Do flu shots work?
Printed From: Avian Flu Talk
Category: Main Forums
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Description: (General discussion regarding the next pandemic)
URL: http://www.avianflutalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=34953
Printed Date: April 29 2024 at 2:42am
Topic: Do flu shots work?
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Do flu shots work?
Date Posted: September 26 2015 at 5:48pm
|
I have done a lot of reading about flu vaccines and I have lots of questions, here is some stuff I found. I
have several pediatricians as patients. Unprovoked, all of these women
have confessed to me that they have observed increased virulence in
their vaccinated populations. It is this clinical experience that has
given them pause about the heavy-handed mandate coming down from the
CDC. A Shot Never Worth Taking: The Flu Vaccine“Oh!” I say, “Have you read the studies that suggest increased risk of infection in the vaccinated population? There’s http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423139 - THAT ONE where they actually used a saline placebo in 115 children and found that those vaccinated had a 4.4 times increased rate of non-flu infection? Or how about that http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000258 - CANADIAN ONE where they looked at 4 observational studies and found that 2008-2009 H1N1 vaccination was associated with a1.4 to 2.5 increased risk of actually contracting said virus?” - See more at: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/11/27/a-shot-never-worth-taking-the-flu-vaccine-by-kelly-brogan-md/#sthash.vAPM2xPU.dpuf I have several pediatricians as patients. Unprovoked, all of these women have confessed to me that they have observed increased virulence in their vaccinated populations. It is this clinical experience that has given them pause about the heavy-handed mandate coming down from the CDC. “Oh!” I say, “Have you read the studies that suggest increased risk of infection in the vaccinated population? There’s THAT ONE where they actually used a saline placebo in 115 children and found that those vaccinated had a 4.4 times increased rate of non-flu infection? Or how about that CANADIAN ONE where they looked at 4 observational studies and found that 2008-2009 H1N1 vaccination was associated with a1.4 to 2.5 increased risk of actually contracting said virus?” http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/11/27/a-shot-never-worth-taking-the-flu-vaccine-by-kelly-brogan-md/ - http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/11/27/a-shot-never-worth-taking-the-flu-vaccine-by-kelly-brogan-md/ Government
Study: Flu Vaccine not Effective for Elderly – Death Rates Increased -
See more at:
http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/government-study-flu-vaccine-not-effective-for-elderly-death-rates-increased/#sthash.TX7h6QCo.dpuf Govt. Researchers: Flu Shots Not Effective in Elderly, After AllAn important and definitive “mainstream” government study done nearly a decade ago got little attention because the science came down on the wrong side. It found that after decades and billions of dollars spent promoting flu shots for the elderly, the mass vaccination program did not result in saving lives. In fact, the death rate among the elderly increased substantially. http://sharylattkisson.com/govt-researchers-flu-shots-not-effective-in-elderly-after-all/ - https://sharylattkisson.com/govt-researchers-flu-shots-not-effective-in-elderly-after-all/ Canadian study finds flu shot could increase risk of getting sick “A negative effectiveness suggests the vaccine made people more susceptible to the flu,” Dr. Dickinson says, “We need to do further research to understand why this has happened.” http://globalnews.caews/1804162/canadian-study-finds-flu-shot-could-increase-risk-of-getting-sick/ - http://globalnews.ca/news/1804162/canadian-study-finds-flu-shot-could-increase-risk-of-getting-sick/ And now the death nail.... In fact, flu shot vaccine inserts openly admit there is no scientific evidence demonstrating flu shots work. http:////www.naturalnews.com/048422_flu_shot_scientific_fraud_controlled_trials.# - http:////www.naturalnews.com/048422_flu_shot_scientific_fraud_controlled_trials.html# The way I understand it all of the CDCs research on flu vaccine is done in the laboratory. They give you a vaccine, then they test your reaction to that specific strain. However when it comes to flu there is very little correlation between what happens in the lab and in the real world. I have looked and looked and can find NO evidence of flu shot effectiveness. As a matter of fact most studies seem to suggest the flu shot makes things worse. What am I missing here? I am not a crazy anti-vaccine guy. I make my decisions based off of research and evidence. If the CDC could so easily prove the effectiveness of the vaccines why don't they? I
