That's what I hear. Sure have been thinking about it. Mostly just trying to shake a soar throat- not sure the flu shot will help that. Doing a lot of tea lately.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
About 8 years ago I skipped a flu shot and caught the flu and it was miserable beyond belief. Since then, I religiously get the shot and ensure my children have the shot or the mist. If you've ever seen your child go through the flu, it is hard to defend not getting it even if it only reduces the chances by 20%. It's still worth it in my book. In reality, the prevention level is much higher, but certainly not 100%. Either way, any reduction is worth it in my opinion.
I use a bit of common sense.... when I read that influenza kills between 3,000 and 50,000 common sense asks why the disparity? when i read that the shot doesnt actually hurt common sense recalls "didnt like 15 people die within hours of receiving the shot"? when i read reduces the chance of dying by 40%, common sense says look of the data, its from 1989, common sense sense says i see free flu shots for 12 years and the last study was done 25 years ago? i read 50% effective common sense says look up the research, no research to prove effectiveness i read that the comprehensive study shows efficacy range from 16-76% effective, common sense asks why the disparity. common sense says stop reading forget the shot even if 1 person died from the shot ill take my chances of dying, from influenza rather than increasing it by getting the shot.
Did you get your flu shot? I didn't really want to (I hate needles) but as an infectious disease physician at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, it would be exceedingly poor form if I opted out. My job requires it, and I recommend the vaccine to just about every patient, every day. The shot doesn't actually hurt, and if you look at the terrifying data—influenza kills between 3,000 and 50,000 Americans every year—it seems insane not to get immunized. Annual vaccination reduces your chance of dying from the virus by more than 40 percent! But on Wednesday, the Centers for Disease Control announced that this year's vaccine kinda sucks. To be specific, it's less than 50 percent effective against the predominant strain of circulating virus. So what went wrong?
It turns out the whole thing is a big guessing game. Influenza vaccines are produced in eggs, and take approximately six months to manufacture, which means scientists start making the flu vaccine in February or March, way before they know which strain is going to be the most problematic. The decision of which strains to include in the vaccine is based upon global surveillance of viruses circulating at the end of the prior influenza season. Scientists are making a guess, but it's an educated guess.
The flu shot you got (or will get) covers three or four strains of influenza. The one I received covers three strains (two of influenza A, and one of influenza , but at the hospital across the street, Memorial Sloan Kettering, they administer one that covers four strains: two A and two B. It's debatable which one is better.
This general strategy of vaccine development usually works, but if the virus mutates, or an unexpected strain emerges, you won't be protected. This is not to stay you shouldn't get a flu shot—YOU DEFINITELY SHOULD—but when you do, you really have no idea how much protection it's going to afford you.
You see, most studies have overestimated the true efficacy of the flu vaccine. The numbers most frequently quoted are between 70 and 90 percent, but a comprehensive review over nine flu seasons indicates that in adults aged 18 to 64, vaccine efficacy was really only 59 percent, with range of 16 to 76 percent. One study found that the effectiveness of the vaccine during the 2004-2005 was only around 10 percent; two years later, during the 2006-2007 season, that number jumped to 52 percent. This year, the predominant strain of influenza is called H3N2, and preliminary studies indicate the vaccine is a good match for only 48 percent of H3N2 strains. (Influenza A and B are are further subdivided by the characteristics of two proteins called hemagglutinin and neuraminidase; H3N2 refers to subtle variations in these two proteins.)
That is to say, this year's shot is performing worse than average, but not much worse. And on the spectrum of underperforming shots, it's still nowhere near the floor.
This relatively poor match—let's be honest, less than 50 percent isn't great—is because of something called antigenic drift, which means the virus has mutated ever so slightly, just enough to evade the antibodies that were generated after you got your flu shot. The vaccine makers accurately predicted H3N2, but they were unable to predict this subtle drift.
"One thing to understand about flu," CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden said in a phone conference Thursday, "is that it is unpredictable. Every season is different, with different flu viruses spreading and causing illness. Unfortunately, about half of the H3N2 viruses that we've analyzed this season are different from the H3N2 virus that's included in this year's flu vaccine. They're different enough that we're concerned that protection from H3N2 viruses may be lower than we usually see."
Influenza virus is remarkable for its high rate of mutation, which is why you have to get vaccinated every single year. It's also why I've been instructed to use two drugs to treat patients with this flu season: Tamiflu and Relenza. The virus might be able to alter its structure to evade one of these drugs, but probably not both. Let's keep our fingers crossed this strategy works.
The last thing to consider is that we're still very early into flu season. H3N2 is the predominant strain now, but another strain may emerge in early 2015, one that is covered by the vaccine. I receive a weekly virology report about the infections that are spreading in our city and our hospital and it rarely stays the same from one week to the next. Viruses, like vaccines, are unpredictable. We really don't know what the flu season is going to look like three months from now or if the latest vaccine is actually a dud. So if you haven't yet gotten your shot, don't let the latest news deter you. It's still worth it.
