Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Still Waters

Genetic flaw that turns flu into a killer

36 posts in this topic

A genetic discovery could help explain why flu makes some people seriously ill or kills them, while others seem able to bat it away with little more than a few aches, coughs and sneezes.

British and American researchers said they had found for the first time a human gene that influences how people respond to flu infections, making some people more susceptible than others.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*face palm*

Oh god.....its everything BUT the vaccines.

Now it's our genes....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*face palm*

Oh god.....its everything BUT the vaccines.

Now it's our genes....

Its always been our genes. What would vaccines have to do with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

*face palm*

Oh god.....its everything BUT the vaccines.

Now it's our genes....

This article is addressing why the same flu virus is more deadly to certain people.

It has nothing to do with vaccines or how they get the virus in the first place.

Edited by karmakazi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow...

Umm,no.

The flu vaccine is deadly in some people,and claiming its our genes,is much more convenient than admitting the vaccines have deadly ingredients that some people tollerate better than others.

With all tue bad press vaccines get nowadays,an article like this will make everyone run out for some new gene test im sure is on the way,so they know if they are safe from their own genes!

I dare say everyone will come back with healthy genes,and can all get the shots they so desperately want to gie us.

That's the biggest snow job I've ever seen ,but if people want to believe it's our genes,mazel tov.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow...

Umm,no.

The flu vaccine is deadly in some people,and claiming its our genes,is much more convenient than admitting the vaccines have deadly ingredients that some people tollerate better than others.

With all tue bad press vaccines get nowadays,an article like this will make everyone run out for some new gene test im sure is on the way,so they know if they are safe from their own genes!

I dare say everyone will come back with healthy genes,and can all get the shots they so desperately want to gie us.

That's the biggest snow job I've ever seen ,but if people want to believe it's our genes,mazel tov.

Again, reading with a little less bias can lead to amazing understanding of a subject. These people did not get vaccines, they got the flu. Some people get a very mild case even though they were not exposed to the antigens previously and some people get so sick they need to go to the hospital. The difference between the two groups is a gene. Does that help clarify anything for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this on all the health freedom groups I belong to.We are all pealing with laughter .

I'm sorry.Honestly .I apologise for my lack of open mindedness about this stuff,but I know too much to the contrary ,about how they work,to take it seriously .Its a way to manipulate the public into thinking vaccines are safe,and somehow now our own bodies are the problem.

It's a wee bit convenient,and I believe nothing they say anymore.

Can't help it.

They will develop a very expensive,covered by your insurance natch,test,to see if your genes are the vaccine friendly ones.

The test will be done in office( despite almost all genetic testing needing at least 24-48 hours to do ),and your results in minutes.

Like the h1n1 test,your doc will be able to tell you immediately,that you can take this vaccine.

It restores the publics confidence in vaccines,and the additional test will double the doctors insurance bill.

It's far too convenient ,but hey,what do I know .

:w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think you are completely misunderstanding the article and because of that your argument is irrelevant.

You seem to think the article (and research) is blaming deaths from flu vaccine on genetics.

They will develop a very expensive,covered by your insurance natch,test,to see if your genes are the vaccine friendly ones.

The test will be done in office( despite almost all genetic testing needing at least 24-48 hours to do ),and your results in minutes.

Like the h1n1 test,your doc will be able to tell you immediately,that you can take this vaccine.

It restores the publics confidence in vaccines,and the additional test will double the doctors insurance bill.

Both the bolded statements I've noted have absolutely no basis in what the article says. What were you reading to get these ideas? Or did you just look at the title of the article and jump to conclusions?

However, the article says genetics could play a role in deaths from the flu virus not the vaccine. The only reason vaccination comes up is because they are saying that knowing the genetic markers could help a person to know if there is even a need consider vaccination. For most there would not be as the vast majority of people can fight off the flu just fine on their own.

The implications of this is that fewer people would need the vaccination because anyone tested negative for the gene (and it is rare) would know that they do not need to be vaccinated because they do not have the genetic marker!!! This helps your cause yet you act as if we are laughable because you don't comprehend it.

Edited by karmakazi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this on all the health freedom groups I belong to.We are all pealing with laughter .

I'm sorry.Honestly .I apologise for my lack of open mindedness about this stuff,but I know too much to the contrary ,about how they work,to take it seriously .Its a way to manipulate the public into thinking vaccines are safe,and somehow now our own bodies are the problem.

