Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Flu shots? For them or against ?
Replies
-
My oldest son has only half a heart: our household gets the flu shot annually in hopes we won't bring another "risk" into our home.6
-
Good point.The problem with a lot of people who say "well, I got the flu shot, and got the flu!" is that most people can't tell the difference between actual influenza and a 24 hour viral or bacteria thing. Myself included. When I worked at the local hospital many people would come in with the 'flu' and nope, you have something else totally but think it's the flu because 'flu like symptoms' cover a whole lot of diseases.
One of my colleagues "gets flu" about three times every winter, typically lasts a day and doesn't prevent him from working or exhibit any symptoms beyond blowing his nose a couple of times.
Man flu in other words.
At the opposite extreme my Mum thought she had the flu when she had a massive heart attack and took to her bed for a couple of days. She was from a tougher generation....
6 -
I get it every year. I hate getting sick3
-
I get the flu shot every year, not really for me, but for the patients I work with. A lot of the patients I take care of have some type of immunosuppression and a lot are children. So I do what ever I can to prevent them from getting sick. I've only ever gotten sick once around the time I got the flu shot and I chocked it up to pure coincidence.
Plus the DOH requires all people working in nursing facilities to wear a mask during flu season if they did not receive the flu shot and I hate the masks.6 -
I am pro vaccine but anti flu shot, at least for my family. I don't go out much and homeschool my child and they never seem to get the strain right...so, no shot for us, unless we get sick2
-
Only once in my life have I ever gotten the flu. And It was less than 1 week after getting my once and ONLY flu shot. I was seriously ill for a month, and really didn't feel well again to function for 6 weeks. During the time I was sick, I realized that ... "Wow, I guess I've never had the REAL flu before. I've never been SO sick like this before." So NO WAY. It doesn't take a scientist to tell me how sick that shot made me. So NO WAY. Never ever ever ever again.2
-
Only once in my life have I ever gotten the flu. And It was less than 1 week after getting my once and ONLY flu shot. I was seriously ill for a month, and really didn't feel well again to function for 6 weeks. During the time I was sick, I realized that ... "Wow, I guess I've never had the REAL flu before. I've never been SO sick like this before." So NO WAY. It doesn't take a scientist to tell me how sick that shot made me. So NO WAY. Never ever ever ever again.
1. It takes 2 weeks to be effective
2. It's impossible to get the flu from the shot since it only contains dead virus14 -
Hi @singingflutelady
To really know the exact contents of the shot that said HMO hospital gave me that day, and if it was a contaminated batch or not. Or if the batch could have possibly been stored at improper temperature or not. We would have to ask them. Was it the egg based one? Or the other kind? I don't know..... 
Batch from mid Jan 2011. I started not to feel well within about a week. By 1st and 2nd week of February, in bed with worst illness of my life. Thanks for your time to me me feedback. Actually my M.I. L. has told me the same thing. I'm just one of those people against getting one myself now. Would never tell anyone else whats right for them. And my M.I.L. gets one shot every year. And consistantly always gets sick for weeks every time following. She still swears by them thou , and shes been in nursing for 40 years. 1 -
It is impossible to get the flu from the vaccine - it is not a live vaccine.
Contamination from anything else is very unlikely with individual doses, no shared containers.
Having it stored at wrong temp will not cause illness - it will just render vaccine ineffective.
Allergic reactions are possible and so is influenza or another illness already incubating in your system before the vaccine was given or before it was taking effect5 -
Good point.The problem with a lot of people who say "well, I got the flu shot, and got the flu!" is that most people can't tell the difference between actual influenza and a 24 hour viral or bacteria thing. Myself included. When I worked at the local hospital many people would come in with the 'flu' and nope, you have something else totally but think it's the flu because 'flu like symptoms' cover a whole lot of diseases.
One of my colleagues "gets flu" about three times every winter, typically lasts a day and doesn't prevent him from working or exhibit any symptoms beyond blowing his nose a couple of times.
Man flu in other words.
At the opposite extreme my Mum thought she had the flu when she had a massive heart attack and took to her bed for a couple of days. She was from a tougher generation....
Yes! We'd get in these tough old farmers like, I think I may have a chest cold, aaaaaand you're having a heart attack/stroke. Or the guy who shot himself in the leg with a nail gun and then was back out working as an EMT the next day! And it was not a small nail!3 -
Good point.The problem with a lot of people who say "well, I got the flu shot, and got the flu!" is that most people can't tell the difference between actual influenza and a 24 hour viral or bacteria thing. Myself included. When I worked at the local hospital many people would come in with the 'flu' and nope, you have something else totally but think it's the flu because 'flu like symptoms' cover a whole lot of diseases.
One of my colleagues "gets flu" about three times every winter, typically lasts a day and doesn't prevent him from working or exhibit any symptoms beyond blowing his nose a couple of times.
