are two categories of vaccines manufactured by the pharmaceuticals industry. Class A vaccine only was licenced for use by the NHS for the public and Class B which were batches that had not be subject to the batch tests were used by the MOD to vaccinate servicemen, as they were significantly cheaper. There are risks involved in taking any vaccine which has to be balanced against the benefits. The question is, do the MOD still use Class B vaccines? If not, then IMHO the benefits outweigh the risks!
  9. To Hydra Joe and Angry Doc.

    Seriously, I have a feeling that this thread could get a little messy:

    A Poster provides some ‘information’.

    The Forum Moderator deems that ‘information’ unacceptable so deletes it and states the Mods reasoning.

    Original Poster sees matters in a different light; dislikes ‘censorship’ & cites ‘public domain’.

    In this Open Forum, ‘Stuff’ gets added to the mix with a distinct risk of some kind of escalation; because OP has posted the same ‘information’ at our sister site, ARRSE only two clicks away, where it currently appears un-moderated…...

    I suggest that this whole thread is temporarily withdrawn until our RR Mod and the ARRSE Mod get their acts together (with COs involvement??) on whether or not the ‘information’ is to be made available for discussion on these twin sites.

    Meanwhile PM discussions between this site MOD and the Original Poster on this issue would be preferable to the alternative of an inevitable bunfight, (including the usual spectator participation) which could only damage RR in the long run.


    PS I am not after a MOD job, I just want to avoid any mess….
  10. I suspected this would happen.

    Every time a Moderator tries to moderate, they are accused of censorship. I do relatively little as I rarely have the need.

    I see my role as keeping the H&F forum free of quackery and unsubstantiated claims. That is what I intended to do. As I stated, I am not convinced about H1N1 vaccination, but I will wait for studies and not make a decision based on scaremongering. It is definitely in the wider interests of the community that this vaccination is taken up by vulnerable groups (immunocompromised, elderly, diabetics, etc).

    When I made my comments I also PM'd Hydra_Joe explaining my reasoning: this was answered in a similar tone to the post above with no room for debate.

    Hydra_Joe, I have never had dealings with you in the past and I don't particularly want this thread to continue in an accusatory vein. The liklihood is that it will continue to be an argumentative point between the two of us, and anti-mod comments will fill the gap. This would be inappropriate. I accept your point about the public domain, but there is lots in the public domain which would also be censored in RR. Just because it's in the public domain doesn't make it correct. As I said in my PM to you, I believe you made your post with good intentions.
  11. Without going into a discussion on whether your action was correct or not it is good that you openly explained your reasons for acting and have not as some others have done made it an opportunity for personal attacks.

    BZ for being clear and open about your actions.
  12. It was made with good intentions (albeit it late at night when tired) and my point was that if it is deleted then no one gets a chance to debate whether or not it was credible or not. I am a Greenie and not medical. I do not want to see this thread develop into and arguement either, that solves nothing.

    Contrary to your comment above - DEBATE is exactly what I would rather have seen then everyone would see any discredit in the Original statement by the NGVFA, by those who know what they are talking about. Without the original statement that is not possible. I am happy to let this die now until such time as there is a joint statement by those who know about such things in RR and ARSE. All us ordinary members want is the truth.

    I have deleted the comment about Censorship and I apologise to you angrydoc for making it.

    I know you are trying to protect the members from Quackery etc as you said. We just have different methods of doing this I suppose.

    Those who know me - know I work tirelessly for Veterans and their issues.

    Endex from me and sorry for any ill feeling that my post may have caused.
  13. They're getting their teeth into this over at Arrse...
  14. Interesting to see that all the blame was put on the anthrax vaccine that was given for the 90/91 Gulf war.
    Two letters come to mind.
  15. I concur with Maxi. Thank you Angrydoc.

    If the British population were as scientifically literate as the Septics there would be fewer problems, though there are always those out there who deliberately misrepresent data for their own ends.

Share This Page