Egg proteins: Including avian contaminant viruses Formaldehyde: Known carcinogen Thimerosal: Mercury-based preservative (only in multi-dose vials) Other heavy metals such as aluminum: Known neurotoxin Sugar: The essence of all inflammatory disease Triton X100: A detergent Other additives known to cause allergic reactions
Today, the only childhood vaccines used routinely in the United States that contain thimerosal (mercury) are flu vaccines in multi-dose vials. These vials have very tiny amounts of thimerosal as a preservative. This is necessary because each time an individual dose is drawn from a multi-dose vial with a new needle and syringe, there is the potential to contaminate the vial with harmful microbes (toxins).
There is no evidence that the small amounts of thimerosal in flu vaccines causes any harm, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. Although no evidence suggests that there are safety concerns with thimerosal, vaccine manufacturers have stopped using it as a precautionary measure. Flu vaccines that do not contain thimerosal are available (in single dose vials).
I use a bit of common sense.... when I read that influenza kills between 3,000 and 50,000 common sense asks why the disparity? when i read that the shot doesnt actually hurt common sense recalls "didnt like 15 people die within hours of receiving the shot"? when i read reduces the chance of dying by 40%, common sense says look of the data, its from 1989, common sense sense says i see free flu shots for 12 years and the last study was done 25 years ago? i read 50% effective common sense says look up the research, no research to prove effectiveness i read that the comprehensive study shows efficacy range from 16-76% effective, common sense asks why the disparity. common sense says stop reading forget the shot even if 1 person died from the shot ill take my chances of dying, from influenza rather than increasing it by getting the shot.
Did you get your flu shot? I didn't really want to (I hate needles) but as an infectious disease physician at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, it would be exceedingly poor form if I opted out. My job requires it, and I recommend the vaccine to just about every patient, every day. The shot doesn't actually hurt, and if you look at the terrifying data—influenza kills between 3,000 and 50,000 Americans every year—it seems insane not to get immunized. Annual vaccination reduces your chance of dying from the virus by more than 40 percent! But on Wednesday, the Centers for Disease Control announced that this year's vaccine kinda sucks. To be specific, it's less than 50 percent effective against the predominant strain of circulating virus. So what went wrong?
It turns out the whole thing is a big guessing game. Influenza vaccines are produced in eggs, and take approximately six months to manufacture, which means scientists start making the flu vaccine in February or March, way before they know which strain is going to be the most problematic. The decision of which strains to include in the vaccine is based upon global surveillance of viruses circulating at the end of the prior influenza season. Scientists are making a guess, but it's an educated guess.
The flu shot you got (or will get) covers three or four strains of influenza. The one I received covers three strains (two of influenza A, and one of influenza , but at the hospital across the street, Memorial Sloan Kettering, they administer one that covers four strains: two A and two B. It's debatable which one is better.
This general strategy of vaccine development usually works, but if the virus mutates, or an unexpected strain emerges, you won't be protected. This is not to stay you shouldn't get a flu shot—YOU DEFINITELY SHOULD—but when you do, you really have no idea how much protection it's going to afford you.
You see, most studies have overestimated the true efficacy of the flu vaccine. The numbers most frequently quoted are between 70 and 90 percent, but a comprehensive review over nine flu seasons indicates that in adults aged 18 to 64, vaccine efficacy was really only 59 percent, with range of 16 to 76 percent. One study found that the effectiveness of the vaccine during the 2004-2005 was only around 10 percent; two years later, during the 2006-2007 season, that number jumped to 52 percent. This year, the predominant strain of influenza is called H3N2, and preliminary studies indicate the vaccine is a good match for only 48 percent of H3N2 strains. (Influenza A and B are are further subdivided by the characteristics of two proteins called hemagglutinin and neuraminidase; H3N2 refers to subtle variations in these two proteins.)
That is to say, this year's shot is performing worse than average, but not much worse. And on the spectrum of underperforming shots, it's still nowhere near the floor.
This relatively poor match—let's be honest, less than 50 percent isn't great—is because of something called antigenic drift, which means the virus has mutated ever so slightly, just enough to evade the antibodies that were generated after you got your flu shot. The vaccine makers accurately predicted H3N2, but they were unable to predict this subtle drift.
"One thing to understand about flu," CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden said in a phone conference Thursday, "is that it is unpredictable. Every season is different, with different flu viruses spreading and causing illness. Unfortunately, about half of the H3N2 viruses that we've analyzed this season are different from the H3N2 virus that's included in this year's flu vaccine. They're different enough that we're concerned that protection from H3N2 viruses may be lower than we usually see."
Influenza virus is remarkable for its high rate of mutation, which is why you have to get vaccinated every single year. It's also why I've been instructed to use two drugs to treat patients with this flu season: Tamiflu and Relenza. The virus might be able to alter its structure to evade one of these drugs, but probably not both. Let's keep our fingers crossed this strategy works.
The last thing to consider is that we're still very early into flu season. H3N2 is the predominant strain now, but another strain may emerge in early 2015, one that is covered by the vaccine. I receive a weekly virology report about the infections that are spreading in our city and our hospital and it rarely stays the same from one week to the next. Viruses, like vaccines, are unpredictable. We really don't know what the flu season is going to look like three months from now or if the latest vaccine is actually a dud. So if you haven't yet gotten your shot, don't let the latest news deter you. It's still worth it.
Sorry for quoting such a long post, but I haven't figured out how to quote just one or two sentences. But I think, Jc, you are saying "what harm can it do so might as well get the shot." If that is what you mean, we agree on something. It's a start...
Yes, it's not for everybody. Some people are injured and some die after getting the shot. Since 1989 when congress pass laws shielding vaccine manufactureres and doctors who create and administer vaccines and created the taxpayer subsidized national vaccine injury program more than $3b has been paid out(that's on all vaccines not just flu). I'm assuming it's no easy task filing and winning vaccine injury cases. A simple Google search of Flu shot injuries can help people understand that flu shots are not for everyone.
Just keep this in mind, health organizations and health care providers jobs are to keep the masses healthy and safe, you and i have to keep you and i healthy and safe, success for them is batting .800 (keeping 8 out of 10 healthy safe) you and i have to bat .1000. Using the baseball analogy, you and i can't swing and miss.
Everything in life has consequences, and every medication has some potential side effects, so yes, there is always a remote chance that you will be the unlucky one with a serious side effect from an immunization. Ideally each person would weigh for themselves the risks versus benefits, instead of just going with personal prejudices or sensationalistic reporting.
The current investigation suggests that the purported "flu shot deaths" in Italy weren't actually related to the immunizations. Autopsies continue but the first autopsy shows solidly that the vaccine was not responsible - the guy died of a rupture of an existing aortic aneurysm. Unfortunately, when we are talking about people in their 70s and 80s, a certain percentage will die within a few days of any event.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The June 2014 report from the Department of Justice on damages paid by the U.S. Government to vaccine victims was recently published on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources website. There were 120 cases of vaccine injuries decided. 78 cases received compensation, while 42 cases were denied.
Most of the U.S. public is unaware that a U.S. citizen, by law, cannot sue a pharmaceutical company for damages resulting from vaccines. Congress gave them total legal immunity in 1986, and that law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011. There is a special “vaccine court” called the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program that is funded through a tax on vaccines. If you are injured or killed by a vaccine, you must hire an attorney and fight tax-funded government attorneys to seek damages, as you cannot sue the drug manufacturers. As you can see from the report below, it takes years to reach a settlement, with the longest case below being settled after 11 years. Therefore, this report probably only represents a tiny fraction of the actual number of people harmed or killed by vaccines, since it is so difficult to fight the government in court to win a settlement.
As in previous reports, the June 15, 2014, report covering a 3-month period shows that the flu vaccine is the most dangerous vaccine in America. 78 cases were awarded settlements for vaccine injuries, with 55 of the settlements being for the flu shot, including one death. Most of the settlements for injuries due to the flu shot were for Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Other flu vaccine injuries included: Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy, Rheumatoid arthritis, Shingles, Brachial plexus neuropathy, Bell’s Palsy, Brachial neuritis, Transverse myelitis, Lichenoid drug eruption, and Narcolepsy.
The June 2014 report from the Department of Justice on damages paid by the U.S. Government to vaccine victims was recently published on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources website. There were 120 cases of vaccine injuries decided. 78 cases received compensation, while 42 cases were denied.
Most of the U.S. public is unaware that a U.S. citizen, by law, cannot sue a pharmaceutical company for damages resulting from vaccines. Congress gave them total legal immunity in 1986, and that law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011. There is a special “vaccine court” called the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program that is funded through a tax on vaccines. If you are injured or killed by a vaccine, you must hire an attorney and fight tax-funded government attorneys to seek damages, as you cannot sue the drug manufacturers. As you can see from the report below, it takes years to reach a settlement, with the longest case below being settled after 11 years. Therefore, this report probably only represents a tiny fraction of the actual number of people harmed or killed by vaccines, since it is so difficult to fight the government in court to win a settlement.
As in previous reports, the June 15, 2014, report covering a 3-month period shows that the flu vaccine is the most dangerous vaccine in America. 78 cases were awarded settlements for vaccine injuries, with 55 of the settlements being for the flu shot, including one death. Most of the settlements for injuries due to the flu shot were for Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Other flu vaccine injuries included: Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy, Rheumatoid arthritis, Shingles, Brachial plexus neuropathy, Bell’s Palsy, Brachial neuritis, Transverse myelitis, Lichenoid drug eruption, and Narcolepsy.
JC, I'm not disagreeing that there are some rare side effects, as my post said, and that everyone needs to decide what risk of these they tolerate, versus the risk of getting the flu and dying from it. There are still far more influenza deaths yearly than serious side effects from the immunization.
"The increased risk was approximately 1 additional case of GBS per 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine" - this is the rate from 1976, when the rate of GBS from immunization was at it highest. Rates of GBS from immunization since then are lower than this. The death rate from influenza is much higher than this. Also, I think you already know that that wasn't the sort of publication I was calling sensationalistic.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I've never had a flu shot in my life and I'm still alive to talk about it.
And what's your point? You do realize that there are a lot of immunocompromised people out there and a lot of us with strong immune systems get the vaccine to help protect those people.
I've never had a flu shot in my life and I'm still alive to talk about it.
And what's your point? You do realize that there are a lot of immunocompromised people out there and a lot of us with strong immune systems get the vaccine to help protect those people.
Well i think my point is pretty obvious.
There is a whole lot of fear mongering going on these days, fueled by the pharmaceutical companies who are raking in the cash from flu vaccines. I haven't even had the flu since 1998 or so. I don't feel like it's necessary for people who aren't in the higher risk groups to get flu shots. I feel like they are trying to convince people that it is because $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. And they are doing a fine job - it's totally working!
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
When I was just recently in Seattle one of the days I had a bit of a sore throat and a bit sniffly nothing too serious...so I went into the Chemist to get some cough syrup and was asked by the Chemist if I wanted to get a flu shot...No sorry I'm an Australian lol
When I was just recently in Seattle one of the days I had a bit of a sore throat and a bit sniffly nothing too serious...so I went into the Chemist to get some cough syrup and was asked by the Chemist if I wanted to get a flu shot...No sorry I'm an Australian lol
When I was just recently in Seattle one of the days I had a bit of a sore throat and a bit sniffly nothing too serious...so I went into the Chemist to get some cough syrup and was asked by the Chemist if I wanted to get a flu shot...No sorry I'm an Australian lol
To the chemist? Was his name Walter White?
I'm not to familiar with Walter White...but it was at a Walgreens.
When I was just recently in Seattle one of the days I had a bit of a sore throat and a bit sniffly nothing too serious...so I went into the Chemist to get some cough syrup and was asked by the Chemist if I wanted to get a flu shot...No sorry I'm an Australian lol
To the chemist? Was his name Walter White?
I'm pretty sure that he didn't give you permission to mock what he said.
I've never had a flu shot in my life and I'm still alive to talk about it.
And what's your point? You do realize that there are a lot of immunocompromised people out there and a lot of us with strong immune systems get the vaccine to help protect those people.
Well i think my point is pretty obvious.
There is a whole lot of fear mongering going on these days, fueled by the pharmaceutical companies who are raking in the cash from flu vaccines. I haven't even had the flu since 1998 or so. I don't feel like it's necessary for people who aren't in the higher risk groups to get flu shots. I feel like they are trying to convince people that it is because $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. And they are doing a fine job - it's totally working!
The fear for me didn't come from the pharmaceutical companies. It came from having a little bit of asthma and then getting the flu and having to use a nebulizer. It also came from the death of my otherwise vital brother-in-law not quite one year ago. It even convinced my cynical husband who avoids vaccines like the plague after his stint in the army. He went in January last year and as soon as it was available this fall.
And the sun it may be shining . . . but there's an ocean in my eyes
I've never had a flu shot in my life and I'm still alive to talk about it.
And what's your point? You do realize that there are a lot of immunocompromised people out there and a lot of us with strong immune systems get the vaccine to help protect those people.
Well i think my point is pretty obvious.
There is a whole lot of fear mongering going on these days, fueled by the pharmaceutical companies who are raking in the cash from flu vaccines. I haven't even had the flu since 1998 or so. I don't feel like it's necessary for people who aren't in the higher risk groups to get flu shots. I feel like they are trying to convince people that it is because $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. And they are doing a fine job - it's totally working!
So you are implying a conspiracy between government, health care professionals and scientists for profit. Got it.
Can you provide any evidence of this scaremongering....or is this just how you feel?
I've never had a flu shot in my life and I'm still alive to talk about it.
And what's your point? You do realize that there are a lot of immunocompromised people out there and a lot of us with strong immune systems get the vaccine to help protect those people.
Well i think my point is pretty obvious.
There is a whole lot of fear mongering going on these days, fueled by the pharmaceutical companies who are raking in the cash from flu vaccines. I haven't even had the flu since 1998 or so. I don't feel like it's necessary for people who aren't in the higher risk groups to get flu shots. I feel like they are trying to convince people that it is because $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. And they are doing a fine job - it's totally working!
So you are implying a conspiracy between government, health care professionals and scientists for profit. Got it.
Can you provide any evidence of this scaremongering....or is this just how you feel?
Can you prove that there is not? I'll leave the health care professionals out of the equation. But are you saying that there is no conflict of interest when scientific studies are funded by pharmaceutical companies?
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I've never had a flu shot in my life and I'm still alive to talk about it.
And what's your point? You do realize that there are a lot of immunocompromised people out there and a lot of us with strong immune systems get the vaccine to help protect those people.
Well i think my point is pretty obvious.
There is a whole lot of fear mongering going on these days, fueled by the pharmaceutical companies who are raking in the cash from flu vaccines. I haven't even had the flu since 1998 or so. I don't feel like it's necessary for people who aren't in the higher risk groups to get flu shots. I feel like they are trying to convince people that it is because $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. And they are doing a fine job - it's totally working!
So you are implying a conspiracy between government, health care professionals and scientists for profit. Got it.
Can you provide any evidence of this scaremongering....or is this just how you feel?
Can you prove that there is not? I'll leave the health care professionals out of the equation. But are you saying that there is no conflict of interest when scientific studies are funded by pharmaceutical companies?
Money has nothing to do with it! Let's not forget that the R&D is taxpayer funded. Not only does big pharma get special treatment for lawsuits they get special treatment on patents. They sure are special!
I've never had a flu shot in my life and I'm still alive to talk about it.
And what's your point? You do realize that there are a lot of immunocompromised people out there and a lot of us with strong immune systems get the vaccine to help protect those people.
Well i think my point is pretty obvious.
There is a whole lot of fear mongering going on these days, fueled by the pharmaceutical companies who are raking in the cash from flu vaccines. I haven't even had the flu since 1998 or so. I don't feel like it's necessary for people who aren't in the higher risk groups to get flu shots. I feel like they are trying to convince people that it is because $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. And they are doing a fine job - it's totally working!
So you are implying a conspiracy between government, health care professionals and scientists for profit. Got it.
Can you provide any evidence of this scaremongering....or is this just how you feel?
Can you prove that there is not? I'll leave the health care professionals out of the equation. But are you saying that there is no conflict of interest when scientific studies are funded by pharmaceutical companies?
The burden of proof is on the people saying there is a conspiracy, not on me. I could say there is a little blue man in the sky watching over us right now and you would say I'm full of shit but I could retort back "prove he isn't". Pretty weak argument.
Also, I'm sorry but you can't leave the health care professionals out of it because they would have to be in on it too.
If you have any evidence of scientists making up data for the sale of vaccines I'm all ears. I think most people here don't really understand the scientific process works.
Where I'm from most scientific funding comes from government and any scientific data published worth its salt is peer reviewed. Hard to make that shit up.
I've never had a flu shot in my life and I'm still alive to talk about it.
And what's your point? You do realize that there are a lot of immunocompromised people out there and a lot of us with strong immune systems get the vaccine to help protect those people.
Well i think my point is pretty obvious.
There is a whole lot of fear mongering going on these days, fueled by the pharmaceutical companies who are raking in the cash from flu vaccines. I haven't even had the flu since 1998 or so. I don't feel like it's necessary for people who aren't in the higher risk groups to get flu shots. I feel like they are trying to convince people that it is because $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. And they are doing a fine job - it's totally working!
So you are implying a conspiracy between government, health care professionals and scientists for profit. Got it.
Can you provide any evidence of this scaremongering....or is this just how you feel?
Can you prove that there is not? I'll leave the health care professionals out of the equation. But are you saying that there is no conflict of interest when scientific studies are funded by pharmaceutical companies?
The burden of proof is on the people saying there is a conspiracy, not on me. I could say there is a little blue man in the sky watching over us right now and you would say I'm full of shit but I could retort back "prove he isn't". Pretty weak argument.
Also, I'm sorry but you can't leave the health care professionals out of it because they would have to be in on it too.
If you have any evidence of scientists making up data for the sale of vaccines I'm all ears. I think most people here don't really understand the scientific process works.
And do they have all the information? Basic scientific method says that any scientist should be able to replicate results. And yet there is evidence that data has been withheld therefore results have been skewed. And there has been evidence of scientists overestimating results but the pharmaceuticals and the government have withheld some of that information. Can you prove that scientists haven't faked data? Pretty weak argument on your part to throw it back when you can't prove it and there is evidence that scientists haven't released all their findings. I thought science was transparent and all about proof?
I could care less what you believe and I'm not going to do your research for you. You want to get the flu shot and every little vaccine that comes along, great, go for it. But quit bullying everyone else and let people make their own informed choices.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I've never had a flu shot in my life and I'm still alive to talk about it.
And what's your point? You do realize that there are a lot of immunocompromised people out there and a lot of us with strong immune systems get the vaccine to help protect those people.
Well i think my point is pretty obvious.
There is a whole lot of fear mongering going on these days, fueled by the pharmaceutical companies who are raking in the cash from flu vaccines. I haven't even had the flu since 1998 or so. I don't feel like it's necessary for people who aren't in the higher risk groups to get flu shots. I feel like they are trying to convince people that it is because $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. And they are doing a fine job - it's totally working!
So you are implying a conspiracy between government, health care professionals and scientists for profit. Got it.
Can you provide any evidence of this scaremongering....or is this just how you feel?
Can you prove that there is not? I'll leave the health care professionals out of the equation. But are you saying that there is no conflict of interest when scientific studies are funded by pharmaceutical companies?
The burden of proof is on the people saying there is a conspiracy, not on me. I could say there is a little blue man in the sky watching over us right now and you would say I'm full of shit but I could retort back "prove he isn't". Pretty weak argument.
Also, I'm sorry but you can't leave the health care professionals out of it because they would have to be in on it too.
