Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

About FLU Vaccines

Recommended Posts

Some evidence that vaccines are dangerous.

There are some very small risks in getting vaccinated. In the case of the flu vaccine, you might experience soreness in the arm, perhaps a minor fever. There's also couple of more serious risks (such as in those alergic to eggs). However, the risk of serious side effects is tiny, and is far outweighed by the risk of not getting the shot, and getting sick as a result.

Now, keep in mind that there are idiots who are making false claims about the risks. (False claims like vaccines causing autism, etc.) Usually those claims have absolutely no basis in science. They're mostly composed of people with no knowledge of science or statistics making bogus claims based on preconceived ideas.

Some evidence that vaccines are dangerous. Vaccines are a dead end road. We know that viruses will learn to evolve and build resistance to vaccines, because of the small population that always survives. This gives rise to the next generation of more virulent viruses. Then the drug regimen runs out, end of the road.

Actually I think you are confusing vaccines with antibiotics.

It is possible for microorganisms to develop a resistence to antibiotics, because the antibiotics work against the organisms themselves, and are used once the infection occurs. (Failing to complete a course of antibiotics will leave the more hardy organisms behind.)

Vaccines work under a completely different mechanism... they actually encourage the body to build up its own defences, and they do so before you get infected. In fact, if anything, vaccinations reduce the risk of more virulent viruses. After all, viruses can't reproduce outside the body. if a virus can't successfully infect/invade a host (i.e. if you're vaccinated) then there will be fewer people around producing new viruses (some of which may have mutated).

There's a fine line that gets crossed when attacking the dangerous strains. It could be argued that encouraging less virulent strains to grow is a better approach.

The problem with that theory... even if there is a 'less virulent' strain around, that will not keep you from getting infected by a more dangerous strain.

So, you may get the 'mild' flu. But its not going to stop you from getting infected by the more 'serious' flu down the road, since being infected with one doesn't keep you from getting infected with the second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the public health risk is as high as you are describing then the full force of the law should be brought to bear, as is done for other serious health risks.

There is a difference between what is morally/logically right, and what the government can and should enforce.

Things like being overwheght/having a sedentary lifestyle can be a health risk too. (And not only does it affect the person who's sitting on their couch eating potato chips all the time, but it drives up health care costs for the rest of us as well as diverting resources from other diseases.) Yet most people wouldn't want the government to barge into our homes and confiscate all of our cans of pringles.

The fact that there is no law forcing people to get vaccinated does not mean that it doesn't make sense to do so.

People have been getting mixed messages about risk groups, vaccine efficacy, supply, harmful effects, and health risk for years.

Keep in mind that many of those 'mixed messages' are often coming from either A: the media, who may be sensationalizing problems, or B: idiots who don't know anything about science and/or vaccinations.

And yes, there are valid scientific questions about things like risk groups and efficacy. But it is usually not a case of "Does this work", but a case of "Does this work 90% of the time or 80%"?

If people are given a choice, some will choose not to get vaccinated for a host of reasons.

Yup. Unfortunately, those who choose not to get vaccinated usually do so for extremely stupid brain-damaged (and not scientifically supported) reasons.

Those who are vaccinated can still be carriers / vectors.

If the vaccine matches the strain of influenza (very likely with this year's vaccine), and the individual has built up the required antibodies, then no, they cannot be carriers/vectors.

Yes, it may be possible to pass on some other strain that wasn't vaccinated against, but that will happen less frequently if people do get vaccinated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't take the flu shots. The first and the last time I did, i was violently sick!

The fact that you got sick after a flu shot had nothing to do with the vaccine itself.

There are more diseases than just the flu out there. You could have been infected by something else. Or a strain of flu not covered by the vaccine. (In either case case the vaccine may not have prevented you getting sick, but it certainly didn't harm you.)

That was years ago....and all that time I think I only had the flu once and it was mild at that.

You know, you might have had your 'mild flu', but ended up passing it on to some baby who's immune system wasn't as good as yours. They might have gotten a lot sicker than you did and died as a result.

Congrats. Hope that thought amkes you feel better.

But then, who really likes babies?

Gone are the days when research studies took at least 20 or more years. How long did they have these research studies if these are new strains?

Yes, they develop and test new flu vaccines in a very short time frame.

But, the process of manufacturing influeza vaccines has not changed significantly in years/decades. As such, there's less need to test these things as rigouresly as if it were a new process and/or completely new disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the theory...but I am not convinced. Efficacy is now being challenged with competent studies.

As I pointed out before... The studies discussing the effectiveness of the vaccine are not claiming they don't work. Just the opposite. They point out that they're still quite effective. They're just suggesting that they may not be as effective as once thought.

There is a difference between "This vaccine stops only 70% instead of 90% of flu cases", and "This vaccine doesn't work at all".

Please point out one major peer-reviewed, scientific study that shows the influenza vaccine is completely and totally ineffective. (I rather suspect you won't respond to that.)

Widespread vaccinations may encourage behaviours that actually increase risk. Travel and mobility are probably the biggest vectors, not all people large and small, old or young.

I think the most important word in the above section is "may". Do you have any proof that vaccinations are encouraging risky behavior? Again, I sincerely doubt it.

Given the fact that influenza tends to affect entire populations, the only non-vaccination way to protect yourself would be to completely quarantine yourself (not something that would be possible in today's society.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that there is no law forcing people to get vaccinated does not mean that it doesn't make sense to do so.

What makes sense to you may not make sense to others based on their real world experience with flu and vaccines.

Keep in mind that many of those 'mixed messages' are often coming from either A: the media, who may be sensationalizing problems, or B: idiots who don't know anything about science and/or vaccinations.

Or C: confused and/or incompetent government funded health agencies. The most recent fiasco occurred with H1N1.

And yes, there are valid scientific questions about things like risk groups and efficacy. But it is usually not a case of "Does this work", but a case of "Does this work 90% of the time or 80%"?

Or 70%....60%...50%...40%...etc.

Yup. Unfortunately, those who choose not to get vaccinated usually do so for extremely stupid brain-damaged (and not scientifically supported) reasons.

Or their brains are fine and not found inside a sheep's skull.

Yes, it may be possible to pass on some other strain...

It is possible to "pass on" via several mechanisms. The vaccine only mitigates this in some cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a difference between "This vaccine stops only 70% instead of 90% of flu cases", and "This vaccine doesn't work at all".

The point is that vaccine efficacy has been oversold for decades. Now we are more informed.

Please point out one major peer-reviewed, scientific study that shows the influenza vaccine is completely and totally ineffective. (I rather suspect you won't respond to that.)

Why would I respond to something I did not post. Efficacy does not mean zero effectiveness. Each year about this time we get into another round of the flu vaccine circus and you sally forth to tell all of us who make an informed choice that we are idiots or "brain damaged".

I think the most important word in the above section is "may". Do you have any proof that vaccinations are encouraging risky behavior? Again, I sincerely doubt it.

Yes.....employers report that fewer people stay home when sick because some people feel the workplace is more protected by miracle vaccination programs.

Given the fact that influenza tends to affect entire populations, the only non-vaccination way to protect yourself would be to completely quarantine yourself (not something that would be possible in today's society.)

Or just risk getting the flu just like the myriad of other communicable diseases that are out there. What next...no more sex ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree....my wife swears by those shots each year but still gets sick. I can't remember the last time I had the flu.

There's a saying... "The Plural of Anecdote is not Data".

Maybe your wife does get sick even though she gets vaccinated. Maybe you really never get the flu.

Maybe its just possible that your wife has a poorer immune system than you do. In her case, getting vaccinated is an especially good idea, because even if she gets sick, its likely due not to the flu but to colds and other illnesses that circulate. If she didn't get vaccinated, that would mean just one more thing she can get sick from.

As for you... goodie for you. You never get sick. And I know people who drive drunk and never have gotten into accidents. Is driving drunk safe? Did you know that the oldest Canadian who ever lived (Jeanne Calment) actually smoked? Does that mean that there's no health risk in smoking? Or does it mean that she was just naturally lucky in that her body handled it better than others?

Or maybe you just got lucky and didn't happen to have people cough in your face when sick at just the time you were breathing in.

Now don't get me wrong about vaccines...I am old enough to remember polio and whooping cough .....people living gasping in iron lungs.

Well, lets see... among the children admitted to the hospital with influenza, you had:

- febrile seizures (35% of all children admitted to hospital with them had their disease attributed to influenza... see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16940836

- Intubation (basically jamming a tube down the throat, see: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015173)

I'm sure the parents of those children will be pleased to know that their influenza was 'not a big deal' and that having to be admitted to the hospital was "making them stronger". Well, except for the ones that died.