Man flu in other words.
At the opposite extreme my Mum thought she had the flu when she had a massive heart attack and took to her bed for a couple of days. She was from a tougher generation....
Yes! We'd get in these tough old farmers like, I think I may have a chest cold, aaaaaand you're having a heart attack/stroke. Or the guy who shot himself in the leg with a nail gun and then was back out working as an EMT the next day! And it was not a small nail!
Or the ones who had the baby in the fields, put it to the breast and continued to pick cotton the rest of the day.
0 -
Maybe its possible that I got the flu from my coworkers that year?? I got the shot that year because all of them would get the flu every year. And I never got it before, and didn't want to get it. Seen how sick they were. Due our employer, not having health insurance plan, or paid sick time. Everyone would come to work sick constantly. I just didn't want to get sick. So I got the shot. Then got super sick anyway. This was also the company owner that would come to work deathly ill himself. And when he would come into my office and breathe and hack on me.. I would spray the lysol straight towards his head. And tell him not to get me, or anyone else sick. I guess it may just be a coinsidence that the only time I got the flu, was after getting the shot. Still haven't gotten the flu, or one of those shots since then. Guess I got lucky so far.2
-
Maybe its possible that I got the flu from my coworkers that year?? I got the shot that year because all of them would get the flu every year. And I never got it before, and didn't want to get it. Seen how sick they were. Due our employer, not having health insurance plan, or paid sick time. Everyone would come to work sick constantly. I just didn't want to get sick. So I got the shot. Then got super sick anyway. This was also the company owner that would come to work deathly ill himself. And when he would come into my office and breathe and hack on me.. I would spray the lysol straight towards his head. And tell him not to get me, or anyone else sick. I guess it may just be a coinsidence that the only time I got the flu, was after getting the shot. Still haven't gotten the flu, or one of those shots since then. Guess I got lucky so far.
I believe the flu shot only covers so many strains.
To clarify, I get the shot every year and will continue to do so.2 -
Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.7
-
AlienMoon32 wrote: »Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.
What's the source for the lack of effectiveness in healthy adults?2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.
What's the source for the lack of effectiveness in healthy adults?
Even the CDC has said it's not even effective half the time most years, and these are industry-funded studies.
Check their website for last winter's numbers and they have Vaccine Effectiveness at 19%....5 -
I am for them this year. And next year. If I have a reason to get them I get them. Sometimes I'm too lazy. So if I'm going to be around people with weak immune systems I get them.
To be clear. I'm never against getting them. I'm just lazy (and I shouldn't be).1 -
AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.
What's the source for the lack of effectiveness in healthy adults?
Even the CDC has said it's not even effective half the time most years, and these are industry-funded studies.
Check their website for last winter's numbers and they have Vaccine Effectiveness at 19%....
One study for last year did show 19%, a study for the year before showed 52%. According to the CDC website, studies on adults show effectiveness ranging from 16-76%. I think it's stretching the facts to say that they aren't effective in "most cases."6 -
I swear by them! 15 years ago I got the flu so bad I literally almost died. Of course I did not believe in flu shots. So since then I have gotten one every October. I have not had the flu since ---knock on wood.
4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.
What's the source for the lack of effectiveness in healthy adults?
Even the CDC has said it's not even effective half the time most years, and these are industry-funded studies.
Check their website for last winter's numbers and they have Vaccine Effectiveness at 19%....
One study for last year did show 19%, a study for the year before showed 52%. According to the CDC website, studies on adults show effectiveness ranging from 16-76%. I think it's stretching the facts to say that they aren't effective in "most cases."
I guess, but 9 out of 12 of the years included in that study it hasn't been better than rolling a dice, and even then just barely. Again I would like to point out that these are actual studies conducted by the industry, and that's the best they could cherry pick? You get them if you want, but I'm not convinced enough to expose myself to whatever is in them that makes me horribly ill.2 -
The ONLY reason I get the Flu vaccine is we get discounts off health ins premiums at work.0
-
I get one yearly and am neutral on it. Doesn't matter anyway, as I'm required by my employer to get one.0
-
AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.
What's the source for the lack of effectiveness in healthy adults?
Even the CDC has said it's not even effective half the time most years, and these are industry-funded studies.
Check their website for last winter's numbers and they have Vaccine Effectiveness at 19%....
One study for last year did show 19%, a study for the year before showed 52%. According to the CDC website, studies on adults show effectiveness ranging from 16-76%. I think it's stretching the facts to say that they aren't effective in "most cases."
I guess, but 9 out of 12 of the years included in that study it hasn't been better than rolling a dice, and even then just barely. Again I would like to point out that these are actual studies conducted by the industry, and that's the best they could cherry pick? You get them if you want, but I'm not convinced enough to expose myself to whatever is in them that makes me horribly ill.