If you have any evidence of scientists making up data for the sale of vaccines I'm all ears. I think most people here don't really understand the scientific process works.
And do they have all the information? Basic scientific method says that any scientist should be able to replicate results. And yet there is evidence that data has been withheld therefore results have been skewed. And there has been evidence of scientists overestimating results but the pharmaceuticals and the government have withheld some of that information. Can you prove that scientists haven't faked data? Pretty weak argument on your part to throw it back when you can't prove it and there is evidence that scientists haven't released all their findings. I thought science was transparent and all about proof?
I could care less what you believe and I'm not going to do your research for you. You want to get the flu shot and every little vaccine that comes along, great, go for it. But quit bullying everyone else and let people make their own informed choices.
Are you kidding me? Who am I bullying? If you want to post an opinion all I ask is that you can try and back that opinion up.....with anything......which apparently you can't. That's how this works. If you make claims like scientists are overestimating results in regards to vaccines it's not my job to find out what nonsense you are talking about.
By the way this is not about you. I initially started getting the vaccine because of elderly people in my life who would be more at risk without me getting it. My mother has Lupus and is immunocompromised. I get the vaccine on the advice of my doctor and hers. They must all be in on the conspiracy too.
Ah, this round about debate seems so familiar… like we had it just last year. I've said my point so I feel no reason to keep stating it. However, I really dig the following opinion. Because the point of the vaccine is not about ME. It's about those around us that have lower immune systems. The minute we get off our high horse that it is about me and only me, and the minute we start caring about those around us who aren't as healthy as we are, the sooner we make progress.
By the way this is not about you. I initially started getting the vaccine because of elderly people in my life who would be more at risk without me getting it. My mother has Lupus and is immunocompromised. I get the vaccine on the advice of my doctor and hers. They must all be in on the conspiracy too.
I've never had a flu shot in my life and I'm still alive to talk about it.
And what's your point? You do realize that there are a lot of immunocompromised people out there and a lot of us with strong immune systems get the vaccine to help protect those people.
Well i think my point is pretty obvious.
There is a whole lot of fear mongering going on these days, fueled by the pharmaceutical companies who are raking in the cash from flu vaccines. I haven't even had the flu since 1998 or so. I don't feel like it's necessary for people who aren't in the higher risk groups to get flu shots. I feel like they are trying to convince people that it is because $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. And they are doing a fine job - it's totally working!
So you are implying a conspiracy between government, health care professionals and scientists for profit. Got it.
Can you provide any evidence of this scaremongering....or is this just how you feel?
I am just going off of the realities I see. Now there are actually TV ads pumping the flu shot telling us that absolutely everyone should get them, not just the higher risk groups, like those with respiratory or immunodeficiency issues (I am SO sorry about your brother oceaninmyeyes), seniors, children, those who work with children, pregnant women, and healthcare workers. Meanwhile, there is a severe shortage of the very vaccine that these ads are telling us to go and get ASAP, so people go the pharmacy for their shot and find that they don't have any, day after day - most of them in fact can't give more than 20 vaccines a day because of supply. I read this as pharmeceutical companies creating a shortage in order to pump up demand. This really doesn't land in the conspiracy theory category. Have the big pharm companies ever given you any reason to trust them or assume they have anything other than profit in mind??? I doubt it.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I've never had a flu shot in my life and I'm still alive to talk about it.
And what's your point? You do realize that there are a lot of immunocompromised people out there and a lot of us with strong immune systems get the vaccine to help protect those people.
Well i think my point is pretty obvious.
There is a whole lot of fear mongering going on these days, fueled by the pharmaceutical companies who are raking in the cash from flu vaccines. I haven't even had the flu since 1998 or so. I don't feel like it's necessary for people who aren't in the higher risk groups to get flu shots. I feel like they are trying to convince people that it is because $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. And they are doing a fine job - it's totally working!
So you are implying a conspiracy between government, health care professionals and scientists for profit. Got it.
Can you provide any evidence of this scaremongering....or is this just how you feel?
I am just going off of the realities I see. Now there are actually TV ads pumping the flu shot telling us that absolutely everyone should get them, not just the higher risk groups, like those with respiratory or immunodeficiency issues (I am SO sorry about your brother oceaninmyeyes), seniors, children, those who work with children, pregnant women, and healthcare workers. Meanwhile, there is a severe shortage of the very vaccine that these ads are telling us to go and get ASAP, so people go the pharmacy for their shot and find that they don't have any, day after day - most of them in fact can't give more than 20 vaccines a day because of supply. I read this as pharmeceutical companies creating a shortage in order to pump up demand. This really doesn't land in the conspiracy theory category. Have the big pharm companies ever given you any reason to trust them or assume they have anything other than profit in mind??? I doubt it.
I know you're from BC so I wonder if this is more of a BC government problem with the shortage? I know here in Alberta where the vaccine is free (other than my tax dollars) the government orders x number of vaccines per season depending on what they think the need will be, the only reason for a shortage here would be if they got the demand wrong. As far as I know it's not supply demand issue on pharmas end.
I think healthy scepticism is great. I don't trust big pharma and I understand it's in their interest to push the vaccine for profit but I also don't think that's reason enough to believe we are being lied to. There are far to many players involved to pull it off ....government, scientists (my wife being one of them) and the health care system. I really do think our government provides this vaccine for us because it's in the best interest of everyone.
Comments
when I read that influenza kills between 3,000 and 50,000 common sense asks why the disparity?
when i read that the shot doesnt actually hurt common sense recalls "didnt like 15 people die within hours of receiving the shot"?
when i read reduces the chance of dying by 40%, common sense says look of the data, its from 1989, common sense sense says i see free flu shots for 12 years and the last study was done 25 years ago?
i read 50% effective common sense says look up the research, no research to prove effectiveness
i read that the comprehensive study shows efficacy range from 16-76% effective, common sense asks why the disparity.
common sense says stop reading forget the shot even if 1 person died from the shot ill take my chances of dying, from influenza rather than increasing it by getting the shot.
Did you get your flu shot? I didn't really want to (I hate needles) but as an infectious disease physician at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, it would be exceedingly poor form if I opted out. My job requires it, and I recommend the vaccine to just about every patient, every day. The shot doesn't actually hurt, and if you look at the terrifying data—influenza kills between 3,000 and 50,000 Americans every year—it seems insane not to get immunized. Annual vaccination reduces your chance of dying from the virus by more than 40 percent! But on Wednesday, the Centers for Disease Control announced that this year's vaccine kinda sucks. To be specific, it's less than 50 percent effective against the predominant strain of circulating virus. So what went wrong?
It turns out the whole thing is a big guessing game. Influenza vaccines are produced in eggs, and take approximately six months to manufacture, which means scientists start making the flu vaccine in February or March, way before they know which strain is going to be the most problematic. The decision of which strains to include in the vaccine is based upon global surveillance of viruses circulating at the end of the prior influenza season. Scientists are making a guess, but it's an educated guess.
The flu shot you got (or will get) covers three or four strains of influenza. The one I received covers three strains (two of influenza A, and one of influenza
This general strategy of vaccine development usually works, but if the virus mutates, or an unexpected strain emerges, you won't be protected. This is not to stay you shouldn't get a flu shot—YOU DEFINITELY SHOULD—but when you do, you really have no idea how much protection it's going to afford you.
You see, most studies have overestimated the true efficacy of the flu vaccine. The numbers most frequently quoted are between 70 and 90 percent, but a comprehensive review over nine flu seasons indicates that in adults aged 18 to 64, vaccine efficacy was really only 59 percent, with range of 16 to 76 percent. One study found that the effectiveness of the vaccine during the 2004-2005 was only around 10 percent; two years later, during the 2006-2007 season, that number jumped to 52 percent. This year, the predominant strain of influenza is called H3N2, and preliminary studies indicate the vaccine is a good match for only 48 percent of H3N2 strains. (Influenza A and B are are further subdivided by the characteristics of two proteins called hemagglutinin and neuraminidase; H3N2 refers to subtle variations in these two proteins.)
That is to say, this year's shot is performing worse than average, but not much worse. And on the spectrum of underperforming shots, it's still nowhere near the floor.
This relatively poor match—let's be honest, less than 50 percent isn't great—is because of something called antigenic drift, which means the virus has mutated ever so slightly, just enough to evade the antibodies that were generated after you got your flu shot. The vaccine makers accurately predicted H3N2, but they were unable to predict this subtle drift.
"One thing to understand about flu," CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden said in a phone conference Thursday, "is that it is unpredictable. Every season is different, with different flu viruses spreading and causing illness. Unfortunately, about half of the H3N2 viruses that we've analyzed this season are different from the H3N2 virus that's included in this year's flu vaccine. They're different enough that we're concerned that protection from H3N2 viruses may be lower than we usually see."
Influenza virus is remarkable for its high rate of mutation, which is why you have to get vaccinated every single year. It's also why I've been instructed to use two drugs to treat patients with this flu season: Tamiflu and Relenza. The virus might be able to alter its structure to evade one of these drugs, but probably not both. Let's keep our fingers crossed this strategy works.
The last thing to consider is that we're still very early into flu season. H3N2 is the predominant strain now, but another strain may emerge in early 2015, one that is covered by the vaccine. I receive a weekly virology report about the infections that are spreading in our city and our hospital and it rarely stays the same from one week to the next. Viruses, like vaccines, are unpredictable. We really don't know what the flu season is going to look like three months from now or if the latest vaccine is actually a dud. So if you haven't yet gotten your shot, don't let the latest news deter you. It's still worth it.
http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-does-the-flu-vaccine-suck-this-year-1667110237/+kylenw
Egg proteins: Including avian contaminant viruses
Formaldehyde: Known carcinogen
Thimerosal: Mercury-based preservative (only in multi-dose vials)
Other heavy metals such as aluminum: Known neurotoxin
Sugar: The essence of all inflammatory disease
Triton X100: A detergent
Other additives known to cause allergic reactions
Today, the only childhood vaccines used routinely in the United States that contain thimerosal (mercury) are flu vaccines in multi-dose vials. These vials have very tiny amounts of thimerosal as a preservative. This is necessary because each time an individual dose is drawn from a multi-dose vial with a new needle and syringe, there is the potential to contaminate the vial with harmful microbes (toxins).