have several pediatricians as patients. Unprovoked, all of these women
have confessed to me that they have observed increased virulence in
their vaccinated populations. It is this clinical experience that has
given them pause about the heavy-handed mandate coming down from the
CDC. “Oh!” I say, “Have you read the studies that suggest increased risk of infection in the vaccinated population? There’s http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423139 - THAT ONE where they actually used a saline placebo in 115 children and found that those vaccinated had a 4.4 times increased rate of non-flu infection? Or how about that http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000258 - CANADIAN ONE where they looked at 4 observational studies and found that 2008-2009 H1N1 vaccination was associated with a1.4 to 2.5 increased risk of actually contracting said virus?” - See more at: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/11/27/a-shot-never-worth-taking-the-flu-vaccine-by-kelly-brogan-md/#sthash.vAPM2xPU.dpuf I
have several pediatricians as patients. Unprovoked, all of these women
have confessed to me that they have observed increased virulence in
their vaccinated populations. It is this clinical experience that has
given them pause about the heavy-handed mandate coming down from the
CDC. “Oh!” I say, “Have you read the studies that suggest increased risk of infection in the vaccinated population? There’s http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423139 - THAT ONE where they actually used a saline placebo in 115 children and found that those vaccinated had a 4.4 times increased rate of non-flu infection? Or how about that http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000258 - CANADIAN ONE where they looked at 4 observational studies and found that 2008-2009 H1N1 vaccination was associated with a1.4 to 2.5 increased risk of actually contracting said virus?” - See more at: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/11/27/a-shot-never-worth-taking-the-flu-vaccine-by-kelly-brogan-md/#sthash.vAPM2xPU.dpuf I
have several pediatricians as patients. Unprovoked, all of these women
have confessed to me that they have observed increased virulence in
their vaccinated populations. It is this clinical experience that has
given them pause about the heavy-handed mandate coming down from the
CDC. “Oh!” I say, “Have you read the studies that suggest increased risk of infection in the vaccinated population? There’s http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423139 - THAT ONE where they actually used a saline placebo in 115 children and found that those vaccinated had a 4.4 times increased rate of non-flu infection? Or how about that http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000258 - CANADIAN ONE where they looked at 4 observational studies and found that 2008-2009 H1N1 vaccination was associated with a1.4 to 2.5 increased risk of actually contracting said virus?” - See more at: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/11/27/a-shot-never-worth-taking-the-flu-vaccine-by-kelly-brogan-md/#sthash.vAPM2xPU.dpuf 1.They see it doesn’t work, and may even cause illness
I have several pediatricians as patients. Unprovoked, all of these women have confessed to me that they have observed increased virulence in their vaccinated populations. It is this clinical experience that has given them pause about the heavy-handed mandate coming down from the CDC. “Oh!” I say, “Have you read the studies that suggest increased risk of infection in the vaccinated population? There’s http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423139 - THAT ONE where they actually used a saline placebo in 115 children and found that those vaccinated had a 4.4 times increased rate of non-flu infection? Or how about that http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000258 - CANADIAN ONE where they looked at 4 observational studies and found that 2008-2009 H1N1 vaccination was associated with a1.4 to 2.5 increased risk of actually contracting said virus?” - See more at: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/11/27/a-shot-never-worth-taking-the-flu-vaccine-by-kelly-brogan-md/#sthash.vAPM2xPU.dpuf |
Replies:
Posted By: DeepThinker
Date Posted: September 26 2015 at 6:09pm
|
Sorry about the last block of text ;) For some reason it looked fine as I was writing it but then there are strange artifacts from cutting/pasting after I posted it. The previous post should have cut off after "If the CDC could so easily prove the effectiveness of the vaccines why don't they?" I finally decided to register! So for now on my posts should look clean... if they don't the first time I should be able to edit them :) |
Posted By: Technophobe
Date Posted: September 27 2015 at 5:47am