It's a wee bit convenient,and I believe nothing they say anymore.

Can't help it.

They will develope a very expensive,covered by your insurance natch,test,to see if your genes are the vaccine friendly ones.

The test will be done in office( despite almost all genetic testing needing at least 24-48 hours to do ),and your results in minutes.

Like the h1n1 test,your doc will be able to tell you immediately,that you can take this vaccine.

It restores the publics confidence in vaccines,and the additional test will double the doctors insurance bill.

It's far too convenient ,but hey,what do I know .

:w00t:

I think you've shown your knowledge of vaccines to be less than satisfactory in other threads.

This article is a about genes, not vaccines.

From the article;

Study leader Paul Kellam of Britain's Sanger Institute said the gene, called ITFITM3, appeared to be a 'crucial first line of defence' against flu.

When IFITM3 was present in large quantities, the spread of the virus in lungs was hindered, he explained. But when IFITM3 levels were lower, the virus could replicate and spread more easily, causing more severe symptoms.

People who carried a particular variant of IFTIM3 were far more likely to be taken into hospital when they got flu than people who carried other variants, he added.

'Our research is important for people who have this variant as we predict their immune defences could be weakened to some virus infections,' Kellam said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this on all the health freedom groups I belong to.We are all pealing with laughter .

I'm sorry.Honestly .I apologise for my lack of open mindedness about this stuff,but I know too much to the contrary ,about how they work,to take it seriously .Its a way to manipulate the public into thinking vaccines are safe,and somehow now our own bodies are the problem.

It's a wee bit convenient,and I believe nothing they say anymore.

Can't help it.

They will develope a very expensive,covered by your insurance natch,test,to see if your genes are the vaccine friendly ones.

The test will be done in office( despite almost all genetic testing needing at least 24-48 hours to do ),and your results in minutes.

Like the h1n1 test,your doc will be able to tell you immediately,that you can take this vaccine.

It restores the publics confidence in vaccines,and the additional test will double the doctors insurance bill.

It's far too convenient ,but hey,what do I know .

:w00t:

Are you sure they are not laughing at your lack of comprehension?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I posted this on all the health freedom groups I belong to.We are all pealing with laughter .

I'm sorry.Honestly .I apologise for my lack of open mindedness about this stuff,but I know too much to the contrary ,about how they work,to take it seriously .Its a way to manipulate the public into thinking vaccines are safe,and somehow now our own bodies are the problem.

It's a wee bit convenient,and I believe nothing they say anymore.

I'm sorry, why are we supposed to care what a bunch of ignorant nutjobs think about a tangential issue? I suppose you might attempt to learn a little about genetic epidemiology if you hadn't already made up your mind that it's all a big conspiracy.

Edited by Cybele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,it my lack of vaccine knowledge that's the issue here....I'm the one who knows nothing about it .

:rolleyes:

Pealing with laughter......its hysterical to someone that actually has a clue....and there's quite a lot of us in my world

:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yes,it my lack of vaccine knowledge that's the issue here....I'm the one who knows nothing about it .

No, the issue is that you cry government/big pharma conspiracy every time you see an article mentioning an infectious disease or the word "vaccine"--even when it makes absolutely no sense given the content of the article.

The implications of this is that fewer people would need the vaccination because anyone tested negative for the gene (and it is rare) would know that they do not need to be vaccinated because they do not have the genetic marker!!! This helps your cause yet you act as if we are laughable because you don't comprehend it.

Edited by Cybele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,it my lack of vaccine knowledge that's the issue here....I'm the one who knows nothing about it .

:rolleyes:

Pealing with laughter......its hysterical to someone that actually has a clue....and there's quite a lot of us in my world

:rofl:

It is actually not even funny, it is sad that you think you know something when you actually know less than the average person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Some are more susceptible to viruses and illnesses as a result of a low, or compromised, immune system. A lot of sicknesses can kill you if they are left untreated. hell, a simple knick from a knife could kill you.

Edited by Alienated Being

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,it my lack of vaccine knowledge that's the issue here....I'm the one who knows nothing about it .