If you're arguing that the numbers are "cherry picked" and unreliable because they are from the "industry," it seems odd to also use those numbers as a basis for the argument that the flu shot is not effective for most people. Do you believe these studies are accurate?2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.
What's the source for the lack of effectiveness in healthy adults?
Even the CDC has said it's not even effective half the time most years, and these are industry-funded studies.
Check their website for last winter's numbers and they have Vaccine Effectiveness at 19%....
One study for last year did show 19%, a study for the year before showed 52%. According to the CDC website, studies on adults show effectiveness ranging from 16-76%. I think it's stretching the facts to say that they aren't effective in "most cases."
I guess, but 9 out of 12 of the years included in that study it hasn't been better than rolling a dice, and even then just barely. Again I would like to point out that these are actual studies conducted by the industry, and that's the best they could cherry pick? You get them if you want, but I'm not convinced enough to expose myself to whatever is in them that makes me horribly ill.
If you're arguing that the numbers are "cherry picked" and unreliable because they are from the "industry," it seems odd to also use those numbers as a basis for the argument that the flu shot is not effective for most people. Do you believe these studies are accurate?
No, I don't think they are accurate at all, but my point was that was the best they could do and it is straight crap.3 -
The entire thing is just fear mongering to sell vaccines. Unlike the Measles vaccine, that has actually been proven to work by dramatically decreasing incidents of measles in vaccinated areas, the flu numbers have been steady since the 70s. How do you go from 10 million to 80 million vaccines a year and people are still having the same issues in the same prevalence? It's a joke.8
-
AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.
What's the source for the lack of effectiveness in healthy adults?
Even the CDC has said it's not even effective half the time most years, and these are industry-funded studies.
Check their website for last winter's numbers and they have Vaccine Effectiveness at 19%....
One study for last year did show 19%, a study for the year before showed 52%. According to the CDC website, studies on adults show effectiveness ranging from 16-76%. I think it's stretching the facts to say that they aren't effective in "most cases."
I guess, but 9 out of 12 of the years included in that study it hasn't been better than rolling a dice, and even then just barely. Again I would like to point out that these are actual studies conducted by the industry, and that's the best they could cherry pick? You get them if you want, but I'm not convinced enough to expose myself to whatever is in them that makes me horribly ill.
If you're arguing that the numbers are "cherry picked" and unreliable because they are from the "industry," it seems odd to also use those numbers as a basis for the argument that the flu shot is not effective for most people. Do you believe these studies are accurate?
No, I don't think they are accurate at all, but my point was that was the best they could do and it is straight crap.
Are there any studies on the efficacy of the flu vaccine that you do accept? I'm taken aback by you introducing specific studies to make your point and then later telling me that you don't accept them as accurate. Let's base this conversation on the studies that you do accept.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.
What's the source for the lack of effectiveness in healthy adults?
Even the CDC has said it's not even effective half the time most years, and these are industry-funded studies.
Check their website for last winter's numbers and they have Vaccine Effectiveness at 19%....
One study for last year did show 19%, a study for the year before showed 52%. According to the CDC website, studies on adults show effectiveness ranging from 16-76%. I think it's stretching the facts to say that they aren't effective in "most cases."
I guess, but 9 out of 12 of the years included in that study it hasn't been better than rolling a dice, and even then just barely. Again I would like to point out that these are actual studies conducted by the industry, and that's the best they could cherry pick? You get them if you want, but I'm not convinced enough to expose myself to whatever is in them that makes me horribly ill.
If you're arguing that the numbers are "cherry picked" and unreliable because they are from the "industry," it seems odd to also use those numbers as a basis for the argument that the flu shot is not effective for most people. Do you believe these studies are accurate?
No, I don't think they are accurate at all, but my point was that was the best they could do and it is straight crap.
Are there any studies on the efficacy of the flu vaccine that you do accept? I'm taken aback by you introducing specific studies to make your point and then later telling me that you don't accept them as accurate. Let's base this conversation on the studies that you do accept.
Cochrane Collaboration does a decent one. What that found was that most official reports on effectiveness were shoddy at best.
http://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults3 -
AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.
What's the source for the lack of effectiveness in healthy adults?
Even the CDC has said it's not even effective half the time most years, and these are industry-funded studies.
Check their website for last winter's numbers and they have Vaccine Effectiveness at 19%....
One study for last year did show 19%, a study for the year before showed 52%. According to the CDC website, studies on adults show effectiveness ranging from 16-76%. I think it's stretching the facts to say that they aren't effective in "most cases."