There is no evidence that the small amounts of thimerosal in flu vaccines causes any harm, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. Although no evidence suggests that there are safety concerns with thimerosal, vaccine manufacturers have stopped using it as a precautionary measure. Flu vaccines that do not contain thimerosal are available (in single dose vials).
A simple Google search of Flu shot injuries can help people understand that flu shots are not for everyone.
Just keep this in mind, health organizations and health care providers jobs are to keep the masses healthy and safe, you and i have to keep you and i healthy and safe, success for them is batting .800 (keeping 8 out of 10 healthy safe) you and i have to bat .1000. Using the baseball analogy, you and i can't swing and miss.
The current investigation suggests that the purported "flu shot deaths" in Italy weren't actually related to the immunizations. Autopsies continue but the first autopsy shows solidly that the vaccine was not responsible - the guy died of a rupture of an existing aortic aneurysm. Unfortunately, when we are talking about people in their 70s and 80s, a certain percentage will die within a few days of any event.
http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/government-pays-damages-to-vaccine-victims-flu-shot-most-dangerous-with-gbs-and-death-settlements/
The June 2014 report from the Department of Justice on damages paid by the U.S. Government to vaccine victims was recently published on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources website. There were 120 cases of vaccine injuries decided. 78 cases received compensation, while 42 cases were denied.
Most of the U.S. public is unaware that a U.S. citizen, by law, cannot sue a pharmaceutical company for damages resulting from vaccines. Congress gave them total legal immunity in 1986, and that law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011. There is a special “vaccine court” called the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program that is funded through a tax on vaccines. If you are injured or killed by a vaccine, you must hire an attorney and fight tax-funded government attorneys to seek damages, as you cannot sue the drug manufacturers. As you can see from the report below, it takes years to reach a settlement, with the longest case below being settled after 11 years. Therefore, this report probably only represents a tiny fraction of the actual number of people harmed or killed by vaccines, since it is so difficult to fight the government in court to win a settlement.
As in previous reports, the June 15, 2014, report covering a 3-month period shows that the flu vaccine is the most dangerous vaccine in America. 78 cases were awarded settlements for vaccine injuries, with 55 of the settlements being for the flu shot, including one death. Most of the settlements for injuries due to the flu shot were for Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Other flu vaccine injuries included: Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy, Rheumatoid arthritis, Shingles, Brachial plexus neuropathy, Bell’s Palsy, Brachial neuritis, Transverse myelitis, Lichenoid drug eruption, and Narcolepsy.
"The increased risk was approximately 1 additional case of GBS per 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine" - this is the rate from 1976, when the rate of GBS from immunization was at it highest. Rates of GBS from immunization since then are lower than this. The death rate from influenza is much higher than this. Also, I think you already know that that wasn't the sort of publication I was calling sensationalistic.
Is justification for either decision necessary? And if so, to whose end?
Does "greater good" trump choice?
If so, the ripple-effects could fuck us.
There is a whole lot of fear mongering going on these days, fueled by the pharmaceutical companies who are raking in the cash from flu vaccines.
I haven't even had the flu since 1998 or so. I don't feel like it's necessary for people who aren't in the higher risk groups to get flu shots. I feel like they are trying to convince people that it is because $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. And they are doing a fine job - it's totally working!
Can you provide any evidence of this scaremongering....or is this just how you feel?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Let's not forget that the R&D is taxpayer funded. Not only does big pharma get special treatment for lawsuits they get special treatment on patents. They sure are special!
Also, I'm sorry but you can't leave the health care professionals out of it because they would have to be in on it too.
If you have any evidence of scientists making up data for the sale of vaccines I'm all ears. I think most people here don't really understand the scientific process works.
I could care less what you believe and I'm not going to do your research for you. You want to get the flu shot and every little vaccine that comes along, great, go for it. But quit bullying everyone else and let people make their own informed choices.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Are you kidding me? Who am I bullying? If you want to post an opinion all I ask is that you can try and back that opinion up.....with anything......which apparently you can't. That's how this works. If you make claims like scientists are overestimating results in regards to vaccines it's not my job to find out what nonsense you are talking about.
By the way this is not about you. I initially started getting the vaccine because of elderly people in my life who would be more at risk without me getting it. My mother has Lupus and is immunocompromised. I get the vaccine on the advice of my doctor and hers. They must all be in on the conspiracy too.
Silly.
I think healthy scepticism is great. I don't trust big pharma and I understand it's in their interest to push the vaccine for profit but I also don't think that's reason enough to believe we are being lied to. There are far to many players involved to pull it off ....government, scientists (my wife being one of them) and the health care system. I really do think our government provides this vaccine for us because it's in the best interest of everyone.