Welcome aboard DT!   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That is a big article full of questions. I do not think that the flu is getting any more virulent. We are more sedentary and living longer. The combination weakens our immune systems. We are growing more aware of epidemiology too. This is not to say it will not get more virulent, 1918 type flue strains crop up occasionally. With denser populations and weaker people this could be catastrophic! Flu vaccines can briefly give you flu like symptoms. The symptoms come from your immune reactions themselves. But they cannot give you the actual flu. Sadly, the individual vaccines cannot protect you against all flu, just the experts best-guess as to the next threat. That means you can still get another flu. Finally, you can get a skewed picture if you are too close up. Medical professionals tend to only see the few failed cases or those rare ones with complications. No one goes back to the doctor to say: "That was a great one Doc, I'm really well now." Medical professionals are not immune to bad science. Only the peer reviewed studies stand a chance of avoiding that pitfall. Overall the vaccines are a very good idea, morally as well as personally (herd immunity protects the very vulnerable). They are NOT perfect, just the best we have so far. ------------- How do you tell if a politician is lying? His lips or pen are moving. |
Posted By: DeepThinker
Date Posted: September 27 2015 at 9:33am
Can you point me to ANY observational studies that show that flu vaccines reduced missed worked days, reduces hospitalizations, or reduces mortality? With all my searching I can't find any. Vaccines for many other types of diseases are very effective so we just assume they work for flu. However flu is a very unique pathogen. We all know there are risks associated with getting the vaccine. For most people that risk is extremely low. Even though it is a low risk it isn't worth it if there is no proof of its efficacy. All risk and no reward. The way the CDC pushes the flu jab reminds me too much of propaganda you would see in the book "Animal Farm" EVERY article I see talking about flu ALWAYS says you must get your shot and it is the only way to save yourself, but provides NO proof. They hope if they simply say it enough people will accept it. Propaganda at its finest! |
Technophobe wrote:Posted By: DeepThinker
Date Posted: September 27 2015 at 10:07am
|
I found something that does show evidence of working.... The risk of children suffering from flu can be reduced by 50% if they take vitamin D, doctors in Japan have found. The finding has implications for flu epidemics since vitamin D, which is naturally produced by the human body when exposed to direct sunlight, has no significant side effects, costs little and can be several times more effective than anti-viral drugs or vaccines according to research in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/vitamin-d-proven-more-effective-than-both-anti-viral-drugs-and-vaccines-at-preventing-the-flu/ - http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/vitamin-d-proven-more-effective-than-both-anti-viral-drugs-and-vaccines-at-preventing-the-flu/ There is virtually NO risk to supplementing with vitamin D and research suggests that is the best way to fight flu.... Why are we never told about this? |
Posted By: onefluover
Date Posted: September 27 2015 at 10:57am
|
I and or someone else provided a link here in AFT a year or two ago that the H1N1 vaccine was only 5% and then only 2% effective as the virus had mutated well before the vaccine was manufactured and released yet we were all instructed to take the vaccine anyway. As, in my opinion, is the case for most of the flu vaccines. So I hear you. I am for them if they can only beat the virus to press. ------------- "And then there were none." |
Posted By: DeepThinker
Date Posted: September 27 2015 at 12:00pm
|
Let me see if I can explain the primary problem with flu vaccines (I appoligize for my laymen language) Research suggests that an incorrect immune response to flu might be worse than no immune response at all. The theory is the vaccine makes your body think it notices the virus but in fact attacks it as though it is a different virus. This process actually can make flu SIGNIFICANTLY worse. This is also why I see very little hope in the near future for a universal flu vaccine. So it seems that a perfectly matched vaccine is probably usefull, HOWEVER it is impossible to have a perfectly matched vaccine. If I have flu and pass it on to someone and they then pass it on, the flu the third person got is already different that the flu I got. |
Posted By: Technophobe
Date Posted: September 28 2015 at 7:01am
|
The consensus of scientific thought, if I have understood it correctly, is that a near miss on choice of strain, or an incomplete immune reaction to an immunization, produces a degree of protection. The better the response and the closer the match, the better the protection. There appears to be no substantiated cases of the reverse. In an infinite universe all things are possible, so just because there have been no reliably reported cases does not exclude the possibility completely. It does reduce its likelihood to the vanishingly small, however. There are no complete certainties in either medicine or science, but, I know which odds I prefer. ------------- How do you tell if a politician is lying? His lips or pen are moving. |
Posted By: DeepThinker
Date Posted: September 28 2015 at 9:36am
However that consensus is NOT born out by the research. I know it is a very logical concussion that a near miss should be a good thing. It probably often is a good thing, however at least sometimes it is very bad for a person. So if a vaccine helps a lot of people but makes some get MUCH worse is it worth it? Show me the research that show my odds improving. That is all I am asking for. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: September 28 2015 at 5:07pm
| WOW! I was all set to get the shot this year as I thought it was a better match this year. I will wait now. Thanks for all the info. |
Posted By: DeepThinker
Date Posted: September 28 2015 at 5:56pm
|
MamaBear4 PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do your own research. Don't trust your medical decisions to internet hacks like myself. |
Posted By: KiwiMum
Date Posted: September 29 2015 at 12:28am
I disagree with your statement about morality. The trouble is that it is all the other stuff that is put in vaccines that make them so unpalatable to many people and I, for one, would not endanger the health of my own children by giving them a vaccine that contains mercury, for example, just because "it's the right thing to do". I truly don't believe it is. There are many highly questionable ingredients in vaccines, and I guess, like so many things, they are just cheaply mass produced to make money for the drug companies. Foetal matter anyone? My children have had some of the vaccines available but not all. I understand that there are vunerable people around but I am yet to be even slightly convinced that vaccinated children lessen their chance of catching a disease. In fact, doesn't the latest research show that vaccinated children are spreading measles? ------------- Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason, may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts. |
Posted By: Technophobe
Date Posted: September 29 2015 at 2:13am
|
In general, like the rest of medicine, vaccination is a numbers game. The amounts of nasties are just too small to hurt a big animal like us, with one exception, mercury (timeresol), which is not just poisonus but cumulatively so (the small harmless dose waits around and joins the next and the next..... eventually it is not harmless anymore). Happily, mercury-free vaccines are available for most people who ask and in some countries (like here) are banned completely, as they should be. Measles vaccination is a subject my epidemiology course covered in detail. It is so contagious (RO 4 or 5) and its vaccine is sufficiently weak (about 80% effective) that it is in-eradicable, even if absolutely everyone was vaccinated. It resurfaces periodically from small pockets of infection in outlying areas. It is then spread by the non-immunised like wildfire. Because the vaccine is only 80% effective, some of the vaccinated (20%) are among the non-immunized. 100% of the non vaccinated are numbered among those spread the disease, until they are immunized by suffering it and either recovering or very occasionally dying. The point about herd immunity is non-applicable to measles, there could not be one even with 100% compliance. With measles it's every man for himself! ------------- How do you tell if a politician is lying? His lips or pen are moving. |
Posted By: DeepThinker
Date Posted: October 02 2015 at 9:45am
|
Technophobe- Thank you for the comment on measles. This is something that is very commonly misunderstood. The media wanted to blame the recent out break to a decline in vaccine compliance. However even with 100% vaccinated you still get measles outbreaks. Everyone is concerned about childhood vaccines as well we should be. However we only give out out around 20million childhood vaccines per year, and for the most part you only get them once (yea we do use a few boosters but that doesn't' change my point). These vaccines are thoroughly tested for efficacy and safety. On the other hand... the CDC wants to give out 300 million flu vaccine doses a year. They want us to get one EVERY year, and there is VERY little testing done on them (at least compared to other vaccines). If you combine all that with the fact that there is very little evidence that they work, I think it is very important to be prudent and careful when considering flu vaccines. |