Of course, the question is, where exactly did those sick kids actually come down with their diseases? Well, somewhere along the line, at least some of them caught their disease from unvacinnated people who thought the flu was "no big deal".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, as another poster pointed out... you don't just get the flu shot for your own benefit... you get it to help prevent others from getting sick. Even if you consider the flu 'no big deal', you could end up passing it on to someone who could, you know, die.

My initial post did question about the false sense of security that flu vaccines may give others.

Having the flu vaccine does not mean you cannot pass the virus to others. You may not get sick with the flu yourself...but if you've been around someone who has it (you might carry the virus on to others).

You get the flu shot for your own benefit.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Children are notorious for giving and passing the virus. They sneeze and cough, they ooze....they wipe their faces on your clothes. Those little fingers have been everywhere. Even if you keep washing their hands....you wouldn't be able to keep up. At least adults know enough to wash their hands as often as possible and to cover their mouth area when they sneeze or cough.

Those grocery carts where you sit your child on are one of the deadliest carriers, I bet my bottom bippy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a matter of choice and I had a relative that got a flu shot years ago and and he died the next day. Flu shot? Who knows, but maybe for some people it isn't a good thing to do. Perhaps the reason some many kids get the flu is they have a weak immune system and in the winter time one should try and stay away from sugar, which reduces the immune system. I haven't had a flu shot for 7 years and the last one I got sick two day later. I wash my hands and try to stay away from crowds and take supplements to build my immune system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....Of course, the question is, where exactly did those sick kids actually come down with their diseases? Well, somewhere along the line, at least some of them caught their disease from unvacinnated people who thought the flu was "no big deal".

Or they got it from somebody who did get vaccinated but still got the flu. Damn them all to hell, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only get the flu when I get flu shots.

Anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention has seen exactly this. The people who get the shot get sick more often than those who don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You pays your money and takes your chances......these people in Sweden lost the bet during the last H1N1 scare:

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Emelie is plagued by hallucinations and nightmares. When she wakes up, she's often paralyzed, unable to breathe properly or call for help. During the day she can barely stay awake, and often misses school or having fun with friends. She is only 14, but at times she has wondered if her life is worth living.

Emelie is one of around 800 children in Sweden and elsewhere in Europe who developed narcolepsy, an incurable sleep disorder, after being immunized with the Pandemrix H1N1 swine flu vaccine made by British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline in 2009.

http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/nm/insight-evidence-grows-for-narcolepsy-link-to-gsk-swine-flu-shot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some evidence that vaccines are dangerous. Vaccines are a dead end road. We know that viruses will learn to evolve and build resistance to vaccines, because of the small population that always survives. This gives rise to the next generation of more virulent viruses. Then the drug regimen runs out, end of the road.

You've confused vaccines with antibiotics. Might want to look into that smile.png Vaccines simply stimulate the human immune system to produce antibodies, they don't wipe anything out. An immunized person just has a head-start in their natural immune response to a given virus.

Edit: looks like someone beat me to that point.

Edited by Bonam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, as another poster pointed out... you don't just get the flu shot for your own benefit... you get it to help prevent others from getting sick. Even if you consider the flu 'no big deal', you could end up passing it on to someone who could, you know, die.

Or they could get it from any of a few hundred million other people. Forgive me for not looking too guilty.

In an earlier post I suggested people shouldn't panic and avoid exagerating the problems. But Jesus Christ on a Pogostick... use a bit of logic here. People do die from the flu. Roughly 18,000 people died from H1N1 between the middle of 2010 and 2011. Where exactly do you think they caught the flu from? Mostly from idiots who didn't get themselves vaccinated because they thought the flu was "no big deal".

And how many people die every year from car accidents? Mostly killed by idiots that thought they could drive without crashing.

Not getting yourself vaccinated is the moral equivilent of driving drunk. Yes, many times you will survive (and without killying anyone.) But it increases the risk of killing others. And for what, because you are a wussy who's affraid of a little needle?

No, getting drunk and not getting vaccinated are not morally equivalent. DOING something is never morally equivalent to NOT doing something. One is positive action, the other is lack of action. Clear moral differences there. Look into it.

Secondly... here's a question... did you actually like having the flu? Did the fever make you feel good? Did the chills and aches that tend to come with the flu make life enjoyable? Most people would probably say no... So why risk putting yourself through that unnecessarily?

Because it's not so much to risk. Do most people enjoy colds? Nope. And yet they still go to work, still go to school, even though they might be infected there. Some risks are small enough that it's not worth mitigating them. How much does the annual effort at developing flu vaccines cost society? Could this medical research and vaccine production money be better spent on more serious illnesses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You pays your money and takes your chances......these people in Sweden lost the bet during the last H1N1 scare:

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Emelie is plagued by hallucinations and nightmares. When she wakes up, she's often paralyzed, unable to breathe properly or call for help. During the day she can barely stay awake, and often misses school or having fun with friends. She is only 14, but at times she has wondered if her life is worth living.

Emelie is one of around 800 children in Sweden and elsewhere in Europe who developed narcolepsy, an incurable sleep disorder, after being immunized with the Pandemrix H1N1 swine flu vaccine made by British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline in 2009.

http://health.yahoo....-swine-flu-shot

Another good point. Vaccines to serious longstanding diseases have had many years or decades to be subjected to studies and to be determined safe. On the other hand, flu vaccines are hastily developed every year, and there is not sufficient time to subject them to thorough long term safety studies. While the scientists and doctors working on these vaccines are I'm sure top notch people with a strong desire to make sure the vaccines are safe and effective, the simple fact remains that without adequate time for study, there creeps in the possibility of undiscovered risks and side effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... While the scientists and doctors working on these vaccines are I'm sure top notch people with a strong desire to make sure the vaccines are safe and effective, the simple fact remains that without adequate time for study, there creeps in the possibility of undiscovered risks and side effects.

Yes, the very nature of the seasonal flu forces known and unknown risk taking. In the case above, GSK used an adjuvant booster to get a faster immune system response, and it may have contributed to the narcolepsy side effects.

Those of us who are older will recall that common vaccines were delivered in stages of initial inoculation followed by a booster series over several years. I always liked the polio sugar cube doses, but that procedure pitted the 90% proven effective Salk injection against Sabin's live virus sugar cube, which, until recently, put polio down for good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I debated this subject with segnosaur two years ago and to him one is being socially irresponsible if he does not get a flu shot.

I think he is a salesman for the pharmaceutical industry.

My point in the argument is that there has been no difference in the number of deaths from influenza nor any apparent decline in the number of deaths as the percentage of the innoculated has increased. It has basically been ineffective in reducing the number of deaths. There was at that time a bit of a problem discerning deaths from influenza as they were lumped in with respiratory illnesses but over time the statistics didn't improve even as more are getting the shot. The aging demograph may be why we see no decrease in deaths but the aged are the ones that are deemed most vulnerable, sold the hardest and most likely to get the shot. One would expect that there would be a decrease in deaths among the most vulnerable then but there isn't.

I'm not going to cite any statistics I've already done all that. Anyone interested can do their own research on the subject.

In the end, I would hope that people decide for themselves much to the consternation of segnosaur who believes anyone not getting the shot is being totally irresponsible to society.

I personally think washing your hands is probably just as effective without any fear of side effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read any studies on the death rate, but I will take your word for it. However, studies have shown the vaccination significantly reduces the rate of contracting influenza A and B in both children and adults. The lost time cost savings alone should be staggering.

Web MD: How effective is the Flu Shot

CDC: Flu Vaccine 62% Effective

The effectiveness of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in children over six consecutive influenza seasons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The numbers of vaccines (of various sorts) we've been putting into our children......the human body could only take so much. Could there be some eventual kind of interaction between these vaccines? Who's to say what side effects would be in say 20 years from now?

Do they help create superbugs?

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could there be some eventual kind of interaction between these vaccines?

Yes, it is possible for that to happen.

Do they help create superbugs?

Yes, it called natural selection (part of evolution). Individual viruses unaffected by medical treatments will continue to multiply in greater numbers.

Edited by Sleipnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever wondered, when all of a sudden someone comes down with the flu and then the next thing you know, there's a push on for people to get their flu shot Where did that person contract the virus for the flu.. It's like the pig flu that was down in Mexico a couple years ago, I don't think they found that pig that apparently gave it to the Mexican worker. maybe pigs do fly in Mexico!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it called natural selection (part of evolution). Individual viruses unaffected by antibiotics will continue to multiply in greater numbers.

Vaccines and antibiotics are not the same thing. Vaccines do not produce antibiotics, nor cause antibiotics to be produced. I am not aware of any cases where vaccines have been demonstrated to cause the development of an anti-biotic resistant superbug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vaccines and antibiotics are not the same thing. Vaccines do not produce antibiotics, nor cause antibiotics to be produced. I am not aware of any cases where vaccines have been demonstrated to cause the development of an anti-biotic resistant superbug.

Thanks for the correction :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...