:rolleyes:

You're comprehension skills are severely lacking. The article isn't about vaccinations.
Pealing with laughter......its hysterical to someone that actually has a clue....and there's quite a lot of us in my world

:rofl:

Anyone with a clue would be laughing *at* you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dare say everyone will come back with healthy genes,and can all get the shots they so desperately want to gie us.

But here's the thing which I'm not certain you have fully identified yet - according to the article, if everyone comes back with healthy genes the recommendation is that they won't need to be given any shots. Unless you wish to backtrack your position and say that everyone will be told they have UNHEALTHY genes, in which case vaccination might be suggested, followed by being listed as a priority patient in the event of an actual influenza outbreak (and a priority listing would be useless if EVERYONE was on that list).

Just a thought I wanted to put out there :tu:

~ Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But here's the thing which I'm not certain you have fully identified yet - according to the article, if everyone comes back with healthy genes the recommendation is that they won't need to be given any shots. Unless you wish to backtrack your position and say that everyone will be told they have UNHEALTHY genes, in which case vaccination might be suggested, followed by being listed as a priority patient in the event of an actual influenza outbreak (and a priority listing would be useless if EVERYONE was on that list).

Just a thought I wanted to put out there :tu:

~ Regards,

That's kind of the point I think most of of were trying to get across. Missy didn't even read the article, just saw something about the flu and went on another unsubstantiated rant about vaccines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck, never had the flu, never had a flu vaccine either ... I guess I have the formidable anti flu gene :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's kind of the point I think most of of were trying to get across. Missy didn't even read the article, just saw something about the flu and went on another unsubstantiated rant about vaccines.

I know, but I thought taking out a very specific claim that missy made and then explicitly pointing out the difference in claims from the article might have helped more than simply saying "the article isn't saying what you think it is, read it and check". "Read it and see for yourself" is an almost useless technique for helping others gain knowledge, especially if they aren't particularly open to alternatives.

Know what I mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, but I thought taking out a very specific claim that missy made and then explicitly pointing out the difference in claims from the article might have helped more than simply saying "the article isn't saying what you think it is, read it and check". "Read it and see for yourself" is an almost useless technique for helping others gain knowledge, especially if they aren't particularly open to alternatives.

Know what I mean?

That's what I tried to do, and then Cybele quoted me trying to clarify further but... we were told we are laughable :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, but I thought taking out a very specific claim that missy made and then explicitly pointing out the difference in claims from the article might have helped more than simply saying "the article isn't saying what you think it is, read it and check". "Read it and see for yourself" is an almost useless technique for helping others gain knowledge, especially if they aren't particularly open to alternatives.

Know what I mean?

Oh I agree completely.

You just have to take count of your audience, however...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yes,it my lack of vaccine knowledge that's the issue here....I'm the one who knows nothing about it .

:rolleyes:

Pealing with laughter......its hysterical to someone that actually has a clue....and there's quite a lot of us in my world

:rofl:

As has been pointed out, the article is about genes, only giving cursory implications that less vaccinations might be possible due to this find. Please cite how this article is otherwise.

As a side note, since your are apparently 'IN THE KNOW', please explain your extensive knowledge in the subject and how you are qualified to to make your statements so we can get a 'clue'.

I'm tempted to blame your arrogance on ignorance, but i'll wait until you explain yourself before passing judgement

EDIT: Ahh I understand now, just read your most recent blog post. So it's actually willful ignorance ...

Edited by RightInTheStatisticals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been pointed out, the article is about genes, only giving cursory implications that less vaccinations might be possible due to this find. Please cite how this article is otherwise.

As a side note, since your are apparently 'IN THE KNOW', please explain your extensive knowledge in the subject and how you are qualified to to make your statements so we can get a 'clue'.

I'm tempted to blame your arrogance on ignorance, but i'll wait until you explain yourself before passing judgement

EDIT: Ahh I understand now, just read your most recent blog post. So it's actually willful ignorance ...

OMG! I had to read it too after reading your post. I have never laughed so hard in all my life. I shouldn't laugh because it just gets sadder and sadder, but truthfully I am hoping it is really a teenager. That would not be as sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

OMG! I had to read it too after reading your post. I have never laughed so hard in all my life. I shouldn't laugh because it just gets sadder and sadder, but truthfully I am hoping it is really a teenager. That would not be as sad.

You're right, it's not laughable. People like that pose a danger to public health.

Edited by Cybele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.