I guess, but 9 out of 12 of the years included in that study it hasn't been better than rolling a dice, and even then just barely. Again I would like to point out that these are actual studies conducted by the industry, and that's the best they could cherry pick? You get them if you want, but I'm not convinced enough to expose myself to whatever is in them that makes me horribly ill.
If you're arguing that the numbers are "cherry picked" and unreliable because they are from the "industry," it seems odd to also use those numbers as a basis for the argument that the flu shot is not effective for most people. Do you believe these studies are accurate?
No, I don't think they are accurate at all, but my point was that was the best they could do and it is straight crap.
Are there any studies on the efficacy of the flu vaccine that you do accept? I'm taken aback by you introducing specific studies to make your point and then later telling me that you don't accept them as accurate. Let's base this conversation on the studies that you do accept.
Cochrane Collaboration does a decent one. What that found was that most official reports on effectiveness were shoddy at best.
http://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults
That includes industry-funded studies as well.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.
What's the source for the lack of effectiveness in healthy adults?
Even the CDC has said it's not even effective half the time most years, and these are industry-funded studies.
Check their website for last winter's numbers and they have Vaccine Effectiveness at 19%....
One study for last year did show 19%, a study for the year before showed 52%. According to the CDC website, studies on adults show effectiveness ranging from 16-76%. I think it's stretching the facts to say that they aren't effective in "most cases."
I guess, but 9 out of 12 of the years included in that study it hasn't been better than rolling a dice, and even then just barely. Again I would like to point out that these are actual studies conducted by the industry, and that's the best they could cherry pick? You get them if you want, but I'm not convinced enough to expose myself to whatever is in them that makes me horribly ill.
If you're arguing that the numbers are "cherry picked" and unreliable because they are from the "industry," it seems odd to also use those numbers as a basis for the argument that the flu shot is not effective for most people. Do you believe these studies are accurate?
No, I don't think they are accurate at all, but my point was that was the best they could do and it is straight crap.
Are there any studies on the efficacy of the flu vaccine that you do accept? I'm taken aback by you introducing specific studies to make your point and then later telling me that you don't accept them as accurate. Let's base this conversation on the studies that you do accept.
Cochrane Collaboration does a decent one. What that found was that most official reports on effectiveness were shoddy at best.
http://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults
That includes industry-funded studies as well.
Yes, and publicly funded studies also, to show the bias. And the most interesting part of that is that even though they included these multiple biased studies, they still couldn't find more than a "very modest" legit benefit for taking this vaccine. Which is the point I was trying to make by introducing the CDC data.4 -
AlienMoon32 wrote: »The entire thing is just fear mongering to sell vaccines. Unlike the Measles vaccine, that has actually been proven to work by dramatically decreasing incidents of measles in vaccinated areas, the flu numbers have been steady since the 70s. How do you go from 10 million to 80 million vaccines a year and people are still having the same issues in the same prevalence? It's a joke.
You clearly have no idea how complicated immunology is, nor how different measles is from influenza.
Measles is genetically stable - little to no need to develop new vaccines against emerging strains. Plus, one sufficiently severe natural infection is sufficient to confer immunity, like with mumps, smallpox, chicken pox. It is relatively simple to figure out how to attenuate such a virus to create a highly successful and long-lasting vaccine. No coincident immunological priming needed. There's a reason this is the type of virus we first managed to vaccinate against (Pasteur and cowpox/smallpox).
On the other hand, influenza is genetically unstable, with new strains that have altered surface antigens popping up regularly. So, even if you could follow the same mechanism as for measles and just inject an attenuated virus for long-term and highly successful vaccine it does you little good as you'd need another vaccine in the next year anyway. However, you can't just inject or inhale attenuated flu virus and get immunity. Why? Because the mechanism of immunological response to flu infection is different from that of measles. In order to get immunity, the vaccine has to be developed to stimulate the immune system in ways the attenuated flu virus alone does not. One way to do that is with adjuvants, but it's mostly trial and error to find the right combination. An adjuvant that works well for one vaccine may fail miserably for another. There may be no adjuvant approved for use that confers a high rate of seroconversion. Study of adjuvants is ongoing.
Case in point, I worked with a lead scientist for one of the pharma companies that develops and sells a particular hepatitis vaccine. From efficacy studies, it was known that 90+% of people under the age of 60 demonstrated successful seroconversion to this vaccine, but if you were over 60, you had < 30% seroconversion rate. Of course, they sold the vaccine for years with notes to that effect and it was no worse than anyone else's vaccine available at the time. This lead decided to develop and test a new vaccine with a different adjuvant. The new version showed successful seroconversion in > 85% of all participants regardless of age. Why? Unknown at the time, and currently unpublished. We were looking at transcriptional changes in whole blood and in particular populations of immunologically relevant blood cells for clues to a mechanism of action.
edit: removing bits on native flu conferring immunity - incorrect wording13
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions